EPA may test the C-Max Hybrid

[skwcrj]

I got some information from the EPA that the EPA tested the 2013 Ford C-Max Energi thoroughly but they did not test the regular 2013 C-Max hybrid which is rated at 47/47/47. There have been some people who have been critical of these ratings and a number of articles written that question their validity so the EPA may do their own testing to confirm those results but that has not happened yet.

 

The Energi is rated at 44 City/ 41 Hwy/ 43 combined. Even though the Energi is 250 lbs heavier than the Hybrid, the Energi's numbers seem more in line with what most users are seein in the real world with the Hybrid. I wonder if the 47/47/47 will get revised? I hope this doesn't turn into a bad press episode like the Hyundai/Kia fiasco.

 

The story gets more interesting....

[stranger267]

Energy should show slightly better mpg, as it has bigger battery and can drive in EV-only mode faster, so I should expect for MAX 43city/40Hvy rating, which is well consistant with the practice.

[darrelld]

I got some information from the EPA that the EPA tested the 2013 Ford C-Max Energi thoroughly but they did not test the regular 2013 C-Max hybrid which is rated at 47/47/47. There have been some people who have been critical of these ratings and a number of articles written that question their validity so the EPA may do their own testing to confirm those results but that has not happened yet.

 

The Energi is rated at 44 City/ 41 Hwy/ 43 combined. Even though the Energi is 250 lbs heavier than the Hybrid, the Energi's numbers seem more in line with what most users are seein in the real world with the Hybrid. I wonder if the 47/47/47 will get revised? I hope this doesn't turn into a bad press episode like the Hyundai/Kia fiasco.

 

The story gets more interesting....

 

Interesting, I wonder why the EPA ignores the numerous articles written by the same publications about how TDI's always exceed the EPA rating by several MPG if they are truly interested in testing accuracy? For example on my way home from work yesterday in my Passat TDI I drove it like I stole most of the way and I still exceeded the EPA mpg avg? Could the EPA be biased and rig the tests against certain fuel saving technologies?

Edited November 28, 2012 by darrelld

[MikeB]

In my Jetta TDI, I always beat the EPA highway rating on my car while driving 70mph. It takes no special effort on my part, other than keeping the cruise control on 70, and perhaps keeping a few extra pounds of air in my tires. I don't know if the EPA is actually biased, but there is clearly something about diesel that does better in the real world than in the tests. My guess is that diesel efficiency goes up under mild load, and that it also improves when the engine gets hot, so a short (and therefore cold) slow-speed EPA test is accidentally biased against diesel. I'll be dissapointed if it takes extreme hypermiling effort for my coming C-Max to match the highway efficiency of my Jetta, but that appears to be the case. (On the other hand, the C-Max will easily beat my Jetta in the city, and doing the first 20 miles on electricity will completely change the game)

[jmckinley]

My guess is that Ford totally optimized the CMax for the EPA test, with no concessions to ordinary driving.

 

If/when the EPA does their own test I would bet that it will confirm Ford's 47/47/47. Ford is not stupid and would not have fudged their test. When I worked for Ford and we were testing brake performance to federal standards, corporate policy was to design to outperform the standard by 10% just to make sure every car built would at least meet the standard.

[darrelld]

In my Jetta TDI, I always beat the EPA highway rating on my car while driving 70mph. It takes no special effort on my part, other than keeping the cruise control on 70, and perhaps keeping a few extra pounds of air in my tires. I don't know if the EPA is actually biased, but there is clearly something about diesel that does better in the real world than in the tests. My guess is that diesel efficiency goes up under mild load, and that it also improves when the engine gets hot, so a short (and therefore cold) slow-speed EPA test is accidentally biased against diesel. I'll be dissapointed if it takes extreme hypermiling effort for my coming C-Max to match the highway efficiency of my Jetta, but that appears to be the case. (On the other hand, the C-Max will easily beat my Jetta in the city, and doing the first 20 miles on electricity will completely change the game)

 

We traded a 2010 Jetta TDI for our C-Max. The wife would average about 35mpg with mostly city driving. Highway mpg in the Jetta at Texas 75mph speed limits would be around 38mpg. I have yet to take any long highway trips in the C-Max but if it can duplicate the Jetta TDI mpg on the highway I will be happy. RUG is on average .80 less than diesel. The main reason I traded the Jetta was over the HPFP failure issues.

