Could Ford have avoided MPG controversy?

[Riddley]

The C-MAX hybrid is well known for sensitivity to ambient temperature. I can't find a specific reference, but I think I recall that Ford indicated the effect of winter temperatures might be as high as 5 MPG.  Someone will have to check me on this. It is possible that the impact might be as high as 8 MPG. In winter, a driver in a cold climate might be required to a fill up (12.5 gallons) after 475 miles, yielding 37 MPG. In summer the same driver might find it necessary to fill up the same vehicle at 563 miles, yielding 45 MPG.  As we are starting to see in Fuelly, MPG averages are starting to climb as temperatures across the country are warming up.

 

What's interesting to me is that Ford introduced the C-MAX Hybrid at the beginning of Winter!  Many, if not most of the reviewers were testing and writing their reviews of the car from relatively cold climates. On top of this unfavorable climate for testing and reviews, the cars the reviewers were driving were brand new (not broken in). Could Ford have given reviewers cars from internal pools that had, say, 5000 miles on them? Another factor was that many early adopters (consumers) of the vehicle were also driving their cars in cold climates, and then writing negative comments on many blog sites.

 

One thing about the Internet is once a blog, video review or article is published, it stays around and continues to inform new readers. Unfortunately, from now on, the C-MAX will be known for being the car that does not get 47 MPG.

 

If you wanted to pick the time of the year when it would have been absolutely the worst time to release a new hybrid, you couldn't have done better than November 2012. This all adds up to be a perfect storm (no pun intended) for when Ford released the C-MAX Hybrids. The negative press and law suits has probably impacted sales of the C-MAX. I wonder if there would have been any law suits today had Ford released the C-MAX now instead of the winter. 

Edited May 6, 2013 by Riddley

[plus 3 golfer]

I think you will see that in the "real reviews" that the cars did have significant miles on them.  Second, even in colder weather, once the car is at operating temperature, the affect of lower temperatures on FE is minimal. It's the short trips in the winter that kill FE.  Thirdly, most of the reviews likely did not use AC much if testing in colder weather.  Lastly, one should wait until the C-Max is out one year before drawing conclusions about Fuelly data as those in warmer climates (like Southwestern and Southern states) will likely get lower FE in the summer using AC than in the winter period.  For example, it is difficult for me to get my current fuelly average of about 41 mpg if I run the AC on my normal trips.  I expect my average tank FE to go down in the summer in AZ and thus my overall average FE will likely not climb any higher and possibly go down.

 

I believe Ford should have been more forthright in their advertising about the affects of different variables on FE.  Saying your FE will vary in small print is not enough if you "know" real world FE will likely be considerably less than the EPA number.  If their sales have been hurt by the "bad publicity", they can only blame themselves - it's their car.

 

Also, in case others may not have seen this, here is a Cleanmpg review of the C-Max tests / reviews.  Note: the C-Max used in Cleanmpg tests had 6000 miles on the odometer.  I think consumer reports put 2000 miles on cars before testing.  I also believe that  Ford provides the cars to most reviewers and shame on Ford if they gave the reviewer a car that was not "broken in".

Edited May 6, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[colea]

Also, in case others may not have seen this, here is a Cleanmpg review of the C-Max tests / reviews.  Note: the C-Max used in Cleanmpg tests had 6000 miles on the odometer.  I think consumer reports put 2000 miles on cars before testing.  I also believe that  Ford provides the cars to most reviewers and shame on Ford if they gave the reviewer a car that was not "broken in".

I know that Consumer Reports, for one, buys its car anonymously precisely to avoid the possibility of being "gamed" by the manufacturer. But I don't know how far they drive it before recording their stats.

[lowbar]

So the EPA was suppose to re-test, or in their case, test the C-Max themselves.  If Ford followed the EPA guidelines you would expect the EPA to get the same results.  

[plus 3 golfer]

So the EPA was suppose to re-test, or in their case, test the C-Max themselves.  If Ford followed the EPA guidelines you would expect the EPA to get the same results.  

