alpha754293

Hybrids definitely are more sensitive to terrain and how you drive moreso than non-hybrids. How many miles do you have on your FFH now? When I first had my FFH, my commute to work only topped out at 37.3 mpg no matter how hard I tried/what I did and still stayed SAFE driving on Michigan highways (where people will pass you even if you're already doing 85). I hang out on the far right lane at 69 mph (110 km/h). But if I take the surface streets instead of the highway and I can hold betwen like 45-50 mph (70-80 km/h), I can hit 47 mpg (as long as I time the lights properly). But in hot or cold weather (A/C uses more power/electricity, and heater needs the engine to run to generate heat), the fuel economy gets worse. You see a bit of a bump in the after 3000 miles. And then it progressively gets better past 5000 miles. And then it starts getting really good after about the first 10,000 miles. And my car (2013 Ford Fusion Titanium Hybrid) after 33,000 miles is still averaging 39.0 mpg (over it's entire lifetime), with 90% of the distance is highway driving at ~70 mph. But if you accelerate out of a red light reasonably hard (i.e. if you go to the "Engage" screen on your left-hand-side on your instrument cluster) and you're using more than 50% power, or if you're braking late where your braking score isn't like 95%+, then that might help to explain why you're seeing what you're seeing.

Yeah, I missed my annual estimate of 40,000 miles/year by about 10,000 miles. (Currently at around 30,000 miles/year).

"Ford first found an anomaly in testing last October, but did not know if the issue was with the test or the vehicle, Nair said. Ford confirmed the problem in March and notified the EPA." Source: http://www.freep.com/article/20140612/BUSINESS0102/306120185/Ford-mileage-Fusion-hybrid-C-Max-Lincoln-MKZ-Fiesta-EPA-fuel-economy AFAIK, it was March 2014. And as stated in the Detroit Free Press article, the error was first detected in October 2013, and it takes quite a bit of time to trace/track down the ultimate root cause (because you want to be very careful and systematic in your approach to rule out other potential causes first so that you don't end up with the wrong conclusion by trying to do things too quickly, in a non-systematic way.) it's like any kind of diagnostic test right? You go through your list of possiblities and you start testing to see if they are those possibilities as you work your way through by process of elimination - know what I mean? And in my experience pretty much everywhere I've worked - if there's a process issue, sometimes that's harder to diagnose/detect because a lot of times, people (in general) tend to be "results driven" so you know how when you're doing something - based on a prescribed process, and you're getting numbers, and people are always trying to figure out what is it with the answer, until some one goes "well...what about the process? has anybody checked that?" (I mean, it was the same thing in all my jobs, even when I was in undergraduate research). The other thing that I will say though since I joined Ford last year is that they're quite an extremely data-centric company/culture. And I LOVE that about Ford. It's how I roll. It's how they roll. And it's great when the personal philosophy is aligned with the philosophy of the company. (And having worked in the supplier-base before joining Ford, I can tell you that the same cannot necessarily be said for other manufacturers - or not nearly to the same extent anyways.) And it appears that the latest victim to Consumer's Reports re: fuel economy not meeting EPA estimates is the Honda Accord Hybrid, so it appears that no one is immune to it.

That is a very interesting question and I will be honest - I actually didn't notice it. I only looked at the FFH numbers because, like many members here, I have a FFH myself. But I will try and ask and find out and see if I can get an answer that I can share with you guys. Thank you for all your support and positive comments. I think that this is interesting to me not only because I work here and the guys in the next aisle over are the fuel economy folks, but also because of HOW our management and senior management and executive leadership handled this issue. The fact that we that we found the issue, and then reported it up through the chain and escalated it - I mean - in the current business world/environment - where we can actually come out and say "we made a mistake and we are doing this as one of the fixes (in addition to other action items on the corrective action plan)" - I mean that's HUGE. Not very many people do that. Not very many companies do that nowadays. And we did it in a relatively short period of three months. (Some of those fuel economy guys had some VERY long nights.) We know that fuel economy is important to our customers across the board. And as far as I can see, we're the only one out of the Detroit three that's making it a top priority, which sometimes carries risk for being a leader (or at least we're working hard and fighting for it). I STILL have customs agents that would periodically ask me "Is that the new Fusion hybrid?" or "nice car" as I am crossing the border every day to get to and from work. I like that it surprises people when people see that I've got a Fusion hybrid and how it is NOT what they imagine hybrids to look like (meaning you can have a good looking car AND something that's economy - you don't have to trade style for fuel economy.) There are TOO many companies out there that when something goes bad or wrong, the first thing their senior leadership and executive management would say is "oh we didn't know anything about it." And it is my personal belief that in your role as senior leadership and executive management, it is your job to find out. And people will speculate on a lot of things that happened. And they can speculate on whatever they want. (I LOVE that quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson!) Fuel economy is not as easy as I think a lot of people think it is. And if people ever want to know more about how fuel economy ACTUALLY works, they can always read 76 FR 39477 (esp. the equations/formulas starting on p. 39539 in §600.114-12(a)(1) or 77 FR 62623, esp. starting on p. 63182. You can find all of the details about how fuel economy ACTUALLY works from those two documents. The first is a short 111 page read. The second is slightly longer at 578 pages. They're good reads if you want to know how it REALLY works. And they're FRs, so they're actually readable (other than the columnar format). 77 FR 6262376 FR 3947776 FR 39477

