J.D Power rankings

[Noah Harbinger]

The article mentions "design flaws". I'm curious as to what that means.. With the exception of drivetrain, the European Spec C-Max is just like ours. I haven't seen any negative articles related to the European C-Max..

 

I interpret that as "Things are working as designed, but someone doesn't like how it works".

 

That would be things like, if someone complains about how the instrument panel or MyFordTouch is set up, if the AC feels insufficient (with no indication of mechanical trouble). 

[Noah Harbinger]

What's interesting is that MFT is in many of their other vehicles so why does the CMAX get the big ding?

 

To be fair, MFT is blamed for a lot of across-the-board complaints. Ford's quality improvements otherwise have been quite remarkable. 

Edited June 22, 2013 by Noah Harbinger

[BWP]

I been to JD Powers website and can't find the CMax details of the survey.  

 

I received a letter from Ford last week stating I can bring the car in for a MFT software upgrade and a hands free liftgate fix.  So Ford was already addressing 2 of the shortfalls.  I never considered the 2 kicks to open when locked an issue for the hands free liftgate, but I guess some folks do.  One kick would be nice, though.  My other complaint is the driver side seat heater quit working after about 3 months.  I haven't heard that being an issue for folks, so I guess that's my bad luck.

 

We enjoy our car very much, but I have to say that between the mileage issue and now this, I would have taken a much harder look when buying back in November.

[darrelld]

I participated in the JD Power survey. My quality issues were; fuel filler inlet and check engine light (resolved after 4 dealer visits), trim pieces coming detached from the door frame (resolved), misaligned body panels (unresolved), rattles in the front suspension (unresolved), MFT lockups, phone pairing and disconnect problems (hopefully resolved with 3.5.1). The filler inlet was a design problem, there is no excuse for trim and body panel problems. There is no excuse for releasing beta level software, my company would fire developers and SQA people putting my current MFT version in production.

 

My 2012 Passat was a first year production car and I found defects in the dash and paint prior to taking delivery. Volkswagen flew a factory quality team to my VW dealership to install a new dash and replaced the bumper with the paint defects. This was all resolved before they handed me the keys and the sales guy hand delivered the vehicle to my residence.

 

Edited June 22, 2013 by darrelld

[darrelld]

We enjoy our car very much, but I have to say that between the mileage issue and now this, I would have taken a much harder look when buying back in November.

 

I would still buy the C-Max again even with the issues, all cars have them. Ford needs to do a better job of dealing with issues up front.

[nsteblay]

Microsoft Ford Synch looks to be built on top of Microsoft's embedded operating system for autos based on Windows CE. Windows CE is a distinct operating system and kernel, rather than a trimmed-down version of desktop Windows. Windows Embedded Automotive as it is known now has gone through many iterations and is currently on version 7 released in 2011. Microsoft's Automotive Business Unit has built both the software platforms used for automotive devices as well as the devices themselves. 

 

Windows Embedded Automotive seems to have similar quality problems to other Microsoft software products. It likely retains compatibility with common Microsoft software architectures and development tools inheriting complexity and fundamental design issues. 

 

Being an IT manager I can attest to the challenges of using Microsoft products.  In my opinion Microsoft software is not secure, poorly architected, bloated, and often unstable. I am not sure what kind of deal Ford got going with Microsoft as a partner but it hasn't worked well for them. The challenge for Ford is the close dependencies between the hardware and Microsoft O/S. Not sure how they swap it out in already released cars.

 

Unfortunately if the instability (which I am sure it is) relates to the underlying architecture of the embedded operating system and hardware implementation I don't think we're going to see patches that fix the problems 100%. As we've seen each subsequent release seems to introduce new issues. 

[HotPotato]

Seems like the 4 problems that come up are infotainment, 12V battery, suspension, and MPG.

