More on Consumer Reports ratings

[djminfll]

I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat in the context of this thread.

I leased a 2006 Honda Accord EX-L coupe, primarily based on the CR Top-10 rating, and the absolute rave reviews they gave the vehicle. I knew driving it home from the dealership that I wasn't going to love the car based on how much road noise it generated on the highway. Over the duration of the lease, I had countless problems with the transmission and brakes, all of which were covered under warranty, but all of which required taking the car in and either waiting for it to be fixed, or having to drive some awful loaner car. Honda continues to earn top scores, but personally, I'm done with them!

[Texasota]

I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat in the context of this thread.

I leased a 2006 Honda Accord EX-L coupe, primarily based on the CR Top-10 rating, and the absolute rave reviews they gave the vehicle. I knew driving it home from the dealership that I wasn't going to love the car based on how much road noise it generated on the highway. Over the duration of the lease, I had countless problems with the transmission and brakes, all of which were covered under warranty, but all of which required taking the car in and either waiting for it to b Honda continues to earn top scores, but personally, I'm done with them!

It has not all been rave reviews. Honda had some bad stumbles recently and they got bad CR reviews. Here is an example for the Civic:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/08/2012-honda-civic-lx-scores-too-low-for-consumer-reports-to-recommend/index.htm

 

another poor rating on Honda Fit from CR because of crash tests:

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/23/honda-fit-loses-recommended-rating-from-consumer-reports/

 

and more negative ratings from CR on multiple Japanese cars including Hondas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/automobiles/japanese-autos-lose-ground-in-consumer-reports-reliability-ratings.html?_r=0

Edited March 9, 2014 by Texasota

[hybridbear]

Here is a perfect example of an issue I have with CR, in this article they again act like they're God and that they deserve the credit for the recent Ford MPG change since they complained about the MPG. Their arrogant attitude is disgusting.

[corncobs]

I agree with HB definitely an arrogant tone to this article.

 

I would really like to see their reaction if a company the like would have to do such an adjustment.

[Texasota]

I read the article and watched the video. I did not feel that they acted "like they're God" or that it was an "arrogant tone" but I understand that it can come across differently depending on your perspective and own biases.

 

Ford has taken lots of heat for their inaccurate EPA numbers on the FFH (and other models). Similarly, CR has also taken lots of heat for being very outspoken about the MPG results that they have measured for the Fusion. There are many examples of fierce CR criticism within this forum on this exact subject. CR did come across in their article and their video as feeling vindicated because the EPA numbers are now reasonably close to their actual measurements. Seems reasonable to me.

 

Okay, fire away! I have my flack jacket on. ;)

Edited June 15, 2014 by Texasota

[corncobs]

No worries today is Father's Day so there is ceasefire ;)

[Texasota]

I would really like to see their reaction if a company the like would have to do such an adjustment.

 

You may get that opportunity with the new HAH. CR blasted Honda for its grossly overstated EPA numbers on the new HAH just like they did for the FFH:

 

http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2014/05/consumer-reports-blasts-honda-accord-hybrid-mpg-claim/

 

I suspect the same saga may unfold for the HAH with Honda ultimately giving good will refunds just like Hyundai did in 2013 and Ford is now doing in 2014.

 

Consumer Reports also gave the new HAH a relatively poor rating because of several other factors. In fact, they recommended staying away from the HAH and buying the gas Accord. That is the exact opposite of CR's take on the FFH. They preferred the FFH over the gas Fusions.

[acdii]

What this will come down to is car companies will actually test all their models prior to issuing the EPA statements, instead of relying on mathematical formulas and dyno tests. Had they actually done that with several different cars from the same model, then they wouldn't be issuing checks and having egg on their face. I honestly think that is what Toyota actually does, they test, test, test, then they issue their EPA ratings. While I dont really like the Appliance(toyota's), I can get into any of their Hybrids and hit EPA right from the start.

