Print 41 comment(s) - last by BDProductions.. on Jul 18 at 6:54 PM

Ford C-Max has 2-year payback period

Ford is bragging about its new C-Max Hybrid utility vehicle and its 47 mpg (city) fuel economy rating. Ford says that its vehicle is at least three mpg better than the Toyota Prius v and has more performance and technology. Ford is also proud that the C-Max is more efficient and powerful all starting at $1,300 less than the Prius v.
Ford is projecting fuel efficiency ratings for the C-Max of 47 mpg in the city and 44 mpg on the highway compared to the Toyota Prius v ratings of 44 mpg city and 40 mpg on the highway. Ford says that the C-Max can travel over 500 miles per tank of fuel and has a total system horsepower rating of 188 HP compared to 134 HP for the Prius.
The C-Max Hybrid will start at $25,995.

“The C-MAX Hybrid builds on Ford’s 20 years of hybrid innovation and fuel-efficient offerings to take on Prius v with better city fuel economy at 47 mpg and at better value – a great chance for us to shake up the hybrid market,” said Raj Nair, group vice president, Global Product Development.
Ford expects that this car will lure in a large percentage of mainstream buyers because the vehicle offers the segments lowest hybrid payback period of two years compared to typical small crossovers. Typically, it takes many years for buyers of a hybrid vehicle to break even compared to purchasing a standard vehicle due to the much higher cost of the a hybrid vehicle. Ford research shows that the typical payback period for a hybrid vehicle in the C-Max's category is four years.

Source: Ford

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: No thanks
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2012 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it more has to do with that the EPA's test methods suck. My mileage is fairly normal for the Cruze Eco. Those who have far steadier drives to work are averaging over 50 mpg.

My point is that you don't need a hybrid for excellent mileage depending on where you live. So I don't like that they're being crammed down our throats on the premise of energy independence when the things we need to make battery packs we're far more dependent on other countries for than we HAVE to be for oil. Especially considering that if we worked to switch to bio-diesel grown via algae, we'd not only be "carbon nuetral" (since all the carbon added to the air would have come from the air), we wouldn't have to massively change our nations infrastructure.

RE: No thanks
By Targon on 7/9/2012 5:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't ONLY about fuel economy, but also about the size of the vehicle and how powerful the engine is. Yes, your Cruz Eco gets good fuel economy, but it feels like a wind-up car, and may as well have a large "key" sticking out the back for you to turn before you get in. My 2012 Focus can get 42MPG in many situations on my daily commute if I don't run into much stop and go traffic, yet it has more horsepower, and is better all around.

A hybrid gets better fuel economy for CITY driving, which is the type of driving that would kill both of our cars when it comes to fuel economy. I am more annoyed by having Ethanol forced on us since all it does is reduce fuel economy with zero benefit to the environment.

RE: No thanks
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2012 8:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
You have 15 more horsepower in stock form. My car has 180-200 hp when I want it. And actually tuners have found that the stock tune can command 200 hp when necessary. And you call my car a wind up toy when across the rev range, I've got more torque. My car is by no means quick, but yours isn't either.

Yes in true stop and go a hybrid will do better. But I don't live in an area where that is that big a problem. And I don't like them trying to force cars on us to appease a select group of people.

I'll agree on the ethanol thing.

RE: No thanks
By Dr of crap on 7/10/2012 9:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't about fuel economy, YET you have a hybrid - hmmmm.

And my motorcycle that I drive to work 60 miles round trip gets me about 58 mpg and the ride is all around better than your hybrid. ( my opinion )

So it's all about the drivers preception of what HE thinks is best for himself.
Stop trying to start a fued!

RE: No thanks
By Blight AC on 7/10/2012 1:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
He said it isn't "ONLY" about fuel economy. Although, the I have to wonder, why not a Diesel, like a VW TDI? With Diesels across the range, you have a lot of options to choose from and they all have better handling, quality, and performance than Hybrids with similar MPGs. There's a premium on the diesel fuel over regular, but isn't it worth it if it's not only about the fuel economy?

Either way, it all comes down to people defending their own car, like for some reason they feel they need to defend their choice whenever a new vehicles comes along.

RE: No thanks
By Masospaghetti on 7/12/2012 1:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that your Eco is rated at 28 MPG city with a manual transmission, and the C-max is rated at 47 MPG city with more interior volume, more horsepower, and an automatic transmission.

I'm comparing EPA numbers because, as already mentioned, EPA numbers are the only standard and anecdotal MPG figures are worse than useless.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki