backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by MKZ2013.. on Jun 29 at 5:31 PM


Lincoln MKZ Hybrid
Ford once again gets bitten by the fuel economy bug; 200,000 customers will get cash refunds

There are mistakes, and then there are mistakes. Ford is taking it solidly on the chin this afternoon in a fuel efficiency fiasco that is reminiscent of the wide-ranging Hyundai/Kia incident from 2011. Ford already slashed the fuel economy ratings of its C-Max Hybrid after drivers and publications came nowhere close to reaching the EPA sticker’s claim of 47/47/47 mpg (city/highway/combined). Sales of the C-Max tanked once Ford revised its ratings to a more realistic 45/40/43 mpg.
 
Now, Ford is coming clean about the fuel economy ratings for six additional models. They include four versions of the 2014 Fiesta along with 2013-2014 models of the C-Max Hybrid (which is getting docked again), C-Max Energi, Fusion Hybrid, Fusion Energi, and the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid.
 
The fuel economy differences among the four Fiesta models are negligible, so we’ll focus primarily on the hybrid and plug-in hybrid models.

Model Revised
(city/hwy/combined)
Previous
(city/hwy/combined)
Lease Customers Purchase Customers
C-Max Hybrid   42 / 37 / 40   45 / 40 / 43   $300   $475
Fusion Hybrid   44 / 41 / 42   47 / 47 / 47   $450   $775
MKZ Hybrid   38 / 37 / 38   45 / 45 / 45   $625   $1050
C-Max Energi   38 mpg / 88 MPGe+
  19-mile EV range
  43 mpg / 100 MPGe+
  21-mile EV range
  $475   $775 
Fusion Energi   38 mpg / 88 MPGe+
  19-mile EV range
  43 mpg / 100 MPGe+
  21-mile EV range
  $525   $850

The biggest loser by far is the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid, which has seen its combined fuel economy number plummet by 7 mpg. The Fusion Hybrid isn’t far behind, seeing its number drop by 5 mpg. The C-Max Hybrid, which was already docked back in August 2013, saw further reductions of 3 mpg across the board (city, highway, and combined).
 
In an effort to appease customers that have already leased or purchased the affected vehicles, Ford is offering a one-time cash payment as a goodwill gesture, which you can see in the chart above. These payments will be made to the approximately 200,000 customers affected.


Ford C-Max Hybrid
 
“Ford is absolutely committed to delivering top fuel economy and accurate information,” said Alan Mulally, Ford president and CEO. “We apologize to our customers and will provide goodwill payments to affected owners. We also are taking steps to improve our processes and prevent issues like this from happening again.”
 
“This is our error. When we see an issue, we address it,” said Raj Nair, Ford group vice president, Global Product Development. “That is why we notified EPA and lowered the fuel economy ratings for these vehicles.”


Ford Fusion Energi
 
Ford blames its error on the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP) factor that is used to calculate fuel economy for new vehicles. Ford also stated that the discovery of an error related to how its conducts wind tunnel tests contributed to the fuel economy discrepancies.

Source: Ford



Comments     Threshold


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

Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/12/2014 5:23:43 PM , Rating: 5
How do you make an 18% error?

I think it's pretty obvious that Ford knowingly lied through its teeth from the beginning.

My guess is the EPA is closing loopholes (like using one car's results for others if they have the same drivetrain), and Ford decided it was best to make it look like "goodwill" before the EPA coming out and indirectly calling them cheaters.




RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Nightbird321 on 6/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Labotomizer on 6/12/2014 9:10:17 PM , Rating: 3
If my choice were an MKZ or a Toyota there'd be no questions. Regardless of mileage. Fusion and Toyota? I still think the Fusion looks better and handles better.

Considering you can get 40 mpg without the hybrid part though I'd go that route.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Nightbird321 on 6/13/2014 12:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
People for whom MPG rating is of secondary or tertiary importance won't be bothered by this news obviously... I remember the advertising campaign when the Fusion hybrid first came out, it emphasized the MPG rating from beginning to end.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Dorkyman on 6/16/2014 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Couple of comments.

First, all the feds need to do is to require advertising to mention alongside the mpg numbers one of two words: "verified" or "unverified." The default is unverified. A car company can use real-world stats from websites or wherever and then use the word verified.

