Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Ranger first...
Ford MPG
- Thread starter Zee09
- Start date
- Status
If you don't wan't to sit thru a video, your choice, you can read: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1121638_ford-investigates-its-own-fuel-economy-testing-methods
I remember this happened 6 years ago at Ford when Ford engineers used actual legal loopholes in the MPG testing laws which said they could use the aero cD from a Ford Fusion Hybrid on the Ford C-Max Hybrid, since both used the identical powertrain and had nearly the same mass. ........ Yet, the Fusion has lower air drag than the C-Max, so it made the C-Max look better when they put that into the dyno computers. Simple as that really. It was legal, but Ford could have been more honest about the C-Max air drag, and it highlighted a flaw in the EPA's MPG testing laws.
I watched part of the video, and they are idiots for trying to compare their ad hoc, random MPG "testing" which isn't the same city-highway cycle that is standard in the EPA FTP defined standard cycle.
It is important to have a standard MPG test cycle to compare different vehicles against each other. Otherwise, I could say my F150 pickup gets 30 MPG, which it can if you drive it down-hill at 45 mph, vs. my Honda Civic gets 20 MPG if I drive it at a steady 90 mph in high winds. That's why you need a standard test cycle rating system.
I remember this happened 6 years ago at Ford when Ford engineers used actual legal loopholes in the MPG testing laws which said they could use the aero cD from a Ford Fusion Hybrid on the Ford C-Max Hybrid, since both used the identical powertrain and had nearly the same mass. ........ Yet, the Fusion has lower air drag than the C-Max, so it made the C-Max look better when they put that into the dyno computers. Simple as that really. It was legal, but Ford could have been more honest about the C-Max air drag, and it highlighted a flaw in the EPA's MPG testing laws.
I watched part of the video, and they are idiots for trying to compare their ad hoc, random MPG "testing" which isn't the same city-highway cycle that is standard in the EPA FTP defined standard cycle.
It is important to have a standard MPG test cycle to compare different vehicles against each other. Otherwise, I could say my F150 pickup gets 30 MPG, which it can if you drive it down-hill at 45 mph, vs. my Honda Civic gets 20 MPG if I drive it at a steady 90 mph in high winds. That's why you need a standard test cycle rating system.
Last edited:
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
As a C-Maxer myself if you read customer reviews about low mpg to me it was driver error. ( latest models)
They drive it like a basic car. If you don't let off the gas you will never get that kind of mpg.
You know- let off the gas pedal to get into electric mode and then re-engage- not coast but get into EV mode.
They drive it like a basic car. If you don't let off the gas you will never get that kind of mpg.
You know- let off the gas pedal to get into electric mode and then re-engage- not coast but get into EV mode.
Originally Posted by tig1
My 2017 Fusion 2.5 gets better MPG than the sticker showed.
If you drove the same test cycle (speed profile) then you would duplicate the test cycle. If you don't duplicate the test cycle, then sure your MPG will likely be different.
For example: Fusion owner "A" drives in the city most of the time, and his MPG is below the EPA test cycle amounts, and he hires a lawyer to sue Ford about it.
Fusion owner "B" does a lot of steady cruising at 55 mph and gets better MPG than the EPA sticker.
Who is right? A or B ?
The EPA test cycle is only mean to compare one vehicle to another, thats all, that is it. A shopping tool.
My 2017 Fusion 2.5 gets better MPG than the sticker showed.
If you drove the same test cycle (speed profile) then you would duplicate the test cycle. If you don't duplicate the test cycle, then sure your MPG will likely be different.
For example: Fusion owner "A" drives in the city most of the time, and his MPG is below the EPA test cycle amounts, and he hires a lawyer to sue Ford about it.
Fusion owner "B" does a lot of steady cruising at 55 mph and gets better MPG than the EPA sticker.
Who is right? A or B ?
The EPA test cycle is only mean to compare one vehicle to another, thats all, that is it. A shopping tool.
Originally Posted by Zee09
As a C-Maxer myself if you read customer reviews about low mpg to me it was driver error. ( latest models)
They drive it like a basic car. If you don't let off the gas you will never get that kind of mpg.
You know- let off the gas pedal to get into electric mode and then re-engage- not coast but get into EV mode.
I never try to max MPG in my C-Max by doing the "pulse-n-glide" technique. I beat the EPA MPG sticker all the time, average. Mine gets 44 MPG long term, over about half and half city-highway.
A hybrid like that loves hills. Loves city stop-n-go. Hates steady high speeds on level ground.
I think I score higher than the EPA because I have more hills around.
Main point: The engine is most efficient at a sweet spot of torque & RPM, and the more it operates there, the better.
Ford did make the aero better in the 2015 and later C-Max models, using small tricks, and they also optimized the software's strategy better then the earlier models did at first. It did improve.
As a C-Maxer myself if you read customer reviews about low mpg to me it was driver error. ( latest models)
They drive it like a basic car. If you don't let off the gas you will never get that kind of mpg.
You know- let off the gas pedal to get into electric mode and then re-engage- not coast but get into EV mode.
I never try to max MPG in my C-Max by doing the "pulse-n-glide" technique. I beat the EPA MPG sticker all the time, average. Mine gets 44 MPG long term, over about half and half city-highway.
A hybrid like that loves hills. Loves city stop-n-go. Hates steady high speeds on level ground.
I think I score higher than the EPA because I have more hills around.
Main point: The engine is most efficient at a sweet spot of torque & RPM, and the more it operates there, the better.
