Consumers Report: Ford Fusion and C-Max Review A new Fusion engine and software tweaks have little impact on mpg Published: December 2013

[Tom]

Ford has a conundrum on its hands. The fuel economy we measured when we first tested its C-Max and Fusion hybrids last year was very good, placing them among the most fuel-efficient cars in their classes. The Fusion sedan got a stellar 39 mpg overall, and the C-Max wagon netted 37. But the results were far below the 47 mpg EPA estimates printed on the cars’ window stickers. We found the same situation with the Lincoln MKZ, which is an upscale sibling of the Fusion.

We weren’t the only ones to notice the gap; owners have reported lower-than-expected gas mileage online, and Ford said that it has seen a relatively high level of customer dissatisfaction with fuel economy for the C-Max.

A few months ago, it came to light that the company had never actually tested the C-Max’s fuel economy for the EPA. It used a legal loophole in the EPA’s regu­lations to simply use the Fusion’s mpg results for both cars because they share the same powertrains.

Ford then lowered the C-Max’s EPA combined estimate to 43 mpg, promised to update its hybrids to improve their real-world fuel economy, and offered software updates to existing owners for their cars. Ford also gave C-Max owners money for the difference in fuel consumption.

Because we still own our tested C-Max, Fusion, and MKZ hybrids, we had the software updates applied to our cars and retested them to see whether they improved. We conducted our tests, which use a different criteria than the EPA’s, immediately before and after the cars’ software was updated. We saw only minor differences for all three cars.  

 

[RaPieR]

Is there a link to the article?

[Tom]

Is there a link to the article?

No.  The above quote is all I got over the internet.

[DaveofDurham]

Sounds like Consumer Reports and it is.

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/02/ford-fusion-and-c-max-review/index.htm

[plus 3 golfer]

 

Ford has a conundrum on its hands. The fuel economy we measured when we first tested its C-Max and Fusion hybrids last year was very good, placing them among the most fuel-efficient cars in their classes. The Fusion sedan got a stellar 39 mpg overall, and the C-Max wagon netted 37. But the results were far below the 47 mpg EPA estimates printed on the cars’ window stickers. We found the same situation with the Lincoln MKZ, which is an upscale sibling of the Fusion.

We weren’t the only ones to notice the gap; owners have reported lower-than-expected gas mileage online, and Ford said that it has seen a relatively high level of customer dissatisfaction with fuel economy for the C-Max.

A few months ago, it came to light that the company had never actually tested the C-Max’s fuel economy for the EPA. It used a legal loophole in the EPA’s regu­lations to simply use the Fusion’s mpg results for both cars because they share the same powertrains.

Ford then lowered the C-Max’s EPA combined estimate to 43 mpg, promised to update its hybrids to improve their real-world fuel economy, and offered software updates to existing owners for their cars. Ford also gave C-Max owners money for the difference in fuel consumption.

Because we still own our tested C-Max, Fusion, and MKZ hybrids, we had the software updates applied to our cars and retested them to see whether they improved. We conducted our tests, which use a different criteria than the EPA’s, immediately before and after the cars’ software was updated. We saw only minor differences for all three cars.  Each improved by less than 1 mpg in our highway test, which we conduct at 65 mph. The EPA’s highway test is conducted in a lab and averages 48 mph.

 

The new software causes the hybrids to run on their electric motors more often and up to higher speeds as a way of reducing gasoline consumption. But with the same-sized batteries, the cars’ engines still have to run just as hard and often to recharge those batteries and provide the needed power.

Ford has said it will make other changes to new 2014 C-Max Hybrids to improve high­way gas mileage, including more aero­dynamic front and rear spoilers, fender lips, and underbody trays, but those changes have not yet been rolled out.

 

The "Red" text added above to the OP is the remainder of the CR article (Same as DaveofDurham likk) which was published Dec 2013 and will be in the February 2014 CR magazine.  You may need a subscription to view it.

 

Also, CR fails to mention that the EPA has a high speed test that was added a few years ago (along with two additional tests for a total of 3 new tests) to supplement EPA's two older tests -the highway test and the city test. But as I've stated many times, the EPA allows manufacturer's to not run the 3 new tests and get by with some adjustments to the two old tests to better account for higher speed driving, AC use, cold weather operation, and quicker acceleration.   After looking at newer C-Max data in EPA spreadsheets, it appears that Ford (nor the EPA) ran the three new tests in determining the new C-Max EPA FE ratings. 