[Griswald]

Quote by acdii

 

 

"What this will come down to is car companies will actually test all their models prior to issuing the EPA statements, instead of relying on mathematical formulas and dyno tests. Had they actually done that with several different cars from the same model, then they wouldn't be issuing checks and having egg on their face. I honestly think that is what Toyota actually does, they test, test, test, then they issue their EPA ratings. While I dont really like the Appliance(toyota's), I can get into any of their Hybrids and hit EPA right from the start."

 

 

I don't think many of you realize that Ford had NO CHOICE in what EPA numbers to show. The tests are very well regulated and structured and Ford (or any other manufacturer) cannot deviate from them. I work in a heavily UL labeled environment. We are forced to do things according to the UL Proceedure handbook and cannot deviate from those processes. We know some of the tests are useless and prove nothing and some are even giving consumers a false sense of safety. Nothing we can do about it.

 

Seems that when Ford found the error, they reported their findings to EPA and only after the EPA studied the report, were they allowed to post the results and new numbers.

 

You can't blame Ford or Chevy or Fiat or Toyota etc. They are only following what the EPA has forced them to do.

 

Oh, and you might be surprised to find out that you can "cherry-pick" your test samples, even as far as hand assembling them in a lab and not on the production line. The device being tested is far from what you end up with at the dealers lot. Follow-up testing by these orginizations is practically non-existant.

 

All of this info is based on 20+ years in a R & D career using various testing facilities (but not the EPA). I am making the assumption that the EPA is the same as the other orginizations that I have used.

[ruralvoice]

My 2012 FFH has performed in an outstanding manner, and this includes, the navigation an media console/center. I get great mileage and never have any problems. I read CR and have a subscription, and there is definitely a bias that has evolved over the years.

[acdii]

Quote by acdii

 

 

"What this will come down to is car companies will actually test all their models prior to issuing the EPA statements, instead of relying on mathematical formulas and dyno tests. Had they actually done that with several different cars from the same model, then they wouldn't be issuing checks and having egg on their face. I honestly think that is what Toyota actually does, they test, test, test, then they issue their EPA ratings. While I dont really like the Appliance(toyota's), I can get into any of their Hybrids and hit EPA right from the start."

 

 

I don't think many of you realize that Ford had NO CHOICE in what EPA numbers to show. The tests are very well regulated and structured and Ford (or any other manufacturer) cannot deviate from them. I work in a heavily UL labeled environment. We are forced to do things according to the UL Proceedure handbook and cannot deviate from those processes. We know some of the tests are useless and prove nothing and some are even giving consumers a false sense of safety. Nothing we can do about it.

 

Seems that when Ford found the error, they reported their findings to EPA and only after the EPA studied the report, were they allowed to post the results and new numbers.

 

You can't blame Ford or Chevy or Fiat or Toyota etc. They are only following what the EPA has forced them to do.

 

Oh, and you might be surprised to find out that you can "cherry-pick" your test samples, even as far as hand assembling them in a lab and not on the production line. The device being tested is far from what you end up with at the dealers lot. Follow-up testing by these orginizations is practically non-existant.

 

All of this info is based on 20+ years in a R & D career using various testing facilities (but not the EPA). I am making the assumption that the EPA is the same as the other orginizations that I have used.

They certainly DO have a choice. They can actually test the cars, instead of computing numbers like they did. It was only after they compared real world with the mathematical computations from the EPA that they discovered the flaw. The Cmax was based on the rules posted by the EPA, they categorized the car without actually testing it and got bit in the ass.

 

You can run theories all you want, which is what the EPA tests all boil down to, but once you put the plan into motion in the real world, theories can all go bye bye. Ford screwed up by not actually testing all the models they produced and grouped them together, and the end results were that not all the models held up.

 

 

As an ongoing practice, Ford conducts tests on production vehicles to validate its engineering models. Based on coastdown testing of the Fusion Hybrid, the company found the TRLHP did not match the values used for the dynamometer testing.

