Ford to lower C-Max Fuel Economy Rating

[mackinaw]

Hot off the press (Automotive News):

 

 

DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. will reduce the stated fuel-economy rating of its C-Max hybrid car -- a rare and potentially costly move that Ford spent months feverishly working to avoid, according to a Ford source with knowledge of the plan. Ford has faced heavy criticism and lawsuits about worse-than-expected fuel economy for several new models, including the C-Max, whose window stickers have advertised 47 mpg for city, highway and combined driving. The ratings are based on tests Ford conducted and data it submitted to the EPA. Ford has invited reporters to a news conference Friday with its product development chief, Raj Nair. The source confirmed to Automotive News that the purpose is to announce a reduction in the C-Max rating.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130815/OEM05/130819953/ford-to-restate-fuel-economy-on-c-max-hybrid#ixzz2c3XYCsx2
]

[SoonerLS]

Well, it's not the end of western civilization as we know it, but it's certainly not good news. I wonder what they found that is causing them to restate the rating?

Edited August 15, 2013 by SoonerLS

[timf]

I wonder if this will impact the Fusion Hybrid and MKZ Hybrid as well. I've always found it interesting that even though the C-Max has a higher roofline and a seemingly less aerodynamic shape they could claim the same mileage as the Fusion.

[akirby]

The key question is whether the EPA test results changed or if Ford is simply asking for a deviation from the EPA test figures to report a lower number.

[92merc]

Kia had to make some payouts to owners after their MPG fiasco. But I think my brother got $100 or less. So it wasn't crap.

 

Considering Ford has been constrained on supply and this is first year, there are a limited number out there to pay off. In the end, Ford will have lost more in credibility than money.

[fordmantpw]

The key question is whether the EPA test results changed or if Ford is simply asking for a deviation from the EPA test figures to report a lower number.

 

^^^ This.

 

Kia had to make some payouts to owners after their MPG fiasco. But I think my brother got $100 or less. So it wasn't crap.

 

Considering Ford has been constrained on supply and this is first year, there are a limited number out there to pay off. In the end, Ford will have lost more in credibility than money.

 

Kia had to pay $$$ because they were reporting incorrect EPA numbers. If Ford has to do the same, then I agree with you on losing credibility.

 

However, I don't think Ford is reporting incorrect numbers. I predict that the EPA has determined that Ford followed it's tests to the tee and reported numbers as they should. After that, one of two things happened (see akirby's post above). If Ford is asking for a deviation to report a lower number, then I feel that Ford will gain credibility.

[Deanh]

Hot off the press (Automotive News):

 

 

DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. will reduce the stated fuel-economy rating of its C-Max hybrid car -- a rare and potentially costly move that Ford spent months feverishly working to avoid, according to a Ford source with knowledge of the plan. Ford has faced heavy criticism and lawsuits about worse-than-expected fuel economy for several new models, including the C-Max, whose window stickers have advertised 47 mpg for city, highway and combined driving. The ratings are based on tests Ford conducted and data it submitted to the EPA. Ford has invited reporters to a news conference Friday with its product development chief, Raj Nair. The source confirmed to Automotive News that the purpose is to announce a reduction in the C-Max rating.

 

 

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130815/OEM05/130819953/ford-to-restate-fuel-economy-on-c-max-hybrid#ixzz2c3XYCsx2

]

sadly guys, this will primarily be veiwed as nothing more than an admission of guilt....bad move IMO....especially given the recent "upgrade"

[GaryG]

I was advised not to buy my C-Max Energi because it would not meet the EPA rating. So far, I have 1,850 miles on it with a lifetime of over 250mpg. I've also exceeded the 21 mile EV range to 33.9 miles on a single plug-in charge. Not all bad news for Ford.

 

Gary

Edited August 15, 2013 by GaryG

[jasonj80]

The key question is whether the EPA test results changed or if Ford is simply asking for a deviation from the EPA test figures to report a lower number.

 

EPA is going to announce tomorrow that testing procedures are being changed for hybrid models.

[chevys]

sadly guys, this will primarily be veiwed as nothing more than an admission of guilt....bad move IMO....especially given the recent "upgrade"

Well, well, well, I guess I was not so crazy after all. It will be viewed as an admission of guilt because Ford is guilty. So much for Farley mouthing off about how they were going to defend the numbers. Guess that didnt pan out after all. They are caught and they know they are caught. The updates were about trying to put the fire out. Too little too late. Ford usually just blames the drivers when all else fails. I think this is an attempt to do damage control and contain it to some degree with an admission. Short term pain for long term gain. Pretty big damage here imo and they better look at the EB engines next. I said early on Ford was disingenuous about the mileage claims and I stand by it and I dont care whos fault it is. Cant wait to here how they spin it tomorrow.

