Poll: Should EPA be 47city & 44hwy?

[Noah Harbinger]

I did an extended test drive when I got my CMax.  Unfortunately, they only loaned it to me for an hour.  They didn't want me to do my normal 3 hour round trip drive to work/home.  I guess it's foolish to assume that you'd get something resembling what was advertised?

 

But you did get exactly what was advertised: You got a vehicle that will get 47MPG on the EPA fuel economy tests. That's what they are advertising. You're foolish to assume it means anything else. 

Edited July 30, 2013 by Noah Harbinger

[Noah Harbinger]

great article showing the negative aspects of the poor EPA test model and how it hurts hybrids:

 

http://www.chron.com/cars/article/Why-is-the-EPA-so-bad-at-estimating-hybrid-fuel-4483222.php

 

I keep seeing that come up. It's dead wrong. Note the money quote: 

 

 "In order to minimize the number of additional US06, SC03, and cold FTP tests resulting from the new testing and calculation procedures, we are allowing manufacturers to estimate fuel economy over these three tests for vehicle configurations that are not normally tested for emissions compliance purposes, using the fuel-economy measurements that are normally available . . ."

 

It's absolutely wrong. First of all, they're talking about e.g. SEL verses SE - "configurations". It only means that if your SE performs the same on the 2-cycle test as the SEL, you can use the same 5-cycle test results for both vehicles. 

[plus 3 golfer]

I keep seeing that come up. It's dead wrong. Note the money quote: 

 

 

It's absolutely wrong. First of all, they're talking about e.g. SEL verses SE - "configurations". It only means that if your SE performs the same on the 2-cycle test as the SEL, you can use the same 5-cycle test results for both vehicles. 

Are you 100% sure?  Do you have a source? 

 

I have perused a lot of EPA documents and looked at the test data submitted by Ford and can only find results for 2 cycles for the C-Max.    When I read the documents it appears that since the 5 cycle tests have been run by Honda and Toyota on the Prius and Civic Hybrids (and maybe more since the document was published), it appears that Ford can use ratios developed form these 5 cycles (called the mpg approach) as long as Ford runs the 2 cycles and certain other parameters are met.  This was supposed to stop in 2011 but it appears the EPA still allows it. 

 

Here's a couple links below to read found here and here.  I see no requirement that a manufacturer has to run the 5 cycle tests if certain conditions are met including 5 cycle tests have been run on similar vehicles (not limited to the manufacturer's vehicles).  EPA believes the ratio approach will adequately represent the 5 cycle tests.  I could be wrong. It would be helpful if someone else could peruse the documents and see what they can find.

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/documents/420r06017.pdf

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tcldata.htm

[Noah Harbinger]

I may have to recant myself. I found the raw data they were talking about: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tcldata.htm

 

It seems like only the luxury manufacturers are performing all the 5-cycle tests. If you look at the 2-cycle test performed and extrapolate that there should be 3 new tests for every 2 old tests, of the non-luxury manufacturers, Volkswagon comes the closest at performing 5-cycle tests on 44% of vehicles; Toyota on 19% of vehicles; and no other non-luxury manufacturer performed full tests on more than 10% of cars.

 

Chrysler, Ford, Kia, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru performed new tests on 0% of vehicles; GM, 3%; honda and mazda, 4%, hyundai, 5%, suzuki, 6%.

 

Edit: I swear I was already writing this before you replied :)

Edited July 30, 2013 by Noah Harbinger

[plus 3 golfer]

LOL, you probably were writing while I submiied it. It happens to me all the time.

 

This is why I continue to believe Ford has no ethics. I believe Ford knew if they ran the full 5 cycles (or perhaps they did), that the highway FE would be significantly lower than the mpg approach. The C-Max is a far different hybrid than a Civic or Prius. But since the mpg approach is Approved by EPA, use it, develop misleading commercials knowing the mpg approach overstates the 5 cycle tests, then after negative FE reviews, tweak the PCM with an update to hopefully improve FE.

[bigalpha]

then after negative FE reviews, tweak the PCM with an update to hopefully improve FE.

 

I would hope they would continue to maximize FE even without all the lawsuits.

[plus 3 golfer]

I believe Ford will continue tweaking FE for future MYs but would Ford have offered a free upgrade to current owners had there been good FE reviews? IIRC, didn't CR say they were going to retest the C-Max with the PCM upgrade.

