backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by virginiakiana2.. on Aug 18 at 6:18 PM

Ford will also give cash payments of $550 to buyers of the C-Max

The writing has been on the wall for months, but it looks as though Ford is finally listening to its countless critics. After a few lawsuits, blowback from publications like Consumer Reports, and even findings from actual drivers, Ford has lowered the fuel economy ratings for its C-Max hybrid.
 
The C-Max was previously rated at 47/47/47 (city/highway/combined), but the company announced today that it would lower those numbers to 45/40/43 (city/highway/combined). The biggest hit came on the highway, where the C-Max saw its rating drop by seven miles per gallon. The new combined rating puts the C-Max just one mile per gallon higher than its chief rival: the Toyota Prius v.
 
In addition, customer that bought a C-Max will receive a $550 cash rebate from Ford; lessees will receive $325.


2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid
 
“Ford is absolutely committed to being a leader in the hybrid market and to top fuel efficiency across our lineup,” said Raj Nair, group vice president, global product development. “We are taking actions with our popular C-MAX Hybrid so that customers are even more satisfied with the vehicle’s on-road fuel efficiency performance.”

In its testing, Consumer Reports indicated that the C-Max was only good for 35/38/37 (city/highway/combined). In response to Consumer Reports' story, Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood said in April, "Early C-Max Hybrid and Fusion Hybrid customers praise the vehicles and report a range of fuel economy figures, including some reports above 47 mpg. This reinforces the fact that driving styles, driving conditions and other factors can cause mileage to vary."
 
For their part, C-Max drivers over at Fuelly reported an average of 40.2 mpg combined -- still nearly three miles per gallon below Ford's new combined rating.


C-Max drivers on Fuelly.com showed just how optimistic the original ratings were
 
"This is an industrywide issue with hybrid vehicles," explained Nair. "We've learned along with EPA that the regulations create some anomalies for hybrid vehicles under the general label rule."
 
Ford isn't the only automaker that recently had to revise its inflated fuel economy ratings; Hyundai/Kia was taken to task when it overstated the fuel economy on a number of 2012 and 2013 models. It too instituted a cash repayment program for affected drivers.


Updated 8/15/2013 @ 8:39pm
The EPA has explained [PDF] the reason why the C-Max was previously rated for 47 mpg across the board, and why the new numbers are lower. It appears that Ford used a provision in the EPA testing to allow it to use the fuel economy numbers from the Fusion Hybrid on the C-Max because they used the same powertrain and weighed the same. However, the Fusion is a more aerodynamic vehicle, hence the huge discrepancy in the real world on the C-Max:
 
Ford based the 2013 Ford C-Max label on testing of the related Ford Fusion hybrid, which has the same engine, transmission and test weight as allowed under EPA regulations. For the vast majority of vehicles this approach would have yielded an appropriate label value for the car, but these new vehicles are more sensitive to small design differences than conventional vehicles because advanced highly efficient vehicles use so little fuel. 
 
In this case, EPA’s evaluation found that the C-Max’s aerodynamic characteristics resulted in a significant difference in fuel economy from the Fusion hybrid.

Sources: Automotive News, Ford



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The problem
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/15/2013 7:18:08 PM , Rating: 1
Has anyone every been able to replicate the advertised mileage on their car without coasting downhill in neutral with a tailwind? I can't.

The problem is that car makers are doing their own testing and sending their results to the EPA for validation.

The EPA in its own judgement can do spot audit testing to confirm the manufacturers results. How often is this actually done and what happens if the results do not exactly match the EPA audit? Nobody says. How many times does the EPA throw out an botched audit by chalking it up to manufacturing tolerances?

There is some reason coming though. The EPA is revising their test protocols (to be followed by manufacturers) to take into account fast starts, his speed driving and usage of air conditioning. These should help bring mileage figures more in line with real life use.




RE: The problem
By artemicion on 8/15/2013 7:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a 2012 Ford Focus, which is advertised as something like 32 mpg combined, and my dash reads 31 mpg, so I'm pretty close. Granted, that is assuming the dash readout is accurate and that my driving routes are equivalent to whatever "combined" is supposed to mean.


RE: The problem
By Souka on 8/15/2013 11:40:40 PM , Rating: 3
I have a 2004 Prius.. it's EPA ratings is 60city/50hwy. In flat city traffic I'll get 42. Flat highway I'll get near 60.