 

Realistically I don't see how any hybrid could duplicate diesel efficiency on longer highway driving given the extra weight of the battery's and motors. I can duplicate EPA in my C-Max because most of our intercity freeways have a 60mph speed limit and traffic doesn't permit maintaining those speeds for long.

Edited November 28, 2012 by darrelld

[stranger267]

My guess is that Ford totally optimized the CMax for the EPA test, with no concessions to ordinary driving.

 

 

 

Actually it is not a bad idea, and if they make a button 'Economy mode' (when computer use more EV and sacrify power to effectiveness) it can be great. For now, I feel as system can provide 1 - 2 better mpg by just better tuning.

 

One really BIG problem is EV mode on freeways - California freeways (not highways) never runs slower then 65, usually 70 - 75, it is stream speed and if you want to go slower, you became an obstacle for everyone - so if ford allow EV mode up to at least 70 mph instead of current 65 (65 is noncense as you never drive below 65 on freeways), it can improve freeway mileage 1 - 2 mpg.

[RobT]

I do think the car could be tweeked by Ford to do better on a test. I can think of a couple myself on when the battery kicks in, gas and the combined. That being said, I'm at 45.5 at 2000 miles, doesn't change much. My wife drives how she wants, and I drive for MPGs when I think about it. But I believe my wife drives the car incorrectly, she drives it like her Flex, and she's probably at the 37 mpgs like the others with the stiff feet. I think if you drive it like it should be, 47 to 50 is realistic. It requires re-training how to drive. So I think it's different from KIA and Hyundai.

[stranger267]

Tested today in optimal mode:

55 miles freeway

100% on cruise

63 mph cruise sharp (was 64 but it sometimes drived to 65 and it broke EV mode so I decreased it to 63)

 

Results are here - 43.5 mpg - first on free way and second short leg to home after it. I wiuld add 1 mpg on the night time.

 

So I would say that CMAX shows EPA numbers in ideal conditions. The same trip during the rain and wind and without cruise shows 35 mpg.

 

So the big issue is 65 mph maximum on EV - you actually can't drive so slow on main freeways and car stops using EV mode over 65 (and traffic flows in California are about 70 - 75). Ford should increase this to at least 70 = it can improve average mileage a lot.

 

Short leg:

 

 

Average for the full tank is not so good, of course

 

Edited November 29, 2012 by stranger267

[ptjones]

 

Actually it is not a bad idea, and if they make a button 'Economy mode' (when computer use more EV and sacrify power to effectiveness) it can be great. For now, I feel as system can provide 1 - 2 better mpg by just better tuning.

 

One really BIG problem is EV mode on freeways - California freeways (not highways) never runs slower then 65, usually 70 - 75, it is stream speed and if you want to go slower, you became an obstacle for everyone - so if ford allow EV mode up to at least 70 mph instead of current 65 (65 is noncense as you never drive below 65 on freeways), it can improve freeway mileage 1 - 2 mpg.

You never said whether you were doing any drafting. It's worth at least 5 mpg at 70mph otherwise I get 39mpg. At above 63mph continuously EV is going to be less than 10%, below 64mph I have been averaging between 50-60%EV. Big difference in MPG.

[rfruth]

So the EPA never tested the C-Max - all those window stickers are fictional, what am I missing here ?

[valkraider]

So the EPA never tested the C-Max - all those window stickers are fictional, what am I missing here ?

 

The EPA doesn't actually test cars themselves unless they have reason to believe the manufacturer is off. The EPA test are a set of test instructions and requirements which each manufacturer performs themselves. The EPA generally will check here or there but it is mostly just the manufacturers running the prescribed tests.

