Ford identifies error, lowers EPA fuel economy ratings for six vehicles

[robfixit]

I was doing a search on this issue, and I found blogs where people were criticizing Ford for lying about mileage. My take is it does not make any difference. If I bought my Max believing I would get 43 mpg, and I end up getting 40mpg and Ford pays me the difference in gas I will need to use, I break even. I am still getting the same exact savings I was promised. As my cars have never gotten EPA ratings, I went into the purchase calculating I would get 40mpg overall. Without break in, I am already beating that. I suspect I will get or beat EPA mileage when the engine is broken in and I master driving a hybrid. So with the refund, I will probably be way ahead of my panned savings. My hat is off to Ford for admitting a problem and compensating their customers for it. I do not care if it was an accident or on purpose. We the buyers are being fairy compensated in my view.

[weebee]

WOW! Thanks Ford!

[nsteblay]

My lifetime average is at 39.5 at the moment.  Average MPG varies depending on the time of year - average temperature.  At one year of ownership I was just over 40 MPG and will probably be there again after 2 years - this October.  In the spring / summer I easily get mid 40's.  In the winter it drops to mid 30's.  Most of my driving is work commute on crowded freeway.

 

I did just finished a 3800 mile road trip from Minnesota to Florida to the Carolinas and back.  I averaged 41.1 MPG driving at posted freeway speeds heavily using cruise control. I was very happy with this result and the family (4) was very comfortable throughout the trip.

 

I think these new numbers are realistic and hopefully are taking temperature into consideration.  

 

My goal when I first purchased the car was to find something that got me 40+.  I couldn't find a non hybrid in this range so I started looking at hybrids.  I seriously looked at the standard Prius but didn't like the style, comfort and visibility.  The Prius V was several thousand dollars more than the CMax and wasn't as comfortable.  The CMax had all the attributes I was looking for.  

 

I will say that I was disappointed that the original 47 47 47 wasn't even close to real world driving.  I've also been frustrated with some of the quality issues I've experienced.  Even so I've been impressed with Ford as they've addressed every issue I've experienced and are now even restating MPG correctly.  At this point I consider the CMax to be a good investment.

[boilermax]

When we bought our C-Max in November of 2012 I didn't believe the 47/47/47 claims.  Comparing C-Max to Prius V at the time, the Ford has more gas horsepower, more electric horsepower and more weight than the Prius, yet was rated higher mpg.  The laws of physics don't allow that.  I decided that if I could average 40 mpg or better I would be happy.  So far, after 9600 miles, my lifetime average is 44.5 mpg.  That includes several long road trips where I averaged about 42 mpg for the trip.  My current tankful is averaging 50.5 mpg.  I don't make any special effort to hyper-mile or such like.

 

As many others have reported, cold weather has a major impact on mpg.  My overall average drops in winter and climbs in summer.  I wouldn't be suprised to see my lifetime average at 45 mpg (or even higher) by the end of this summer.

 

So far we've been lucky and not experienced the quality issues others have had.  We received the $550 payment and if we get this next payment, too, it will only add to our satisfaction.  All-in-all we've been very pleased with our decision to buy the C-Max.

[MtnMarty]

When I look up my vehicle on Ford ETIS, I find a reference to 14B03 - FUEL ECONOMY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. I assume that means I will get an additional check! Amazing!

[ptjones]

With 63K miles already I think I will up the mileage on my 4y/100mi warranty if I get a check, YAHOO! Maybe they won't notice my 45.2mpg average.  :)  :happy feet: 

 

Paul

[Tree63]

For Canadian C-Max hybrid folks, called Ford this morning and second cheque would be C$725, same reasoning as before for amount that seems higher than for US customers.

 

My overall mileage (including the brutal winters) is pretty much what is now the posted numbers and I continue to enjoy the ride.

[Adrian_L]

C-Max just keeps getting better and better, last tank 49mpg, Thanks Ford.

 

Ditto. I'm about 47 mpg (total average) after 3000 miles.  Nevertheless, happy to get the cash.

[wamba2000]

 

Boilermax wrote: 

When we bought our C-Max in November of 2012 I didn't believe the 47/47/47 claims.  Comparing C-Max to Prius V at the time, the Ford has more gas horsepower, more electric horsepower and more weight than the Prius, yet was rated higher mpg.  The laws of physics don't allow that. 

 

I bought my SEL in Jan 2013, I too was skeptical of the 47 mpg claim, but figured if i could hit 40 and have a comfortable vehicle with room for a 6'6" driver (me)  I was ahead of the game.  I also would not buy the Prius V.

