Tsk tsk Ford! What were they thinking??

[Laurel]

http://www.hybridcars.com/ford-based-the-2013-c-max-hybrids-mpg-rating-on-1970s-rules/

[catsailor]

they were not thinking they were GREEDY

[HPRifleman]

The way I see it the problem doesn't really lie with Ford. It's more of a problem with the EPA and their methods and with the general car-buying public.

 

The EPA thinks that they can provide an apples to apples metric for fuel mileage that covers all propulsion technologies. But this episode shows that they are behind the curve with cars that don't follow the "engine always-on" model. I think the EPA mileage rules will always be a day late when it comes to newer technology.

 

Car purchasers are also to blame for not understanding the meaning of the EPA mileage rating. It is intended as a way to compare multiple vehicles against each other, not as an absolute expectation of fuel efficiency.

[Noah Harbinger]

They were thinking the rules allowed for it. And they do. 

[HannahWCU]

Well said!

 

The way I see it the problem doesn't really lie with Ford. It's more of a problem with the EPA and their methods and with the general car-buying public.

 

The EPA thinks that they can provide an apples to apples metric for fuel mileage that covers all propulsion technologies. But this episode shows that they are behind the curve with cars that don't follow the "engine always-on" model. I think the EPA mileage rules will always be a day late when it comes to newer technology.

 

Car purchasers are also to blame for not understanding the meaning of the EPA mileage rating. It is intended as a way to compare multiple vehicles against each other, not as an absolute expectation of fuel efficiency.

[Noah Harbinger]

The only problem as I see it in the EPA's testing guidelines is that they provided too many loopholes for manufacturers to avoid testing every configuration - a concession made in the name of "reducing regulatory burden". But in my opinion, there's nothing worse than regulation that goes half-way - it raises expenses with diminished usefulness. Every loophole creates a way for a manufacturer to game the system, avoiding running the full tests (as Ford did and as many other manufacturers continue to do for the vast majority of cars on the market).

 

We're never going to eliminate standardized fuel economy ratings, as there are both consumer interests and national security interests in play in reducing oil consumption, so the EPA needs to aggressively monitor when loopholes are being used to give a manufacturer an unfair advantage and revise its rules to maintain the integrity of the data. 

[rkk]

The EPA, and Toyota would beg to differ.

 

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130826/OEM11/308269980/epa-says-its-mpg-test-holds-up-for-hybrids#axzz2d6FHyPOY

 

The way I see it the problem doesn't really lie with Ford. It's more of a problem with the EPA and their methods and with the general car-buying public.

 

The EPA thinks that they can provide an apples to apples metric for fuel mileage that covers all propulsion technologies. But this episode shows that they are behind the curve with cars that don't follow the "engine always-on" model. I think the EPA mileage rules will always be a day late when it comes to newer technology.

 

Car purchasers are also to blame for not understanding the meaning of the EPA mileage rating. It is intended as a way to compare multiple vehicles against each other, not as an absolute expectation of fuel efficiency.

[Noah Harbinger]

A simple enough change would have prohibited Ford from taking advantage of this loophole: To share an EPA rating, also require that two vehicles share a coefficient of drag of within 0.01.