 

Infotainment is a problem for Ford because they over-promise and under-deliver. Auto reviewers have noted that Chrysler's UConnect system is almost laughably simplistic by comparison -- but they prefer it because it's intuitive and reliable. "Easy to use and works every time" beats "shoot, I can't get this feature to work this time...oh crud, now it's rebooting." I thought I'd escaped that curse by getting the base Sync with MyFord (SMF) system instead of MyFord Touch (MFT) -- but my SMF system ended up being buggy and unreliable too, getting worse over time. But Adair noted the other day that Ford released a TSB re. a software update to address the very SMF problems I'm having, and we know they've got 3.5.1 for the problems some MFT users are having, so they are making an effort to make it right.

 

My car hasn't had the 12V battery problem. My friend's has. He says the dealer thinks Ford erred in using such a small 12V battery...because with electrical systems so complex these days, a fair number of cars -- any cars -- are going to have some sort of parasitic or intermittent draw problem. If you have a big 12V battery like in a non-hybrid, there's enough reserve that it won't kill the battery and leave you stranded---you'll never even realize you have a problem, you'll just be surprised that your battery is due for replacement sooner than you expected. 

 

My front suspension does seem a little crashy---as if the strut tower busings were a bit worn-out rather than new. That could be because bolts are mis-torqued. Or it could just be that the car's front suspension is softer than my old car's. Haven't had the car in for service yet.

 

Re MPG... as they taught us in high-school physics, a heavier, taller, more powerful car (C-Max) can't get better mileage than a lighter, lower, less powerful one (Prius V) -- Ford can game the EPA test, but they can't suspend the laws of physics. My lifetime average is 37.4, and I'm happy with that--we're driving a van, for Pete's sake, and the compact SUV we'd drive otherwise gets mid-20s MPG.  Again, overpromising and underdelivering is the problem. Ford may have needed the dubious MPG number for their CAFE ratings, but they shouldn't have promoted the car on it. Instead, they should have played up the areas where the C-Max spanks the competition -- it's the affordable hybrid that's fun to drive around town, relaxing to drive on a road trip, and useful to drive to Home Depot. "More fun, more luxury, more utility, more car. Ford C-Max Hybrid. The hybrid without excuses." Something like that.

[Jus-A-CMax]

MPG - I dunno....they did not factor in the large battery and power which tweaks the equation in the CMax favor. There is NO explanation for the mileage me, Matt and orphoto got in our over 700s as well as the 19 other BROTHERS in the 600+ Mile CMax Club - we should all be floundering under 500s like the V drivers. I truly believe the higher EV and batts is the ace up our sleeves.

 

I don't think the V can even pull a mid 500s with it "superior" physical advantage and coeff. Bigger, powerful is not bad...I think of it like a Vaughn Corsair vs a Zero...bigger & powerful wins the dogfight ;)

Edited June 22, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[plus 3 golfer]

...

Re MPG... as they taught us in high-school physics, a heavier, taller, more powerful car (C-Max) can't get better mileage than a lighter, lower, less powerful one (Prius V) -- Ford can game the EPA test, but they can't suspend the laws of physics. My lifetime average is 37.4, and I'm happy with that ... Again, overpromising and underdelivering is the problem. Ford may have needed the dubious MPG number for their CAFE ratings, but they shouldn't have promoted the car on it. Instead, they should have played up the areas where the C-Max spanks the competition -- it's the affordable hybrid that's fun to drive around town, relaxing to drive on a road trip, and useful to drive to Home Depot. "More fun, more luxury, more utility, more car. Ford C-Max Hybrid. The hybrid without excuses." Something like that.

Well said. My feelings exactly. As I've said before where are Ford's ethics? They hid behind the 3 seconds of small print at the bottom of the screen on the clever silhouette commercials --- EPA-estimated 47city/47hwy/47 combined mpg. Actual mileage will vary.  Hard to read, especially given about 3 seconds.. 

 

Here's two of their clever mpg claims.

 

the mpg challenge - "C-Max has lots more horsepower than the Prius V, a hybrid that C-Max also bests in MPG."

