More Consumer reports stupidity, Ford products make up 5 out of 10 least reliable cars

[grbeck]

 

As it relates to the SHO and your response, I don't believe the issue raised was sample bias, I'm fairly certain it was sampling error.

 

Regarding CU's methodology, I have only this to say:

 

It is in CU's best interests to aver that their methodologies are superior to other methodologies, therefore those assertions should be greeted with the same degree of skepticism that would be accorded any other unverifiable claim by any other organization.

 

While one may criticize JDP for merchandizing its awards, the transparency of their vehicle rating protocols leave CU in the dust. With access to the RL Polk database and the JDP questionnaire, any one of us could repeat the JDP IQS and VDS tests and verify the accuracy of their reports.

 

Compare that with CU, which does not provide the thresholds for their circle ratings, and which does not discuss sampling error either in the size of the response, or the fact that they do not poll a representative sample of new car owners.

 

You could take a random sample of vehicle owners and the CU questionnaire, and you would still be missing several necessary bits of information required to produce the CU results.

 

I've talked to numerous independent mechanics, as well as an expert witness for Pennsylvania's largest lemon law firm. They all say that the Consumer Reports survey results reflect what is happening in the real world.

 

With all cars getting better, I'd say that a "much worse than average" rating isn't as serious as it was even a decade ago. The magazine has admitted that cars earning that label today would have earned top ratings 10 years ago.

 

The magazine also needs to distinguish between a transmission problem that leaves you stranded and a infotainment glitch that annoys you. On the other hand, if Ford and other car makers are going to hype these systems, they need to do a better job of "debugging" them before they reach customers.

Edited October 30, 2013 by grbeck

[RichardJensen]

 

I've talked to numerous independent mechanics, as well as an expert witness for Pennsylvania's largest lemon law firm. They all say that the Consumer Reports survey results reflect what is happening in the real world.

 

But what metric are these mechanics using? If some unit ('brakes', for instance) shows 'average' reliability on a certain vehicle, and I have an unexpected brake issue, is my experience typical? How much of this is correlation between widely known issues that have a ridiculously high failure rate, e.g. 90s GM alternators & Ford transmissions?

 

My experience has been that the black circle items on CU's breakdowns have generally caused issues for me, but I've also had issues with red circle items. So what's going on?

 

Ultimately, with CU's system, you just don't know--and that's a major flaw with it.

Edited October 30, 2013 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

 

That's the issue...take a already small sample size then half it, then add in that most people who have a good experience with the product won't respond, you get artificially high numbers that aren't necessarily correct

I'm sensing a lot of data manipulation and extrapolation, assumptions based on small samples expanded out to represent what consumers are experiencing

with recently purchased products - not necessarily the latest versions of products and updates/corrections. So we're always going to see a slightly out of date

perspective of consumer issues nd a "not recommended' applied to something that may not be as big of an issue in the latest product - we just don't know.

 

What we do know is that many more peopel are now scanning CR's reports and every word said,

I would think that being controversial is good for business, give everyone a pass and no one reads it.

[fordtech1]

 

But not one Mitsubishi, Land Rover, Scion or Suzuki? Those four brands are perennial losers in the JD Powers studies

 

I have a 2013 C-Max SEL but do not subscribe to CR so my voice is not counted.

 

WE LOVE OUR C-MAX SEL WITH MYFORD TOUCH.

 

Now I feel better. We also get better than 47MPG since purchase.

 

I need to rephrase my statement. What I should have said, out of all those Ford vehicles the ones I have seen with more issues, mostly small, is the C-Max and Escape 1.6. Now wether they should be on the most unreliable vehicle list, I doubt it.

These issues include MFT complaints and 12V battery drain issues on CMax

CEL and oil leaks on 1.6 Escape.

 

All that said, I still have customer's with Cmax that really like them and everytime they come in I try and look at message center for Avg Mpg. All are over 40 everytime.

