Ford Hybrid Owners Sue Over Fuel-Efficiency Rating Claims

[chevys]

There are no mileage "claims". There are only EPA test results. They start with a broken in vehicle (5K miles at least) with a fully charged battery, 70 degrees and 100% gasoline (no ethanol). How "real world" is that?

Its the same world that you go out and stick the key in your Ford, GMC, Dodge Chevy, Toyota or whatever non hybrid and start it and go on your way. 10 below or 105 degrees I dont care. You fire up the heater, radio, AC and what ever else and head down the road. I have already read Fords claims that 5mpg may be lost to the engines not being broke in and I am raising the BS flag on that. No way a green engine consumes that much more gas. That is just a way to buy some time and let the consumer who paid through the nose to cool off a bit.

 

Its funny though how far off the Cmax is short to the Epa tests as you say. Something here is clearly amiss.

Edited April 25, 2013 by chevys

[ausrutherford]

When can Ford start suing owners over stupidity?

[RichardJensen]

the mostly meaningless 2+average

 

Putting more information on the sticker will not solve this problem, seeing how this problem is caused by customers failing to absorb all of the information currently on the sticker.

 

Perhaps making the sticker the entire size of the windshield, and devoting 99% of its surface area to the phrase "YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY" would do something to penetrate the thicker skulled members of the many-headed, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Edited April 25, 2013 by RichardJensen

[lfeg]

Several more things.

 

The EPA fuel economy ratings were never meant to predict what kind of fuel mileage that any individual driver would get. They are a means to compare one vehicle to others. That is all. A C Max is tested using the same fuel and conditions as a Sonata so that the consumer can compare the EPA fuel economy numbers and make their own judgement.

 

If you want a "real world" test, whose real world? The real world of the 610 loop in Houston during rush hour is different than the real world of driving to the night shift in Weirton. What about the guy commuting up and down 201 from Bingham to Jackman in the Maine winter?

 

And what about fuel? Which gasoline mix are you going to use? In the area where I live we have 4 different summer mixes and 4 different winter mixes, depending on which county you live in. (and my mileage varies depending which county I buy gas in) And we are not alone.

 

Get over it. The EPA test results are just to provide a comparison from one vehicle to another. We do not need over a hundred "real world" tests (well, we could, but who would pay for that boondoggle?). No matter how it is measured, fuel economy will always vary, often greatly, from driver to driver unless you want full control system control of acceleration rates, speeds, brake useage, HVAC system use and so on.

 

And people can sue for anything they want in our system, and there will always be a line of lawyers waiting to take a case.

[4d4evr-1]

Alright Mr. Engineer, you tell me why the Cmax is not living up to the mileage claims of 47/47/47. Its not happening in the real world. Not even close.

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/c-max/2013

I am averaging more than 44 since purchased in November including all winter driving. Since the spring warmup we are getting better than 50 on all trips including city and highway. I can not determine why some are not getting the mileage I'm getting such as driving dynamics, weather and time of day all effect MPG with hybrids. Any use of electric power as night driving, AC, heater, power steering use energy that could have an affect.

 

You stated on the Lutz thread you had not studied the C-Max and could not speak from authority yet you continue blabber on about what others do not know.

 

Please try to learn how to spell C-Max correctly, the least any intelligent arbiter can do.

[akirby]

Something here is clearly amiss.

 

The only thing amiss is your understanding of the situation.

 

We've explained this ad infinitum but I'll give it one more shot. Ford's hybrids are more sensitive to weather and driving conditions because of their ability to use battery power up to 62 mph. When the other mfrs extend their technology to do the same they will have the exact same problems with the EPA tests. The same goes for ecoboost engines - there is a fine line between great fuel economy and not so great and it's easier to stay under that line on the EPA test and harder in the real world.

 

The EPA tests are really there for CAFE compliance reasons and not to actually predict a person's fuel economy.

 

5 mpg is only 10% and Ford engines typically show a 10% increase in mpg after 5K miles. The difference is it's usually only 2 mpg in a non hybrid.

 

Go look up the Prius' performance on CR's city test. It was much worse then the C-Max or Fusion hybrid.

 

Ford knows their EPA tests are solid and repeatable. It's time for the EPA to either adjust the reported window sticker numbers (which aren't the actual EPA test results BTW - they're adjusted with a formula) or go back to putting a range on there like they used to.

