Deanh Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Could Ford have used this same loop hole on other vehicles? lol...yes, the MPGs on the eco boost F-150s are those of the SHO......ahem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 (edited) Could Ford have used this same loop hole on other vehicles? Not likely. Maybe the Taurus & MKS? Possibly the Edge & MKX? The vehicles have to have close to the same curb weight and identical powertrains. Edited August 16, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 (edited) Not likely. Maybe the Taurus & MKS? Possibly the Edge & MKX? The vehicles have to have close to the same curb weight and identical powertrains. Just remember, we thought the above situation was not likely...... I wonder if the pressure to compete and get that best in class fuel economy is now coming at an unforeseen cost.... Ford is a company now making errors in judgement across a lot of issues, I hope Ford's people find their feet and begin strengthening their credibility. You'll never convince skeptics but please shut the door on issues that give naysayers an easy win.. Edited August 16, 2013 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Well, remember that the powertrain has to be identical right down to the axle ratio--and the vehicles have to be in the same 'inertial weight class', basically within the same roughly 5% band either side of the weights on this table: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.129-94 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 (edited) 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? The part where Ford would have to swallow hard and change the numbers. And Ford most certainly did do something wrong. Hence the change. If they did nothing wrong, there would NOT have been a "software reprogram" (which is fishy enough) and the sticker change. Edited August 16, 2013 by EBFlex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 If they did nothing wrong, there would NOT have been a "software reprogram" (which is fishy enough) By that logic, every company is always doing things wrong, except for those companies that never improve their products. By your logic, only companies that never improve their products are doing things right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 My point is the EPA test cycle isn't granular enough to have real meaning (despite them mistakenly thinking it might) to buyers looking at the window sticker, nor is it designed to be an average accurate of real world driving. If it was, situations like this wouldn't be possible to come up and cause a public outcry, regardless of the technicalities a manufacturer followed. You wouldn't have diesels taking a EPA vs. real world 3-8 (or more) mpg hit, the test would be accurate. You wouldn't have hybrids posting EPA numbers they won't hit in real world usage. This blow up with the CMAX is just an indiction of a far larger problem, the elephant in the room, of the EPA test cycle being far too vague. Rather than admitting this, and actually doing something about it, the EPA instead spends time on a label for E15. Sweet...that'll help the customer... I will retract my statement that the EPA test does not need to be changed. Actually, it needs to be thrown out completely. I'm not going to blame the victim (customers) on why the Cmax didn't meet the pipe dream ratings, driving style isn't as important as some of the other insanely flawed aspects of the test. TTAC did a great write up on this issue: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/editorial-time-for-fuel-economy-reform/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I am sure the C-MAX and all other car/truck products that Ford sells are tested for MPG more than once during the preproduction test period. Does anyone question that if the C-MAX was able to returned better MPG during the test than what was "given" to it via the Fusion Hy, the tested numbers with higher MPG figures would be on the car's EPA sticker and not the "legal" MPG numbers. Apply this logic in reverse. Why didn't Ford use the tested MPG numbers from the C-MAX for the Fusion Hy? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 By that logic, every company is always doing things wrong, except for those companies that never improve their products. By your logic, only companies that never improve their products are doing things right. You're twisting my words. Scheduled improvements does not mean that the product is "wrong". Not sure where you are getting that. This is *quite* different than a scheduled improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamamultitasker Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Forget grocery stores, Ford saw an opportunity under the regulations to use one lot of testing to cover two vehicles.In my opinion, there was no intent to deceive, just to save money and resources - which fits with Ford's objectives. Were they dumb for not doing the additional tests and confirming the fuel economy of C-Max? Yes. Are they guilty of anything more like deceptive and misleading conduct? No. This is a motor company tieing itself in knots and having its credibility questioned all for the sake of skipping testing because a loophole said they could use another vehicle. Are you serious? You think this was done to save money? You actually think they slapped the Fusion Hybrid's EPA numbers on a different hybrid car without testing it and called it good to save a few thousand dollars? If this is true, this company is completely messed up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 The software