Validated yet UPSET at Ford

[catsailor]

I remember picking up my new SEL C Max back in September 2012, the first from my dealership and one of the first sold in Maryland if not the first since I had my deposit down in early July on this car. Told my dealer and some Ford Exec's in for a open house that anybody that buys this car will struggle to get 42 MPG and I was looked at like a fool.

 

Fast forward to today and two re-certifications later and my statement was validated so WTF were the engineers at Ford doing when they did their own real life on the road testing with themselves and consumers behind the wheel?

 

Do you honesty think if I had known that this car only got 40 MPG I would not have gone with another alternative due to the premium price I paid for the Max?? VW Diesel was a contender at the time. So yeah I get that Ford is sending me $475 on top of the $550 they already sent me to make up for the $ gas loss. BUT what about my loss of resale value for this car and the premium I paid for it to get me that elusive 47/47/47.

 

So I learned to drive my C Max and my lifetime MPG is 43.6 at just under 29,000 miles driven and two winters and 1.25 summers so far. Brake score is 96% and I must admit I love the car. So Ford can send me checks to keep me happy but some day I will be selling or trading in my Max and I bet you the farm the re-sale of this car just took another hit. And I don't want to forget the premium about $6000 I paid to get that 47/47/47 when comparing the Max to others in its class.

 

Think about that one for awhile.

 

BTW I told my dealer that the car Ford should really be concerned about is its popular Escape which if you go to Fuelly does not come close to its published ratings.

[plus 3 golfer]

I agree.  Forget about resale value now.  And can you "trust" Ford after this debacle with anything they say. 

 

I've said this before Raj Nair should be fired.  That's the Ford guy in Dec. 2012 that gave flimsy excuses as to why people / reviewers aren't getting 47/47/47. I also questioned the C-Max and Fusion EPA numbers after the August 2013 revision. It's been nearly two years for Ford to come clean with the FE numbers (or have they).  Think about the lost Prius sales due to Ford's 2012 silhouette commercials:  C-Max beats Prius V in mpg.  Doesn't Toyota have a case against Ford?  I can't believe someone in Ford didn't know what was going on.  Sometimes it takes a while to get to the bottom of the mess (we still may not be at the bottom) ;) .

 

The damages by Ford's ineptness is significantly more than Ford's "goodwill" payments to owners. The $1025 total payment at an national average of $3.65 / gallons covers the difference in fuel cost for about 75k miles of driving.  For me that's less than 4 years of driving.  IMO, what Ford needs to do is also offer a large discount (good for say 5 years) on a purchase of any Ford product - like $5000 for those that bought under the 47/47/47 EPA numbers and maybe $2500 for those that bought under the Aug. 2013 Monroney sticker.

 

Raj, apologies and $1025 isn't enough. How could one not question the differences between models and tests??? Why did it take until August 2013 to become "transparent" on the use of Fusion data for the C-Max EPA numbers???  

 

“We won’t always be perfect but we’re committed to transparency,” Raj Nair, VP of Global Product Development, said in a conference call.

There was an issue with total road load horsepower testing, which is one of the most reliable sources of fuel economy, Nair explained. Engineering models are validated by a physical wind tunnel test referred to as coastdown testing, and the correlation factor between the physical test and the engineering models was off.

It’s standard industry practice to use engineering models over physical tests, which can exhibit variability, Ford said in a statement. Hybrids are particularly sensitive to coastdown testing.

[bro1999]

I'm also surprised no one at Ford raised an eyebrow at the 47/47/47 MPG claims. How can a car that sits up in the air as much as the C-Max get the same MPG at City and Highway speeds??? Someone has to have lost their job at Ford over this mess.

[catsailor]

I totally agree and think that WE should start a petition leading to a credit on trade in for another Ford product because our C Max's will take a huge hit in resale when that time comes to sell or trade in. I for one am willing to write a letter to Alan Mullaly right now demanding that he look fairly at his TWO re-rates of this car and tell me if he does not think he and Ford just put the screws to me.

 

Who is interested in going in with me on this letter???

