Consumer Reports: C-Max Owner Satisfaction #1 rated Hybrid

[JasonM]

The story behind the story......

 

According to Consumer Reports, CR asked members, “Considering all factors (price, performance, reliability, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), would you get this car if you had to do it all over again?”

 

The top rated Hybrid in owner satisfaction was the CMax Energi. Owner's were more satisfied than comparable Prius model.

 

 

Consumer Reports' own data supports what Deanh and others have reported here, CMax owners are VERY satisifed with their vehicle.

 

 

It is curious that CR did not mention this glaring inconsistency in their press release.

 

Did CR fail to mention this due to the reasonable conclusions that would result?

 

1) CR's methodology to "predict reliability" is seriously flawed.

 

2) CR's definition of "reliability" is different than their readers.

Edited October 31, 2013 by JasonM

[akirby]

Is that a rhetorical question?

[aneekr]

The story behind the story......

 

According to Consumer Reports, CR asked members, “Considering all factors (price, performance, reliability, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), would you get this car if you had to do it all over again?”

 

The top rated Hybrid in owner satisfaction was the CMax Energi. Owner's were more satisfied than ANY Prius model.

 

 

Consumer Reports' own data supports what Deanh and others have reported here, CMax owners are VERY satisifed with their vehicle.

 

 

It is curious that CR did not mention this glaring inconsistency in their press release.

 

Did CR fail to mention this due to the reasonable conclusions that would result?

 

1) CR's methodology to "predict reliability" is seriously flawed.

 

2) CR's definition of "reliability" is different than their readers.

 

No. CR's surveys for automobile reliability and owner satisfaction are fine. What's seriously flawed is your post, as usual.

 

Highlights from the automotive Owner's Satisfaction Survey conducted by Consumer Reports:

• The median value of "percentage of owners who would definitely purchase the same vehicle again" in the Hybrids/EVs category was 78%.
• The highest value for this category was 99%, for Tesla Model S, followed by 91% for Chevrolet Volt. The lowest was 55%, for Kia Optima Hybrid.
• 84% of C-Max Energi owners responded affirmatively. This figure was the same as that for Toyota Prius (contrary to your assertion "Owner's were more satisfied than ANY Prius model").
• The figure for regular C-Max hybrid was 67%. (It is curious you did not mention this in your post)

Carry on with your penchant for creating threads like this one with misleading titles, though. It makes Blue Oval Forums entertaining.

 

Those who have had their chuckle for the night - and have a CR website subscription - can review the data at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/ford/c-max/owner-satisfaction.htm.

[JasonM]

The CMax Energi is the highest rated Hybrid in Customer Satisfaction. EVs are not Hybrids.

 

I stand behind the title of this thread. I'm so sorry it bothers you.

 

Consumer Reports: C-Max Owner Satisfaction #1 rated Hybrid

 

http://cmaxchat.com/?p=4297

Edited October 31, 2013 by JasonM

[akirby]

The CMax Energi is the highest rated Hybrid in Customer Satisfaction. EVs are not Hybrids.

 

I stand behind the title of this thread. I'm so sorry it bothers you.

 

Consumer Reports: C-Max Owner Satisfaction #1 rated Hybrid

 

http://cmaxchat.com/?p=4297

 

As much as I hate to agree with Aneekr - the C-Max Energi is a plug-in hybrid, not a regular hybrid. But so is the Volt which rated higher.

[JasonM]

 

As much as I hate to agree with Aneekr - the C-Max Energi is a plug-in hybrid, not a regular hybrid. But so is the Volt which rated higher.

 

GM themselves goes to great lengths to say the Volt is NOT, repeat NOT a hybrid. The Energi is a Hybrid, in the PHEV subcategory

 

GM calls it an extended range electric vehicle.

 

Reference: http://gm-volt.com/about/

 

Who are we to argue with GM and Bob Lutz?

Edited October 31, 2013 by JasonM

[akirby]

I don't care what GM says - it's a frickin' plug-in hybrid that uses the technology of a 1950s locomotive.

 

I agree with your assessment of CRs credibility, just not using this specific example.

[JasonM]

I agree with GM's definition.

 

A hybrid allows the wheels to be propelled by engine power OR electric power OR a blend of both.

 

The Volt does not allow the those options, therefore it is not a hybrid, and therefore inferior in capability IMHO.

Edited October 31, 2013 by JasonM

[RichardJensen]

Actually, the Volt allows for the vehicle to be powered by both the electric and gas motors at the same time--and this happens whenever the batteries are depleted and the vehicle is traveling over 70mph---in other words, it's likely to happen on any extended road trip.

 

It means akirby is right, but it is amusing that GM flat refuses to call the vehicle a hybrid, because, you see the gas engine is spinning the generator motor which is no longer functioning as a generator, but is in fact spinning the drive shaft (http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/12/chevrolet-volt-electric-drive-propulsion-system-unveiled/ ) . Part of me wants to accept that pointlessly obtuse attitude and say, 'fine, it's not a hybrid, and the C-Max Energi is the highest rated hybrid in the survey'.

