BrewfanGRB Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Wrong. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33083 And if the same powertrain in the Cmax was found to be grossly overstated in terms of fuel economy, don't you think that the Fusion would have the same issues too? What?? The whole argument in this Biblical thread has been that Ford did the actual test on the Fusion and just used the same figures for the C-Max because the loophole allowed them to do so. There are no "issues" for the Fusion to have because that figure wasn't based on the assumption that we're all criticizing. You could at least try to pay attention and not undermine your own argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Yes, really. I'll post the same link for the millionth time. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33083 There will be some outliers, but the majority of cars do not see the figures Ford advertises. Up until last week, the Cmax did too. The C-Max never got a 47 "on the test" because it was never tested. Which is exactly the argument you've been making! At this point, I'm almost wishing Ford Buyer would come back. You're more obtuse than he was on his worst day. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The entire argument of the Cmax started with why the vast majority could not reach the mileage numbers published by Ford. Of course the normal excuses ensued along with a handful of folks exceeding the claims by Ford. But the bottom line is that the vast majority were not even coming close. Looking at the Fusion hybrid the numbers are almost a mirror of the Cmax. I am not suggestion Ford has cheated on this one but where there is smoke there might just be another fire. Lord knows Ford is not afraid to pencil whip numbers when it appeases them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) The entire argument of the Cmax started with why the vast majority could not reach the mileage numbers published by Ford. Of course the normal excuses ensued along with a handful of folks exceeding the claims by Ford. But the bottom line is that the vast majority were not even coming close. Looking at the Fusion hybrid the numbers are almost a mirror of the Cmax. I am not suggestion Ford has cheated on this one but where there is smoke there might just be another fire. Lord knows Ford is not afraid to pencil whip numbers when it appeases them. And if there was anything more than passing interest, Ford's close on 8,000/mth hybrid sales would be in the shitter by now but guess what, the majority of Ford's hybrid buyers seem unfazed by the latest round of screaming headlines, looks like hybrid buyers are more realistic in their expectations compared to the vocal minority of disaffected customers. Don't get me wrong, I think hybrid tech and the way fuel economy is evaluated and presented to the public is questionable but can you imagine the contrast a Euro diesel Fusion/C-Max would make to the hybrid furore, I recon you could almost lay your house on diesels achieving the fuel economy stated on the sticker...and then some In Urban and combined tests the 2.0 diesel Mondeo is 30% better than the 2.0 Ecoboost ... Edited August 19, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Don't get me wrong, I think hybrid tech and the way fuel economy is evaluated and presented to the public is questionablebut can you imagine the contrast a Euro diesel Fusion/C-Max would make to the hybrid furore, I recon you could almost lay your house on diesels achieving the fuel economy stated on the sticker...and then some In Urban and combined tests the 2.0 diesel Mondeo is 30% better than the 2.0 Ecoboost ... Totally agree with you on this. If you look at Ford NA engines they consistently knock down the mileage and then some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Totally agree with you on this. If you look at Ford NA engines they consistently knock down the mileage and then some. And the only way to fix it is for the EPA to change the tests the way they did back in 2008. We have a new wave of engine technology that behaves differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Lord knows Ford is not afraid to pencil whip numbers when it appeases them. When was the last time Ford violated EPA regs on fuel economy? Because you are not accusing Ford of exploiting a loophole in this instance, you're accusing them of violating EPA regs in the testing of the Fusion. So, again, I presume you have evidence of this, right? Previous bad acts, or something, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 When was the last time Ford violated EPA regs on fuel economy? Because you are not accusing Ford of exploiting a loophole in this instance, you're accusing them of violating EPA regs in the testing of the Fusion. So, again, I presume you have evidence of this, right? Previous bad acts, or something, right? Quit ASSuming things Jensen and trying to put words in my mouth. I didnt say what they pencil whipped now did I? You dont need to look much further than the tow ratings on the F series to see some creative numbers based on nothing but Fords pencils. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 creative numbers based on nothing but Fords pencils We're done here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Quit ASSuming things Jensen and trying to put words in my mouth. I didnt say what they pencil whipped now did I? You dont need to look much further than the tow ratings on the F series to see some creative numbers based on nothing but Fords pencils. Please show proof that F-series trucks are incapable of towing their rated towing numbers. Thanks. Do understand that there is a huge difference between you being comfortable doing something, and the vehicle being capable of doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) HOw can this be Good PR? Ford is being cheap, will only reimburse owners for % years of ownership and at price of fuel lower than what Is being paid for today. http://t.autos.msn.com/news/ford-cuts-c-max-hybridâs-mpg-rates Ford said it would reimburse customers for the difference in the EPA's estimated 5-year fuel costs. Buyers will receive a $550 check, while lessees will get $325. However, Ford's payments aren't based on the current $3.54-per-gallon national average for regular gasoline. According to our calculations based on the EPA's formula, the company is assuming a price of less than $3.40. By comparison, Hyundai and Kia are reimbursing customers for additional fuel costs for the lifetime of ownership, not just for five years. can't wait to hear Richards excuse for this. Edited August 19, 2013 by Biker16 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 HOw can this be Good PR? Ford is being cheap, will only reimburse owners for % years of ownership and at price of fuel lower than what Is being paid for today. http://t.autos.msn.com/news/ford-cuts-c-max-hybridâs-mpg-rates can't wait to hear Richards excuse for this. Perhaps the Hyundai Corporation can take the hit for the motor vehicle arm. Hyundai was caught lying, Ford didn't break any rules but volunteered to change. I guess everyone here is getting all high and mighty and Ford is so bad. Was the decision Ford made unethical? I think so. An apology for something that was not wrong is better then nothing. Oh well, you can't please them all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) HOw can this be Good PR? Ford is being cheap, will only reimburse owners for % years of ownership