I don't think the EPA tests will be any different.  If some of the stuff that I've read is correct, the EPA allows certain tests to be skipped and numbers for the tests not run to be "extrapolated" (for lack of a better term) from the tests run based on what I'll call a "multiplier" or maybe it should be called a "fudge factor". In any event, it appears that those who know more about the EPA tests and ratings than me believe that it's this fudge factor that may not be appropriate for hybrids / especially the C-Max and thus the reason for the higher ratings.

 

I've got to believe Ford is / was aware of this and took advantage of whatever they could to get the highest numbers possible.  This is not illegal with respect to the EPA tests but it certainly (if true) casts a bad light on Ford.  So, it's possible that even if one drives like the 5? EPA test cycles, one may not get 47/47/47 because of the application of this "fudge factor" in lieu of running all the tests. From C&D:

 

 

 

What happens when you start driving faster? Both hybrids and standard cars require about the same amount of additional power to run at higher speeds. But on the hybrid, the extra power can’t be supplied by the electric motor because most hybrid power­trains don’t operate at high speeds, and there is less energy to recover through regenerative braking on the highway. So the hybrid’s extra speed comes primarily from its internal-combustion engine.

In theory, then, if a base Fusion needs 38.5 gallons to drive 1000 miles at test-cycle speeds (1000 miles/26 mpg EPA combined), and a Fusion hybrid needs 21.3 gallons (1000 miles/47 mpg EPA combined), what happens when the speed rises enough to require 20 percent more energy? We can assume that the nonhybrid’s consumption will increase by 20 percent—7.7 gallons—reducing its mileage to 21.6 mpg, a 17-percent drop. The hybrid’s consumption increases by about the same number of gallons, because the hybrid’s electric powertrain largely checks out at higher speeds, resulting in the engine shouldering more of the load. Thus, as a hybrid goes faster, it works its gasoline engine proportionately harder relative to the gas engine in the regular car. In our hypothetical example, the hybrid mileage falls to 34.5 mpg—a much larger, 27-percent reduction. Even if these numbers are rough estimates, you can see how real-world driving can reduce a hybrid’s fuel efficiency by a greater amount.

 

Drive a hybrid more aggressively in the city and the same thing happens. During harder acceleration, most of the extra power comes from the internal-combustion engine because the boost provided by the electric motor is limited. Furthermore, during hard braking, the hybrid benefits from only so much regeneration energy before its system capability is exceeded.

In cold weather, there are similar effects, compounded by the fact that batteries store less energy when they’re cold. Also, the hybrid system doesn’t shut down the engine as often because its heat is needed to warm the car’s cabin.

Why are these effects not captured by the 2008 EPA procedures incorporating three additional tests specifically designed to include such variables? That’s a good question, and the answer lies in how manufacturers are allowed to use their pocket ­calculators instead of actually running the three additional test cycles. Two scenarios enable such a certification. One is called the “mpg-based” approach, which, in many circumstances, allows the application of a mathematical fudge factor to those two hoary CAFE tests from the 1970s to adjust their results in a way similar to the three new tests. The mpg-based method looks like you’ve run all five tests, even if you’ve in fact conducted only the two old ones.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[zhackwyatt]

I think you will see that in the "real reviews" that the cars did have significant miles on them.  Second, even in colder weather, once the car is at operating temperature, the affect of lower temperatures on FE is minimal. It's the short trips in the winter that kill FE.  Thirdly, most of the reviews likely did not use AC much if testing in colder weather.  Lastly, one should wait until the C-Max is out one year before drawing conclusions about Fuelly data as those in warmer climates (like Southwestern and Southern states) will likely get lower FE in the summer using AC than in the winter period.  For example, it is difficult for me to get my current fuelly average of about 41 mpg if I run the AC on my normal trips.  I expect my average tank FE to go down in the summer in AZ and thus my overall average FE will likely not climb any higher and possibly go down.

 

I believe Ford should have been more forthright in their advertising about the affects of different variables on FE.  Saying your FE will vary in small print is not enough if you "know" real world FE will likely be considerably less than the EPA number.  If their sales have been hurt by the "bad publicity", they can only blame themselves - it's their car.

