Ford to lower fuel economy rating on C-Max hybrid

[CassidyB]

The 47/47/47 on the C-Max's window sticker is based on results of testing on the Ford Fusion Hybrid. EPA labeling regulations allow vehicles with the same engine, transmission, and weight class to use the same fuel economy label value data. So Ford used the Fusions numbers without taking the difference in aerodynamics into consideration.

[SnowStorm]

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

OK, but there are several issues:

1. 75 mph only works for about 20% of the US population.  Most everyone else is limited to 65 or 70.
2. The limits in the link are maximums - many sections of road (especially metro areas with heavy traffic) are lower.
3. There are many "highways" posted at 55.  (About half of my highway driving is at 55.)

It won't be easy to come up with a test that works for everyone but it shouldn't be biased to just 20%.  A graph of mpg versus speed would be nice but how many general car buyers would put out the effort to compare that kind of detail.  This kind of discussion could go on for a while - and probably should!  YMMV won't go away any time soon.

 

BTW, it is interesting to compare the following maps for speed limits and population density (from Wikipedia):

[Testdriver]

The 47/47/47 on the C-Max's window sticker is based on results of testing on the Ford Fusion Hybrid. EPA labeling regulations allow vehicles with the same engine, transmission, and weight class to use the same fuel economy label value data. So Ford used the Fusions numbers without taking the difference in aerodynamics into consideration.

Yeah, Ford really did a nice job shooting themselves in the foot. They should have seen the PR disaster coming from a mile away. Maybe they needed the 47 rating to avoid CAFE penalties? Who knows?

 

I love my C-Max and get near 47 mpg, but I drive it differently than your average driver, so I can understand the complaints. I just hope that it can outlive this bad press because it's a great vehicle and worthy of being Ford's flagship hybrid.

[ScubaDadMiami]

Perhaps you need to do research on the EPA FE tests.   

"The agency did not say whether it plans to investigate Ford. But it seems unlikely because the agency said in a statement that its own testing rules were a factor that contributed to Ford's overstated mpg claims."

[plus 3 golfer]

"The agency did not say whether it plans to investigate Ford. But it seems unlikely because the agency said in a statement that its own testing rules were a factor that contributed to Ford's overstated mpg claims."

Exactly, so then why is Ford lowering the numbers.

 

Like I said before a "shady" manufacturer takes advantage of the situation likely knowing full well they are stretching the intent of the Rules. The rules were put in place because the manufacturers complained that running similar vehicles through the 2 cycle tests let alone the 5 cycle tests would be too costly. I'll bet the EPA was not happy with Ford "taking advantage" of the rules and hence there was an agreement that Ford would lower the ratings appropriately. An ethical manufacturer would have gone to the EPA prior to the release of the numbers and pointed out the issues with the rules and how the rules could be used to inflate the numbers.

 

Had Ford not lowered the numbers, the EPA would have most certainly issued findings on their preliminary investigation which would make Ford look a heck of a lot worse. It appears both Ford and the EPA come out ahead by Ford "voluntarily" lowering the numbers.

[fbov]

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.  :)   

It's dangerous to presume ignorance...

 

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.

Compensation is news, the rest, not so much, or at least I learned little about Ford's EPA qualificaiton process. I will admit to doing a lot of research before taking posession, but the EPA-related stuff I found was 2012...

 

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.  ...

Your factual posts have been interesting. I've learned a lot from your posts. But I also recognize a bias when I see one. I seem to have a different one.

 

In a regulatory environment, a company is courting suicide by not gaming the rules for a competitive advantage. It's a simple fact of life in competitive markets; ethics have nothing to do with it (at least we see no evidence... yet; Hyundai wasn't so lucky). That there are gaps in the rules is not in dispute, nor a lack of foresight on Ford's part in not setting customer expectations for the product. It seems kind of stupid to launch a hybrid that has to run the ICE at the speed limit, and I wonder at the "conventional car" throttle calibrations that make hybrid operation aberrant behavior. How may times does Jus say "feather" regarding throttle in his mileage tips?

 

So stupidity, poor judgement yes. Malfeasance, no, not necessary at all to get to this point. And keep up the informative posts, just tone down the rant!

 

Have fun,

Frank

[Wingrider01]

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...

