Ford to lower fuel economy rating on C-Max hybrid

[slampro]

Just found this over at Blue Oval.

 

 

 

 

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130815/OEM05/130819953/ford-to-restate-fuel-economy-on-c-max-hybrid#axzz2c3aN1wrZ

[darrelld]

Well its about time. :)

[HannahWCU]

I wonder what the new rating will be and what they will do for those of us who already own one.  A friend of mine had a Hyundai Elantra that had the FE restated.  The combined number went down 1 MPG (I think).  He told me that the way Hyundai did it was that every time he took it to the dealer for service, he got money for every mile he had put on the car since the last service.  But it was like a penny for every mile driven.  I did some quick calculations, a drop of 4MPG (combined) and using an average price of $3.50/gallon the difference is $0.0069/mile.  Yes thats less than 0.7 cents per mile.  Over the 15,000 miles I have driven that amounts to almost $104.  Not much, but hey, free money is free money.

Edited August 15, 2013 by HannahWCU

[erwhitham]

I'm actually not one of those overly concerned about fuel economy with the CMax. Since owning mine-10 months now-it appears to be getting 2-3 mpg. less than my previously owned Priuses. My highest mpg with the Prius on an entire tank was about 45 with my driving habits. My current tank on the CMax should be my best but not above 43. Still ok as the car is appealing in so many other ways.

[obob]

This is a message that I copied from the OP's article.  It seems like there is a double standard.  It's OK to miss the city numbers compared to EPA but if the highway numbers miss that's a crime.  There are lot's of cars that really miss the city numbers bad.  

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130815/OEM05/130819953/ford-to-restate-fuel-economy-on-c-max-hybrid#axzz2c3aN1wrZ

 

 

 

 

 

bloggin

• 28 minutes ago

• −
•  

With CR's testing, the Prius Liftback got 32mpg city when the EPA is 51. Which is 19 short of EPA for the city. But where it made gains was the hwy at 55 with EPA 48 with it's tiny engine. A gain of 7, which brought the Prius liftback to 12 below EPA 'combined'.

The C-MAX got 35 mpg city when EPA mpg 47. Which was 12 short of EPA for city. But since CR test was at 65 and hybrid drivetrain stopped at 62, the hwy was 41. Short 6. Which brought the C-MAX/Fusion Hybrid to 18 below.

So yes, based on CR testing, the Fusion/C-MAX Hybrids were 'combined' more below EPA combined, but the Prius Liftback was 19mpg short of city EPA and the both the Fusion/C-MAX Hybrids were 12.

For comparison, in the CR tests, the Prius C only got 37mpg city when the EPA was 53, but CR had nothing to say about that.

 

Edited August 15, 2013 by obob

[CassidyB]

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before I start receiving solicitations from lawyers.. I think will actually read them for a change... This will kill the possible trade in value for the C-Max.

[fbov]

I'm new to hybrids, and have only had this C-max since Saturday. I'm already getting 50 mpg on this first tank, granted on surface streets. Conversely, I'm well aware that it's hard to beat 40 mpg at 75 mph driving on the ICE - well duhhh.

 

One can understand the desire to "kill all the lawyers," but in this case, they're not the problem. It's the owners who expect magical results. We're too accustomed to getting what we want, regardless the (il)logic of it...

 

HAve fun,

Frank

Edited August 15, 2013 by fbov

[homestead]

Here is the story on NBC , lowered to 43 MPG Combined

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/ford-lowers-mileage-estimate-hybrid-crossover-6C10928484

[plus 3 golfer]

It wouldn't surprise me to see Ford offering a payment to all that purchased the C-Max prior to the announcement of a lower EPA rating.  

 

It will be interesting to see if Ford submitted revised test data to the EPA (one should see such data on EPA spreadsheets eventually).  Again, I believe that Ford's choosing to report only the 2 EPA test cycle data and likely knowing that such results would yield higher FE than the 5 EPA test cycles results is the reason for the lower EPA number.  It also wouldn't surprise me that the EPA and Ford reached agreement that Ford needs to lower the EPA numbers as reporting a higher FE number is not in the spirit of what the EPA FE is supposed to be - a reflection of real world driving for the average driver and the reason EPA expanded their FE tests from 2 test cycles to 5 test cycles.

[plus 3 golfer]

I'm new to hybrids, and have only had this C-max since Saturday. I'm already getting 50 mpg on this first tank, granted on surface streets. Conversely, I'm well aware that it's hard to beat 40 mpg at 75 mph driving on the ICE - well duhhh.

 

One can understand the desire to "kill all the lawyers," but in this case, they're not the problem. It's the owners who expect magical results. We're too accustomed to getting what we want, regardless the (il)logic of it...

 

HAve fun,

Frank

The owners aren't the problem. ;)  Perhaps you need to do research on the EPA FE tests.  Also, it's easy to beat 47 mpg but it's how one has to drive to do it.  :)   

[Edsel]

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before I start receiving solicitations from lawyers.. I think will actually read them for a change... This will kill the possible trade in value for the C-Max.

 

I'm sure it will.  I plan to drive it untill I hit the 36,000 mile warranty limit and dump it.

[homestead]

Looks like we get some money back...

Buyers to receive $550 in compensation; lessees to get $325

Edited August 15, 2013 by homestead

[slampro]

 

Looks like we get some money back...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20130815/OEM05/130819953/ford-lowers-fuel-economy-rating-on-c-max-hybrid-to-43-mpg#axzz2c4gyeBBH

 

Buyers to receive $550 in compensation; lessees to get $325

That link didn't work for me, but here is the same info at usatoday. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/08/15/ford-cmax-mp/2660371/

[homestead]

 

Looks like we get some money back...

