And another: Mass. woman is latest to sue Ford over hybrid MPG

[mnrobitaille]

Our best MPG has been 38.6, & that was when we drove down to Salt Lake City, then Fernley, NV & back home. 

 

Right now we are averaging about 36.5 MPG. However we are not going after Ford for false advertising. 

 

Being early adopters, there are risks, but without those risks nothing can be learned.

[salsaguy]

robitalle, will you be going to get the fuel economy update for you cmax when it's available and if so do you think it will help and how much better do you think it will give you?

[Edsel]

That may be even more difficult for some... ;)

 

In my opinion, I think Ford should have given the CMax an ECO and POWER buttons for those drivers who sue, they are too :airquote: stupid to understand ONE PEDAL TO RULE THEM ALL (hint, hint...where did that quote come from.. :sos: )

 

 

And yes, I don't mince my word.... :drop:

 

I thought the same thing.  A button would be great for people with no foot control.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Edsel

[mnrobitaille]

robitalle, will you be going to get the fuel economy update for you cmax when it's available and if so do you think it will help and how much better do you think it will give you?

Yes we are planning on getting 13B07 done.

[subter]

.

Edited August 5, 2013 by subter

[subter]

First, if you want people to take your comments and opinion seriously, you should just make a point to hone your spelling skills.  It's suit, not suite.  Second, it's your opinion that the lawsuit was justified and the court's opinion that it had merit.  That doesn't mean it's morally correct or that most people agree.  It's a poster child example of the problems with tort law.  Third, you mention you drove a vehicle that got high twenties which was within a couple MPG of EPA estimate.  People don't understand that with a vehicle rated so high if you get 10% less than the 47 rating, that's 42.3.  With a vehicle rated at 20 MPG, if you get 18, it's the same 10% but doesn't seem as drastic.  If you buy this car and drive it like most people drive on the roads today (accelerate as fast as possible, brake as late as possible, 75-80mph on the highway) you're not going to get anywhere near 47 MPG.  I'm driving the car conservatively based on all the tips on this forum and I can get low 50's in perfect conditions.  People have to understand that speed, acceleration, braking, outside temps, elevation, HVAC and other factors contribute to gas mileage.  I get 54 MPG in perfect conditions on my way to work (1,000 ft elevation to 600 ft over 27 miles) and 44 MPG on the way home because it's all uphill.

risk had absolutely nothing to do with this, it was negligence on the part of McChoke and Puke by not following health and safety regulations and putting their customers in a dangerous situation over and above serving what them what they claim is food.

 

I agree with the idea that the lawsuit for the C-Max is stupid, Not getting anywhere near the gas mileage that was advertised, a good 13 MPG below the advertised amount, even with 95 percent of my driving done at highway speeds in light traffic on cruise control @ 60-65 MPH. Drove an Escape for 3 years prior to this car and averages in the high 20's with in a couple of miles of the EPA estimate on the same route. The simple fact that this car comes no where near it's advertised estimate for a lot of the owners indicates someone dropped the ball or money passed under the table. same as the simple fact that Ford is in no way supporting those early adopters of the car as evidenced in the lack of updates for some major issues with the sync system. Been driving fords since 1970, this is the first time I am on the verge of regretting purchasing one.

 

 

find it pretty amusing that everyone brings up the McDonalds hot coffee law suite without ever researching the case - the law suite was viable the coffee at the franchise in question was heated beyond the recommended temperature by the McDonalds corporate. She suffered 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body and lesser burns over 16 percent of here body. It was proven that the coffee they service was heated to 180 degrees and not the required 140 degrees. At 180 degrees the hot coffee will cause 3rd degree burns in about 12 seconds. Othe documents shows that McDonalds had settled out of court for scalding to the tune of 500,000 and between 1982 to 1992 they had recieved more then 700 complaints form people that have been burned in various degrees of severity.  The jury found 80 percent negligence on McDonalds and 20 per on Lebeck. McDonalds appealed but they settled out of court for a undisclosed amount of less then 600,000.

