Lawsuit Filed against C-Max, Fusion Hybrid Mileage Claims

[mettech]

New hybrids skew the EPA ratings because they can run on electric longer and at higher speeds.

 

If the EPA MPG ratings are spot on for gas and diesel vehicles, a consumer would expect that the EPA MPG ratings would equally apply to a hybrid.

 

If Ford knew that the EPA MPG ratings was not achievable for their hybrids outside of the EPA MPG test cycle, then Ford must be using the numbers to "mislead" the consumer.

[SoonerLS]

New hybrids skew the EPA ratings because they can run on electric longer and at higher speeds.

Then that is a problem with the test. Not Ford's Fault.

If the EPA MPG ratings are spot on for gas and diesel vehicles, a consumer would expect that the EPA MPG ratings would equally apply to a hybrid.

Then consumers do not understand the meaning of the EPA numbers, and are apparently incapable of understanding the text on the window sticker. Again, Not Ford's Fault.

If Ford knew that the EPA MPG ratings was not achievable for their hybrids outside of the EPA MPG test cycle, then Ford must be using the numbers to "mislead" the consumer.

If you are required, by law, to say that the value of Pi is 3, rather than 3.14159..., and you say that the value of Pi is 3, how are you misleading anyone? Again, Not Ford's Fault.

[FordBuyer]

Then that is a problem with the test. Not Ford's Fault.Then consumers do not understand the meaning of the EPA numbers, and are apparently incapable of understanding the text on the window sticker. Again, Not Ford's Fault.If you are required, by law, to say that the value of Pi is 3, rather than 3.14159..., and you say that the value of Pi is 3, how are you misleading anyone? Again, Not Ford's Fault.

 

You guys keep missing the point. Ford's stated mileage claims are missing by more than just about any other competitor, be it hybrid or EB engine. That will get you in trouble over time and at least bad PR. There is super long Fusion Titanium and Escape 2.0 EB thread on this forum and almost everyone is missing stated, advertised fuel mileage numbers by significant amount. Comment pages on many other auto sites are complaining also.

Add in CR constant criticism over Ford's fuel mileage claims, and after awhile the weight of it becomes significant. Like it or not, it's becoming a giant headache for Ford. Not hurting sales as of yet, but negative reports never help.

[JasonM]

If Ford knew that the EPA MPG ratings was not achievable for their hybrids outside of the EPA MPG test cycle, then Ford must be using the numbers to "mislead" the consumer.

 

The data in the blog proves that the EPA ratings ARE achievable in "real life".

 

The blog testing shows the C-Max returns 48 mpg at 60 mph.

The blog testing shows the C-Max returned 52 mpg in 22.8 miles of city driving.

 

Both of those figures are greater than the EPA rating of 47 mpg.

 

So how again does advertising the EPA rating "mislead" customers?????????????????

[RichardJensen]

You guys keep missing the point. Ford's stated mileage claims are missing by more than just about any other competitor, be it hybrid or EB engine.

Prove that.

[FordBuyer]

Prove that.

 

There is a chart on one of these threads which I'm sure you saw as you posted on the thread that showed Ford products missing by significant amount much more than most. I believe Subaru and Toyota were closest to EPA numbers with Ford at other end of spectrum. I know I've read enough of posters on there complaining of 2013 Fusion 2.0 numbers to my looking at 2012 Fusion V6 as alternative to new Fusion if I had to buy newer daily driver. I know I could get 22-23mpg in combined driving out of V6 with more refinement. I get that now with present V6. No one hardly on forum is getting more than 22mpg out of Titanium 2.0 other than Kirby. And on average 40 degree day here in MI, I'm still getting about 22mpg average.

[RichardJensen]

There is a chart on one of these threads

 

Thank you, you've made my point. You have no proof. A vaguely remembered chart illustrating who-knows-what is not proof of anything other than your own defective reasoning.