[GaryM]

I have had 2 more fill ups since my last MPG post and my C-Max SE Hybrid is not at almost 3,000 miles. I have had several freeway round trips average out over 47 mpg on the dash readout. I have no issues with the rated MPG. On each fill up, I am still seeing a 7% discrepancy though. The car is actually using 7% more fuel than the readout states. So my current tank with just over 300 miles so far (just hit the 1/2 mark) is showing 45.9 mpg which when I fill up will calculate out to about 42.7 mpg and I am not babying the car. I have run the engine right to the yellow line to accelerate onto the freeway and got caught by a light many times and had to brake harder, scoring below 50% a few times, so I know the car will do better. The real mileage killer though is the dreaded short trip. I had to do several drives under 2 miles and unless you can go fully electric, it will not score better than 30 mpg. On one 4 mile trip though, it was dead cold before going there, and I got a fair 35 mpg. The car only sat 10 minutes, so it was still warm with over 50% in the HV battery. I got 86 mpg on the return trip, and this was basically level ground at 50 mph, so it was able to go electric most of the way. I do not call it cheating at all, as the battery level was still as high if not higher after the drive. That works out to a city MPG average of 49.8, even with my 7% error (it takes 7% more fuel to fill than the dash says I used) it is a real 46.3 mpg. On a longer trip I have had my round trips average well over 50 mpg indicated, several times. The real fun one is taking my kids to Tae Kwon Do. It is UP hill to get there, so I get a bad 25 mpg going, but I get over 200 mpg back, unless I get caught at lights. I did even get one run of full electric 999.9 mpg. With a little down hill help, I have topped 5 miles in EV mode. 

 

The C-Max is a very different beast from the Prius. The performance of the C-Max does make it very easy to burn more fuel if you drive it harder. In the Prius, you have to work to drive it hard enough to make it suck more fuel. I did a few trips in my wife's Prius C the other day, and the dash really get's mad at you if you even try to stay with any traffic flow. It was pegged at "POWER" on the energy usage meter, and I was less than 1/2 down on the accelerator and the traffic went running away from me, and the car gave me a 5% acceleration score. OUCH!! bad driver! Of course, one of my normal round trip in the C did show 61 mpg on the dash. It is a much smaller lighter car on skinny tires and only 75% of the engine size, so I would EXPECT it to do that much better than the Max. The funny thing is, after a full tank, my average in the C-Max is better than my wife is getting in her Prius C. Admittedly, I do drive a bit more "Eco" than my wife in day to day traffic.

[fotomoto]

Back to the original intent of this thread:  Ford had more "realistic" EPA numbers in the beginning but a year later they roll out with the 47 numbers when other cars (cough Prius V cough) were now selling well in the market.

 

One of the base tenants of customer service:  UNDER promise and OVER deliver.  Imagine if Ford would have stuck with the 47 city and 44 hwy.  

[plus 3 golfer]

Think what might be if Ford ran and posted the likely lower 5 cycle EPA tests as the EPA numbers.  They likely would have come a lot closer to UNDER promise and OVER deliver.  Owners would be happy; hypermilers, likely ecstatic;  but what about sales, if the 5 cycles numbers are under Prius V??? :)

 

The more aggressive acceleration rates under the city portion of the new high speed test cycle would likely reduce the City EPA number more than using the mpg approach when ratios are based on cars like the Civic and Prius Hybrids.  The folks at cleanmpg.com seem very knowledgeable.  For those that may not have read their comments on the C-Max:

 

 

Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - Feb. 25, 2013

2013 Ford C-MAX - $25,995 to start including destination and handling and a 41/37/39 (forget the EPA figures) mpgUS city/highway/combined rating.

San Diego, CA -- The pronouncement of an upcoming super hybrid provided by Ford who is known for its hybrid ... had my hopes raised and utmost attention. 

With literally tens of stories from the original platform out of Europe to the final certifications at 47/47/47 mpgUS city/highway/combined, the upcoming C-MAX had me riveted.

And then something happened

At the US C-MAX Short Lead, Ford had a fuel economy competition in which one journalist topped 61 mpg with an average speed of 19 mph.. This run would have probably allowed a Prius liftback (51/48/50 mpgUS city/highway/combined) to peg its display at 99.9 MPG  during the 25 Mile Yakima Valley Tour with an average speed approaching 25 mph in a stop light to stop light and sign serpentine course looping Yakima.... (read more in the link below)

 

 

To read more go here.

[plus 3 golfer]

...

