Ford Motors sued over mileage efficiency of C-MAX

[C-MaxJaxon]

Found this while looking at recent stories in el Goog. Couldn't find any other sites confirming the story.

 

http://gotaclassaction.com/ford-motors-sued-over-mileage-efficiency-of-c-max-hybrid-and-fusion-hybrid/

This consumer fraud class action is based on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s false and misleading marketing campaign for its 2013 model year C-MAX Hybrid and Fusion Hybrid (“Subject Vehicles”). Ford launched the C-MAX Hybrid in October, 2012, touting the vehicle as “America’s most fuel efficient and affordable hybrid utility vehicle.”

[Tdefny]

Not a happy development. Most of these cars aren't even broken in yet. As far as I can tell so far (at only 800 miles), my Max is getting what it is supposed to or better, at least on the display and I am not a hypermiler. I remember a lot of deliberate misinformation and negative press when the Prius and Insight first came out. I wonder if this a modern case of that because a quality car like the "subject vehicles" are a class ahead of what is out there on many levels and could be inconvenient to the competition.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Mine is at 44 or 42. Fuelly says something while my Lifetime says another. Go figure, I just give up.

[Laurel]

It is starting to seem that there is a concerted smear campaign happening against the C-Max.  I just read an article from the National Post with the author saying the best he could achieve was 7.5 L per 100 kilometers.  This is such BS!  I think a person can guess who is behind the smearing.

 

Edit: That is 31 mpg which is nonsense!

Edited December 19, 2012 by Laurel

[darrelld]

It is starting to seem that there is a concerted smear campaign happening against the C-Max. I just read an article from the National Post with the author saying the best he could achieve was 7.5 L per 100 kilometers. This is such BS! I think a person can guess who is behind the smearing.

 

Edit: That is 31 mpg which is nonsense!

I just completed a 400 mile road trip and attempted to duplicate the low mpg numbers the press is reporting.

 

My mpg dropped to 32 mpg by setting the eco cruise at 80 mph. 75 mph is 36 mpg, and 70 mph is 40 mpg. Impressive mileage at such speeds and the C-Max felt as if there was plenty of power to spare.

 

As a reference my Passat TDI will average 39-38 mpg at 80 mph on diesel fuel (10% more energy and 30% more expensive) and has similar weight/size class to the C-Max. Both have a 2.0 liter engine. Calculating the cost per highway mile @ 80 mph of TDI vs C-Max yields the same .09 per mile. Drop below 80 mph and the C-Max price per mile starts drop below the TDI.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2012 by darrelld

[valkraider]

Someone filing a lawsuit is not the same as someone *winning* a lawsuit.

[salprint]

I have to stop reading all this stuff....its so frustrating.  I get over the 47mpg on my C-Max on a regular basis.  I for one will not be part of any lawsuit if it happens.

[MikeB]

Actually, that's a very bad sign. The problem with a class action suit is that the only people to make money are the lawyers. Unless we explicitly opt-out, then at best Ford will settle with the suing lawyers for what sounds like a big chunk of money, but individual C-Max buyers will get something worth about a single tank of gas.

 

Of course, I think the core problem is the EPA tests themselves, not Ford's claims about the test results, so Ford will probably fight this and win easily.

[AgentCMAX]

 

Of course, I think the core problem is the EPA tests themselves, not Ford's claims about the test results, so Ford will probably fight this and win easily.

 

The problem is also these greedy class-action lawsuits lawyers wanting to make a quick buck before all the facts are out.  But at the same time, perhaps this is the only way to get the facts out!?!?

[From Speed6ing 2 C-Maxing]

As long as Ford did not misstate the results of their tests run to the EPA's specifications, then I'm ok.

 

Someone (credible automotive journalist) should just put the car on a dyno, and run the EPA tests so we can all be done with this.

[AgentCMAX]

I find it strange that an organization like CR can influence what the EPA do based on testing that is completely different from EPA test guidelines.  Why bother having a standard approach to testing if you allow others to influence you because they tested the products differently?