 

Personally I'd like to see them switch to E-10 winter blend fuel for their testing and standardize the battery charge level on hybrids AND put a range on the window sticker instead of one big number.

[SoonerLS]

The EPA fuel economy ratings were never meant to predict what kind of fuel mileage that any individual driver would get. They are a means to compare one vehicle to others. That is all. A C Max is tested using the same fuel and conditions as a Sonata so that the consumer can compare the EPA fuel economy numbers and make their own judgement.

Evidently, this bears repeating, as does the old adage "the problem isn't what you don't know, it's what you know that ain't so." The only thing "amiss" here is the fact that too many consumers think the EPA estimates mean something they don't.

[aneekr]

Go look up the Prius' performance on CR's city test. It was much worse then the C-Max or Fusion hybrid.

 

Just in case this information isn't available on the free (non-subscriber) portion of Consumer Reports' website, here are the City fuel economy numbers from CR's testing:

 

• '13 Fusion SE Hybrid: 35 mpg
• '13 C-Max SE: 35 mpg
• '12 Camry Hybrid XLE: 32 mpg
• '12 Prius V Three: 33 mpg
• '10 Prius Four: 32 mpg
• '12 Prius C Two: 37 mpg

[jpd80]

Just in case this information isn't available on the free (non-subscriber) portion of Consumer Reports' website, here are the City fuel economy numbers from CR's testing:

 

• '13 Fusion SE Hybrid: 35 mpg
• '13 C-Max SE: 35 mpg
• '12 Camry Hybrid XLE: 32 mpg
• '12 Prius V Three: 33 mpg
• '10 Prius Four: 32 mpg
• '12 Prius C Two: 37 mpg

Which kinda suggests that maybe CR's "city cycle" is different to the official EPA city cycle, maybe not as many stop/go situations?

Unfortunately, we will never know because CR doesn't actually doccument their test loops to compare with the actual standard.

Edited April 25, 2013 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Their city cycle is driving in an uncontrolled environment.

[chucky2]

Putting more information on the sticker will not solve this problem, seeing how this problem is caused by customers failing to absorb all of the information currently on the sticker.

 

Perhaps making the sticker the entire size of the windshield, and devoting 99% of its surface area to the phrase "YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY" would do something to penetrate the thicker skulled members of the many-headed, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Putting more information that actually means something to the consumer would mean something, along with, having real world tests for those real world categories. If I'm driving 90% highway at real world speeds with real world use, even the highway number isn't accurate. Same thing for true city driving, or short trip driving. And that's what I mean. The City/Highway/Average numbers are useless for a staggering number of people. And, because those are the only numbers the manus need to provide, that's all the testing (which is screwed up itself) is setup to produce numbers for.

 

That's why I say it's the EPA who has screwed up here: They should have long since had 5 (or even more) categories that far better cover typical driving patterns, and then have real world testing with a standardized fuel that reflects real world fuel availability and quality, to produce those numbers. They haven't. Which is why we keep seeing failures and consequently lawsuits like this.

 

The problem isn't the consumer, it's not even the manus...ultimately, the problem is the EPA.

 

Chuck

[NickF1011]

Putting more information that actually means something to the consumer would mean something, along with, having real world tests for those real world categories. If I'm driving 90% highway at real world speeds with real world use, even the highway number isn't accurate. Same thing for true city driving, or short trip driving. And that's what I mean. The City/Highway/Average numbers are useless for a staggering number of people. And, because those are the only numbers the manus need to provide, that's all the testing (which is screwed up itself) is setup to produce numbers for.

 

That's why I say it's the EPA who has screwed up here: They should have long since had 5 (or even more) categories that far better cover typical driving patterns, and then have real world testing with a standardized fuel that reflects real world fuel availability and quality, to produce those numbers. They haven't. Which is why we keep seeing failures and consequently lawsuits like this.

 

The problem isn't the consumer, it's not even the manus...ultimately, the problem is the EPA.

 

Chuck

 

The number of variables you are asking them to manage would lead to even worse inconsistencies than there are now. As it is right now, the EPA tests are good for one thing at least: comparing vehicles to one another. And that's really all they should be used for.

[jpd80]

Their city cycle is driving in an uncontrolled environment.