 

The C-Max is a very different beast from the Prius. The performance of the C-Max does make it very easy to burn more fuel if you drive it harder. In the Prius, you have to work to drive it hard enough to make it suck more fuel....

Exactly the reason why Ford should have ran the 5 cycle EPA tests rather than being allowed to only run two tests (with the City test having very mild acceleration rates) and then using  the 5 cycle data based off other hybrids like the Prius and Civic in the MPG approach to come up with numbers for the 3 new EPA tests.  

 

Can one achieve 47 mpg in the C-Max. Absolutely, but it's what one has to do to achieve it.   The addition of the 3 EPA tests were suppose to bring the EPA numbers closer to "real world driving". The goal is not to publish FE numbers that can be reached by driving certain ways but by the way cars are driven in the real world.  Unfortunately, we will likely never see a full 5 cycle test for the current C-Max.

[bigalpha]

Think what might be if Ford ran and posted the likely lower 5 cycle EPA tests as the EPA numbers.  They likely would have come a lot closer to UNDER promise and OVER deliver.  Owners would be happy; hypermilers, likely ecstatic; 

 

 

Can one achieve 47 mpg in the C-Max. Absolutely, but it's what one has to do to achieve it.   The addition of the 3 EPA tests were suppose to bring the EPA numbers closer to "real world driving". The goal is not to publish FE numbers that can be reached by driving certain ways but by the way cars are driven in the real world.

 

These two statements really sum up the argument that people who are not getting 47mpg are trying to make.  This just shows that Ford did everything they could to game the system (even though it's technically allowed).  There's no way Ford didn't know all these things.

[Noah Harbinger]

The adjustment factor is supposed to be based on some other vehicle, though - I wonder what vehicle they're using as the basis for the adjustment? 

[hybridbear]

This is why I continue to believe Ford has no ethics. I believe Ford knew if they ran the full 5 cycles (or perhaps they did), that the highway FE would be significantly lower than the mpg approach. The C-Max is a far different hybrid than a Civic or Prius. But since the mpg approach is Approved by EPA, use it, develop misleading commercials knowing the mpg approach overstates the 5 cycle tests, then after negative FE reviews, tweak the PCM with an update to hopefully improve FE.

Exactly! This shows that the problem lies with the EPA for allowing this. Ford found a loophole and exploited it. In the long run this might backfire on them, but I believe they took a calculated risk in what they did and how they've promoted both the C-Max and the FFH.

[Noah Harbinger]

Exactly! This shows that the problem lies with the EPA for allowing this. Ford found a loophole and exploited it. In the long run this might backfire on them, but I believe they took a calculated risk in what they did and how they've promoted both the C-Max and the FFH.

 

And not just Ford, but every mainline manufacturer is relying heavily on it.

 

It's time to make the full 5-cycle test mandatory for every test vehicle. 

[salsaguy]

i want to see which car magazine will be the first to re-test the cmax after the FE update and write about it. would be good to have one test car with the update and one without it to compare. since consumer reports was one of the ones who made the biggest negative complaint about it I'm sure they are vestedin the retest results .I'm sure they want what the readers want which is better FE. and if what they did helps the consumer population in general then I'm sure they will pat themselves on their back and say good job CR.

 

I believe Ford will continue tweaking FE for future MYs but would Ford have offered a free upgrade to current owners had there been good FE reviews? IIRC, didn't CR say they were going to retest the C-Max with the PCM upgrade.

Edited August 1, 2013 by salsaguy

[GaryM]

I just had to fill up again. This has been my best tank yet on the dashboard, coming in at 558 miles, 12.1 gallons burned, 46.2 mpg. All of my previous fill ups were at Chevron with the Vons card $0.20 per gallon discount. I think they may have nudged their pump accuracy a bit to make up that 20 cents though. Each fill at Chevron took 7% more gas than the dash reported, but this time I was running low so I just filled up at the 7-Eleven station on my way home. I was not even watching the pump, let it hit the stop, then rounded up to a nice round figure. It is possible it did not quite fill it as full, but the gauge still went 2 pixels above the F line on the gas gauge. But it only took 11.76 gallons which works out to 47.4 MPG for an entire tank of all kinds of driving. That even includes 4 sorta drag races to 50 mph against a Hummer H3, and yes, I pulled away every time. The Hummer owner was shocked to see the Hybrid badge and we talked a bit. I may have sold another C-Max for Ford. 