My current lifetime for about 9000 miles is 43.4mpg, so I am doing better than the EPA testing.

 

There was an article in the paper this morning on this topic, and it explained the original 47/47/47 belonging to Fusion, which was used for Cmax due to same power-train and similar weight.  It referenced the EPA acknowledging that there are inconsistencies in their testing methods, and they have plans to update to a new approach.  Face it, all manufacturers want to comply but present their vehicles in the best possible light, so if there are ways to "tweak" the tests, they are done.  Hyundai & KIA have had this issue recently, as well as Ford.  EPA claims they will be auditing all manufacturers to confirm tests are accurate and representative of actual mileage.

 

Again, I commend Ford for facing the issue head on, rather than trying to bury it and hope it never came to light

[Adrian_L]

For Canadian C-Max hybrid folks, called Ford this morning and second cheque would be C$725, same reasoning as before for amount that seems higher than for US customers.

 

My overall mileage (including the brutal winters) is pretty much what is now the posted numbers and I continue to enjoy the ride.

 

I could hug you right now, tree.

 

Adrian

Vancouver

[AudenHoggart]

When I look up my vehicle on Ford ETIS, I find a reference to 14B03 - FUEL ECONOMY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. I assume that means I will get an additional check! Amazing!

 

I got this same code when I looked today.  I know I didn't have it a couple of days ago.  Do we have confirmation that this will produce an additional rebate even if you got the first one?

[jennifermehl]

I called the Ford toll-free number and they verified that my C-Max would qualify for the good will payment. (Mine is a Certified used I bought in March).  So, I think almost everyone qualifies...

[666]

For Canadian C-Max hybrid folks, called Ford this morning and second cheque would be C$725, same reasoning as before for amount that seems higher than for US customers.

 

My overall mileage (including the brutal winters) is pretty much what is now the posted numbers and I continue to enjoy the ride.

 

 

thanks for confirming for canadian owner!  i guess it is time again for me to contact fordserviceCA for assistant to get my 2nd check.

[nsteblay]

When I look up my vehicle on Ford ETIS, I find a reference to 14B03 - FUEL ECONOMY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. I assume that means I will get an additional check! Amazing!

 

Same here ... it is new.  Must mean a check is coming.

[chrisl]

I think the latest revised figures are now too low.  Future owners, unaware of the previous ratings, will experience the "under promise, over deliver" phenomenon and be very happy when they easily beat the new EPA numbers.

 

I agree.  That's what I'm getting with a permanently installed roof rack with three bike mounts (plus quite a bit of highway time with the bikes).  And I don't really keep it under 70-75 on the highway unless it's stop and go.

[Marc Smith]

just did a trip  from DC to Cleveland.  all highway  average speed of 60mph  46  mpg  should hit 600miles on only my 3rd tank

 

keep the checks coming...

[ptjones]

I agree.  That's what I'm getting with a permanently installed roof rack with three bike mounts (plus quite a bit of highway time with the bikes).  And I don't really keep it under 70-75 on the highway unless it's stop and go.

I have a three bike rack on back(Saris) and don't have to worry about parking in garage  or drive thru. Unfortunately I know people who did that and lost their bikes. It also kills your mpg's :)

 

Paul

Edited June 15, 2014 by ptjones

[Bob999]

I called the Ford toll-free number and they verified that my C-Max would qualify for the good will payment. (Mine is a Certified used I bought in March).  So, I think almost everyone qualifies...

But the question is who gets the rebate--the original owner or you?

[C-MaxSea]

.......... It referenced the EPA acknowledging that there are inconsistencies in their testing methods, and they have plans to update to a new approach.  Face it, all manufacturers want to comply but present their vehicles in the best possible light, so if there are ways to "tweak" the tests, they are done.  Hyundai & KIA have had this issue recently, as well as Ford.  EPA claims they will be auditing all manufacturers to confirm tests are accurate and representative of actual mileage.

 

Again, I commend Ford for facing the issue head on, rather than trying to bury it and hope it never came to light

 

Well said Wamba!

Edited June 14, 2014 by C-MaxSea

[DaveofDurham]

Now I'm not sure if it's the tech side (math) or the language (proofreading).

 

I received a C-Max brochure in today's mail.  Here's what I found inside.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2014 by DaveofDurham

[kostby]

Now I'm not sure if it's the tech side (math) or the language (proofreading).

 

I received a C-Max brochure in today's mail.  Here's what I found inside.

