Ford Hybrid Owners Sue Over Fuel-Efficiency Rating Claims

[chucky2]

...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.

I just disagree. More information is almost always better, as long as it is accurate and presented in a manner that can be understood for the audience it's intended for. Under what I'm advocating there'd be 5-7 usage categories with ranges (as akirby suggested). You are telling me that people cannot understand that? It seems what they can't understand now is the large bold OneSizeFitsAll City and Highway numbers. Are you suggesting that all numbers just be removed?

[RichardJensen]

What is the angst on having a better category representation? Do you actually enjoy looking at meaningless numbers?

 

Your a priori assumption is that the current numbers are 'meaningless' and that more numbers would somehow be more meaningful.

 

I consider the first point to be insufficiently argued, and the second point, therefore, irrelevant.

[Extreme4x4]

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

 

Fabulous !!! I agree completely.

 

Just put "Estimated fuel economy numbers for all situations: 1-100."

 

Perfect. It encompasses every possible scenario short of dropping the vehicle out of a plane. It encompasses every one of the 10K fuel blends that are used in different locals, electric, hybrid, mountainous, winter, summer, lead foot and hypermilers. Basically, it encompasses any situation that anyone could possibly encounter.

 

Just think of the simplicity of the testing........................... there would be none. Think of the money it would save the manufacturers, which they could pass on to all of us. Think of the lawyers who would go out of business, since everyone would achieve the stated fuel economy. Think of the stupid people who will feel smart, because they bought a vehicle that absolutally achieved its EPA mileage estimates.

 

Fabulous !!!!

 

What you are asking for is ridiculous, and is based on the "I'm the only person in the world" scenario. There is no simple 5-6 scenerios. These 5-6 situations would cover about 10% of the population, which would still leave way too much room for stupid people to misinterpret the results. Somewhere around 10-20 THOUSAND different situations would be closer, but would still not be stupid proof. If someone cannot understand the word "estimate" they will never understand a graph, a paragraph, or a page of explanation. After all, that requires focus and reading comprehension, which these people obviously do not have in the first place.

 

In other words, you can't fix stupid.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Extreme4x4

[mustang_sallad]

These guys record your driving for a week and then run that through their library of vehicle simulation models to predict what fuel economy you can expect for a given car driving your personal drive cycle:

 

http://www.mycarma.com

 

Normally they do that with a logger that plugs into your OBD port, but they now have a cheaper option that simply uses smartphone GPS. Anyway, the key part that they offer that other people don't is that they have a library of vehicle powertrains that they've already modeled.

[mustang_sallad]

These guys record your driving for a week and then run that through their library of vehicle simulation models to predict what fuel economy you can expect for a given car driving your personal drive cycle:

 

http://www.mycarma.com

 

Normally they do that with a logger that plugs into your OBD port, but they now have a cheaper option that simply uses smartphone GPS. Anyway, the key part that they offer that other people don't is that they have a library of vehicle powertrains that they've already modeled.

 

Disclaimer - i know and work with these people, but I still think what they're doing is very appropriate given all the bullshit that's flying around about this lately.

[RichardJensen]

That's neat, but I think an OBD port would be better unless there's some way for your smart phone to automatically know that it is tooling about in the car you're monitoring.

 

However, I wonder where the money comes from. Does the dealer pay this company?

[SoonerLS]

I just disagree. More information is almost always better, as long as it is accurate and presented in a manner that can be understood for the audience it's intended for. Under what I'm advocating there'd be 5-7 usage categories with ranges (as akirby suggested). You are telling me that people cannot understand that? It seems what they can't understand now is the large bold OneSizeFitsAll City and Highway numbers.

Right now we have a single yardstick that is the result of a uniform, scientific process that can be compared across all vehicles. It doesn't get any simpler than that, yet they can't figure out how to use it. How is adding more numbers going to help them? And that testing isn't free; how much are you willing to add to the cost of a car--or what feature are you willing to give up because that money got spent to deal with people who are too stupid to figure out how to use the tool they already have?

 

Edit: I shouldn't say stupid, because not all of them are stupid--some of them are just in information overload. Either way, you can't help either of them by adding more information to the mix.