 

Well I must be biased because I purchased a 13 F150 with Ecoboost and MFT. I must be crazy to buy a problem riddled pos.

Which since 3.6.2 MFT has not had one reboot or problem. Also, no misfiring or 10mpg either. Must have got a good one.

[EBFlex]

According to the article, the results are survey-based.

 

"Consumer Reports says that the rankings are based on survey results covering 17 "potential trouble spots" and that they should be used as a forecast of how the latest 2014 models will hold up."

 

 

That's what a lot of people have a very hard time understanding. They are reporting results of a survey. Taken by actual customers. They are reporting what the customers are saying.

 

Sheesh, it's not that difficult. Get upset at the reason the responses are coming back they way they are rather than at the company for simply publishing the results.

[mettech]

Does this beg the questions:

 

Does CR have vengeance and a bias against Ford Motor Company?

 

 

Or:

 

Does issues with Ford's products match what CR's data reflects?

[RichardJensen]

Does this beg the questions:

 

Does CR have vengeance and a bias against Ford Motor Company?

 

 

Or:

 

Does issues with Ford's products match what CR's data reflects?

 

How about a third option:

 

CU's reporting methodology is geared to advance their interests.

[Deanh]

Typical CR smoke and mirror BS trying to justify their very existance...unless their testing parameters get publicized for logical people to critique, and areas explained that justify exactly WHAT and HOW they come to their conclusions, then their so called expertise cant be held in a serious conversation.....how ANYONE can actually utilize CR in any form of their purchasing decision on a transaction as large as a vehicular purchase, is beyond me...they should stick to.....................Bacon....

[4d4evr-1]

Subscribe to CR and give 'em a piece of your mind on their next survey!

Nope, I'll keep my money and just laugh under my breath @ CR and all of their sheep.....

[4d4evr-1]

It seems you are falling victim to the same thing you are accusing them of, sample bias. "I've never had a bad Ford, therefore they are full of poo." "I disliked an article about the FlowBe, therefore all of them are biased."

 

Instead of doing the same thing you accuse CR of, check, how many responses. I'm sure it is there report the number. If it was a low production vehicle, and an expensive one at that, you should get them at a higher quality. It's the only Taurus that easily cost more than my Fusion Energi. I had concerns about getting it based on what I was reading about the CMax 12vt battery issues, lower than estimate fuel economy, seeing Ford address the issues put my mind at ease. Fixed now doesn't mean fixed then. I would guess the 2014s will have better scores.

 

I subscribe to the online CR and since they accept no advertising, believe a little them a more than most places. Also, Ford owner and shareholder, I would take the criticisms to heart and fix the issue vs. the messenger. It's ok to question their methodology, but to dismiss them out of hand seems sour grape-y.

 

Also a Ford owner and stockholder. You say fix it, what's to fix? My Ford Touch has been no problem and we are getting over 47 MPG since purchase. they say least reliable but have had 1 recall for roof issue and no mechanical issues, only My Ford touch upgrades that happened during normal service of oil change. again with mine, what's to fix?

[JasonM]

 

Also a Ford owner and stockholder. You say fix it, what's to fix? My Ford Touch has been no problem and we are getting over 47 MPG since purchase. they say least reliable but have had 1 recall for roof issue and no mechanical issues, only My Ford touch upgrades that happened during normal service of oil change. again with mine, what's to fix?

 

CR's own data shows that the C-Max was the HIGHEST in Owner Satisfaction of all hybrids per CR's own readers. CR's question on Owner Satisfaction includes "reliability".

 

I can see the ads now.......Ford C-Max: Rated #1 in Customer Satisfaction By A Leading Consumer Birdcage Liner

[JasonM]

It seems you are falling victim to the same thing you are accusing them of, sample bias. "I've never had a bad Ford, therefore they are full of poo." "I disliked an article about the FlowBe, therefore all of them are biased."