 

If you take the time to review the case, it was a justified law suite

[plus 3 golfer]

....   People don't understand that with a vehicle rated so high if you get 10% less than the 47 rating, that's 42.3.  With a vehicle rated at 20 MPG, if you get 18, it's the same 10% but doesn't seem as drastic.  If you buy this car and drive it like most people drive on the roads today (accelerate as fast as possible, brake as late as possible, 75-80mph on the highway) you're not going to get anywhere near 47 MPG.  I'm driving the car conservatively based on all the tips on this forum and I can get low 50's in perfect conditions.  People have to understand that speed, acceleration, braking, outside temps, elevation, HVAC and other factors contribute to gas mileage.  I get 54 MPG in perfect conditions on my way to work (1,000 ft elevation to 600 ft over 27 miles) and 44 MPG on the way home because it's all uphill.

Oh, I understand (maybe some don't).  I posted the table below in another thread on my last 6 vehicles.  I drive all my cars about the same - average acceleration, coast to stops and time lights, drive the speed limit to about +3 mph on interstates.  Seems like people on fuelly can't achieve the EPA rating with the C-Max either yet they can like me achieve it with the other cars I've owned.  So, it's a nonsensical argument that one has to drive the C-Max "differently than other cars."  I can get 65+ mpg in 113 F temperatures (see below) if I want to go "slow" (take nearly 50 - 60% more time than I would take typically).   Why can I (and others) achieve EPA ratings on other cars but not on the C-Max under ones "normal" driving.  The EPA ratings aren't supposed to be based on "conservative" driving.  

 

[subter]

 Because gas vehicles aren't the same technology as battery hybrids. You live in Arizona. Batteries don't perform well in extreme heat not to mention you'll be running AC most of the time. I'm in Michigan. Temps here are mild right now. I'm averaging 50MPG a tank. In the middle of January here I don't expect to do so well. Your expectations have to match the technology.

Oh, I understand (maybe some don't).  I posted the table below in another thread on my last 6 vehicles.  I drive all my cars about the same - average acceleration, coast to stops and time lights, drive the speed limit to about +3 mph on interstates.  Seems like people on fuelly can't achieve the EPA rating with the C-Max either yet they can like me achieve it with the other cars I've owned.  So, it's a nonsensical argument that one has to drive the C-Max "differently than other cars."  I can get 65+ mpg in 113 F temperatures (see below) if I want to go "slow" (take nearly 50 - 60% more time than I would take typically).   Why can I (and others) achieve EPA ratings on other cars but not on the C-Max under ones "normal" driving.  The EPA ratings aren't supposed to be based on "conservative" driving.  

 

 

[wab]

A friend gets a credit card from Kia because Kia messed up the EPA test on his Soul.

 

Anybody think we'll ever get a credit card from the EPA because the EPA messed up the cmax test?

 

:lol:  :lol2: 

[plus 3 golfer]

 Because gas vehicles aren't the same technology as battery hybrids. You live in Arizona. Batteries don't perform well in extreme heat not to mention you'll be running AC most of the time. I'm in Michigan. Temps here are mild right now. I'm averaging 50MPG a tank. In the middle of January here I don't expect to do so well. Your expectations have to match the technology. 

Again not a very good argument.  If one drives a non-hybrid vehicle "conservatively", one can also "kill" the EPA rating. ;)  And it's not about what I get or you get or how I drive or you drive.  We also know conditions affect FE.  It's what a typical driver (EPA has done much research into this) has to do to achieve the EPA rating - where does the EPA or Ford say that one has to drive conservatively to achieve the EPA ratings.  

 

IMO, the EPA FE regulations need to be updated especially for Hybrids and EPA needs to require a manufacturer to actually run the 5 FE cycles which data are used to compute the EPA sticker numbers.  The city number appears to be reasonable.  It's the highway number that appears to be overstated IMO.  Ford did not run the High Speed cycle and apparently used similar vehicle data to estimate the high speed test data which includes a more aggressive city cycle and higher speed highway cycle up to 80+ mph.  Here's a very good slide presentation on the High Speed test.

 

As long as Ford followed the EPA procedures, the law suit will likely go nowhere.

[subter]

That's the one thing I do agree with you on. The highway figure is inflated. I'm beating the EPA figure but with a 65/35 city/highway split.