And that's the point here, CR wants everyone to ignore the EPA standard tests and accept CR's own test results without question...

[akirby]

Putting more information that actually means something to the consumer would mean something, along with, having real world tests for those real world categories. If I'm driving 90% highway at real world speeds with real world use, even the highway number isn't accurate. Same thing for true city driving, or short trip driving. And that's what I mean.

 

The problem is there is no universal definition for city or highway or overall driving. One person's commute is 3 miles of stop-n-go driving in Minnesota in the winter time with winter blend E-10 fuel and someone else's is a 30 mile commute with very few stop signs in 90 degree heat and summer blend 100% gasoline. TOTALLY different driving and totally different mpg results. Just the way a person drives can yield a 3-4 mpg difference as has been proven over and over by married couples.

 

The fact that the EPA mandates ONE number to be published for city and another for highway is the main culprit. I'd like to see a range along with each current figure that represents a worst case scenario - winter blend E-10 with lots of stop-n-go on short trips e.g. - and a best case scenario. Of course the worst case scenario is going to be absolutely terrible and not useful for anything except setting expectations with consumers.

 

So maybe something like this:

 

EPA estimated city fuel economy 22 MPG on average Expected Range based on individual conditions: 15 - 25 mpg.

[RichardJensen]

Putting more information that actually means something to the consumer would mean something

 

Because your first sentence is a tautology, I didn't read any further.

[chucky2]

The number of variables you are asking them to manage would lead to even worse inconsistencies than there are now. As it is right now, the EPA tests are good for one thing at least: comparing vehicles to one another. And that's really all they should be used for.

I don't think it would be that bad really. There would be one gas standard, based on E10 (those on non-ethanol blend would enjoy greater mpg, something no one complains about), to be used with say 5 categories. Those 5 categories would be far more granular than the 2 categories we have now. 6 or 7 categories could be used even if more granularity was needed. Properly presented to the public, it would be easy to decipher and actually mean something to people who have the mental ability to think about what type of driving they do (read: most who look at the window sticker). Would it be more work? Sure. A crazy amount of work? No way. Given the scale and purchasing (and thus, fuel and emission) implications, would it be worth it? Absolutely.

[RichardJensen]

people who have the mental ability to think about what type of driving they do

 

Those aren't the people that are suing Ford.

 

And if five is better than two, then wouldn't ten be better than five? Why not have regional test results? Why not band the tests based on aggressive driving? Why not have a questionnaire that you fill out online that cooks up an estimate?

 

Why not just leave things as they are and realize that dumb people are dumb because they are dumb. And yes, that's my own tautology. But the logic behind it is this: We label people based on their actions. If someone displays a clear inability to recognize that the EPA ratings are not guarantees, then how can changing the amount of numbers or the way the numbers are presented alter that?

Edited April 25, 2013 by RichardJensen

[chucky2]

The problem is there is no universal definition for city or highway or overall driving. One person's commute is 3 miles of stop-n-go driving in Minnesota in the winter time with winter blend E-10 fuel and someone else's is a 30 mile commute with very few stop signs in 90 degree heat and summer blend 100% gasoline. TOTALLY different driving and totally different mpg results. Just the way a person drives can yield a 3-4 mpg difference as has been proven over and over by married couples.

First, they'd have to standardize on E10 and allow those with no/little ethanol to enjoy greater benefits. People are not concerned when they get better (they're happy), they are concerned when they get less.

 

As far as your example, that's exactly my point - you're making it for me. Those two drives should be in completely different categories, and hence, completely different testing scenarios. The first should be in the Stop-and-Go City/Short Trip driving category (one could even have Short Trip < 3 miles category be its own category given how frequently its used and how much a cold car sucks gas), your second should be in the All/Mostly all Highway > 65mph category or in the Country Roads > 45 mph category.

 

The fact that the EPA mandates ONE number to be published for city and another for highway is the main culprit. I'd like to see a range along with each current figure that represents a worst case scenario - winter blend E-10 with lots of stop-n-go on short trips e.g. - and a best case scenario. Of course the worst case scenario is going to be absolutely terrible and not useful for anything except setting expectations with consumers.

 

So maybe something like this:

 

EPA estimated city fuel economy 22 MPG on average Expected Range based on individual conditions: 15 - 25 mpg.

