What will the C-Max MPG change mean for Ford?

[hybridbear]

I have said since January after driving our car on a long road trip and investigating the EPA test cycles and everything else that Ford took a calculated risk here. I doubt they planned for this decision to cost them upwards of $15 million in the cash payments, not counting the brand image damage, stock price hit and lost sales. I'd figure the stock damage alone could be hundreds of millions of dollars depending on how the market reacts today to this news. I wonder now how many people will lose their jobs who were part of the decision to save a maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars by not testing the C-Max separately (I have no idea what it costs a manufacturer to run the EPA cycles on their cars so I'm just guessing) when that decision will now cost Ford hundreds of millions.

 

Some people place the blame squarely on Ford for this saying that they were unethical. The objective of a public company is to bring a return to their shareholders, ethics is not a part of business. I know that many of us likely go through yearly ethics training at work, but I also analyze and audit our employees' p-card usage and I see employees bending the rules and pushing the limits every single month. Just as individual employees think that way, the collective decision making of most companies thinks the same. If companies behaved ethically of their own accord we would never have had the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, et al scandals. If companies behaved ethically there would be no need for Sarbanes Oxley. We aren't privy to the internal discussions between Ford executives and the EPA to know what happened, but I would venture a guess that the EPA tested the C-Max, got lower numbers and they gave Ford the chance to address it. Ford technically didn't break, or even bend, any rules, but the EPA would have had to release their results which would have made Ford look bad. I think that just as much blame belongs with the EPA as with Ford for having such stupid rules that caused this to happen in the first place. If the EPA had better rules, i.e. mandating all 5 cycles for all vehicles and no more of this letting one vehicle determine the ratings for another when the c_d is so different that it will have a material effect on the results. It's also important to note that Ford isn't the only company to do this. Honda just released a new hybrid in Japan that beats the Prius on the Japanese test cycle for fuel economy, but everyone knows that the Honda hybrid will not beat the Prius fuel economy in the real world. Honda merely programmed that car to ace the Japanese tests. So what? Buyer beware is still the adage that we should all live by.

Edited August 16, 2013 by hybridbear

[djminfll]

I just saw on CBS news that EPA is reviewing how they arrive at their mpg figures. Once revised, almost all vehicle mpg numbers are expected to be lowered.

Edited August 16, 2013 by djminfll

[Waldo]

I don't think there's anything ethical in this discussion at all. It's my understanding that any vehicle that has an identical powertrain and falls in the same weight class is required by the EPA to carry the same mpg rating. The Fusion and C-max are not the only Ford vehicles that do this. The Escape doesn't actually get 32mpg highway, it uses the Fusion's rating. I believe Cadillac used to combine the CTS and STS under the same rating.

Ford didn't save any money by not testing the C-max. They tested it extensively and have known all along exactly what it would be rated at, were it not for the Fusion. They played to the same rules that everyone else did (except for Hyundai of course who did cheat, and GM who's been cheating and just hasn't been caught yet).

[jeff_h]

I don't think there's anything ethical in this discussion at all. It's my understanding that any vehicle that has an identical powertrain and falls in the same weight class is required by the EPA to carry the same mpg rating.

 

The below is from the Ford media release, doesn't seem from the wording that they are required to use the same labeling, though maybe it's common practice?

 

"While the company could continue to use EPA’s General Label for C-MAX Hybrid, Ford voluntarily has decided to test and label C-MAX Hybrid separately going forward. The result will be a lower miles-per-gallon label for the 2013 C-MAX Hybrid."

[keithsm2]

so why does the c-max get changed and not the FFH?

[hermans]

Because Ford used the test results from the Fusion and applied it to the C-Max, which the law allowed them to do.

[keithsm2]

Because Ford used the test results from the Fusion and applied it to the C-Max, which the law allowed them to

so they are saying the FFH is capable of 47 while the C-Max is not? all though same engine and drivetrain? My guess is the C-max would be slightly lighter too...

[Waldo]

 

The below is from the Ford media release, doesn't seem from the wording that they are required to use the same labeling, though maybe it's common practice?