[HotPotato]

I do sincerely appreciate Ford's mileage reimbursement checks, although they don't match California gas prices. But I'm very concerned about resale value too. I fear that between the two MPG re-rates, dead-last reliability rating, and sluggish sales, our beloved car could end up in one of those Internet "10 worst automotive fails" lists.

 

Lost in all this is how fundamentally good the car is. You want 0-60 in under 8 seconds, a quiet cabin, and a German-tuned suspension? Buick will give you all of that in their Regal Turbo sedan (actually a rebadged Opel from der Vaterland) for 30 grand and up, and you'll get 21 city MPG. That's 50% of the MPG, people. With no dog compartment in the back, either. Want something more directly comparable? OK, walk one row over to the Buick Encore, a short-and-tall MPV like the C-Max, with a tiny 1.4 liter turbo engine. Compared to the C-Max, you get weaker acceleration, less room, an equally high price, and still just 25/33 MPG. I pick Buick because they work to put a higher level of refinement in their cars than non-premium makes, and the C-Max is a very refined car, but you can do the same sort of comparison with any make.

 

There truly is nothing like the C-Max. I think they messed up selling it purely on MPG -- and by giving the 2014s taller gearing for an MPG bump, since taller gearing generally means acceleration takes a hit -- because the COMBINATION of a rewarding driving experience, great practicality AND great MPG is what makes the car compelling.

[Tree63]

I agree with HotPotato - the C-Max is unique and wonderful as a driving experience.  I bought it with a jaundiced eye on EPA rated 47/47/47 because the same technology on a friend's Prius was not delivering anywhere near that.  My sat point was set for 40/40/40 and I am pretty much there, 2 winters included.

 

Resale discounting is probably expected now due to perceptions but I'm planning to hold for quite a while, and then pass on to family as a first-time or second car. 

 

The kinks aren't going to be out of the next-gen or new-edge market cars like C-Max for a while -- I am willing to share some of the ri$k -- but good to name the problems and disappointments as a reminder for next time and get pre-production quality of product and marketing to improve.

[plus 3 golfer]

catsailor, it depends on the letter obviously but I will support such a letter.  IMO, keep it simple focusing only on the issue: 2 downgrades in EPA rating, higher fuel expenses over the use of the vehicle and most importantly diminished value of the car if one trades a car every few years.  If one keeps the car for 200k miles, the resale value is likely not going to be affected much by the drop in FE rating. But the current goodwill payment likely will cover about 1/3 of what ones additional fuel expense will be.  If one trades the car in now, I suspect the trade-in value is significantly lower than it otherwise would have been.

 

Take the Prius V - five vs the C-Max SEL base models.  If I did the numbers correctly, the 2013 Prius V with 25k miles and clean condition has a trade-in value of 78% of it's MSRP including destination.  The C-Max SEL with 25k miles and clean condition has a trade-in value of 60% or MSRP + destination..  This is a loss of over $5000 on the C-Max if the C-Max would have retained 78% of it's value or $22,683 vs 60% or $17,359.  This $17,359 will likely go lower once the 2nd FE downgrade becomes widely known.   But even if one plans to keep the C-Max "forever" to negate this diminished value,  an accident that totals the C-Max will pay what one can purchase the replacement car for.  

Edited June 14, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[plus 3 golfer]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL THE C-MAX IS TO DRIVE. ITS ABOUT FORD'S MISCUES AND THE HURT SUCH WILL INFLICT ON OWNERS.

 

I knew it was only a matter of time before people started talking about how great the C-Max is.  This is true IMO also.  But that has little to do with the value of the C-Max in the marketplace.  I also bought knowing I get around 40 mpg, but that doesn't get Ford off the hook for those that were duped by Ford - especially the very early adopters. Also, many later buyers probably didn't do appropriate due diligence. Why do people apparently think it's okay that Ford slipped up and 1st year cars are expected to have issues.

