V8-X Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) WASHINGTON -- After cracking down on Hyundai, Kia and Ford, the EPA is preparing to shine a more public spotlight on automakers' fuel economy claims. This fall, the agency plans to release the results of industrywide audits that included tests on more than 20 car and light-truck models this year, said Christopher Grundler, head of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, in an interview last week. http://www.autonews.com/article/20131003/OEM11/131009934/epa-to-go-public-with-results-of-vehicle-mpg-audits#axzz2h3uCkuJe So what's the consensus on how Ford, or those Ford models reviewed will fair? Funny since the Tundra owners seem to already believe the EB will be a disaster. Heck, they even used the EB logo to influence their traffic/posters. I think those Tundra owners are just afraid that the EB actually gets the mpg quoted and puts down more power than their 5.7L. http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/epa-reveal-mpg-tests/#comment-94015 Edited October 7, 2013 by V8-X 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I must've missed it--when did the EPA crack down on Ford? Ford voluntarily altered the window stickers on the C-Max, but the EPA also said that they'd done nothing wrong, which is hardly the same thing as "cracking down" on Ford. I expect better of Automotive News. As for the Tundraheads, I'm not particularly interested in their opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I must've missed it--when did the EPA crack down on Ford? Ford voluntarily altered the window stickers on the C-Max, but the EPA also said that they'd done nothing wrong, which is hardly the same thing as "cracking down" on Ford. I expect better of Automotive News. My thoughts exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I know I saw an article late last week that the EPA was complaining about the drivers that the auto makers have drive their cars for MPG reporting, saying they where too good and gaming the system to a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I have no doubt Ford's EPA test drivers are the best in the world, especially with Ford products. But that's not "gaming" anything - it's just maxing out your test results. The test parameters are very clear and as long as they stay within the parameters then there is no issue. What would you have them do - tank on purpose? Not happening when CAFE non-compliance comes with hefty penalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I know I saw an article late last week that the EPA was complaining about the drivers that the auto makers have drive their cars for MPG reporting, saying they where too good and gaming the system to a point. Only a government agency would complain about someone following the rules TOO well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Looking forward to the new testing. Beware hybrids and EB program. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I have a diehard Toyota friend and he has a Tundra and needless to say he wont admit it's a POS, but it has it's fair share of issues. One time I followed him to dinner and had to cross a railroad track in an area of brick paved roads and I had to call him on the cell and ask "HEY did your bed hit the cab, bed was shaking its hips like Charo!'...he rudely hung up on me. And the interior plastic was donated by Matel I'm convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Looking forward to the new testing. Beware hybrids and EB program. Why is that? If you don't drive like an idiot with a EB engine, you should be fine. It does take some adjusting to get good MPG's out of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Looking forward to the new testing. Beware hybrids and EB program. Uh, there is no new testing. And regarding coast down, that has nothing to do with EB engines and almost nothing to do with hybrids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I have no doubt Ford's EPA test drivers are the best in the world, especially with Ford products. But that's not "gaming" anything - it's just maxing out your test results. The test parameters are very clear and as long as they stay within the parameters then there is no issue. What would you have them do - tank on purpose? Not happening when CAFE non-compliance comes with hefty penalties. The primary complaint was that your typical driver wouldn't see the same MPG numbers as a professionally trained driver... I found the article here: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/04/epa-automakers-fuel-economy-drivers-too-good/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 The primary complaint was that your typical driver wouldn't see the same MPG numbers as a professionally trained driver... I found the article here: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/04/epa-automakers-fuel-economy-drivers-too-good/ Interesting. I almost always surpass the EPA figures for my F150, even when running E85. fueleconomy.gov lists my truck at 12/16/14 (city/hwy/mix) on regular gasoline, but I typically average 14-15 city and 18-19 highway. On E85 it's listed at 9/12/10 but average 12 city and 15-16 highway. Either their figures are way off or I'm not your typical driver. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) Interesting that Tundra fanboy's believe the EB will fail and is the most likely vehicle gaming the system because of these items. Personally, I find no correlation with the F150 EB failing due to the C-Max statement nor the lawsuit. What do either have to do with the F150 EB EPA rating? And don't think the EPA is going to test an F150 that is experiencing the intercooler issues, which Ford has issued a TSB for. EB intercooler issue: http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/ford-ecoboost-lawsuit-defects-flaws-assembly-problems/ Fuel Injection lawsuit: http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/ford-sued-ecoboost-fuel-injection-system/ Revised C-Max mpg figures" http://green.autoblog.com/2013/05/17/ford-hit-with-another-mpg-lawsuit-claim/ Edited October 8, 2013 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 The primary complaint was that your typical driver