Ford to pay C-Max owners after overstating hybrid'

[nomochevys]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/a...03b2_story.html

Caught red handed more or less. They were within the law and morally as wrong as wrong gets. I hope it costs them a bundle.

 

[NHGUY]

Its cost the Korean twins (KIA/Hyundai) plenty.Sales have been down there for months.

 

[kam327]

I think you're overstating the "as wrong as wrong gets" bit. They were following the EPA guidelines and the estimates are generally known as EPA estimates not manufacturer estimates. It's EPA that needs to revise their rules again to make them more representative of the real world.

Hate the game, not the playa.

 

[dparm]

Manufacturers love saying "EPA XXXX mpg", not "EPA estimated". Nice to see Ford making good.

 

[nomochevys]

Here are the real numbers before and after the software update.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/fueleconomy/420f13044.pdf

They saw this coming a mile away after the lawsuits got started and thats why they worked 24/7 trying to get a software update to make a few more mpg's to save face. They sure didnt do it because they really cared about the customer. They are trying to save their own bacon.

 

[nomochevys]

Originally Posted By: kam327
I think you're overstating the "as wrong as wrong gets" bit. They were following the EPA guidelines and the estimates are generally known as EPA estimates not manufacturer estimates. It's EPA that needs to revise their rules again to make them more representative of the real world.

Hate the game, not the playa.


Technically, you are correct. However, you cant tell me somebody at Ford didnt know they were pulling a caper here. 47/47/47/ really meant 41/42/40. Legally they are in the clear and morally they are wrong by deceiving the customer. In short, they lied. They got the 47 mpg by a loop hole in the epa rules that allowed them to classify the C max in a whole different class without testing it. Now that its been tested we all see what a sham Ford tried to pull off. It makes me madder that stink when a big company tries to pull off a lie like this and the consumer has to eat it.

 

[kam327]

Originally Posted By: nomochevys
Originally Posted By: kam327
I think you're overstating the "as wrong as wrong gets" bit. They were following the EPA guidelines and the estimates are generally known as EPA estimates not manufacturer estimates. It's EPA that needs to revise their rules again to make them more representative of the real world.

Hate the game, not the playa.


Technically, you are correct. However, you cant tell me somebody at Ford didnt know they were pulling a caper here. 47/47/47/ really meant 41/42/40. Legally they are in the clear and morally they are wrong by deceiving the customer. In short, they lied. They got the 47 mpg by a loop hole in the epa rules that allowed them to classify the C max in a whole different class without testing it. Now that its been tested we all see what a sham Ford tried to pull off. It makes me madder that stink when a big company tries to pull off a lie like this and the consumer has to eat it.



You seriously don't think other automakers are doing the same thing? Hyundai already ate it. There are probably more coming. Like I said, hate the game.

And by the way, isn't the fusion hybrid falling short of the estimates in the real world too? Funny they infer the Fusion was tested appropriately.

I for one am getting 10% better than the combined rating in my focus on my suburban commute with a dozen stops over 20 miles. Couldn't be happier.

 

[nomochevys]

Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: nomochevys
Originally Posted By: kam327
I think you're overstating the "as wrong as wrong gets" bit. They were following the EPA guidelines and the estimates are generally known as EPA estimates not manufacturer estimates. It's EPA that needs to revise their rules again to make them more representative of the real world.

Hate the game, not the playa.


Technically, you are correct. However, you cant tell me somebody at Ford didnt know they were pulling a caper here. 47/47/47/ really meant 41/42/40. Legally they are in the clear and morally they are wrong by deceiving the customer. In short, they lied. They got the 47 mpg by a loop hole in the epa rules that allowed them to classify the C max in a whole different class without testing it. Now that its been tested we all see what a sham Ford tried to pull off. It makes me madder that stink when a big company tries to pull off a lie like this and the consumer has to eat it.



You seriously don't think other automakers are doing the same thing? Hyundai already ate it. There are probably more coming. Like I said, hate the game.