Secondly, many people don't realize just how little a difference it makes to the total cost of car ownership if the car gets 47 or 39 overall. The car is still going to cost you about $0.50 per mile overall. So go have a nice cold beer and enjoy the sunshine.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Keeir on 6/16/2014 7:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A car company can use real-world stats from websites or wherever and then use the word verified.


I think you are confused.

Your proposal:
Unverifed = Test in a lab. with controled variables
Verifed = Self reports on the internet

What?!? That's backwards.

Here the problem is simple. Ford made an error in their lab tests. Lets not complicated it with complex solutions. Punish them for "overlooking" what appears to be an obvious error and let them deal with the negative press for a few years.

quote:
Secondly, many people don't realize just how little a difference it makes to the total cost of car ownership if the car gets 47 or 39 overall.


Sigh.

Every 1,000 miles its 4+ gallons of gasoline. So its roughly 20 dollars a month, or 240 dollars a year or 2,000 dollars over the 8 or so years the car will be owned by the original owner. (Its closer to 4,000 over the useful life of the car, but its uncertain how much will show up when the original owner sells it for used at 6-8 years)

20 dollars a month is like adding an additional phone line to your cell phone plan (Free for 96 months)

240 dollars a year is nearly the additional cost of a Sunday Ticket package (Free for 8 years)

2,000 dollars will buy a pretty nice TV, LED LCD 65" (useful life around 8 years)

Pretty sure if I was comparing two cars side by side, everything else free, but one car offered me one of the above "for free", that would be fairly enticing with significant value. Dismissing the 47 to 39 as of "little" value because the total cost of the car is high is strage... 50,000 dollars is still 2,000 dollars less than 52,000 dollars.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Dorkyman on 6/17/2014 10:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
I grant your point, but you're playing the "omg what a giant number!" game. Project anything out far enough and it becomes a shocking statistic. Why, if America were to magically stop dripping kitchen faucets overnight, we'd save enough water to fill the reservoir in Central Park in 50 years!

So, yeah, getting a bit better mileage helps, but it's just one factor out of many. Insurance, repairs, depreciation (especially depreciation) are much larger factors.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 5:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it's pretty obvious that Ford knowingly lied through its teeth from the beginning.
Actually it's not obvious. I think their testing methods were jacked up and they retested some vehicles after they fixed them. I also think these "revised" tests simply account for people that can't drive worth a f$%k.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Nightbird321 on 6/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Labotomizer on 6/12/2014 9:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's not at all how they come up with MPG for EPA ratings. The EPA outlines the requirements for the tests. These are under very specific test conditions. Which is why you can get better than rates fuel economy or much worse, depending on environment and how you drive the vehicle.

No manufacturer tests "hundred of cars for thousands of miles with a fleet". At least not for MPG reasons.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Nightbird321 on 6/13/2014 12:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No manufacturer tests "hundred of cars for thousands of miles with a fleet". At least not for MPG reasons.


Agreed, but they do perform significant road tests and I'd be shocked if they didn't record miles driven, gas-ups, and calculate mpg in addition to measuring wear and tear and identifying performance issues.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By flatrock on 6/18/2014 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
With the launch of a new vehicle they are often tweaking things right up until launch trying to maximize fuel economy while meeting emission requirements. An error of over 10% seems a bit high, but the idea that they have a long period of time to test things with the final configuration before launch isn't generally correct.

I suspect they thought they had some reason to think that they could hit those numbers, or at least be pretty close.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By gerf on 6/14/2014 9:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
As I've heard from Ford personnel, it was because they'd start the EPA testing with full batteries, so the engine wouldn't kick in for the first leg of a test. Free energy in an efficiency test makes bad results.

If it's due to incompetence, malfeasance, or just bad testing methods, I do not know.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Drafter on 6/12/2014 8:49:36 PM , Rating: 4
Actually it's very obvious. For example, go to fuelly.com and see the hundreds of Fusion hybrids reporting in. Now you see that the revised mpg numbers fall in line with what the large majority of people have been getting all along. The sample is too big to say it's the result of personal driving habits.

