backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on Dec 14 at 11:03 AM

Consumer Reports Said Ford's 47 mpg claim is too high for both vehicles

There are questions regarding Ford's C-Max Hybrid and Fusion Hybrid's advertised 47 mpg, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to check it out.

Ford's C-Max Hybrid and Fusion Hybrid both show an estimated 47 mpg, but Consumer Reports recently pointed out that neither are living up to the automaker's claims. According to its testing, the C-Max Hybrid received 35/38/37 mpg for city/highway/combined. For the Fusion Hybrid, it found 35/41/39 mpg for city/highway/combined.

"Yes, the disclaimer on EPA fuel-economy labels notes that your results may differ," said Consumer Reports. "But the overall mpg for these C-Max and Fusion models is off by a whopping 10 and 8 mpg, respectively, or about 20 percent. Our overall-mpg results are usually pretty close to the EPA's combined-mpg estimate. Among current models, more than 80 percent of the vehicles we've tested are within 2 mpg."


2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid

Ford responded to the claims, saying that mileage varies among hybrids.

"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," said Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood. "This reinforces the fact that driving styles, driving conditions and other factors can cause mileage to vary."

While all vehicles must undergo the EPA test for fuel efficiency, the test isn't actually administered by the government agency. Instead, automakers perform the test and the EPA reviews it. In many cases, factors like temperature and speed result in gas mileage being lower than the EPA sticker.


2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid

Ford's testing found 47 mpg overall for both vehicles, and while it's common for the EPA to review such claims and discover a variation in gas mileage, Consumer Reports complained that this is a pretty big gap between Ford's findings and its own.

The EPA said it will "look at the report and data."

Back in December 2011, Consumer Watchdog called on the EPA to investigate Hyundai over its fuel economy claims. Hyundai claimed that its Elantra achieved 29 MPG in the city and 40 MPG on highway. However, the organization received a higher-than-usual number of complaints that real-world mileage was in the mid-20 mpg range.

From there, the EPA investigated Hyundai for misleading mileage claims and found that the fuel economy estimates of most of its 2012-2013 models were inflated. The same goes for Kia. Both Kia and Hyundai will be lowering the fuel economy estimates on the majority of their 2012 to 2013 models after EPA testing discovered a gap between its data and what both of the companies are claiming.

Hyundai and Kia admitted to overstating the estimated fuel economy on window stickers of about 900,000 vehicles sold since late 2010. Reports show that Hyundai alone could spend $100 million trying to fix the fiasco.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

I bought a C-Max primarily for the mileage claim.
By smarish on 12/10/2012 1:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
I am very disappointed with the MPG I am getting. I drive very conservatively and only go 10 miles to work and back with only slight hills and not heavy traffic. If I knew this car would only get 36 MPG, which is what I am getting, I would seriously look at other models that get more, like the Prius.




By Lord 666 on 12/10/2012 2:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Should have purchased a Jetta TDI or based on your use case a Volt.


By cubby1223 on 12/11/2012 4:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should have purchased a Jetta TDI or based on your use case a Volt.


Except diesel is hella-expensive, more than negating the savings from their mpg benefit.


RE: I bought a C-Max primarily for the mileage claim.
By Nutzo on 12/10/2012 5:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
Driving only 10 miles is part of the problem. It takes 3-4 miles for the car to warm up before you start getting the high milage. Even a Prius would fall short of it's rated milage, although it would probably be better that what you are seeing.

I drive an even shorter distance (6 miles) each way, so there is no way I can justify a Hybrid based on cost. It would take me over 8 years even break even. As for Electric, not worth it because I'd have to buy another car for long trips. As for plugin Hybrids, they have the same problem with payback, it takes way too long.

Better/cheaper solution (at least in my case) is to just buy a reliable, reasonably priced 4 cyl car that gets good milage. Of course that could change if gas hits $8 a gallon, but then that will also kill the economy, so the car would be the least of our problems.