[Deanh]

I was advised not to buy my C-Max Energi because it would not meet the EPA rating. So far, I have 1,850 miles on it with a lifetime of over 250mpg. I've also exceeded the 21 mile EV range to 33.9 miles on a single plug-in charge. Not all bad news for Ford.

 

Gary

did you prepare some garlic sauteed Crow for the advisor?

[Deanh]

EPA is going to announce tomorrow that testing procedures are being changed for hybrid models.

seriously?.....

[akirby]

Well, well, well, I guess I was not so crazy after all. It will be viewed as an admission of guilt because Ford is guilty. So much for Farley mouthing off about how they were going to defend the numbers. Guess that didnt pan out after all. They are caught and they know they are caught. The updates were about trying to put the fire out. Too little too late. Ford usually just blames the drivers when all else fails. I think this is an attempt to do damage control and contain it to some degree with an admission. Short term pain for long term gain. Pretty big damage here imo and they better look at the EB engines next. I said early on Ford was disingenuous about the mileage claims and I stand by it and I dont care whos fault it is. Cant wait to here how they spin it tomorrow.

 

I predict Ford will not admit anything with regards to the current EPA testing because there is nothing wrong with it. What I expect is that Ford will voluntarily lower the MPG to either a) be more in line with what the consumer expects or b) be in line with the new testing procedure if it changes as jason says.

 

Your lack of understanding of how the EPA tests work and the law is epic.

[jasonj80]

seriously?.....

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130815/AUTO0102/308150095/Ford-will-drop-C-Max-hybrid-rating-43-mpg?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[RichardJensen]

That article is flat out wrong when it asserts that the C-Max can use the Fusion test results because they are 'from the same family of vehicles.' That is just complete and utter nonsense.

[akirby]

If there was something wrong with the testing they would be lowering the Fusion Hybrid too. They're not and there isn't.

[SoonerLS]

Well, well, well, I guess I was not so crazy after all.

I wouldn't go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back until you've heard what they have to say. It's entirely likely that it's not what you expect.

[RichardJensen]

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2013/08/15/c-max-fuel-economy.html

 

 

In addition to improving the vehicle itself, Ford is changing the way it generates the miles-per-gallon label for C-MAX Hybrid going forward. Previously – and consistent with EPA’s General Label rules – testing of the Fusion Hybrid was used to generate fuel economy labels for a family of vehicles, including both Fusion Hybrid and C-MAX Hybrid. The result was the same fuel economy label values for both vehicles.

 

 

WHAT?

 

I'd love to know the exact chapter and section of the CFR that explicitly permits such a stupid action. And why the MKZ carries a lower FE rating despite being more closely related to the Fusion than the C-Max.

 

And shame on Ford for exploiting it.

Edited August 15, 2013 by RichardJensen

[SoonerLS]

FWIW, here's Ford's press release on the subject:

Aug 15, 2013 | Dearborn, Mich.

Ford Upgrades 2014 C-MAX Hybrid for Better Fuel Economy, Changes 2013 Label to Improve Customer Satisfaction

• 2014 Ford C-MAX Hybrid on sale later this year is upgraded with new transmission gearing and enhanced aerodynamics to further improve fuel efficiency performance
• Ford voluntarily changing its approach to C-MAX Hybrid fuel economy labeling going forward to better match performance and improve customer satisfaction
• Label changes will result in a lower 2013 C-MAX Hybrid miles-per-gallon label – though still class-leading and a better combined label than the Toyota Prius v; current C-MAX Hybrid owners will receive a goodwill payment for the difference
• Customer demand for C-MAX Hybrid remains very strong, with two-thirds of buyers from imports; C-MAX Hybrid helps drive Ford to best quarterly hybrid U.S. sales ever

Underscoring its commitment to fuel economy leadership, Ford Motor Company today said it is upgrading the 2014 Ford C-MAX Hybrid, which will go on sale in December. The company also is changing the way it tests and labels the 2013 C-MAX Hybrid for fuel economy to better match performance and improve customer satisfaction.
The upgrades build on powertrain software updates Ford announced last month for the 2013 C-MAX Hybrid. The 2014 C-MAX also will benefit from several hardware changes, including:

• Gearing changes that result in a more efficient transmission drive ratio
• New hood seal, front and rear tire deflectors, A-pillar moldings and the addition of rear lift gate deflectors to improve vehicle aerodynamics
• New engine oil with reduced friction