So you can't tell me the people who designed, engineered, built and tested this car weren't getting the same numbers as everyone else. Ford obviously lied... their hybrid power-trains aren't as advanced/efficient as the competition so they fudged their numbers to make it seem as if it were closer. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to connect the dots here.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Philippine Mango on 6/13/2014 2:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point. The point is they LIED on their test procedures in order to be able to advertise a higher fuel economy number. EPA numbers are for comparison with other vehicles so it stands to reason that a vehicle that gets higher on the EPA fuel economy test cycle than another should retain that fuel economy % difference into the real world. So if you can get 50mpg in a C-max Hybrid, then in a Prius, you should be getting 70mpg. I should know, I hypermiled a Prius and was able to average 70mpg.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Dr of crap on 6/13/2014 12:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, what he is saying is you CAN get the EPA mpg numbers, if you can drive the car the way it should be driven.

90% or more of the drivers on the road CAN'T merge, parallel park, NOT slow down on a curve, not slow down with merging traffic, or handle more than 2 cars around them and drive effectively.

Stands to reason the mpg web site of "real world" drivers mpg ISN'T to accurate to what you COULD be getting if your foot wasn't so heavy.

As stated in another post, IF you really were concerned with MPG you'd drive accordingly to get better mpg. EVERY car can be driven to get high mpg and low mpg. Its up to the driver as to which number they get!


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By flyingpants1 on 6/14/2014 8:42:55 PM , Rating: 3
You're comparing apples and oranges. ANY CAR will get a 20% fuel efficiency boost if you "drive the car the way it should be driven". How can you not understand this?


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By flatrock on 6/18/2014 2:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
So you are suggesting that an artificially high number should be used because if people accelerate really slowly, and drive in a way that absolutely maximizes fuel economy, the numbers would be higher?

How would those numbers actually be useful to consumers that don't drive that way normally?


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/12/2014 9:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's not how it works. There is only one way to drive the EPA tests. They specifically tell you how fast to accelerate and brake as you go through the cycle.

No manufacturer will rate their own performance on a standardized test below what they actually scored. C-Max sales plummeted after the derating, and no way in hell is Ford going to "account for people that can't drive worth a f$%k".

Look at this data from the guys at CleanMPG:
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/523/C-MAX_vs_P...
They did careful, multiple run, long distance, constant speed tests. There's no sound reason for Ford to take a 20% hit in the real world and Toyota not to.

Obviously, I can't disprove your assertion that Ford's testing methods were jacked up. But as an engineer, I cant fathom an 18% error being an honest mistake in a metric that hundreds of engineers spent countless hours optimizing.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/13/2014 2:14:23 AM , Rating: 4
Hey, f***wit, why don't you read the article yourself before blaming others of not doing so?

Driving skills of Ford's buyers have NOTHING AT ALL to do with this correction. This is a standardized test run on a dyno, not through real world feedback in arbitrary conditions. Ford explicitly blames using the wrong TRLHP due to errors correlating with the wind tunnel data.

Basically, when running the EPA test cycles, Ford set the dyno to provide less resistance than they were supposed to given the car's coefficient of drag and other specifications. That reduced the load hp on the engine.

Yeah right. Like nobody noticed a drag coefficient that was 20% too low...


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By drlumen on 6/13/2014 4:43:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you gotta figure GN had a keyswitch that was busted for 10+ years. NASA lost a probe because a calculation was using a variable in metric instead of english. Geez, look at the obamacare website...

Mistakes happen. Ford's explanation seems plausible to me.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/13/2014 10:41:18 AM , Rating: 1
You're gonna compare a company as successful and legendary as Ford to the Obama administration? Your GM example works in my favor, as they knew about it and intentionally ignored it (and that is far less glaring than a 18% MPG error). NASA lost the probe in one of millions of calculations used for the mission during a Trajectory Correction Maneuver, and they recognized the error within days.

MPG is the single most important marketing number for a hybrid. They're fixing it 2 years after the mistake:
www.dailytech.com/Ford+CMax+Tops+Toyotas+Prius+v+ Achieves+47+MPG+City/article25127.htm


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By drlumen on 6/13/2014 4:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
How about the Hubble mirror? How many thousands of people and man YEARS were put into that thing? I'm not trying to harp on NASA but just to point out that the bigger an organization is the easier it is for them to make mistakes.

I'm betting mistakes even happen in Mint world.