By FITCamaro on 12/11/2012 8:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. Short trips to work can kill your mileage. Especially if you start the car and let it warm up for a few minutes before driving. I give mine about 30 seconds to warm up (granted mine is parked in a garage that stays about 20-25 degrees warmer than outside) but then take it easy the first few minutes.


By Dr of crap on 12/11/2012 8:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
WAIT -

What's that your saying?

You drive short distances, and you say an EV or hybird is not going to fit into what you are willing buy???
And you drive the recommended short distance to benefit from the electric assist, yet you don't want them????

Oh my! What is this world coming to !

<sarcasm over>


Ford having it's problems
By Beenthere on 12/10/2012 12:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ford is having QC issues by the boat load. In addition to the EPA MPG questions, Ford has a recall going on their 1.6L engine in the 2013 Escape. There's also a recall of Focus headlights too.




RE: Ford having it's problems
RE: Ford having it's problems
By RufusM on 12/10/2012 1:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
This goes with the thinking: Never buy version 1.0. Always wait for version 1.5 or 2.0.


RE: Ford having it's problems
By nedsand on 12/11/2012 12:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
Would you like to buy my version 2.0 05 F-150? It's a second year product and has a laundry list of known issues that didn't get fixed until the third year of production. Generally I would agree with you but I'm staying the heck away from Fords new technology until version 3.0. Problem is right now I need an SUV and would love to have my-ford-touch.


RE: Ford having it's problems
By jp23 on 12/10/2012 3:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
I won't worry about headlights that might not be bright enough. Now if they were blowing out or just didn't work then I might be concerned.


C-MAX MPG
By xprojected on 12/10/2012 12:52:12 PM , Rating: 3
The average MPG for 33 drivers at fueleconomy.gov is listed at 39.4. That's a pretty good "real world" figure, and comes close to CR's results. That many drivers (assuming it's an unbiased sample set) falling that short of the EPA figure should raise an alarm at least as much as the Hyundai/Kia figures did -- especially when the MPG is the number one buying consideration for a car like this.




More false advertising as usual
By masamasa on 12/10/2012 3:03:38 PM , Rating: 3
Then again, most advertising is not an excessive 'stretch' of the truth, such as blazing internet speeds up to 100mbps* (within a 1 mile radius), or 50 mpg* (when coasting downhill, foot off the gas).

Always read between the lines when looking at any advertising, be it car manufacturer, bank, etc.




Lying Bastard
By btc909 on 12/10/2012 11:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious Ford is right & you are wrong. Just keep telling yourself it's all your fault & Ford would NEVER tell a lie to garner more sales.




Denver to Omaha
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/11/2012 8:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
Their highay mileage test probably consists of a drive from Denver to Omaha, which is almost a mile downhill over the course of a 500 mile stretch. My odo pegs at 99.9 mpg when coasting down a hill.




european alternative
By AlinsiCalin on 12/11/2012 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
In Europe the most popular Ford engine is the 1.6 tdci. It is not uncommon to get 55-60 mpg in models equipped with this engine. Some European cars like the VW Polo 1.2 tdi or the Ford Fiesta 1.4 tdci have a much higher rating of 68-73mpg. The new VW Golf 1.6 TDI BlueMotion is also rated at 74 mpg-us. In the Uk the Toyota Prius is rated at 60mpg-us. More than 20 other car models exceed that figure as of 2012.




Test proceedures suck
By Targon on 12/11/2012 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2012 Focus SEL, official ratings are 27/37 for city/highway. Now, an interesting thing to note is that based on how fast I drive, I can easily break the 42MPG mark with regular gas with 10 percent Ethanol. The way to do that is to make sure I am doing EXACTLY 60MPH on level terrain. If I am in 6th gear and drive 39 miles per hour, I can break the 52MPH mark.

Note that this is without stop signs, traffic lights, etc. That 39MPH test is interesting to note because it CAN be easily reproduced, but does not include acceleration to get up to that point. With NORMAL driving, I do tend to average in the 33-35MPH range with a combination of normal highway(65MPH), some 42MPH stuff, and a number of traffic lights, stop signs, and general traffic.

