Ford to lower fuel economy rating on C-Max hybrid!

This news quote (my bold)

makes me wonder if we have really found a loophole Ford used.

Why would the C-max not be normally tested for emissions compliance ?

 

Its strange that these articles don't recognize the obvious misdirection going on here.

I don't for a minute that that the big problem between real world and c-max mileage is that it is based off the fusion. That was only one of the issues that car and driver brought up. The epa should definitely close that 1975 loophole in the testing procedure. A bigger problem was that the fudge factors in going from 2 cycle tests to the 5 cycle test just don't work well for hybrids and small turbos. An easy solution to those two things would be for the epa to say if volume is greater than X or mpg is greater than Y then the 5 cycle test is required. Perhaps X should be 25,000 cars/year, and Y 28 mpg, I am not sure what costs are really like. It seems doubtful that the fusion would do better than 46/42 on the 5 cycle test.

But that is the easy part. The tests should be revamped away from LA driving in 1960s to the way americans drive now. By simply pointing to needing to test the c-max separately from the fusion hybrid they are ignoring the much bigger problems.

 

No, for two reasons:

1. It is about time for Merkins to finally realize that the EPA tests are for COMPARISON PURPOSES between cars.

2. One has to drive aggressively to only reach EPA numbers. That is hardly something the authorities should pander to and institutionalize. It hardly matters if you, or the majority of Merkins drive that way.

 

What about my statement makes you think I missed that?

EPA should make different cars take the test if they have above a minimum volume or fuel economy. From the EPA statements there is no reason for this almost 40 year old loophole in the rules. It sounds like the EPA is going to change this.

EPA further should mandate at perhaps a slightly higher hurdle rate (volume or fuel economy) that vehicles go through the full 5 cycle test, instead of using math that has been shown to be wrong for efficient vehicles to go from 2 cycle to 5 cycle numbers. The fusion hybrid numbers use the 2 cycle test as does the c-max energi (the fusion energi uses the c-maxes numbers), the new c-max numbers come from the 5 cycle test. Car and driver says this is a problem. The EPA has mentioned that it may be a problem, but has not indicated if it will do anything. IMHO there is no reason not to change this right away as long as they give low volume manufactures a volume out to not spend the money. Note tesla did the 5 cycle test, and does not have the resources of ford, toyota, gm, nissan, honda, etc.

4 of the 5 cycles (city, hot, cold, highway) were created with a driving pattern already outdated in 1975. These should have been updated in the '90s. Even if they are updated YMMV because we have different driving patterns and live in different climates. There is no reason to test on 1940s LA though. It will take a longer time to improve the test. If real accelerations and highway speeds are used then SUVs are going to suffer. Understand the industry does not want change, but the EPA tests should not be dictated by the UAW, the Auto Dealers, the car manufacturers or the IIHS. The consumers should have a voice in these government tests. The EPA sounds like they understand they have a problem and are looking for input, whatever that means.

 

If they ever post anything in the Federal Register, let us know.

Bob Wilson

 

The last time they sought input from individuals they asked on fueleconomy.gov about labels. This time they will likely get an earful from consumer union, car and driver, NADA, the car companies, and CARB. I doubt they really will solicit, but maybe they will.

 

Besides reporting what goes on the window sticker they should be required to report all the raw data. This isn't 1975...putting it on the EPA Web site will cost almost nothing.

Mike

 

Thanks!

I've unfortunately been way too busy w/work and other things to chime in but Ford drops C-Max hybrid mpg rating, will compensate owners | The Detroit News (not sure if it's been linked to already)

I really do wonder how many others w/hybrids and/or high mpg vehicles have taken advantage of the stupid loophole to allow them to use inflated numbers on the Monroney sticker and advertising. It ought to be illegal IMHO. They should be required to test all models.​

 

In addition to any weight difference, the smallest wheels on the MKZ are 2 inches larger than those on the Fusion. The Lincoln was released later than the Fusion. The time between might have been enough for complaints about the larger wheeled Fusions fuel economy to prod Ford into testing the MKZ seperately.

An issue, beyond lobbyists, with updating the base tests is with the meshing with regulations. Giving consumers a better number for comparison is one thing, but how will changes impact, not just CAFE, but emission levels? Will the bins need adjustment? Is it worth the investment? Compared to Europe and Japan, the EPA sticker numbers are close for the majority of vehicles. For those that aren't, actually testing with the 5 tests might fix it now.

 

Not at all. CAFE uses the unadjusted 2 test results.

 

I know. My question was with the hypothetical changing of the two base tests.

 

That is not being considered. The numbers consumers will see are:

• fudging of the raw results
• inclusion of more tests.