Typical 500+ miles per tank... 48 mpg combined driving mostly to-from work (17miles each way)

60mpg city? no way....


RE: The problem
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/15/2013 11:51:56 PM , Rating: 3
It was rated at 60/50 before the EPA busted Toyota and hybrids in general (that was the last time the EPA formula was changed drastically -- to address hybrids).

Your Prius is actually now rated at 48/45/46 (city/highway/combined), so your 48 combined number is actually better than EPA.


RE: The problem
By Samus on 8/16/2013 12:56:55 AM , Rating: 3
Sometimes ratings are higher. It's all conditional. The last two weeks in Chicago has been mild 70's with little wind pressure. I've been driving without the AC with a IAT (intake air temperature) of 74 degrees and achieved 33.2MPG on a 450 mile round-trip to Michigan when my vehicle is rated at 31MPG highway. I was also cruising at 70-75MPH when I know these EPA tests are often done at 55-60MPH.

I hate to post information like this because everything is very conditional (although the temperature was consistent and terrain was, as the Midwest is, flat. But compensation for wind, fuel quality, potty stops, and passenger weight (there were 2.2 of us) are all variables, too.

But my point is, you can achieve better than EPA estimates, but unfortunately, most people achieve worse, and that's the problem.


RE: The problem
By Solandri on 8/16/2013 2:08:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But my point is, you can achieve better than EPA estimates, but unfortunately, most people achieve worse, and that's the problem.

The EPA ratings aren't meant to be a predictor for the mileage you'll get. They're meant to allow you to comparison shop between different cars. That is, if car A has a 30 mpg EPA rating and car B has a 40 mpg rating, that doesn't mean you'll get 30 mpg and 40 mpg in the two cars respectively. But whatever mileage you do get, you can expect it to be a roughly 3:4 ratio.

I've pretty much decided the EPA should abandon efforts to make the EPA mileage rating seem like a realistic MPG rating. Instead they should emphasize the average annual fuel cost (which is currently relegated to the fine print on the EPA sticker). That'll get people to stop incorrectly comparing the EPA mileages to the actual mileage they get. And it'll also correct the misguided bias MPG gives to high-mileage vehicles due to MPG being the inverse of fuel consumption (we'd save more fuel by improving the efficiency of low-MPG vehicles like trucks).


RE: The problem
By BRB29 on 8/16/2013 7:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
I always choose the Ford Focus for highway driving from DC to Rochester, NY. The highway mpg for the Focus is 36 and I average 40 every time going 10 mph above speed limit.

So yes you can beat it.

My Infiniti M37x may get a lofty 22mpg on the highway even though it's rated higher at 26.


RE: The problem
By praeses on 8/15/2013 8:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can only achieve the advertised mpg of the vehicles I drive when using ethanol-free fuel. Typically best at the lowest octane (least additives) that the car is specified to run on.

That is when I am trying to drive economically. That is not normal however, as that would mean that I do not have winter tires on (3-5months of the year), not when I have my typical half-full trunk, bunch of passengers, and am driving at a normal pace.


RE: The problem
By kurahk7 on 8/15/2013 9:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
I can. I drive a 1991 Honda Accord. It's rated at 27mpg highway. I achieve that all time just driving to and from school(20 miles each way). I calculate my mpg by filling up and dividing the total miles driven by the gallons filled.


RE: The problem
By Jedi2155 on 8/15/2013 11:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
My old 2003 Honda Civic LX was rated at 25/34/29 (City/Hwy/Comb) and I was often getting 36-40 MPG on it driving in California freeways.

My Volt is rated at 35 miles All Electric and I'm commonly getting about 39-45 miles per charge. I think most people just don't think about how they drive.

The EPA numbers on the C-Max though were just atrocious though.


RE: The problem
By conq on 8/16/2013 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My old 2003 Honda Civic LX was rated at 25/34/29 (City/Hwy/Comb) and I was often getting 36-40 MPG on it driving in California freeways.

Funny you mention that, I'm sensing a common theme now because you aren't the first to point it out. Perhaps that vehicle model is a bit of an anomaly. I drive the Civic '01 DX variant of that model and I also blow the 25/34/29 (City/Hwy/Comb) out of the water every time, even in harsh winters here in Buffalo, NY.