 

 

Actually, I think it was you who fell victim to CR.

 

Others on here who were sceptical with what CR was pushing have been proven correct.

 

They were right to be sceptical and correct to question what CR was spewing.

[aneekr]

More Blue Oval Forums stupidity: this thread (and that one too).

Edited October 31, 2013 by aneekr

[JasonM]

Aneekr seems to be bothered that according to Consumer Reports' own data the CMax Energi is the #1 rated hybrid in customer satisfaction.

 

“Considering all factors (price, performance, reliability, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), would you get this car if you had to do it all over again?” #1 Hybrid = CMax Energi

 

 

I'm sorry you fail to see the disconnect between CR's "most unreliable" and CR's "most satisfied customer" rankings.

 

I would say that disconnect in CR's data and conclusions support the title of this thread.

Edited October 31, 2013 by JasonM

[EBFlex]

Aneekr seems to be bothered that according to Consumer Reports' own data the CMax Energi is the #1 rated hybrid in customer satisfaction.

 

“Considering all factors (price, performance, reliability, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), would you get this car if you had to do it all over again?” #1 Hybrid = CMax Energi

 

 

I'm sorry you fail to see the disconnect between CR's "most unreliable" and CR's "most satisfied customer" rankings.

 

I would say that disconnect in CR's data and conclusions support the title of this thread.

This board is so insanely bi-polar and hypocritical.

 

Weren't people complaining and whining earlier in the thread over the sample size and the Taurus SHO?

 

Now, we're talking up the results on a vehicle who's sample size is maybe 6 total vehicles?

 

Again, which is it? Either CR is a rag and the results are not to be trusted....OR...CR is a legit source of consumer information.

 

Or is it only legit why they are praising a Ford product and not publishing the results of a survey actual customers of the vehicles responded to?

[All-Or-Nothing]

So who has a CR subscription and can copy and paste what is in their report????

[mettech]

CR review:

 

"...Based on the Focus, the five-passenger C-Max hybrid is clever, well-finished, and practical. We found it rides well and handles with agility. The regenerative braking system helps fuel economy but makes the pedal feel touchy. The 2.0-liter four-cylinder and electric motor deliver adequate acceleration and seamless transitions, and can run in full-electric mode below 62 mph. In our tests we got 37 mpg overall, excellent but well short of the EPA's 47 mpg rating. Updates for 2014 are said to improve fuel economy. The Energi plug-in hybrid can travel on electric power alone for about 20 miles, with a claimed overall range of 500 miles. First year reliability is well below average.

 

The reason for the poor ranking was not the CR test, it was owners listing electrical(Electrical: Alternator, starter, hybrid battery and related systems, regular battery, battery cables, engine harness, coil, ignition switch, electronic ignition, distributor or rotor failure, spark plugs and wires failure) and audio problems ( Audio system (excluding aftermarket systems): Radio, speakers, antenna, CD or DVD player; GPS, iPod & MP3 interface; communication system (e.g. ONSTAR, Bluetooth), backup camera/sensors.with the car).

 

Electrical and audio was the lowest rankings for all of the hybrids. However, the rest of the car ranked high.

 

How are cars holding up? The reliability history charts, included in each model's profile, give you the most comprehensive reliability information available to consumers. (To find our Ratings & reliability information go to our main Autos page and select a vehicle by make and model). These charts are based on 1.1 million responses to our 2013 Annual Auto Survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center. Consumer Reports subscribers reported on any serious problems they had with their vehicles during the past 12 months that they considered serious because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime, in any of the trouble spots included in the table below.

The scores in the charts are based on the percentage of respondents who reported problems in each of the 17 trouble spots. Because high-mileage cars tend to encounter more problems than low-mileage cars, problem rates are standardized to minimize differences due to mileage. The 2013 models were generally less than six months old at the time of the survey, with an average of about 3,000 miles.

