Consumer Reports C-max review and reliability data

[djc]

Consumer Reports online appears to have revised some of their car reviews this past week.  The review of the C-max continues to be quite positive.  Good overall design, handling, ride, quiet, visibility, fuel economy for its class, etc etc.  

Owner satisfaction from latest survey is quite high for the Energi (79), respectably high for the C-max hybrid (70)  (I believe their "owner satisfaction" number is percent of owners who report they would "definitely buy the car again.")

 

The most serious negative, predicted reliability, is more explicit in the revised write-up than before:  80% below average for the C-max hybrid:  "Based on the latest survey, we expect reliability of new models will be 80% below average."  Energi owners are reporting far fewer problems - the Energi is expected to be 38% below average.

 

I don't doubt the raw survey data they are reporting.  I do doubt that the results are in fact accurate predictions of reliability of new cars: problems may be widely experienced but get fixed.  When problems get fixed,  past problems are not good predictions of problems with a new car, and they aren't good predictions of problems that used car buyers will experience.

 

So with that large grain-of-salt, the puzzles for me are the difference in owner-reported reliability between C-max hybrid and Energi, and between the C-max cars and their Fusion counterparts.  The Fusion hybrid reliability score is now "very good" for the 2014 model, way up from the 2013 Fusion hybrid's poor score.  There is no comparable change for 2013 to 2014 for the C-max.   And C-max Energi owners are reporting quite a bit fewer reliabity problems than are hybrid owners. 

 

Theories?

[timwil56]

There were some early issues with both models, unfortunately that now seems to be the norm with new models and advances in technology. It seems most of the issues I've read about here and on the Energi forum have not been related to the hybrid/HVB drives, but systems every car has, like batteries and electronics. My Energi was built in 2/14 and I purchased it in 3/14, I have not had a single issue other than one simple update of the PCM. I love the car, it's the right size, comfortable and fuel efficient, I especially love driving past the gas station.

[djc]

The most common reliability problems appear to be related to:

1. the 12V battery failing to hold charge, so car won't start

2. the electronic entertainment system (not clear to me if this is specifically MyFord touch)

   I've seen reports of bluetooth not pairing, and of system lock-up (blue screen).  CR says fewer problems after updates.

3. the optional power liftgate

 

I bought mine used at 25k miles and the only problem I have had in the first 2 months is a loud moaning noise from passenger footwell under certain part-load engine conditions.  It has been better in warmer weather.  The rear brake pads were replaced just before I bought it - surprising to need that with just 25k miles.  Carfax shows the previous owner may have had trouble with the 12V system (the battery was checked, presumably a load test).  And had a flat tire just before trading it in.  Perhaps getting stranded somewhere was decisive.

 

But for me,  so far, so good.  I'm getting around 45 mpg in hilly suburban driving with some 50-60 local freeway driving.

 

Here's the beginning of the new Consumer Reports write-up:

 

"The C-Max is an appealing all-around package, combining the fuel efficiency of its standard hybrid powertrain with the practicality of a five-door hatchback design. Based on the Ford Focus, the C-Max packs an impressive amount of room and utility into a small footprint. Its tall stance and low entry height make for easy access, and the cabin is airy and spacious. Fuel economy is excellent at 37 mpg overall.

The C-Max goes beyond just being efficient transportation. It's fun to drive, with engaging agility and good steering feel. The cabin is quiet inside and the C-Max feels solid and substantial."

 

Later they say the C-max is "like a rocket-sled" compared to the Prius V.    Ha!

 

d.

[scottwood2]

Good to hear that this car is getting some good press.  It is a great design. 

[djc]

Today, as we approach 4th of July weekend, Consumer Reports published a list of best cars from U.S. auto makers - American made cars that have scored highest on their tests.

 

C-max is on the list:  highest rated American wagon.

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/12/highest-scoring-american-vehicles/index.htm

[Smiling Jack]

Today, as we approach 4th of July weekend, Consumer Reports published a list of best cars from U.S. auto makers - American made cars that have scored highest on their tests.

 

C-max is on the list:  highest rated American wagon.

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/12/highest-scoring-american-vehicles/index.htm

 

I note that the Escape and the Fucus were also rated #1 in their respective classes.  The Escape, Focus and C-max are all built on the same platform.  CR seems to like that platform!

[kostby]

Wow. Just wow. What handbrake turn from CU! 