If I could I would triple like this post! Well, people are going to think what they're going to think pretty much regardless. There's nothing I or we can do about that. "You get to say the world is flat because we live in a country that guarantees your free speech, but it's not a country that guarantees that everything you say is correct." - Neil deGrasse Tyson And for those that had written that an apology from the CEO would have sufficed, he did: “Ford is absolutely committed to delivering top fuel economy and accurate information,” said Alan Mulally, Ford president and CEO. “We apologize to our customers and will provide goodwill payments to affected owners. We also are taking steps to improve our processes and prevent issues like this from happening again.” From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140612/AUTO0102/306120104#ixzz34WO3B6zI

Well....so....thisi s how I usually explain the fuel economy tests to people. These are tests that were originally developed in I think it was the 70s and it was to try and encapsulate people driving in like I think it's Fort Lauderdale (or something) all the way up to the high mountains in Colorado, from New York City to Iowa, from Alaska to Arizona. So...when you think about the immensely diverse range of experiences that people (customers) go/drive through, now if I were to ask you - "okay...make two test that can tell me how your vehicle is going to perform EMISSION-wise" (since fuel economy tests don't actually measure fuel economy, they measure emissions, and then fuel economy is back-calculated through analytical chemistry (it's an oversimplification, but that's the jist of how fuel economy tests work) - anybody that spends more than two sconds thinking about what a daunting task THAT is, will very quickly realize the size of the elephant-of-a-problem they've got in their room. Now, the one thing that the US does differently (compared to - for example the EU), is that they actually DO try to make it so that the numbers are representative of real world. It might not be real world for EVERYBODY, but if you figure "okay....x percent of the population live in a major urban center, and they tend to drive like this" and then you plot that on a normal distribution bell curve, and then you say, "ok, I'm going to devise a tests that will work for 67% of the people", and then another test for the other 33% - I mean that's kinda how you're doing it. (Sort of. It isn't quite exactly like that, but to get the point across, I'm grossly oversimplifying it.) And as several people have mentioned, interestingly enough, it's not that far off. I mean, you look at the averages on sites like Fuelly for example, and it's pretty close. So....interesting how it all works out in the end, eh? Go science/math!

So, I'm going to answer both of these posts, to the best of my ability at the same time because they're related. So, first off, I'm going to let you in on a little secret about how you develop/engineer a vehicle. Remember that you're looking at this from the perspective of June 2014, so like about 20 months I think (or so) after the 2013MY Fusions launched. Now I'm going to try and put things in a little different perspective for you and hopefully you can follow along and then at the end you might come away with understanding how things like this happen. Rewind back to about 18 months BEFORE the launch. So, now, you're in about the April, 2011-ish timeframe. (DISCLAIMER: The timelines given here are used as an example of how cars are developed in general, and pretty much ALL automakers are like this. The specific details vary a little bit, but having worked in the supply base before joining Ford, they're all very similar, so the timing here is just a number I'm pulling out of thin air, and does NOT represent the ACTUAL vehicle timing (cuz I wasn't working for Ford back then, so I have no clue what the timing was).) But anyways, think about it this way, 18 months before launch, EVER single component on that car is still being developed at the same time. The engine, the hybrid powertrain, the body, EVERYTHING. So, you ovbiously can't wait until you start your main production to submit your paperwork for certification, so how can you tell what your fuel economy is going to be when you don't even have a car that runs? And as the vehicle development and engineering matures, you start putting in the "real" parts instead of using your prototype parts. Now, hypothetically speaking, what if someone told you that it's going to take 18 months for you to get your certification approval? Now your homework is due, and you've never even seen a car. (And pretty much ALL automakers go through this.) What do you do? My point is that it isn't about what you know now. My point is what did you know back then, almost like three YEARS AGO, when you might not have had a car? And I see this a fair bit on internet car forums. Lots of people can talk about parts and engines that EXIST for example. But if I were to ask those same guys "make me an engine that gets 500 HP and gets 99 g CO2/100 km, I'd be willing to bet that the VAST majority of them wouldn't know where or how to begin.