 

Models that score a are not necessarily unreliable, but have a higher rate of problems than the average model. Similarly, models that score are not necessarily problem-free, but had relatively few problems compared with other models.

Because problem rates in some trouble spots are very low, we do not assign a or a unless the model's problem rate exceeds 3 percent. If a problem rate is below 2 or 1 percent it will be assigned a or a respectively. In the charts, a model year in red identifies the year of a major redesign or introduction...."

 

It appears that the CR rating is skewed due to the owners complainants of low MPG vs EPA sticker and MFT issues. However, overall the owners are satisfied with the car.

Edited October 31, 2013 by mettech

[akirby]

I suspect most of the electrical problems were fixed with one trip to the dealer and they probably learned how to use MFT as well, so while they may have reported a problem in the last year those problems are no longer occurring so owners are satisfied.

 

The interesting part is that they consider a 3% defect rate to be unreliable. That seems really low to me.

 

Here is the problem with their sliding scale and an analogy.

 

Grades are A, B, C, D and F (90s, 80s, 70s, 60s and below 60). A 71 is a C.

But nobody is getting Ds or Fs any more, so we change the scale:

A 100-95

B 94-89

C 88-83

D 82-77

F below 77

 

A 71 is now a F.

 

Take that even further so that you have to get a 91 to get a passing grade. 90 is a F.

 

When you're talking about something objective like number of problems, changing the scale and grading on a curve is stupid just like getting 9 out of 10 right and still getting a F is stupid.

 

But that's the only way they can make the ratings relevant for their subscribers.

[NickF1011]

This board is so insanely bi-polar and hypocritical.

 

Weren't people complaining and whining earlier in the thread over the sample size and the Taurus SHO?

 

Now, we're talking up the results on a vehicle who's sample size is maybe 6 total vehicles?

 

Again, which is it? Either CR is a rag and the results are not to be trusted....OR...CR is a legit source of consumer information.

 

Or is it only legit why they are praising a Ford product and not publishing the results of a survey actual customers of the vehicles responded to?

 

Or we're just pointing out that CR really doesn't seem to have a grasp on what they are doing.

Edited October 31, 2013 by NickF1011

[mettech]

If the same criteria, questions and standards are applied to all test subjects, then the data is relevant.

 

CR rates the car high overall. It's the consumer that owns the product(s) that is pointing to the issues that brings the reliability rating down.

 

The low score is the fault of the owners, not CR.

[RichardJensen]

If the same criteria, questions and standards are applied to all test subjects, then the data is relevant.

 

Not necessarily.

 

If the SAMPLE is not representative, the questions don't matter.

 

And that doesn't even get into the presentation choices that CU makes with the data.

Edited October 31, 2013 by RichardJensen

[mettech]

 

Not necessarily.

 

If the SAMPLE is not representative, the questions don't matter.

 

And that doesn't even get into the presentation choices that CU makes with the data.

Do you believe or know if CR is skewing the data it collects outside of the "Confidence Level" for any product or company?

 

CR notes in the ratings if a product has not received "significant data".

 

"Predicted Reliability

Predicted reliability is our forecast of how well a model is likely to hold up derived from our latest Annual Car Reliability Survey. We averaged a model's Used Car Verdict for the newest three years, provided the model did not change significantly during that time. Refer to Reliability History for more detailed explanation"

 

Why buy one:

• 37 mpg overall is impressive
• More fun to drive than a Prius V
• Impressive ride comfort, agility, and solid feel
• Extremely practical package, with super-easy access and good passenger room
• Plug-in Energi version is more practical and cheaper than a Chevrolet Volt, yet offers enough electric-only range for many buyers

Why not buy one:

• Awkward options structure makes it expensive to get satellite radio or a backup camera
• Typical Ford complicated controls, with or without MyFord Touch
• Not as roomy or efficient as a Prius V

Viable alternatives:

• Toyota Prius V
• Mazda5
• Volkswagen SportWagen TDI

Edited October 31, 2013 by mettech

[RangerM]

Presumably, the CU survey will oversample those with problems. (given that it's optional and probably submitted in greater numbers by those with an axe to grind)

 

It's also largely true that people will complain more loudly when anonymous than when not.

