Ford Amasses Driver Data to Improve on Mileage Ratings

[jpd80]

Ford Amasses Driver Data to Improve on Mileage Ratings

Link

Ford Motor Co. (F), facing criticism about the fuel economy of some of its models, moved to boost the amount

ofdriver-mileage data sharing to come up with measures more valuable than government ratings.

Ford will challenge software developers to create mobile or Web-based applications that help drivers more easily

access personal fuel-economy data, Jim Farley, Ford’s executive vice president of global marketing, said during a

speech to open the New York auto show. He said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ratings “really aren’t

as meaningful.”

 

“Some companies are going to be rewarded by starting to introduce new ways for customers to see real-world fuel

economy,” Farley told reporters today after his speech. “We’re going to be a leader in this space. We are absolutely

changing some of our communication around fuel economy.”

 

Gasoline mileage is crucial to auto purchases, with more new-vehicle owners saying it was the primary reason for

buying a car or truck than any other determinant, according to J.D. Power & Associates. Ford is pushing for changes

to how the industry looks at fuel economy after Consumer Reports singled out some of its models for falling short of

mileage ratings.

 

“No matter what goes in advertising claims, customers are skeptical,” Farley told reporters. “We have to give them

tools like the app we’re talking about, and that’s how they’ll really enjoy our cars, that’s how they’ll be able to compare

across other companies’ products.”

Consumer Reports

In December, Yonkers, New York-based Consumer Reports said that two of Ford’s newest hybrid models trailed their

EPA ratings of 47 miles per gallon (76 kilometers) by 17 percent to 21 percent in its testing. The Ford Fusion hybrid

achieved 39 mpg, while the C-Max hybrid averaged 37 mpg in tests of city and highway driving.

 

In February, Consumer Reports said its tests of turbocharged cars from Ford and General Motors Co. (GM) didn’t

support the companies’ statements about that powertrain technology’s fuel economy and performance. Tests of

Ford’s 2013 Fusion sedan with a 1.6-liter turbo engine found the car to be slower and less fuel efficient than models

with standard four- cylinder engines including Toyota Motor Corp. (7203)’s Camry and Honda Motor Co. (7267)’s

Accord, the magazine said.

“We’re in an unfortunate situation where people are disappointed even though they’re getting very good fuel economy,”

Jake Fisher director of auto testing for Consumer Reports, said today in an interview. “If an automaker or

someone else could actually predict the fuel economy that you would get out of a car, it would be far more useful.”

Fusion Sales

The criticism has done little to slow sales for the Fusion, which has drawn comparisons to Aston Martin luxury-car

styling since its redesign last year. Deliveries for the model climbed 28 percent to 27,875 in February, topping Nissan

Motor Co.’s Altima for a second-straight month, and coming within 125 sales of passing Honda’s Accord. Sales of

Toyota’s Camry, which remains the mid-size car segment leader, slipped 9.5 percent.

 

“There’s no question that Ford has made strides and improved the fuel efficiency of their cars,” Fisher said.

“The discrepancy between expectations is what the problem is.”

 

Ford has been experimenting in its advertising with the way it makes fuel-economy assertions to better communicate

with consumers, Farley said. Ford’s television ads for the Fusion hybrid emphasize that that car gets more than twice

the mileage of the average car on the road instead of boasting best-in-class fuel economy.

More Relevance

“We did that very intentionally,” he said. “We thought that would be a more relevant claim for customers than the

EPA” rating. Farley also reiterated that Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford is working with the EPA to determine whether

changes to the industry’s hybrid testing procedures are needed.

 

Ford has countered Consumer Reports’ criticism of its hybrids by pointing out that several of Toyota’s Prius hybrid

models showed even bigger fuel-economy shortfalls against EPA estimates in city driving than the Fusion and C-Max

hybrids.