[delete]

Seriously? Hmmm....lemme check on that. You're talking about how when you start the car, and then turn it off again, how it would give you the trip details and then also the vehicle lifetime summary details, correct?

Apparently, the 100 km long traffic jam WAS real though....(even if the picture isn't). I was trying to find a decent view and a decently sized picture to share on here.

Sorry for hijacking your thread there @wmpwi... (hehe...whoops) No...you have to worry about hitting zombies instead. (And this is not the kind that you SHOULD be double-tapping either. ;o)) (haha....God bless the internets. And Al Gore, for inventing it. ;)) Yeah, I was warned by a Livingston County cop that caught me doing 88 on the Michigan backroads back when I was still a co-op student in my old '98 Cavalier. He was like "do you KNOW what happens if you hit a deer at 88?" "No," "You die." "Oh." So yeah...I'm a lot more careful down driving through the back roads and even parts of I-75 and I've had deer walk out onto the road, but I wasn't going fast (like 40-ish) cuz I saw SOMETHING off the side of the road, so he ran back to where he came from and I just gradually slowed down to like 20 or so. But yeah, I've seen the crazy damage that deers can cause. Not fun. And I've also seen people who would reinforce the front of their cars and/or trucks so yeahhh... Yeah, they're definitely not the brightest. Although, I've never really learned what to do if a deer IS out on the road (to be honest - cuz I did my driver's ed in Windsor) but I do like that I can at least fully turn OFF my headlights in the Fusion now, so flashing it on and off seems to help make them move/get out of the way. But you would think that they would eventually learn that roads = bad - but nope! It's interesting reading all these stories about how bad drivers seem to be quite universal. I've seen pictures and heard rumors about how bad drivers are in China and in India. Course, when this is what you deal with: ..it doesn't exactly surprise me.

Toronto's getting pretty bad too... :o))) Red Bull nearly killed me.

Michigan has some of the WORST DRIVERS EVERRRR!!!! After having driven in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, Illnois/Chicago, Ontario, Quebec/Montreal - a lot of those places will always say that theirs are the worst, but noo....Michigan drivers are like CONSISTENTLY worse. And apparently, at like an annual average of 922 motor vehicle deaths, I am not surprised by that number. And the worst thing about that is you honk at them or stuff and they look at you like YOU'RE the crazy one, YOU'RE the one that's doing something wrong. And like you have the people that will only look at the car ahead of them (instead of look at the car ahead of them AND as far as their eyes can see) so they're just constantly tailgating people. And then the fact that you've actually READ the Michigan Vehicle Code and then when you're telling them what they're doing wrong, they're like "so you're a <<insert_thing_they're_doing_wrong>> cop now? is that it?" Well, I wouldn't HAVE to be if you drove properly!!! They need to start nailing people for moving violations. They should like adopt a bit of the European/German fine structure. (e.g. I think that it's like a 195 Euro fine (~$275) for passing on the right.) Make it so that people are ALWAYS complaining about that it's a "money grab" (it's wouldn't be if you drove PROPERLY!). And considering how they teach driver's ed in Michigan and stuff - it doesn't surprise me that accidents are so prevalent. I'm actually surprised that they're not even MORE prevalent than they already are. I try to avoid driving in Michigan during or after the first big snow storm of the season (if I can). It doesn't??? Hmmm....that's weird/interesting. I haven't played with the 2014 FFH otherwise I'd try and find out for you and give you a list (at least as far as I can tell what's different about it). Yeah...I'm not crazy about the vast majority of Michigan drivers. It's like all the traffic rules are merely "suggestions". I actually have pictures of people driving on the wrong side of the road!!! (And no, it wasn't due to some other activity (like pulling a bank job or something like that). No, this was just plain inattentiveness/plain bad driving. It's also why I couldn't buy the Prius because of the way I sit and how I sit in a car that the break-over for the rear hatch went right across the rear view mirror, blocking 80% of it, and since I drive a lot in Michigan, I would LIKE to see if I am getting rear-ended or not thank you very much. So yeah...

Yeah...the 45 second thing is new to me too.