 

Probably based on the fact a buyer pays negotiated price for the car and a person that leases end cost is based on the residual value of the car at lease end, seem to remember that mine was either 55 or 60 percent last year when I leased the car, it had one of the highest residual values for the cars I looked at. still both amounts have been pointed out as being kind of low by the trade papers

[hybridbear]

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.

Where do you find the data that Ford submitted to the EPA? Can you share a link please? I'd be interested to see that.

 

BTW, it is interesting to compare the following maps for speed limits and population density (from Wikipedia):

Really neat graphics! Not surprisingly the low population density states have higher speed limits. I agree that you can't bias the test for the 20% of people in those states. A standardized test will never be all things to all people, that's impossible. I like the suggestions that the EPA add "steady cruising MPG" at certain speeds like 60, 65 & 70 MPH as a factor in calculating highway fuel economy. However, I doubt we'll see changes like that considering how the manufacturers have complained about testing costs and thus have the option of doing what Ford did using the Fusion numbers for the C-Max instead of testing it separately. If the manufacturers can't be bothered to test every car individually then they definitely won't like the idea of adding additional tests. I do think that the 5 cycle testing should be mandatory for all vehicles, no more of this 2 cycle testing plus some fuzzy math. I think mandatory 5 cycle testing would help give consumers better data on the window stickers too.

 

Yeah, Ford really did a nice job shooting themselves in the foot. They should have seen the PR disaster coming from a mile away. Maybe they needed the 47 rating to avoid CAFE penalties? Who knows?

 

I love my C-Max and get near 47 mpg, but I drive it differently than your average driver, so I can understand the complaints. I just hope that it can outlive this bad press because it's a great vehicle and worthy of being Ford's flagship hybrid.

I agree! I have said since December after investigating the EPA test cycles and everything else that Ford took a calculated risk here. I doubt they planned for this decision to cost them upwards of $15 million in the cash payments, not counting the brand image damage, stock price hit and lost sales. I'd figure the stock damage alone could be hundreds of millions of dollars depending on how the market reacts today to this news. I wonder now how many people will lose their jobs who were part of the decision to save a maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars by not testing the C-Max separately (I have no idea what it costs a manufacturer to run the EPA cycles on their cars so I'm just guessing) when that decision will now cost Ford hundreds of millions.

 

Exactly, so then why is Ford lowering the numbers.

 

Like I said before a "shady" manufacturer takes advantage of the situation likely knowing full well they are stretching the intent of the Rules. The rules were put in place because the manufacturers complained that running similar vehicles through the 2 cycle tests let alone the 5 cycle tests would be too costly. I'll bet the EPA was not happy with Ford "taking advantage" of the rules and hence there was an agreement that Ford would lower the ratings appropriately. An ethical manufacturer would have gone to the EPA prior to the release of the numbers and pointed out the issues with the rules and how the rules could be used to inflate the numbers.

 

Had Ford not lowered the numbers, the EPA would have most certainly issued findings on their preliminary investigation which would make Ford look a heck of a lot worse. It appears both Ford and the EPA come out ahead by Ford "voluntarily" lowering the numbers.

The objective of a public company is to bring a return to their shareholders. Ethics is not a part of business. If companies behaved ethically of their own accord we would never have had the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, et al scandals. If companies behaved ethically there would be no need for Sarbanes Oxley. We aren't privy to the internal discussions between Ford executives and the EPA to know what happened, but I would venture a guess that the EPA tested the C-Max, got lower numbers and they gave Ford the chance to address it. Ford technically didn't break, or even bend, any rules, but the EPA would have had to release their results which would have made Ford look bad. I think that just as much blame belongs with the EPA as with Ford for having such stupid rules. It's also important to note that Ford isn't the only company to do this. Honda just released a new hybrid in Japan that beats the Prius on the Japanese test cycle for fuel economy, but everyone knows that the Honda hybrid will not beat the Prius fuel economy in the real world. Honda merely programmed that car to ace the Japanese tests. So what? Buyer beware is still the adage that we should all live by.

 

It's dangerous to presume ignorance...

 

Compensation is news, the rest, not so much, or at least I learned little about Ford's EPA qualificaiton process. I will admit to doing a lot of research before taking posession, but the EPA-related stuff I found was 2012...