Hybrids can lose about 7 miles per gallon when driving at 75 miles per hour rather than 65 mph, Raj Nair, Ford’s

product development chief, said in January at the Deutsche Bank Global Auto Industry Conference in Detroit. A

difference of 30 degrees in outside temperature can cause a 5 mpg disparity. Mileage can be another 5 mpg lower

for a new hybrid compared with one that’s been driven at least 6,000 miles, he said.

 

To contact the reporters on this story: Craig Trudell in Southfield, Michigan at ctrudell1@bloomberg.net; Tim Higgins

in New York at thiggins21@bloomberg.net

Edited March 29, 2013 by jpd80

[Hydro]

Hook a data logger to my truck and shitty Cali gas. I'll show them my HWY MPG's don't equal what the sticker shows for city

[GaryG]

The problem is, Ford like the other manufactures have got caught up in the MPG race to sell vehicles. Ford is now saying the driver must learn to drive to get the EPA rating on the sticker. While it's true, the MPG can be improved if drivers change their driving habits. Most people expect the vehicle to produce the great MPG, but it doesn't work that way.

 

I could most likely get much better than the EPA rating as a Expert Hypermiler, but tell that to the same vehicle owner that remote starts his vehicle for ten minutes to get the cabin heater warm or A/C cold. People are just plain stupid and Ford is saying you need to learn how to operate your vehicle to get a realistic MPG. I've got to tell you, if I see dark brake dust on the front wheels of a vehicle, I know that driver gets bad MPG because of hard acceleration and hard braking. These people slam on the brakes at the last minute hoping the stoplight will change. Why not let off the gas and get fuel-cut till you need to use the brakes to stop or the light changes. Ford put the design there for you to get great MPG, you just need to learn how to use it.

[Extreme4x4]

I wouldn't know how to hypermile to save my life. Yet, because we drive smart, we get the EPA mileage, or better, with our new Explorer Sport. This is in winter, with cold temps, crappy oxygenated fuel, and around 6000 miles on the clock.

 

To achieve high EPA ratings, vehicles are tuned a certain way. The thing is, 10% less economy, based on those numbers looks a lot worse than 10% less based on 20mpg. Add winter, garbage fuel, and stupid people together, and it is amazing that some of these people can get within 30% of the rating.

 

Frankly, it has just shown that there are a lot of not so smart people out there. Before people started really paying attention to EPA ratings, they were harder to notice. Now, they stick out everywhere. OMG, you can't get the EPA ratings while idling, racing, climbing mountains, going 80-85mph, and doing jackrabbit starts and stops??? Why not??

[ScapeTom]

Funny thing is, my Honda Civic Si routinely exceeded the EPA ratings. My 2003 Escape basically met them in routine driving. Not sure about my 13.8 mpg Dodge truck - I haven't bothered to look at the EPA ratings. VW diesels routinely do MUCH better than the EPA test indicates.

 

But my new Escape doesn't quite meet the numbers. But it's still relatively new, I do enjoy getting on the throttle a bit, and I haven't driven it much in warmer weather yet. And I do drive above the speed limit when the flow of traffic is doing the same (which is routine here in the south). Which means 75 mph on the highway.

 

Frankly, I think that the EPA test isn't realistic overall.

[transitman]

I see this as a way to appease those out there screaming Ford, the EPA and other manufacturers are misleading buyers with inflated mpg numbers. Ford already makes a number of fuel efficient vehicles, what is gathering data going to do to change bad driving habits, congested and poorly maintained roads and terrible traffic timing. What ever it costs, I guess it's worth it to Ford to stop the slow bleeding of bad publicity and frivolous lawsuits.

[silvrsvt]

Frankly, I think that the EPA test isn't realistic overall.

 

All the EPA MPG test is a reproducible testing environment to determine possible MPG...you might get worse or you might get better than that. Creating ratings for something that can be so variabile is a major PIA...you might drive with a lead foot and I might not drive as aggressively or I might use cruise control more often then not to get more MPG's then you do.