I typically get:
Winter 32-35mpg (Comb)
Spring-Fall 38-42mpg (Comb)

I just wish that rust would go away, darn salty winters :(


RE: The problem
By Roffles on 8/18/2013 5:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Same here with my old 2005 LX. I would typically get 38-40mpg on the freeway without too much effort. I just had to make sure to keep it to 70mph, coast to slow down, and not too much throttle. It always made me question why I would spend all the extra money on a hybrid.

One rather obvious key to good mpg is keeping an appreciable distance from the car in front of you so you can coast to slow down and gradually speed back up during the ebb and flow of traffic. Also you should coast to slow down when approaching a red traffic light.

It seems like most folks are really hard up about not letting anyone in front of them... always having their foot on either the gas or the brake... and wasting lots of fuel while stressing themselves out. Those are the people who complain about not getting the advertised mileage. Go figure.


RE: The problem
By StormyKnight on 8/16/2013 12:28:56 AM , Rating: 1
I have a 2013 Chevrolet Malibu with a 2.5L engine. In combined driving on one tank of gas, I did manage to hit the 34 m/gl. I'd say 85% of my driving is highway since I travel to work is a 96 mile round trip. I also drive rather conservatively when I can which is about 55 mph. I allow myself the time to get ready so I don't have to do the 70-75 mph dash if I'm late.

I'm not a big believer in what the car's computer is telling me as far as average m/gl since it is a tad higher than my calculations. I keep track of all gasoline purchases as well as maintenance costs on aCar on my phone. It says I'm getting on average 30 m/gl where the car is telling me it is 31.7 m/gl. Living in the Great Lakes area, the winters tend to drive my results down with winter gasoline being what it is. But some of my best tanks have been 34, 33.1, 33.2, 32.4, 32 and 31.8.


RE: The problem
By laststop311 on 8/16/2013 3:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
I got a 2006 malibu maxx ss. And I am definately hurting at the pump. My car readout is showing just 18.2 mpg. 3.9L V6 is hurting me.


RE: The problem
By Neener on 8/16/2013 7:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
I can. With my Honda Accord and my Prius too. In fact it's well known that most cars can get much closer to their EPA numbers than the C-MAX (check Fuelly)

The ACTUAL problem here is that Ford for some reason thought it was a good idea to use the Fusion Hybrid's numbers and pretend the C-MAX could do the same. I'm guessing they tested the C-MAX and found it couldn't match what the Prius did so they had to lie and market the hell out of the 47/47/47 number to get the most benefit before conceding some money later on.


RE: The problem
By Mint on 8/16/2013 10:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly it. The EPA cycle is quite reasonable as an average case, and it creates a repeatable scientific test that consumers can use to compare cars. It's much better than the European Driving Cycle, where the same car gets 70 MPG there and 40 MPG here (I know the gallon is different, but not that much).

Ford never actually ran the test on the C-Max. They used a loophole to report false figures and went nuts with the marketing.


RE: The problem
By Alexvrb on 8/16/2013 10:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I hate it when people try to compare Euro numbers to US EPA numbers. They don't even usually factor in Imperial vs US gallon conversion, let alone inferior European cycle testing, and less stringent emissions requirements (especially on diesels).

Anyway, I was initially surprised Ford went ahead with these numbers after Hyundai just got busted for doing the same thing (although Hyundai did it across a number of Hyundai and Kia models). But thinking about it, all Hyundai got was a slap on the wrist. They probably made more money off increased sales for lying than they lost from being caught. I guess Ford figured why not try it! They spent a year marketing the hell out of this thing and boasting about its better-than-Prius mileage.


RE: The problem
By FITCamaro on 8/16/2013 9:12:54 AM , Rating: 2
My Cruze is rated at 27/42. My average is 40-42 both commuting to work and pure highway. The absolute worst I've ever gotten at a fillup is 36 mpg. I'm sure if I did nothing but pure bumper to bumper traffic and drove it like crap I might hit 27 mpg. But in real world driving, I'm meeting and/or beating the EPA numbers.


RE: The problem
By Mint on 8/16/2013 11:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
You'd be surprised how much frequent stops kills fuel economy. In the city, that's where the majority of the energy goes.

I've have a BMW that gets 30 mpg on the highway at 70mph, but in city traffic with even more stops and starts than the EPA city test, I get 12-15 mpg.