If the test track aims to hit the sweet spot of how fast you go, then yea, I can see higher figures showing up. It should also be noted that there is no standard for how quickly or slowly the car should be going as well, how many stops for traffic lights, etc.

Now, if you add start/stop technology, I can easily see the figured I personally get going up by a bit, and a hybrid SHOULD push what I see with a Focus up by at least 3-4 miles per gallon, so 27/37 goes to 30-40, and if I hit 42MPH at 60MPH without hybrid technology, then 47 highway SHOULD easily be possible for the FUSION.

The C-max does seem a bit high since it is a larger vehicle.




Fuel Economy Ford CMAX :(
By rkramer40 on 12/12/2012 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I am experiencing the issue with my new 2013 Ford C-Max. 32 MPG... Great car, but I am disappointed with the fuel economy. As a former Prius owner averaging 50+. Ford has some explaining to do! My guess is we will be seeing some $$$ from Ford to offset the MPG issues.

Ronald Kramer
Portland, Maine




Yea
By Dr of crap on 12/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yea
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/10/2012 12:42:51 PM , Rating: 5
Bitching about missing 1 or 2 mpg... yeah, waste of money.

But an 8 or 10 mpg difference? They sure as hell better look into that!


RE: Yea
By cknobman on 12/10/2012 2:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if it is something with the actual fuel causing the lower mpg.

I say this because I bought a 2011 Toyota Prius and for the first year I had no problems getting the rated 50mpg out of it.

Here in the last 6 months though no matter how I drive it I can barely get 47 mpg out of it. I put new tires on it (same tires that came with it that are the low rolling resistance), never miss a regular scheduled maintenance, make sure air filter is cleaned, and checked verything I can think of and found no other reasons why the mpg has gone down 3-5 mpg.


RE: Yea
By Manch on 12/11/2012 8:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Could be. Try replacing your fuel filter.


RE: Yea
By knutjb on 12/10/2012 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota got busted for programing a test sensing loop to use more battery only on the EPA's test run. I cannot say that is what happened here. The review I saw on motorweek said they averaged 35 "in spirited driving." When cars are fun to drive we tend to drive in a more spirited manner.

Yes they should look at all involved, including see why the end user is getting the results they got. Some of the variables are fuel types/blends in different parts of the country, more ethanol and certain blends give less mpgs, testing equipment, related programing, and the test operators. This may have so many variables it might take a while to sort out in a definitive manner.

Also, how reliable is the EPA's testing protocol?


RE: Yea
By cknobman on 12/10/2012 3:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
I just tried finding information on your claim of Toyota being busted for a test sensing loop and came up with nothing.

Can you post a link?


RE: Yea
By Rukkian on 12/10/2012 5:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
I actually thought that was on Honda Civic hybrid where they had a recall and changed the % of the battery that could be used, which also lowered the mileage, but having never owned a hybrid, I could be wrong.


RE: Yea
By knutjb on 12/11/2012 2:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/prii...
or
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/toyota-prius/5...

I was told by someone in the industry when the EPA made its change. They added random variations to make it harder to cheat, the older method was very predictable. Notice the prius had the biggest drop~25%.


RE: Yea
By cknobman on 12/11/2012 9:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks.

Man that was a long time ago though.


RE: Yea
By Keeir on 12/10/2012 7:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Too soon....

Have the Fusion and C-Max been out a full year yet?

Ambient Temperatures can make a large difference in fuel consumption for any car... It may be even more extreme for a Hybrid.

I thought that Fusion and C-Max only started getting delievered this Fall... so we have low mileage and likely colder than average real world data so far?


RE: Yea
By Dr of crap on 12/11/2012 8:17:24 AM , Rating: 2
WHY !!??!!

You didn't pay enough taxes yet?


RE: Yea
By theapparition on 12/10/2012 2:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
So we already spend tax money on an EPA department, which regulates these test. The manufacturers spends tons of money to do these tests and submit official paperwork to the US government claiming compliance.