 

"While the company could continue to use EPA’s General Label for C-MAX Hybrid, Ford voluntarily has decided to test and label C-MAX Hybrid separately going forward. The result will be a lower miles-per-gallon label for the 2013 C-MAX Hybrid."

 

I think you're right, the EPA release says the same thing. So Ford's not required to use the same label but it certainly is common practice. i must have been mixed up with some of the other requirements that are more complicated, like how to determine the high volume model based on option content and so on.

[Waldo]

so they are saying the FFH is capable of 47 while the C-Max is not? all though same engine and drivetrain? My guess is the C-max would be slightly lighter too...

 

Exactly, yes and no. The C-max and FFH fall under the same EPA weight class based on the EPA option content rules. But that's probably not by accident.

[acdii]

The Fusion Does get 47, those that are working and driven properly. I know now they do, but the "other" car sure had me believing Ford lied. The difference between the Fusion and Cmax is Aerodynamics. The Fusion is sleeker and slips through the air easier than the Cmax, and has been the #1 thing brought up when comparing the two. How can Ford say a car with a higher CoD get the same MPG as the Fusion? Well here's your answer! They can't. Ford took a gamble and lost, simple as that. It wouldn't surprise me that those responsible for marketing the Cmax at 47 MPG when their data said otherwise(why else reduce it at this point), will soon be doing something else, if not already.

 

However, this does confirm what we saw earlier this year, Ford was ranked #1 of all companies. This is a good example of why. Ford stepped up and admitted, oops, we made a mistake, and is compensating for it, not enough by most peoples standards, but something is always better than nothing. When you consider some companies still wont admit there was a problem(Toyota), at least no one died from Fords oops.

[hermans]

so they are saying the FFH is capable of 47 while the C-Max is not? all though same engine and drivetrain? My guess is the C-max would be slightly lighter too...

There is about a 100 pound weight difference between the base C-Max and the FFH. My FFH is loaded with every option except for the parking assist option so I know it is heavier than the base model. I recently got 46.2 mpg on a 1200 mile trip which included alot of mountain driving. I consistently get 47+ on trips of 5 to 50 miles and more. My lifetime average is now 44.5 which includes the very low mileage from when they ran it around the test track in Mexico...they must have thought they were driving in the Indy 500.

 

I do think there were/are some bad cars out there and Ford should address those cars, but the small differences I see here amongst posters are, in my opinion, differences in driving styles and terrain.

[fusionTX]

To answer hybridbear's question in the thread he locked.

 

“The test procedure is not a very quick procedure,” Nair said on an afternoon conference call. “Working hand in hand with the EPA, came to this conclusion fairly recently.”

Actually, the EPA said last month that its initial tests of the C-Max Hybrid yielded 41 mpg, but that was before it updated the vehicle with Ford’s latest software improvement

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/7387-what-will-the-c-max-mpg-change-mean-for-ford/

[hermans]

He didn't ask the question, he locked the thread. All of the threads that have been started on this same topic could have been merged instead of being locked.

Edited August 16, 2013 by hermans

[fusionTX]

I agree that I see no purpose in locking a thread where there are active questions and discussions going on.

Hybridbear asked me to support my statement below (random speculation he called it), but then locked the thread before I could answer.

Posted Today, 06:46 AM

fusionTX, on 15 Aug 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

Ford just lowered the EPA estimates on one of their vehicles by more than 10% and you think they have nothing to apologize for?
My understanding is the EPA would have lowered the CMax to 41 MPG had it not been for the latest PCM update.

Where did you get this information from? Please provide a reputable source and not just random speculation.

[hybridbear]

He didn't ask the question, he locked the thread. All of the threads that have been started on this same topic could have been merged instead of being locked.

There is no way to merge threads. The only option to stop the inane duplication is to lock some down.

 

I agree that I see no purpose in locking a thread where there are active questions and discussions going on.

Hybridbear asked me to support my statement below (random speculation he called it), but then locked the thread before I could answer.