Upon further testing, Ford also discovered an error specific to how we correlate wind tunnel results into the TRLHP model. Ford’s error was the result of a recent process change, which the company has since corrected.

The Engineering models, and real world models did not match up, had they done extensive testing prior to the release of the Fusion and Cmax they may have caught it and the EPA figures would have been correct from the start.

 

Like I said before, this is a hard earned lesson that Ford has had, and most likely will never repeat it. It's like Global Warming, the models and real world don't reflect each other, same can be said for the EPA tests, they are just a bunch of numbers that are based on sets of rules, and if any part of a rule is off, the entire test is flawed.

[Easy Rider]

 

 

I don't think many of you realize that Ford had NO CHOICE in what EPA numbers to show. The tests are very well regulated and structured and Ford (or any other manufacturer) cannot deviate from them.

 

 

Well it seems that they DID deviate from the "proper" procedures.........whether by accident or on purpose.......now didn't they ??

 

This is an "honor" system, with the EPA setting the standards and the car companies agreeing to abide by them.

 

The EPA does NOT verify the numbers that the companies come up with.........obviously.

 

And the procedures for setting the numbers do NOT include real world driving out on the streets.

acdii.......what makes you think that is an option ??

Edited June 16, 2014 by Easy Rider

[acdii]

Its not an option, its a proof of concept. POC takes the theory and proves whether or not it will work. Obviously Ford did not do this, or they would have discovered the flaw in the math from the start. IOW they do have a choice in what they send to the EPA. They can send their mathematical theories, which is what they did, or they can take their theories, run real world tests based on those theories, and either prove them out, or change the theories so they actually match what they proved out. POC is what I do all the time with networking and firewalls. On Paper what looks like will work, sometimes doesn't based on something that got missed, or overlooked, IE a Monkey Wrench. Happened to me on Saturday, we were moving customers from one location to another. On paper it looked like a 4 hour job, but that damned Monkey Wrench appears when it was discovered that a server could not be removed from a rack do to someone stripping out the screws.

[Griswald]

They most certainly did NOT deviate from proceedures. You really think that any car company can just "say" that their cars get XX MPG????? No possible way. Those numbers are based on formulas developed and published by the EPA. You cannot deviate from those standards. Period.

 

You can keep on thinking that Ford "faked" that 47 mpg number, just like you can hope that the $3 extension cord won't catch fire. In reality, tha $3 extension cord won't catch fire unless you do something outside of the intended use. Both must follow standards, the car companies and the offshore extension cord manufacturer.

[acdii]

They most certainly did NOT deviate from proceedures. You really think that any car company can just "say" that their cars get XX MPG????? No possible way. Those numbers are based on formulas developed and published by the EPA. You cannot deviate from those standards. Period.

 

You can keep on thinking that Ford "faked" that 47 mpg number, just like you can hope that the $3 extension cord won't catch fire. In reality, tha $3 extension cord won't catch fire unless you do something outside of the intended use. Both must follow standards, the car companies and the offshore extension cord manufacturer.

It still comes down to the numbers. Sure Ford followed the procedure, on paper the car should get 47 MPG, but in reality it was not, so what went wrong? They worked at it until they discovered the flaw in the math, which involved real world testing. So what I am saying is, what car companies will most likely be doing now and in the future before they issue any EPA numbers is trust but verify. Do the computer numbers match up with real world numbers? Only way to know is to do real world testing on each model.

 

So lets say Ford took a base model Fusion, 17" LRR tires, no extra options, lightest Fusion made, and did real world test. That car got 47 MPG average, so based on that, using EPA guidelines and standards, they can put that number on all the cars they make that uses this drivetrain and meets certain other criteria, even though in reality none of them can meet the same standards and the base model due to extra weight, different tires, and different Coefficient of Drag. This is what Ford did with the Cmax, based EPA on the Fusion model they tested with. In the future, to save face, they most likely will do extensive testing on each model just to make sure, at least this is what we can hope they do.