 

That sounds a lot like the "old-GM" method of selling cars:

 

1. Keep building them and pushing dealers to order them, because the dealers with lots full of slow-selling cars NEVER complain as loud or as long as do the UAW workers who are laid off.

2. Once the product is launched, never ever spend another dollar to advertise them. Advertising only encourages knowledgable potential customers to come to showrooms and ask questions dealership sales people cannot answer, and it's embarrassing.  So Headquarters discovers that the vast majority of dealership salespeople (and honestly, many Headquarters executives) have little understanding of the product, the technology, and ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE how to actually sell these things on their merits.

3. Rather than engage the dealer sales force in a training program to TEACH them the features and benefits, just offer more and larger discounts, rebates, and cut-rate financing, until they eventually clear the lots.

3. Discontinue them. If the brand is old and weak, discontinue the brand too.

4. Rinse and repeat.

Edited June 15, 2014 by kostby

[obob]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092703_ford-cuts-gas-mileage-on-6-models-what-you-need-to-know-and-open-questions

 

Our mistake" in a math model

Ford says it miscalculated the ratings due to an error in laboratory-test measurements of Total Road Load Horsepower, a resistance level on the dynamometers (rolling roads) on which new vehicles are run through the specified test cycles to calculate emissions and fuel economy.

In addition, said global product development chief Raj Nair, Ford made a further error in the way it accounted for aerodynamic drag when it modeled "virtual" wind-tunnel testing of the cars in the calculations of an engineering model.

 

2013 Ford C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid, Marin County, CA, Nov 2012

“This is our mistake, plain and simple," Nair said, "and we apologize."

According to Ford, the company identified the error during its internal testing and validation procedures in March, and notified the Environmental Protection Agency of its findings. Then it worked together with the EPA on retesting and development of the new, lower ratings.

No intent to mislead

"Without getting too complex, we do a physical wind tunnel test, and then use a correlation factor to enter that into the engineering model--which is then the total load horsepower test," Nair elaborated.

"The error was in the correlation factor in the model.”

There was no intent to mislead the public, Nair said, and no Ford employee has been disciplined for the errors.

 

2013 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid, New York City, June 2013

 

Edited June 15, 2014 by obob

[Jus-A-CMax]

@obob - Thanks for that post obob, that should be in the News & Article section but unfortunately, I can't move single posts around.

 

 

Well said Wamba!

Here, here.

 

Jus my 2c...thank goodness this is a numbers issue, and not a life threatening issue like what GM did with their ignition switch. For me personally, I like that Ford fess up. While I hear the noise about bragging rights,  loss of resale (add in the great Yuo Bryner here to speak for me)  :airquote:  etc etc etc  :airquote:  - I'll be honest, I don't care anymore.

 

My CMax has more than lived above the 47/47/47 original rating. And unless someone come up with a 60+ MPG CMax, I will keep this car till the wheels comes off and the front hood pitted with chips and adding -5MPGs.

 

This is my world and my driving condition - and I am more than thankful for Ford to bring this great, utilitarian car to me. I understand the CMax and how to maximize it to give me the fuel costs savings & take my wife & I to snow places safely in comfort & niceties. Looking forward to the $475 from Ford, and it's one less car payment for my family.

 

Oh, my :drool:  4th 800+ tank this week and I didn't even run out or close to it :love_shower:

[C-MaxSea]

Yo Jus, you're right "this is a numbers issue".  Amazing the focus by some on the numbers that mean the least - sticker #s - crazy stuff!  Gentle folks out there, the only numbers that matter are the numbers you generate with your throttle foot.  Anyone can produce very good MPG's (40+) with the C-Max if they want to (on average, or just on occasion); and many of you can & will push the 50 MPG mark with regularity - it is fundamentally your choice, not a function of someone else's thoughts, projections, theories, or diabolical conspiracies ............ More importantly, the C-Max is not just a numbers machine, but a great, versatile & fabulous ride.  Play the numbers game and enjoy; more importantly for most, forget the numbers game and enjoy - it is all good, if you keep your perspective. :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
 
Oh, and a lower priced SEL in the future works for me - We waited for a sale price to move us to purchase. Guess more good deals in the next month or so. :) :) :)

Edited June 16, 2014 by C-MaxSea

[salsaguy]

Nope

Go to here

http://www.ford.com/mpglabel/

Punched in both the 2013 and 2014 info on the drop down menu and same result was $475 rebate for those that bought (not leased)

 

 

Thanks for the heads up.  I sent this to the NRG forum too.

 

So the question is, "Do early 2013 hybrid owners (original 47/47/47 window sticker) get a second rebate ($475)?