Edited December 19, 2012 by AgentCMAX

[mtberman]

CR can influence whomever they wish. They answer to no one. But they don't really influence me any longer.

 

I grew up in a household with a CR subscription. And I subscribed to it until I was about 30 years old. I'm a car nut and a data analysis/data presentation guy, and I've always loved the pages of detailed information they provided. But as I got older and more educated, I kept noting that CR would rate certain cars lower than everyone else, like JD Power, Strategic Vision, various car magazines, etc. And cars that were panned by testers and survey companies kept making the CR "recommended" list. I would sometimes rent cars like Corollas and Camrys when I traveled, and find myself thinking "Am I really driving a CR 'Best Buy' car? This is an awful car!" Then I'd rent a Hyundai that CR listed as "do not buy" and found it to be great, and to have very good initial quality survey ratings.

 

Anyway, it became unavoidable to me that CR was out of step. So I did some research. I found that CR's mileage, safety and "reliability" ratings use their own methods. Some are fair and valid, but few are aligned with other methods and procedures. To rate reliability, they survey their own members. They don't talk to the general public, they don't do random sample, and they don't ask fleet managers. CR surveys are an indication of consumer perception of a narrow group of people, not a realistic portrayal of how cars really perform.

 

As for the topic of this thread (MPG), CR tests are way different from the EPA's. Heck, CR's tests might even be better or more accurate than the EPA. But that's irrelevant when they start portraying their data as facts, and especially problematic for me when they disparage certain brands while not criticizing others. Example: Where was CR when they tested the Prius C and got 19 MPG less than the EPA city mileage rating? They said nothing at the time, and now claim they got within 7 MPG of the sticker. But their original review is still available online, and it says they got 34 MPG city vs the 53 MPG city EPA rating on the sticker. I don't recall any scandal or special press release about that.

 

It's just deceptive IMO to call out Ford when they kept giving Toyota a pass. CR uses different data sets and methods, that are based on different assumptions, to challenge the EPA. Their data may be valid but their accusations are BS.

Edited December 19, 2012 by mtberman

[JayCo59]

I'm glad to see someone is getting the rated fuel ecomomy, but not me. :rant2:   I'm driviing this car without the heat in the morning and using Hypermileing techniques and I get 35 MPG in the AM and I can sometimes get 48 MPG on the way home (my trip is about 15 miles one way).  But my average over the first 2000 miles is 39 MPG.  That's a far cry from the 47 claimed.

Just tonight I drove about 40 miles all highway with ECO Cruze at 61 MPH (so the motor would carry some of the load) and I got 40 MPG.  IMHO I should be able to set the cruze at 65 MPH and get 47 MPG.

I agree any class action lawsuit will probably net us next to nothing, but I bought this car based on the savings calculated with 47 MPG not 39, that's 20% (+ or -) and I feel cheated!

Maybe it's the winter formula's for gas and the cold temperatures.  I'm hoping that the spring and summer MPG numbers will improve.

Jay

[Wingrider01]

CR can influence whomever they wish. They answer to no one. But they don't really influence me any longer.

 

I grew up in a household with a CR subscription. And I subscribed to it until I was about 30 years old. I'm a car nut and a data analysis/data presentation guy, and I've always loved the pages of detailed information they provided. But as I got older and more educated, I kept noting that CR would rate certain cars lower than everyone else, like JD Power, Strategic Vision, various car magazines, etc. And cars that were panned by testers and survey companies kept making the CR "recommended" list. I would sometimes rent cars like Corollas and Camrys when I traveled, and find myself thinking "Am I really driving a CR 'Best Buy' car? This is an awful car!" Then I'd rent a Hyundai that CR listed as "do not buy" and found it to be great, and to have very good initial quality survey ratings.

 

Anyway, it became unavoidable to me that CR was out of step. So I did some research. I found that CR's mileage, safety and "reliability" ratings use their own methods. Some are fair and valid, but few are aligned with other methods and procedures. To rate reliability, they survey their own members. They don't talk to the general public, they don't do random sample, and they don't ask fleet managers. CR surveys are an indication of consumer perception of a narrow group of people, not a realistic portrayal of how cars really perform.