I have a very short commute, so I don't really care, but cars can get huge variations in efficiency.


RE: The problem
By ssj3gohan on 8/16/2013 10:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nissan Pixo, rated 22.7 km/L, consistently getting 25km/L or more (peak 26.3). It's all down to your driving style.


RE: The problem
By Rukkian on 8/16/2013 10:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 2014 Forrester, which is 32 Hwy and 28 combined, and doing 75 on the hwy, I get 33 typically, and over 5k miles have an overall combined fuel economy average of 29.1. I don't go pedal to the floor, but am also not trying to hyper mile at all. The biggest things seems to be whether you like to tailgate, and have to ride the brakes.

In most cars I drive, I can get near what they are rated.


RE: The problem
By godlyatheist on 8/16/2013 1:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
My 2012 Civic gets an average of 36mpg drive to and from work (15 miles one way, half highway and half local). If I just drive highway it can easily go above 40mpg (48mpg is the highest I recorded). City mileage is like 26-30. So are hybrids really worth the saving in fuel if you don't drive a lot of city?


RE: The problem
By Alexvrb on 8/17/2013 11:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you do mostly highway driving a hybrid can be a bit of a waste. You'll also get a nicer car for your money if you skip the batteries, making for a better long ride. If I had a lengthy highway commute and was in the market for a new car, I'd probably pick up a Cruze Diesel. Really good highway mileage, decent city, and more torque than its gas brethren.


RE: The problem
By GTVic on 8/16/2013 4:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not to ignore your joke but it is actually better to coast down the hill under compression if you have a manual transmission. That is, if the hill is steep enough that it doesn't slow you down.

Your car should shut off the fuel to the injectors and that would save fuel compared with coasting down in neutral.

If you have a really long hill to test this out you can verify by watching the engine temperature which should start to drop significantly.


RE: The problem
By mrwassman on 8/18/2013 4:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, engine temperature should not fluctuate that much once the system is at operating temperature. If what you are saying is true than you should probably replace the thermostat.


RE: The problem
By mrwassman on 8/18/2013 4:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
Don't have that problem at all in my '95 Volvo 850(or previous Z31 300zx's or F-body trans am).

I get 24/30+ combined/freeway, rated at 21/26. 5-speed manual and 210,xxx miles. Plus I waste fuel rev matching during downshifts.

http://i.minus.com/i8iHuQ7hypM5k.jpg

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/12010.shtm...


RE: The problem
By virginiakiana234 on 8/18/2013 6:18:07 PM , Rating: 2

Im really thankful to Ricky Casanoir that commented last week in this site and suggested me this site to earn money online. By just following simple 3 steps you get on the verge of making easy amount at home. ... B­B­C­1­3.Co­M


I'm surprised they botched this so bad
By bill.rookard on 8/15/2013 10:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or an auto engineering guru) to figure out that while they may have the same engine, the same transmission, and the same weight - the two biggest factors in fuel efficiency is weight and aerodynamics .

They should have known right off the bat that they needed to probably take the aero coefficient, find the ratio between the Fusion and the C-Max, and reduced the C-Max by that percentage. While that might not have gotten them the 'stellar' MPG rating for the C-Max, it probably would have been much more accurate.




RE: I'm surprised they botched this so bad
By Neener on 8/16/2013 7:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't take a MBA to know that Ford plain lied. Of course they tested the C-MAX too. Why would they not? I'm sure they just found that the C-MAX didn't do as well as they liked so they copied over the Fusion's numbers.


RE: I'm surprised they botched this so bad
By alpha754293 on 8/16/13, Rating: 0
By Mint on 8/16/2013 10:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
Just because they found a loophole doesn't mean they didn't lie.

The C-Max NEVER achieved the stated results with the EPA test schedule. It consumes 18% more gas on the highway cycle than Ford was advertising to consumers. That's a HUGE difference.

They were so cocky about it, too:
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=37...
quote:
We are not worried about the fuel economy. We know we can pass any EPA test.


By alpha754293 on 8/16/2013 8:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how few people actually understand (or bother to research) how fuel economy testing ACTUALLY happens.

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, SS.86.108-79

"§ 86.108–79 Dynamometer.
(a) The dynamometer shall have a power absorption unit for simulation of road load power and flywheels or other means of simulating the inertia weight as specified in § 86.129."

