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

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."


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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