 

Also, in case others may not have seen this, here is a Cleanmpg review of the C-Max tests / reviews.  Note: the C-Max used in Cleanmpg tests had 6000 miles on the odometer.  I think consumer reports put 2000 miles on cars before testing.  I also believe that  Ford provides the cars to most reviewers and shame on Ford if they gave the reviewer a car that was not "broken in".

Right, I'm at the point now where I always have the A/C on, and am having a hard time getting above 42 mpg for a tank.  Today I was able to use ICE High and got 47 mpg on my commute but I can't always due that because of traffic and nature of the trips.

[darrelld]

Interesting points for Ford to consider in future product launches.

 

There is no comparative data for how C-Max sales have been affected by the mpg controversy. The Fusion Hybrid is affected by the same EPA vs Real World discrepancies as the C-Max and Fusion sales are breaking records vs the previous model. 

Edited May 6, 2013 by darrelld

[Recumpence]

OK, first of all I completely disagree that once the engine warms up the efficiency is only slightly affected in the winter. That could not be more wrong. Also, the comment about FE being affected by as much as 8mpg in the winter is also wrong. The affect is actually as high as 15mpg.

 

Here is my experience over the 20,000 miles I have owned my Max (and I live in Northern Illinois with harsh winters). My Mileage in single digit weather is barely over 40mpg even with the engine warmed up without using the heat at all (I use the heated seat which is far more efficient). However, with weather over 50 degrees, my MPG is over 50. In 70 degree weather, I average 56 to 57mpg. This is no exaduration. My MPG for 130 miles I drove today was 56.5mpg. My last work day last week averaged 57.2mpg.

 

Ever since buying my Max, I have been telling people what the OP has stated that the release date for the C-Max (as a hybrid) could not have been worse.

 

My lifetime MPG is nearly 45. However, over the winter it was 41 or 42. Now, with my average in the high 50s, my lifetime MPG is climbing.

 

This is a great thread!

 

Matt

[plus 3 golfer]

Recompence, your definition of winter is different than mine in AZ :) - morning winter lows are usually not below 32 F in Phoenix and more like low 40s.. I should probably not have said "winter temperatures." The OP was referring to the Ford statement of a loss of up to 5 mpg if the ambient is 40 F vs 70 F.

 

Also, I am talking about the reviewers and not driving in Northern Illinois in single digit temps at slower speeds where it takes a considerable amount of time for the engine to reach 190 F (if it ever does). I don't recall any of the reviews I've read being done in single digit temperatures let alone below 40 F. My point is that the reviewers are likely driving around in above 40 F with a warm engine and the affect is minimal and less than 5 mpg. Ford is simply backpedaling to respond to Consumer Reports Dec. 13 press release. I believe the CR auto test facility is in Connecticut and the test were likely done in Oct / early Nov on the Fusion and C-Max as video shows fall foliage. CR states they drove the car 2000 miles before measuring FE. Cleanmpg likely did most testing in Southern CA and their trip to Phoenix.

 

What matters is the fleet average not one specific driver's experience. There's probably a C-Max owner in Miami and his "winter" fuel economy numbers offsets a Minneapolis owner's FE number and vise versa in the summer period. As I said before, let's wait for a year and then see what the average FE numbers for the C-Max.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[Riddley]

Regional climate sets up an interesting dynamic for hybrid drivers that you guys point out. Northern drivers suffer sub-optimal hybrid driving conditions In winter. In summer drivers in hotter regions suffer the impact of heavy use of AC. In the Midwest where it can be below freezing 4 months out of the year, and above 80 degrees 3 months out of the year, hybrid drivers only get to enjoy optimal hybrid driving conditions in the spring and fall. Those living in moderate climates (example: Puget sound, with the moderating effects of latitude and onshore flow) might have it better than most, though admittedly not optimal year-round.

