Raj responds to CR. CR backpedals on EPA claims

[Noah Harbinger]

Translation: We weren't necesarily completely correct, BUT THE EPA IS WRONGER!11!11!!

 

Makes me think of this song...

[rprobst]

This whole controversy strikes me as such a lot of whining. We all know that bad news sells newspapers, or consumer magazines, so not surprising that CR made headlines with this. I'm very glad to see Ford respond vigorously, and CR walk back a bit. CR acknowledged from the first that Fusion and C-Max had great mileage, but CR was getting too much "mileage" out of their headlines about overstated claims.

 

That said, I think there is an important difference in how these test results were obtained. As I understand it, the top speed in the EPA test cycle is 60mph. CR has their own test protocol, with a top speed of 65mph. Ford designed the Fusion and C-Max Hybrids with a top speed under electric power of 62mph. That was probably not an accident; it allows Ford hybrids to produce better results on the EPA tests.

 

CR's latest article points out this difference:

 

"Ford's system can operate in full-electric mode at speeds up to 62 mph. That ability can greatly improve fuel economy in the EPA highway cycle, since most of the government's simulated driving test measures gasoline used while driving at lower speeds. But it won't help at all in the highway portion of the Consumer Reports fuel-economy test, which measures gas consumption at 65 mph. The gap between these results may disappoint those who regularly cruise on the highway at speeds greater than 62 mph."

 

So in that regard, CR has a valid point. I usually drive faster than 60mph on highways, so in a Fusion Hybrid I would expect less time on electric power and thus lower mileage than the EPA test cycle measured.

 

But I plan to buy the Fusion Energi, which has a top speed under electric power of 85mph, so perhaps my highway mileage will be close to 100 MPGe! -- of course, going electric at 80mph will drain the batteries and shorten the range, and then I'll be back to running on gas. In the end, going fast consumes energy. Let's be realistic.

 

Ultimately, we need to see what real drivers report from their real-world use of hybrids and PHEVs.

 

But, again, good for Ford for pushing back on this media mini-frenzy. I'm sure CR would agree that what we need is more people buying hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs, and creating bad headlines to win the news cycle is a mistake if it impedes improving our national efficiency. CR, shame on you!

 

[RichardJensen]

1 - the top speed on the EPA test is 80mph, briefly.

 

2 - the CU 'highway test', is apparently much less demanding than the EPA highway tests, as evinced by CU asserting that cars routinely exceed EPA numbers on the highway test.

 

3 - CU, despite having a less demanding test than the EPA for its highway numbers still sees fit to suggest that the EPA is the outfit that needs to get things figured out.

[jpd80]

The one good thing out of all this mess is that people are being told that Ford's hybrids have plenty of fun factor with power there to use.

Something that people immediately notice on a test drive - a vehicle that goes well and gets good gas mileage.

 

My prediction is that CR's whining won't affect Ford's hybrid sales in the slightest and that C-Max will go from strength to strength.

[4d4evr-1]

This whole controversy strikes me as such a lot of whining. We all know that bad news sells newspapers, or consumer magazines, so not surprising that CR made headlines with this. I'm very glad to see Ford respond vigorously, and CR walk back a bit. CR acknowledged from the first that Fusion and C-Max had great mileage, but CR was getting too much "mileage" out of their headlines about overstated claims.

 

That said, I think there is an important difference in how these test results were obtained. As I understand it, the top speed in the EPA test cycle is 60mph. CR has their own test protocol, with a top speed of 65mph. Ford designed the Fusion and C-Max Hybrids with a top speed under electric power of 62mph. That was probably not an accident; it allows Ford hybrids to produce better results on the EPA tests.

 

CR's latest article points out this difference:

 

"Ford's system can operate in full-electric mode at speeds up to 62 mph. That ability can greatly improve fuel economy in the EPA highway cycle, since most of the government's simulated driving test measures gasoline used while driving at lower speeds. But it won't help at all in the highway portion of the Consumer Reports fuel-economy test, which measures gas consumption at 65 mph. The gap between these results may disappoint those who regularly cruise on the highway at speeds greater than 62 mph."

 

So in that regard, CR has a valid point. I usually drive faster than 60mph on highways, so in a Fusion Hybrid I would expect less time on electric power and thus lower mileage than the EPA test cycle measured.

 

But I plan to buy the Fusion Energi, which has a top speed under electric power of 85mph, so perhaps my highway mileage will be close to 100 MPGe! -- of course, going electric at 80mph will drain the batteries and shorten the range, and then I'll be back to running on gas. In the end, going fast consumes energy. Let's be realistic.

 

Ultimately, we need to see what real drivers report from their real-world use of hybrids and PHEVs.

 

But, again, good for Ford for pushing back on this media mini-frenzy. I'm sure CR would agree that what we need is more people buying hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs, and creating bad headlines to win the news cycle is a mistake if it impedes improving our national efficiency. CR, shame on you!

 

As I have stated and I am now updating my wife and I are getting over 48 on most trips with our C-Max. That is Real World.

[jpd80]

As I have stated and I am now updating my wife and I are getting over 48 on most trips with our C-Max. That is Real World.

Excellent news, is that a mixture of city stop-start and more open running?

[92merc]

I just saw a review video posted on CNN's site about the C Max Energi. Basically the guy said, "I hated the Prius V. But now this car is fun to drive."

 

No matter what CR's official line is on the MPG, the more reviewers Ford can get to say the above, the more Ford will sell, no matter what the MPG outcome is.

[mtberman]

The Toyota Prius C is EPA rated at 53 MPG city. Consumer Reports' review of the Prius C says they got 37 MPG city. That's a 16 MPG deficit. In CR's report from last week, the first one that was so critical of the FFH and the C Max, they say "The largest discrepancy we've previously seen was 7 and 6 MPG for the Toyota Prius C...".

 

So, their published report on the Prius C says they got 16 MPG under the EPA city rating. This new report from last week says they got 7 MPG less. Which is it?

[jpd80]

The Toyota Prius C is EPA rated at 53 MPG city. Consumer Reports' review of the Prius C says they got 37 MPG city. That's a 16 MPG deficit. In CR's report from last week, the first one that was so critical of the FFH and the C Max, they say "The largest discrepancy we've previously seen was 7 and 6 MPG for the Toyota Prius C...".

 

So, their published report on the Prius C says they got 16 MPG under the EPA city rating. This new report from last week says they got 7 MPG less. Which is it?

See CR doesn't do their testing under EPA city or highway cycle conditions, they pick a a series of roads they thing reflects city or highway driving

and deliver their own test results, none of which aligns with EPA testing.....

If CR was more open and honest about this they might garner more credibility by showing methodology that readers could follow....

Edited December 16, 2012 by jpd80

[akirby]

The Toyota Prius C is EPA rated at 53 MPG city. Consumer Reports' review of the Prius C says they got 37 MPG city. That's a 16 MPG deficit. In CR's report from last week, the first one that was so critical of the FFH and the C Max, they say "The largest discrepancy we've previously seen was 7 and 6 MPG for the Toyota Prius C...".

 

So, their published report on the Prius C says they got 16 MPG under the EPA city rating. This new report from last week says they got 7 MPG less. Which is it?

 

They were talking about the overall rating which was the average of 3 different tests. The 16 mpg deficit (and 19 for the Prius) was only on the city portion.

 

I already pointed out this hypocrisy, even if technically it was accurate because it was a different set of tests.