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

Huh? It takes time and money to test. If they came out the same, it wouldn't really matter. They only tested the fusion on 2 cycle test it appears. Tesla tested the S on 5 cycles, because they knew the epa was going to test it on 5 cycles. The volt was tested on 2 cycles because that is what the epa told gm it was going to test it on. I believe the prius phv was also 2 cycles. EPA has all the cards here. The automakers lobby it to give it rules and loopholes. The low speeds encourage SUV mileage. Why in the world would ford be better off knowing what the numbers were?

They were playing by the rules that favored them, and the dealers told people that you needed to drive a certain way and then you got the 60 mpg in the city. Toyota corporate told this same junk to the magazines. They are all a little sleazy. Toyota and Honda helped delay the test changes for a long time.

Ford followed the rules. They were allowed to do the same math as the gen II prius did to go from 2 cycles to 5. The math just doesn't work when you can do what these new ford hybrids can do. That is why they need to do all 5 cycles for real, and not just on paper. EPA needs to change that rule. EPA doesn't penalize hybrids for the cold starts and high speeds. Prius because of its low drag still would do well at high speeds, others like the Hihy wouldn't do as well with revised testing.

[/quote]

Agree with the advertising mess, but all the magazines said they couldn't get the mileage either. I don't think that most of the buyers were fooled. I don't think most of the prius buyers in 2006 and 2007 were fooled either. There was a great drop in prii sales in 2008 after prius had to use the new rules. Prius liftback sales peaked in 2007, before the labels changed.

 

My Prius vagon over the last ~ 4700 miles driving about 60% highways at 65 mph average, 40% country roads in the SW summer in New Mexico using AC. 54.6 mpg on the meter. I'm a satisfied customer; somehow I doubt similar posts from C-max customers are floating around the web

 

With so many changes to software and hardware, I hope Ford tested them thoroughly and not sacrifice on reliability and durability.

A concern I have with the software update is, it allows engine shutdown as high as 85 mph, up from 62 mph. That can't be good for MG1 as it will rev very fast.

Guess what? 2014 model would have hardware gear ratio change, probably to slow down MG1 at 85 mph engine off speed. Similar or exactly to how it was done for the Energi plugin model.

A scenario I see is, the 2013 model transmission dying early after the warranty expires (60k miles) and the replacement would cost $3,000. Perhaps, the need to boost the MPG to Prius V beating 43 MPG being placed higher?

That kind of short-term thinking would just hurt the hybrid industry. I hope I am wrong.

 

It was largely due to the tax credit expiration and the phase out kicked in.

 

Really think Ford didn't test and know what the real world figures were? Sure they gamed the EPA rules and went with the comparison ads. But that only invited real world comparisons that were bound to show the true merits of the two cars. You have to think they ran several test mules lots and lots of miles under test and real world simulations just for functionality and durability reasons. So you know they had to have lots of instrumentation data available as they worked out the programming of the electronics.

I bought the v because I needed the trunk room and liked the mileage and because the cars that it replaced were aging into the zone where they might need some work. I looked briefly at the C-max and the trunk room just wasn't significantly bigger than my wife's sedan (or the Prius hatchback) so I couldn't see it hauling a 6' Xmas tree to the dump or carrying 3/4 people to the airport plus their luggage for a 2 week overseas trip, things I need only occasionally to do but don't want to rent a truck for or go borrow a neighbors. I actually prefer the C-max exterior styling and it may be both quieter and accelerate quicker but as a utilitarian vehicle it just didn't match my criteria. It may match yours. I just drive the v, no special tricks. A/C on and cruise where it makes driving easier. Another MPG after 40 makes no difference to me.

 

44 vs 45 MPG city. Highway is the same at 40 MPG. In the real world, V could beat C-Max easily. Tests has shown this before the software update.

But then we don't know what Ford did with the software update. Will it cycle the gas engine on and off at 70 mph and load the battery with more recharge cycles? That's one way to shorten the battery life.

