Ford restates mpg estimates on 6 models after internal audit

[chevys]

If this had been intentional, why would Ford be confessing to an error in calculations now

when they could have simply brought forward a future upgrade and masked/covered the whole thing.

This is the basic difference in internal integrity between Ford and some of its rivals who prefer to hide mistakes.

 

People will always think the worst of motor companies when quality issues are reported in the press

but when you read what actual owners are getting in day to day driving, I think Ford would still be comfortable.

Because the EPA dedided to audit them. Had that not happened the numbers would not have been changed. This just so happens to be one of those things they cannot defend now. I make no distinction between Ford and its Rivals when it comes to a cover up or putting out a lousy product.

[AlRozzi]

In my opinion hybrid cars make no sense. Too much cost, weight, complexity... and for what? A few extra mpg? I have no intention of ever buying one. Now it is being reported the market for hybrid vehicles has peaked.

 

Want to energize C-Max sales? Drop in some naturally aspirated powerplants. Very nice car. Needs a broadened market appeal.

 

I say styling and performance sells. People want excitement.

 

In 2010 I stood at the NAIAS with a friend from Denmark and as we looked at tiny European cars like Fiat 500 he told me some day all Americans will be driving cars like that - cars like they drive in Europe.

 

I disagreed. I told him Americans will never drive tiny cars, that we will continue to buy larger cars.

 

I was close in my prediction, only rather than cars people here are buying utility vehicles.

 

Build a strikingly beautiful vehicle and people will buy it.

 

Almost nobody wants electric unless perhaps it is strickingly beautiful as is perhaps Tesla.

 

As for this MPG debacle, no way a cover up. Anybody can calculate fuel economy numbers so how could it be possible to think it possible to get away with something there? It really comes down to testing for numbers and real world results.

[chevys]

In my opinion hybrid cars make no sense. Too much cost, weight, complexity... and for what? A few extra mpg? I have no intention of ever buying one. Now it is being reported the market for hybrid vehicles has peaked.

 

Want to energize C-Max sales? Drop in some naturally aspirated powerplants. Very nice car. Needs a broadened market appeal.

 

I say styling and performance sells. People want excitement.

 

In 2010 I stood at the NAIAS with a friend from Denmark and as we looked at tiny European cars like Fiat 500 he told me some day all Americans will be driving cars like that - cars like they drive in Europe.

 

I disagreed. I told him Americans will never drive tiny cars, that we will continue to buy larger cars.

 

I was close in my prediction, only rather than cars people here are buying utility vehicles.

 

Build a strikingly beautiful vehicle and people will buy it.

 

Almost nobody wants electric unless perhaps it is strickingly beautiful as is perhaps Tesla.

 

As for this MPG debacle, no way a cover up. Anybody can calculate fuel economy numbers so how could it be possible to think it possible to get away with something there? It really comes down to testing for numbers and real world results.

I could not agree with you more on the hybrids in general. However, the epa has a standardized test as I understand it and Ford fudged. I mean how to you over estimate 7 mpg on the MKZ hybrid and NOT know you have not pulled a caper for the ages. I hate goverment regulation with a passion but this one time they have slapped Ford back into reality. The savy consumer already knew some Fords were suspect in actually delievering advertised mileage. They knew it, and without the EPA stepping in to do their own testing nothing would have been changed imo.

 

Ford is my favorite car company but I hope this hits them hard in sales and right on the bottom line. This is just an unacceptable thing to do to consumers.

Edited June 14, 2014 by chevys

[akirby]

Because the EPA dedided to audit them. Had that not happened the numbers would not have been changed. This just so happens to be one of those things they cannot defend now. I make no distinction between Ford and its Rivals when it comes to a cover up or putting out a lousy product.

 

Ford found the error and reported it on their own before the audit.

 

The EPA audits 10% of the vehicles every year regardless.

[AlRozzi]

I could not agree with you more on the hybrids in general. However, the epa has a standardized test as I understand it and Ford fudged. I mean how to you over estimate 7 mpg on the MKZ hybrid and NOT know you have not pulled a caper for the ages. I hate goverment regulation with a passion but this one time they have slapped Ford back into reality. The savy consumer already knew some Fords were suspect in actually delievering advertised mileage. They knew it, and without the EPA stepping in to do their own testing nothing would have been changed imo.