[akirby]

If the same criteria, questions and standards are applied to all test subjects, then the data is relevant.

 

CR rates the car high overall. It's the consumer that owns the product(s) that is pointing to the issues that brings the reliability rating down.

 

The low score is the fault of the owners, not CR.

 

Only if the questions are not ambiguous, the sample size is adequate and representative of the population as a whole, and the results are published as is without additional subjective interpretation. I think JD Power does much better in that regard than CR.

 

The fact that a vehicle with a full black circle today could have gotten a red circle with the exact same problems a decade or two ago tells me the ratings are flawed. A 3% defect rate is not something I would consider unreliable, especially if it's caused by a problem that was since fixed and isn't occurring on new ones.

[mettech]

Here is the evaluation in whole. Hope it is OK to post.

 

Road Test

Hybrid SE 4-cyl CVT

The C-Max is an appealing all-around package, combining the fuel efficiency of its standard hybrid powertrain with the practicality of a five-door hatchback design. Based on the Ford Focus, the C-Max packs an impressive amount of room and utility into a small footprint. Its tall stance and low entry height make for easy access, and the cabin is airy and spacious. Fuel economy is excellent at 37 mpg overall, but that falls far short of Ford's claims of 47 mpg.

The C-Max goes beyond just being efficient transportation. It's fun to drive, with engaging agility and good steering feel. The cabin is quiet inside and the C-Max feels solid and substantial.

Aimed squarely at the similar Toyota Prius V, the C-Max can't match the larger Toyota for interior space or fuel economy. But the C-Max is quieter and much more fun to drive, with better handling and steering feel.

Gripes are few, and include a touchy brake pedal -- typical of many hybrids. Controls are somewhat complicated with base SE models, but they aren't as bad as the annoying MyFord Touch interface standard on SEL versions. Cargo capacity is less than you'd expect, and getting a rear camera requires buying other expensive options.

A plug-in hybrid version, the C-Max Energi, is also available. Its larger battery offers enough electric-only range to be a gasoline-free commuter car for many buyers.

Why buy one:

• 37 mpg overall is impressive
• More fun to drive than a Prius V
• Impressive ride comfort, agility, and solid feel
• Extremely practical package, with super-easy access and good passenger room
• Plug-in Energi version is more practical and cheaper than a Chevrolet Volt, yet offers enough electric-only range for many buyers

Why not buy one:

• Awkward options structure makes it expensive to get satellite radio or a backup camera
• Typical Ford complicated controls, with or without MyFord Touch
• Not as roomy or efficient as a Prius V

Viable alternatives:

• Toyota Prius V
• Mazda5
• Volkswagen SportWagen TDI

 

The Driving Experience

Ride comfort: With a firm and controlled yet compliant ride, the C-Max feels solid and substantial, especially for a car this size. Bumps and ruts are absorbed with quiet, muted impacts and minimal side-to-side motions, and the highway ride is very steady and composed.

Noise: The cabin is very quiet in most driving conditions, aided by a noise cancellation system. Some minor road and wind noise can be heard, but the engine only makes itself known when pushed.

Handling: It may look like a junior delivery van, but the C-Max is surprisingly agile and fun to drive, and virtually as responsive as the Focus upon which it's based. Steering is quick and ideally weighted, with good feedback. The C-Max remains stable and tied down even on rough corners, and its compact footprint makes it an ideal urban runabout that's easy to park with or without the clever optional automatic hands-free parking system.

At the track, the C-Max was completely secure, with benign and forgiving understeer at its limits. It posted a high speed in our avoidance maneuver and instilled confidence.