To get back to the point, the drag co-efficients I've seen are usually stated in hundredths (if not more precise). An 18% difference on a drag co-ef of .28 would equate to actually being .318 - not a huge, easily identifiable difference. I still consider it to be a plausible mistake.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/14/2014 4:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
I make mistakes all the time, but not on important things that are quadruple checked by me and several other colleagues.

The drag coefficient would have to be more than 20% different, because it's not the only source of drag. Think about how much CdA would have to be off for the MKZ to get a city rating of 47 instead of 38, where air resistance isn't even the dominant source of drag.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Keeir on 6/16/2014 7:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'm betting mistakes even happen in Mint world.

quote:
I still consider it to be a plausible mistake.


Its not that mistakes don't happen.

Here, Ford made the mistake. Fine, it happens.

Ford ignored the mistake when thier own internal testing showed the car was underperforming (or worse, they didn't perform any testing runs). Well, sometimes this happens, but usually its like 5% (See VW and Diesel Sportwagens, or BMW and 328i) and the car maker fixes it mid-year.

Ford ignored the mistake when MANY if not ALL owners pointed out the mistake.

Meanwhile, Ford is "profiting" from the mistake. Because this mistake didn't just make the Fusion/C-max sell better, it rubbed off on the entire company that they had outperformed thier Toyota rivals.

All in all, Ford's mistake and the handling allude to a corporate culture that has placed a higher premium on the appearence of success than on actual success. Mullaly did alot of good things for Ford, but this definately is a black mark on his tenure and the company as a whole. I just hope this issue was isolated and not a true reflection of how the company operated.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Samus on 6/13/2014 1:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with that argument is that many other companies hit their advertised fuel economy on the head with the reflected real world fuel economy. I'll use my Mazda CX-5 as an example, which gets exactly the rated fuel economy it was advertised with when I drive it reasonably (under 75 MPH)

What appears to be obvious here is the Japanese and Germans are being honest with their EPA numbers, and the Koreans and Americans are not.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Samus on 6/15/2014 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
It does get piss poor economy when going over 80, but all cars do. Anybody who's ridden a motorcycle knows first hand any speed over 45mph introduces substantially increasing wind resistance. Everyone on fuelly must be going 80mph+ to get 27mpg. I averaged 32.3mpg on a recent road trip with 2 passengers and 100lb of cargo here in the Midwest where all fuel is also 10% ethanol.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By MKZ2013 on 6/12/2014 8:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
I brought back my MKZ six times to my dealer (Park Motors Tampa) as I was only getting 37 AVG MPG. I was told it was the way I was driving. I came out of a Prius so I know how to milk a hybrid for the best mileage. I came out of a KIA Hybrid (biggest con artists of the century with their garbage cars) and into the Prius (out of the Prius for its cheap feel) and into the MKZ. I was the first to own one in 2013. Wonderful car all the way around, however, I am so TIRED of being LIED to by the car manufacturers. I paid $36,000 CASH for my car and by all accounts it's a LEMON under the Lemon laws as it will NEVER get 45 MPG under any conditions. A payment of $1050.00 does NOTHING to make up for the lie about a car that simply can't get over 38 MPG. There are NON-HYBRID cars that get 38 MPG which are more appealing. Lincoln, you lost me on the 2015 I just ordered. YOU CAN KEEP IT along with your GOODWILL payment as I'm suing you for ALL of my money back under the Florida lemon law. You screwed the pooch on GOODWILL when you KNEW full well that this car would NEVER offer anywhere NEAR 45 MPG under any conditions. If anyone is thinking of buying an MKZ, forget it, go buy an Import as the American Car Companies don't care if they lose your business.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Drafter on 6/12/2014 9:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
You retardedly forgot to read the very next sentence of his statement where he said, "I came out of a Prius so I know how to milk a hybrid for the best mileage". You fail at life. Milking a Prius = 55-60mpg. Miling an MKZ hybrid = 35-38mpg. You're obviously being a troll so that's where I'm going to end it.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By MKZ2013 on 6/29/2014 5:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not a troll, this is my car and I filed a notice of defect as the I traded in my 2012 MKZ (with less than 8K miles) on it to get the 2013 MKZ based upon the 45 MPG mileage claims. I took a huge hit on 2012 as I was sold on the 2013. The 2013 was very late coming to market and I purchased the 2012 with the knowledge (and sales pitch) from my salesman that I would get better gas mileage and great performance. None of this was true. In fact, I consistently complained about the lack of MPG and on the day that the new software was available (software Lincoln claimed would bring the gas mileage up to the advertised MPG) I went to my first dealer and the update was not available with them so I found another dealer who just got the update downloaded and my car was the very FIRST update completed on a 2013 MKZ Hybrid in my area (and through that dealership). Sad to say, all the excitement ended with a decrease in MPG and the status quo. Nothing changed, it got worse. What burns me is that Lincoln / Ford had to know they had a problem with their OWN MPG claims as they're the ones who conducted their own tests and then sent that information onto the EPA and then placed those 45 MPG numbers on their stickers. Lincoln Ford knew they had an MPG problem as they came up with a software update in 2013. Even the notion of offering up gas cards or small rebates means nothing. I lost big money on my trade-in, had a car that under-performed on all levels, had multiple electrical problems (still do, as the car has a mind of its own), continue to get ONLY 36.2 MPG on a car claimed and advertised with a 45 MPG sticker and literally was lied to by the salesmen, service department reps and Lincoln Ford Motor Company advertising. As far as I'm concerned every 2013 Lincoln MKZ that was sold with a 45 MPG sticker is a lemon by Lincoln/Ford's own recent admission. They claim the expected MPG is now 37 combined and ALL the stickers have been changed on their new vehicles coming out of production. What about the thousands that were lied to in 2013 when the car was released to market? They should settle for $1050.00 payment? I don't think so and in fact, I will see this through to the end and get satisfaction.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By bigboxes on 6/12/2014 10:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you so hostile to others? MKZ2013 says he was getting 37mpg, exactly the numbers listed for the revised tests. It's not his driving. You can compare it to Apple when they claimed that "you are holding it wrong." So, are you a Ford fanboi, or what? I'm not understanding your position.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/12/2014 11:28:06 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure I understand your complaint that the drivers are idiots. If drivers are idiots, why isn't Toyota revising its numbers?