Buyers to receive $550 in compensation; lessees to get $325  , The company and EPA said the new rating on the C-Max will be 43 mpg combined, 45 mpg city and 40 mpg highway.

Edited August 15, 2013 by homestead

[plus 3 golfer]

 

Looks like we get some money back...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20130815/OEM05/130819953/ford-lowers-fuel-economy-rating-on-c-max-hybrid-to-43-mpg#axzz2c4gyeBBH

 

Buyers to receive $550 in compensation; lessees to get $325

Well it only took 1/2 hour from my previous post for the compensation and admittance that the 5 cycle tests were not run on the C-Max.

[Edsel]

Well it only took 1/2 hour from my previous post for the compensation and admittance that the 5 cycle tests were not run on the C-Max.

:worship:

[CassidyB]

I saw the article related to possible money... I want to see how they came up with those amounts.. Not much difference between a leased vehicle and a purchased vehicle.. Some of the issue relates to driving habits, but part of it is Ford playing the game and misleading consumers. I know mileage will vary..BUT 47hwy is NOT realistic... Driving almost 20MPH under the posted speed limit is not safe.. I'm tired of visiting the dealer for recalls and TSBs.. It's sad that EV+ comes up anytime I drive by my local dealer...

[darrelld]

AutoblogGreen version; 

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/ford-c-max-hybrid-rerated-at-43-mpg-owners-offered-rebates/  

[plus 3 golfer]

 

AutoblogGreen version; 

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/ford-c-max-hybrid-rerated-at-43-mpg-owners-offered-rebates/  

LOL, exactly what an unethical manufacturer does, blame it on the rules rather than admit to something they likely knew was "wrong / deceptive" all along.  Ford Fusion has a lower Cd (0.27 vs 0.30 or 11% less Cd) and a lesser frontal area (about 8% less than the C-Max).  That will result in an increase in drag of the C-Max over the Fusion of about 16% at 65 mph and an increase of 16% in the power requirements of the C-Max at 65 mph over the Fusion.  I can easily see a 12+ % FE change or 6+ mpg reduction in FE of the C-Max vs the Fusion at high speeds.  Dropping from 47 mpg to 40 mpg highway seems reasonable.

 

Also, when I look at the 2013 Ford data submitted to the EPA , I do not see any data for the C-Max Hybrid only the C-Max Energi and I see no data submitted for the Fusion Energi only the Fusion Hybrid and in both cases it's only data for the 2 test cycles not 5 test cycles.  Ford still hasn't come completely clean as to how the Fusion and C-Max numbers were derived. Both are likely overstated.

[SnowStorm]

So we get a 2% price break (pays the 47/43 difference on about 80,000 miles) and those of us who don't speed 5 to 15 mph over the limit will go on our merry way getting 47+ MPG combined!  :shift: Not bad.  I really don't understand why EPA tests need to cover a national pastime of breaking the speed limit. :redcard: (I'm not saying there aren't other issues here but that seems to be a big part of it.)

 

I'm sure it will.  I plan to drive it untill I hit the 36,000 mile warranty limit and dump it.

What will be the replacement?  Just curious. 

[plus 3 golfer]

So we get a 2% price break (pays the 47/43 difference on about 80,000 miles) and those of us who don't speed 5 to 15 mph over the limit will go on our merry way getting 47+ MPG combined!  :shift: Not bad.  I really don't understand why EPA tests need to cover a national pastime of breaking the speed limit. :redcard: (I'm not saying there aren't other issues here but that seems to be a big part of it.)

 

What will be the replacement?  Just curious. 

Blaming consumers for getting less than 47 mph because they are "speeders" is laughable.  Again someone that needs to do research on the EPA FE rules and regulations. 

[Edsel]

So we get a 2% price break (pays the 47/43 difference on about 80,000 miles) and those of us who don't speed 5 to 15 mph over the limit will go on our merry way getting 47+ MPG combined!  :shift: Not bad.  I really don't understand why EPA tests need to cover a national pastime of breaking the speed limit. :redcard: (I'm not saying there aren't other issues here but that seems to be a big part of it.)

 

 

What will be the replacement?  Just curious. 

TBD, this will take me about three years anyway.

[mlaurence]

Wow, I have never in my life gotten the EPA mileage estimate from any car I owned.  I'm on my first tank, but I'm 2 mpg over the new EPA estimate already, and it can only get better.  And now I will get $550 back.  That'll buy about 6,900 miles worth of free gas!

[HannahWCU]

Or a car payment!

[viajero]

So we get a 2% price break (pays the 47/43 difference on about 80,000 miles) and those of us who don't speed 5 to 15 mph over the limit will go on our merry way getting 47+ MPG combined!  :shift: Not bad.  I really don't understand why EPA tests need to cover a national pastime of breaking the speed limit. :redcard: (I'm not saying there aren't other issues here but that seems to be a big part of it.)

 

There was some discussion on this on the Energi forum a while back.  Highway speed limits in the western half of the U.S. are usually 70 or 75 mph, and in those 75 mph states there are lots of open roads where you can actually set the cruise control at 75 and drive for hours, no law breaking required.  I think the EPA should test the fuel consumption at a constant 75 mph and call that the highway mileage.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States