Ford C-Max & Fusion Hybrid Gas Mileage Lawsuits Combined

[B25Nut]

"I do believe Ford went backwards with this new Hybrid though."

 

Acdii, how many 2010-12 FFH owners got better mileage than Hermans, DC, Jeff and many others without hypermiling? There is no doubt that the 2013 is a step forward. It's not perfect yet, and I'm sure we'll see further improvement in the coming years in the hybrid system. Ford has built a car that has Toyota worried, and I'm sure that the Fusion is a major reason that Toyota is accelerating improvements in their product line.

[GrySql]

With my background in Risk Management I wonder if Ford figured that the risk of offending the hybrid enthusiast community was a small enough risk to be worth the addition attention and sales they get from the 47 MPG campaign. Because, no doubt, the 47 MPG campaign has driven traffic to the gas-powered Fusions too. Because people will see that number and be intrigued, even if they don't end up buying the hybrid, I'm sure it drives foot traffic. And those are key metrics for auto manufacturers.

 

I hope it isn't true. I almost hope that the people at Ford are stupid and that's why we have this controversy about mileage rather than the cause being that they did it on purpose. But, with the way society is these days, who knows? :confused: :headscratch:

Have you factored in the cost of the entry level gas engined CMax and Fusions, the low hanging fruit as you say?

The persuasive argument that the hybrids cost so much more and have at least a 5 year payback before you break even with the better mileage is a keen sword.

A great deal of people who really need a commuter car in this economy are keeping their cars longer or buying 'just enough' to get the job done, for example a Kia Soul.

Hybrids in the $30k and up range are only available to a select number of people and are deemed a luxury, look at the GM Volt's reception.

This is where the Prius has made it's inroads, high mileage at the lowest cost possible, subsidized by Toyota if need be to get control of the market.

 

A certain segment of hybrid owners buy them because of some other principle than good mileage, look at the BWM 740/750 Series with 17/24mpg, priced at $80,000 plus, no saving there, just a badge for mollifying a conscience.

 

This FFH was not on my radar until I saw this model and the magic 47/47 numbers, vs my first pick of a full boat FFTi EB.

I tend to keep my cars a long time and squeeze every drop of usefulness out of them I can.

Comparing prices, need, finances and the future issues facing me the FFH looked better and better, the hybrid warranty is appealing as well.

I have no regrets and kept the costs as low as I could without leaving out the goodies that I was particularly interested in.

What comes out of all this wrangling with the EPA will hopefully give a better balance to the next set of buyers.

Meanwhile I enjoy this vehicle much more than I though possible, for more reasons that the better mileage than in any vehicle I've ever owned.

Saving $1000's of purchase money compared to anything similar was a true bonus.

 

I am having my warranty work done on my FFH now at a crack Ford Dealer that gives us lunch at their own Cafe and a full tank of gas when we visit.

It's the home of many of the Ford commercials with Mike Rowe and is rated the #1 Service Dealer in the U.S. and President's Award winner for Sales and Service.

Things could not be better for my service needs and I'll relate some stories soon about experiences I've had here, I don't mind driving a little farther.

There are wide differences in Ford Dealership attitudes, just like most businesses.

A dealership that says 'it's hands are tied' are just passing the buck, I personally know the buck can go very high indeed.

[tbranca]

even at 45mph my car won't get 47mpg 39mpg is the best I could ever get. the ford rep's told me I have to put 6000 miles on the car and the computer will change and let me get the EPA's fule mileage it claims I'm up to 4300 mile as of today.

[hybridbear]

I am having my warranty work done on my FFH now at a crack Ford Dealer that gives us lunch at their own Cafe and a full tank of gas when we visit.

It's the home of many of the Ford commercials with Mike Rowe and is rated the #1 Service Dealer in the U.S. and President's Award winner for Sales and Service.

Things could not be better for my service needs and I'll relate some stories soon about experiences I've had here, I don't mind driving a little farther.

There are wide differences in Ford Dealership attitudes, just like most businesses.

A dealership that says 'it's hands are tied' are just passing the buck, I personally know the buck can go very high indeed.

 

Wow! Where is this dealer? I wish we had a dealer like that around here.