 

I'm curious about the Tesla S numbers. I remember back in the good ol' days that CU would routinely post "insufficient data" for certain models.

 

Are we to believe that a statistically meaningful number of Tesla buyers are also CU subscribers?

Because, you know, that's why Tesla (and Ferrari and Aston Martin, etc.) are not included in the JDP surveys..... Insufficient data.

Edited October 31, 2013 by RichardJensen

[twintornados]

The internal combustion engine in the Volt does NOT directly drive the wheels...therefore it is not a Hybrid system but an electric system with an onboard gas powered electric generation device that charges the batteries that supply the electricity to the electric motor that drives the wheels.

[RichardJensen]

GM claims the Volt does not 'directly' drive the wheels, but note this: http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/12/chevrolet-volt-electric-drive-propulsion-system-unveiled/

 

There are two motors in the Voltec system. The smaller motor does nothing at low speeds and sufficient charge. Once the charge is depleted, the ICE kicks in and spins the motor causing it to function as a generator.

 

 

If there is sufficient charge, the generator/motor kicks in at speeds over 70MPH and spins in conjunction with the larger electric motor. At this time, both motors are drawing current, and the ICE is not running.

 

 

When the charge is more or less depleted (c. 25%) and the vehicle is traveling over 70MPH, the ICE kicks in and starts spinning the motor, which returns to its function as a generator. However, the ICE's torque is also directed to the wheels through a mechanical linkage.

 

This is functionally equivalent to using the output shaft of a conventional ICE powertrain as the rotor in the vehicle's alternator. No one would argue that an ICE is not 'directly connected' to the drive wheels simply because there is an alternator incorporated in the transmission.

Edited October 31, 2013 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

It has to directly power the wheels at high speed because the engine can't generate enough electricity to sustain that speed by itself.

 

And I don't care about internal design - for all practical purposes the only difference between an energi and a volt is that the volt has bigger batteries and can go 35 miles instead of 20 miles on battery power alone. After that they work exactly the same except the volt is less efficient.

[RichardJensen]

It's not that the engine can't generate enough electricity.

 

It's that the main motor is not efficient above 70MPH.

 

That's why the generator acts as a second motor above 70MPH.

 

And naturally, when the charge has been depleted, the engine needs to spin the generator to create electricity to spin the first motor. But the generator is also needed to provide torque to supplement the main motor's torque. And thus the ICE's torque is directed through the generator and to the wheels.

 

GM's contention that this mechanical torque somehow doesn't count because it's not routed through a conventional transmission is just completely absurd. One would not argue that the Model T motor was not 'directly' linked to the wheels because the mechanical linkage connecting it to the wheels was unconventional.

 

--

 

My suspicion is that GM implemented this 'hack' late in the development process, and that the next version of the Voltec system (if there *is* a next version) will not have this rather cumbersome linkage.

Edited October 31, 2013 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Funny that Volt only seems to sells well when GM offers irresistible leases, those Volt owners are in a no lose situation

so of course they are going to check the box for repeat business...

[akirby]

It's not that the engine can't generate enough electricity.

 

It's that the main motor is not efficient above 70MPH.

 

That's why the generator acts as a second motor above 70MPH.

 

And naturally, when the charge has been depleted, the engine needs to spin the generator to create electricity to spin the first motor. But the generator is also needed to provide torque to supplement the main motor's torque. And thus the ICE's torque is directed through the generator and to the wheels.

 

GM's contention that this mechanical torque somehow doesn't count because it's not routed through a conventional transmission is just completely absurd. One would not argue that the Model T motor was not 'directly' linked to the wheels because the mechanical linkage connecting it to the wheels was unconventional.

 

--

 

My suspicion is that GM implemented this 'hack' late in the development process, and that the next version of the Voltec system (if there *is* a next version) will not have this rather cumbersome linkage.

 

I don't think there is any question that this "hack" was added late after testing showed it wouldn't work without it. Just look at GMs own statements about it initially, and how they had to weasel the words to make it sound like they didn't have to change it.

 

The reason I think it's an electrical shortage rather than a mechanical torque shortage is that I can't imagine they would not have designed the motor to have enough torque to propel the vehicle above 70 mph. And there is no torque curve with an electric motor to worry about. So the limiting factor would be the amount of electricity that can be generated. It sounds more plausible to me that they simply could not produce enough electricity to spin the motor to produce enough torque and it wasn't easy to fix. Although it is certainly possible that it's a torque limitation on the motor, that sounds like a colossal engineering mistake that should have been caught on paper.

 

GM just says it's not efficient at certain speeds to run on electric power alone but that it's not tied to a specific speed.

