Ford to lower fuel economy rating on C-Max hybrid

[HannahWCU]

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.

 

And I agree totally.  Let me ask this question (to everyone):

 

You are Ford. You are bringing a Hybrid to market.  Not just a Hybrid version of a mainstream vehicle (i.e. Fusion, Escape, etc.), but a unique Hybrid vehicle to a new market.  This vehicle is WILL BE compared to the Hybrid Icon – Prius. As a corporation you have a choice to make, Have your vehicle make headlines for being rated (arguably) “best in class” fuel economy at 47/47/47 OR you can rate it 42/40/41.  Both are perfectly legal under EPA rules.  One will make headlines as “best in class” the other will make headlines for, well, being, at best, barely better than Hybrid versions of mainstream vehicles (i.e. Camry, Sonata, Optima, etc.) INCLUDING your own Fusion.  As a corporation, Ford made the only decision they could make.  Rate it at 47/47/47 and hope for the best.  Did they know? ABSOLUTELY they did. Did it bite them in the butt? You bet.  I would even guess that the PCM “update” was actually a viable option Ford looked at as part of their development process.  But again decided to go with “Best in class”.

 

Was this decision wrong?  In hindsight, yes.  But I still believe that the EPA is the root of this problem.  That being said, I don't think this will ever happen again.  I am sure ALL manufacturers are looking VERY closely at how they rate their cars after Hyundai screwing up their testing procedure (talk about someone who should have known) and now Ford with this PR nightmare

 

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). :)

 

Well said!

[ford]

MY LIFE TIME MPG IS  47.2 -- I JUST TAKE IT EASY.

[SnowStorm]

MY LIFE TIME MPG IS  47.2 -- I JUST TAKE IT EASY.

Right behind you at 46.9 with 11k miles! :hi5:

[Noah Harbinger]

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.

 

I'm sure +3 has already posted the link by now. I did a pivot table on the data and pretty much only Volkswagon, Toyota, and the luxury manufacturers are running a significant number of 5-cycle tests. 

[Noah Harbinger]

Also, testing at a single speed, ANY single speed, would be ludicrously easy to game, to tune a vehicle to perform extremely well on that test but perform poorly in real-world usage.

[SnowStorm]

Also, testing at a single speed, ANY single speed, would be ludicrously easy to game, to tune a vehicle to perform extremely well on that test but perform poorly in real-world usage.

Excellent point, and especially considering the fact that, I believe, the tests were originally created for pollution testing - and then the results found useful for mpg ratings.  A single speed test would be really easy to meet from a pollution standpoint.  This may be the reason the tests are not that good for mpg - they were designed for something else.

[hybridbear]

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. 

I remember reading the extensive testing done by Wayne Gerdes and others and I agree that their assessment was very accurate. For a driver who doesn't care about maximizing fuel economy and who won't change their driving style those are very accurate ratings of what you could expect. I said the same thing they did since the beginning, how can the C-Max with more horsepower and more curb weight be more efficient than the Prius V. Physics says it isn't possible in the "real world". Unfortunately the outdated EPA test cycles say that the C-Max gets better fuel economy than the Prius V.

[dweiser]

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. ;)

Blaming Ford for the mileage discrepancy and not blaming the government (EPA) is like blaming Bonnie but not Clyde, Sacco but not Vanzetti, Leopold but not Loeb.  Sorry Plus 3, I too learn from your posts ***********************************************************************.

:hat_tip:

 

 

Mod edited: Attack the issue, not the poster please. If u have an opinion on a poster, take it to the PM and sort it out there. Thank you :)

Edited August 17, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[plus 3 golfer]

I remember reading the extensive testing done by Wayne Gerdes and others and I agree that their assessment was very accurate. For a driver who doesn't care about maximizing fuel economy and who won't change their driving style those are very accurate ratings of what you could expect. I said the same thing they did since the beginning, how can the C-Max with more horsepower and more curb weight be more efficient than the Prius V. Physics says it isn't possible in the "real world". Unfortunately the outdated EPA test cycles say that the C-Max gets better fuel economy than the Prius V.

 It's darn impossible to outwit physics. :)  I've said this before that one can hypermile and greatly improve virtually any cars FE but that's not how most people drive nor what the EPA tests represent.   

 

I can't remember where (probably multiple places) but there have been discussions on how can the C-Max and Fusion get exactly the same EPA rating recognizing the aero differences and how can the C-Max beat the Prius V in EPA rating so handily given the weight and Cd advantage of the Prius V. 

