Ford to lower C-Max Fuel Economy Rating

[BrewfanGRB]

Yeah, you completely missed my point.

 

No, I didn't. Your point was simply silly.

[EBFlex]

No, I didn't. Your point was simply silly.

 

You think it was scheduled to substantially lower the EPA FE numbers?

 

And you think that the software reprogram was in no way a response to buyers that are seeing substantially lower figures than they were told they would see?

 

I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, it's not warranted based on the totality of the circumstances. And I question exactly what the "software update" actually did. You can do anything with software and make any readout say anything.

 

Now I wouldn't be surprised if you dismiss my points with some nonsense that I'm being a negatard and because I'm not the EPA I can't have an opinion. But the truth is, I am a massive fan of the American auto industry and it really irks me when a company does something like this which is completely avoidable and makes the automaker look terrible. They've all done it, but I expected better. It's frustrating.

Edited August 18, 2013 by EBFlex

[fordmantpw]

And I question exactly what the "software update" actually did. You can do anything with software and make any readout say anything.

 

I guaran-freaking-tee you that Ford didn't just update the readout on the dash to display an overly optimistic fuel economy number. Ford knows better, especially after this mess with the C-Max.

 

Oh, and about your bellyaching about Ford doing this just because of this issue with the C-Max, the programming update was done for the Fusion as well, not just the C-Max.

[BrewfanGRB]

You think it was scheduled to substantially lower the EPA FE numbers?

 

And you think that the software reprogram was in no way a response to buyers that are seeing substantially lower figures than they were told they would see?

 

I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, it's not warranted based on the totality of the circumstances. And I question exactly what the "software update" actually did. You can do anything with software and make any readout say anything.

 

Now I wouldn't be surprised if you dismiss my points with some nonsense that I'm being a negatard and because I'm not the EPA I can't have an opinion. But the truth is, I am a massive fan of the American auto industry and it really irks me when a company does something like this which is completely avoidable and makes the automaker look terrible. They've all done it, but I expected better. It's frustrating.

 

I don't disagree with the idea that Ford screwed up in its handling of this. It shouldn't have relied on the "loophole" and just stickered the C-Max w/ a real FE number. Not very many us have really disagreed with you at all on this. And sure, the software update is suspiciously coincidental...but they still needed to put the time and money into it to make it work. My objection was purely to your assertion "well, it wasn't a planned update, so I'll dismiss the update/changes out of hand. I only consider SCHEDULED changes and improvements."

 

And the FTR, I don't think you'll find many EPA fanboy defenders here, either. I think we (for the most part) agree the testing protocols and regs are imperfect. But improving it isn't as simple as "be more right in the real world".

[luv4beer]

Your right about that. If I want gas mileage I will go and buy a 15K Fiesta and get 35mpg and call it a day instead of dropping 25K on a Cmax. My perception is those who chose to buy hybrids are zealots and fuel economy is almost a game to them. So for those who consider the Cmax I think its a serious issue to them.

We checked out the Fiesta and Focus - both were too small for what we needed. The C-Max was pushing it considering my wife was drop-kicking her Chevy minivan, but we figured we could make it work w/o every seeing one before ordering it a year ago.

 

So far, everything has worked out pretty well. The C-Max offers quite a bit more space & storage than a Fiesta and even the Focus. It is a fabulous car despite the bad press. I've driven all 3 several times, and it would be ignorant to make comparisons between them - so different.

 

Unless you've spent time in a C-Max, you probably should refrain from your "perception" responses. This is a quality-built spacious vehicle with many features that gets significantly better overall MPG than a Fiesta. There is no comparison - both cars do their thing quite well.

[EBFlex]

I guaran-freaking-tee you that Ford didn't just update the readout on the dash to display an overly optimistic fuel economy number. Ford knows better, especially after this mess with the C-Max.

 

Oh, and about your bellyaching about Ford doing this just because of this issue with the C-Max, the programming update was done for the Fusion as well, not just the C-Max.

 

The software update happened before the change in the EPA figures. And at this point, I would be surprised if Ford did just that as a way to "calm the fires" so to speak. The whole notion that the Cmax/Fusion twins needed a "software update" so soon after going on sale is suspicious. Now there may be something to it beyond a reading on the display as the EPA has stated (but who knows who provided the EPA with these figures) as the Cmax would have only managed 41 MPG versus the revised 43 (if I recall correctly), but only Ford really knows.