 

 

There could not have been a caper. Car owners know the mileage their vehicle achieves so in the end no person could be fooled. It would be as though I said it were raining on a sunny day and thinking that I had everybody believing me.

 

Fuel mileage numbers vary drastically based on many factors including for instance winter temperatures vs. summer, not to mention winter gasoline blends vs. summer blends.

 

Ratings are for guidance purposes only. Maybe mileage ratings should be illustrated as an expected range rather than a maximum achievable number? The same could be said of say, a torque rating, for example. You are not going to get the maximum torque number at all ranges of the rpm curve yet a top number is what gets reported.

[RichardJensen]

However, the epa has a standardized test as I understand it and Ford fudged. I mean how to you over estimate 7 mpg on the MKZ hybrid and NOT know you have not pulled a caper for the ages.

 

Your understanding of the testing procedure needs improvement.

[atomcat68]

What surprises me about this is that this is from Motor Trend:

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1404_2014_lincoln_mkz_hybrid_first_test/

 

Here is a quote about milage from their test.

 

In Real MPG testing, a 2014 MKZ hybrid got 52.2 mpg in the city, 41.7 mpg on the highway, and 46.9 mpg combined, compared to the EPA's 45/45 mpg rating.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1404_2014_lincoln_mkz_hybrid_first_test/#ixzz34d1WLXhk

 

 

This sounds to me that they achieved better fuel economy than the EPA and auto rags aren't nice to the cars either.

[timmm55]

Part of the problem is the drivers. It used to be sort of a cult thing, drivers tried to get the maximum MPGs. Some Prius owners complained about their gas mileage initially but understood they had to work at it. Now it's drivers who expect whatever is on the sticker. Could someone still get the better numbers? Yes. But the vast majority don't try to maximize anymore . Now instead of geeks you have soccer moms and dads.

 

I think Ford did use the best case scenarios. And some of that was extrapolated data. So too the guessing got a bit out on a limb for any normal person. And doesn't Ford's hybrid have more HP? It's power you can't use to get good MPGs. You can't give someone power and expect them to NOT use it.

[mettech]

Everyone agrees that the EPA testing needs to be modified for the hybrid/electric vehicles.

 

How many times has Toyota lowered their MPG on the Prius when using the same and current EPA test?

[Biker16]

 

I find it difficult to exclude a variation of observer-expectancy bias in parameter selection---even if the testing is performed by another unit of the company.

 

I do not think that these calculations were performed in a vacuum, with engineers uninfluenced (even subconsciously) by the importance of achieving a high FE score for the company as a whole.

 

Yep

[Edstock]

Biker has a dodgy signature —

 

"RichardJensen, on 11 Jul 2006 - 11:09 PM, said:

A "Global van" to replace both the E-Series and the Transit would be the height of stupidity. Nothing like pretending the differences between Europe and the United States don't exist, just to make things look neat on paper."

 

Hmm . . . 8 years ago, things were different in the US. That was then, and this is now, in case you haven't noticed, times change.

[RichardJensen]

That signature lacks context---

 

I said then, and say now, that the Transit cannot replace the full E-Series range. Ford agrees, that's why they're keeping the heavy duty Es in production.

 

Biker also fails to include his predictions that the Sprinter would 'take over' the US market.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Yeah, I've been wondering about that signature every time I see it... and every time a Transit review comes out. Heck, in 2006 LeBron James was a big fish in a small Cleveland pond destined never to win a championship. Now he's a big fish in Miami Beach getting ready to lose the NBA Finals for the 3rd time in his career.

 

So... will we be restating Transit MPGs in the future as well?

[4d4evr-1]

Looks like I'm getting another $475 for my 2013 C-MAX Hybrid. With the previous $550 goodwill payment, I'm getting a $1,025 rebate, all while I get 45-47mpg (in the summer, at least).

 

Wonder what this will do to C-MAX sales now?

 

 

We are getting better 47 since purchase almost 2 years ago. I will cash the check but I'm very happy with the car as is.

[4d4evr-1]

Nobody will ever convince me that this was not intentional. It does matter what I think but Fords FE has been suspect in my mind for several years mainly with hybrids and EB engines.