 

What I would support is what akirby suggested--go back to the previous sticker, with city, highway, and combined mileage, and ranges for each. That data should be obtainable from the current tests, and it's a hell of a lot more useful than the green crap they've mandated on the new stickers...

Edited April 26, 2013 by SoonerLS

[jpd80]

Maybe it starts with basic education

 

"Which car is right for me......."

 

It was much easier when gasoline was cheap and people didn't have to think about such things...

 

 

 

So what happens if the class action fails and is dismissed with prejudice, do the lawyers then circle their clients for the fees?

Edited April 26, 2013 by jpd80

[chucky2]

Your a priori assumption is that the current numbers are 'meaningless' and that more numbers would somehow be more meaningful.

 

I consider the first point to be insufficiently argued, and the second point, therefore, irrelevant.

There is no assumption, just, Reality, for 10's of millions of drivers (and thus, buyers). Your assumption only holds true for those who have driving styles that closely mimic the present City and/or Highway driving cycles. Of course, since statistically no one knows how City or Highway matches up to how they drive, your assumption becomes even more invalidated.

 

I'm sorry if you think more detailed categories irrelevant, but really, doing just that would solve any credible claim of inaccuracy or ambiguity. What is ambiguous right now is the nebulous "City" and "Highway", and thus, "Combined". For some reason you seem to be happy with it, and I'm still wondering why? What is it about a vague highly inaccurate number (in respect to 10's of millions of drivers) that you like?

[chucky2]

Fabulous !!! I agree completely. snip

 

I really don't think you understand what I'm saying. Please re-read. Your rant is essentially baseless.

[chucky2]

Right now we have a single yardstick that is the result of a uniform, scientific process that can be compared across all vehicles. It doesn't get any simpler than that, yet they can't figure out how to use it. How is adding more numbers going to help them?

Well, right now, we have a vague single yardstick that applies to only a certain set of drivers who drive a certain way, unknown to them if they fit the testing profile or not, that they can use to compare across all vehicles. I'm not sure a useless number (and, it is useless, because it's completely unknown if City as presently denoted matches up to a buyers City type driving, making the number provided, useless) makes looking at the number simpler, I'd more use the word...useless. As I've been saying, it's not the numbers I'm so much concerned with as the categories, Ranges can be given to the categories which will help the buyer match up their driving patters to actually useful categories, providing a much more accurate fit. This to me sounds helpful. Not fake helpful like our present system.

 

And that testing isn't free; how much are you willing to add to the cost of a car--or what feature are you willing to give up because that money got spent to deal with people who are too stupid to figure out how to use the tool they already have? Edit: I shouldn't say stupid, because not all of them are stupid--some of them are just in information overload. Either way, you can't help either of them by adding more information to the mix.

 

Yes, the manufacturers would have to pay for it. And Yes, they'd pass the testing onto us. There is cost in everything. The benefit though, which would be to all buyers of all vehicles, would IMO far outweigh the costs. Finally you would have the soccer mom realizing that her driving is truly short trip, and that the Expedition she wants to buy because it allows her to look down upon the lessor moms in their minivans is going to get anywhere from 4mpg to 8mpg with her scenario of driving. Or the soccer dad will realize the F-150 he must have for his 100 mi commute at 80mph is going to get anywhere from 14mpg to 18mpg, and not the 23 that's on the present magical sticker. See the difference? They can match up much closer to Reality rather than the un-Reality they have to compare with now.

 

What I would support is what akirby suggested--go back to the previous sticker, with city, highway, and combined mileage, and ranges for each. That data should be obtainable from the current tests, and it's a hell of a lot more useful than the green crap they've mandated on the new stickers...

 

That still doesn't solve the problem of common usage scenarios, unless you're prepared to make the ranges so large as to be...useless. Having city go from 4mpg to 30mpg isn't useful.

 

Chuck

 

EDIT: What in gods name is up with the quoting on this board???

Edited April 26, 2013 by chucky2

[chevys]

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.

Maybe you should write an essay on how to achieve epa estimates for everybody else that seems to struggle to duplicate your real world mileage in the C-max.

 

 

Ford Fiesta drivers are averaging 2.4 mpg better than the epa estimates of combined driving.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/fiesta

 

C-Max is 9 mpg short of estimates. CR was pretty much spot on.