[xgman]

One problem, he said, is that the newest hybrids are extra sensitive to driving habits. A hybrid driven aggressively might get far worse gas mileage than its window-sticker rating. "If you drive a hybrid the way you drive your Porsche, you are going to get less (gas mileage) than the national average."

[FordBuyer]

One problem, he said, is that the newest hybrids are extra sensitive to driving habits. A hybrid driven aggressively might get far worse gas mileage than its window-sticker rating. "If you drive a hybrid the way you drive your Porsche, you are going to get less (gas mileage) than the national average."

 

That could be said for any vehicle. However, it seems the learning curve on Ford hybrids and EB engines are greater than most. And I would bet most hybrid buyers are experienced with hybrids coming from Prius and want a little more performance that Prius doesn't offer. I guess they just didn't know they would have to drive 48mph on 70mph freeway to get 47mpg. They should have, but then maybe Ford needs to do better PR on how exactly to achieve those lofty numbers without getting speed obstrution tickets on fast highways. Really, the ball is in Ford's court....DAMAGE CONTROL TIME.

[mettech]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33010

 

Take a look at the reported MPG from the owners in the View Individual Estimates

[fordmantpw]

And neither of the new Ford hybrids have been available when the weather was conducive to getting good fuel economy. Not to mention, most haven't met the break in miles Ford says gets the best fuel economy either.

[akirby]

This is really simple. Ford's new hybrids are different than other hybrids because they can go faster on electricity alone. This is not due to Ford arbitrarily picking 62 mph. 62 mph is the fastest that the engineers could do with the new technology. The previous gen maxed out at forty something. This just means that the differences between the EPA test and real world driving is magnified. And as soon as the other mfrs catch up with Ford in this area they will see similar results. The EPA test for this new technology does not accurately represent the average driver's expected fuel economy. Throw in cold temps, a less than fully charged battery and winter fuel and the difference can be big.

 

The same issue exists with the 1.6L and 2.0L ecoboost engines. They are super sensitive to throttle input. If you're very careful on the throttle and coast when possible you can achieve EPA results in the real world. I've done it with my 2.0L Fusion. They're great up to a certain point and then the turbo starts sucking more fuel than a NA engine would. Again - this is new technology that isn't unique to Ford.

 

You cannot blame Ford for the advertised EPA ratings. Ford has asked the EPA to revise their testing and/or window sticker reporting formulas to address this issue.

 

Reporting repeatable legitimate test results AS REQUIRED BY LAW is not misleading anybody.

 

What Ford SHOULD do is tell customers up front that they have to drive a certain way which matches the EPA test scenarios in order to achieve the fuel economy on the window sticker.

But that's it.

[RichardJensen]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33010

 

Take a look at the reported MPG from the owners in the View Individual Estimates

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33010&id=33331

[mettech]

6 vs 74 data points.

 

Ford delta significantly lower.

[FordBuyer]

This is really simple. Ford's new hybrids are different than other hybrids because they can go faster on electricity alone. This is not due to Ford arbitrarily picking 62 mph. 62 mph is the fastest that the engineers could do with the new technology. The previous gen maxed out at forty something. This just means that the differences between the EPA test and real world driving is magnified. And as soon as the other mfrs catch up with Ford in this area they will see similar results. The EPA test for this new technology does not accurately represent the average driver's expected fuel economy. Throw in cold temps, a less than fully charged battery and winter fuel and the difference can be big.

 

The same issue exists with the 1.6L and 2.0L ecoboost engines. They are super sensitive to throttle input. If you're very careful on the throttle and coast when possible you can achieve EPA results in the real world. I've done it with my 2.0L Fusion. They're great up to a certain point and then the turbo starts sucking more fuel than a NA engine would. Again - this is new technology that isn't unique to Ford.

 

You cannot blame Ford for the advertised EPA ratings. Ford has asked the EPA to revise their testing and/or window sticker reporting formulas to address this issue.