Plus 3 Golfer, on 05 Aug 2013 - 22:00, said:

Again not a very good argument. If one drives a non-hybrid vehicle "conservatively", one can also "kill" the EPA rating. ;) And it's not about what I get or you get or how I drive or you drive. We also know conditions affect FE. It's what a typical driver (EPA has done much research into this) has to do to achieve the EPA rating - where does the EPA or Ford say that one has to drive conservatively to achieve the EPA ratings.

 

IMO, the EPA FE regulations need to be updated especially for Hybrids and EPA needs to require a manufacturer to actually run the 5 FE cycles which data are used to compute the EPA sticker numbers. The city number appears to be reasonable. It's the highway number that appears to be overstated IMO. Ford did not run the High Speed cycle and apparently used similar vehicle data to estimate the high speed test data which includes a more aggressive city cycle and higher speed highway cycle up to 80+ mph. Here's a very good slide presentation on the High Speed test.

 

As long as Ford followed the EPA procedures, the law suit will likely go nowhere.

[plus 3 golfer]

That's the one thing I do agree with you on. The highway figure is inflated. I'm beating the EPA figure but with a 65/35 city/highway split.

The city is easy to beat as I posted above getting 65+ mpg. The EPA combined FE rating is based on 55% city / 45% highway.  My driving is more like 30/70 and soon to be higher highway as we head back East in late August.  But according to the EPA of 47/47/47, it really shouldn't matter what ones split is but it does.

 

I knew going into the purchase of my C-Max that I would not get the EPA rating and expected to get what I am currently getting and have no complaints.  But many very early adopters and those that failed to do research after the reviews of the FE of the C-Max came out expected something near 47 should not be told that they need to drive differently because they bought a hybrid as that is not the intended goal of the EPA in publishing FE numbers. If one drives differently one should be able to kill the EPA numbers like my 65+ mpg shows.  So, are we suppose to do P&G, time lights, slow down because we bought a hybrid.  The argument that drivers need to drive differently to approach the EPA numbers because they bought a hybrid flies in the face of what the EPA numbers supposedly represent.  Blame the EPA or Ford (for it's clever marketing and perhaps gaming) but not the consumer. How many consumers "really" understand the EPA tests and that Ford can "game" the tests in their hybrid control algorithms and use "loopholes" in the EPA procedures.

 

Also, I forgot to attach the slide presentation to my post above.  This gives insight into what manufacturers could do to game the system for hybrids.  It appears Argonne used a 2010 Prius as an example.  My bet is the C-Max would be quite a bit different given the higher EV mode and HV battery storage than the Prius.  This coupled with Ford not doing the full 5 cycle tests likely inflates the C-Max EPA numbers significantly more than the Prius EPA numbers.

 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2012/veh_sys_sim/vss065_lohsebusch_2012_o.pdf

Edited August 6, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[mnrobitaille]

Rarely with all the cars I have had, have I ever matched the EPA Estimates. I have either been above or below those estimates, though the majority of the time below estimates, especially living in a rural area with dealing with farm trucks & machinery 9 months out of the year.

 

Also doesn't help that around here, you either have to drive the speed limit or faster, otherwise you get ran off the road. The main highway near us has a speed limit of 70 for cars, 60 for trucks, unfortunately a lot of cars are doing 75-80, while the trucks are doing 65-70.

 

The EPA Ratings/estimates are just that: estimates.

[plus 3 golfer]

....

 

The EPA Ratings/estimates are just that: estimates.

Exactly and that's why I continue to say the issue is not what FE I get or you get.  It's about what the fleet gets and how well the EPA estimates match the fleet FE. The only samples we have of the fleet are what's reported in databases on line like fuelly.com and so forth.

 

The EPA estimates are "to reflect the ‘real world FE’ customers may experience, the EPA redefined the FE label calculations based on real world driving data sets. The derived calculations were based on conventional vehicles."   Of course, everyone's FE will vary.  But, if the fleet FE is too far away from the EPA estimates, it calls into question the validity of the EPA FE cycles especially for hybrids and certain other rules allowing manufacturers to not run all 5 cycles.  And of course why would a manufacturer run tests if it cost more money especially if it might result in lower FE numbers.