Thanks Tx for posting the link above. It's important in any discussion to provide evidence to support what you say when you make factual points.

[hermans]

There is no way to merge threads. The only option to stop the inane duplication is to lock some down.

 

Thanks Tx for posting the link above. It's important in any discussion to provide evidence to support what you say when you make factual points.

I'm a Moderator on a very active Forum that runs the same software as this site does. I have an "Administrator" tool that allows me to do all sorts of things....including merging threads.

[hybridbear]

I'm a Moderator on a very active Forum that runs the same software as this site does. I have an "Administrator" tool that allows me to do all sorts of things....including merging threads.

acdii & I only have options to Pin, Lock, Edit Title or Move threads. We cannot merge them. I imagine that the "staff" account probably can, but we cannot. I will ask about it though.

[hermans]

It would appear they have not turned on all of your permissions. Being able to merge threads would really help clean up the site.

[MaineFusion]

In the long run, I don't think this embarrassment will hurt ford very much. It could, however, hurt the image and sales of the C-Max Hybrid, although some of those sales could just shift to the FFH.

 

What I don't understand is why the EPA still allows different models with similar power trains and weights to rely on the same test data. There are just too many other variables between different models that impact fuel economy in modern cars, whether a hybrid or a traditional ICE.

[Sleddog]

Ford will weather this with no problem. It may sting a little, but it will change the process used for MPG testing.

 

I'm a mod on another site, the software we use is different, and we have the ability to merge threads and posts. The mods here need to have these abilities.

[B25Nut]

From the beginning most of us here questioned how two vehicles with such different aerodynamics and wheels could come up with exactly the same EPA numbers. Just having one vehicle with the same highway and city figures is very rare. With all we have learned here about the numerous factors that affect mileage, common sense should have set off a red light from someone at Ford that having one MPG figure for the four ratings on two different vehicles was almost statistically impossible. Sure it was "legal" according to EPA rules to use the Fusion's figures for the C-Max, but at best it makes Ford look boneheaded and at worst unethical. These days I hear too many stories about how no one has the ethics and guts to take a stand and say "No, we should not do this".

[MaineFusion]

Ford will weather this with no problem. It may sting a little, but it will change the process used for MPG testing.

Agreed. Hopefully this changes EPA MPG testing regimes for the better.

[corncobs]

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the members of this forum. Even if we disagree on certain small and bigger topics and issues it stays always very civil.

 

I read some of the comments for the autobloggreen article on the derating of the C-Max that HB provided.

 

I mean there is anonymity of the Internet but why does it have to get nasty and personal when you disagree with someone else you don't even know.

 

Here sometimes the discussions get kinda tens but they never turn ugly or personal.

 

Anyhow just wanted to say how I like being part of this very nice forum.

[djminfll]

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the members of this forum. Even if we disagree on certain small and bigger topics and issues it stays always very civil.

 

I read some of the comments for the autobloggreen article on the derating of the C-Max that HB provided.

 

I mean there is anonymity of the Internet but why does it have to get nasty and personal when you disagree with someone else you don't even know.

 

Here sometimes the discussions get kinda tens but they never turn ugly or personal.

 

Anyhow just wanted to say how I like being part of this very nice forum.

Well said! To be honest, I only intended to be part of the forum until I got my car - I figured it would be a good way to learn about the FFH from people who have one. But once I got involved, I found the same thing - the discussions are always civil and polite, even when we disagree about something.

[MaineFusion]

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the members of this forum. Even if we disagree on certain small and bigger topics and issues it stays always very civil.

 

I read some of the comments for the autobloggreen article on the derating of the C-Max that HB provided.

 

I mean there is anonymity of the Internet but why does it have to get nasty and personal when you disagree with someone else you don't even know.

 

Here sometimes the discussions get kinda tens but they never turn ugly or personal.

 

Anyhow just wanted to say how I like being part of this very nice forum.

I agree, these are well run forums and I appreciate the quality of discussions we can have here. It only takes one or two trolls to spin things out of control, and trolls love posting know nothing comments on news sites and blogs that tend not to do a good job of moderating comments.