Bad news for Ford on the Fusion and C-Max.

[TomT]

Ford Motor Co. has been crowing about the huge fuel economy ratings of its Fusion and C-Max hybrids.

Consumer Reports did its own tests and said it couldn’t replicate the 47 miles per gallon Ford is claiming for the city, highway and combined ratings for the vehicles.

“After running both vehicles through Consumer Reports real-world tests, CR’s engineers have gotten very good results. But they are far below Ford's ambitious triple-47 figures,” the magazine, which operates its own testing center in Connecticut, said Thursday.

“These two vehicles have the largest discrepancy between our overall mpg results and the estimates published by the EPA that we've seen among any current models,” the magazine said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ford-inflated-fuel-economy-20121206,0,1964927.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Boomer23]

Up until Hyundai recently got in trouble for inflated mileage claims, I was under the naive impression that EPA figures were always set by direct testing by the EPA. I'm surprised to learn that the car makers get to conduct the testing and that the EPA merely samples a subset of the cars.

I was already withholding judgement about the Ford offerings pending real world MPG results, and this is disappointing news.

 

[evnow]

Up until Hyundai recently got in trouble for inflated mileage claims, I was under the naive impression that EPA figures were always set by direct testing by the EPA. I'm surprised to learn that the car makers get to conduct the testing and that the EPA merely samples a subset of the cars.

That's what happens when you starve the EPA of funds and trust the businesses to "self-report".

 

[GRA]

Up until Hyundai recently got in trouble for inflated mileage claims, I was under the naive impression that EPA figures were always set by direct testing by the EPA. I'm surprised to learn that the car makers get to conduct the testing and that the EPA merely samples a subset of the cars.

That's what happens when you starve the EPA of funds and trust the businesses to "self-report".

Provided Ford followed EPA protocols (i.e. didn't screw up the test the way Hyundai did), the problem lies with the nature of the test, not Ford or a lack of money for the EPA. For that matter, does anyone know if it was Ford or the EPA which tested the C-Max and Fusion? These are new technologies, so I'd think they'd get a higher level of scrutiny than the run of the mill ICE.

 

[cwerdna]

I really wish the EPA or fueleconomy.gov would list whether the result was validated by the EPA themselves since they only test about 15% of cars for FE anyway.

I don't really like the tone of the story as almost ALL vehicles when tested by CR post a lower overall mileage than EPA combined. Their city figures are way below EPA city (I'm sure because of CR's short test cycle) and highway numbers are usually above EPA highway.

If you want to learn more about the EPA tests, see http://priuschat.com/threads/car-and-driver-the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates.67235/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Besides this, the last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; also discusses their tests vs. the old EPA method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9vmMXHPl6Eo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; claims that their overall being usually within 2 mpg well... sure it is is on low mpg cars but isn't on higher mpg cars.

See http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/best-worst-cars-review/best-worst-fuel-economy/best-and-worst-fuel-economy.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Compare to some cars at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbsSelect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

The problem w/going by mpg is discussed at http://priuschat.com/threads/car-and-driver-mileage-no-its-your-gallonage-that-really-counts.95536/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. A 2 mpg drop/shortfall at high mpg values (say 40 or 50 mpg) is insignificant compared to a baseline value of 20 mpg.

I do really wonder if Ford is simply optimizing better for the test or if there's cheating going on or an unintentional error in how they're going thru the test procedure (e.g. Hyundai and Kia's issue). The previous gen FFH got much better EPA ratings than the previous gen HyCam (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26405&id=26424" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false yet at http://web.archive.org/web/20100619032221/http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, they got identical overall mileage.

 

[evnow]

Provided Ford followed EPA protocols (i.e. didn't screw up the test the way Hyundai did), the problem lies with the nature of the test, not Ford or a lack of money for the EPA. For that matter, does anyone know if it was Ford or the EPA which tested the C-Max and Fusion? These are new technologies, so I'd think they'd get a higher level of scrutiny than the run of the mill ICE.

Considering a lot of the cars seem to come right on the EPA rating with predictable variation, I'd have to say it is a problem with Ford.

And it looks like Ford is trying to ignore the problem, considering their statement.

 

[cwerdna]

Provided Ford followed EPA protocols (i.e. didn't screw up the test the way Hyundai did)

They could've screwed up in a different way, inflating the results.