 

The conspiracy theorist in me says that such a huge change in rating a vehicle that is 99% UNCHANGED from introduction (yeah, a couple of mechanical updates and a few internal display screens, but that's primarily programming)  DID NOT and CAN NOT just happen in a publication that does not accept advertising. IMO, somewhere, someone was, shall we say "compensated" either to totally trash the 2013 C-MAX, or just recently to give 2015's such high praise.

 

The 2013 CU test drivers could not achieve more than 37 mpg under any circumstances, and their cockpit geniuses could not figure out how to use MyFord Touch, and C-MAX was awarded the worst reliability rating possible, yet less than 3 years later C-MAX is the best "Wagon" out there???

 

An marked increase or decrease in sales from this point forward will be an indication of the power (or lack of same) of a good CU review.

Edited July 2, 2015 by kostby

[raadsel]

Wow. Just wow. What handbrake turn from CU! 

 

The conspiracy theorist in me says that such a huge change in rating a vehicle that is 99% UNCHANGED from introduction (yeah, a couple of mechanical updates and a few internal display screens, but that's primarily programming)  DID NOT and CAN NOT just happen in a publication that does not accept advertising. IMO, somewhere, someone was, shall we say "compensated" either to totally trash the 2013 C-MAX, or just recently to give 2015's such high praise.

 

The 2013 CU test drivers could not achieve more than 37 mpg under any circumstances, and their cockpit geniuses could not figure out how to use MyFord Touch, and C-MAX was awarded the worst reliability rating possible, yet less than 3 years later C-MAX is the best "Wagon" out there???

 

An marked increase or decrease in sales from this point forward will be an indication of the power (or lack of same) of a good CU review.

 

I can't agree with this. From everything I've seen, CU has always liked the C-Max. What they objected to was the EPA rating of 47 mpg, which was a valid complaint. But the reviews for the C-Max have always been good, scoring quite well in the hybrid category, in fact, from what I recall, that 77 score is from their original testing of the C-Max in 2013.

[plus 3 golfer]

I can't agree with this. From everything I've seen, CU has always liked the C-Max. What they objected to was the EPA rating of 47 mpg, which was a valid complaint. But the reviews for the C-Max have always been good, scoring quite well in the hybrid category, in fact, from what I recall, that 77 score is from their original testing of the C-Max in 2013.

EXACTLY.  Yes, CU always liked the C-Max.  CU questioned the EPA FE as did many reviewers (which many on this forum took issue with).  We know now CU was right on the FE as Ford eventually tested the C-Max per the EPA regs and also found an error in the road load HP coefficients.

 

Also, anyone that follows this forum and researched how CU uses the consumer data on issues should quickly realize what the major issues were that affected reliability and what CU's  circle ratings really mean.  A black circle doesn't mean owners will likely have the issue. The circle ratings represents the relationship between the "average" car and the C-Max.  In simple terms all other things being the same, it might mean that if the average car has 1 issue / 100 vehicle, a car with 1.8 issues / 100 might get a solid black circle and a rating of expected reliability of 80% less than average because the car with 1.8 issues / 100 compared to all vehicles is farther away from the average than a significant portion of all vehicles.  CU has also stated that as the reliability of vehicles continues to improve the differences in a solid red circle ratings and average and a solid black circle rating and average may be small.

[ls973800]

yet less than 3 years later C-MAX is the best "Wagon" out there???

 

As the article notes, this is for the best AMERICAN built cars and trucks.  Not too many remaining in that class.

 

Here is a link I found on one of the other auto forums I follow and the top selling American made cars and trucks.  It was surprising to see that the new Ford F150 no longer makes the list because of contents NOT made in America!

 

http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2015/06/these_are_the_7_most_american.html#0

 

Not all qualified cars made the list (such as the C-Max) because these represent the highest selling vehicles.

Edited July 3, 2015 by ls973800

[DaveofDurham]

I wrote this in October 2013 in the "Ford C-max least reliable car in America (Says CR)" thread:

 

>>>They classify the C-Max (both the hybrid and the Energi) as wagons. They give the C-Max an overall score of 83 and say the best wagon got an 88 and the worst wagon got 62.

