Ford to lower C-Max Fuel Economy Rating

[RichardJensen]

there have been numerous issues with Ford for a while now.

Yep. Ever since they did what you wanted them to do.

[iamamultitasker]

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?

 

lol.

[BrewfanGRB]

No one, regardless of any type of system used that would have a prayer of making it to the masses, will get an accurate result if they're driving like Mario. Thing is, out of the EPA solution or my proposed solution, mine is far far more accurate for the non-Mario types, and even far more accurate for even the Mario types, as at least, they'd have to pick a far more specific usage scenario which would automagically get them closer to a more representative number. We can try it another way:

 

Go to your grocery counter and ask the deli person for cheese (City). When they ask what type of cheese, simply reply cheese. Eventually, when they give you a munster and you instead wanted swiss, you will understand why actually having more specific categories is a better way to go about things. Next, walk down to the butcher, and ask for Meat (Highway). When he asks what kind of meat, reply with just meat. When he eventually gives you 80/20 ground beef and you really wanted a ribeye, again you will understand why having a more specific category, even one called Steak, or even better, Higher End Steaks, would be far better than Meat.

 

When you arrive home and tell your wife, who sent you to the store for swiss cheese and ribeye steaks, that you instead got munster and 80/20 ground beef, and she asks why, just tell her you simply asked for Cheese and Meat because it's the same thing. When she blows up at the absurdity of that explanation, tell her there is no real solution.

 

How accepting of that do you think she will be?

 

Chuck

 

And what happens when you ask for "meat" and when they ask: "Beef, chicken or pork?", you say "pork". When your wife asks why you bought pork steak instead of ribeye, you say "But I thought we always ate pork steak on Thursdays?" and your wife says "No, dear, it's ribeye."

 

The point is, if given 8 choices, the customer (who, on average, is an idiot), will pick the best-case scenario. When his real-life results don't match that number (because his real-life driving is NOT the "best-case scenario"), he's mad. Perhaps even madder because he thinks "They give me 8 choices...I'm no car expert, I don't know what to pick, but they had one where I could get 45 mpg in the C-Max, why don't *I* get that?"

 

I just think you're VASTLY overestimating the intelligence, competence and self-honesty of HUMANS.

[EBFlex]

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.

 

Where did I say leave the loophole?

 

Do I really have to state that needs to go away?

 

 

Who died and made you the credibility king?

 

Same person that make you an expert on everything automotive related apparently.

[RichardJensen]

Where did I say leave the loophole?

 

Was the problem the *test*, or was the problem the *loophole*?

 

The test yielded 41 MPG combined for the C-Max which compares to 40.2 on Fuelly----a site that some here trust over the EPA's scientifically sound, reproducible results.

 

So the question remains: Do you think the *test* is flawed, or is the *loophole* which exempted the C-Max from the test flawed?

Edited August 17, 2013 by RichardJensen

[EBFlex]

Was the problem the *test*, or was the problem the *loophole*?

 

The test yielded 41 MPG combined for the C-Max which compares to 40.2 on Fuelly----a site that some here trust over the EPA's scientifically sound, reproducible results.

 

So the question remains: Do you think the *test* is flawed, or is the *loophole* which exempted the C-Max from the test flawed?

 

Yes.

 

The loophole is insanely stupid and it was insanely stupid for Ford to try and exploit that loophole. They should care about their customers more than beating the Prius or making great headlines for ads. There are aspects of this test (which started life as an emissions test) that need to change. Just the fact they don't allow ethanol fuel to be used should invalidate the test as most states stupidly require ethanol in the fuel. Another one is not requiring all axle ratios to be tested on a given model.

[mettech]

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

 

 

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.

[fordtech1]

I think ford was being an opportunist and saw a loophole to get good numbers for marketing. I think they knew it would be hard to attain those numbers. However I still think you can obtain those mpgs just not easily. All this moaning and finger pointing doesn't matter. Because the C-Max is selling and the 14 will be better, plus owners will get a few bucks back. This like KIAs mess, will go away and it won't matter in a couple months.

 

One thing everyone should remember, this a the car business, capitalism. It doesn't matter if it's Chevy, Toyota, Ford,..... They are out to sell cars and make money. I am sure if you looked deep into any companies internal memos, our jaws would drop.

This is not just the automakers, look at food companies. You don't want to know what's in a chicken nugget. They get by on the regulations that they are given.

 

Another point, look at building codes, if it passes then it's good. But we all know how corners are cut for costs. Same thing to me.

[fordtech1]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, yes Ford got caught with their pants down on this one. They should have known, being a crazy important issue right now, that the cmax would be scrutinized for FE. Thats why most people buy it.

[chevys]

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?

Legally, yes they got it right. Morally and ethically they could not have been more deceiving, disingenuous, and flat out liars . Jensen, you know this but you would argue with a fencepost for the sake of argument. Fords credibility has taken a big hit here and the head of mileagegate made me and everyone else the credibility police. Its not the owners fault anymore than its the critics or Consumer Reports fault. THIS IS FORDS EF UP and theirs alone.

 

People dont care that they used a legal loophole to inflate mileage numbers. They care that they were deceived when comparing the numbers Ford published to competitors. Of all the vehicles Ford makes you could not pick a worse one to fudge the numbers up on.

[chevys]

. Another one is not requiring all axle ratios to be tested on a given model.