 

I don't disagree with the idea that Ford screwed up in its handling of this. It shouldn't have relied on the "loophole" and just stickered the C-Max w/ a real FE number. Not very many us have really disagreed with you at all on this. And sure, the software update is suspiciously coincidental...but they still needed to put the time and money into it to make it work. My objection was purely to your assertion "well, it wasn't a planned update, so I'll dismiss the update/changes out of hand. I only consider SCHEDULED changes and improvements."

 

And the FTR, I don't think you'll find many EPA fanboy defenders here, either. I think we (for the most part) agree the testing protocols and regs are imperfect. But improving it isn't as simple as "be more right in the real world".

 

That was not my assertion. You need to re-read the entire exchange starting with post number 130 on page 7.

 

Essentially, my assertion is that had the Cmax/Fusion twins even come CLOSE to the fuel economy figure advertised by Ford, there would not have been any software update.

Edited August 18, 2013 by EBFlex

[silvrsvt]

Essentially, my assertion is that had the Cmax/Fusion twins even come CLOSE to the fuel economy figure advertised by Ford, there would not have been any software update.

 

And your assertion is completely wrong...much in the same way that Ford stupidly played a loophole for the C-max...there hasn't been any reports of the Fusion not meeting its advertised figures from the EPA, only the C-Max has been found at fault

[akirby]

Ford has done nothing wrong or unethical with Fusion mpg. The EPA has had time to review and redo the test results if necessary.

 

Fusion hybrids were launched in winter where ALL hybrids get worse mpg. Ford won't make that mistake again. Now that it's summer there are plenty of owners getting 47 mpg or close to it.

 

The sticker mpg has NEVER been a promise to a consumer that they'll get that mpg. NEVER. The EPA tests are done primarily for CAFE reasons. Window stickers are just an added benefit that says "This vehicle got X mpg on our standardized repeatable test". Nothing more nothing less.

 

Ford's hybrids are different and may show more variability from the EPA test in the real world for one simple reason - they can go much faster (62 mph before the update, 85 now) on electric power only than the competition (still in the 40s). And the EPA test is started with a full hybrid battery charge - not likely to happen in the real world. Ford's EPA test drivers are experts at getting the most out of the hybrid batteries both from an acceleration and braking standpoint. Consumers who drive the same way - in summer temps with summer fuel and no ethanol - can expect to see the same. But I doubt most hybrid drivers - especially NEW hybrid buyers - can do that effectively.

 

As for the computer changes and the display readout - hogwash. The EPA doesn't use the display to calculate fuel usage. They actually collect the exhaust particles and weigh them to determine how much fuel was burned.

 

To insinuate that Ford simply changed the dash mpg display is downright stupid considering how easy it is to calculate fuel consumption manually and the potential backlash from such a move.

[rkisler]

Ford has done nothing wrong or unethical with Fusion mpg. The EPA has had time to review and redo the test results if necessary.

 

Fusion hybrids were launched in winter where ALL hybrids get worse mpg. Ford won't make that mistake again. Now that it's summer there are plenty of owners getting 47 mpg or close to it.

 

The sticker mpg has NEVER been a promise to a consumer that they'll get that mpg. NEVER. The EPA tests are done primarily for CAFE reasons. Window stickers are just an added benefit that says "This vehicle got X mpg on our standardized repeatable test". Nothing more nothing less.

 

Ford's hybrids are different and may show more variability from the EPA test in the real world for one simple reason - they can go much faster (62 mph before the update, 85 now) on electric power only than the competition (still in the 40s). And the EPA test is started with a full hybrid battery charge - not likely to happen in the real world. Ford's EPA test drivers are experts at getting the most out of the hybrid batteries both from an acceleration and braking standpoint. Consumers who drive the same way - in summer temps with summer fuel and no ethanol - can expect to see the same. But I doubt most hybrid drivers - especially NEW hybrid buyers - can do that effectively.

 

As for the computer changes and the display readout - hogwash. The EPA doesn't use the display to calculate fuel usage. They actually collect the exhaust particles and weigh them to determine how much fuel was burned.

 

To insinuate that Ford simply changed the dash mpg display is downright stupid considering how easy it is to calculate fuel consumption manually and the potential backlash from such a move.

Generally agree with one exception.

 

All battery power in a hybrid comes from the burning of fuel. Given this, my understanding of the EPA testing protocol is that the state of charge of the battery is very carefully monitored, and you have to stay within (IIRC) 5% of the original state of charge at the end of the test. In other words, you can't use a full battery and run it down to generate higher fuel economy numbers.

[silvrsvt]

All battery power in a hybrid comes from the burning of fuel.

 

What about regenerative braking?

 

[rkisler]

What about regenerative braking?