 

Reliability is discussed separately .   As noted in my previous post, they explain their "Reliability" ratings system at

http://www.consumerr...ories/index.htm

 

For the Energi they say "much worse than average" reliability.  [but remember they also say, "Models that score a  are not necessarily unreliable, but have a higher rate of problems than the average model. Similarly, models that score  are not necessarily problem-free, but had relatively few problems compared with other models.] They give the top rating to 8 categories. They downgrade one notch from the best possible rating on fuel system, brakes, paint/trim, squeaks/rattles and power equipment.  They downgrade three notches on climate system.  They downgrade four notches (worst possible rating) on electrical system, body hardware and audio system.

 

For the hybrid they say "much worse than average" reliability.  They give the top rating to 10 categories.  They downgrade one notch from the best possible rating on fuel system, paint/trim, and squeaks/rattles.  They downgrade two notches on body hardware and power equipment.  They downgrade three notches on electrical system.  They downgrade four notches (worst possible rating) on audio system.

 

They also say.  "Based on the latest survey, we expect reliability of new (Energi) models will be 226% below average." and "Based on the latest survey, we expect reliability of new (hybrid) models will be 143% below average."   I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.>>>

 

The problem is that CR and lots of other news services that pick up on what CR has done throw all the caveats and explanations out the window when they write articles with titles like "10 Least Reliable New Cars" or "Least Reliable New Car".  The caveats and explanations let you know that the "Leasts" have in some way been assessed by CR as not being as reliable as the "Bests", but the "Leasts" may still be vety good.  That's how the same vehicle can have "low" reliability and a good or even excellent score.

Edited July 3, 2015 by DaveofDurham

[C-MaxSea]

And the largest portion of the buying public does not give a hoot about CR rating details – a black circle (kiss) of death is a black circle of death, is a black circle of death, is a ………………………….. .  (Negative words and images stick)  If CR gave a hoot about us it would use a system more color nuanced so as not to mislead.  (the differences car model to car model are rarely 'black and white'; it would be more appropriate to use shades of the same color for the most part on our modern cars)
 
Not to mention that first year ‘reliability’ ratings are always very suspect – new buyers, new toys, ‘how does this thing work’ ………..complain………CR hyperbole ........... CR parroting ............ The GP often does not get beyond headlines and (negative) hyperbole.

 

CR is just another ‘reliable’ source of misinformation, or is that ‘unreliable’ source of information?.  ;)  Sadly, they get parroted way more than they deserve. 

 

Fear sells (negative hyperbole), and CR capitalizes on that - sad.

 

Just mho;  agreed, nothing new here, just different packaging.

Nick

 

(PS  This thread perfectly illustrates that negative stuff sticks/stuck, and mildly positive stuff did/does not stick.)

Edited July 3, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[djc]

My understanding of the CR reliability ratings is the same as Plus 3 Golfer's.  The dots compare a given car model to the average -- and the average is pretty good.  For almost all problem categories, the average is 1% or less - just 1 car in 100, or fewer,  will have a problem (CR has a chart somewhere giving the per cent for average in each trouble area).  The two problem areas with a higher percent, as I remember, are "body integrity" (or maybe "hardware") and "entertainment".  3-4% of all cars have problems in those areas.

 

My understanding is that the score CR gives to a car does not include reliability.  However a car that is worse than average will not be a "recommended" car, even if it has a high score.    As  LS978300 points out, "American station wagon" is type that has few members.  But as anyone who looks around knows, there are a lot of cars with the same basic body configuration as the C-max - 4-doors and a liftgate.  (My 1996 Subaru Legacy "Outback" was a trim version of the Legacy wagon;  it somehow morphed over a couple of years into an SUV, maybe by adding a bit more plastic cladding. )

 

The 2013 C-max was reported as having worse than average problems in the fuel system, body hardware, and much worse in electrical and entertainment.  I believe, but could be wrong, that the fuel system problem was with the no-cap gas fill.   I also suspect that a main body hardware problem was with the power rear liftgate.  The problems with the entertainment system are well known and have been addressed with software updates.  The one problem area that worries me is the electrical problem - specifically with a "no start" condition.  Ford has tried to address this but it seems it has not been cured 100%.

 

In general I find the info on cars at CR very helpful.  What I do not find helpful as a used car buyer is lack of information on whether the problems that new cars have get fixed.  If every C-max had a bad battery and Ford replaced them all in the first year, and that fixed the problem, then for a used car buyer it is as if the problem never happened.  So what is missing in the reliability data is "this problem got fixed" or "this problem recurs".   Also missing is info about the time the repair takes.  Something they can fix at a 30-minute oil change is much less of a problem than when they keep your car for a week.