 

How do you explain that? Do you think they drive in different conditions that C-Max drivers or do you think the sample size has issues? Maybe they are just smarter and know how to drive for better? Nah, the Fiesta is just not as sensitive to real world conditions like the C-max is. 3 mpg difference in the real world and its just a simple basic 4 cylinder with no turbos or batteries to go south on you down the road or add complexity and most of all cost.

 

I can meet and exceed epa estimates all day everyday in pretty much any car but I dont think I could in a hybrid because they are just too sensitive to things the driver cant control. It rains, it gets dark, it gets cold, and it gets hot. Its not 70 and sunny where I live everyday. After reading this thread and many others I dont doubt the C-Max and other hybrids do get what the epa estimates in their tests but they are so sensitive to other factors in the real world they border line on being a scam to me. They simply dont deliver for the vast majority of owners.

Edited April 26, 2013 by chevys

[Donaldo]

Ford has been selling hybrids since 2004 and we're just hearing about hybrid mpg related lawsuits now with the latest and greatest models. Some drivers of old Ford hybrids didn't get the EPA rated mpg. Is Ford selling hybrids to entirely different customers now who have higher expectations or are just more lawsuit happy?

Those aren't the people that are suing Ford.

[Deanh]

Maybe you should write an essay on how to achieve epa estimates for everybody else that seems to struggle to duplicate your real world mileage in the C-max.

 

 

Ford Fiesta drivers are averaging 2.4 mpg better than the epa estimates of combined driving.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/fiesta

 

C-Max is 9 mpg short of estimates. CR was pretty much spot on.

 

How do you explain that? Do you think they drive in different conditions that C-Max drivers or do you think the sample size has issues? Maybe they are just smarter and know how to drive for better? Nah, the Fiesta is just not as sensitive to real world conditions like the C-max is. 3 mpg difference in the real world and its just a simple basic 4 cylinder with no turbos or batteries to go south on you down the road or add complexity and most of all cost.

 

I can meet and exceed epa estimates all day everyday in pretty much any car but I dont think I could in a hybrid because they are just too sensitive to things the driver cant control. It rains, it gets dark, it gets cold, and it gets hot. Its not 70 and sunny where I live everyday. After reading this thread and many others I dont doubt the C-Max and other hybrids do get what the epa estimates in their tests but they are so sensitive to other factors in the real world they border line on being a scam to me. They simply dont deliver for the vast majority of owners.

Ive posted it before and perhaps you didnt read it, Hybrids are more suseptible to outside conditions than regular ICE vehicles, temperature, amd the vehicle having 6000 milea ALONE can be respinsible for those 9 MPGs.....we attempt to explain this to all people that purchase Hybrids....

[iamamultitasker]

Unless the lawyers can demonstrate that Ford deviated in some way from official test protocols and fudged their results

I doubt that there is any case at al to answer...

Getting back to the actual thread topic, IMO, the reason you see these lawsuits cropping up right now is that the EPA is investigating Ford for overstating mileage. If the EPA finds that Ford overstated, then these lawsuits will probably bear fruit for the sharks and their semi-intelligent clients. However, if the EPA finds that Ford followed the protocols correctly then I would expect these lawsuits to fade away. The EPA is doing the work for the lawyers.

Edited April 26, 2013 by iamamultitasker

[RichardJensen]

There is no assumption, just, Reality, for 10's of millions of drivers (and thus, buyers).

 

That's not even wrong.

 

Further--since you played the 'tens of millions of drivers' card:

 

Right now there are TWO numbers reported for over 190,000,000 drivers.

 

That's a ratio of .000000105.

 

If we up the number to your scientifically determined and oh so well reasoned category of five (and what would you call those five categories? "Big city", "Kind of big city that thinks its a big city, but really isn't because it doesn't have a sports team", "Medium sized city", "Guy living in a McMansion in the suburbs" and "Flyover country"?), guess what our ratio improves to:

 

.000000263.

 

It's so much more representative, isn't it!

[03 LS]

There are dyno labs and exhaust pipe testing garages all over the places, why can't somebody (probably the dyno labs) set up an "EPA FE test service" to actually test individual's vehicles and give them an "EPA" rating?