Hyundai explained their screw up at https://hyundaimpginfo.com/overview/new-testing-process" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and https://hyundaimpginfo.com/resources/details/coastdown-facts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/11/hyundai-kia-mileage-mishap-how-it-happened.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has some more info.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

I always thought that EPA numbers are sure thing.

 

[evnow]

There has been chatter about Ford designing specifically to get higher EPA rating than real life. Don't know if it is even possible.

In anycase, this isn't good for the sales of Energi (and the hybrid). Personally this won't imfluence my decision to buy Energi or not.

It would be interesting to see what Lyle reports.

 

[evnow]

http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/index.php?/topic/571-epa-may-test-the-c-max-hybrid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I got some information from the EPA that the EPA tested the 2013 Ford C-Max Energi thoroughly but they did not test the regular 2013 C-Max hybrid which is rated at 47/47/47. There have been some people who have been critical of these ratings and a number of articles written that question their validity so the EPA may do their own testing to confirm those results but that has not happened yet.

The Energi is rated at 44 City/ 41 Hwy/ 43 combined. Even though the Energi is 250 lbs heavier than the Hybrid, the Energi's numbers seem more in line with what most users are seein in the real world with the Hybrid. I wonder if the 47/47/47 will get revised? I hope this doesn't turn into a bad press episode like the Hyundai/Kia fiasco.

The story gets more interesting....

Interesting. This might also explain the big difference between the hybrid & Energi ratings.

 

[thedak]

I always thought that EPA numbers are sure thing.

A lot of Prius owners think the same thing as well....

 

[palmermd]

I also question the rating on the Focus Electric. Not sure how a car that is heavier and has a smaller battery with both supposedly having a .29 cd aero rating could have greater efficiency and range than the Leaf. I've not heard any real world results from owners driving.

 

[DaveEV]

Interesting. This might also explain the big difference between the hybrid & Energi ratings.

Very interesting - and some were claiming initially that the Energi used a different final gear ratio which reduced efficiency on the EPA test.

I always found that argument suspect, the transmission design should minimize the effect except at very low speeds. Especially comparing the EPA ratings of the C-MAX to the Prius where the bigger battery of the Prius plug-in compared to the hybrid allows it to get slightly better fuel economy in charge-sustaining mode.

I also question the rating on the Focus Electric. Not sure how a car that is heavier and has a smaller battery with both supposedly having a .29 cd aero rating could have greater efficiency and range than the Leaf. I've not heard any real world results from owners driving.

The Focus has a much smaller frontal area than the LEAF being quite a bit shorter and Ford is very good at designing regenerative braking systems to minimize friction braking use. The 2013 should minimize the difference between the 2 cars, but I would bet that the Focus will still do better on the highway thanks to it's lower frontal area.

 

[evnow]

I also question the rating on the Focus Electric. Not sure how a car that is heavier and has a smaller battery with both supposedly having a .29 cd aero rating could have greater efficiency and range than the Leaf. I've not heard any real world results from owners driving.

The Focus has a much smaller frontal area than the LEAF being quite a bit shorter and Ford is very good at designing regenerative braking systems to minimize friction braking use. The 2013 should minimize the difference between the 2 cars, but I would bet that the Focus will still do better on the highway thanks to it's lower frontal area.

I'm fairly sure FFE & Leaf ranges are different because methodoloical differences in testing.

Leaf used 2 cycle with a 30% adjustment. FFE used 5 cycle.

 

[DaveEV]

I also question the rating on the Focus Electric. Not sure how a car that is heavier and has a smaller battery with both supposedly having a .29 cd aero rating could have greater efficiency and range than the Leaf. I've not heard any real world results from owners driving.

The Focus has a much smaller frontal area than the LEAF being quite a bit shorter and Ford is very good at designing regenerative braking systems to minimize friction braking use. The 2013 should minimize the difference between the 2 cars, but I would bet that the Focus will still do better on the highway thanks to it's lower frontal area.

I'm fairly sure FFE & Leaf ranges are different because methodoloical differences in testing.

Leaf used 2 cycle with a 30% adjustment. FFE used 5 cycle.

Where can one confirm that? At the very least the data from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tcldata.htm indicates that the Focus EV, iMiEV and LEAF all used the same test procedure, Charge Depleting UDDS and Highway.

 

[Herm]

It would be interesting to see what Lyle reports.

