Ford to lower fuel economy rating on C-Max hybrid

[Jmonty]

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.

You'll notice improvements around 1000 and 5000 miles. And, as you adjust to the car you'll get better numbers.

[hybridbear]

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.

I agree completely. I have no real loyalty to Ford other than that I now own a Ford hybrid. I am however a big proponent of hybrids & plug-in hybrids like the Energi. My biggest reaction to this is sorrow that this will hurt the overall hybrid sales because people overall will now stay away from hybrids in general.

[oxnard]

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.

Sounds like the gas will go "bad" (moisture build-up) before you have to fill up the tank!

 

Marty

[Jus-A-CMax]

I agree completely. I have no real loyalty to Ford other than that I now own a Ford hybrid. I am however a big proponent of hybrids & plug-in hybrids like the Energi. My biggest reaction to this is sorrow that this will hurt the overall hybrid sales because people overall will now stay away from hybrids in general.

+1  I am prolly more loyal to Galpin Motor Company than Ford but that does not mean I do not want Ford to succeed. This is my first hybrid and 1st Ford car in the US and yeah

 

All these EPA & :airquote:  Ford lied/People died arguments is sounding like a really, really bad old broken record but then again, I see more than I care to since modding this board - have at it  :dance:

 

My CMax is a success story, more than delivered MPGs and I learnt alot about FE driving. While some of you will say "Oh Jus HYPERMILES" - so WHAT? I am taking advantage of the car and what its designed for. If I want to hoon like an idiot to the red light, I have my PLUSH Jaguar to do that in style. At the end of the day, no one can take away from me that I drove 1,600 miles on 26 gallons of gas for my regular day to day work.

 

Flame away  ;)

[bigalpha]

I'm more interested in your background.  Engineer?

[Jus-A-CMax]

I'm more interested in your background.  Engineer?

Real Estate Appraiser and IT Application Architect   :)

[HannahWCU]

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.

 

Sorry but working as an Environmental Engineer in industry for over 20 years, you do not comply with EPA rules by interpreting the "intent" of the law.  With OSHA, yes you should do what the law "intends", but with the EPA, you follow the rules.  Also, what exactly do think the EPA would have said if Ford DID point out this issue to the EPA?  Do you think the EPA would have immediatly changed the rules?  Don't get me wrong, Ford should have known better, but this issue is squarely at the EPA's feet.  The EPA has not disputed Ford's numbers (that I have seen) because they can't.  Ford original numbers (47/47/47) were perfectly legal under the EPA's rules.  The numbers are wrong, but legal.

 

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.

 

I own Ford stock so I checked today for this exact thing. As of about 2:30PM Ford is down a little over 1% vs. the Dow down 0.25%.  Doesn't look like much, if any, of a stock hit.

 

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 have mentioned, I own Ford stock, not much, but some) I don't see this as unethical. EVERY manufacturer does this same exact thing, with EVERY car line they have.  The ONLY reason this is such a big deal is because Ford made a big deal of the C-Max getting better mileage that the Prius.  And most people who are concerned about FE know the Prius generally get about what the window sticker shows.  The C-Max fell short (VERY short in some VERY vocal tests).  Ford did nothing wrong.  Everyone seems to think Ford is being allowed to restate the numbers to save embarrassment by the EPA.  I believe the EPA is letting Ford restate the numbers to save BEING embarrassed themselves.  If the EPA published their findings, they would also have to explain how Ford did NOTHING wrong using numbers that were VERY wrong.  To me the EPA is taking the easy way out.  The general public will think Ford did something wrong and the EPA does not have to make any changes to their rules.

[bigalpha]

 

Sorry but working as an Environmental Engineer in industry for over 20 years, you do not comply with EPA rules by interpreting the "intent" of the law.

 

 

 Ford did nothing wrong.

 

I'm 6 years into my Environmental Consulting career; I'm no engineer though.

 

While Ford technically did nothing wrong, Ford still should have ran the EPA testing on the CMax instead of relying on numbers from the Energi. 

[HannahWCU]

I'm 6 years into my Environmental Consulting career; I'm no engineer though.

 

While Ford technically did nothing wrong, Ford still should have ran the EPA testing on the CMax instead of relying on numbers from the Energi. 

 

Agreed (although it was the Fusion numbers they used not the Energi). 

[bigalpha]

Agreed (although it was the Fusion numbers they used not the Energi). 

 

Whoops, you're quite right. 

[salsaguy]

once again the EPA tests need to be updated to match the current speed limits of 2013 not 1960-1974!!!

consumers think the EPA tests ARE done that way but they aren't, then complain when they don't get 100mpg going 85 mi/hr ???!!!!