 

the one-kick foot activated liftgate commercial (which didn't work for most with one kick as shown in the commercial) - "but that's not all you'll see, cause C-Max also beats Prius V with better MPG"

[salsaguy]

+3, why do you say this? you make Ford out to be crooks when in fact EVERY car mfg has to put "your mileage may vary" in fine print because it's true. if they didnt every sue happy person would have a claim in court.  the mpg # is just that, it's ONE SINGLE number, not a range which we know has to be applicable since every car is different as well as every driver and route. there is variation in every product made by humans and even by machines since we don't live on planet Perfectia. blame the regulations for not allowing a range to be used for mpg instead of a single number. that is the true problem. please sell your Cmax immediately if you feel cheated and don't ever buy another car again as all mfgs will be deceiving you with their "bogus mpg" number. and if you get more than the posted mpg value be sure to return the money to them since you didnt get the posted mpg number either.

 

 

Well said. My feelings exactly. As I've said before where are Ford's ethics? They hid behind the 3 seconds of small print at the bottom of the screen on the clever silhouette commercials --- EPA-estimated 47city/47hwy/47 combined mpg. Actual mileage will vary.  Hard to read, especially given about 3 seconds.. 

[StoBro2]

Over the past two months and about 2200 miles, my mileage has been...47.25MPG. If I had bought my car in April instead of November, I would think that the EPA estimates are spot-on and all is right with the world.

 

Just think of how much scorn and ridicule Ford could have avoided if they had introduced the C-Max in the spring.

[salsaguy]

most companies do usually release cars at the last quarter of the year, historically. but then the next year model is released when the total quota for the current year is made and shipped out, so if they made all 200,000 cars  planned to be made for 2013 (for example) then the 2014s Would come out very quickly instead of waiting a full 9-12 months as per the norm. i do think all hybrid mfgs should rethink when to release them as they seem to be very susceptible to cold temps. I'm surprised they didn't realize this, but maybe because all their final testing on the tracks were done in the early to middle of the year which was when it all looked good. then winter came and BAM!!

Edited June 23, 2013 by salsaguy

[skwcrj]

MPG - I dunno....they did not factor in the large battery and power which tweaks the equation in the CMax favor. There is NO explanation for the mileage me, Matt and orphoto got in our over 700s as well as the 19 other BROTHERS in the 600+ Mile CMax Club - we should all be floundering under 500s like the V drivers. I truly believe the higher EV and batts is the ace up our sleeves.

 

I don't think the V can even pull a mid 500s with it "superior" physical advantage and coeff. Bigger, powerful is not bad...I think of it like a Vaughn Corsair vs a Zero...bigger & powerful wins the dogfight ;)

With a big enough tank, just about anyone can hit 600 miles per tank. The true challenge is to do it with a smaller fuel tank. If I had put in as much as you did to reach 600 miles, I would be in the mid 700 to almost 800 miles! :hysterical: Since the C-Max Hybrid is closer in size to the Gen-III Prius Lift Back, you guys are way behind! :rockon:

I'm just having fun with you guys! I'm glad that the warm weather and learning curve is helping you get the EPA estmates. Keep up the good work. :)

[plus 3 golfer]

+3, why do you say this? you make Ford out to be crooks when in fact EVERY car mfg has to put "your mileage may vary" in fine print because it's true. if they didnt every sue happy person would have a claim in court.  the mpg # is just that, it's ONE SINGLE number, not a range which we know has to be applicable since every car is different as well as every driver and route. there is variation in every product made by humans and even by machines since we don't live on planet Perfectia. blame the regulations for not allowing a range to be used for mpg instead of a single number. that is the true problem. please sell your Cmax immediately if you feel cheated and don't ever buy another car again as all mfgs will be deceiving you with their "bogus mpg" number. and if you get more than the posted mpg value be sure to return the money to them since you didnt get the posted mpg number either.

This is not about that Ford has to qualify their quoting of EPA mpg numbers (we know they have to do that). That qualification is for their C-Max claim of 47 based on the EPA 47/47/47.  It's about representing something that may not be true in the real world as true in the commercials -- C-Max also beats the Prius V with better mpg.  I would have no issues if  the saying said "C-Max also beats Prius V mpg with better mpg in the EPA estimated mileage ratings.  Actual mpg of the Prius and C-Max may vary."  