Ford did make the aero better in the 2015 and later C-Max models, using small tricks, and they also optimized the software's strategy better then the earlier models did at first. It did improve.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Plus the front grille shutter
I accelerate up hills to get them over with.
I get great mpg and I don't drive the Prius style.
I use 5w20 FS and not 0w...
I use heated seats in the winter mostly. Try to avoid the hvac...
I accelerate up hills to get them over with.
I get great mpg and I don't drive the Prius style.
I use 5w20 FS and not 0w...
I use heated seats in the winter mostly. Try to avoid the hvac...
Getting back to the point of the thread, what is odd about this is that Ford is policing themselves here. The "Speak Up" anonymous whistleblower program at Ford caused this. All to try to head off possible future EPA fines & bad publicity (like the old C-Max scandal mentioned above).
I'm trying to figure out how they could have cheated on the coastdown tests, which establish the Road Load coefficients used on the dyno. (If done right & honestly, they are actually pretty accurate.)
Did they air up the tires to 55 psi?
Did they lower the suspension a bit?
Did they put a ground effects front air plastic air dam on the front? ...or other aero tweaks like wheel well covers?
Maybe a tonneau cover and balsa wood boat tail off the tailgate.
Notice below, that Ford first used the Red line, for the Fusion being the same as C-Max (which it's not because drag is diff between the two), and then had to go with the light Blue line. Its all simply fitting a 2nd order polynomial for the load.
![[Linked Image]](http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/uploads/gallery/album_32/gallery_167_32_44129.png "[Linked Image]")
I'm trying to figure out how they could have cheated on the coastdown tests, which establish the Road Load coefficients used on the dyno. (If done right & honestly, they are actually pretty accurate.)
Did they air up the tires to 55 psi?
Did they lower the suspension a bit?
Did they put a ground effects front air plastic air dam on the front? ...or other aero tweaks like wheel well covers?
Maybe a tonneau cover and balsa wood boat tail off the tailgate.
Notice below, that Ford first used the Red line, for the Fusion being the same as C-Max (which it's not because drag is diff between the two), and then had to go with the light Blue line. Its all simply fitting a 2nd order polynomial for the load.
Last edited:
Since pretty much every automaker can't be trusted to accurately or honestly come up with fuel economy or emissions data, probably time for the government to step in to protect consumers. Charge these automakers $100,000 (or whatever) per model and have the EPA run real-world, repeatable, standardized tests.
As soon as there's a standardized test, engineers will be paid to ensure their product does best in those tests.
Just look at all the graphics card scandals over the years, when the drivers have been explicitly written to do well in the tests by detecting them and acting differently in tests to the way they would in a real game.
All a test tells you is how well the product does in that test. Nothing more.
It may give you an upper limit to its behaviour in other circumstances, but that's about the best you could say.
Just look at all the graphics card scandals over the years, when the drivers have been explicitly written to do well in the tests by detecting them and acting differently in tests to the way they would in a real game.
All a test tells you is how well the product does in that test. Nothing more.
It may give you an upper limit to its behaviour in other circumstances, but that's about the best you could say.
Originally Posted by emg
All a test tells you is how well the product does in that test. Nothing more.
It may give you an upper limit to its behaviour in other circumstances, but that's about the best you could say.
It won't just find the "upper limit" if the test sequence spans the space. Kind of like a sine wave sweep is full spectrum, as long as the test is good enough to drive a variety of acceleration, speeds, and loading conditions, it will be comprehensive.
I once looked at the FTP, and I can see the engineers did a pretty good job of spanning the space.
All a test tells you is how well the product does in that test. Nothing more.
It may give you an upper limit to its behaviour in other circumstances, but that's about the best you could say.
It won't just find the "upper limit" if the test sequence spans the space. Kind of like a sine wave sweep is full spectrum, as long as the test is good enough to drive a variety of acceleration, speeds, and loading conditions, it will be comprehensive.
I once looked at the FTP, and I can see the engineers did a pretty good job of spanning the space.
Actually, reading more about what the "Speak Up" complaints were vaguely about, they might be questioning the use of a simple 2nd order smoothing function programmed into the dyno loads.
In aerodynamics of pickup trucks especially, you can get trailing vortices in the bed/tailgate/aft-cabin areas which produce very non-linear surprises and drag bumps as the range of road speed is traversed.
Of course, the coastdown should capture at least some of that aero energy disipation, but smoothing it with a 2nd order function might be stupid for a blunt body with empty bed like that.
Maybe they need to change the drag coefficient often as speed changes, to track when the vortices move in and out of the bed as the speed changes. Then Road Load is very close to real.
In aerodynamics of pickup trucks especially, you can get trailing vortices in the bed/tailgate/aft-cabin areas which produce very non-linear surprises and drag bumps as the range of road speed is traversed.
Of course, the coastdown should capture at least some of that aero energy disipation, but smoothing it with a 2nd order function might be stupid for a blunt body with empty bed like that.
Maybe they need to change the drag coefficient often as speed changes, to track when the vortices move in and out of the bed as the speed changes. Then Road Load is very close to real.
Originally Posted by E365
Since pretty much every automaker can't be trusted to accurately or honestly come up with fuel economy or emissions data, probably time for the government to step in to protect consumers. Charge these automakers $100,000 (or whatever) per model and have the EPA run real-world, repeatable, standardized tests.
Yeah the Government is trustworthy.
Since pretty much every automaker can't be trusted to accurately or honestly come up with fuel economy or emissions data, probably time for the government to step in to protect consumers. Charge these automakers $100,000 (or whatever) per model and have the EPA run real-world, repeatable, standardized tests.
Yeah the Government is trustworthy.
- Status