 

 

As a C-Max owner with over 20K miles I will share my opinion based on ownership. Ford screwed up badly. They gave the stupid customers tooooo much available power with their hybrids and EcoBoost options. Most customers see the EPA numbers and think they can drive the shit out of their precious gas sippers and do and then complain about the mileage.

 

We are averaging over 47 since purchase and drive speed limits and keep up with traffic.

 

If I remember correctly you are the poster that told me I should have bought a Prius or a Fiesta. My response was I would not take either if given free if I had to drive it. I bought the C-Max for the high seat position, hybrid for the MPG and SUV for carrying stuff. You continue to come here and state an opinion with no real world experience driving one.

[4d4evr-1]

Because the EPA dedided to audit them. Had that not happened the numbers would not have been changed. This just so happens to be one of those things they cannot defend now. I make no distinction between Ford and its Rivals when it comes to a cover up or putting out a lousy product.

 

to paraphrase Forest Gump: stupid is as stupid types

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

 

As a C-Max owner with over 20K miles I will share my opinion based on ownership. Ford screwed up badly. They gave the stupid customers tooooo much available power with their hybrids and EcoBoost options. Most customers see the EPA numbers and think they can drive the shit out of their precious gas sippers and do and then complain about the mileage.

 

<snip>

 

 

Except that this has been true since the advent of automobility.

[Anthony]

 

Except that this has been true since the advent of automobility.

Having too much power also does not change the EPA mileage tests. It changes personal mileage based on driving habits.

 

Ford is only responsible for one of those.

[Biker16]

Biker has a dodgy signature —

 

"RichardJensen, on 11 Jul 2006 - 11:09 PM, said:

 

A "Global van" to replace both the E-Series and the Transit would be the height of stupidity. Nothing like pretending the differences between Europe and the United States don't exist, just to make things look neat on paper."

 

Hmm . . . 8 years ago, things were different in the US. That was then, and this is now, in case you haven't noticed, times change.

 

But he speaks With such certainty. and absoluteness, there isn't a hint of fallibility in his post.

 

 

That signature lacks context---

 

I said then, and say now, that the Transit cannot replace the full E-Series range. Ford agrees, that's why they're keeping the heavy duty Es in production.

 

Biker also fails to include his predictions that the Sprinter would 'take over' the US market.

 

You hold on to this distorted view of the past where you Attempt to spin you obtuse position into a more flexible one.

 

Richard were you for or against replacing the E-series the transit?

 

out of Context?

 

 

 

Sprinter demand is currently in excess of capacity. DCX is adding stateside Sprinter production.

 

I would, however, challenge Mr. Truth-about-cars know-it-all to prove his case with something other than the wisdom of hindsight. I'm sure Ford's fleet customers ask Ford for stuff ALL THE TIME. Failure to listen to these requests is not necessarily evidence of poor business strategy: As a counter example: suppose Ford brings over the Transit ahead of DCX and the Sprinter, and discovers that it only cannibalizes E-Series sales. Would bringing the Transit over make sense under those circumstances? Of course not.

 

 

 

arrogance, They are reacting to the market not leading it.

 

 

Well you know by the time there is actually eneough sprinter capasity to meet demand and drive the price down to E-series levels. remember when DCX canceled the new sprinter plant in GA , Ford canceled it plant to make a global Van to replace the E-series and transit. basically a V8 capable transit, Ford in its great wisdom decided not to do it. you must be more agressive.

 

 

right now the sprinter starts at $30k

 

The E-series at 26k.

 

If the sprinter wasn't being imported it would cost alot less.

 

 

 

And your point is????????

 

A "Global van" to replace both the E-Series and the Transit would be the height of stupidity. Nothing like pretending the differences between Europe and the United States don't exist, just to make things look neat on paper.

 

 

 

Well, let's see. Ford has a stranglehold on the U.S. upfitters and chassis cab market. Dropping the E-series and expecting everyone to just up and go to a brand new architecture is ridiculous.

 

BTW, if you can't tell the difference between the U.S. and Europe, then you haven't spent enough time in either place. Maybe if you take a drive down I-80 all the way to San Francisco you'll kind of get the idea. A lot of places the advantages offered by the Transit are hardly advantages at all. Most urban centers W. of the Mississippi grew around the car. Maneuverability--even with a E-Series-based delivery truck is hardly an issue.