[hermans]

even at 45mph my car won't get 47mpg 39mpg is the best I could ever get. the ford rep's told me I have to put 6000 miles on the car and the computer will change and let me get the EPA's fule mileage it claims I'm up to 4300 mile as of today.

I would report that dealer to Ford. That's the most ridiculous thing I heard about info coming from a dealer.

[jeff_h]

even at 45mph my car won't get 47mpg 39mpg is the best I could ever get. the ford rep's told me I have to put 6000 miles on the car and the computer will change and let me get the EPA's fule mileage it claims I'm up to 4300 mile as of today.

 

Whereabouts in VA and what dealer? The term "the computer will change and let me get the EPA's numbers" sound pretty odd, sounds more like the dealer is just saying anything to get you off the phone or back out the door.

[storksb]

even at 45mph my car won't get 47mpg 39mpg is the best I could ever get. the ford rep's told me I have to put 6000 miles on the car and the computer will change and let me get the EPA's fule mileage it claims I'm up to 4300 mile as of today.

Wonder if this is the same dealer as mine that insists I need to use premium gas to get the EPA ratings, as there is to much ethanol in regular gas.

[ptjones]

I hope it isn't true. But right now the future of motoring is not hybrids, if it were we would be seeing more than a 3% take rate. At the moment the big thing is turbocharging, direct injection, variable valve timing and other tricks to make the ICE more efficient. Mass electrification has not yet caught on. It hasn't reached its tipping point. And hybrid vehicles may never tip if Ford pushes things backward with these cars and the negativity toward hybrids that they are causing. I don't see how the "experts" at Ford could have not forseen this backlash to the 47 MPG claims. We all know that if they did in fact build the car to exceed in the EPA tests then they also knew that the car would not yield that mileage in the real world driving of most people. We can all be sure that Ford knows how quickly the MPGs drop at speeds above 60 MPH.

 

For example, we know that Ford charges a price premium for the EcoBoost engines. These engines are supposed to increase fuel economy and performance to the point where it will be worth it. Ford has said they expect the 1.6 L EcoBoost to be the volume engine in the Fusion. They don't expect the hybrid to be the volume engine, even though all of us here would agree that the hybrid is the best of the Ford powertrains, otherwise we wouldn't have bought a hybrid. So then why would Ford be so concerned about making the hybrid successful when they know that, right now in 2013, it isn't the choice of the masses? Until hybrids reach their tipping point I don't think we'll see as much innovation as we could. Until hybrids become the focus of all the major manufacturers there will always be low-hanging fruit out there. I wonder if in this case, Ford took the posture of making the hybrid ace the EPA tests to get that big 47 MPG sticker number for their advertising, figuring that the hybrid sales would be low enough that there wouldn't be too much backlash. With my background in Risk Management I wonder if Ford figured that the risk of offending the hybrid enthusiast community was a small enough risk to be worth the addition attention and sales they get from the 47 MPG campaign. Because, no doubt, the 47 MPG campaign has driven traffic to the gas-powered Fusions too. Because people will see that number and be intrigued, even if they don't end up buying the hybrid, I'm sure it drives foot traffic. And those are key metrics for auto manufacturers.

 

I hope it isn't true. I almost hope that the people at Ford are stupid and that's why we have this controversy about mileage rather than the cause being that they did it on purpose. But, with the way society is these days, who knows? :confused: :headscratch:

 

I agree with B25Nut that we can't fault Ford for building a car that excells at the EPA tests. Like the illustration I gave earlier on another thread about standardized tests and school kids, this is much the same debate. The EPA cycles are a standardized test, I think we all can agree that standardized tests have their flaws. I hope that the EPA does change their test cycles for hybrids.

 

I also agree that it is a better use of our energy to focus on sharing things that improve our experience of owning these cars. Thanks B25Nut for the great post.

 

 

Ptjones, can you please post a link to that info? Sounds very interesting

 

http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/index.php?/topic/893-coolant-temperature-speed-ice-rpm-graphs-of-30-mile-trip-458-mpg/

I'm working on some other diagnostic solutions.

 

If any of you FFH owners with poor MPG's get down in the Atlanta area I would love to put a ScanGauge on your car and test it on my 14.1mi hwy loop to compare to what I'm getting. I have no problems getting EPA mpg at 70deg'sF.