The Prius v is rated at 42 combined.
Fuelly drivers are getting 42 combined.

The standard Prius is rated at 49 mpg combined.
Fuelly drivers are getting 48.2 combined.

The Fusion Hybrid was originally rated at 47 mpg combined
Fuelly drivers are getting 39.4 combined

The C-Max Hybrid was originally rated at 47 mpg combined
Fuelly drivers are getting 39.8 combined

So what are you saying? That drivers in general are stupid and can’t drive hybrids or that Ford hybrid drivers are stupid?


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By M'n'M on 6/13/2014 12:16:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what are you saying? That drivers in general are stupid and can’t drive hybrids or that Ford hybrid drivers are stupid?

Or perhaps Ford tuned their hybrids to max out on the EPA test and not so much in real world driving. If people drive like the EPA test, they might get the EPA numbers. It's just that the EPA test is not like most real world driving.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Philippine Mango on 6/13/2014 2:36:31 AM , Rating: 4
Or how about this... THEY LIED. Read the damn article and all articles pertaining to this. They didn't "Game the epa test" they flat out had incorrect parameters and math being applied and that's why the vehicles failed the fuel economy tests, plain and simple.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/13/2014 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Prius drivers are generally fuel economy minded and know how to get the best mpg on their cars. Joe Average person is starting to get into hybrids and bringing along their terrible driving habits hence the poor results they're seeing in hybrids. Everyone I know that has a clue on how to get the best mpg in their hybrids is getting the previously rated economy. And the people I know that don't have a clue get right at the "new" ratings or worse. Sure it's anecdotal but it sure seems to match up perfectly. I remain highly skeptical and even hostile to these new ratings because of this. IOW, I think it's ALL BS.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/13/2014 2:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
You are all kinds of dumbass today, aren't you.
quote:
whining about how Ford "cheated" on the EPA's test when it's obvious the problem lies with them.
If it was that obvious then why is Ford not even saying that? They clearly stated that the problem is with them and how they ran the test.
quote:
People are out their getting the rated fuel economy, if it were a problem with Ford lying then NO ONE would get the rated economy. That would be obvious.
So if Toyota came out tomorrow and lied to everyone by telling us the Prius V is actually rated at 48MPG, then according to you, then NO ONE would get the rated economy. Right?