 

Leave the two test alone as they provide a common metric that has historical precedence. The problem was trying to project what a simple "mph vs MPG" chart would provide. It can be augmented with a "gallons-to-mph" chart showing the acceleration cost including the regeneration advantage. Together, they would pretty well eliminate auto writer's bias and inflated claims by auto salesmen.

Bob Wilson

 

this is why there is only one leader in hybrid technology. honestly, i would never buy a ford/lincoln hybrid car, same goes for hyundai and honda. they just don't have the experience that toyota does.

 

Ford hybrid sales have been better than expected for the fusion and c-max. The closest head to head is fusion versus camry hybrid. They are different cars but the heavier fusion gets around the same fuel economy. I don't think there is any real technological gap between ford and toyota on hybrid tech today. The camry simply sells more, so the camry hybrid sells more, but a higher percentage of fusion buyers choose the hybrid.

The problem here is ford didn't do 5 cycle tests on each of its 3 2L varients. Today we only have one 5 cycle test on the c-max. There was a sleaziness to what ford did. All the big car companies have done things more sleazy though. The rules need to change though, as Ford did follow the rules.

Who really cares if we can compare to legacy? The bulk of Americans don't drive like they did over 50 years ago in LA. Since car manufacturers, even according to the EPA build there cars to do well on the test, don't we want them to do well with today's driving patterns, not one from the ancient past? We use these things to set standards for fuel economy and emissions, if the tests are off these goals will also be off. We can calibrate the new tests to the old ones though to comply with the cafe standards.

I don't think the EPA ever attempted to project such a chart, and this is not in there charter. They were attempting to give consumers a fair comparison tool between cars. We have gone two rounds now. The hybrids were deemed to have an unfair advantage on the 2 cycle test. We added 1 new test and 3 other conditions to the 2 cycle. Even with 5 cycles though we are still way off on non aerodynamic cars.

 

I do because we call it 'moving the goal posts.' In effect, we've had two, well defined tests used for the CAFE numbers. If we change the CAFE test protocol there will be significant impact on how engineers handle the 'new requirements.' But I've tried to point out CAFE and emissions testing does not provide easily reproducible MPG numbers.

A standard day, cruise control managed, 10 mile, bi-directional, low-wind, flat test with an "mph vs MPG" would give a metric you, me, and the next new poster complaining about their mileage something to start with.

Now a few of us know the EPA test protocols and how to drive to achieve their numbers. But trying to explain it to lead-footed, non-technical newbies who come here complaining about their mileage . . . In contrast, an "mph vs MPG" chart with the test conditions described 'heads them off at the pass.'

Bob Wilson

 

We don't still include buggy whips in the cpi. We don't still have black men as slaves and count them as 3/5ths of a man. We don't build houses with asbestos. Why would we keep metrics that go along with those things? They are part of the countries past. We don't readjust the cpi with buggy whips to avoid moving goal posts. We aren't in that game anymore. Why would we consider that it is prudent to still think we are driving the same way as a minority did over 50 years ago in LA. The game has changed. We now require helmets and protect the quarter back in football. It is long past time to change the rules. The epa already changed some rules in 2008. Do you want to go back? That doesn't seem to make much sense unless you want inflated numbers.

The tests were made for cafe and emissions. If you want to test with flawed tests, you will get flawed results. Then you have to keep on having the same discussion. The post 2008 epa math changes do make most cars have more realistic numbers, but they still have deeply flawed rules in Incorporated in them. Otherwise what is the matter with 47mpg for the c-max. It followed the rules to get that number. If they are just numbers for numbers sake, why not leave the rules the way they are.

This is anouther flawed 70s type metric. What is the start up cost, and what is the hvac load, and what about the acceleration to get there. If I go 4 miles at 65mph at 90 degrees in my Prius i get vastly worse mileage than if I go 200 miles at 60 degrees. This was part of the problem with the pre-2008 protocol, but there are other problems. Your charts are supplemental for long trips. They are meaningless for most daily drives.

I challenge you or anyone else to follow some of my routes, drive safely without really pissing everyone off, and get epa numbers. It simply won't work. YMMV and no test will be perfect, but when we start with an ancient test that everyone knows was based on LA in the distant past, you start to need all kinds of adjustments. I am absolutely sure that my prius would be getting better mileage if I lived in Palo alto. I would crawl there on the 101, and weather rarely needed air conditioning or much heat. The purpose of the epa stickers is not a goal. It isn't to try to get people into long commutes. Its to give people a decent idea between different cars. If you drive slowly on the tests its going to make SUVs look better. Why would we want that? If we is the average citizen we wouldn't, but if we are Toyota, Gm, and Ford it is to sell more expensive cars. Time to fix the test and not make excuses for it. I don't think the prius would lose much more than a couple mpg, the c-max would lose more, the sienna and sequoia a much higher percent of mpg.