 

And to those that are going to say well I get 47 mpg now (or close to that), you'd likely be getting 55 mpg if the C-Max 47/47/47 were the correct numbers.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[jmckinley]

I agree with some of the above posts re Ford's credibility.  There is no question that Ford knew that the car would not deliver the calculated mileage in the real world.  I worked in Ford Engineering.  Executives and managers drive prototypes and near production cars home almost every night.  Product Engineers are constantly driving the vehicles.  They all absolutely had to know the real story well before Job 1.  

 

For nearly two years we've been fed an neverending string of stupid excuses.

It gets worse mileage in the winter because of warm up.

It gets worse mileage in the summer because of the AC.

It gets worse mileage because you are too stupid to drive it right.

It gets worse mileage in the wind.

It gets worse mileage in rain.

The EPA made us do the calculations wrong.

 

Did I miss anything? 

[joe]

On the one hand, people's concern that Ford produced funny mpg numbers is legitimate.  And I'm sure someone is doing a "lessons learned" within Ford.  But at least they have owned up to the bad figures and without me asking, they are finanically compensating me.  And for those of us who bought the C-Max in its first year, we must have known the risk to resale value for a first year production car.  Back in 1975, I bought the first year production VW Rabbit.  It was the worst car mechanically I have ever owned and when I traded it in 3 years later for a Chevy, I got scrap metal resale value.  VW never compensated me for the poor mpg I got, or all the mechanical problems that occurred after warranty.  My experience with the C-Max is totally different.

 

I usually keep my cars 9-10 years do I wasn't too concerned with resale value.  I also didn't buy it for the mileage since just about any vehicle was going to be better than my Mercury mini-van's 15 mpg.  I bought the C-max for its comfort, ride, features, and capacity - and in those areas, it has met or exceeded my requirements.  My next car will be a Ford because they are at least standing behind its product - whereas, those Chevy owners with ignition problems . . .

[Daveymars]

I think that the mileage issues combined with the fact that Edmunds has rated the 13 cmax as the least reliable vehicle of the 2013 model year has Ford REALLY providing grounds for class action damages... and yet this is by far the car I've enjoyed the most of any I have owned....  It's almost like they needed another 6 months to get the car right... growl...

 

Give me a credit on my car loan or... a credit on new batteries if I want to run this car for 200,000 miles yet...

 

And also... this is the gentlest, most respectful forum I have seen... the only competition might be from the diesel Cruz forum. (Another contender for my purchase)

 

I am 6 ft 2 with spinal stenosis,  and drive 80+miles daily.   These were the two cars I could fit into...that were affordable and made mileage sense... Strangely, I never thought I'd get a hybrid. BUT when I got into this car, pain free, I was impressed, when I drove this car I was hooked!  A 4 BANGER WITH PICK UP! I bought mine on MLK Day 2014.  I have 9800 miles and am afraid to let them even change the oil because of all the trouble I hear about.. I know it also has some software upgrades and seat back issues which worry me because so many here have trouble AFTER servicing!

 

So follow me... I have a car that I love and no one else is crazy enough to purchase,  that I have legitimate concerns about its safety, mileage, and obtaining effective, safe service for...  What is THAT worth?

Edited June 14, 2014 by Daveymars

[Treptower]

It's a pretty BIG engineering mistake to have miss calculated the total load road horse power (hp needed to maintain constant speed). Pretty huge mistake. I've been outraged much like the rest of you, having bought my vehicle at a rating of 47/47/47 I've been upset about the missed bragging rights. Since I can't do anything about the physical capabilities of the vehicle now, to me with the rerating means that now I can't lord the mpg ratings over the Toyota folks and lord knows they don't need more to be smug about.

 

The reduced resale value is a very good point that I hadn't considered as yet. We could easily get screwed over here by Ford. Losing 4-6K in resale value would certainly discourage me from ever buying into the Ford Motor Company again. So if Ford wants to make this right I purpose the following:

 

****** To the Ford Motor Company********

Provide the owners of the 2013-2014 vehicle models that have been effected with this "re-qualification" with a guaranteed trade-in value at a rate proportional to the projected value at the time of the vehicle's EPA MPG rating.

 

This will be a "living" statement, fellow C-Max nations please comment and append.