 

IMO, it's time for EPA to change the Rules and require manufacturer's to run the five tests rather than allow various provisions of the Rules to "taint" FE results.  Otherwise, manufacturer's can play "games" with the powertrain coding to maximize FE (especially with hybrids) when only using the older City and Highway tests. 

Edited December 20, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[Jus-A-CMax]

*yawn...wake me up when there is something new & exciting, like a new Krispy Kreme opening up or something,or when CR starts talking about the last Samurai....the movie of course ;)

Edited December 22, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[plus 3 golfer]

*yawn...wake me up when there is something new & exciting, like a new Krispy Kreme opening up or something,or when CR starts talking about the last Samurai....the movie of course ;)

"yawn...wake me up when there is something new & exciting" - That's how I feel about many threads on this forum. ;) 

 

Irrelevant metaphors do not make an issue go away.  To me it's clear that the difference between the C-Max EPA FE Ratings compared to the FE testing by reviewers and the average FE that consumers achieve are significantly more than when compared to similar vehicles.  I and likely many consumers believe this is an issue.  Without discourse of issues, change will be slow and likely non-existent. If facts are in dispute, one should provide argument to support their view on the facts in dispute.  Potential consumers should have the facts so they can make a better decision.

 

What's "new" but perhaps not "exciting" to many is that Ford's summer tweaks helped less than 1 mpg in CR tests and that the new C-Max and Fusion EPA numbers are still a long way from "reality" based on most recent FE data.  So EPA and Ford, why are the differences in the C-Max and Fusion EPA FE rating compared to "actual" numbers so large when compared to the Prius V and Camry Hybrid and when EPA are you going to "fix" the rules and Ford when are you going to run the 5 EPA tests?  

 

Below is a quick snapshot of some current FE data (rounded in some cases).  We have discussed likely reasons for differences in many other threads.  EPA changes in Rules will take time but Ford could do the right thing and at least run all 5 EPA tests (especially since the 2014 C-Max is to supposedly have aero enhancements).   

 

[Jus-A-CMax]

As an owner & primary driver, I could not care less about what the EPA average, I more than blow that figure out of the water.  I luv it when people start quoting fuelly as a group number for the CMax, when I last looked into the list - thats got so many misreporting and fake fillups like POS its only good for tracking one's MPG figure. Some people there don't know an PHEV from a HEV. It was well discussed here. Also, given that the 13b07 was released around end of summer/autumn and its jus clicked over into winter, of course you are not going to get that reflected on  everyone's average on fuelly. Lets see what happen in a full year given that the colder season is even effecting my MPGs but you can't discount those reports of by many posters here about the increase in MPG.
 
So as much as you label my post as "Irrelevant metaphors do not make an issue go away." Why shouldd it be irrelevent - it's CR, they have credibility issues with what they did to the Samurai (hence my link) and since we're talking about old news....lets bring up somemore old news. And yeah...theres are alot of threads here that are irrelevent to a whole lot of people - welcome to a forum.

Ha...woke up on the cynical side this morning. Cheers :)

[plus 3 golfer]

It's the FE of the fleet that is relevant not an individual's FE. As I've said several times, I like my C-Max, am averaging just under 41 mpg in 18k miles (with one year of ownership) and can easily beat the EPA numbers (if I want to). But IMO, most owners will not drive the way one has to maximize FE, will not sacrifice comfortable HVAC operation to improve FE, will not mod their cars for FE improvement, or don't live in an ideal climatic area of the country favorable to higher FE.

 

Fuelly was continually quoted here during the summer when it was increasing but now that it has fallen from it's high, apparently it's garbage. Time will tell but I believe CR's retest of less than 1 mpg improvement from the summer tweaks will still show the C-Max FE average will be under the EPA numbers by a greater % than the PriusV.

 

Why it is so hard to accept that virtually all C-Max reviewers' and consumers' average reported FE numbers are significantly lower than the EPA is beyond me.:). So, I guess all the reviewers including cleanmpg, MT, C&D and so forth are wrong and that there is so much "bad" consumer reported data, that the average consumer FE (which supports the reviewers' FE) should be disregarded.

 

If someone has better data post it. But like I said in another recent thread when one doesn't like the message, why shoot the messenger (reviewers and consumers), shoot EPA and Ford. The message is in the thread title.