But you draw the line that anyone should check on if the results submitted are even accurate?

You can't have it both ways. Either do away with the EPA requirements and all regulation or enforce the laws and hold automakers accountable for accurate information.

In my view, anyone who intentionally misleads consumers by falsifying information is below scum. I held no sympathy for Hyundai/Kia, and I'll hold none for Ford should these accusations prove true.

The EPA tests are far from perfect describing real world use, but they are standardized and every manufacturer should be in full compliance without trying to game the system.


RE: Yea
By Dr of crap on 12/11/2012 8:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
SO -
You believe ALL marketing claims
You believe ALL political ads
No priest has molested kids, no one has killed his kids, ect...

I could go on, but you get my point.

"In my view, anyone who intentionally misleads consumers by falsifying information is below scum"

That statement is exactly what ALL ads are about and what EVERY POLITICAN is doing every day.

Can't have it both ways.
Either you get the truth or you don't! Most of the time you don't. If you believe that you do in fact get the truth, then you lead a sheltered life.


RE: Yea
By theapparition on 12/11/2012 10:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
Nice way to try to twist my words.

Marketing and Political ads aren't heavily regulated by the government and subject to QUANTITATIVE numbers.

While buzzwords like "Best in class" are quite nebulous, testing under the EPA is mandated by Federal Law and not subject to interpretation.

You already know this. But are you seriously arguing that you think it's OK that people blatantly lie. You seem to accept that lies, be it for products, politics or personal gain is the norm and should just be accepted.

I however refuse to submit to this. Sure marketing stretches the truth by misdirection, but that's quite a bit different by outright lying. Sure, I could say that my new car has best in class* performance and in small print put *this is the only car in this class. While not an outright lie, that's still misdirection.

But that's completely different from lying. If it's a blatant lie or doesn't fall within certain guidelines, the ad gets pulled and the offender can face some consequences, namely either civil lawsuits or even criminal in rare cases.

But on things that are regulated by the government, and heavily enforced, than those must be accurate and responsibly reported. Imagine if the nuclear plant down the street decided it was OK to stretch the truth regarding how much radiation was leaked. Come on now, everyone lies.....according to you. Or that the group testing drinking water contaminates lied on their results and it's not really safe to drink. Again, everyone lies, what's the harm.

Seriously. Just let that sink in for a minute.


RE: Yea
By Dr of crap on 12/11/2012 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
We are talking about a "govt agency" that has come up with a testing process to put mpg numbers on a cars windows sticker. Of which NO ONE believes the numbers anyway.

We all know it is a way of comparing cars as to what one "might expect" relative to the mpg you "could" get.

"But on things that are regulated by the government, and heavily enforced, than those must be accurate and responsibly reported"
When the above happens - pigs will fly. YOU KNOW THAT. And if you don't you must be lead by the marketing spin, oh sorry "misdirection".

All I'm saying is there are MUCH BETTER was to waste our tax money then to be concerned that the mpg numbers on a few cars MIGHT be off by a few. As stated here temps, altitude, humidity, hilly terain, daytime, night time, ALL these can affect mpg of a car. So what you get might de different from what I get. If I look at a vast majority of drivers and how they drive, they are not concerned in the least if they even get close to the EPA window mpg number. It's somewhat subjective, and I do not think these tests are so "heavily regulated". If they were there wouldn't the abliity to have them deviate from what they are to be from the testing process, as Hyundia did.


RE: Yea
By theapparition on 12/11/2012 1:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your full of it, and the sad fact is you know it but won't back down. Your entire argument is based on the predication that it's OK to misreport numbers to the government.

This isn't marketing. The EPA mandates through federal law that automakers must test cars in accordance to their procedures on a production ready car. They're not allowed to remove the AC system, take out the spare tire or inflate the normal tires to 80psi. No ECU reprogramming either (like Toyota did with the Prius and got caught).