 

Your factual posts have been interesting. I've learned a lot from your posts. But I also recognize a bias when I see one. I seem to have a different one.

 

In a regulatory environment, a company is courting suicide by not gaming the rules for a competitive advantage. It's a simple fact of life in competitive markets; ethics have nothing to do with it (at least we see no evidence... yet; Hyundai wasn't so lucky). That there are gaps in the rules is not in dispute, nor a lack of foresight on Ford's part in not setting customer expectations for the product. It seems kind of stupid to launch a hybrid that has to run the ICE at the speed limit, and I wonder at the "conventional car" throttle calibrations that make hybrid operation aberrant behavior. How may times does Jus say "feather" regarding throttle in his mileage tips?

 

So stupidity, poor judgement yes. Malfeasance, no, not necessary at all to get to this point. And keep up the informative posts, just tone down the rant!

 

Have fun,

Frank

Exactly. I agree that this was bad judgement on Ford's part, but not illegal. It was a foolish decision that now Ford stockholders will pay the price for.

Edited August 16, 2013 by hybridbear

[plus 3 golfer]

It's dangerous to presume ignorance...

 

Compensation is news, the rest, not so much, or at least I learned little about Ford's EPA qualificaiton process. I will admit to doing a lot of research before taking posession, but the EPA-related stuff I found was 2012...

 

Your factual posts have been interesting. I've learned a lot from your posts. But I also recognize a bias when I see one. I seem to have a different one.

 

In a regulatory environment, a company is courting suicide by not gaming the rules for a competitive advantage. It's a simple fact of life in competitive markets; ethics have nothing to do with it (at least we see no evidence... yet; Hyundai wasn't so lucky). That there are gaps in the rules is not in dispute, nor a lack of foresight on Ford's part in not setting customer expectations for the product. It seems kind of stupid to launch a hybrid that has to run the ICE at the speed limit, and I wonder at the "conventional car" throttle calibrations that make hybrid operation aberrant behavior. How may times does Jus say "feather" regarding throttle in his mileage tips?

 

So stupidity, poor judgement yes. Malfeasance, no, not necessary at all to get to this point. And keep up the informative posts, just tone down the rant!

 

Have fun,

Frank

Most consumers "trust" that the EPA numbers are representative. A consumer should not be required to "understand" the rules and how such rules were applied in deriving the numbers. The EPA and consumer groups are the watchdogs.  Consumer ignorance is not what this is about.  It's about consumers' trust in Ford and the EPA.  In most environmental matters, the effect of gaming the rules on the consumer is not readily apparent (and I worked in the energy arena including environmental for 34 years) nor is it felt by the consumer.  The consumer is not laying out $25 to $30k in one shot based on manufacturers "gamed" numbers in these other instances.  The argument that gaming the EPA numbers is an acceptable business practice is a very weak in defense of Ford's actions for its 47/47/47 numbers.      

 

IMO, Ford violated that trust by gaming the rules and more importantly promoting such numbers through their clever ads and commercials. So, because the rules evidently don't specifically mention "aerodynamics" as a reason vehicles may be different, it's alright to mislead the public and EPA by using the test results of a Fusion that have significantly lower drag at higher speeds than the C-Max.  I call that unethical behavior (not illegal).  IMO, malfeasance is generally thought of as an intentional illegal act.  

 

As I've said before I like my C-Max and knew going into the purchase based on my due diligence that 47 was quite a stretch and based on my typical driving would likely get in the low 40s.  But there are likely many consumers that "trusted" Ford and the EPA to do the right thing.  Again, if Ford believes they did nothing unethical, why offer a payment and lower the numbers.  Why not simply say "consumers are ignorant", "don't know how to drive a hybrid", "consumers speed" and so forth and move on.  Likely, because the EPA was ready to do battle and that's not good for Ford. 

 

I call it as I see it  :) and this time Ford loses - they gamed the system a little too much.  Ford knew of the aerodynamic difference between the Fusion and C-Max and it's affect on FE. ;)

[RaPieR]

They didn't break any rules.  This was posted elsewhere, here's a release by the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/fueleconomy/420f13044.pdf

 

They didn't run the tests on the C-Max, Ford pulled used the Fusion numbers because of drivetrain, weight class, etc it was in the same vehicle family which is legal by the EPA.