 

As for the topic of this thread (MPG), CR tests are way different from the EPA's. Heck, CR's tests might even be better or more accurate than the EPA. But that's irrelevant when they start portraying their data as facts, and especially problematic for me when they disparage certain brands while not criticizing others. Example: Where was CR when they tested the Prius C and got 19 MPG less than the EPA city mileage rating? They said nothing at the time, and now claim they got within 7 MPG of the sticker. But their original review is still available online, and it says they got 34 MPG city vs the 53 MPG city EPA rating on the sticker. I don't recall any scandal or special press release about that.

 

It's just deceptive IMO to call out Ford when they kept giving Toyota a pass. CR uses different data sets and methods, that are based on different assumptions, to challenge the EPA. Their data may be valid but their accusations are BS.

 

I gave up believing CR had a shred of accuracy when they rated some very expensive car seats, since I had just bought one about 6 months before the report came out, I believed it and got rid of it at a great loss, come to find out 3 months down the line their testing methods where invalid and the entire consumer reports article and recommendations where incorrect and the highway safety boards where more accurate - if they screwed something up like that then all their test methods and conclusions are questionable and not worth the powder and shot to blow them away

[darrelld]

CR can influence whomever they wish. They answer to no one. But they don't really influence me any longer.

 

I grew up in a household with a CR subscription. And I subscribed to it until I was about 30 years old. I'm a car nut and a data analysis/data presentation guy, and I've always loved the pages of detailed information they provided. But as I got older and more educated, I kept noting that CR would rate certain cars lower than everyone else, like JD Power, Strategic Vision, various car magazines, etc. And cars that were panned by testers and survey companies kept making the CR "recommended" list. I would sometimes rent cars like Corollas and Camrys when I traveled, and find myself thinking "Am I really driving a CR 'Best Buy' car? This is an awful car!" Then I'd rent a Hyundai that CR listed as "do not buy" and found it to be great, and to have very good initial quality survey ratings.

 

Anyway, it became unavoidable to me that CR was out of step. So I did some research. I found that CR's mileage, safety and "reliability" ratings use their own methods. Some are fair and valid, but few are aligned with other methods and procedures. To rate reliability, they survey their own members. They don't talk to the general public, they don't do random sample, and they don't ask fleet managers. CR surveys are an indication of consumer perception of a narrow group of people, not a realistic portrayal of how cars really perform.

 

As for the topic of this thread (MPG), CR tests are way different from the EPA's. Heck, CR's tests might even be better or more accurate than the EPA. But that's irrelevant when they start portraying their data as facts, and especially problematic for me when they disparage certain brands while not criticizing others. Example: Where was CR when they tested the Prius C and got 19 MPG less than the EPA city mileage rating? They said nothing at the time, and now claim they got within 7 MPG of the sticker. But their original review is still available online, and it says they got 34 MPG city vs the 53 MPG city EPA rating on the sticker. I don't recall any scandal or special press release about that.

 

It's just deceptive IMO to call out Ford when they kept giving Toyota a pass. CR uses different data sets and methods, that are based on different assumptions, to challenge the EPA. Their data may be valid but their accusations are BS.

 

 

Ford called them out at a press conference and cited CR's own test;

Edited December 29, 2012 by darrelld

[plus 3 golfer]

I always find mileage threads amusing.  If you haven't seen this MT video watch it and note the reference to Ford at about 6:60 potentionally "gaming" the software to maximize EPA fuel economy.  If this "gaming" turns out to be true (Ford intentionally optimized the software for the specific EPA test conditions to deceive the public), then Ford could lose.   IMHO, the merits of the suit will depend on what would be found in discovery.  However, I would hope that Ford did not "game" the system.