 

All in all, I think i am siding with the dashboard being quite accurate. I think both stations were a little off, one high and one low. I will try to remember and use the same pump to fill it next time to get an accurate fill up fuel used as the auto shut off could vary a bit. 

 

Needless to say, my vote still stands. This thing really does seem to get 47 MPG without being an eco nut driver. This past tank had a bit of everything, over 120 miles of EV, over 20 miles of regen, freeway running at over 70 mph, stop and go traffic, city driving, and plenty of hills that needed the engine to climb. I revved it well past the first yellow line ever time I got on the freeway, and never upset others in traffic either.

[SnitGTS]

IMHO, gas pumps are always going to tell you they give you more gas then they actually do, they make extra money and they are rarely caught.  I live in NJ where you are not allowed to pump your own gas and I worked for a gas station when I was in high school, they got caught twice with bad pumps while I was there and I think it was a $500 fine.  (which they probably made up in a week of overcharging the customers)

 

I trust my car far more than any gas station pump.

[GaryM]

I know there is certainly some variance in the pumps and the auto shut off, that is why I try to be consistent when calculating mileage. Here in California, they do have the Dept. of Agriculture go around and do random check of the pump accuracy. The fines are quite big if they are too far out of spec. I think they can't short you by more than 5% but they can give you more by 10%, of course, which side are most stations going to be on??

 

That being said... I am not even 100 miles into the tank of 7-Eleven gas, and it is already showing, much worse mileage on the dash. I bet it has much more alcohol in it than the Chevron gas I normally use. My favorite in my Camry was always Shell, but they are just not as convenient to get into on my drive to or from work. But in the Camry, it was well worth the little extra distance as the mileage on the Shell was enough better to easily make up for it, and it was also usually a tick cheaper per gallon. The C-Max seems to like the Chevron, but I have not done 2 to 3 tanks in a row of Shell to prove it out. A single fill never works out s it could be a half gallon difference in the tank due to the shut off system tripping earlier or later. I think this was a big part of why the 7-Eleven fill was much less fuel. It also showed that my distance to empty was a bit low right from the start, even before my average started falling. It is looking like 500 miles may be tight on this tank. It was almost 560 on the last one.

[rfruth]

Wow here in Tx the amount of alcohol (ethanol) and the overall amount of fuel dispensed (the gallons & tenths of gallons shown on the pump) better be pretty much spot on or else  (guess Texas is more regulated than I though)   

[fotomoto]

 (guess Texas is more regulated than I though)   

 

Not really.  http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Think-the-gas-pump-is-wrong-You-may-be-right-3588193.php

[zhackwyatt]

And this is what we have in Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/20130719arizona-gas-pump-errors-audit.html

 

 

The annual report, based on the audit conducted between July 1, 2012, and June 30, showed 4,761 violations, including the following:

• 254 cases where the pump dispensed less fuel than it registered.
• 252 cases of “meter jump,” where the meter did not start at zero.
• 340 individual violations of “meter creep,” where the pump charged the customer without dispensing any gasoline.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2013 by zhackwyatt

[rfruth]

Didn't mean to say there aren't crooks out there, try to use someone with a good reputation (could be Shell, Exxon, Kroger etc...) I try to use a local Raceway http://racewaypetroleum.com/ 

[salsaguy]

there is much more chance of getting ripped off at no name brand / of brand retailers. 7-11 gas and Arco is cheap low quality gas. your car deserves better. doesn't have to be 91/92 octane just 87 regular gas but still good stuff. check here: http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html

 

======================== quoted text ==============

That being said... I am not even 100 miles into the tank of 7-Eleven gas, and it is already showing, much worse mileage on the dash. I bet it has much more alcohol in it than the Chevron gas I normally use. My favorite in my Camry was always Shell, but they are just not as convenient to get into on my drive to or from work. But in the Camry, it was well worth the little extra distance as the mileage on the Shell was enough better to easily make up for it, and it was also usually a tick cheaper per gallon. The C-Max seems to like the Chevron, but I have not done 2 to 3 tanks in a row of Shell to prove it out. A single fill never works out so it could be a half gallon difference in the tank due to the shut off system tripping earlier or later. I think this was a big part of why the 7-Eleven fill was much less fuel. It also showed that my distance to empty was a bit low right from the start, even before my average started falling. It is looking like 500 miles may be tight on this tank. It was almost 560 on the last one.

Edited August 4, 2013 by salsaguy

[coolmax]

EPA should do a cold weather (40 and below) and hot weather (70 and above) for this car. Ha, ha wishful thinking.