 

However, I think it was a silly decision to do that because of the aerodynamic differences between the C-Max and Fusion.

 

The objective of a public company is to bring a return to their shareholders. Ethics is not a part of business. If companies behaved ethically of their own accord we would never have had the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, et al scandals. If companies behaved ethically there would be no need for Sarbanes Oxley. We aren't privy to the internal discussions between Ford executives and the EPA to know what happened, but I would venture a guess that the EPA tested the C-Max, got lower numbers and they gave Ford the chance to address it. Ford technically didn't break, or even bend, any rules, but the EPA would have had to release their results which would have made Ford look bad. I think that just as much blame belongs with the EPA as with Ford for having such stupid rules. It's also important to note that Ford isn't the only company to do this. Honda just released a new hybrid in Japan that beats the Prius on the Japanese test cycle for fuel economy, but everyone knows that the Honda hybrid will not beat the Prius fuel economy in the real world. Honda merely programmed that car to ace the Japanese tests. So what? Buyer beware is still the adage that we should all live by.

[RaPieR]

They didn't break any rules.  This was posted elsewhere, here's a release by the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/fueleconomy/420f13044.pdf

 

They didn't run the tests on the C-Max, Ford pulled used the Fusion numbers because of drivetrain, weight class, etc it was in the same vehicle family which is legal by the EPA.

 

However, I think it was a silly decision to do that because of the aerodynamic differences between the C-Max and Fusion.

 

IMO, Ford violated that trust by gaming the rules and more importantly promoting such numbers through their clever ads and commercials. 

I don't think it was just gaming the system.  The technical differences that allow Ford to run EV at higher EV is something that the EPA test doesn't account for.  If you looked at what happened with the Toyota Prius prior to the EPA update, there was some controversy because of differences between the actual and EPA estimates.

 

I don't understand why Ford didn't just do the individual tests and saying anything about it would just be speculation.  But moving forward I hope they learn from this and perform all the individual tests for their vehicles to avoid any problems in the future.

[Edsel]

The should have played it safe and tested the C-Max and used the numbers for the Fusion. 

[ArizonaEnergi]

Why do I suspect us Energi owners won't be included in this payment?

Because this voluntary step results in miles-per-gallon values different from the original C-MAX Hybrid label, Ford also is making a goodwill payment to current C-MAX Hybrid owners for the estimated average fuel cost of the difference between the two labels. Customers who purchased their vehicle will receive a check from Ford for $550. Customers who leased their vehicle will receive a check for $325.

[spyburn]

I just did some fuzzy math myself.  Lowering the rating from 47 to 43 combined, using my last gas purchase of $3.63 per gallon and my approx 18k miles driven per year means the $550 covers my "losses" for about 4.25 years.

 

That being said, I love my C-Max and I'm happy with the FE I'm getting (but I certainly won't turn down some cash!).  I never expected to get the EPA rating due to the number of highway miles I drive, but I must admit I feel a little better about being only slightly under the new EPA numbers! 

[Edsel]

Anyone know how 45 city and 40 highway equals 43 combined?  Do they assume more city miles?

 

Edit: Forget it.  Just simple round up.  My brain not working this morning.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Edsel

[MikeB]

Why do I suspect us Energi owners won't be included in this payment?

Because the Energi was never incorrectly rated at 47/47.

 

Actually, to be more specific, the C-Max Hybrid was given the same numbers as the Fusion Hybrid because the Fusion was considered the larger volume product, so that's the one they tested. On the Energi side, the C-Max Energi is considered the higher volume product, so the Fusion Energi was given the numbers from the C-Max Energi tests. Ford used an EPA rule that allowd different vehicles with the same drivetrain to get the same rating, using test numbers from whatever was the larger volume product, rather than testing each model separately. Unfortunately, Ford abused this rule by allowing it to apply to vehicles with significantly different aerodynamics.

[RaPieR]

Why do I suspect us Energi owners won't be included in this payment?

It doesn't because of the general rule that ford used.  I read it somewhere but unfortunately don't have the link. With the same drive train weight class, etc, the test results of the highest volume variant vehicle in a family class can be used for all variants in that family class.  The C-max energi and fusion energy use the drive train components and are not in the same family as the hybrid variant. In the energi case, the c-max energi was used to derive the fusion numbers because it is the higher volume variant.