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius_v
Oh, look at that: 43 out of 426 already did.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Spuke on 6/13/2014 12:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
You have a basic problem with reading comprehension Mint. This has been pointed out before in other threads by other people. Seems to remain true in this one too.

quote:
So if Toyota came out tomorrow and lied to everyone by telling us the Prius V is actually rated at 48MPG, then according to you, then NO ONE would get the rated economy. Right?


Where did I say that one one would get rated fuel economy if Toyota lied about their advertised numbers? Again, what I said was that people ARE getting rated numbers from the C-Max. IF Ford was FOS then NO ONE would get it. Comprende?


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Mint on 6/14/2014 5:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
LOL that's rich. Let me break it down for you one more time.
quote:
Where did I say that one one would get rated fuel economy if Toyota lied about their advertised numbers?
NOWHERE. You said the exact opposite, three times now, and that is my point. I quote:
"So why are some people getting advertised fuel economy and the majority are not?"
"if it were a problem with Ford lying then NO ONE would get the rated economy"
"IF Ford was FOS then NO ONE would get it."

Imagine I tell people for $500, I can install a special tweak to make the Prius V get 48 MPG EPA instead of 42. I get 426 sales at Mint's Toyota in Liberaltown, and they get fuel economies exactly like this:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius_v
Soon, I get complaints about not getting advertised range, but in comes Spuke to my defense, saying, "if it were a problem with Mint lying then NO ONE would get the rated economy. That would be obvious."
I show how some people are getting 48 MPG and even 53 MPG, telling these whiners they don't know how to drive.

See, I'm not lying! I didn't just scam $20k! Of course not!


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By bug77 on 6/13/2014 6:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't EPA the one that provides these figures?


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/13/2014 7:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's the other way around. The manufacturer does the testing and provides the numbers to the EPA.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By bug77 on 6/13/2014 7:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, my bad.


RE: Yikes, 7 MPG?
By NellyFromMA on 6/16/2014 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
What's really insulting about this situation (not just with Ford, but all manufacturers taking advantage) is that what they are paying out to the customers PALES in comparison to the profits they STILL net as a result of having sold consumers a product that drastically underperforms.

It's still profitable to mislead the public! So they do it anyways.

Rather disgusting state of affairs for consumers.


the comments on here...sigh....
By alpha754293 on 6/13/2014 12:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.

Reading the comments on here...all I can say is "*le sigh...*".

Lots of speculation.

Gotta love it when people pass off speculation like it is fact.

Have we all gone CNN/HLN now?

May I suggest that instead of speculating on how fuel economy is determined, that y'all read 76 FR 39477 (www [dot] federalregister [dot] gov/articles/2011/07/06/2011-14291/revisions-and-ad ditions-to-motor-vehicle-fuel-economy-label) and learn about it. (Total of 111 pages.)

For example, the equations for the 5-cycle test starts on p. 39539 in §600.114-12(a)(1).

CityFE = 0.905/(StartFC + RunningFC)

where

StartFC = 0.33*((0.76*StartFuel_75 + 0.24*StartFuel_20)/4.1)
StartFuel_x = 3.6*((1/Bag1FE_x) - (1/Bag3FE_x))
RunningFC = 0.82*((0.48/Bag2FE_75)+(0.41/Bag3FE_75)+(0.11/US06C ityFE))+0.18*((0.5/Bag2FE_20)+(0.5/Bag3FE_20))+0.13 3*1.083*((1/SC03FE)-((0.61/Bag3FE_75)+(0.39/Bag2FE_ 75)))

And you can also find the Road Load Power equation in 77 FR 62623 (total of 578 pages) on p.63182.




RE: the comments on here...sigh....
By Mint on 6/14/2014 6:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the info, as it's very informative, but it only confirms my opinion.

The formula you refer to is on page 560 of this PDF:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/201...
These are pretty straightforward physics. You plug in values A, B, and C that are representative for the vehicle. B is basically m*g*Crr, C is basically 0.5*rho*Cd*A, and A is any constant resistance.

But AFAICS, this formula is only used for hybrid pickup tax credits related to regenerative braking. This is the general definition of road load power:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.129-00
quote:
For each test vehicle from an engine family required to comply with SFTP requirements, the manufacturer shall supply representative road load forces for the vehicle at speeds between 15 km/hr (9.3 mph) and 115 km/hr (71.5 mph). The road load force shall represent vehicle operation on a smooth level road, during calm winds, with no precipitation, at an ambient temperature of 20 °C (68 °F), and atmospheric pressure of 98.21 kPa. Road load force for low speed may be extrapolated.
Bottom line is that Ford put data into the dyno that was *not* representative, so it underloaded the engine during the standardized tests.