 

 

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

[plus 3 golfer]

Sorry but working as an Environmental Engineer in industry for over 20 years, you do not comply with EPA rules by interpreting the "intent" of the law.  With OSHA, yes you should do what the law "intends", but with the EPA, you follow the rules.  Also, what exactly do think the EPA would have said if Ford DID point out this issue to the EPA?  Do you think the EPA would have immediatly changed the rules?  Don't get me wrong, Ford should have known better, but this issue is squarely at the EPA's feet.  The EPA has not disputed Ford's numbers (that I have seen) because they can't.  Ford original numbers (47/47/47) were perfectly legal under the EPA's rules.  The numbers are wrong, but legal.

 

 

I own Ford stock so I checked today for this exact thing. As of about 2:30PM Ford is down a little over 1% vs. the Dow down 0.25%.  Doesn't look like much, if any, of a stock hit.

 

 

(as I have mentioned, I own Ford stock, not much, but some) I don't see this as unethical. EVERY manufacturer does this same exact thing, with EVERY car line they have.  The ONLY reason this is such a big deal is because Ford made a big deal of the C-Max getting better mileage that the Prius.  And most people who are concerned about FE know the Prius generally get about what the window sticker shows.  The C-Max fell short (VERY short in some VERY vocal tests).  Ford did nothing wrong.  Everyone seems to think Ford is being allowed to restate the numbers to save embarrassment by the EPA.  I believe the EPA is letting Ford restate the numbers to save BEING embarrassed themselves.  If the EPA published their findings, they would also have to explain how Ford did NOTHING wrong using numbers that were VERY wrong.  To me the EPA is taking the easy way out.  The general public will think Ford did something wrong and the EPA does not have to make any changes to their rules.

When one promulgates rules the intent of the law is certainly looked at.  So long as the rules are in accordance with the law everything is fine.  You are misinterpreting my intent. :)   Ford had a choice: they could have run the 5 cycle test on the C-Max or do what they did.   Ford should have ran the 5 cycle test as that better represents the intent of the law - perfectly within the rules and provides a much better estimate of "real world FE".  Unethical behavior is not unlawful, but Ford's choice because of the degree of difference in the two methods is IMO unconscionable.  

 

Also the EPA did run the tests according to the statement they recently issued with the PCM updates and without the PCM updates.  The new EPA numbers are with the PCM updates.  As I said in another post a voluntary restatement is in both Ford's and EPA's interest.  Here's the PDF that the EPA issued.  

EPA Revised FE statement.pdf

Edited August 16, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[salsaguy]

and since when is Ford the only one to have done this??? it was stated in another forum that it costs 25-50k to test each car thru the EPA test. where is your proof that Ford is alone? they even said most mfgs do this practice (test multiple cars based on size and engine class)  but it's the hybrid tech that makes it more sensitive to small changes. most cars vary around the EPA ratings +/-10 mpg anyways. Ford thought the differences would not be that  much different but they were, sadly. lesson learned the hard way yes. they didn't have time to do a year's worth of testing to verify the two cars were vastly different. corporate is always on you to release newer stuff faster and faster. same with the first year bugs. it's a given. they all need time to learn this new tech. it was new to them as well since in Europe it's not a hybrid. don't blame Ford for cheating when you know others have done it too. blame the epa for not mandating a separate test for each car before release. let's hope this opens up the EPAs eyes to their own weaknesses and brings about better change for the industry.

 

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.

Edited August 16, 2013 by salsaguy

[bigalpha]

Ford thought the differences would not be that much different but they were, sadly. lesson learned the hard way yes. they didn't have time to do a year's worth of testing to verify the two cats were vastly different.

You're pretty much out of your mind if you think that Ford didn't perform the tests on this car, or have tons of data from real-life driving.

Edited August 16, 2013 by bigalpha

[C-MaxSea]

:redcard: Culpability tie between EPA & Ford ?  (.......70/30, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 ....... :confused: take your pick). 

 

What a great car !!!  Just having too much fun, keep on driving stealthily, Nick 

Edited August 16, 2013 by C-MaxSeattle

[hybridbear]

:redcard: Culpability tie between EPA & Ford ?  (.......70/30, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 ....... :confused: take your pick). 

 

What a great car !!!  Just having too much fun, keep on driving stealthily, Nick 

I think this would make a great poll! I'd vote 60% EPA, 40% Ford.

[salsaguy]

before you jump ship and buy a c-max energi be sure to check out just how SMALL the trunk is compared to the hybrid. you won't be going on any long trips and i hope you don't have any kids.... not enough space is the big no no on the Energi. and being much heavier you will lose mpg, responsiveness, and 0-60 times for sure.

Nice!

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

[salsaguy]

not when this is the standard industry practice used by ALL mfgs to test one car to represent the line with the same engine and powertrain.

the hybrid tech differences between regular gas cars and hybrid cars is what hurt them here. hybrid being much more sensitive to the single changes.

 

I'm 6 years into my Environmental Consulting career; I'm no engineer though.

 

While Ford technically did nothing wrong, Ford still should have ran the EPA testing on the CMax instead of relying on numbers from the Energi. 