[Fynack]

Wonder if this is the same dealer as mine that insists I need to use premium gas to get the EPA ratings, as there is to much ethanol in regular gas.

 

Got mine from Koons Ford in sterling. Besides the horrible customer services in their service depart. They had no clue what do or say.

[Fynack]

If you check the Ford website now the wording has totally changed . No "EPA estimated" its now "up to 47" on each vehicle. The complaints and lawsuits have already made ford reword things instead of just using the EPA estimate as their go to marketing campaign.

[acdii]

"I do believe Ford went backwards with this new Hybrid though."

 

Acdii, how many 2010-12 FFH owners got better mileage than Hermans, DC, Jeff and many others without hypermiling? There is no doubt that the 2013 is a step forward. It's not perfect yet, and I'm sure we'll see further improvement in the coming years in the hybrid system. Ford has built a car that has Toyota worried, and I'm sure that the Fusion is a major reason that Toyota is accelerating improvements in their product line.

@70 MPH, bet the 2010-12 will get better MPG than the 13 will! Once the 13 is out of EV range, the MPG tanks. The 2.5L in the older models does pretty durn good on the highway.

[expresspotato]

"I do believe Ford went backwards with this new Hybrid though."

 

Acdii, how many 2010-12 FFH owners got better mileage than Hermans, DC, Jeff and many others without hypermiling? There is no doubt that the 2013 is a step forward. It's not perfect yet, and I'm sure we'll see further improvement in the coming years in the hybrid system. Ford has built a car that has Toyota worried, and I'm sure that the Fusion is a major reason that Toyota is accelerating improvements in their product line.

Whaaaa? Why would Toyota be worried about their superior real world fuel economy? One member on here sold his fusion for a Lexus and got better mileage than the Fusion right off the lot...

Edited March 3, 2013 by expresspotato

[B25Nut]

In CR's testing, they got better mileage with the FFH than they did any other mid-size sedan, including the TCH. You can't take the sub-par performance of a few cars and apply it to all FFHs. That "one member" is Fynack. In his review of the FFH on Edmunds, the administrator wouldn't even allow the words he used in his title to be posted. He gave the FFH one out of five stars for Performance, Fun-To-Drive and Value. Who here would agree with that?

[elle]

Fynack said he thinks that I work for Ford. Maybe he actually works for Lexus. :stirpot:

[Fynack]

In CR's testing, they got better mileage with the FFH than they did any other mid-size sedan, including the TCH. You can't take the sub-par performance of a few cars and apply it to all FFHs. That "one member" is Fynack. In his review of the FFH on Edmunds, the administrator wouldn't even allow the words he used in his title to be posted. He gave the FFH one out of five stars for Performance, Fun-To-Drive and Value. Who here would agree with that?

 

If it was a "few" why would ford cave and stop advertising 47/47/47? Why has it been relegated that to fine print. Why cause of a few does ford no longer have 47/47/47 on their website but now has "up to 47mpg? Why is ford "working" with the EPA to get the test changed ? Maybe cause they knew it wasnt possible? Why is the epa testing the cmax? because of a few complaints? Come one ... If it was few ford would just gladly lose them as winey customers. If you want to bring up edmunds ... 8 of the 17 reviews complain of gas mileage. That's not a few that almost 50%

[Fynack]

In CR's testing, they got better mileage with the FFH than they did any other mid-size sedan, including the TCH. You can't take the sub-par performance of a few cars and apply it to all FFHs. That "one member" is Fynack. In his review of the FFH on Edmunds, the administrator wouldn't even allow the words he used in his title to be posted. He gave the FFH one out of five stars for Performance, Fun-To-Drive and Value. Who here would agree with that?