 

But in some cases if the EPA gets complaints or there is a lot of press, they will test cars themselves. This is what happened with Hyundai.

[skwcrj]

So the EPA never tested the C-Max - all those window stickers are fictional, what am I missing here ?

The EPA only tests 10-15% of all vehicles. The manufactureres conduct their own tests. Reference: Fueleconomy.gov - About EPA ratings

 

Stranger,

 

The last photo illustrates what I'm seeing from most owners who post the total miles/ EV miles. Your non-EV mpg was 27.5 mpg. That's horrible! Most owners get anywhere between 28-34 mpg when not in EV mode. My 1990 Acura Integra does as well or better than the C-Max on the highway (I know... apples and oranges ... wagon vs. coupe). My worse tank on my Prius V was 45 mpg. My trips long (1966 miles) and short (33 mi - one way daily commute) average about 50 mpg on the highway while just "driving it".

 

Something just doesn't add up when Ford claims that they got 47 mpg on the two highway portions of the EPA test.

 

BTW... I'm not picking on you. Most of the users can't get the C-Max to give a tank average (by that I mean a 400+ mile tank) of more than 40 mpg.

 

Thanks for posting those images!

 

Others,

 

Be careful when drafting... The front end of your brand new C-Max will end up pitted in not time at all along with a chipped windshield. That is not worth 1-5 additional mpg's in my book. You should see what I-5 here in Seattle did to the front of my Prius V after one year. And I wasn't drafting. I finally got a 3M Front End Mask in August. It has already taken one for the team.

[skwcrj]

Sorry Valkraider. Your beat me to it.

[valkraider]

Sorry Valkraider. Your beat me to it.

 

Jinx Jinx you owe me a coke, 123456789 10!

 

;)

 

Yours had more content in it though!

[Aptos Driver]

SKWCRJ -- How do you like your v (vee)?

[erwhitham]

With my Priuses, achieving 45mpg was rare but zero problems with either. I came to appreciate a hybrid for its cleaner emissions and chose the C Max for several reasons apart from mileage- though gas savings have been a real plus. Another was to support Ford--my first. So far I'm pleased. Crossing fingers that glitches are gone and I'll rarely need to visit the Service department.

[skwcrj]

SKWCRJ -- How do you like your v (vee)?

Let's see... Since we are on a Ford forum, It's horrible. ;) I hate it. ;) Horrible gas mileage. Toyota says the EPA combined mpg is 42 mpg. I mean look at my pitiful averege mpg on my Fuelly signature. ;) Too small. ;) Unreliable. ;)

 

Shoot me an offline message. I'll tell you more about it.

[Aptos Driver]

Shoot me an offline message. I'll tell you more about it.

Unfortunately, I can't send you a personal message; the site won't allow it because I haven't posted 40 times yet.

[Aptos Driver]

With my Priuses, achieving 45mpg was rare but zero problems with either. I came to appreciate a hybrid for its cleaner emissions and chose the C Max for several reasons apart from mileage- though gas savings have been a real plus. Another was to support Ford--my first. So far I'm pleased. Crossing fingers that glitches are gone and I'll rarely need to visit the Service department.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you as well. I sniffed around the Ford Fusion hybrid when I started considering replacing my wife's 2000 Volvo S70 with a hybrid sedan. I decided against it because Ford wasn't selling enough of them and I was concerned about reliability and Ford service departments' ability to deal with whatever problems might crop up. I ended up buying a 2012 Camry hybrid (XLE with all the trimmings). She and I love the car, and we're averaging over 40 mpg in mixed driving. This has whetted my apetite for a hybrid utility vehicle to replace my six-cylinder '07 RAV4 in a couple of years. One of the things I love about our Camry is the power that's available when you want it -- 200 hp. The Prius v's 134 combined hp sounds pretty anemic to me (I have yet to drive one). I like the C-Max's combined 188 hp (I haven't driven a C-Max yet either). But I want to see what Consumer Reports thinks about it and, frankly, how first adopters like you fare with it. By the way, the Ford Fusion Hybrid used to have a 2.4 or 2.5 L gas engine and 205 combined horses, but now has a 2.0 L gas engine and only 188 combined horse power like the C-Max. I don't know why they scaled it back except maybe to goose gas mileage.