Regen braking is only recovering some of the energy that was originally produced by burning fuel. Unless it's a PHEV or EREV, then there is no other external source of power other than the fuel the ICE is burning.

[akirby]

Generally agree with one exception.

 

All battery power in a hybrid comes from the burning of fuel. Given this, my understanding of the EPA testing protocol is that the state of charge of the battery is very carefully monitored, and you have to stay within (IIRC) 5% of the original state of charge at the end of the test. In other words, you can't use a full battery and run it down to generate higher fuel economy numbers.

 

Interesting. I'll have to see if I can find that reference. It certainly makes more sense to do it the way you described.

[EBFlex]

there hasn't been any reports of the Fusion not meeting its advertised figures from the EPA, only the C-Max has been found at fault

 

Wrong.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33083

 

And if the same powertrain in the Cmax was found to be grossly overstated in terms of fuel economy, don't you think that the Fusion would have the same issues too?

[Extreme4x4]

I thought we had already determined that the Fusion and C-Max are very different vehicles.

 

Also, the Fusion Hybrids EPA mileage is what was used for the C-Max, not visa versa.

 

Of course you knew that, but keep trying to insist that the Fusion Hybrid is a fraud. You saying it over and over again will not make it so, so get over it.

[RichardJensen]

And if the same powertrain in the Cmax was found to be grossly overstated in terms of fuel economy, don't you think that the Fusion would have the same issues too?

 

The C-Max was overstated because Ford used the Fusion numbers for the C-Max. How could the Fusion have the "same" issues?

[Anthony]

The C-Max was overstated because Ford used the Fusion numbers for the C-Max. How could the Fusion have the "same" issues?

 

 

Ding ding. The numbers for the Fusion should be right on the money. Those were the numbers stated for the Fusion as well as the C-Max.

[EBFlex]

The C-Max was overstated because Ford used the Fusion numbers for the C-Max. How could the Fusion have the "same" issues?

 

 

Ding ding. The numbers for the Fusion should be right on the money. Those were the numbers stated for the Fusion as well as the C-Max.

 

The Fusion is doing no better in the fuel economy department than the Cmax. It's averaging around 40 MPG versus the advertised 47.

[jeff_h]

The Fusion is doing no better in the fuel economy department than the Cmax. It's averaging around 40 MPG versus the advertised 47.

 

Really?

[akirby]

Really?

 

I was going to ask you to post your fuel economy but I see it's in your signature.

 

Even though I graduated from UGA I'm pretty sure 48 > 47.

Edited August 19, 2013 by akirby

[akirby]

The Fusion is doing no better in the fuel economy department than the Cmax. It's averaging around 40 MPG versus the advertised 47.

 

That's never the question. The question is whether the Fusion hybrid gets 47 on the EPA test. It does. The Cmax didn't and that's why it's being changed. It's that simple.

[EBFlex]

Really?

 

Yes, really. I'll post the same link for the millionth time.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33083

 

There will be some outliers, but the majority of cars do not see the figures Ford advertises.

 

 

That's never the question. The question is whether the Fusion hybrid gets 47 on the EPA test. It does. The Cmax didn't and that's why it's being changed. It's that simple.

 

Up until last week, the Cmax did too.

[Extreme4x4]

It doesn't matter what people who post on fueleconomy.gov say. As long as the car gets the 47 in EPA testing, then that is what goes on the sticker.

 

All your whining and crying about it will change nothing.

 

And no, up until last week the Cmax didn't. Ford just used the same sticker as from the Fusion, which they were allowed to do by the EPA. That is why Ford is changing the sticker. Please try to follow along.

[akirby]

Up until last week, the Cmax did too.

 

 

And no, up until last week the Cmax didn't.

 

 

Gloria is right. The CMax never actually got 47 mpg on the test because they didn't test it. We keep telling you that but you aren't listening.

[sullynd]

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

 

He's not going to realize he's wrong, or at least once he did/does he will not admit it.

Edited August 19, 2013 by sullynd

[BrewfanGRB]

Essentially, my assertion is that had the Cmax/Fusion twins even come CLOSE to the fuel economy figure advertised by Ford, there would not have been any software update.

 

If the real-life figures were close to the sticker figures and they could get another 2-3 mpg (or whatever) out of "just" doing a software update, why the hell wouldn't they do so? It helps CAFE and it'd help them batter Toyota over FE even more. The idea that they could improve FE (both in RL and on the sticker) by doing a software update but wouldn't is implausible to the point of being unbelievable. Then again, the idea that you would present this idea is completely believable and expected.

Edited August 19, 2013 by BrewfanGRB