upgrades were due to three things and caring about the customer was not one of them. Owners raising hell about lousy mileage, the class action lawsuits, and CR dropping a bomb on them. Otherwise, I dont think Ford would have done a thing about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Say you go to a grocery store. You have a recipe that calls for cheddar cheese. You get to the grocery store, and you find out that all of the cheese is just labeled 'cheese'. There is no information about what kind of cheese it is. So you pick the cheese that *looks like* cheddar cheese, and you get home and find out that it's not cheddar cheese. It's colby. You savage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 The software upgrades were due to three things and caring about the customer was not one of them. Owners raising hell about lousy mileage, the class action lawsuits, and CR dropping a bomb on them. Otherwise, I dont think Ford would have done a thing about it. My thing is...you can do anything with software. And Ford could make ANY MPG reading come across the display in the car. I'm not saying Ford did that, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Ford has absolutely zero credibility on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 I will retract my statement that the EPA test does not need to be changed. Actually, it needs to be thrown out completely. Oh. So you have a problem with the *test*? That's great. Let's completely alter the *test*, but leave in the loophole that lets a company play games with *which* vehicle is tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Ford has absolutely zero credibility on this issue. Who died and made you the credibility king? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Otherwise, I dont think Ford would have done a thing about it. So you're saying that if Ford got it right the first time, they wouldn't have fixed it? I'm having a hard time following that. Could you perhaps explain it using cheese as an example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Forget grocery stores, Ford saw an opportunity under the regulations to use one lot of testing to cover two vehicles.In my opinion, there was no intent to deceive, just to save money and resources - which fits with Ford's objectives. As I understand it, emissions certification requires use of the dirtiest model line in a base level, while the FE label is based on the best selling model line in a base level. Therefore, they would have had to emissions certify the hybrid powertrain using the C-Max, and the emissions certification tests are the same as the FE tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Well, remember that the powertrain has to be identical right down to the axle ratio--and the vehicles have to be in the same 'inertial weight class', basically within the same roughly 5% band either side of the weights on this table: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.129-94 Where does aerodynamics come in? what Moron though that the Fusion and C-max were comparable aerodynamically? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Just remember, we thought the above situation was not likely...... I wonder if the pressure to compete and get that best in class fuel economy is now coming at an unforeseen cost.... Ford is a company now making errors in judgement across a lot of issues, I hope Ford's people find their feet and begin strengthening their credibility. You'll never convince skeptics but please shut the door on issues that give naysayers an easy win.. yes, running you plants too fast and producing poor Quality products was huge problem. Not testing Ecoboost engines, in a way that made sure that they don't go into a feedback loop that causes fires. there have been numerous issues with Ford for a while now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Who died and made you the credibility king? credibility? you are being an apologist, for everything Ford does wrong you have an Excuse for them. Even when they admit wrong doing you still have an excuse for them. Poor Quality, Blame Europe Engine fires, Blame Europe Using EPA Loophole for Bogus MPGs number , Blame...................... Talk about Cheese. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 As I understand it, emissions certification requires use of the dirtiest model line in a base level, while the FE label is based on the best selling model line in a base level. Therefore, they would have had to emissions certify the hybrid powertrain using the C-Max, and the emissions certification tests are the same as the FE tests. so they Cherry-picked the fusion's numbers, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 I guess you guys missed the part where everyone said what Ford did was wrong and unethical. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Aerodynamics are not included in the EPA's definition of 'base level'. And if you're going to persist in asserting that Ford never ran the EPA cycle on the C-Max, then you'll have to explain to me how they emissions certified this engine/transmission combination in compliance with 40 CFR 86.1828 Where does aerodynamics come in? what Moron though that the Fusion and C-max were comparable aerodynamically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Even when they admit wrong doing you still have an excuse for them. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 so they Cherry-picked the fusion's numbers, right? ignoratio elenchi. Your original assertion was that Ford never tested the C-Max. 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.