Cr reports

 

ffh 39 EPA estimated that's advertised 47

tch 38 estimated mpg that's advertised 41

 

The difference is clear. It's not about which did better in some independent test. It's what's advertised by the company that helps me decide between them and the kia optima hybrid and even the Lexus es300h.the ffh "appeared" to be the better deal at the time but in real world testing the kia optima hybrid would have been a better choice in dollars.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Fynack

[Fynack]

Cr reports

ffh 39 EPA estimated that's advertised 47

tch 38 estimated mpg that's advertised 41

The difference is clear. It's not about which did better in some independent test. It's what's advertised by the company that helps me decide between them and the kia optima hybrid and even the Lexus es300h.the ffh "appeared" to be the better deal at the time but in real world testing the kia optima hybrid would have been a better choice in dollars.

 

 

Also I think we made it clear that people who bought early are experiencing poorer mpg then those who purchased this year. Cold weather , higher speeds, and even less breakin and their getting better mpg then those who purchased in the nov/dec time frame

[Fynack]

If it was a "few" why would ford cave and stop advertising 47/47/47? Why has it been relegated that to fine print. Why cause of a few does ford no longer have 47/47/47 on their website but now has "up to 47mpg? Why is ford "working" with the EPA to get the test changed ? Maybe cause they knew it wasnt possible? Why is the epa testing the cmax? because of a few complaints? Come one ... If it was few ford would just gladly lose them as winey customers. If you want to bring up edmunds ... 8 of the 17 reviews complain of gas mileage. That's not a few that almost 50%

 

Lets see how few it is. Ive created a poll.

[acdii]

In CR's testing, they got better mileage with the FFH than they did any other mid-size sedan, including the TCH.

If you look at the percentage of what the cars got vs what the EPA rating is, the Fusion did worse than the Camry, even though it got better MPG. This is the point I have been trying to make all along, percentage wise, the Fusion is doing very badly compared to all other Hybrids.

 

Anyway, lets see how they do when the warm weather gets around, it could be these cars just dont work well at all below 60*. From my observation this morning on how much ICE energy is spent recharging the pack at highway speeds, it could very well be that some Lion packs are just very poor performers when cold, whiles others are doing just fine. When the pack was 75% or greater, the ICE was in the upper 30's mid 40's going 60-65. When it dropped below the halfway mark, ICE dropped down to the low 20's. A nearly 20 MPG difference on 1/4 charge. My car does better running 100% ice with a full pack than it does P&G, problem is I have to be doing over 63 to do that, and the roads are posted 55. A few more test trips and I will know for sure.

[hybridbear]

If you look at the percentage of what the cars got vs what the EPA rating is, the Fusion did worse than the Camry, even though it got better MPG. This is the point I have been trying to make all along, percentage wise, the Fusion is doing very badly compared to all other Hybrids.

 

That is true. The link below is to a test done by Wayne Gerdes over at the Clean MPG forum. It's a very interesting comparison between the C-Max, Prius Liftback and Prius V. It includes charts and graphs documenting their travels. He shows with data what many of us have said from the start. How is it possible that the C-Max could get better real-world MPGs than the Prius V? The C-Max is about 400 lbs heavier and has 54 more hp. There's no way that the C-Max could then get higher real world MPGs.

 

We haven't seen this comparison yet, but I think that similar results would be had with the Camry and Fusion hybrids. The Camry may have 12 more hp but it is also about 100 lbs lighter. So how could the Fusion really do that much better than the Camry in the real world? Our testing when we test drove both vehicles found them to be very equal. The Camry Hybrid did better in our highway testing than the Fusion, but the Fusion did better in the city. Overall we averaged 46.1 MPG in the Fusion and 44.6 in the Camry. That told us that our decision to buy the Fusion should not be based on fuel economy. In our decision we assumed that the fuel costs would be equal in each vehicle.

 

I think that Wayne's article pretty conclusively shows that Ford built these cars to ace the EPA tests, something we all felt in our hearts before, but now we have hard numbers to back that up.

 

We can debate all day long about if that was a good strategy or not. But do check out his write up.

 

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=371553

[acdii]

Agreed. Heck the 2010 does better on the highway than the 13! The 13 at 55 will do about 44 when held steady and no EV. Right about the same as the 2010, which doesnt use any EV above 45 except for the rare assist.

[MXGOLF]

My car was a December 12 build and my dealer says it has to get broken in and to give it 5000 miles. I'm averaging 33 mpg not 47. There has been a lot of good points in this thread thanks everybody. Where is this pole Fynack?