 

In any event, if it looks, walks and quacks like a PIH it's a PIH.

[akirby]

Funny that Volt only seems to sells well when GM offers irresistible leases, those Volt owners are in a no lose situation

so of course they are going to check the box for repeat business...

 

I'm seeing the same thing with the Nissan Leaf. Sales have exploded in metro Atlanta (at least the North side). They're offering $1500 down, $259/mo leases for 36 months. Obviously using the govt rebates to subsidize the lease. I have a 20-25 minute 12 mile drive to work and back every day and I see at least 5 or 6 every trip. And half are brand new with temp tags. Even when we just go out for dinner we'll see 3 or 4 within 5 minutes. It's crazy. And you know they're not going to keep them when the lease expires because they're just buying cheap transportation. I wonder how this will work out when these volts and leafs enter the used car market en masse in 2-3 years and the federal rebates have run out.

 

Here is the strange part about the leafs - at least 80% (not an exaggeration) are driven by Indians. There must be some type of targeted advertising or dealership connection (or just word of mouth I suppose) to the Indian community. It's become a running joke with my wife. Oh look - a new Leaf. And it's being driven by an Indian! And there's another one. And another one. Not that there's anything wrong with this - it's just totally out of line with normal demographics.

[NickF1011]

 

Are we to believe that a statistically meaningful number of Tesla buyers are also CU subscribers?

Because, you know, that's why Tesla (and Ferrari and Aston Martin, etc.) are not included in the JDP surveys..... Insufficient data.

 

Ha! Good question.

[RichardJensen]

The reason I think it's an electrical shortage

 

It's not an electrical shortage, because with sufficient charge, the generator/motor runs as a motor over 70MPH, so you have two electrical motors running in tandem, both drawing current.

 

When the charge is depleted, the ICE kicks in, but not before. GM's official explanation is that the primary motor was not 'efficient' at over 6500RPM, and I guess using gearing to keep the motor RPMs reasonable was out of the question.

[akirby]

 

It's not an electrical shortage, because with sufficient charge, the generator/motor runs as a motor over 70MPH, so you have two electrical motors running in tandem, both drawing current.

 

When the charge is depleted, the ICE kicks in, but not before. GM's official explanation is that the primary motor was not 'efficient' at over 6500RPM, and I guess using gearing to keep the motor RPMs reasonable was out of the question.

 

How can an electric motor be "inefficient" above a certain RPM, unless the amount of electricity required exceeds the generators output?

[Gnostic]

 

How can an electric motor be "inefficient" above a certain RPM, unless the amount of electricity required exceeds the generators output?

 

its probably a heat issue.

[akirby]

 

its probably a heat issue.

 

How would driving the motor mechanically to a higher rpm produce less heat?

[RichardJensen]

 

How would driving the motor mechanically to a higher rpm produce less heat?

 

Gnostic is suggesting there would be *more* heat.

 

Also, the generator/motor *always* engages over 70MPH. Always. Even when the ICE is not running.

 

It is not a question of the generator producing an insufficient amount of electricity. And if you think about it, the generator would have to be woefully inefficient if a motor capable of easily powering a vehicle over 70MPH could not generate enough electricity to convert back into mechanical energy sufficient to power the vehicle over 70MPH.

[akirby]

If the problem was too much heat and the solution to that problem was to drive the motor directly from the ICE then doing so would have to produce less heat than not driving it directly, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

 

Oh wait - I was thinking about mechanical heat, not electrical heat. Maybe the required current caused too much heat. In that case it would reduce the heat.

[RichardJensen]

If the problem was too much heat and the solution to that problem was to drive the motor directly from the ICE then doing so would have to produce less heat than not driving it directly, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

 

Oh wait - I was thinking about mechanical heat, not electrical heat. Maybe the required current caused too much heat. In that case it would reduce the heat.

 

The larger motor is never driven directly by the ICE.

 

The smaller motor/generator was, probably, initially planned to work strictly as a generator. It would sit idle until called upon to provide electric current to the larger motor, and to charge the battery pack.

 

However, for some reason, the larger motor does not work efficiently over 70MPH, so the smaller motor/generator is engaged to the drive wheels and functions as a motor until the charge is depleted.

 

At that point, the ICE kicks in and spins the motor/generator, which resumes its function as a generator while remaining connected to the drive wheels.

 

---

 

At this point, the ICE is:

 

1) spinning the generator, and thus generating electricity that powers the larger motor

 

2) spinning the driveshaft, and thus providing mechanical output directly to the wheels.

[akirby]

I got it now. The part I was missing is that by engaging the smaller motor/generator it causes the larger main motor to turn more slowly thus reducing rpm on the large motor. Once the battery is depleted the engine engages the smaller motor/generator directly because it's more efficient than running it on electric power only. This was probably a big hit to fuel economy at higher speeds.