SS.86.129-00
"(f)(1) Required test dynamometer inertia weight class selections for the test elements of FTP, US06, and SC03
are determined by the test vehicles test weight basis and corresponding equivalent weight as listed in the tabular
information of § 86.129–94(a). With the exception of the fuel economy test weight information in footnote 4 to the
table in § 86.129–94(a), none of the other footnotes to the tabular listing apply to emission tests utilizing an approved single roll dynamometer or equivalent dynamometer configuration. All lightduty vehicles and light light-duty
trucks are to be tested at the inertia weight class corresponding to their equivalent test weight."

SS.86.129-80
Road load power
at 50 mi/hour—
light duty
trucks 1,2,3
Test weight
basis 4,5
Test
equivalent
test
weight
(pounds)
Inertia
weight
class
(pounds)
............................. Up to 1062 ........... 1,000 1,000
............................. 1063 to 1187 ....... 1,125 1,000
............................. 1188 to 1312 ....... 1,250 1,250
............................. 1313 to 1437 ....... 1,375 1,250
............................. 1438 to 1562 ....... 1,500 1,500
............................. 1563 to 1687 ....... 1,625 1,500
............................. 1688 to 1812 ....... 1,750 1,750
............................. 1813 to 1937 ....... 1,875 1,750
............................. 1938 to 2062 ....... 2,000 2,000
............................. 2063 to 2187 ....... 2,125 2,000
............................. 2188 to 2312 ....... 2,250 2,250
............................. 2313 to 2437 ....... 2,375 2,250
............................. 2438 to 2562 ....... 2,500 2,500
............................. 2563 to 2687 ....... 2,625 2,500
............................. 2688 to 2812 ....... 2,750 2,750
............................. 2813 to 2937 ....... 2,875 2,750
............................. 2938 to 3062 ....... 3,000 3,000
............................. 3063 to 3187 ....... 3,125 3,000
............................. 3188 to 3312 ....... 3,250 3,000
............................. 3313 to 3437 ....... 3,375 3,500
............................. 3438 to 3562 ....... 3,500 3,500
............................. 3563 to 3687 ....... 3,625 3,500
............................. 3688 to 3812 ....... 3,750 3,500
............................. 3813 to 3937 ....... 3,875 4,000
............................. 3938 to 4125 ....... 4,000 4,000
............................. 4126 to 4375 ....... 4,250 4,000
............................. 4376 to 4625 ....... 4,500 4,500
............................. 4626 to 4875 ....... 4,750 4,500
............................. 4876 to 5125 ....... 5,000 5,000
............................. 5126 to 5375 ....... 5,250 5,000
............................. 5376 to 5750 ....... 5,500 5,500
............................. 5751 to 6250 ....... 6,000 6,000
............................. 6251 to 6750 ....... 6,500 6,500
............................. 6751 to 7250 ....... 7,000 7,000
............................. 7251 to 7750 ....... 7,500 7,500
............................. 7751 to 8250 ....... 8,000 8,000
............................. 8251 to 8750 ....... 8,500 8,500
............................. 8751 to 9250 ....... 9,000 9,000
............................. 9251 to 9750 ....... 9,500 9,500
............................. 9751 to 10250 ..... 10,000 10,000
............................. 10251 to 10750 ... 10,500 10,500
............................. 10751 to 11250 ... 11,000 11,000
............................. 11251 to 11750 ... 11,500 11,500
............................. 11751 to 12250 ... 12,000 12,000
............................. 12251 to 12750 ... 12,500 12,500
............................. 12751 to 13250 ... 13,000 13,000
............................. 13251 to 13750 ... 13,500 13,500
............................. 13751 to 14000 ... 14,000 14,000
1 For all light-duty trucks except vans, and for heavy-duty
vehicles optionally certified as light-duty trucks, and for complete
heavy-duty vehicles, the road load power (horsepower)
at 50 mi/h shall be 0.58 times B (defined in footnote 3 of this
table) rounded to the nearest 1/2 horsepower.
2 For vans, the road load power at 50 mi/h (horsepower)
shall be 0.50 times B (defined in footnote 3 of this table)
rounded to the nearest 1/2 horsepower.
3 B is the basic vehicle frontal area (square foot) plus the
additional frontal area (square foot) of mirrors and optional
equipment exceeding 0.1 ft 2 which are anticipated to be sold
on more than 33 percent of the car line. Frontal area measurements
shall be computed to the nearest 10th of a square
foot using a method approved in advance by the Administrator.