[Texasota]

This discussion is focusing on what Ford "should do" (i.e. actual road test MPG tests) if they want to produce EPA numbers that accurately reflect real world driving results. But why would any manufacturer (e.g. Ford) voluntarily apply a different set of rules to themselves that would put them at a competitive disadvantage when other manufactures are not also doing that? The HAH is the latest example of wildly inflated EPA numbers and you can bet that Honda will claim that they followed the prescribed EPA testing procedures exactly.

 

The consumer will not get accurate EPA numbers for comparison purposes unless all manufactures play by the exact same set of rules. The Consumer Reports article that HB posted concluded with these statements and in my opinion CR has it exactly right:

 

 

All this points out how crucial fuel economy ratings are to automakers and the lengths they will go to to get higher ratings. But better ratings are only useful if they give consumers a fair basis for comparison of how much gas a car will use after they actually buy it.

We think the EPA test and ratings procedures, in place since the 1970s with only minor revisions, are long overdue for a major overhaul, especially in light of new powertrain technologies such as hybrids, which behave much differently than the cars the tests were originally designed to measure.

 

[hybridbear]

In the statement by Raj Nair he comments that the manufacturers determine the data used for the EPA tests on the dynamometer based on mathematical formulas from the wind tunnel and other models. However, he says that manufacturers also perform "coast down" testing in the real world to confirm that the calculated formulas are correct. That's how Ford found this issue. They did coast down testing on the FFH and other models and found that their mathematical formulas contained an error. Then, as alpha has kindly explained to us in the other thread, Ford set about the multi-month process of examining every step of their mathematical process to figure out where the error happened.

 

The comments by acdii seem to be suggesting that Ford & other car companies should be doing the real world validation of their mathematical models before releasing the EPA test results. To a certain extent this may be a valid point. However, the manufacturers are also in a constant race to get their new models released ahead of their competition. And delaying the release of a vehicle for a few months to perform real world testing could cost the company many millions of dollars. So, they take a calculated risk, putting their faith in the mathematical models and then later on performing the real world validation only if it's deemed necessary.

[Easy Rider]

IOW they do have a choice in what they send to the EPA. They can send their mathematical theories, which is what they did, or they can take their theories, run real world tests based on those theories, and either prove them out, or change the theories so they actually match what they proved out.

 

How do you KNOW that ?

As logical as it may seem, I believe that it is NOT true.

I am pretty sure that the EPA is pretty specific about what should be done and how.......and there is NOT an alternative method of measurement.

[acdii]

So sorry that that went right over your head. Maybe next time......

 

 

HB You are correct about competition, however, it is my firm belief that Toyota actually does this prior to the release of their cars since any one of their models does in fact get their EPA ratings right off the lot(when driven properly). All they really have to consider to get this right and avoid issues like this is plan for it in their timeline so that when it comes time for the new model release they will already have all their Duckies lined up ready for the CR shooting gallery.

[Easy Rider]

 

it is my firm belief that Toyota actually does this prior to the release of their cars

 

And it is my firm belief that you are just taking a wild guess here and drawing conclusions based not on real facts but on coincidences perceived as "evidence".

 

I call BS here.

 

In order to keep the playing field somewhat level, the EPA specifies EXACTLY what to test and how to go about it.

Mistakes and downright fraud not withstanding, the companies do NOT have alternative methods to choose from.

They just simply do NOT.

 

If you are going to make unsubstantiated claims, you should expect to be called on them.

 

Oh, and I quite assure you that nothing "went over my head".

[SteveB_TX]

:lurk: :lurk: Anyone bring butter?

[GrySql]

:lurk: :lurk: Anyone bring butter?

Got room on the couch?

[Texasota]

:lurk: I try to stay away from butter. Will Benecol work? :lurk:

[hermans]

I'll bring the dogs.... :happy feet:

[corncobs]

Here is the butter ;)