 

Also, it's not about when new models are introduced or how one person can drive a C-Max and get 47+ mpg.  It's about a real world comparison as cleanmpg.com and others have done comparing the FE of the Prius V and the C-Max. In a head to head comparison, the Prius V virtually always beats the C-Max in MPG.  Do you really believe Ford didn't know this prior to releasing the commercials.

 

It's also not about blaming the EPA, of course that's what Ford did when their numbers weren't materializing in the real world.  It's being ethical in what one says and does. Remember Ford's slogan of yesteryear "Quality is Job 1".  Apparently, that has yet to materialize as is their claim on mpg.

 

On last point as I've said many times, I like my C-Max and knew before purchasing that I'd likely get in the low 40s and not 47 as I drive "normal" as most reviewers do. I have no intentions of selling my C-Max.  I also guess you didn't see my recent post about my FE driving "normally" in my most recent 6 vehicles.  My FE in all except the C-Max has been above the combined EPA number as have the Fuelly averages.  Here it is again below.  I didn't see any "bogus" EPA number. ;)

 

So what is really the true problem? Could it be FORD is gaming the EPA tests in it's design and algorithms - not illegal but results in hard to achieve ratings in normal driving. For example, I believe the final drive ratio (2.57:1) could be lower and thus should yield better FE at 65 - 75 mph cruising but then the EPA tests would likely result in lower numbers since the lower final drive ratio would likely hurt lower speed driving.  The Energi does have a higher final drive ratio (for better response because of the additional weight) and is one of the reasons it's EPA rating is lower.  I do agree that the EPA tests need to change and a range would be great as I've suggested in other posts.  

 

 

[salsaguy]

i think having the cmax designed for fun in mind and the entire driving experience instead of just for hypermilers (not everyone wants to be a geek in that club, many of who Prius owners think they are better than the rest of the world) does hurt the C-maxes mpg a bit but as most owners and reviews have said, they would rather drive a cmax for the pleasure of driving than a prius any day. i do agree they should have lowered the epa numbers a bit but hopefully we will see it all worked out for the betterment of the car community.

[Adair]

 19 other BROTHERS in the 600+ Mile CMax Club - 

Ahem.............AND SISTER!!! Don't forget BlackonBlackCMAX!!!!

And I hope to join her soon!

[SnitGTS]

I know a lot of people are not hitting the EPA rated 47 mpg in real world driving, but based on how they conduct the EPA test 47 mpg might be conservative!  The problems are the test does not represent how everyone drives and hybrids are much more sensitive to how you drive. (remember 2 mpg loss with a regular car = 7 mpg loss with a hybrid)  You can't say that Ford gamed the system, my car would easily best the EPA test!!!  

 

If you want to talk about advertising then be fair, name one company who's advertising doesn't bend the truth or pick out specific metrics to gain an advantage over a competitor?  

 

Bottom line, they built a great car that is perfectly capable of reproducing the EPA results when you drive it in a similar manner to the EPA test.  My results back this view up.  My first tank was 48.9 mpg, second tank is currently at 51.8 mpg, I drive conservative but normal, I am not a hyper-miler!  (although I admit I'm starting to get the bug)  Your hyper-milers are Jus & Matt, who are getting 63 mpg & 59 mpg respectively with their techniques.  Jus is getting 34% better fuel economy then the EPA rating and Matt is getting 25% better while dragging 300 pounds of extra equipment around everywhere he goes to boot!

Edited June 23, 2013 by SnitGTS

[Jus-A-CMax]

Bottom line, they built a great car that is perfectly capable of reproducing the EPA results when you drive it in a similar manner to the EPA test.  My results back this view up.  My first tank was 48.9 mpg, second tank is currently at 51.8 mpg, I drive conservative but normal, I am not a hyper-miler!  (although I admit I'm starting to get the bug)  Your hyper-milers are Jus & Matt, who are getting 63 mpg & 59 mpg respectively with their techniques.  Jus is getting 34% better fuel economy then the EPA rating and Matt is getting 25% better while dragging 300 pounds of extra equipment around everywhere he goes to boot!