 

And yes, my argument against federalizing the Transit was that money can be better spent elsewhere on other priorities.

 

My argument against bastardizing both the Transit and E-Series to create a 'world van' is, "why"? The Transit is profitable, the E-Series is profitable. It is extremely unlikely that bastardizing each will yield more profits. In fact, it's likely to tick off scores of body builders who will simply go elsewhere, taking tons of business with them. Fundamentally, such a solution would result in a product with different (not less) shortcomings than either the E-Series OR the Transit.

 

Different suggestions, different arguments. Neat, eh?

 

 

 

What will happen as always when nissan or DCX comes out with there new vans, and kicks Ford's van up and down "I80" you will understand.

 

and then some large brain will say, The product cycles are out of wack we must wait untill 2015 for a replacment, that IS the history of Ford.

 

What is stopping Ford from keeping the E-350-450 chassis around for many any years and replacing the "van" with a euro hybrid?????? Or dare I say have every upgrade to a new archtechture...... they will eithe buy the new ford, or retool to use the GM chasis... it is the same either way they retool.

 

Lighter weight,

more payload

better economy

much more interior space and cargo.

 

These are things only Europeans can use, :shrug:

 

 

 

Wait: Which argument are you advancing here?

 

The "let's bastardize the two best van platforms in the business" argument? Or the "Let's import the Transit argument"?

 

You've got my answers to both. Nothing you've said suggests that a) the minor chunk of the market staked out by DCX justifies the investment required to bring over the Transit NOW, as opposed to a few years down the road--ESPECIALLY since DCX put the kibosh on adding Sprinter capacity, or b ) a hybrid Transit/E-Series makes any sense at all.

 

BTW, why did DCX cancel the Sprinter plant? Maybe they did some market surveys and found that there wasn't enough demand. It's certainly not because DCX is scrimping on new product development.

 

Ford OWNS half of the fullsize van segment BECAUSE they are the chassis of choice for almost ever body builder out there. Do you honestly think that DCX can persuade these guys to adopt their MORE EXPENSIVE chassis just because it makes a better urban delivery platform?

 

 

 

enough, what percentages of E-series sales are chasis? Vs Box vans.

 

The E-series is a weak product, it is waiting to be made obsolite.

 

180,000 units per year vs the sprinter's 10,000 in 2004 20,000 in 2005 and 32,000 in 2006.

 

all new sprinter in january of 2007, with a bigger engine, more powerful diesles and a 258hp

gas motor.

 

The new sprinter

 

You can ignore it for only so long. The chassis market will be the E-series savior, like the police market is for the panther.

 

 

 

my Favorite Quote

 

"Well, let's see. Ford has a stranglehold on the U.S. upfitters and chassis cab market. Dropping the E-series and expecting everyone to just up and go to a brand new architecture is ridiculous."

 

This is exactly what is being done right now, and those up-fitters are loving it.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Biker16

[chevys]

 

 

As a C-Max owner with over 20K miles I will share my opinion based on ownership. Ford screwed up badly. They gave the stupid customers tooooo much available power with their hybrids and EcoBoost options. Most customers see the EPA numbers and think they can drive the shit out of their precious gas sippers and do and then complain about the mileage.

 

We are averaging over 47 since purchase and drive speed limits and keep up with traffic.

 

If I remember correctly you are the poster that told me I should have bought a Prius or a Fiesta. My response was I would not take either if given free if I had to drive it. I bought the C-Max for the high seat position, hybrid for the MPG and SUV for carrying stuff. You continue to come here and state an opinion with no real world experience driving one.

I am glad you are happy with your C-max. I guess you think this is the consumers fault that Ford has had to revise the fuel mileage ratings not once but twice on the C-max? I guess I was right all along about questioning why the majority of folks could not achieve the mighty 47/47/47 on the sticker. You are the exception and not the rule. I can exceed the epa sticker ratings on my Mustang and old Gmc pickup if I really really try. But I dont try and I run the A/c at will and just drive them normally most of the time. I dont drive them like I am trying to save the planet and I get without fail pretty much what was on the stickers at the time of purchase.