 

Regarding the impact of weather on FE, I think it is possible for it to be as much as 15 MPG from one extreme to another for hypermilers (because they can and often  do generate extreme results). For the typical driver, I would place the average effect (MPG in very cold to MPG at optimal conditions) at perhaps around 8-12 MPG. I have seen this magnitude of difference, and I do not consider myself a hypermiler. 

[fotomoto]

Yup, I'm in the middle.  I won't get the big summer time numbers because I need a/c 24/7 but nor will I suffer large drops in the winter because we don't have much of one.  

[ScubaDadMiami]

There's probably a C-Max owner in Miami and his "winter" fuel economy numbers offsets a Minneapolis owner's FE number and vise versa in the summer period.

I'll try to do my part . . . in about another week.  :drool:

[catsailor]

I think the Fuelly collective numbers for this model will speak to what real world aveages are. Before I buy a car I like to see what the masses are getting and I always look at the mean and what the greatest number of drivers are getting. My lifetime avaerge is creeping up to 41.9 right now from a low of 41.2, that is with over 9000 miles driven.

[dtorres]

In my opinion Ford designed and programmed the C-Max to maximize their results on the EPA test.  I have no doubt they can easily repeat the 47mpg result on the EPA test.  Unfortunately in real world driving it's much more difficult to hit.  I think if they had listed it with a 40mpg to 42mpg combined rating the entire mpg debacle could have been avoided and it wouldn't have tarnished the otherwise positive reviews the car has been getting.  In the 40 to 42mpg combined range it still would have been on par with the Prius V.

 

That being said I'd still buy the car again even at the 40mpg I average.  It's a fun car to drive and several reviews I've read  stated that it's driving characteristics are better than the Prius V despite the fuel economy debacle.   Would I rather get 47mpg than 40mpg sure.  But then again I've never owned a car that hit its EPA estimates and I had no reason to believe the CMax would either before I bought it.

[nsteblay]

I can testify that temperature has a huge impact on mileage.  I live in Minnesota.  Over the winter on cold days (20F and below) I averaged about 35 MPG.  These last few weeks we've been having temps in the mid 60's to mid 70's.  I've been averaging mid 40's in the warm weather.  During my commute from work today I got 47.4 MPG.  The commute is 21 miles mostly freeway with congestion but times of 70 to 75 MPH.  I had the AC running today also.  Really am liking the car.

 

They need to include variable temperatures in the EPA test particularly for hybrids.

Edited May 11, 2013 by nsteblay

[fotomoto]

 temps in the mid 60's to mid 70's. 

 

 I had the AC running today also.  

 

 

LOL.  Really?   :headscratch:

[SnowStorm]

The answer to the topic's title is yes, but not by introducing at a different time of year (although that may have helped).

 

The controversy could have been avoided by building a "poor" hybrid instead of a "better" one.  "Better" means one that can go faster and accelerate faster on the electric motor alone - which is exactly what you want in a hybrid.  This capability, I believe, is the cause of the "discrepancy" between EPA ratings and certain expectations.  You won't get 47 mpg at 75 mph with A/C.  Drive the EPA  cycle under the same conditions and you should exceed 47 mpg since the ratings are adjusted down in an attempt to compensate for all the other "real world" variables.  Problem is, the EPA tests, calculations and compensation factors were developed for the "lousy" cars and "poor" hybrids of the past not Ford's better hybrids.  Its not Ford's fault, they built a better hybrid - I like cars that are "ahead of their time" - everyone else can just go play catch-up.  And BTW, I would take an EPA rating (with all its deficiencies) any day over any of those vague, unverifiable, possibly self serving "reports" out there.

 

Ford built a better car and got better EPA ratings as a result.  Period.  Please, let's stop blaming Ford for doing a good job.

[salsaguy]

of interest, the cartoonish cmax commercials that began their campaign on tv (where they specifically compare and say they beat prius v for mpg), then were pulled for non-cartoon commercials showing real people and real car shots shots and dont talk about the prius, but just tout all the good on the C-max (maybe because of the low mpg controversy and bad reviews for mpg); but now the cartoon and anti prius ads are back today (during the Eastern conf playoff games between Miami and Chicago). saw them at least 2 times. either Ford isnt scared of the ads touting the 47 combined mpg,or else they know they can and will back up the numbers when the epa redoes the hybrid testing on the C-max.