Powertrain: Buyers can choose from two hybrid powertrains, either a conventional version or the plug-in C-Max Energi. Both combine battery electric power with a 2.0-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine for a combined 188-hp, and are paired with a continuously variable transmission. We tested the more popular and less expensive conventional hybrid powertrain. It's a full hybrid system, capable of operating on electric power alone up to about 35 mph as long as you're easy on the throttle. The engine shuts off automatically to save fuel when stopped or when you take your foot off the gas and cruise at speeds below 62 mph, smoothly restarting when you reapply throttle.

Power is adequate for highway merging from a stop, but don't expect brisk acceleration with a full load. Still, the C-Max feels like a rocket sled compared to its Toyota Prius V rival. The CVT works well, with smooth and unobtrusive ratio changes. The hybrid system helps reduce the engine revving typically experienced with a CVT, because there's no need to rev the engine when you can use battery power instead. We still experienced some loud engine noise under hard acceleration.

We recorded an impressive 37 mpg overall fuel economy, but don't plan on the 47 city, 47 highway, 47 combined that appears on the window sticker. The difference between our fuel economy test results for the C-Max and the EPA measurement is the largest we've found among recently tested vehicles, and disappointed owners have been posting similar results online.

Drivers who want to spend even less time at the pump can opt for the C-Max Energi plug-in, which uses the same powertrain with a larger battery for more electric-only cruising. Our brief experience with an early production press car showed the plug-in C-Max was good for around 23 miles of electric operation, which would be enough to allow a lot of commuters to skip the gas station altogether. The larger battery and a handy usage gauge in the instrument cluster made it easy for us to keep the gasoline engine from firing up. Recharge time is about 2.5 hours when hooked up to a 240-volt circuit, and a starting price of $33,000 makes the C-Max Energi the least expensive plug-in hybrid currently available. That's several thousand dollars less than the Chevrolet Volt, and the Energi has considerably more electric-only range than the more expensive Toyota Prius Plug-in.

Braking: Overall performance was very good on both dry and wet pavement. But the regenerative braking system has a touchy pedal, making smooth modulation more difficult. A "brake coach" feature grades you on how much energy was recovered by smooth stopping, but, ironically, the touchy brake pedal makes it harder to perform well.

Headlights: Low- and high-beam halogens provide very good visibility.

Inside The Cabin

Driving position: You sit up high and upright in the C-Max, and large windows and lots of head room make the cabin feel airy inside with generally good visibility to the front and sides. The tilt-and-telescope steering wheel has plenty of adjustment, and the pedals are easy to reach. But the driving position is on the narrow side, with some footwell structure that forces the driver's left foot inboard, and a wide center console that intrudes from the right.

Visibility: The windshield pillars are carefully shaped to avoid blocking much of the view, and large and useful small windows at their bases help. But there's still a big blind spot to the front-left. The deep dashboard and high, short hood make it hard to tell where the front of the car ends. Rear visibility is hampered by a small view from the rear-view mirror, made worse by the rear head restraints. A rear-view camera is helpful, but is only available on the much more expensive SEL model equipped with MyFord Touch.

Front-seat comfort: Standard cloth seats in our SE are supportive overall, but some found the driver's seat cushion higher than they'd like even with it adjusted to the lowest position. We also heard complaints about the narrow cushions. Although there's no lumbar adjustment, most drivers had decent lower-back support. Optional leather power-adjustable seats are more comfortable and supportive.

Rear-seat comfort: The rear seat is fairly roomy, with adequate leg room, and it is wide enough for three across in a pinch. The flat and hard bottom cushion is mounted low, limiting thigh support. The seatbacks recline if desired.

Access: Large doors, a relatively high roof, and low sills make for super-easy access front and rear; you barely need to duck to slide in.

Controls and gauges: The MyFord gauges allow for a lot of customization, done through multi-layered menus and a 5-way steering wheel-mounted controller. Despite a lot of choices -- perhaps too many for the sake of simplification -- it can be hard to get the combination of information you want.