But you take the position that companies shouldn't be held responsible for falsifying information. That information is not only used by the government for planning oil and gas reserves, pollution and future economic stability, but also directly affects the consumer based on the cost the user expects to experience in ownership. Not unlike all the energy star labels (I guess those are a waste too, huh?).

As I said before, you either get rid of the regulation or you enforce it. There is no middle ground. This isn't some pissing contest on contrast between monitor manufacturers. This is information that is required to be accurate by law and affects consumers decisions. Even in this thread, you have people complaining they would have bought another vehicle if they would have known the C-Max got 10mpg less than claimed.

I don't live in a fantasy land of perfection. I know mistakes happen and marketing tends to mislead consumers. But EPA numbers aren't about being a be all, end all number. As you stated, what I get and you get in the same car might be drastically different, along with all the other environmental factors.

But the EPA test results in a controlled test that all manufacturers are required to follow. It has nothing to do with whether anyone ever gets EPA mpg numbers, but has all to do with a fair playing field to compare different models. There is no "subjective" interpretation. Under the same tests, the cars should be able to repeatably and accurately reproduce results.

There's plenty of taxpayer waste I'm not happy with. But when it comes to federally required reporting, enforcing companies to be honest isn't one of them.


RE: Yea
By Nutzo on 12/11/2012 1:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're not allowed to remove the AC system, take out the spare tire or inflate the normal tires to 80psi.


The C-Max doesn't come with a spare tire, or even have space for one. Just a can of flat fix.
I'd never buy a car without a spare tire, as I would have been stranded too many times over the years.


RE: Yea
By Dr of crap on 12/11/2012 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes !
Cars are now being sold WITHOUT SPARES, just to reduce weight to INCREASE mpgs. Simple.

And what will half of the car buyers do - buy a spare and put it in the trunk, thus making sure they can't get the EPA window sticker mpg number!

See how those numbers mean nothing!

But in your world those numbers are set in stone, never to be had a finger pointed at! PLEASE !!!!!! It's car mpgs. It's not about our health, of the safety of astronauts, or something really important.


RE: Yea
By theapparition on 12/14/2012 11:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
The weight of a full spare tire equates to noise on mpg numbers. It doesn't affect highway mileage (weight has no factor) and would almost be imperceptible on the city mileage. If you really think a 50lb weight affects the readings, its well under what the average fat American is already carrying around their waist anyway.

Red Herring #1

Then half of car buyers throw a spare tire in. Really. Bet that number is actually less than 1%.

Red Herring #2

Finally, you still don't get it. EPA numbers have nothing to do with real world usage. That part I think you get. But they play an important role as a controlled baseline. That's the part you completely miss.

That's the basics of scientific measurement. You need a control. Without a controlled baseline, all further measurements are meaningless.

The EPA numbers give a consumer an idea of how different vehicles will perform over the EXACT same conditions. While they don't mean you'll get those exact numbers, they should be close. And when comparing, one car that gets 5mpg better than another model should get somewhere close to that same gap in real world usage.

And the final part you still don't get. If you're going to spend the money to mandate the test, you need to spend the money to enforce the test results. Simple concept.

And again, you seem fixated that I have some obsession with the EPA numbers as a real world fact. Not true. But I see their value as a measurement tool, nothing else. And when I'm measuring something, it better damn sure be equal from ruler to ruler.


RE: Yea
By theapparition on 12/14/2012 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
More scare tactics.

Guess what, there's ton's of cars being sold without spares. Not the end of the world.

Runflat tires let you get to where you need if you have issues. Tire monitoring systems let you know if you have a flat rather than damaging a non-runflat tire. Etc, etc.

The spare tire is less about EPA numbers and more about having to design around a spare tire area, adding cost, and weight reduction, which helps.

So you'd never buy a car without a spare. Guess you're going to miss out on all the fun cars coming out. Myself, I've been quite happy with my Corvettes.


Every car is like this
By InsGadget on 12/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Every car is like this
By Rukkian on 12/10/2012 5:13:17 PM , Rating: 4
Actually for those that know how to drive and don't feel the need to floor it at every intersection, it is completely possible to hit the EPA numbers in most cars.