 

The vast majority on fuelly right now are averaging 40 and the revised combined rating from Ford is now 40 on the C-max. They finally have had to tell the truth. Yes, there can be wild swings with hybrids. I am glad you are happy with yours. I am going to burn as much gasoline and rubber as I can afford before I leave this earth.

 

You are correct that I have never had the opportunity to drive a C-max nor an EB engine for any lengh of time but if I did I would expect them to deliever basically the same results as my 96 gmc and my Mustang givin my driving habits over the last 35 years. Ford has really got caught up in a mess here. If you want to blame me go ahead. I dont care. This is a company I have always loved but I really dont trust them. They dig in deep on something like the EB engines or hybrids and then find out they dont deliver and find some loop hole to get out of it. Seen it too many times.

 

They will never admit to a poor design or poorly engineered product. Instead, they keep trying to fix something that is not fixable. It just pisses me off and I will never trust them.

[chevys]

 

to paraphrase Forest Gump: stupid is as stupid types

Yep, look who was right all along. 40mpg is your new combined rating now. And you are and educated hot shot engineer that is far above the rest of us mortals. Guess us mortals are not as stupid as you think we are are. There is no disputing the new numbers since the EPA audit and even Ford agrees with them. 7 mpg is massive! How do account for that? Case closed.

[MountainLion]

I don't necessarily think this was 100% intentional. The reason I think not is because the numbers are not impossible to get. The proof for me is the customer vehicles I see coming in with over 40mpg on the trip computer.

As far as EB numbers, people don't understand more boost requires more fuel. Keep your foot out of it and numbers are attainable. However, it's like Gt Mustangs and corvettes. They can get good hwy mpg , yet they have demons that make the driver want to drive fast. It's hard not to want that pull and exhaust note.

Only ford knows if this was intentional or a stupid miscalculation.

They have to get that fe up to compete. That sub 40 mark will hurt hybrid sales I believe. Maybe they will give good deals on one I'll buy one.

 

EB really does hammer fuel economy if you put your foot in it - I know this from trying it out for myself. My Fusion is rated 37 HWY. Where I drive is 98% wide open 2 lanes with no stoplights - but it is very hilly. My best fuel economy run home from work was 44 miles at 46.5 MPG - putting myself in the 'extreme grandma' driver setting - losing 10+ MPH on the hills. My average on that run is 34.5 - maintaining speed throughout and passing anyone going 5 under the limit.

Edited June 16, 2014 by MountainLion

[RichardJensen]

 

Richard were you for or against replacing the E-series the transit?

 

As may be clearly inferred from *all* of my posts, not just the ones you cherry-picked, I pointed out--and have continued to point out--the clear superiority of the E-Series for heavy duty and delivery work.

 

And, as may be clearly inferred from *all* of your posts, you considered the ascendancy of the Sprinter to be fait accompli, and that replacing the E-Series with the Transit in 2007 was a matter of utmost urgency in order for Ford to retain a dominant position in the market.

 

Beyond that, your continued resurrection of old threads indicates a rather unhealthy obsession with me. Granted, you haven't started posting stuff under my name on other websites, but you're headed in that direction, seeings how you've got that thoroughly-out-of-context quote in your signature.

[Biker16]

 

As may be clearly inferred from *all* of my posts, not just the ones you cherry-picked, I pointed out--and have continued to point out--the clear superiority of the E-Series for heavy duty and delivery work.

 

And, as may be clearly inferred from *all* of your posts, you considered the ascendancy of the Sprinter to be fait accompli, and that replacing the E-Series with the Transit in 2007 was a matter of utmost urgency in order for Ford to retain a dominant position in the market.

 

 

I picked every single post of yours and mine from the 1st page of that thread, every single one.

 

The E-series is being replaced by the transit and listening to the Reviews I was right to say it should have been done 8 year ago.

 

I quote this to prove you have history of being wrong.

[jpd80]

Context of time.

 

Ford wasn't in a financial position to do a US Transit in 2006, so the discussion should be off the table.

Spending cash to rip up the E-series line would have imperiled Ford even more than it already was.

 

Suggesting otherwise is grossly revisionist and flies in the face of financial reality.

Edited June 16, 2014 by jpd80