 

All I can say is that every independent review on the C-Max I've read /seen gets less than 40 mpg in the real world with most right around what CR got. If one drives more conservatively than the testers, then ones MPG will likly be higher.   For example, I will drive a lot of miles on a 12 lane freeway with a speed limit of 65 MPH.  I choose to drive at around 70 mph with the normal flow of traffic (as my guess most reviewers would do).  There are some that are driving at less than 65 mph in the far right hand lanes. 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2012 by Plus 3 Golfer

[CNCGeek]

I always find mileage threads amusing.  If you haven't seen this MT video watch it and note the reference to Ford at about 6:60 potentionally "gaming" the software to maximize EPA fuel economy.  If this "gaming" turns out to be true (Ford intentionally optimized the software for the specific EPA test conditions to deceive the public), then Ford could lose.   IMHO, the merits of the suit will depend on what would be found in discovery.  However, I would hope that Ford did not "game" the system.

 

All I can say is that every independent review on the C-Max I've read /seen gets less than 40 mpg in the real world with most right around what CR got. If one drives more conservatively than the testers, then ones MPG will likly be higher.   For example, I will drive a lot of miles on a 12 lane freeway with a speed limit of 65 MPH.  I choose to drive at around 70 mph with the normal flow of traffic (as my guess most reviewers would do).  There are some that are driving at less than 65 mph in the far right hand lanes. 

 

Hopefully they did not game the numbers, it would be pretty short sighted and would not do much for brand loyalty, and even less if they want to steal away Prius buyers.  Right now I think that the problem is with the tests, but if on the other hand Ford tweaked the software specifically for the test (at the expense of real world economy), that would not be cool.

 

EDIT: The way I read the statement from Ford here is that they did not play with the software for the EPA test.  This is more damning of the EPA tests since the Prius V (a lighter, less powerful and slightly more areodynamic car) received a lower EPA rating (42mpg combined) than the C-max while the reverse is being seen with the real world data on Fuelly.  Ford also said that it could take 6000 miles to break in the car with a possible 5mpg improvement - it seems like an oddly high number, but even so, I doubt there are many on the road with that many miles yet.

 

It would have been great to have an eco button to let drivers detune the car if they decided that fuel economy was more important than "fun".  Hopefully they will add some similar feature to future hybrids since few people buy a hybrid for "fun" over fuel economy.

Edited December 30, 2012 by CNCGeek

[plus 3 golfer]

I don't buy the 5 mpg improvement either after the car is broken in.  Maybe a few % gain but not say 5 mpg / 37 mpg or 13.5% gain.  But time will tell. 

 

What makes more sense to me with respect to reviewers / owners seeing significantly lower fuel economy than EPA relates more to the responsiveness, available power, quietness of the C-Max vs most hybrids.   If I don't set cruise, it's very easy for my speed to creep up well above the speed limit whether that's cruising where speed limits are 45 or 75 mph.  This just doesn't happen in a Prius. Give the Prius gas and you can hear the engine reving. Not as much in the C-Max. The C-Max is simply more responsive to slight variations in throttle and is significantly quieter (less road and engine noise in the cabin) at highway speeds.  IMHO, it is harder to drive the C-Max for economy than the Prius.  An eco button would make sense.

 

Probably in the Spring, I will run some mpg vs speed tests and see how the C-Max stacks up against this graph. The W11, W20, and W30 are the Prius 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation models, respectively.

 

Edited December 30, 2012 by Plus 3 Golfer

[ptjones]

I always find mileage threads amusing.  If you haven't seen this MT video watch it and note the reference to Ford at about 6:60 potentionally "gaming" the software to maximize EPA fuel economy.  If this "gaming" turns out to be true (Ford intentionally optimized the software for the specific EPA test conditions to deceive the public), then Ford could lose.   IMHO, the merits of the suit will depend on what would be found in discovery.  However, I would hope that Ford did not "game" the system.

 

All I can say is that every independent review on the C-Max I've read /seen gets less than 40 mpg in the real world with most right around what CR got. If one drives more conservatively than the testers, then ones MPG will likly be higher.   For example, I will drive a lot of miles on a 12 lane freeway with a speed limit of 65 MPH.  I choose to drive at around 70 mph with the normal flow of traffic (as my guess most reviewers would do).  There are some that are driving at less than 65 mph in the far right hand lanes. 