I have an '09 HHR and even with 90k miles can still hit ~29 combined (mainly highway), and have always hit that number. If I drive like a maniac (like most people do) I go down around 26 or lower.

When driven like you plan on keeping it, most cars should be close to the stated numbers if they were tested fairly.


RE: Every car is like this
By retrospooty on 12/11/2012 7:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Those #'s are assuming you care about mileage and are therefore driving with that in mind. Easily achievable and if your commute is mostly highway (that isn't stop and go traffic) most cars can exceed it.


RE: Every car is like this
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2012 8:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
Another agreement.

All depends on driving style. If I wanted to do 62 mph all the time, I'd get 55-60 mpg out of my Cruze. But on I95, I'm not going that slow. But I still return 40-44 mpg at 75 mph. Got 40.7 from Charleston to Columbia and back which has a good amount of hills in between. Speed most of the way was around 75.

If you live in an extremely hilly area, you're probably going to average lower all the time. And if you live up in the colder parts of the country, you're also going to get lower mileage as colder air is more dense so its harder to move through. Also means more fuel is needed to balance out the A/F mixture since the valve stays open the same amount of time regardless of whether its hot or cold outside.


RE: Every car is like this
By Targon on 12/11/2012 3:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt you would see THOSE sorts of numbers. I can see 43MPG in the 60MPH range, but not the sort of numbers you are claiming there.


RE: Every car is like this
By invidious on 12/11/2012 11:20:52 AM , Rating: 1
Just keep your granny-mobile in the slow lane where it belongs and let other people worry about their own mileage.


RE: Every car is like this
By GatoRat on 12/10/2012 5:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Until two years ago and a blown valve, my 99 Civic exceeded the listed mileage by 10-15% (and I have a lead foot on the freeway.)


RE: Every car is like this
By Samus on 12/11/2012 1:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
Similar to my 1998 Protégé 1.6l (same class as your 99 Civic)

It would get over 29mpg (the EPA combined rating) even if you drove the hell out of it. Small engines tolerate being beaten on very well. The car was also 2600lbs, almost a half ton lighter than the Mazda 3 (its replacement)


RE: Every car is like this
By tng on 12/11/2012 11:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
Still have a 99 Civic and last check was 39MPG with just "average" driving. If I wanted to drive at 60MPH on my commute I could probably get 41-43, but that is sometimes unsafe on the freeways here...


RE: Every car is like this
By Spuke on 12/10/2012 7:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually for those that know how to drive and don't feel the need to floor it at every intersection, it is completely possible to hit the EPA numbers in most cars.
Yep. My car is rated at 19/28 and I consistently get 27 and I drive a sports car. I do NOT drive like a granny either but don't flat foot it from every stop. Granny driving gets me 33 mpg consistently. Hard driving gets me 24. I've noticed something about others driving styles. From point A to B, it seems people slowly accelerate during at least 1/2 to 3/4 of the drive with the last 1/4 being the fastest. It's odd, I get to speed and set the cruise and inevitably, the person in front of me that WAS going at my speed slowly creeps off in the distance. I only notice this on straight, light traffic stretches of road, freeways or secondary roads.


RE: Every car is like this
By DiscoWade on 12/10/2012 8:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 350Z roadster. I love my car. When I bought it, the EPA rating was 28 MPG highway. But the ratings were revised soon after that and the new EPA rating was 26 MPG highway. With 100% gasoline (hard to find) I get 27 MPG with my convertible top off. But the fact is, it is hard to find pure gas so now I have to settle with 10% ethanol gas. The only place I know sells 100% gasoline doesn't take credit cards. I get 25 MPG highway with the top off, 24 with it on, and 23 with the top on and the AC running.

So long as the tests are with the good stuff while forcing us to drive with the dumb ethanol mix, we'll never get the estimated fuel ratings. I just wish we could be either 100% gasoline or E85 for those who like ethanol.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














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