+1 on that. I have often wondered how this would effect the results especially with the trucks that have usually 3 options for rear gears.

[mackinaw]

......People dont care that they used a legal loophole to inflate mileage numbers.......

 

By and large, people don't care about hybrids at all. Only 3.3% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2012 were hybrids. 96.7% were powered by gasoline or diesel engines. Most Americans are more concerned about tomorrow's weather forecast.

[chevys]

By and large, people don't care about hybrids at all. Only 3.3% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2012 were hybrids. 96.7% were powered by gasoline or diesel engines. Most Americans are more concerned about tomorrow's weather forecast.

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.

[aneekr]

By and large, people don't care about hybrids at all. Only 3.3% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2012 were hybrids. 96.7% were powered by gasoline or diesel engines. Most Americans are more concerned about tomorrow's weather forecast.

 

Among that 3.3% of vehicles classified as hybrids, over two-thirds were Toyota products in 2012.

Edited August 17, 2013 by aneekr

[RichardJensen]

Another one is not requiring all axle ratios to be tested on a given model.

 

They are all tested. The results are averaged over the expected sales ratio. 40 CFR 600.209 (b)(2).

[RichardJensen]

Legally, yes they got it right.

 

You completely missed the point of my post.

 

Your argument is the trivial assertion that Ford would not have done something if they hadn't seen a need to do it.

 

Trying to construct this into an argument that companies improve products 'only when they have something to hide' is as unsupportable as your other assumption is trivial.

Edited August 17, 2013 by RichardJensen

[iamamultitasker]

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.

 

I don't fully agree with this premise. First of all, you are not making a valid comparison. A C-Max is a lot bigger than a Fiesta and might be purchased if you wanted some features of a CUV along with good gas mileage and good driving dynamics vs another CUV. Here, the price difference would be a lot less and if you drove a lot and gas prices stay high, you might be able to justify a hybrid purchase based on economy. A Fiesta would better compare to a car like the Prius C which is around 20K and here again, the economics are much better than in your comparison.

 

IMO, as the price of hybrids drops and gas keeps going up, hybrids are appealing to more than the zealots which is why Ford is investing so much in this area and the sale of hybrids keeps climbing.

 

This is why this C-Max debacle is such egg on Ford's face.

[BrewfanGRB]

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.

 

What?? So if a company finds a better way to produce a product or additional research finally yields the ability to produce a better product, then the introduction of that product better be "scheduled"? My God.

[BrewfanGRB]

Using EPA Loophole for Bogus MPGs number , Blame...................... Talk about Cheese.

 

Uhh, Richard wasn't the one that brought up that truly stupid analogy.

[aneekr]

What?? So if a company finds a better way to produce a product or additional research finally yields the ability to produce a better product, then the introduction of that product better be "scheduled"?

 

Yes. That's a fundamental tenet of industrial engineering, product lifecycle management, and NPD.

[EBFlex]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, yes Ford got caught with their pants down on this one. They should have known, being a crazy important issue right now, that the cmax would be scrutinized for FE. Thats why most people buy it.

 

It would not have been scrutinized had the original numbers been achievable on a regular basis. Plus, the whole Hyundai/Kia fiasco and rumors that Ford ratted them out, it's kinda the perfect storm. Honesty is best and Ford was 100% dishonest and continues to be with the Fusion/MKZ. I hope they realize that they need to make things right and the sooner they do that the sooner this will all go away.

[Extreme4x4]

Actually, this whole argument is rather funny. On GMI, nobody cares. The few who hate anything that Ford does, doesn't do, may do, or may not do are in horror (as is expected). However, other folks think it is great that Ford is admitting their error, correcting it, and compensating buyers.................... unlike what Honda did.

 

On Motortrends forum, you have the typical Ford haters who are aghast that such a thing could happen. Other than that, not too many people care. This same phenomena pretty much carries over everywhere.

 

Frankly, the only place it is being talked about a lot, is here. However, even here the argument is following the general consensus of other sites............................ it is just going on much longer.

 

Companies do stupid things. Hopefully they learn from their stupid things. That remains to be seen, in this instance. However, at least they have come clean (as clean as you can expect them to come) and are changing things. The certain contingent here will not be happy with anything that they do however...................... as they never are................... about anything.................... EVER.

 

Oh, no apologies here. It was stupid. How it came to be needs to be examined, and never allowed to happen again.

 

Ford is not being dishonest about the Fusion/MKZ. The EPA has upheld Fords results on that one. So sorry that you are wrong, EB. I'm sure it must be the very first time that has happened....................... well....................... at least in your mind.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Extreme4x4

[EBFlex]

What?? So if a company finds a better way to produce a product or additional research finally yields the ability to produce a better product, then the introduction of that product better be "scheduled"? My God.

 

Yeah, you completely missed my point.

[EBFlex]

Companies do stupid things. Hopefully they learn from their stupid things. That remains to be seen, in this instance.

 

Oh, no apologies here. It was stupid. How it came to be needs to be examined, and never allowed to happen again.

 

End thread. Well said.

Edited August 17, 2013 by EBFlex

[BrewfanGRB]

Yes. That's a fundamental tenet of industrial engineering, product lifecycle management, and NPD.

 

You missed the point. It's the idea that the C-Max software upgrades (along w/ the hardware updates on '14's) weren't "scheduled", therefore, they don't count I was objecting to.