 

If your rated at 33MPG and your only getting 22MPG out of your car no matter what you do, you may have a problem, but if your getting 29MPG out of 33MPG, I don't think its an issue.

Edited March 29, 2013 by silvrsvt

[ScapeTom]

All the EPA MPG test is a reproducible testing environment to determine possible MPG...you might get worse or you might get better than that. Creating ratings for something that can be so variabile is a major PIA...you might drive with a lead foot and I might not drive as aggressively or I might use cruise control more often then not to get more MPG's then you do.

 

If your rated at 33MPG and your only getting 22MPG out of your car no matter what you do, you may have a problem, but if your getting 29MPG out of 33MPG, I don't think its an issue.

 

I agree for the most part. A standardized test is needed, and that's what the EPA gives us. The question is, does the overall trend on a given vehicle indicate that the test favors one type of car over another. The data I see on fueleconomy.gov indicates that the EPA test tends to grossly underestimate the mileage of some vehicles, while they might be overestimating on others. Not necessarily because of cheating, but because the test fails to capture the real-world results accurately for some types of vehicles.

 

Perhaps this is what Ford is trying to capture. If a few owners get better or worse mileage than the EPA estimate, that's not a problem. But if the overall trend for a given model is consistently lower than the estimate, that indicates a problem that needs further investigation.

 

I'm not dissatisfied with my mileage (though I see that some folks are) - I am only 3 or 4 MPG lower than the highway estimate, though I'm pretty close on city/mixed driving so far. I think that's OK considering my driving habits. I don't expect to match the economy I got with my Civic, but I didn't buy my Escape solely for fuel economy. If that was my only concern, I'd be in a Fiesta or a VW TDI. It's not - I couldn't tow with either of those two vehicles, and I wanted the interior space and flexibility that the Escape gives me.

[Joe771476]

I get 32 MPG with my 2001 V6 Taurus. I could squeeze 31 MPG with my 85 Cadillac 4.1 V8 that I inherited. I never would have paid money for it! I used to get 52 MPG with my wife's leased 1996 Nissan Sentra 5 spd manual OD. So if Ford wants someone to prove something, hire me and I'll get at least 52 MPG out of those C-maxes! If I don't, I'll be really surprised. Let me know Ford!

[jpd80]

As a consumer, what fuel economy statistics would influence your purchasing decision?

 

- City cycle fuel economy (hardest for conventional)

- Variable Highway cycle between 40 and 60 mph

- steady state 60 mph driving ( hardest for hybrids)

 

Replace the combined mileage with a steady state 60 mph test and I think all contingencies would be covered,

we would begin ot see where vehicle strengths and weaknesses really are, especially hybrids.

Edited March 31, 2013 by jpd80

[akirby]

The only thing that will work with the public is some type of range from the most aggresive drivers to the least aggressive drivers. For the 2013 Fusion city rating I would expect that to be something like a high of 25 and a low of 15. Highway would be a low of 26 and a high of 35. Pretty much worthless if you're trying to compare two vehicles but at least it would manage expectations. Using E10 winter blend fuel woud help.

[transitman]

There are too many variables to make this work. Will they throw out the top and bottom numbers and average out the rest. Do they take into consideration January in Minnesota vs. S. California? If I recall, in Texas and New Mexico the octane ratings are 86, 88 & 90, how will that factor in, or people who only use premium thinking that improves mileage? And of course there's always individual driving habits. I'm currently averaging 25 mpg, + or - a few tenths, but there's a bunch of people gripping they can't get over 18-19 mpg's, who's readings are accurate. I don't know, this seems like a marketing gimmick to me.

[ScapeTom]

As a consumer, what fuel economy statistics would influence your purchasing decision?

 

- City cycle fuel economy (hardest for conventional)

- Variable Highway cycle between 40 and 60 mph

- steady state 60 mph driving ( hardest for hybrids)

 

Replace the combined mileage with a steady state 60 mph test and I think all contingencies would be covered,

we would begin ot see where vehicle strengths and weaknesses really are, especially hybrids.