[ptjones]

As an owner & primary driver, I could not care less about what the EPA average, I more than blow that figure out of the water.  I luv it when people start quoting fuelly as a group number for the CMax, when I last looked into the list - thats got so many misreporting and fake fillups like POS its only good for tracking one's MPG figure. Some people there don't know an PHEV from a HEV. It was well discussed here. Also, given that the 13b07 was released around end of summer/autumn and its jus clicked over into winter, of course you are not going to get that reflected on  everyone's average on fuelly. Lets see what happen in a full year given that the colder season is even effecting my MPGs but you can't discount those reports of by many posters here about the increase in MPG.

 

So as much as you label my post as "Irrelevant metaphors do not make an issue go away." Why shouldd it be irrelevent - it's CR, they have credibility issues with what they did to the Samurai (hence my link) and since we're talking about old news....lets bring up somemore old news. And yeah...theres are alot of threads here that are irrelevent to a whole lot of people - welcome to a forum.

Ha...woke up on the cynical side this morning. Cheers :)

I find it amazing that CR Quoted Fuelly yet they are off by 4mpg! That's more than 10% off! It points out that their tests aren't real world like EPA.

Paul

[plus 3 golfer]

I find it amazing that CR Quoted Fuelly yet they are off by 4mpg! That's more than 10% off! It points out that their tests aren't real world like EPA.

Paul

CR did not quote fuelly.  This is how threads go awry.

 

CR tested the C-Max immediately before and after the software update 13B07 and found that the software update increased FE by less than one mpg.  CR said the increase was insignificant.  CR's overall 37 mpg FE rating was based on their tests which they indicate is different than the EPA testing.

 

Also, for those that want to learn about the EPA rules and regulations on FE, I suggest reading the Federal Register and EPA documents on EPA FE regulations and rules.  Suffice it to say that EPA documents indicate that the new EPA C-Max FE ratings were based on only two (old Highway and Old City test cycle) of the five EPA test cycles.  The three newer tests were adopted by EPA to complement the old tests to yield a better indication of what the average city and highway FE on a vehicle might be in the real world.  So, it very likely that had all five tests been run on the C-Max, the new EPA numbers would be lower.  The new lower EPA numbers for the C-Max basically account for the new software update and the aerodynamic differences between the C-Max and the Fusion.

 

I use CR as one reference when making buying decisions.  There's plenty of resources on the web to gauge virtually any product one wants to buy.  Different testers and reviewers will get varying results and have different opinions.  In the case of the FE of the C-Max, I don't recall any reviewers off hand (please post if one finds one) of the C-Max that got the overall new EPA number of 43 mpg.  Also, consumer data on fuelly, fueleconomy.gov, truedelta.com support the reviewers numbers.  

 

Bottom line: it seems some like to dis on CR (likely on anything they say) but can't provide sound, relevant, rationale or current facts that support their position but for a very old misstep by CR testers in July 1988 (Suzuki Samurai).  In fact, the parties ultimately settled with no $ changing hands and no apology from CR.

 

 A federal judge dismissed Suzuki's lawsuit without a trial, but in September 2002 an appeals court ruled that a jury should hear the case. In April 2000, Consumers Union had won a jury trial over a lawsuit filed by Isuzu Motor, which claimed that Consumer Reports magazine had rigged a test involving its Trooper SUV in order to make the vehicle tip over. In November 2003, U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Consumers Union appeal in the Suzuki case, and the case was headed for a jury trial in California before the settlement was reached the next July.

 

[Laurel]

Plus 3 Golfer thanks for sorting the wheat from the chafe.  I am very interesting in reading your clarifications..

[zhackwyatt]

Fuelly is still biased towards the pre FE update numbers.

 

I have 10 months of pre FE Update numbers, and only about 3 and half of post-update numbers.

 

I'm thinking I have 6.5 months before my pre FE update and post FE update cancel each other out. Then after that the real numbers show.

 

I'm sorry to the Mathematicians out there, at least it all makes sense in my head :confused:

[plus 3 golfer]

One more point on Suzuki / CR as this has come up in other threads when posters dis on CR credibility. I can now see why Suzuki settled with no $.

 

"According to CU, Suzuki internal documents indicate that the company was aware of the Samurai’s rollover problem. A Suzuki memorandum dated July 14, 1985 stated: "It is imperative that we develop a crisis plan that will primarily deal with the ‘roll’ factor. Because of the narrow wheelbase, similar to the Jeep, the car is bound to turn over."[8] Over the years, over 200 Suzuki Samurai rollover lawsuits have been settled and Suzuki's own expert witnesses testified the automaker was aware of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries involving Suzuki Samurai rollovers.[8]" - from wiki

[plus 3 golfer]

Fuelly is still biased towards the pre FE update numbers.

 

I have 10 months of pre FE Update numbers, and only about 3 and half of post-update numbers.