[bigalpha]

not when this is the standard industry practice used by ALL mfgs to test one car to represent the line with the same engine and powertrain.

the hybrid tech differences between regular gas cars and hybrid cars is what hurt them here. hybrid being much more sensitive to the single changes.

 

Since the hybrid is more sensitive to changes, then they doubly should have tested it instead of relying on data from a car that's physically different.

[SnowStorm]

:redcard: Culpability tie between EPA & Ford ?  (.......70/30, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 ....... :confused: take your pick). 

 

What a great car !!!  Just having too much fun, keep on driving stealthily, Nick 

What a great car it is!  I'm hoping the best thing to come out of all this will be to get everyone interested in better aerodynamics. :flyaway: It has taken decades to get people generally interested in fuel economy - now maybe we'll start seeing real progress on the aero side.  For high speed driving, that's where its at.

[plus 3 golfer]

and since when is Ford the only one to have done this??? it was stated in another forum that it costs 25-50k to test each car thru the EPA test. where is your proof that Ford is alone? they even said most mfgs do this practice (test multiple cars based on size and engine class)  but it's the hybrid tech that makes it more sensitive to small changes. most cars vary around the EPA ratings +/-10 mpg anyways. Ford thought the differences would not be that  much different but they were, sadly. lesson learned the hard way yes. they didn't have time to do a year's worth of testing to verify the two cats were vastly different. corporate is always on you to release newer stuff faster and faster. same with the first year bugs. it's a given. they ask need time to learn this new tech. it was new to them as well since in Europe it's not a hybrid. don't blame Ford for cheating when you know others have done it too. blame the epa for not mandating a separate test for each car before release. let's hope this opens up the epas eyes to their own weaknesses and brings about change for the industry.

LOL, who said Ford is the only one???  At least bring something to the table when you post. ;)  Where's your proof??? It's a fact that EPA ran tests on the C-Max and before the PCM update the EPA got a difference of 6/5/7 mpg lower than the 47/47/47.  A difference of 12.8%, 10.6%, and 14.9% for the combined, city and highway FE numbers. Of course with the PCM update, the combined improves by 2 mpg and the city by 3 mpg.   Show me where the EPA ran tests on other manufacturers and got as much or more of a difference.  

 

You really believe this:  FORD

 

... thought the differences would not be that much different

... didn't have time to do a year's worth of testing to verify the two cats (cars) were vastly different.

 

I believe Ford knew exactly what they were doing when they published the 47/47/47 - that actually testing of the C-Max would result in significantly lower numbers but they would be covered by the EPA rules for not testing should their published numbers never be questioned.  This is a corporation with market cap of $65 billion not fledgling start-up company.

[viajero]

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):

 

It's a good thing the speed limit map matches the population density map because it's safer to drive at higher speeds with fewer other cars around.

 

In Texas once you're outside a city or town, almost all paved roads are 70 mph.  Interstates are 75.  From where I live I'd have to drive the better part of a day to get to where rural speed limits are less than 70 (OK maybe a short day to the south or east but a long day going north or west).

 

The EPA already has 3 numbers - city, highway, and combined.  I still think "highway" should be just that, open road at high speed.  A 55 mph road on the east coast with lots of traffic is what I'd call "combined".  "City" to me means surface streets with stoplights.  Of course that's my own opinion; those words aren't so precisely defined...

[ArizonaEnergi]

before you jump ship and buy a c-max energi be sure to check out just how SMALL the trunk is compared to the hybrid. you won't be going on any long trips and i hope you don't have any kids.... not enough space is the big no no on the Energi. and being much heavier you will lose mpg, responsiveness, and 0-60 times for sure.

I was worried about space too, especially coming from an Odyssey with space galore, but after a 3,000 mile trip with no kids but a parrot with large cage, I've found the 8" taken up by the large battery not really a problem as it still leave two feet of space above it. As for performance I don't think the C-Max notices the extra weight.

[plus 3 golfer]

One other point on the EPA testing of the C-Max, the C-Max without the PCM update tested at 42/40/41 City, Highway, Combined.  Cleanmpg.com in early 2013 suggested these numbers as more representative of the C-Max FE rating 41/37/39 and didn't have to run any sophisticated tests.  I ask who should the consumer believe the next time a new hybrid is brought to market when FE is of highest priority: a manufacturer's testing per the current EPA rules or a group of recognized reviews of cars.  

 

EPA has to be smarting over this as it shows a lack of responsibility / leadership /motivation / $$$$ in their budget (or something) for letting such a situation develop to begin with.  If each test really only costs $25 / $50 k to run that's minimal costs to run all 5 tests for "all" new models. As I've said all along, I believe EPA needs to change the rules and use this situation as an example.  So there, for those who believe we should not shoot the messenger (only). :)

[Adair]

:redcard: Culpability tie between EPA & Ford ?  (.......70/30, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 ....... :confused: take your pick). 

 

What a great car !!!  Just having too much fun, keep on driving stealthily, Nick 

Damn!!! I want to double-like this!!!