[pomtrey]

I so wish they would get rid of those cartoony ads. I think it makes the car look like a joke, not a serious contender. I LOVE my coax!!!

[hybridbear]

I can testify that temperature has a huge impact on mileage.  I live in Minnesota.  Over the winter on cold days (20F and below) I averaged about 35 MPG.  These last few weeks we've been having temps in the mid 60's to mid 70's.  I've been averaging mid 40's in the warm weather.  During my commute from work today I got 47.4 MPG.  The commute is 21 miles mostly freeway with congestion but times of 70 to 75 MPH.  I had the AC running today also.  Really am liking the car.

 

They need to include variable temperatures in the EPA test particularly for hybrids.

You're only seeing 45 MPG now that our weather is nice here in MN? We got about 40 MPG in winter in our Fusion Hybrid here in MN and now we're getting 50-55 MPG and 650 miles per tank. And I chuckled over your comment about AC when the temps are in the 70s but being a Minnesotan too I understand that. For those of you not from MN you have to realize that after a long cold winter all the Minnesotans are wearing shorts and putting on the AC once the temperature hits 60 in the spring because it feels so "hot" lol

 

The answer to the topic's title is yes, but not by introducing at a different time of year (although that may have helped).

 

The controversy could have been avoided by building a "poor" hybrid instead of a "better" one.  "Better" means one that can go faster and accelerate faster on the electric motor alone - which is exactly what you want in a hybrid.  This capability, I believe, is the cause of the "discrepancy" between EPA ratings and certain expectations.  You won't get 47 mpg at 75 mph with A/C.  Drive the EPA  cycle under the same conditions and you should exceed 47 mpg since the ratings are adjusted down in an attempt to compensate for all the other "real world" variables.  Problem is, the EPA tests, calculations and compensation factors were developed for the "lousy" cars and "poor" hybrids of the past not Ford's better hybrids.  Its not Ford's fault, they built a better hybrid - I like cars that are "ahead of their time" - everyone else can just go play catch-up.  And BTW, I would take an EPA rating (with all its deficiencies) any day over any of those vague, unverifiable, possibly self serving "reports" out there.

 

Ford built a better car and got better EPA ratings as a result.  Period.  Please, let's stop blaming Ford for doing a good job.

Interesting comments. I think you're really on to something. I hope that the final result of all this controversy is that the EPA fixes their broken test cycles and stops allowing manufacturers to apply a "fudge factor" but instead requires them to complete all the tests accurately.

[Adair]

hybridbear and nsteblay, you guys crack me up!!! :hysterical: I lived in Duluth for 7 years. Nothing Michigan has thrown at me has scared me yet!!! :sing_rain:  

[valkraider]

I use AC when temps are in the 70s, and I'm in Oregon. I also have tinted windows to block sun an heat. I hate being hot...

 

If room temperature is like 73 and house thermostats are generally between 68 and 75 then using AC with temps in the 70s is not unusual.

 

When it is 75 outside temps in the car can break 90 easily.

 

Open windows don't work too well if there is heavy pollen (spring time). I both want to breathe AND don't want the inside of my car completely yellow...

[salsaguy]

since this is related to the EPA testing methods which is in question due to the low actual C-max mpg numbers, here is a good article based on this topic:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1303_fuel_economy_numbers_gone_wild/

[zalusky]

My wife and I bought the exact same cars approx last December.  Mine is a month older.

 

My lifetime average is about 45.1 MPG with 6000 miles on it.

Her lifetime average is about 37 MPG with 1200 miles on it.

 

She drives about 1.5 miles to work and I drive 20 miles to work half of which is a freeway.  Clearly the big difference is the warmup factor and to some extent break in.

Edited June 8, 2013 by zalusky

[Riddley]

That's fascinating zalusky!

 

You do realize that to fully test your theory, you will need to swap cars with your wife for some period of time. Do you think she'll go for it?  ;)