 

From fuelly (C-Max will likely climb slightly due to recent PCM update): 

 

 

2013 C-Max hybrid L4 - 177 @ 40.0 mpg

 

2013 Prius V----------------- 75 @ 43.0 mpg

2012 Prius V--------------- 266 @ 42.1 mpg

2011 Prius V------------------ 2 @ 46.0 mpg

 

From Fueleconomy.gov, now the C-Max EPA rating makes more sense.

 

[hybridbear]

One benefit of all this is that overall I think consumers are becoming more educated to the process for EPA testing and overall people should have a better understanding of fuel economy after this.

[666]

anyone know:

 

1) will the payment apply to Canadian owners?

 

2) do you think the new 2014 cmax updates can be applied to our 2013? 

 

according to the articles, these are 2014 updates:

 

Ford said today it also plans several other engineering changes to the 2014 C-Max scheduled to go on sale in December:

 

• Gearing changes to enhance transmission drive ratio

• New hood seal, front and rear tire deflectors, A-pillar moldings and the addition of rear lift gate deflectors to improve aerodynamics

• New engine oil with reduced friction

 

i myself thinks it will be possible,

 

- cmax has 1 speed ecvt so i believe it is a software update for transmission drive ratio?

- New hood and other stuffs are physical add on

- a different spec engine oil?

Edited August 17, 2013 by 666

[SnowStorm]

 It's darn impossible to outwit physics. :)  I've said this before that one can hypermile and greatly improve virtually any cars FE but that's not how most people drive nor what the EPA tests represent.   

 

I can't remember where (probably multiple places) but there have been discussions on how can the C-Max and Fusion get exactly the same EPA rating recognizing the aero differences and how can the C-Max beat the Prius V in EPA rating so handily given the weight and Cd advantage of the Prius V. 

 

From fuelly (C-Max will likely climb slightly due to recent PCM update): 

 

 

2013 C-Max hybrid L4 - 177 @ 40.0 mpg

 

2013 Prius V----------------- 75 @ 43.0 mpg

2012 Prius V--------------- 266 @ 42.1 mpg

2011 Prius V------------------ 2 @ 46.0 mpg

 

From Fueleconomy.gov, now the C-Max EPA rating makes more sense.

Everything certainly makes a lot more sense now - both old ratings (how they came about) and new ratings (the numbers).  I never expected to get 47 for "high speed" interstate driving - as you say, the physics is against it.  (My LT is at 47 though.)  I also aways wondered why the Energi was so much lower.  Yes its heavier, but it has a lot more EV power available too for "normal hybrid" mode.  And how could two cars get exactly the same numbers both city and highway, and why couldn't I find the C-Max in the EPA spreadsheet - just the Energi and Fusion IIRC?  I just hope that:

1. All this confusion is really settled now,
2. It doesn't happen again,
3. The EPA can move to tests and rules that work better,

   AND:

4. Car makers and buyers get a lot more interested in aerodynamics!  Its been my pet peeve for years how little car makers do to reduce drag.  It looks like things are finally changing.  If the 2014 aero changes can't be retrofit, I might just have to trade in!

[hybridbear]

anyone know:

 

1) will the payment apply to Canadian owners?

 

2) do you think the new 2014 cmax updates can be applied to our 2013? 

 

according to the articles, these are 2014 updates:

 

Ford said today it also plans several other engineering changes to the 2014 C-Max scheduled to go on sale in December:

 

• Gearing changes to enhance transmission drive ratio

• New hood seal, front and rear tire deflectors, A-pillar moldings and the addition of rear lift gate deflectors to improve aerodynamics

• New engine oil with reduced friction

 

i myself thinks it will be possible,

 

- cmax has 1 speed ecvt so i believe it is a software update for transmission drive ratio?

- New hood and other stuffs are physical add on

- a different spec engine oil?

Gearing changes to me sound like changes to the size of the gears, as is a larger MG2 or some other change like that. I wish some organization or college would buy a C-Max/FFH to take apart and study their eCVT and then do the same with an Energi to see if they're different. I believe they must be slightly different based on the different horsepower numbers, etc but I don't know what is different. To allow the atkinson cycle 2.0 to run with a lower viscosity oil they must be making some changes to the ICE. I'm surprised that they would make changes to the ICE just in the C-Max and not in the FFH as well. It seems like their costs would be lower keeping the powertrains identical between the two vehicles.

 

Car makers and buyers get a lot more interested in aerodynamics!  Its been my pet peeve for years how little car makers do to reduce drag.  It looks like things are finally changing.  If the 2014 aero changes can't be retrofit, I might just have to trade in!