wouldn't see the same MPG numbers as a professionally trained driver... I understand that but I don't consider it "gaming" when the goal of any fuel economy test is to get the highest mpg rating while staying within the test parameters - especially when the companies face penalties for CAFE non-compliance. But as long as there is ONE published number there will never be a perfect solution because "real world" results will always be a wide range depending on driving conditions and dozens of other factors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I understand that but I don't consider it "gaming" when the goal of any fuel economy test is to get the highest mpg rating while staying within the test parameters - especially when the companies face penalties for CAFE non-compliance. But as long as there is ONE published number there will never be a perfect solution because "real world" results will always be a wide range depending on driving conditions and dozens of other factors. The other crazy thing is that its only a different of 1% or so in the time period given! I can see if it was 5-10% increase, but seriously...1% is in the margin of error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 The other crazy thing is that its only a different of 1% or so in the time period given! I can see if it was 5-10% increase, but seriously...1% is in the margin of error Or even 2%. On a combined avg of 25 mpg that's only a difference of 0.5 mpg. That's a rounding error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="silvrsvt" data-cid="875143" data-time="1381199364"><p> <br /> Why is that? If you don't drive like an idiot with a EB engine, you should be fine. It does take some adjusting to get good MPG's out of them</p></blockquote> I've averaged between 20 & 21 mpg over the last tank and a half with an EB Supercrew in mixed driving. Trying to find that optimum way to accelerate. Once at speed, the truck looks like it's getting 21-22 (based on the mpg bar) but at only 1200 miles the motor will probably improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I've averaged between 20 & 21 mpg over the last tank and a half with an EB Supercrew in mixed driving. Trying to find that optimum way to accelerate. Once at speed, the truck looks like it's getting 21-22 (based on the mpg bar) but at only 1200 miles the motor will probably improve. I've noticed that my MPG has better since I have almost 10K miles on my car now. I can't really complain about my MPG's for the most part...I have a 3700lb AWD car with over 360+ WHP and get about 21 miles to the gallon going to and from work...which is about the same as I got with my 2006 Mustang GT that is about 1000lbs lighter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I've noticed that my MPG has better since I have almost 10K miles on my car now. I can't really complain about my MPG's for the most part...I have a 3700lb AWD car with over 360+ WHP and get about 21 miles to the gallon going to and from work...which is about the same as I got with my 2006 Mustang GT that is about 1000lbs lighter... Over 360 at the wheels? Is it tuned? Factory is nowhere close to that. Maybe 310 at the wheels...and that's on premium. Regular it will be lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I must've missed it--when did the EPA crack down on Ford? Ford voluntarily altered the window stickers on the C-Max, but the EPA also said that they'd done nothing wrong, which is hardly the same thing as "cracking down" on Ford. I expect better of Automotive News. I think it was "voluntary" like Nixon's resignation. "Voluntary" as in "you got caught being a dumbass and better walk this back fast and apologize hard before a media shitstorm blows away whatever credibility you have". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) I think it was "voluntary" like Nixon's resignation. "Voluntary" as in "you got caught being a dumbass and better walk this back fast and apologize hard before a media shitstorm blows away whatever credibility you have". Disagree. There was no legitimate basis for any civil, much less criminal, complaint against Ford on this issue. They fully complied with the letter of the law and the EPA could do nothing to compel Ford to alter the C-Max window label. That's a far cry from the situation Nixon found himself in. Nixon was in his second term. It was going to take a lot worse than a media 'firestorm' to get him out of office. Edited October 9, 2013 by RichardJensen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) This is an example of Ford realizing that it had done the wrong thing in terms of overstating fuel economy and then Ford did the right thing commercially without any regulatory pressure to do so. Ford screwed up, admitted it was a mistake to use Fusion data for C-Max, adjusted the figures downwards and moved on. Something that hasn't really hurt C-Max sales figures. Edited October 9, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Only with Gov could they not do what they're suppose to and then turn it around and make it look like someone else F'd up. Unreal... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Only with Gov could they not do what they're suppose to and then turn it around and make it look like someone else F'd up. Unreal... Exactly, now it looks like the EPA hasn't been keeping up with vehicle developments.and testing reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Disagree. There was no legitimate basis for any civil, much less criminal, complaint against Ford on this issue. They fully complied with the letter of the law and the EPA could do nothing to compel Ford to alter the C-Max window label. That's a far cry from the situation Nixon found himself in. Nixon was in his second term. It was going to take a lot worse than a media 'firestorm' to get him out of office. Fair enough on the Nixon comparison. I hope the regulation is amended to add "coefficient of drag" to the criteria necessary for sharing fuel economy ratings on vehicles with identical powertrain and weight. Makes me wonder how much the hatch Focus differs from the sedan version…. Edited October 10, 2013 by Noah Harbinger 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.