C-Max controls differ significantly depending on trim level and options selected, but are needlessly complicated no matter what you pick. All C-Maxes have automatic climate control, with small buttons and shallow knobs that are mostly blocked by the shifter when the transmission is in Park. The standard radio has traditional buttons and knobs, but they're spread out across the center dashboard. That makes it harder to find the one you want, and reaching some can be a stretch. Some buttons perform more than one function, and there's no tuning knob. There are also second level additional on-screen displays and menus that introduce unneeded levels of complexity.

But all that is a piece of cake compared to the MyFord Touch system that's optional on SE models and standard on the SEL. The on-screen pages are cluttered and confusing, particularly the totally redundant climate page. Fonts have been made larger since the system's introduction, but they're still small and can be hard to read. System response time can be slow, particularly at start-up. And it's a very long reach to the touch screen.

The standard Sync voice command system works fairly well for phone and music player functions, but uses a more restrictive voice command structure than the best systems. (Updates can improve this capability.) You can select songs and playlists by voice, which is less distracting than fiddling with the system's physical controls.

Bluetooth pairing is via a six-digit code and generally works well, but there is no dedicated phone button on the steering wheel. That makes for a bit of a scramble when your phone rings.

Interior fit and finish: Much of the C-Max interior has a high quality look, with padded surfaces on top of the dash and door panels and switches that look and feel expensive. The steering wheel is nicely stitched and padded, and feels substantial in your hands. But the gray nylon seats in our test car look cheap and show dirt easily. The optional leather seats look much better and are more supportive.

We also found numerous flaws in construction quality, including panel gaps, sharp edges, and poor fits. The carpet was pilling beneath the rear floor mats; they are Velcro-backed for access to the in-floor storage bins underneath them.

Cabin storage and cargo room: The glove box is wide and large, and there is a deep compartment in the center console. Two storage cubbies are hidden in the floor ahead of the rear seat. There are two 12-volt power outlets up front, along with one for rear passengers and another in the cargo area.

Cargo room behind the rear seats is tight, largely because the hybrid battery makes for a high load floor. Three large suitcases will fit in the cargo area with the 60/40-split seatbacks set up for passengers; folding them forward leaves a flat floor for larger items. A retractable cover keeps cargo out of sight, and an assortment of bag hooks, netted compartments, and tie-down loops all add to utility. The C-Max does not have a spare tire, and instead carries an air compressor and tire sealant. Payload capacity is 825 pounds, and trailer towing is not recommended.

Safety Notes

Safety belts: Front and rear outboard belts have adjustable anchors for a more comfortable and safe fit. The front belts also have pretensioners to reduce slack in a crash.

Air bags: The C-Max includes side air bags for front passengers, a knee air bag for the driver, and curtain air bags that extend to protect front and rear passengers.

Head restraints: Adjustable front head restraints are tall enough to provide protection even in their lowest position. The rear outboard head restraints fold forward to increase visibility and are tall enough to provide adequate protection when raised. The rear center restraint must be raised to provide any safety benefit.

Crash-avoidance systems: Electronic stability control, antilock brakes and a backup sensor are standard. Daytime running lights are not available.

Driving with kids: Most rear-facing and forward-facing child restraints should prove secure in all rear positions ofthe C-Max, although it may be necessary to remove the head restraint to allow some child seat shells to rest flush against the seatback. Outboard seating positions include LATCH anchors, and there are three canvas loops on the back of the rear seats that serve as top-tether anchors.

Ford's MyKey system allows parents to program their teenaged driver's key, limiting top speed and radio volume.

Reliability

We expect reliability to be much worse than average, according to our latest subscriber survey.

Tested model: 2013 Hybrid SE wagon, 2.0-liter 4-cyl. hybrid, CVT
Major options: Blue candy paint, heated seats and mirrors.
This road test applies to the current model year of this vehicle.