RE: the comments on here...sigh....
By alpha754293 on 6/16/2014 10:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.

So...a couple of things.

1) The point of putting up that equation was to show that the calculations involved for emissions (read: fuel economy) aren't exactly straightforward.

From what I have experienced in talking to some of the member of the general public/audience (some of whom are non-automotive engineers/scientists) in addition to others are not engineers/scientists at all, the perception that people often have is "well..if you have the car, why can't you just measure it?" And that would be valid for when we actually have the car. But as we're developing and engineering the car, sometimes, often times, for close to 60-80% of the time, we might NOT have an actual car to work on.

And this is true for all automakers. So you run simulations in order to try and predict what will happen in the real world. And in the world of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the last time I did stuff with it in undergrad school, there were TWENTY NINE different turbulence models that you can choose from, and each has their own unique assumptions and characteristics and tests of applicability. TWENTY NINE! So you figure - okay, you want to run the CFD analysis/simulation for aerodynamics - great. And with 29 different turbulence models, that means that you can get 29 different answers. Now, keep this in mind: I don't HAVE a physical car to test with. So...how do I know which answer (out of 29) is the correct one? And if I did the analysis one way for a car, can I apply the test universally for ALL vehicles?

(And I'm using aerodynamics as an example that fuel economy isn't as simple as people often make it out to be.)

So it's a bit of an education. And I mean, you can quite literally spend your life dedicated to studying it, and writing your Ph.D. dissertation about it. ("If it were easy, everybody would be doing it." - unknown)

2) The coast down procedure was first introduced as an alternative method in 1975. You might have to dig a bit to find the formulas for that, but it's there. And it applies to all vehicles uniformly.

3) The 2014 volume for Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations isn't scheduled to be published until July 1st. So I don't know if the equations in the FR will be rolled into the CFR.

4) If you haven't watched the Youtube video, I suggest that you should. It goes into more detail about it. I don't work on the aero or the fuel side of the business, but our group vice president for global product design actually says in the video why there's a difference that lead to this downgrade.


RE: the comments on here...sigh....
By Mint on 6/17/2014 8:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
By the time the car gets rated, there most definitely is a real car to work with.

I eventually found the video you referred to, and Raj even said that they verify models with road testing and coastdown tests.

Engineers work tirelessly to shave tenths of a percent of TRLHP with design tweaks. An accidental 20% error is this very fundamental design metric is unfathomable, especially one that persists for two years.

Just imagine if SpaceX underestimated the fuel needed to get to LEO by 20%, or Boeing underestimated the fuel needed to fly across the country by 20%.

Unless somebody gets into really specific details (far more so than that video), I'm not going to believe that such an error is possible without people turning a blind eye.


RE: the comments on here...sigh....
By alpha754293 on 6/17/2014 10:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.

Well...let me put it to you this way - in terms of generically, how vehicle engineering happens.

Most of the engineering/development work is done on computers nowadays, through analytical tools like computer aided engineering (CAE) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and other modelling techniques.

So, the real goal of all of those tools and methods is to predict what will happen in the future, given math and physics. That's the general jist of how they work. Which means that by the time that you have a vehicle to drive around, you're probably going to be like 80-90% done with engineering and development of the vehicle. HOPEFULLY, with any luck, what your computer tools predicted is close to reality (within a tolerance range) so that you don't have to make a big correct/late change (which is very time consuming and very costly to do).

And considering that gasoline engines, with cars using mostly or almost all steel, steel is a material that is well understood in terms of how it behaves (for like crash and stuff) and gas engines are also well understood in terms of how those work.

Electrification - on any kind - that's kind of new. We don't have close to a hundred years' worth of data (and this is for all auto manufacturers, the entire auto industry as a whole), and then you combine it with about a million different ways to do the same thing, because you can have a million different control strategies, each with a slightly different outcome. And so, everybody's learning.

So...let me put it to you this way - given my position with the company, I hope that you can understand that there are things that I cannot share. You don't have to agree with it or like it, but unfortunately, being in one of the most litigious societies in existence, I WISHED we can just talk freely, but we can't.

