RichardJensen Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't call it 'bordering on unethical', Austin, I'd call it outright 'unethical'. Here's something to chew on: Ford wants best-in-class fuel economy for every vehicle, right? Well, the C-Max wasn't best-in-class before the update (per the EPA fact sheet). It was like 1MPG worse than the Prius v. So, it seems pretty easy to infer a top-down push to 'fix' the C-Max FE figures, and-------I suppose------to their credit, Ford's engineers at least figured out a legal way to get best-in-class FE, even if it is both unethical and *extremely* deceptive. Edited August 15, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Forget Ford revising the numbers, how about the EPA revise testing? They don't need to revise testing. They need to revise the process by which vehicles are selected for testing. Throwing in a reference to Cd in the 'base level' definition might suffice in this instance, as that is the principle difference between the Fusion & C-Max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 And your blue oval cheerleading is epic even when they get caught with their pants wrapped around their ankles. And your blue oval cheerleading is epic even when they get caught with their pants wrapped around their ankles. I was correct in that they were not doing anything wrong or illegal in the testing process. Ford could continue with the current labels if they wanted to and it would be perfectly legal. That said I'm with everyone else - this is a stupid thing to do and what's worse is it wasn't necessary. If I know Mulally then heads are probably already rolling starting with the highest ranked person who either knew or should have known this was happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 heads are probably already rolling starting with the highest ranked person who either knew or should have known this was happening. I don't know if you do something like that without ascertaining, first of all, why this was done. If people on the 13th floor are talking to the press about how 'every Ford is going to have class-leading fuel economy', then Mulally, Fields, et al. need to take a long hard look in the mirror before firing anyone. Because it's clear that the C-Max, in its initial tune, did *not* have best-in-class FE, and I would bet dollars to donuts that there was pressure from the top down to get class-leading FE by 'any legal means'. It's the "Will no one rid me of this accursed bishop" situation. Are Mulally & Fields ultimately responsible, if their words and policies (e.g bonus) led to this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 If Mulally and Fields did not make it clear that integrity was more important or if they structured compensation to encourage it then they share blame. Or worse if Mulally signed off on it. But given the bad PR potential I can't imagine that happened. Mulally and Fields are too smart. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_in_va Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 If such a thing is possible I've lost even more trust in the EPA MPG testing process. Why not just have an independent third party actually drive the vehicles out on a real road. Of course the new number for the C-Max is still off. They're saying 43 combined, but most of the mags/blogs got about 38. Same is true for the Fusion. When are thy going to downgrade it's MPG rating? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 If people on the 13th floor are talking to the press about how 'every Ford is going to have class-leading fuel economy', then Mulally, Fields, et al. need to take a long hard look in the mirror before firing anyone. Who is on the 13th floor or what department are you referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 (edited) If such a thing is possible I've lost even more trust in the EPA MPG testing process. Why not just have an independent third party actually drive the vehicles out on a real road. Of course the new number for the C-Max is still off. They're saying 43 combined, but most of the mags/blogs got about 38. Same is true for the Fusion. When are thy going to downgrade it's MPG rating? They got 38 MPG before Ford updated the software. The EPA number for the C-Max without software update is 41 MPG so it is pretty close (38 vs. 41). And EPA basically confirmed Fusion's 47 MPG is correct in its news release about the C-Max. Edited August 16, 2013 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I think the EPA needs to close or at least better define this loophole. For two very different vehicles to share ratings like this is preposterous. I get it that it takes money to certify a vehicle. But if I buy a vehicle, I want to know that the number I see on the sticker is for the car I'm buying....not the Fusion on the other side of the dealership. We all know that it was deceptive for Ford to do this, but I think it's even worse that the EPA allows for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 To me the EPA numbers are just a advertising ploy. I couldn't care less about this whole situation. However I can say that all the cmax and fusion hybrids I have worked on, the cluster all of them have been over 40mpg. Had one today with 41.6 on cmax. My 13 fx4 got 19.5 over the weekend and I am completely happy with that. I can tell a difference with that "may contain 10 percent ethanol" and without. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 To me the EPA numbers are just a advertising ploy. I couldn't care less about this whole situation. However I can say that all the cmax and fusion hybrids I have worked on, the cluster all of them have been over 40mpg. Had one today with 41.6 on cmax. My 13 fx4 got 19.5 over the weekend and I am completely happy with that. I can tell a difference with that "may contain 10 percent ethanol" and without. I had one today that over 4500 miles is averaging 43.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Who is on the 13th floor or what department are you referring to? lingerie.......... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Citation needed. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/20/ford-cmax-jd-power-initial-quality-study-iqs/2440589/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 lingerie.......... You forgot firearms (sporting goods) as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 lingerie.......... That made me bust out laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hysterical: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Well, technically, they weren't. They were following the rules, and they were fully within the letter of the law. I don't agree with what they did, and many other won't either, even if it was within the rules. However, Ford IS doing right by making the change and providing the purchasers with a "we're sorry" gift. What gift are they giving? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryG Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 What gift are they giving? "To make it up to C-Max buyers, Ford will issue rebates. The amount isn't much – $550 to buyers, $325 to lessees – but it is better than nothing." http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/ford-c-max-hybrid-rerated-at-43-mpg-owners-offered-rebates/ That will buy a lot of gas! Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 About time. Saw this coming for a while now. Hopefully we can just move on now with the correct ratings. Still very good for a vehicle of that size. But 47 was a pipe dream. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Forget Ford revising the numbers, how about the EPA revise testing? Not necessary. It's not the EPA testing...it's manufacturer dishonesty. Again, The 2010-2012 Fusion and Escape Hybrid had absolutely no issue meeting the EPA numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Who is on the 13th floor or what department are you referring to? The 13th floor of this building: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 (edited) If Mulally and Fields did not make it clear that integrity was more important or if they structured compensation to encourage it then they share blame. Or worse if Mulally signed off on it. But given the bad PR potential I can't imagine that happened. Mulally and Fields are too smart. I think that was the problem. Mulally and Fields giving directives like "Best in class FE" without overseeing sound guidance throughout the organization on *how* this was to be achieved. Sure, there's company codes about behaving ethically, but what they did was not illegal. And in all honesty, how many people are capable of making the distinction between legal and ethical? And hopefully there's a lesson that comes out of this. When an employee displays bad judgment, there's a question that always needs to get asked, and which is too seldom asked: Why was it easier for this guy to do the wrong thing? We've seen bad judgment with the rush to get the Focus, Escape & Fusion to market, and now we're seeing that it happened with the C-Max as well. I would say that, from the top down, there needs to be some rethinking about priorities, and whether they're trying to do too much with too few resources. Edited August 16, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I think that was the problem. Mulally and Fields giving directives like "Best in class FE" without overseeing sound guidance throughout the organization on *how* this was to be achieved. Sure, there's company codes about behaving ethically, but what they did was not illegal. And in all honesty, how many people are capable of making the distinction between legal and ethical? And hopefully there's a lesson that comes out of this. When an employee displays bad judgment, there's a question that always needs to get asked, and which is too seldom asked: Why was it easier for this guy to do the wrong thing? We've seen bad judgment with the rush to get the Focus, Escape & Fusion to market, and now we're seeing that it happened with the C-Max as well. I would say that, from the top down, there needs to be some rethinking about priorities, and whether they're trying to do too much with too few resources. You may be right, but if this was SOP I don't think ethics came into the planning process. It looks like the trend is get out to market first and fix issues as they arise. Now the plan looks more ambitious with an increase in capital spending for example, the lessons learned better be implemented tout suite. Perhaps they are stretched a bit thin for now. Perhaps Ford didn't expect this issue would take this life of its own. I don't believe they're dishonest but strategic in the placement of their products in labeling and it blew up in their faces. Again Ford issues a Mea Culpa which now IMHO should be the last one and fix the launch, labeling and other issues now. Maybe Command FOMOCO should step up and get the troops back in step opposed to what appears to be fractures in comms and loss of mission statement. It looks more reactionary vice proactive. My point is Ford SOP needs revision and they're doing it. What happens next we'll see and I can only hope some good will come of this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I think the EPA needs to close or at least better define this loophole. For two very different vehicles to share ratings like this is preposterous. I get it that it takes money to certify a vehicle. But if I buy a vehicle, I want to know that the number I see on the sticker is for the car I'm buying....not the Fusion on the other side of the dealership. We all know that it was deceptive for Ford to do this, but I think it's even worse that the EPA allows for it. I just do the reasonable thing: Ignore the sticker altogether and not get all worked up when the fuel economy doesn't match a number on a sticker derived through a process that will never, EVER match how I drive a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Saw this coming for a while now. Which part did you see coming? The part where the EPA said that Ford had done nothing wrong, or the part where Ford voluntarily altered window stickers without being forced to? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 "To make it up to C-Max buyers, Ford will issue rebates. The amount isn't much – $550 to buyers, $325 to lessees – but it is better than nothing." http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/ford-c-max-hybrid-rerated-at-43-mpg-owners-offered-rebates/ That will buy a lot of gas! Gary Not really, considering the real life fuel economy of the C-Max is similar to a F150 Supercrew. Or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.