 

With that, any such cases will be ordered by court to go through the test, cost covered by the losers. If result is within (not lower than), say 10% of official EPA ratings, case will be dismissed. Wonder how many plaintiffs will still want to file the law suit?

[RichardJensen]

Because the tests require an hour and a half to complete in total. Some tests involve putting the vehicle in a climate controlled room able to raise the temperature of the vehicle to 80 degrees, or chill it to 20 degrees. And because the fuel efficiency is measured by trapping *all* the exhaust gas expelled during the test procedure, and applying a combustion efficiency factor to the amount of carbon released during the test to deduce the amount of gasoline burned.

 

Further, the EPA tests are extremely complicated, and require matching dyno speed to a testing profile within a very narrow range. This test requires extensive practice and training to perform.

[RichardJensen]

Few who criticize the EPA's test procedures realize how complicated they are. The EPA numbers are derived from five separate tests. By comparison, the EU's numbers are derived from two FE test procedures take about 20 minutes to perform

Edited April 26, 2013 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

Few who criticize the EPA's test procedures realize how complicated they are. The EPA numbers are derived from five separate tests. By comparison, the EU's numbers are derived from two FE test procedures take about 20 minutes to perform

one note, they are also performed at a controlled temperature, something , obviously, Hybrids are exrtremely suseptible too....( well, apparently at least fords.....ahem )

Edited April 26, 2013 by Deanh

[NickF1011]

That's why you provide meaningful categories and range them as akirby suggested.

Buyers already can't figure out the categories they are offered today. What makes you think they'd be better at figuring out which category their type of driving belongs in if they added more?

[Extreme4x4]

I guess I just have an issue with people not understanding the word "estimate."

 

There is no set of testing proceedures that would duplicate what people do in the real world, to the degree that would make lawsuits not happen. None. 5 different sets of numbers won't do it. 25 sets wouldn't. 100 sets wouldn't. There are just too many variables. Thus, I don't understand why some here have problems understanding that.

 

The EPA numbers were always about having a fixed set of parameters that they run all vehicles on. Everything being exactly the same, for all vehicles, so people could use the numbers as a comparison. Not because this is the absolute truth of the numbers, under the millions of variables, that we will achieve in the "real world."

 

In other words, "your mileage may vary."

[probowler]

Now the question is....

 

When do 1500 owners start suing Ram because they can't get 25MPG on the highway while hauling their 4-wheelers and boats at 80mph?

[iamamultitasker]

Now the question is....

 

When do 1500 owners start suing Ram because they can't get 25MPG on the highway while hauling their 4-wheelers and boats at 80mph?

 

Answer: When the EPA starts investigating Chrysler for overstating their fuel economy numbers.

[4d4evr-1]

Maybe you should write an essay on how to achieve epa estimates for everybody else that seems to struggle to duplicate your real world mileage in the C-max.

 

 

Ford Fiesta drivers are averaging 2.4 mpg better than the epa estimates of combined driving.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/fiesta

 

C-Max is 9 mpg short of estimates. CR was pretty much spot on.

 

How do you explain that? Do you think they drive in different conditions that C-Max drivers or do you think the sample size has issues? Maybe they are just smarter and know how to drive for better? Nah, the Fiesta is just not as sensitive to real world conditions like the C-max is. 3 mpg difference in the real world and its just a simple basic 4 cylinder with no turbos or batteries to go south on you down the road or add complexity and most of all cost.

 

I can meet and exceed epa estimates all day everyday in pretty much any car but I dont think I could in a hybrid because they are just too sensitive to things the driver cant control. It rains, it gets dark, it gets cold, and it gets hot. Its not 70 and sunny where I live everyday. After reading this thread and many others I dont doubt the C-Max and other hybrids do get what the epa estimates in their tests but they are so sensitive to other factors in the real world they border line on being a scam to me. They simply dont deliver for the vast majority of owners.

 

I'm not concerned with any car but mine. I came here to tell what I and my wife are able to do with our C-Max. You called folks dumb and ignorant about stuff you had no idea about yourself. I enjoy our car and seeing what we can do with it and saving money at the same time. The C-Max is a great car and one we can save considerable amount of money while we enjoy our investment.

 

As far as trying to convince you of anything, I have no intent to spend one more moment.