The range would be nice, and I'd be fine with that, as long as no average is given. People will just lock onto the average and completely discount the range. They need to read: "Somewhere between 15mpg - 25mpg". They should have to process in their brains that they might get 15mpg. That and having just two numbers is terrible. Someone doing short trip driving, heavy stop and go, or suburban driving will have different usages. City cannot adequately address those usage patterns.

 

Chuck

[chucky2]

Because your first sentence is a tautology, I didn't read any further.

 

Profound.

[chucky2]

Those aren't the people that are suing Ford.

 

OK?

[RichardJensen]

OK?

 

See amended comments above.

 

Rational people realize that the EPA estimates are estimates.

 

Adding three, five, or fifty additional estimates will not make a meaningful difference for people who understand that they are estimates.

 

Those who believe that the EPA numbers either are or should be guarantees will be similarly unaffected. You will have expended a considerable amount of additional effort toward no useful end.

 

People who think they should will continue to not get the EPA mileage and will continue to be bent out of shape about it. But you will have spent a lot more money.

[NickF1011]

Someone doing short trip driving, heavy stop and go, or suburban driving will have different usages. City cannot adequately address those usage patterns.

So you need one set of numbers for hyper-milers, one set for normal drivers, one set for people who think they are normal drivers but are actually heavy on the "go" pedal, one set for aggressive drivers, another for people who drive with both feet and usually have the brake pedal partially depressed, then you have to come up with "real world" driving loops to test the vehicles on. You can't test them on a track, can you? That's not "real world". So we take them on public roads? When do you test them? Do we present different results based on the temperature and time of day when traffic levels are different? Do we place a different set of numbers there for metro areas that exceed a certain number of average cars per mile of road? Where do you define where one "type" of driving deveates from another? Then after doing all of that leg work, people are going to be just confused and angry because they end up reading the label wrong.

[SoonerLS]

Putting more information that actually means something to the consumer would mean

...nothing, and accomplish the same. The problem is that you're talking about putting more information in front of people who are already not paying attention to the information in front of them.

[chucky2]

So you need one set of numbers for hyper-milers, one set for normal drivers, one set for people who think they are normal drivers but are actually heavy on the "go" pedal, one set for aggressive drivers, another for people who drive with both feet and usually have the brake pedal partially depressed, then you have to come up with "real world" driving loops to test the vehicles on. You can't test them on a track, can you? That's not "real world". So we take them on public roads? When do you test them? Do we present different results based on the temperature and time of day when traffic levels are different? Do we place a different set of numbers there for metro areas that exceed a certain number of average cars per mile of road? Where do you define where one "type" of driving deveates from another? Then after doing all of that leg work, people are going to be just confused and angry because they end up reading the label wrong.

 

That's why you provide meaningful categories and range them as akirby suggested. The EPA can work out best estimate profiles of each category and then design a repeatable test regime that will trend correctly no matter what propulsion technology is used. If that means that a manufacturer needs to do 10 take off from stop and 5 need to be agressive throttle, 2 need to be grandma throttle, and 3 need to be normal throttle, then, so be it.

 

Chuck

[chucky2]

See amended comments above.

 

Rational people realize that the EPA estimates are estimates.

RIght, they're estimates. But they're estimates that should provide some kind of meaningful number to who is viewing them. If they're not, then, the system needs to be re-evaluated to correct for...whatever.

 

Adding three, five, or fifty additional estimates will not make a meaningful difference for people who understand that they are estimates.

 

Those who believe that the EPA numbers either are or should be guarantees will be similarly unaffected. You will have expended a considerable amount of additional effort toward no useful end.

 

People who think they should will continue to not get the EPA mileage and will continue to be bent out of shape about it. But you will have spent a lot more money.

 

Fifty is getting a little insane. 5 would be for more granular, 6-7 I'd think would be max. What is the angst on having a better category representation? Do you actually enjoy looking at meaningless numbers? Paying for meaningless numbers? I find it odd your rationale, so I'd like to better understand it. What you seem to be saying is you'd like there to be offered only Pepsi, Water, and Diet Pepsi. Zero other options. If you have someone that only wants Pepsi, Water, or Diet Pepsi, that works great. For everyone else, that blows. I'm trying to understand why you'd want to shoehorn people into only those three choices...

 

Chuck