[erwhitham]

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you as well. I sniffed around the Ford Fusion hybrid when I started considering replacing my wife's 2000 Volvo S70 with a hybrid sedan. I decided against it because Ford wasn't selling enough of them and I was concerned about reliability and Ford service departments' ability to deal with whatever problems might crop up. I ended up buying a 2012 Camry hybrid (XLE with all the trimmings). She and I love the car, and we're averaging over 40 mpg in mixed driving. This has whetted my apetite for a hybrid utility vehicle to replace my six-cylinder '07 RAV4 in a couple of years. One of the things I love about our Camry is the power that's available when you want it -- 200 hp. The Prius v's 134 combined hp sounds pretty anemic to me (I have yet to drive one). I like the C-Max's combined 188 hp (I haven't driven a C-Max yet either). But I want to see what Consumer Reports thinks about it and, frankly, how first adopters like you fare with it. By the way, the Ford Fusion Hybrid used to have a 2.4 or 2.5 L gas engine and 205 combined horses, but now has a 2.0 L gas engine and only 188 combined horse power like the C-Max. I don't know why they scaled it back except maybe to goose gas mileage.

CMax drives even smoother than Prius with more umphh.

[skwcrj]

Unfortunately, I can't send you a personal message; the site won't allow it because I haven't posted 40 times yet.

 

Good point. I guess I can't send a PM either.

 

Go visit http://priuschat.com/forum/

 

Lots of great info there.

 

The Prius V is .... Power Challenged with 134 hp. But, that is part of the secret sauce to get the kind of mpg's it gets. It does have an incredible amount of cargo space (50% more than the C-Max behind the second row).

 

[darrelld]

 

The last photo illustrates what I'm seeing from most owners who post the total miles/ EV miles. Your non-EV mpg was 27.5 mpg. That's horrible! Most owners get anywhere between 28-34 mpg when not in EV mode. My 1990 Acura Integra does as well or better than the C-Max on the highway (I know... apples and oranges ... wagon vs. coupe). My worse tank on my Prius V was 45 mpg. My trips long (1966 miles) and short (33 mi - one way daily commute) average about 50 mpg on the highway while just "driving it".

Your math is wrong for calculating ICE mpg. A portion of the gasoline energy consumed by the C-Max is used to charge the battery that in turn provides more total range. 

 

Edited November 30, 2012 by darrelld

[Aptos Driver]

Good point. I guess I can't send a PM either. Go visit http://priuschat.com/forum/ Lots of great info there. The Prius V is .... Power Challenged with 134 hp. But, that is part of the secret sauce to get the kind of mpg's it gets. It does have an incredible amount of cargo space (50% more than the C-Max behind the second row).

I'm also following the Prius v forum over at Priuschat. Thanks.

[stranger267]

Your non-EV mpg was 27.5 mpg.

 

THis is not accurate. ICU is used to charge battery as well as to rotate the wheels. For example, when I drive after the night on the short 5 miles daily trip, ICU works first 5 minutes as it must warm up engine and the cabin. So it runs on 2K rpm until everything is warm, and it uses excess of power to charge the battery (which is used later to drive car for the last 1 - 2 miles).

 

Overall idea is that ICU always works in 'best economy' mode, (2K rpm) except when you want so much power that 2K RPM + EV is not enough (then it runs in 4K RPM which is best power). Running on 'best economy' may provide extra power which is used to charge. Once battery is charged, ICU stop and car ride in EV mode for a while.

 

Problem is that it does not work well on 65 - 70 mph, which kills economy on california-s freeways.

Edited November 30, 2012 by stranger267