I just got back from my trip to Phoenix and I can tell you Phoenix is a CMAX mileage paridise. I was easily getting 50mpg around town with the temps around 50deg.F. I filled up near Bell Ford and jumped on the 101 fwy to Suprise with traffic going 70+mph drafting and got 52.5mpg for the trip and temps in the 50's.  I do have my grill covers on for a plus 3mpg and I had 5.5k miles on the CMAX at the time. I have a hard time believing that my car is that much better than yours. Have you checked your odometer with GPS? I gained .5mpg on mine. Drafting safely can improve your MPG by 3mpg. Some of us make a challenge to ourselves to do better each time we go out and then figure out what we could have done better. It's a work in progress.

[plus 3 golfer]

I just got back from my trip to Phoenix and I can tell you Phoenix is a CMAX mileage paridise. I was easily getting 50mpg around town with the temps around 50deg.F. I filled up near Bell Ford and jumped on the 101 fwy to Suprise with traffic going 70+mph drafting and got 52.5mpg for the trip and temps in the 50's.  I do have my grill covers on for a plus 3mpg and I had 5.5k miles on the CMAX at the time. I have a hard time believing that my car is that much better than yours. Have you checked your odometer with GPS? I gained .5mpg on mine. Drafting safely can improve your MPG by 3mpg. Some of us make a challenge to ourselves to do better each time we go out and then figure out what we could have done better. It's a work in progress.

 

I only have 284 miles on the car.  So it's really too early to talk about my mileage.  Also, you do realize you dropped 150 feet from Bell Ford to Surprise? 

 

Today on a 12 mile trip to Home Depot, instead of taking the Superstition Freeway (US 60) the whole way, I took a parallel street for the last 6.5 miles with either stop signs or a traffic light each mile and speed limits of 35 - 45 mph.  So the trip was 1 mile of residential to US 60, about 4.5 miles on US60 with speed limit of 55 mph and 3 lights and then the Freeway.  Temperature was about 47*F and wind was calm.  My home is at 1830 feet and Home Depot is about 1530.

 

I got 54 mpg to Home Depot and 47.0 mpg for the entire trip.  So, that means that the return trip average was 40 mpg.  So, that's about 2.3 mpg per 100 feet in elevation change.   I made the same trip yesterday but took the freeway and the average going to Home Depot was about 46+ mpg and overall was about 41.

 

My point is driving conditions make a huge difference in mpg.  As is said I will run tests on speed vs mpg (as I did in my Jetta TDI) and post the results once I get about 5k miles on the car.  

 

Can you post comparative data showing several runs (different speeds, temperatures, and so forth) of say 10 miles with and without the grill covers?  If you really want to sell them, I suggest you do such. 

[dusty]

anyone using premium fuel? does it make a diff? 

[darrelld]

I only have 284 miles on the car.  So it's really too early to talk about my mileage.  Also, you do realize you dropped 150 feet from Bell Ford to Surprise? 

 

Today on a 12 mile trip to Home Depot, instead of taking the Superstition Freeway (US 60) the whole way, I took a parallel street for the last 6.5 miles with either stop signs or a traffic light each mile and speed limits of 35 - 45 mph.  So the trip was 1 mile of residential to US 60, about 4.5 miles on US60 with speed limit of 55 mph and 3 lights and then the Freeway.  Temperature was about 47*F and wind was calm.  My home is at 1830 feet and Home Depot is about 1530.

 

I got 54 mpg to Home Depot and 47.0 mpg for the entire trip.  So, that means that the return trip average was 40 mpg.  So, that's about 2.3 mpg per 100 feet in elevation change.   I made the same trip yesterday but took the freeway and the average going to Home Depot was about 46+ mpg and overall was about 41.

 

My point is driving conditions make a huge difference in mpg.  As is said I will run tests on speed vs mpg (as I did in my Jetta TDI) and post the results once I get about 5k miles on the car.  