Ford does not mention that V has 7 cu. ft more interior space. EPA did not classified both cars in the same category. V is mid size station wagon while C-Max is a large car. So I am not sure why their PR is comparing to V and claiming it as class leading.

 

If memory serves me:
the early EPA test that put honda Gen I Insight at 70mpg and Prius Gen II at 60 was in effect LONG before either of these two came into existence. The EPA test was a fiction created by the huge land barge companies that wanted to pretend beasts like the Hummer ... the Excursion ... the Suburban / Tahoe / Expedition ad nausium got more MPG's then you could ever hope for. Irony of ironies ... the land barge cry babies were the ones who cried foul, when the same test that served them so well - also fueled the high results on hybrids. so they cut of their noses to spite their faces ... and we got more realistic tests ... as I recall. Bottom line ... there's enough sleaze to spread among all the manufacturers when it comes to owning up to MPG's.
.

 

Yes, I would agree. But then since most people can't do the math how would they figure it out?

Mike

 

Well... well... well...

The dog finally eats his own vomit.

 

I think the pre-2008 test was 2 cycles. They added 3 more cycles for higher speed, AC/Heater usage and cold start test.

 

GM and FORD over the years are famous for bringing out new cars Before it was ready..................
AKA Pinto, Pontiac Fiero, Ford Escape, etc........... I do not want to be a Guinea Pig again for a Hybrid I'll stick with the proven Prius

Kill Your Darlings: The Birth and Death of the Pontiac Fiero

 

Would be great to have a C-Max with the new software update, in there. Just to see the before and after effect.

 

They would be worse off if it ever came to light in these class action suites. Ignorance is bliss.

"Schwartz paper
In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[4] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[22][23]
According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 3 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
Schwartz's study said:

• The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
• The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
• The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037)."

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the 50+ page study those conclusions came from:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

 

I totally agree with the last line. When people think ford is the first to try this sleazy move, they have missed a lot. Just for perspective, here is the car and driver piece.

Why Is the EPA So Bad at Estimating Hybrid Fuel Economy? – Feature – Car and Driver

Not bad for 1975, and the test along with cafe standards passed in the ford administration (Gearald Ford not ford motor company) drastically raised fuel economy in the 1980s. The test was drastically outdated by the late 80s. By the early 90s everyone knew about the loophole in cafe that favored SUVs, and the slow test gave them an advantage in testing. It wasn't until 2008 when there was a partial fix, and this left two major loopholes that ford used in the c-max.

Run 5 cycles on the fusion hybrid and you will likely get 44mpg. Even the 44mpg is going to be difficult to achieve in the real world because those old 1975 tests are still heavily weighted.

 

If you look at the new epa highway for the c-max, its about equal with the prius liftback delta. That is if you are doing 50mph-70mph highway on long distance cruise control you will use about 20% more in the c-max than the prius (prius is 48mpg highway, 20% less fuel than c-max new 40 mpg highway). When you look at the prius v or jetta tdi they will do better on cruise control than their relatively tested mpg.

What the new software will do is help reduce start up losses and how much hvac losses are in the car. It should also help a driver that is using some kind of pulse glide with hillls on the highway. That should help real world mileage, but not things graphs like this test.

 

AG's stance that Toyota in 2008 = Ford in 2012 is silly.
Ford had a choice of testing the C-max directly with all 5 sub-tests and using that result for the sticker, but they apparently chose a loophole instead that let them use a sub-set of tests from a different car. Nothing even remotely similar existed or happened in 2008 with Toyota.

If Toyota today had used the Prius Liftback results for the Prius vagon, then Ford and Toyota would be up for equal criticism. As it happened, Toyota measured each car using the full profile of tests. As they should. As Ford should have. No blaming the EPA, or saying 'everybody does it.' Ford cheated, debatably legally. Ford deserves to lose a lot of money in the courts of law and public opinion.

Last year I bought my 3rd hybrid, and for the first time ever walked into a Detroit based dealership to look at their hybrid choice. That was Ford, and while I ended up buying a Toyota I considered the C-max. Ford is now off my list of cars to consider in the future. I want nothing to do with an unethical company that in my view lies to potential customers.