The enhancements to the 2014 C-MAX Hybrid are expected to improve customers’ on-road fuel economy, especially at highway speeds.
“Ford is absolutely committed to being a leader in the hybrid market and to top fuel efficiency across our lineup,” said Raj Nair, group vice president, global product development. “We are taking actions with our popular C-MAX Hybrid so that customers are even more satisfied with the vehicle’s on-road fuel efficiency performance.”
The variability of on-road fuel economy is greater for hybrids than for conventional vehicles. Relatively small differences in driver behavior and driving conditions can have a significant effect on the degree to which a hybrid’s gasoline engine is used for propulsion, which affects fuel efficiency.
Changes to C-MAX Hybrid fuel economy labeling process
In addition to improving the vehicle itself, Ford is changing the way it generates the miles-per-gallon label for C-MAX Hybrid going forward. Previously – and consistent with EPA’s General Label rules – testing of the Fusion Hybrid was used to generate fuel economy labels for a family of vehicles, including both Fusion Hybrid and C-MAX Hybrid. The result was the same fuel economy label values for both vehicles.
While the company could continue to use EPA’s General Label for C-MAX Hybrid, Ford voluntarily has decided to test and label C-MAX Hybrid separately going forward. The result will be a lower miles-per-gallon label for the 2013 C-MAX Hybrid. Testing to generate a label for the 2014 C-MAX Hybrid is not yet complete.
The revised 2013 Ford C-MAX Hybrid label will carry a class-leading EPA combined fuel economy value of 43 mpg – topping the combined label value of 42 mpg for the Toyota Prius v.
Because this voluntary step results in miles-per-gallon values different from the original C-MAX Hybrid label, Ford also is making a goodwill payment to current C-MAX Hybrid owners for the estimated average fuel cost of the difference between the two labels. Customers who purchased their vehicle will receive a check from Ford for $550. Customers who leased their vehicle will receive a check for $325.
Existing customers will be notified by mail, and Ford is working with dealers to re-label vehicles on dealer lots. Customers with questions can contact the Ford Customer Relationship Center at http://corporate.ford.com/owner-services/customer-support/contact-ford, or +1-800-392-3673.
Strong C-MAX customer reaction
Customer response to Ford C-MAX is strong. In fact, C-MAX Hybrid and C-MAX Energi plug-in hybrid are driving record U.S. electrified vehicle sales. Ford sold 53,014 electrified vehicles through July – 392 percent higher than a year ago. Two-thirds of buyers are coming from imports.
In addition, the latest J.D. Power APEAL study shows C-MAX Hybrid is scoring high with customers. Engine responsiveness, smoothness, passing power/acceleration, interior quietness and visibility all rank significantly higher than the segment average. Customers also report C-MAX is “more luxurious” and “more innovative,” as well as more environmentally friendly.
Ford’s electrified vehicle market share through the first seven months of this year is 15.4 percent -- a 12-point increase compared with the same period last year.
-- https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2013/08/15/c-max-fuel-economy.html

[RichardJensen]

Everything I've read in the relevant CFRs seems to restrict 'family of vehicles' testing to vehicles where there would be no greater than a 5% variance if they were tested individually. This is more than a 5% variance.

 

And I hope Ford changes processes, targets, and bonuses internally so they don't incentivize further stupidity like this.

[fordmantpw]

Really, Ford? Very careless to use the Fusion label for the C-Max, regardless of the fact that the EPA allows it.

[RichardJensen]

This *seems* to be the section of the code that Ford exploited:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/600.010-08#c

 

FTP and HFET data from the highest projected model year sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales configuration for each base level

 

Which would explain why the Lincoln MKZ wasn't included. Likely they couldn't bin the MKZ under the 'base level Fusion' rubric. Possibly because of weight?

 

And I still can't believe that they were able to bin the C-Max with the Fusion. I mean that's just idiotic.

 

There are regulations that allow you to emissions certify multiple vehicles with the same engine, as outlined in the EPA regs here:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1828-01

 

Within each test group, the vehicle configuration shall be selected which is expected to be worst-case for exhaust emission compliance on candidate in-use vehicles, considering all exhaust emission constituents, all exhaust test procedures, and the potential impact of air conditioning on test results.

 

It would seem Ford used the C-Max to emissions certify the Fusion, MKZ & C-Max, and used the Fusion to generate the labels for both the Fusion & C-Max.

 

In either case, this is in its own way every bit as deceitful as the KIA/Hyundai shenanigans. Ford exploited a nonsensical loophole and Hyundai/KIA flat ignored the regs.

Edited August 15, 2013 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Of course, this is a real disappointment for those who accused Ford of 'cheating'.

 

They weren't cheating. But they weren't behaving ethically either.

[RichardJensen]

However, in the 'learn something new' category, it turns out that the Fusion & C-Max are in the same 'base level', as defined by the EPA---and one wonders whether and how much jiggering was done to get the C-Max into the Fusion's inertia weight class: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/600.002

 

Would love to see Austin's take on this.

[chevys]

Of course, this is a real disappointment for those who accused Ford of 'cheating'.

 

They weren't cheating. But they weren't behaving ethically either.

I am not disappointed at all. They were disingenuous and got caught plain and simple. I am glad you gave us a real explanation that is believable. My question is how in the world did this slip through the cracks?? You would think more care would be taken with something as serious as this.

Edited August 15, 2013 by chevys