 

I'm thinking I have 6.5 months before my pre FE update and post FE update cancel each other out. Then after that the real numbers show.

 

I'm sorry to the Mathematicians out there, at least it all makes sense in my head :confused:

Here's some issues.  

 

The first 3k and maybe 5k miles (depending on EV use) should be disregarded as that's break-in miles.  So that's likely 2-5 months of initial ownership data. Tires wear resulting in increasing FE. Driving styles / conditions are likely not the same.  I for one am driving slightly less efficiently now.  The novelty of obtaining higher FE has worn off on me.  On the contrary there may be some now that drive more effectively for FE, made mods, and so forth that has increased their FE.

 

Such a small change in FE for 13B07 implemented over many months will likely simply be noise in the fuelly data and likely indistinguishable. The credible way to measure the difference is to run tests just before the update and just after the update. EPA did that and got a 3 mpg city increase and no highway increase.  CR did that and got less than 1 mpg increase in overall FE.  Again the test methods aren't the same.

 

Bottom line: The credibility of "long term tank" data being able to positively identify the effects of 13B07 on FE will be suspect especially if the analysis purports to substantially increase FE whether by an individual or groups of people like on fuelly.  

[BIG ROCCO]

 I'm more annoyed by the discrepancy between the dash MPG display and the calculated MPG than I am by the difference between EPA MPG and actual MPG.  I filled up today - dash display was 46.7 - calculated was 45.3 MPG.  Not that it amounts to much - only about 60 cents in this case!

[cmax-nynj]

It could also be that the Gas Pump's display was inaccurate; or you were filling up on a slight incline without knowing.

 

I was wondering when CR did the MPG test.  This week we went from 30Fs to 70F.  I drive the same route (25 miles of NYC traffic from South Brooklyn NYC to North Bronx NYC) and on the cold day I got 40MPG; while the same route on a warm day I got 50MPG. Same tank of gas too and one occupant.

[zacsc]

Don't believe everything you read. 

[Craig]

I spent a lot money on repairs and lots of problems with cars I purchased recommended by CR, Honda, Toyota, Volvo,

Merc-Benz. While having no problems with my Corvette, GMC truck, Chevy Malibu, Chevy Impala, Ford F150,

Took me a while to learn my lesson, so I no longer read CR.

[fbov]

What I find curious is the belief that testing immediately before and after the PCM update is a "fair" test. It all depends on the contestants.

 

In a dumb car, perhaps, but not in a learning vehicle. The "before" test was of a vehicle that had been driven, so it had learned something. "After" was tested at default settings, not optimized settings (assuming Ford's "learning" is beneficial). I'd be interested in a retest after some miles...

 

As to CR, caveat emptor applies to them as well. They may tell you a lot about how they test, but it's the stuff they don't say that may be what matters to you. I loved my best-buy rated $50 vacuum cleaner... until I vacuumed around the refrigerator and the vertical exhaust blew kid-art all over the kitchen floor. Blows towels off the bar, too, but it does clean well!

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[nsteblay]

I have driven both the C-Max and Prius. I consider all attributes of the car when comparing it to the Prius: comfort, visibility, acceleration and handling, aesthetics, and US built. Acceleration, visibility and comfort aside the Prius doesn't require driving technique to get consistent mileage results. The C-Max by the way it is architected has a high degree of variability in mileage results dependent on environment and driving technique.

 

If environment and technique are normalized mileage is probably aligned with CR's tests. What I've found is if I apply minimal technique during warm weather I can surpass the 47 MPG easily. In cold weather and with the heater on there is no way to reach the EPA estimates. I am not sure how they manage driving technique when performing mileage tests. This is likely a source in the discrepancy.

 

In my first year (10/12 - 10/13) I averaged just over 40 MPG for lifetime mileage. I saw a large jump (3 to 4 MPG) in trip mileage after the upgrade that was significant.

 

This has been a brutal winter so far but I am still anticipating making the 43 MPG average over my first 2 years. This week I drove to work with the temperature at -18 F. I got 33 MPG. The C-Max depends on getting into EV mode to raise the MPG. When it is that cold and the heater is on the gas engine runs constantly, hence, the low mileage. I'll probably average about 37 MPG over the winter and 45-47 MPG over the spring/summer/fall. Air conditioning in the summer doesn't impact my mileage much.

 

The technique I apply is punch and glide. It is important to drive like your driving a bicycle - learning to "coast" when you can to save on gas. This is easily achieved by letting up on the gas briefly to get in EV mode. I also need to pay some attention to the instrument panel. This becomes second nature after some practice.