 

Can you post comparative data showing several runs (different speeds, temperatures, and so forth) of say 10 miles with and without the grill covers?  If you really want to sell them, I suggest you do such. 

 

Always enjoy reading your detailed analysis, how do you like the C-Max so far?

[valkraider]

you do realize you dropped 150 feet from Bell Ford to Surprise? 

My daily commute goes from 400 feet, over 1100 feet, back down to 100 feet. Parts of it at a 31% grade. ;) When I was a kid my commute took me from 8000 feet (my home) to 5000 feet (my school) and all the ups and downs in between. I am a mountain boy, I always am amazed when flatlanders talk about 100 feet as though it is a big change. I have had driveways with 150 feet of elevation change. :)

So, that's about 2.3 mpg per 100 feet in elevation change.

I am not sure that 2.3mpg holds accurate really. Certainly there is going to be some efficiency loss of course, there is no way around that. But I doubt it could be 2.3mpg at per 100 feet, because that would mean that by 2000 feet elevation or so we would be at zero mpg.

 

There are people in Colorado and New Mexico who are getting similar economy as people at sea level. The engine oxygen sensor should be automatically adjusting up to a point (anything over about 7000 feet and a normally aspirated engine starts to really suck wind, and no amount of adjusting can offset that much lack of oxygen without turbo or supercharging).

 

There are so many variables here. At higher elevations air is thinner which means reduced horsepower but also means reduced wind resistance. However at higher elevations air is colder which also can increase air resistance while additionally putting more demands on climate controls.

[plus 3 golfer]

My daily commute goes from 400 feet, over 1100 feet, back down to 100 feet. Parts of it at a 31% grade. ;) When I was a kid my commute took me from 8000 feet (my home) to 5000 feet (my school) and all the ups and downs in between. I am a mountain boy, I always am amazed when flatlanders talk about 100 feet as though it is a big change. I have had driveways with 150 feet of elevation change. :)

 

I am not sure that 2.3mpg holds accurate really. Certainly there is going to be some efficiency loss of course, there is no way around that. But I doubt it could be 2.3mpg at per 100 feet, because that would mean that by 2000 feet elevation or so we would be at zero mpg.

 

There are people in Colorado and New Mexico who are getting similar economy as people at sea level. The engine oxygen sensor should be automatically adjusting up to a point (anything over about 7000 feet and a normally aspirated engine starts to really suck wind, and no amount of adjusting can offset that much lack of oxygen without turbo or supercharging).

 

There are so many variables here. At higher elevations air is thinner which means reduced horsepower but also means reduced wind resistance. However at higher elevations air is colder which also can increase air resistance while additionally putting more demands on climate controls.

I'm not talking about efficiency loss of operating a vehcile at one elevation vs another elevation.  That 2.3 mpg only applies to the 12 miles that I traveled.  I should have said that the drop is very gradual at about 30 feet per mile per the topo maps.  In essence, if I started a car on a 300 foot ramp, I could coast in neutral without using any fuel for a good ways maybe 1.5 mile.  Then for the next 10.5 miles I traveled on flat ground and got 47 mpg.  What is my overall mpg? It would be 53.7 mpg for 12 miles.  There would be some starting elevation such that I could coast the entire 12 miles and burn zero fuel. 

 

Again the point of that example was that ptjones got XX mpg but he was going downhill.  I wanted to show the difference a 300 ft change in elevation made in 12 miles.  A 3600 pound car uses / has to overcome the potential energy of 300 feet in elevation.  Elevation change has a significant affect on fuel economy as do other conditions.

 

BOTTOM LINE:  Drive more, worry less about how your mpg compares to others as there are simply too many variables to take into account (including grill covers, drafting and so forth). :)  

[valkraider]

Ahh, I see. That makes more sense.

 

The energy used to overcome elevation changes, not the elevation itself. :)

 

Got it.

 

I have a just over 2 mile decent of almost 1000 feet where I can regen the whole way down. Before my C-Max that energy was all chewed up in brake pad dust. :)