So, I'll give you another example instead. If you've ever worked with computational fluid dynamics (CFD, for example), and you try to do some very simple lab-bench type correlation studies (where let's say you make a nozzle or a flow restrictor and you have drilled two holes that's hooked up to pressure sensors), you will very quickly realize that trying to correlate experimental results to analytical results is actually REALLY REALLY hard. (I did that one of my independent study units when I took was going to do a course in CFD. We had three flow meters in the energy systems lab, so we actually reversed engineered them (with my professor) and then we were trying to run the CFD programs to try and see if we can get ANY sort of correlation going between the real flow meter results and the CFD simulations. And it got REALLY, REALLY hard, REALLY, REALLY quickly. (Cuz now you're getting into meshing techniques/strategies/algorithms, fine mesh vs. coarse mesh, computation time constraints, memory constraints, flow characterization (laminar flow? turbulent flow? what kind of turbulence model? parameters for the turbulence model like what's your kappa, what's your epsilon, and how do you TECHNICALLY justify the values that you're using and how are you coming up with those values to begin with? etc. etc. etc.)

The difference between aerospace and automotive is that in aerospace, the shape of the vehicle is designed for its function. In other words, if you WANT a plane to fly, the wing HAS to have this sort of shape with these sorts of parameters and it's a very 1-to-1 relationship. In automotive however, that's not necessarily true. You can have the 1935 Chrylser Airflow just as well as you can have a 1970s Lada.

Like I said, you don't have to understand it, or agree with it, but try doing some "textbook" problems (for example) with CFD (where let's say you're trying to prove/validate coefficient of drag numbers against the published charts and you'll see what I'm on about.

(e.g. www [dot] aerospaceweb [dot] org/question/aerodynamics/drag/drag-shapes.jpg)


RE: the comments on here...sigh....
By Mint on 6/17/2014 3:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
I understand the difficulties of CFD (despite personally having good results from FEM in general), but electrification did not affect Ford's wind tunnel results or its TRLHP.

Once again, this has nothing to do with design. It has to do with measurement after the design is done and prototypes are produced.

It doesn't take a genius to look at the road load curve vs. speed or the A, B, and C parameter in that equation and say, "Hmm, that's 20% lower what I've seen from similar cars in the past. Better make sure I didn't make a mistake..."

Let me ask you this: Why is it that the wind tunnel data is only screwed up when a hybrid goes in? Why didn't the base Fusion and MKZ with the same body have the same error?


By letmepicyou on 6/12/2014 6:32:52 PM , Rating: 3
Ford has a long history of trying to sweep car troubles under the rug (of course, most of them do). Remember Ford Peel In Sheets Silver paint in the 80's? Or Ford's Meltastic Multifunction Switch of the 90's? I can recite problem after problem for ALL the automakers, most of which are lucky to get a TSB, let alone the recall most of these problems actually deserve. They ALL do their best to ignore the problem unless backlash convinces them otherwise. It shouldn't take bad PR to get a problem fixed. A genuine sense of honor would be much better.




By Spuke on 6/12/2014 8:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A genuine sense of honor would be much better.
When you see honor among common folks then you'll see honor in ANY company (because regular people work there not aliens from the planet gork).


By mmc4587 on 6/12/2014 10:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
I happen to work in Engine Research and Development...

1) I know for a fact that certain companies "target" their numbers through clever testing tactics.

2) I also know that some companies are overly-reliant on computer models, instead of test results (which are expensive to attain).

3) Furthermore...
Companies like F 0 R D can't even be bothered to power-set every engines that comes off the line... So there is no way for them to ensure that their product is performing as designed.

...
Those are just a few of the reasons why the company I work for routinely benchmarks our products against our competitors in side-by-side apples-to-apples real-world-tasks. That is the only way (that I now of) to expose false marketing promises of competitors BEFORE they go somewhere else and purchase a lemon.


By Spuke on 6/12/2014 11:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile Ford and others are using someone elses testing methods, not their own.


MKZ 7mph less!
By Harry Wild on 6/15/2014 2:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
I knew that MKZ could not get 47mph in city and highway! It a medsize car! 37mpg is more like it!

I don't own or drive a hybrid but I know mileage. Still it good for that size of car!




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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