[ptjones]

That is true. The link below is to a test done by Wayne Gerdes over at the Clean MPG forum. It's a very interesting comparison between the C-Max, Prius Liftback and Prius V. It includes charts and graphs documenting their travels. He shows with data what many of us have said from the start. How is it possible that the C-Max could get better real-world MPGs than the Prius V? The C-Max is about 400 lbs heavier and has 54 more hp. There's no way that the C-Max could then get higher real world MPGs.

 

We haven't seen this comparison yet, but I think that similar results would be had with the Camry and Fusion hybrids. The Camry may have 12 more hp but it is also about 100 lbs lighter. So how could the Fusion really do that much better than the Camry in the real world? Our testing when we test drove both vehicles found them to be very equal. The Camry Hybrid did better in our highway testing than the Fusion, but the Fusion did better in the city. Overall we averaged 46.1 MPG in the Fusion and 44.6 in the Camry. That told us that our decision to buy the Fusion should not be based on fuel economy. In our decision we assumed that the fuel costs would be equal in each vehicle.

 

I think that Wayne's article pretty conclusively shows that Ford built these cars to ace the EPA tests, something we all felt in our hearts before, but now we have hard numbers to back that up.

 

We can debate all day long about if that was a good strategy or not. But do check out his write up.

 

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=371553

I noticed that they didn't say anything about outside temps which have a large effect on MPG's for FFH and CMAX more so than Prius.

Also thought it was bias some and You don't drive a CMAX like you drive a Prius or any other hybrid. If you do you are not going to get as good MPG's. The larger Battery gives you more options.

Edited March 6, 2013 by ptjones

[KingJL]

One thing that I do not think is fully understood in this MPG 'real world' discussion is the effect of aerodynamic drag losses/effects vs all other losses. As the car manufacturers get the other aspects of the car more efficient the disparity between the EPA (as testing is mandated now) will become more significant. That is because aeodynamic drag is the only loss that goes up by the square of the speed difference. All other losses are either constant (engine efficiency) or linear (effective rolling resistance). Example: if (big IF) all other losses were 0 and measured MPG @ 55 mph was 55MPG, at 70 mph your fuel mileage would be 34 MPG. This is a pure function of physics, not magical claims. In other words as all systems in the car get more efficient, the difference in EPA fuel mileage and 'real world' fuel mileage for any given automobile will get larger. This will always be true assuming that the EPA standard is lower than the 'real world' (and that will be true as the 'real world' is in reality higher than the actual speed limit in most cases).

Edited March 6, 2013 by KingJL

[hybridbear]

I noticed that they didn't say anything about outside temps which have a large effect on MPG's for FFH and CMAX more so than Prius.

Also thought it was bias some and You don't drive a CMAX like you drive a Prius or any other hybrid. If you do you are not going to get as good MPG's. The larger Battery gives you more options.

 

It's not perfect analysis, but it shows that the C-Max, with its heavier weight and more powerful powertrain cannot really beat the Prius in real life fuel economy. This by no means that the Prius is a better car. The Prius is built with very cheap materials and is gutless, but its fuel economy is unsurpassed by Ford in real life, and no wonder since Ford built a car with high quality materials and with a decent amount of power, unlike Toyota

 

One thing that I do not think is fully understood in this MPG 'real world' discussion is the effect of aerodynamic drag losses/effects vs all other losses. As the car manufacturers get the other aspects of the car more efficient the disparity between the EPA (as testing is mandated now) will become more significant. That is because aeodynamic drag is the only loss that goes up by the square of the speed difference. All other losses are either constant (engine efficiency) or linear (effective rolling resistance). Example: if (big IF) all other losses were 0 and measured MPG @ 55 mph was 55MPG, at 70 mph your fuel mileage would be 34 MPG. This is a pure function of physics, not magical claims. In other words as all systems in the car get more efficient, the difference in EPA fuel mileage and 'real world' fuel mileage for any given automobile will get larger. This will always be true assuming that the EPA standard is lower than the 'real world' (and that will be true as the 'real world' is in reality higher than the actual speed limit in most cases).

 

I believe in the EPA tests the dyno is supposedly setup to factor in the effects of air resistance in those cylces as speed increases & decreases