And by the way, isn't the fusion hybrid falling short of the estimates in the real world too? Funny they infer the Fusion was tested appropriately.

I for one am getting 10% better than the combined rating in my focus on my suburban commute with a dozen stops over 20 miles. Couldn't be happier.


I hear you about the game and it will be interesting to see who else is using the loophole. What gets me is those who defend Ford at all costs like they are some kind of saint. I am a Ford man pretty much and this makes me angry. Now that Ford hybrids are on notice they better take a long hard look at the Eco Boost engines. They are suspect imo also when it comes to mileage claims. The normally asperated Ford engines do well in the real world from what I can tell.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: kam327


You seriously don't think other automakers are doing the same thing? Hyundai already ate it. There are probably more coming. Like I said, hate the game.



That's one way of looking at it. I don't think everyone's going to see it that way, though.

This car competes directly w/the Prius V. Notice that Toyota didn't claim Prius-type numbers for the V; if they did, they'd be facing a similar backlash. With all of the different magazine road tests and folks posting their FE online, it's surprising to thing they could really get away with basically lying to consumers. Call it "the game" if you want, I'll call it deliberate deception. I don't think that's a cornerstone of a good long-term business model.

Funny, I was just reading this review last week. Keep in mind this review was in April: Motor Trend .

"When you talk hybrids, you have to talk fuel economy because, after all, that's the entire point. The Prius V is rated at 44 city/40 highway and has a combined rating of 42 mpg. Pretty good, but the C-Max has even better EPA stats. It's rated at 47 mpg in every category. Better, right? Not so fast.

During our drive loops comparing these two cars, the Toyota returned 39.4 mpg combined, whereas the Ford was good for only 37.3 mpg. Granted, that was with hooligans like me doing the driving (the last time I did a big road trip with a Prius V, I kept it between 75 and 85 mph the whole time and averaged 38.7 mpg), but if you fire up your Google, you'll find a great many instances of the C-Max delivering about 10 less combined mpg than advertised, and that's pretty significant."

 

[salv]

Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Its cost the Korean twins (KIA/Hyundai) plenty.Sales have been down there for months.

Hyundai and Kia continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Neither brand was legally compelled to reimburse owners for 1-2 mpg discrepancies in stated fuel economy, but did so in good faith.
Ford's issue here is that the actual tested values fall outside of the normal range projected on their window stickers.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Manufacture just follow EPA guidelines in posting MPG. My S2000 easily beats EPA MPG by 10-20%, I don't highway MPG was tested at what speed but it was 24 MPG, while in the real world with speed at 70-75 MPH I got 27-28 MPG, at 60-65 MPH the MPG is about 30-31 MPG, at 50-55 MPH MPG is 33-34 MPG. The only way I get 24 MPG is at constant speed of 90-95 MPH.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: JOD

...Motor Trend...
"During our drive loops comparing these two cars, the Toyota returned 39.4 mpg combined, whereas the Ford was good for only 37.3 mpg. Granted, that was with hooligans like me doing the driving (the last time I did a big road trip with a Prius V, I kept it between 75 and 85 mph the whole time and averaged 38.7 mpg), but if you fire up your Google, you'll find a great many instances of the C-Max delivering about 10 less combined mpg than advertised, and that's pretty significant."


Thing is, there is no good way to assess the truth in any of this based upon Motor Trend and self-admitted hooligan driving.

Ive never been able to do much worse than EPA highway numbers in mixed driving across all our cars. In fact, to hit the new numbers really took me driving like a hooligan. A different drivetrain type like a hybrid may have even more different dynamics.

Dont like the deceipt of the consumer, and it sounds like there was some that was quite blatant, but at the same time, I cant personally trust the EPA ratings or other drivers to determine what MPGs Ill get driving around.

 

[Roadkingnc]

I would worry more about the cost of replacement parts than a few mpg's in fuel economy. Hybrid escape abs hydraulic control unit 4000.00. That will buy a lot of fuel. Traction batteries are very high also.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Thing is, there is no good way to assess the truth in any of this based upon Motor Trend and self-admitted hooligan driving.