and at price of fuel lower than what Is being paid for today. http://t.autos.msn.com/news/ford-cuts-c-max-hybridâs-mpg-rates can't wait to hear Richards excuse for this. Ford did not cheat, it was convenient to use a loop hole to avoid testing that should have been done in hindsight, something that still hasn't been done and most likely won't be done until the first MCE.. So, this compensation is 1) voluntary and 2) an olive branch to owners who may have not been expecting anything at all. There seems to be a rather fictitious perception on internet forums that the majority of Ford's hybrid owners are up in arms because none of them can achieve the quoted fuel economy - an argument that cannot be either substantiated or sustained. The silent majority of Ford hybrid owners are happy with their vehicles and have no apparent issues with Ford. Edited August 19, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 HOw can this be Good PR? Ford is being cheap, will only reimburse owners for % years of ownership and at price of fuel lower than what Is being paid for today. http://t.autos.msn.com/news/ford-cuts-c-max-hybridâs-mpg-rates can't wait to hear Richards excuse for this. Have you not yet grasped the fact that Ford didn't break any rules, while Kia did? Sure, it was wrong to do what Ford did, but they don't HAVE to return any money to the buyers. And Ford refunding the difference in fuel economy for 60k miles is nothing to sneeze at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ford did not cheat, it was convenient to use a loop hole to avoid testing that should have been done in hindsight, something that still hasn't been done. So, this compensation is 1) voluntary and 2) an olive branch to owners who may have not been expecting anything at all. There seems to be a rather fictitious perception on internet forums that the majority of Ford's hybrid owners are up in arms because none of them can achieve the quoted fuel economy - an argument that cannot be either substantiated or sustained. The silent majority of Ford hybrid owners are happy with their vehicles and have no apparent issues with Ford. The Reality is customers bought a vehicle with expectations back by the automaker. losing 7 MPGs Is not insignificant, regardless of the reasons why, Ford should step up, take the blame and take care of those customers, not just for 5 years and not at an unrealistic Price of gas of 3.40 per gallon. it these little cheats that Really piss people off. \ this is bad PR on ford's part. they Made mistake, plain and simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) Have you not yet grasped the fact that Ford didn't break any rules, while Kia did? Sure, it was wrong to do what Ford did, but they don't HAVE to return any money to the buyers. And Ford refunding the difference in fuel economy for 60k miles is nothing to sneeze at. Ford Does have to compensate the buyer. If ford did not Compensate The buyers there Would and likely still will be a massive Class action law suit, which unlike the Fan bois here Would plainly point to Ford's incomtence and/or negligence in this matter. being cheap about it just makes people want to sue even more. Lets try this: Mr. customer As a symbol of our sympathy for you we will pay the difference in the expected economy vs the actual economy, BUT at price of fuel less than what is being sold today, and only for the 5 years you will own this vehicle. Edited August 19, 2013 by Biker16 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 No they don't. Threat of class action or not. There was no illegality so the case would cost a lot of money and time for nothing. Being cheap? I call it smart. I don't believe Hyundai is paying for this mistake out of just the motor company money pot. I'm glad there is some compensation but expecting a lifetime subsidy? NFW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 7MPG? How about 4MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 It's amazing how many people seem to think that ford just puts whatever number they want on the sticker and that they're promising buyers they'll get that mileage. People who continue to think that after we've explained it at least 20 times are just being negatards. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 It's amazing how many people seem to think that ford just puts whatever number they want on the sticker and that they're promising buyers they'll get that mileage. People who continue to think that after we've explained it at least 20 times are just being negatards. There you go being a fanboi again when my 'rightness' tells me Ford is lying and cheating and they owe me a subsidy because they followed the rules. Now EVERYTHING is under scrutiny because of the pencils! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 HOw can this be Good PR? Ford is being cheap, will only reimburse owners for % years of ownership and at price of fuel lower than what Is being paid for today. http://t.autos.msn.com/news/ford-cuts-c-max-hybridâs-mpg-rates can't wait to hear Richards excuse for this. You're comparing the Hyundai and Ford cases and then are befuddled why the refund offers are different? You need to take a critical thinking course. Sit down, take a deep breath and think VERY CAREFULLY about why they different. (And they ARE different...they aren't just "Well, derr, dey both are like about numbers and stuff.") 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 It's amazing how many people seem to think that ford just puts whatever number they want on the sticker and that they're promising buyers they'll get that mileage. People who continue to think that after we've explained it at least 20 times are just being negatards. Those stickers are used for comparison as much as anything. How many people that bought the Cmax would have bought the Prius instead if they knew the truth was 41mpg??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ford Does have to compensate the buyer. If ford did not Compensate The buyers there Would and likely still will be a massive Class action law suit, which unlike the Fan bois here Would plainly point to Ford's incomtence and/or negligence in this matter. being cheap about it just makes people want to sue even more. Lets try this: Mr. customer As a symbol of our sympathy for you we will pay the difference in the expected economy vs the actual economy, BUT at price of fuel less than what is being sold today, and only for the 5 years you will own this vehicle. If there's a class action suit to be made, it should be against the EPA, not Ford. Ford followed the rules set forth by the EPA. Again, I don't agree with what Ford did, but they were within the letter of the law. And, 5 bucks says Ford has on that check something to the effect of "by signing this check, you relinquish all rights to a class action suit or any other suit about fuel economy for your C-Max." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ford Does have to compensate the buyer.If ford did not Compensate The buyers there Would and likely still will be a massive Class action law suit On what basis? You can't just go suing someone without a cause of action; Ford did nothing illegal, so what's the cause of action? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I'd like to see what Alan Mulally has to say about this... As for the numbers game...people are trying to pick pepper out of the fly shit right now just to prove their point. 1 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.