 

This really doesn't make since to me why they would do this and not perform each of the tests on each vehicle line. What or how much Ford is saving by not doing the individual tests?

Edited August 16, 2013 by RaPieR

[plus 3 golfer]

It doesn't because of the general rule that ford used.  I read it somewhere but unfortunately don't have the link. With the same drive train weight class, etc, the test results of the highest volume variant vehicle in a family class can be used for all variants in that family class.  The C-max energi and fusion energy use the drive train components and are not in the same family as the hybrid variant. In the energi case, the c-max energi was used to derive the fusion numbers because it is the higher volume variant.

 

This really doesn't make since to me why they would do this and not perform each of the tests on each vehicle line. What or how much Ford is saving by not doing the individual tests?

Exactly, especially given the potential adverse effects that inflated FE numbers have on both the EPA and Ford.  Saving a few million by not running the tests especially when Ford knew that the aerodynamics of the Fusion and C-Max are significantly different doesn't make sense.  I wonder how far up the chain of command people "really" understood what was going on with the EPA numbers.  I'll bet there were lower level Ford engineers cringing knowing that the FE of the C-Max and Fusion Hybrids simply couldn't be the same given the same set of driving conditions.

[Jmonty]

LOL @ everyone who was defending the original rating!

[bigalpha]

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. 

Speeding over most speed limits is still well under 70mph for most people.  Also, I drive about 90 miles of 75mph interstate a day.  Here in the west, you can literally drive for hours without passing civilization.

 

I never expected to get the EPA rating due to the number of highway miles I drive, but I must admit I feel a little better about being only slightly under the new EPA numbers! 

 

My 2008 Mazda3 and my 2011 Subaru Impreza were almost dead on for the highway FE as stated by the EPA.

[bgs4859]

I have mixed feelings about this decision to compensate C-max owners.  On one hand, of course we are all happy to receive an unexpected $550 payment....but on the other I am feeling bad that this is a PR nightmare for the car in general.  Lots will conclude that the C-Max "sucks" and not even consider it, totally passing by it's many advantages over the competition.  I know it's ultimately Ford's fault, but the outrage seems relatively selective to me.  I am in the same boat as others who have said they're getting better than 47mpg and that this is the first time they've met the EPA rating on a car.  What about all those other vehicles' MPG ratings?  

But I also feel bad that Ford's hybrid program takes a ding, here.  They've obviously spend major money and research time to make this car, even taking a bath on each sale.  So it's a significant investment for the company and a big risk.  That doesn't happen very often when it comes to the big 3.    I would have liked to see them rewarded for their commitment to invest in high fuel efficiency.  If I'm a corporate officer at Ford right now,  I bet building more F150s sounds a lot better!  And the others are watching to see the results of this gamble.  Bottom line, this is a blow to hybrid cars in general, this decision can only be a disappointment for those who want to see the technology move forward.

[Jmonty]

Ford will continue to have hybrids and plug ins in its lineup because those vehicles dramatically lower the company's over all MPG.

[Mr. Green Jeans]

I have an Energi.   Just out of curiosity I called Ford and they indicated that it is for the Hybrid only. The CSR asked if I was having any trouble with the vehicle and I said no. I hated to tell her that I was currently at 2200 miles, had a quarter of the original tank left and getting 280 mpg. I guess I exceeded the sticker EPA mpg.

[Jmonty]

I have an Energi. Just out of curiosity I called Ford and they indicated that it is for the Hybrid only. The CSR asked if I was having any trouble with the vehicle and I said no. I hated to tell her that I was currently at 2200 miles, had a quarter of the original tank left and getting 280 mpg. I guess I exceeded the sticker EPA mpg.

Nice!

 

I should have read more on the energi before I went with the hybrid.. Sounds amazing

[tehuti]

Being a brand new owner of a C-Max (6 days) I am a bit disappointed that the number is lower than advertised, since that was my biggest selling point. That being said, 43MPG is still good, and from what I have read throughout these forums some folks are getting close to the 47 if not more.

 

The only thing I dislike is that I might have considered a few other vehicles if the MPG number hadn't been so attractive.

 

Bottom line though - I love the car, it is a big improvement mileage wise over my 2004 Malibu, and I intend to do the things to maximize my mileage numbers anyway. I just wish the company would have been more honest.