[Treptower]

Follow on:

[plus 3 golfer]

On the one hand, people's concern that Ford produced funny mpg numbers is legitimate. And I'm sure someone is doing a "lessons learned" within Ford. But at least they have owned up to the bad figures and without me asking, they are finanically compensating me. And for those of us who bought the C-Max in its first year, we must have known the risk to resale value for a first year production car. Back in 1975, I bought the first year production VW Rabbit. It was the worst car mechanically I have ever owned and when I traded it in 3 years later for a Chevy, I got scrap metal resale value. VW never compensated me for the poor mpg I got, or all the mechanical problems that occurred after warranty. My experience with the C-Max is totally different.

 

I usually keep my cars 9-10 years do I wasn't too concerned with resale value. I also didn't buy it for the mileage since just about any vehicle was going to be better than my Mercury mini-van's 15 mpg. I bought the C-max for its comfort, ride, features, and capacity - and in those areas, it has met or exceeded my requirements. My next car will be a Ford because they are at least standing behind its product - whereas, those Chevy owners with ignition problems . . .

Will you be satisfied if your car was totaled tomorrow and you get $5000 less than than you might otherwise get had the 47/47/47 been the correct numbers? Edited June 14, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[DaveofDurham]

Follow on:

Treptower -

 

Wow, you could win prizes for best lurker and best videos.  You joined the forum in August 2013 and made your first post (video ay Kennedy Space Center) in December 2013.  Then you returned today with a nice text post and another video.

 

Do you have an airbag in the microphone on today's video?  What happens if you make a short stop?

[bro1999]

I'm glad I leased. If the C-Max resale value tanks, Ford will be stuck taking the loss.

[Laurel]

I think the resale has already tanked.  Hubby is looking at trading our 2013 SEL with Pano roof and only 9,000 miles on it and the Blue Book is quoting $18,000.  We paid over $34,000 for ours.  This is not making husband very happy.  He is going for an Acura MDX Elite with all the technology.  I will miss our C-Max in many ways, but I think we were too quick to jump into buying a first year car. 

[HotPotato]

I think the resale has already tanked. Hubby is looking at trading our 2013 SEL with Pano roof and only 9,000 miles on it and the Blue Book is quoting $18,000. We paid over $34,000 for ours. This is not making husband very happy. He is going for an Acura MDX Elite with all the technology. I will miss our C-Max in many ways, but I think we were too quick to jump into buying a first year car.

Trading after 1 year is always a bad deal, but that's a badder-than-usual deal.

Edited June 15, 2014 by HotPotato

[HotPotato]

Will you be satisfied if your car was totaled tomorrow and you get $5000 less than than you might otherwise get had the 47/47/47 been the correct numbers?

If you can come up with a legally defensible way to calculate what the resale value Shoulda Been, then I'm sure many if us would sign a letter.

 

Not sure insurance is the example to use, tho. As I understand it, insurance is intended to replace like with like, so a reduced payout is irrelevant as long as it's still tracking the actual cost to replace the car with another car of the same make, model, age and mileage.

[Adair]

"And also... this is the gentlest, most respectful forum I have seen... the only competition might be from the diesel Cruz forum. (Another contender for my purchase)"

 

(My comment is off topic, but thank you for saying this Daveymars!)

[Marc Smith]

Ipaid 18900 for my 2013 cmax with 11Kk miles  last month...  I'm thanking the person in MD who bought it new and took the resale hit for me

 

but if you want a car with good resale  you need to buy a lincoln, caddy, honda, toyota, acura, or a lexus.

 

love the car.  much nicer than my 2010 prius iv...

 

the prius has the similar issues

 

ICE needs a warmup

 

but all cars have these simialr issues...

bad MPG in winter (all cars)  its fuel related

Bad MPG when AC is on (all cars)

bad MPG in wind (all cars)

bad MPG in rain (all cars)

bad MPG when you drive it like you stole it...

 

the one thing ford is guilty of is not following the rules for proper EPA fuel MPG testing...

 

 

FWIW  my toyota 2010 prius iv that was totaled with 50K miles  got me an insurance check for 19,400  not too bad.  but I bought it used for 16750...