 

I understand that this neccesity is irritating and unacceptable to some drivers. My experience is the Toyotas don't require applying driving technique. What I've found you sacrifice is potential acceleration, comfort and visibility. If your really looking only at MPG you should probably buy a Toyota.

 

I've been very pleased with the C-Max. It's sporty enough for my freeway driving, comfortable for my kids and family, and provides awesome visibility that I consider a major safety feature.

Edited January 25, 2014 by nsteblay

[Tellio22@gmail.com]

Blah blah blah... Anyone that still reads CR after the Cell phone shopping issue might need to be ver careful to give credit to CR when it is clear they stopped being what they once used to be. The report on cell phones did not include any reference to the processors that make or break how a phone functions. All I know is I have driven many Prius and Cmax before I bought a car last year. Pound for pound for me I like the cmax by far, but it depends how you drive it. CR is a whole other forum as they spiral down the hill of greatness. They seem to be focusing more and more on collections monies through donations rather than letting their work stand for itself and use their impression from their reports to speak for themselves. I for one have not given them much credibility these last few years. As far as ford and the EPA I thought about the obvious as soon as I drove two blocks and noticed the difference perhaps a little more off than my Nissan but for me not being a rocket scientist I impressed myself somehow figuring out that the sticker on the window was going to be wrong before I drove the car. If we are paying taxes that pay the EPA then we should focus on writing about their shortcomings they are the ones that should be right in my opinion. I can choose never to buy CR certainly never donate but to be taxed for such junk is a bummer!

[Alex Sams]

Eh.... according to CR we should all be selling these POS American cars and get us a really great Japanese made car. Yet, there's not one C-Max for sale on this forum. Used C-Max's are difficult to find near me (I had to drive 3 hours), and used Energis nearly impossible. I'd like to read their report on the Focus Electric as compared to the Leaf. I'd also like to hear their report on battery life since most Honda Insights have had their batteries replaced more than once, but I have trouble finding a Ford mechanic who has replaced more than one Ford battery. I know one who replaced a Fusion battery, in 2010, due to a manufacturing problem. I know a lot of Ford and independent mechanics. I do not know Toyota battery replacement woes..... I would think their issues to be limited. 

 

That being said, I think the Powersplit architecture is excellent, but Honda's new design in the Accord Hybrid is interesting. I hope it works out, and finally I wish Ford had done more on their own with the PNGV research they might have come to a more series hybrid approach like the new Accord. I'd also like to see Ford design a car around hybrid or EV use which I'm sure is coming if popularity continues in spite of CR. 

Edited February 4, 2014 by Alex Sams

[DaveofDurham]

Eh.... according to CR we should all be selling these POS American cars and get us a really great Japanese made car. Yet, there's not one C-Max for sale on this forum. Used C-Max's are difficult to find near me (I had to drive 3 hours), and used Energis nearly impossible. I'd like to read their report on the Focus Electric as compared to the Leaf. I'd also like to hear their report on battery life since most Honda Insights have had their batteries replaced more than once, but I have trouble finding a Ford mechanic who has replaced more than one Ford battery. I know one who replaced a Fusion battery, in 2010, due to a manufacturing problem. I know a lot of Ford and independent mechanics. I do not know Toyota battery replacement woes..... I would think their issues to be limited. 

 

That being said, I think the Powersplit architecture is excellent, but Honda's new design in the Accord Hybrid is interesting. I hope it works out, and finally I wish Ford had done more on their own with the PNGV research they might have come to a more series hybrid approach like the new Accord. I'd also like to see Ford design a car around hybrid or EV use which I'm sure is coming if popularity continues in spite of CR. 

Did you have an Insight?

 

We had a 2000 Insight.  The hybrid battery was replaced twice under warranty.  The third time was out of warranty in Nov/Dec 2012 - that's when we sold our Insight and got our C-Max.

 

We drove the Insight for a few weeks and about 500 miles after the third battery failure.  Without the hybrid assist, we were getting 45+ mpg in town and got 50+ mpg on a 50 mile highway drive to deliver the car to tis new owner.

[Tdefny]

The original Insight was a great car and is still unsurpassed in some ways. I would have considered it but I couldn't get away with a two seater. The Prius could fit my whole family, so that is what I ended up with. The kids are all grown now, but we still fit in it! As we do with the Max. Anyway, my Toyota battery has lasted over 12 years and 200k miles and is still working well. I expect at least that from the C-Max.