 

Problem is, here in the south, highway traffic routinely drives 70-80 mph, so 60 won't cut it in the real world. Yes, I could drive 60 on the interstate, but I'd be an obstacle on the road at that speed. Even the trucks run around 70.

 

I think that in terms of steady-state driving, a chart could be derived that relates mpg to speed based on real data on a pre-determined course with known variable terrain. The car could be driven at 50, then 55, then 60, then 65, and so on up to 80 or so to develop a curve.

 

For city-type driving, there are a boatload of variables that will influence what people get in terms of MPG. Some of the variables - throttle position, ignition advance, RPM, gear, other engine parameters - could be recorded and used along with MPG to get better information regarding how driving habits and situations effect mileage. Other variables aren't so easy to measure.

[silvrsvt]

Problem is, here in the south, highway traffic routinely drives 70-80 mph, so 60 won't cut it in the real world. Yes, I could drive 60 on the interstate, but I'd be an obstacle on the road at that speed. Even the trucks run around 70.

 

Unless your on the highway the entire time you drive (or measure it) your avg speed is often much slower then that.

[Noah Harbinger]

I think that in terms of steady-state driving, a chart could be derived that relates mpg to speed based on real data on a pre-determined course with known variable terrain. The car could be driven at 50, then 55, then 60, then 65, and so on up to 80 or so to develop a curve.

 

I think "steady state" contradicts "variable terrain", but that's just my opinion.

 

I should get something like a wireless ODBC data logger and start doing it on my car. Maybe develop an app to gather the data and give you feedback about what kind of speeds /driving types it needs to fill out the curve…

[FordBuyer]

The problem is, Ford like the other manufactures have got caught up in the MPG race to sell vehicles. Ford is now saying the driver must learn to drive to get the EPA rating on the sticker. While it's true, the MPG can be improved if drivers change their driving habits. Most people expect the vehicle to produce the great MPG, but it doesn't work that way.

 

I could most likely get much better than the EPA rating as a Expert Hypermiler, but tell that to the same vehicle owner that remote starts his vehicle for ten minutes to get the cabin heater warm or A/C cold. People are just plain stupid and Ford is saying you need to learn how to operate your vehicle to get a realistic MPG. I've got to tell you, if I see dark brake dust on the front wheels of a vehicle, I know that driver gets bad MPG because of hard acceleration and hard braking. These people slam on the brakes at the last minute hoping the stoplight will change. Why not let off the gas and get fuel-cut till you need to use the brakes to stop or the light changes. Ford put the design there for you to get great MPG, you just need to learn how to use it.

 

Good post. You can lose up to 40% of your optimum fuel mileage on driving style alone, even before we get to proper tire inflation, and maintaining clean filters. On freeway this morning, I was driving in right lane at 65mph, and that doesn't keep all the speeders off my tail. They come up right behind you and it seems like they expect you to pull over onto shoulder so they can get around you since passing lane can clog up. Going 70mph in passing lane will get you run over too. And 75mph in passing lane won't be much better. No wonder so many can't get EPA ratings.

[FordBuyer]

I get 32 MPG with my 2001 V6 Taurus. I could squeeze 31 MPG with my 85 Cadillac 4.1 V8 that I inherited. I never would have paid money for it! I used to get 52 MPG with my wife's leased 1996 Nissan Sentra 5 spd manual OD. So if Ford wants someone to prove something, hire me and I'll get at least 52 MPG out of those C-maxes! If I don't, I'll be really surprised. Let me know Ford!

 

You are good. I get 22mpg in combined driving on my '02 Taurus and about 30mpg highway. Sometimes for whatever reason I will average between 23 and 24mpg in combined driving, but that is only in mildly warm weather where I didn't need A/C with no humidiity and flat terrain with fewer lights.

[akirby]

maintaining clean filters. On freeway this morning,

 

Dirty air filters have NOTHING to do with fuel economy on modern vehicles.