 

Reporting repeatable legitimate test results AS REQUIRED BY LAW is not misleading anybody.

 

What Ford SHOULD do is tell customers up front that they have to drive a certain way which matches the EPA test scenarios in order to achieve the fuel economy on the window sticker.

But that's it.

 

I agree with you Kirby. Ford shouldn't hide behind the EPA numbers which are fact as we know them, but be more up front with better PR and info and address the discpreancies that are upsetting so many drivers and testers. Better explain how to get the EPA numbers if so desired. Maybe send a separate info sheet/book to each new owner explaining in detail how to achieve or at least get very close to these numbers in DETAIL. Too many are not even coming remotely close, and I doubt if they are all speed demons.

[RichardJensen]

6 vs 74 data points.

 

So, perhaps you can explain to me how you can 'prove' that the C-Max hybrid gets significantly worse real world mileage than the Prius V, when there is insufficient data on the Prius V to establish that conclusion?

[mettech]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/02/28/epa-gas-mileage-ford-cmax-fusion/1954967/

[JasonM]

Ford delta significantly lower.

 

 

 

Oopsie, even Consumer Reports data doesn't support your flawed analysis and dubious conclusion.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2013 by JasonM

[JasonM]

MPGomatic.com test results for C-Max

 

http://2013-ford-c-max-hybrid-gas-mileage-testing-notes

 

in town, he achieved the same MPG as the smaller Prius C

 

"12/4 Rural/Small Town crawl – 65 MPG (roughly equal to the Prius C)"

 

[SoonerLS]

Never mind...

Edited March 1, 2013 by SoonerLS

[papilgee4evaeva]

Wait... are we comparing to the Prius or Prius V here?

[JasonM]

That chart is comparing Ford Hybrids to the rest of the hybrid market.

 

The chart illustrates that according to the wizards at CR, using their own data, Ford Hybrids perform better than average when it comes to measuring the difference between the mysterious CR City cycle vs the EPA City cycle.

 

If this chart were shown using a percentage basis the Ford hybrids would compare even more favorably to the competition.

 

[Deanh]

Wayne Gerdes is an a-hole, he is on a mission because he got his shorts in knot over his beloved Hyundai getting caught cheating the EPA.

If the EPA findings are that Ford cheated then the critics can go nuts, but until then Gerdes and his cronies blabbering is a bunch of gray noise.

UNFORTUNATELY irrepairable damage has already been done...

[jpd80]

The more electrification is used to smooth out the acceleration peaks and troughs in EPA test cycles,
the more erroneous the data becomes for steady state running. CR's test results were clearly due to
steady state running as opposed to the EPA highway cycle.

How on earth can a Fusion hybrid be expected to achieve 47 mpg in steady state running (no hybrid help)
when many smaller and lighter compacts would struggle to do the same.

I think the EPA needs three test cycles, City, highway (variable) and steady state (60 mpg).
That way, buyers could see at a glance where each vehicles strengths and weakness actually are.
After all, the EPA fuel consumptions are supposed to be a guide so that buyers can choose appropriate vehicles.

 

Hybrids excel in variable speed situations where electric power can be used to accelerate the car and regenerative braking

used to store power for the next acceleration cycle but the moment that speed variability is denied to hybrids, the electric side

has no way of functioning to achieve energy conservation and there is mounting evidence that at steady state, Ford hybrids

actually use more fuel than conventional ICE or 1.6 Ecoboost powered vehicles like Fusion due to the dual electric motors

in the electric CVT constantly generating and using electric power. Unless Ford can come up with an efficient direct clutch

arrangement at highway speed, it's hybrids will be seriously disadvantaged at steady state highway running.

Edited March 1, 2013 by jpd80

[JasonM]

I think the EPA needs three test cycles, City, highway (variable) and steady state (60 mpg).

I agree. Note that Wayne Gerdes testing of the C-max returned 48 mpg at 60 mph.

 

The EPA should do testing at a steady state 65.