Wayne Gerdes over at http://www.cleanmpg.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; will get one soon for extended testing. He can be trusted.

The EPA cycles are a totally synthetic way of testing cars, their numbers have never matched real life results unless artificially forced to (the 30% fudge factor adjustment of the late 80s). I suspect Ford did not cheat but will still get hell over it.

 

[palmermd]

It would be interesting to see what Lyle reports.

Wayne Gerdes over at http://www.cleanmpg.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; will get one soon for extended testing. He can be trusted.

The EPA cycles are a totally synthetic way of testing cars, their numbers have never matched real life results unless artificially forced to (the 30% fudge factor adjustment of the late 80s). I suspect Ford did not cheat but will still get hell over it.

I'm glad to hear someone who knows what they are doing will do some independent testing. The problem I have is that their website is awful. I could not even find his testing on the Leaf.

 

[evnow]

The EPA cycles are a totally synthetic way of testing cars, their numbers have never matched real life results unless artificially forced to (the 30% fudge factor adjustment of the late 80s). I suspect Ford did not cheat but will still get hell over it.

Any standardized test will have to be "synthetic", otherwise it can't be repeated and we can't compare one car to another.

With the new test (the 5 cycle ones), a lot of the cars seem to get close to what EPA rating suggests. People get close to 50 mpg in Prius all the time. A lot of us can easily get 73 miles in Leaf, for that matter.

I'm sure one of these days we will see a auto magazine do a comparitive drive test of Prius v & C-Max. Then, we will know how they compare in mpg ... that would be a good real life test that can still be used for comparison. I just hope the magazine guys don't drive these cars like they stole them (apparently most magazine guys think that is the only way to test drive a car).

 

[GRA]

The EPA cycles are a totally synthetic way of testing cars, their numbers have never matched real life results unless artificially forced to (the 30% fudge factor adjustment of the late 80s). I suspect Ford did not cheat but will still get hell over it.

Any standardized test will have to be "synthetic", otherwise it can't be repeated and we can't compare one car to another.

With the new test (the 5 cycle ones), a lot of the cars seem to get close to what EPA rating suggests. People get close to 50 mpg in Prius all the time. A lot of us can easily get 73 miles in Leaf, for that matter.

I'm sure one of these days we will see a auto magazine do a comparitive drive test of Prius v & C-Max. Then, we will know how they compare in mpg ... that would be a good real life test that can still be used for comparison. I just hope the magazine guys don't drive these cars like they stole them (apparently most magazine guys think that is the only way to test drive a car).

Re real world vs. test MPG; as the EPA always says, for comparison purposes only and YMMV. FWIW, I find CR's actual reported mileage, especially highway, to be well below what I always get (and I'm not driving 55) in the same car, and I've always exceeded EPA numbers by a couple of MPG as well. Other people complain that the EPA methodology still gives inflated values (even after revising them downwards three times), and they've never come close to the EPA's numbers. Car mags are populated by people who like to drive cars hard and fast, and real world tests routinely give much lower numbers than most people will see driving normally. It doesn't make any of the results invalid.

Now, many car companies have gamed the EPA tests; some used to remove side mirrors, spare tires, use the smallest possible tire etc., or have chosen gear ratios which maximize EPA results either by accident or design, but which result in real world mileages no better (and sometimes worse) than cars which the EPA rates much lower. And then there's outright fraud.

I have no evidence which if any of the above issues is causing the problems with the Fords; assuming the company did the tests and isn't just lying (dumb and expensive), I lean towards the
"EPA test results for these particular vehicles give them a greater advantage over the real world than is the case with most cars."

Whether that result was deliberate or accidental, we don't know. One thing is for sure, if Ford did the tests and reported the results wrong, it will cost them a bundle. In an internet world it's way too easy to be caught, and I'd think that a large corporation would be too smart to do something that stupid. However, Nissan has invalidated that idea, so we'll have to wait and see.

 

[evnow]

I have no evidence which if any of the above issues is causing the problems with the Fords; assuming the company did the tests and isn't just lying (dumb and expensive), I lean towards the
"EPA test results for these particular vehicles give them a greater advantage over the real world than is the case with most cars."

I see no reason why EPA tests are somehow non-representative for C-Max, but are representative for Prius v. Occam's razor dictates, the problem is at Ford's end (either deliberate, by design or a genuine mistake).