I remember when the FFH and C-Max were first being introduced Ford had some videos out showing how much of an aerodynamic focus went into the design of the FFH to reduce its c_d and improve its fuel economy. The FFH has a lower c_d than the Camry Hybrid as a result IIRC. The engineers talked about the shape of the roof line, the ridges in the hood of the FFH, the shape of the side mirrors, the little lip there is on the end of the trunk for FFHs without a spoiler and the almost complete underbody shielding as aerodynamic designs. The C-Max has the underbody shielding but not the other aerodynamic designs. I've noticed that the shape of the side mirrors on my parents' Energi is less aerodynamic than the FFH mirrors.

[hybridbear]

Here's what I don't understand. The Hybrid is now 45/40/43. The Energi is 44/41/43. We know that Ford ACTUALLY tested the C-Max Energi and submitted that data. How is it that the Energi is better on the highway than the hybrid? I would expect the Energi to be worse in the city because it takes more energy to accelerate because of its increased mass. I would expect that on the highway as well the Energi would take more energy to maintain its speed because the increased mass would also require more energy to overcome friction. Now that both vehicles have been put through the EPA test cycles, does anyone have an idea why the Energi would have a higher highway MPG than the hybrid?

Edited August 17, 2013 by hybridbear

[plus 3 golfer]

Ford only ran the the old 2 cycle EPA tests (city and highway) and used "multipliers" for the parts of the 5 cycle tests to compute the their EPA numbers.  They did not run the new high speed test which includes a city portion and highway portion.  So, my guess is that had Ford run the all 5 EPA tests on the C-Max Energi, the highway and city mpg would drop for the Energi and end up below the C-Max because the Energi is a heavier car.  Although I don't recall EPA stating this explicitly, I believe the EPA ran all 5 tests for the new EPA ratings of the C-Max Hybrid.  So, basically one does not have a consistent set of test data to really draw any valid comparisons. 

[C-MaxSea]

One benefit of all this is that overall I think consumers are becoming more educated to the process for EPA testing and overall people should have a better understanding of fuel economy after this.

 

Yes, yes, yes, and perhaps a little no - certainly hope more yes than no.  I see some more 'dumbed down buying / reliance on' one or two 'opinion makers' for buying decisions. My 'best' cars & toys don't necessarily rate well with (or are ignored by) the 'gods of consumerism' out there (CR for one). Thankfully we & the internet product review juggernaut have a measure of influence here.

 

Score:  The cultural read (how the media ......... is/will report this):  CR 1, EPA 0, Ford -2  (those dirty dogs at Ford)

             My read (purely arbitrary nonsense):  Ford +2 for the balls to innovate, EPA 0, CR -1 for grandstanding

 

Nick

PS  What a great car!  Da__ Ford did a great job with the C-Max!

Edited August 17, 2013 by C-MaxSeattle

[rkk]

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.

Exactly. Ford knew exactly what they were doing, and what this car would get for most people. They saw a rule they could take advantage of and they did. They apparently thought they could get away with blaming the EPA rules and the drivers.

[SnitGTS]

I remember reading the extensive testing done by Wayne Gerdes and others and I agree that their assessment was very accurate. For a driver who doesn't care about maximizing fuel economy and who won't change their driving style those are very accurate ratings of what you could expect. I said the same thing they did since the beginning, how can the C-Max with more horsepower and more curb weight be more efficient than the Prius V. Physics says it isn't possible in the "real world". Unfortunately the outdated EPA test cycles say that the C-Max gets better fuel economy than the Prius V.

 

From Fueleconomy.gov, now the C-Max EPA rating makes more sense.

 

I could be wrong, but with the right driver I believe the C-Max can get better gas mileage than a Prius.  The reason I was not surprised that the C-Max was rated higher than the Prius is that it has a significantly stronger electric motor and larger battery pack, thus allowing it to not use gas at speeds that the Prius must use the ICE.  

 

With that said, the extra power is a double edge sword, looking at the chart that +3 Golfer found on fueleconomy.gov you can see the FE range for the C-Max is 27 mpg (56 high versus 29 low) which is more than DOUBLE the Prius's FE range of 13 mpg (48 high versus 35 low).  

 

It also backs up what I said that with the right driver the C-Max could potentially get better fuel economy.

 

Still, I'm not happy with what Ford did.  I'm getting better than the old rated fuel economy around town and on local highways, but even with the update my recent highway trip was below it.  It is shady and is a black eye for the C-Max and Ford.  I love my car and am not getting rid of it but at the same time I hate supporting companies that don't think of the customer first.  You want loyal customers then you have to return the loyalty, and in that sense they clearly failed.