 

I like the ford  I wish nav was standard on all SEL's  waste of a big screen... and mytouch had applink... so far those are my biggest gripes...

[timwil56]

If you purchased the Hybrid or Energi with resale value in mind, you purchased it for all the wrong reasons.

[plus 3 golfer]

Ipaid 18900 for my 2013 cmax with 11Kk miles  last month... ....

 

ICE needs a warmup

 

but all cars have these simialr issues...

bad MPG in winter (all cars)  its fuel related

Bad MPG when AC is on (all cars)

bad MPG in wind (all cars)

bad MPG in rain (all cars)

bad MPG when you drive it like you stole it...

 

the one thing ford is guilty of is not following the rules for proper EPA fuel MPG testing...

 

...

Yes, testimony to the resale value of the C-Max.  I think you got a great car at a great price.

 

Just to be clear, the above bold text (plus break-in) is what Ford blamed the poor mileage on that owners and reviewers were getting in 2012, not the fact that Ford didn't run any EPA tests on the C-Max Hybrid but instead used a loophole in the procedures that allowed Ford to simply use the Fusion Hybrid EPA numbers for the C-Max.  Is that transparency, Raj?  Is using a loophole that is not intended for such purpose (cars with same powertrain but significantly different road HP drag numbers) ethical, Raj? I believe those in the know at Ford looked the other way when the original C-Max and Fusion EPA numbers came out as they wanted to get products to market that beat their competitors in FE.  As an engineer it was obviously to me when I bought the car in Dec. 2012 after reading reviews, specs on the cars and knowing the EPA test procedures that the 47 mpg couldn't be the right EPA FE number.  It would be obvious to any Ford engineer that something was amiss.    

 

Now Ford also finds a significant error about 2 years later in the dynamometer loads used in the the initial EPA testing of  the 2013 Fusion testing and again about one year ago when Ford actually tested the C-Max Hybrid that led to the revised EPA numbers in August 2013.  

 

It certainly appears to me with this latest finding by Ford, that there may be a basis for civil case against Ford (although I'm not an attorney).  IMO, there's got to be documents within Ford that cast doubt on this FE issue going back 2 years.  Someone knows something.  

Edited June 15, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[robfixit]

When I buy cars, I tend to keep them for 10 to 15 years, so resale value for me is not an issue, but for those who do turn them around quicker, I understand being upset. For me it is strictly finances on usage. I bought it hoping to average 40mpg or better (I have never gotten EPA mpg on any car I have ever purchased). If I end up getting a little less and Ford compensates me for the difference, I am OK. I only have about 700 miles on it, but so far I have about 42mpg and I hope it improves as the engine breaks in. Let's hope Ford can get through this, and reliability is better for the 2014's with a lot of the bugs worked out. It would be nice if they lowered the price of the car now that it has lower mileage ratings.  I would still buy a CMax, as it has the features and quality I want, but many buyers look only at the price and the MPG, and may not test drive or look at the reviews to see why the CMax is superior to the competition in many ways.

[plus 3 golfer]

....Let's hope Ford can get through this, and reliability is better for the 2014's with a lot of the bugs worked out. It would be nice if they lowered the price of the car now that it has lower mileage ratings.  I would still buy a CMax, as it has the features and quality I want, but many buyers look only at the price and the MPG, and may not test drive or look at the reviews to see why the CMax is superior to the competition in many ways.

I believe had Ford got the FE right in 2012, eliminated many of the infotainment issues prior to selling, and used the "Sal and Family" type commercials instead of the C-Max beats Prius V commercials, that reviewers would have been ecstatic over the C-Max.   But the poorer than advertized FE and many MFT issues were highlighted in the reviews even though virtually everyone that drove the C-Max thought it was much better than it's competition. 

 

It won't take much for the 2014s to beat the IQS of the 2013s. Also, I would expect the reliability ratings of the 2013s to improve but that could take a few more years of owner's surveys before the 2013 rating changes.  Hopefully, it's not too late to save the C-Max.