One the one hand I agree, but car mags always get less than the EPA estimates (and I always get more...). To me the big flag is the delta between their FE and the EPA estimates, and how they compare in relative terms. In the case of the C-Max vs. the V, all of the car mags who test FE came up with the same conclusion: the delta is much closer w/the Prius V than the C-Max.

While I wouldn't count on a single data point, there's a lot of info out there, from car mags to Fuelly to the fueleconomy.gov submissions. They all point to what Ford has admitted--that it's not close to the original estimates. It's also lame that they'd claim the same FE as the Fusion, as the drag coefficient is significantly higher and it's heavier. They're kinda flying in the face of basic physics on this one, so it just seems really disingenuous on their part.

I'm not a Ford hater. I own 2 right now and I like them both. That said, the V and C-Max are both on my radar screen and this doesn't leave me with a great impression.

 

[itguy08]

Quote:
Now that Ford hybrids are on notice they better take a long hard look at the Eco Boost engines. They are suspect imo also when it comes to mileage claims. The normally asperated Ford engines do well in the real world from what I can tell.


I won't touch your rant other than to reiterate that they all game the system and hate the game, not the player. Let the EPA know they need to change the game. In the linked article the EPA said the current test was established in 1977, 36 years ago...

And on the Ecoboost, I can tell you that the Ecoboost 3.5 in my SHO is smack in the EPA ratings over the 62k I've owned it. Up to 26 on the highway, 19-20 in the city and an average of 21-22. I've got the fuel logs to prove it.

 

[salv]

Bottom line, in all of these stories is that window stickers are not an MPG promise. They are not a guarantee to the customer. They are not something that a customer can "take to the bank". They are a representation of the fuel economy that a vehicle is capable of when driven "properly", under ideal circumstances. This means that the driver needs to adapt their driving style to characteristics of the vehicle if they want to obtain the best possible fuel economy, and no, that does not mean that a vehicle should come with a tutorial on how to obtain maximum fuel economy. In a hybrid, driving styles will have more impact on fuel economy because it will impact how frequently the gas motor comes on and stays on.
Failure to obtain the maximum fuel economy achieved in testing is an example of operator error, not false advertising.

 

[friendly_jacek]

EPA is at fault here leaving all those loopholes unpatched and reacting only to the media backlash. If I understand it correctly, one doesn't have to do any actual car resting to satisfy EPA and estimates from some kind of mathematical model are good enough. This is a farce and some automakers are clearly taking advantage of.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: salv

Failure to obtain the maximum fuel economy achieved in testing is an example of operator error, not false advertising.


You are wrong and/or don't understand the story here. EPA test itself could not get the very high "EPA" numbers Ford advertised.

 

[salv]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
EPA is at fault here leaving all those loopholes unpatched and reacting only to the media backlash. If I understand it correctly, one doesn't have to do any actual car resting to satisfy EPA and estimates from some kind of mathematical model are good enough. This is a farce and some automakers are clearly taking advantage of.

No. The problem is that people believe if the window sticker says that the average fuel economy on the highway is 39 mpg, they can set their cruise at 72 and get 39 mpg consistently.
Number 1: vehicles are not tested at the speeds that people actually drive. they are tested at "legal" speeds.
2: there is a wide variation in fuel economy performance during testing, and the MPG in bold print on the sticker is an average. 34 mpg at 65 mph may still fall within the acceptable range even though the big number on the sticker reads 39 mpg.
3: if an automaker can employ a test driver and obtain 39 mpg, then the vehicle is capable of that mpg, and that means that their is "0" deception in the advertised mpg.

 

[Artem]

I agree that many hybrid owners buy a hybrid and think it will automatically get them the stated MPG regardless of their driving style but many others are repeat hybrid buyers and hipermill like crazy. If THESE GUYS can't get the stated MPG, then the employed test driver for the auto manufacturers have some MAD skills.