Edited August 17, 2013 by SnitGTS

[SnowStorm]

SnitGTS, you make some good points about the stronger electric motor (I call the C-Max a "strong hybrid") and the wider range in MPG results.  I noticed that difference too but not that it was double.  The greater EV power is exactly what you want in a hybrid - I wish it had even more!  I hate to see the car or it's design philosophy drug down by this rating fiasco.  I have NO interest in defending Ford's "copy and paste" rating but they still deserve credit for coming out with such a great car and hybrid drive-train.  That part, as well as $550, is looking out for the customer.  Would we really prefer a "weak hybrid" without the $550?

[rkk]

I could be wrong, but with the right driver I believe the C-Max can get better gas mileage than a Prius.

 

If you look at the comparison test that cleanmpg.com did they have a number of steady state speed tests. They get to a certain speed and turn on the cruise control taking the driver out of it. The Prius V did better at every speed. However that was before the update for the C-MAX.

 

By the way, when you look at all the reviews done on the Fusion and the Fuelly.com numbers, it isn't much better than the C-MAX. I am not an engineer but I don't think aerodynamics can account for a 7 mpg difference on the EPA highway test. Ford says they are not changing it. I wonder if the EPA is testing that one too.

[Jmonty]

I could be wrong, but with the right driver I believe the C-Max can get better gas mileage than a Prius. The reason I was not surprised that the C-Max was rated higher than the Prius is that it has a significantly stronger electric motor and larger battery pack, thus allowing it to not use gas at speeds that the Prius must use the ICE.

 

With that said, the extra power is a double edge sword, looking at the chart that +3 Golfer found on fueleconomy.gov you can see the FE range for the C-Max is 27 mpg (56 high versus 29 low) which is more than DOUBLE the Prius's FE range of 13 mpg (48 high versus 35 low).

 

It also backs up what I said that with the right driver the C-Max could potentially get better fuel economy.

 

Still, I'm not happy with what Ford did. I'm getting better than the old rated fuel economy around town and on local highways, but even with the update my recent highway trip was below it. It is shady and is a black eye for the C-Max and Ford. I love my car and am not getting rid of it but at the same time I hate supporting companies that don't think of the customer first. You want loyal customers then you have to return the loyalty, and in that sense they clearly failed.

I don't see how 29 mpg would even be possible in our cmax. I've seen about that on short hops where I've accelerated quickly with no coasting, but even at 75-80 (before the update, in the rain, with family) I got 35 mpg.

 

Didn't someone figure out the 29 mpg figure was from a European non hybrid?

[Tom]

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 with your sentiments.  I'd rather have the value of the "compensation" in Ford stock.

[Jmonty]

I agree with your sentiments. I'd rather have the value of the "compensation" in Ford stock.

Hmm

 

That's a good idea. I think I'll put my $550 into Ford stock :D

[SnitGTS]

nitGTS, you make some good points about the stronger electric motor (I call the C-Max a "strong hybrid") and the wider range in MPG results.  I noticed that difference too but not that it was double.  The greater EV power is exactly what you want in a hybrid - I wish it had even more!  I hate to see the car or it's design philosophy drug down by this rating fiasco.  I have NO interest in defending Ford's "copy and paste" rating but they still deserve credit for coming out with such a great car and hybrid drive-train.  That part, as well as $550, is looking out for the customer.  Would we really prefer a "weak hybrid" without the $550?

 

I absolutely agree that it is a great car and the drive train is light years better than the Prius. (in my opinion of course, specifically being able to drive higher speeds in EV)  In that you can argue that they were looking to put the best possible vehicle in the hands of the driver and therefore looking out for the customer.

 

The part I can't deal with is the copy paste of the MPG from the Fusion.  If they didn't so highly tout the mileage being better then the Prius than it wouldn't be such a big deal, but that is exactly what they pushed and the mileage isn't better on average.  They were only looking out for themselves when they published MPG rates that they knew weren't realistic for the average driver!  (although I don't get lowering the city economy number, no one complained about that...)

[SnitGTS]

f you look at the comparison test that cleanmpg.com did they have a number of steady state speed tests. They get to a certain speed and turn on the cruise control taking the driver out of it. The Prius V did better at every speed. However that was before the update for the C-MAX.

 

By the way, when you look at all the reviews done on the Fusion and the Fuelly.com numbers, it isn't much better than the C-MAX. I am not an engineer but I don't think aerodynamics can account for a 7 mpg difference on the EPA highway test. Ford says they are not changing it. I wonder if the EPA is testing that one too.

 

Correct, with cruise control on the Prius is better because it has a smaller engine that uses less power overall and is more aerodynamic, however if you pulse & glide I believe the C-Max will have the advantage.  You can accelerate up to speed or a little above the speed limit with the ICE, let off the gas and use the EV to glide up to highway speeds now with the update, the Prius is not able to match that.