Not yet but you will ;) 

 

 

This article is a little dated but nonetheless may give some insight into JD: The Trouble with JD Powers Initial Quality Study Feature

 

Discuss away :)

[salsaguy]

very good article and very true. different people want different things in their cars.some folks are coming from  a car with no tech or bells and whistles so it might be great for them, but for someone coming from an Audi/BMW, they might have a higher expectation minimum and higher standards for quality and design. the key is to a KNOW YOUR CUSTOMERS (which of course is impossible to do) and also if you just design for them in mind, sometimes you can't beat the completion or meet the federal and EPA, etc guidelines and specs. it's always a tricky balabcing act the car mfgs must do.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Its amusing, I use to see that Galpin Jaguar use to tout how good they were with the JD Powers and I had a lemon in 1/3 Jags that I owned. The other 2 were OK, but Galpin really took care of these cars though. Ford is ranked last here in this survey and yet its been the most trouble free for me, mechanically. Whilst the article will prick & prod Ford for the better in the long run, unfortunately, its a nice big stick used by the haters and we truly, truly have some haters out there, to beat up the CMax model.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[plus 3 golfer]

Ford can defend their lack of performance on the JD surveys and on driver's not getting better FE however they choose to.  But bottom line if the average customers aren't getting close to the EPA numbers in the real world and aren't "smart" enough or speak "clearly" enough to use MFT, Ford will lose the "battle".  Blaming the customer for such performance is not good for marketing and generally doesn't win customers over.

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Testdriver]

The C-Max is really a convergence of things that will lead to a bad JD Power score -- lots of tech, 1st year model, model exclusive features in the 1st yr (rear footgate thing). Since I had an April build date, it had quite a few of the TSBs installed prior to delivery, so initial quality should already be improving.

 

With that said, a voice recognition system that relies on exact commands is really poorly designed, especially for 2013. Sync needs to go to a model like Siri or Google Now's voice recognition system where it can successfully guess what you're looking for the majority of the time. Microsoft does have the capabilities to pull this off (Bing has a VR system), so hopefully a complete re-vamp of Sync's capabilities will happen sooner rather than later.

[plus 3 golfer]

The C-Max is really a convergence of things that will lead to a bad JD Power score -- lots of tech, 1st year model, model exclusive features in the 1st yr (rear footgate thing). Since I had an April build date, it had quite a few of the TSBs installed prior to delivery, so initial quality should already be improving.

 

With that said, a voice recognition system that relies on exact commands is really poorly designed, especially for 2013. Sync needs to go to a model like Siri or Google Now's voice recognition system where it can successfully guess what you're looking for the majority of the time. Microsoft does have the capabilities to pull this off (Bing has a VR system), so hopefully a complete re-vamp of Sync's capabilities will happen sooner rather than later.

But Ford in general scores poorly in the IQS surveys. It's not just 1st year models.  Also, do other 1st year models score 222?  This IMO, it's a "cultural" issue within Ford.  Just like Ford's old "Quality is Job 1."  Saying is easy, doing is hard.  Ford needs to look within not "blame" the EPA tests, MIcrosoft, or the consumer for reasons.

 

Mulally certainly turned Ford around from the Bill Ford and his recent predecessors eras.  But it's time to move Ford up to the top echelon of automakers.  How do other manufacturers get to the top echelon and stay there?  Ford is behind GMC, Chevy, and Chrysler (IMO, not good for Ford).

[RaPieR]

Don't remember if it has been stated here already but the bulk of the hits to Ford was voice recognition issues, bluetooth pairing, and navigation. That pretty much all covers MTF, has anybody found a detailed break down of the issues? I only found that short snippet through a quick google search.

Edited June 27, 2013 by RaPieR

[plus 3 golfer]

Don't remember if it has been stated here already but the bulk of the hits to Ford was voice recognition issues, bluetooth pairing, and navigation. Pretty that all covers MTF, has anybody found a detailed break down of the issues? I only found that short snippet through a quick google search.

You have to pay for the data (that's how JD makes it's $) and then I believe it's only available to the specific automaker.  So, unless it's "leaked", I doubt we'll ever see specifics.