By alpha754293 on 8/16/2013 9:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
See also Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, SS.86.129-80 "Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class determination.", (c)(2)(i).

"The dynamometer road load setting
is determined from the equivalent
test weight, the reference frontal area,
the body shape, the vehicle protuberances,
and the tire type by the following
equations.
(i) For light-duty vehicles to be tested
on a twin roll dynamometer.
Hp = aA + P + tW
where:
Hp = the dynamometer power absorber setting
at 50 mph (horsepower).
A = the vehicle reference frontal area (ft2).
The vehicle reference frontal area is defined
as the area of the orthogonal projection
of the vehicle; including tires and suspension
components, but excluding vehicle
protuberances, onto a plane perpendicular
to both the longitudinal plane of the vehicle
and the surface upon which the vehicle
is positioned. Measurements of this area
shall be computed to the nearest tenth of
a square foot using a method approved in
advance by the Administrator.
P = the protuberance power correction factor
from table 1 of this paragraph (horsepower).
W = vehicle equivalent test weight (lbs) from
the table in paragraph (a).
a = 0.43 for fastback-shaped vehicles; = 0.50
for all other light duty vehicles.
t = 0.0 for vehicles equipped with radial ply
tires; = 3 × 10¥ 4 for all other vehicles.
A vehicle is considered to have a fastback
shape if the rearward projection
of that portion of the rear surface (Ab)
which slopes at an angle of less than 20
degrees from the horizontal is at least
25 percent as large as the vehicle reference
frontal area. In addition, this
surface must be smooth, continuous,
and free from any local transitions
greater than four degrees. An example
of a fastback shape is presented in Figure
1."


By alpha754293 on 8/16/2013 9:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
"No, people are particularly stupid today. I can't talk to anymore of them."


Again?
By Apone on 8/15/2013 8:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford is absolutely committed to being a leader in the hybrid market and to top fuel efficiency across our lineup,” said Raj Nair, group vice president, global product development.


Yes, Ford is so committed it's willing to exaggerate its MPG claims just to take pole position.

quote:
This reinforces the fact that driving styles, driving conditions and other factors can cause mileage to vary.


Then why all of a sudden lower the C-Max down to 43 MPG and issue $325/$550 cash refunds if there is no problem?




RE: Again?
By alpha754293 on 8/15/2013 10:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Read the EPA document.


Another factor
By Dorkyman on 8/16/2013 11:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
I just finished reading an article while getting my oil changed that said those dashboard mpg computers are always off about 5%. Not only that, but the error is always on the side favoring an INCREASED mpg reading. In other words, if the display shows 30mpg, your actual figure is more like 28.5. The writer found this to be true across three different manufacturers. So the only accurate way to determine mpg is to keep logs of fuelups.




RE: Another factor
By jbartabas on 8/16/2013 12:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only that, but the error is always on the side favoring an INCREASED mpg reading


Though it's only one data point in what should be many more, that is not the case for my car. The few times I have done the comparison (dashboard vs calculated MPG), I had higher calculated MPG than displayed on the dashboard. Your first point stands though, the displayed MPG is probably not very accurate. (I am not sure how accurate one can expect the calculated one to be either).


By foxalopex on 8/16/2013 12:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Interestingly enough Volt owners are almost all reporting better or matching EPA results. For example EPA reports that battery range is 38 miles but I've been able to break that under reasonably good conditions. Highway EPA is suppose to be 38 mpg but I've gotten about 40 or more.

Probably the most disheartening thing is that people want to believe that the Volt can't do any of these things when clearly GM went out of their way to ensure that they exceeded everything EPA ranked them on.




Ford's gas mileage
By Richard875yh5 on 8/18/2013 9:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
What I don't like about Ford is that they brag too much..... it will backfire in their face.




www.work25.com
By arthurt1johnson on 8/17/2013 4:57:44 PM , Rating: 1
just as Antonio said I'm amazed that a student able to get paid $5081 in 1 month on the internet. did you look at this site top here




arthurt1johnson
By arthurt1johnson on 8/16/13, Rating: 0
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki