Consumer Reports is calling out Ford, saying the new C-Max and Fusion hybrids don't get anywhere near the 47 miles per gallon the automaker claims.
Several automakers have faced backlash after consumers discovered their cars don't quite hit the lofty fuel economy figures promised by the companies, and Ford may be the newest casualty of all this pesky fact-checking by critics and watchdogs.
The magazine drove the cars 2,000 miles and consistently got around 39 mpg for the Fusion and 37 mpg for the C-Max. Jake Fisher, director of auto testing for Consumer Reports, said this is the largest discrepancy between what automakers MPG claims and the actual real-world driving results.
"It's not to say these are bad cars at all; they still get excellent fuel economy," Fisher said. "But we've been doing this for a long time, and we've never seen such a difference between the EPA estimates and our numbers."
Ford said its figures were certified by the EPA, but the EPA only tests about 10 to 15 percent of the cars on the road. Ford said some early reports from customers showed the cars getting even better fuel economy than 47 mpg.
"This reinforces the fact that driving styles, driving conditions, and other factors can cause mileage to vary," said Wes Sherwood, a spokesman for Ford. For customers who want to optimize their fuel economy, the cars come with different driving coach software to help drivers get better fuel economy, he said.
Well, the Japanese 3, plus GM and Chrysler have publicly stated they are confident on their fuel economy ratings. Nissan's spokesman specifically said that they went back to recheck their procedures after Hyundai was outed for lying. Everyone seems confident so far.
And until the EPA's audits say otherwise, Ford is innocent. What CR did was their own random drive cycle, they in no way simulated the EPA mandated dyno test procedures. And that standard, flawed as it is, is what the automakers are allowed to advertise.
CarPhreakD wrote: Well, the Japanese 3, plus GM and Chrysler have publicly stated they are confident on their fuel economy ratings. Nissan's spokesman specifically said that they went back to recheck their procedures after Hyundai was outed for lying. Everyone seems confident so far.
And until the EPA's audits say otherwise, Ford is innocent. What CR did was their own random drive cycle, they in no way simulated the EPA mandated dyno test procedures. And that standard, flawed as it is, is what the automakers are allowed to advertise.
as per video, on the ending stated that the discrepancies are the worst so far..means Hyundai/Kia (that was found cheated) achieve better result from the CR testing
Take an undersized turbo engine.
Run it through a light throttle drive cycle where the turbos barely run.
Claim outstanding economy.
Now.
Sell it to someone who
Has to keep the foot on the gas to keep the undersized engine keep up with traffic.
See much worse economy.
Mind you, not awful, because much of the time the engine is loafing, cruising at part throttle, but those times that your have to punch it, will kill your mileage.
If you want to see where EPA and reality meet.. look at some of the Nissans and the Hondas. Get a reasonably large engine so that you get reasonable mileage AND acceleration.
I think that soon the EPA test will have to take into account turbos... they may have to change the test to include specific acceleration profiles and reasonable speeds.
I am shocked that information is out the EPA actually test just 15% of models in the U.S. ... the rest is on the 'honor' system.
No wonder 'cheating' and 'gaming the system' is so rampant. The number deciding one factor in '12 for the automobile industry purchases is MPGs. The EPA needs to be testing these cars.
A.W.E.S.O.M. - O wrote: I am shocked that information is out the EPA actually test just 15% of models in the U.S. ... the rest is on the 'honor' system.
No wonder 'cheating' and 'gaming the system' is so rampant. The number deciding one factor in '12 for the automobile industry purchases is MPGs. The EPA needs to be testing these cars.
I'm sure the EPA would test every car if they could, but this is not simply a 5 minute test per vehicle. There are a number of tests performed, and the EPA is the average of those tests. AND, everytime anything is changed with a vehicle's engine (including plastic cladding!), transmission, aerodynamics, or weight (must be significant), the vehicle must be re-evaluated. They simply do not have the manpower to test all vehicles on the road.
CarGuyLee wrote: If you read the article, it seems like CR has trouble getting a lot of hybrids to get their stated MPG.
Make & model
CR overall mpg
EPA combined mpg
Difference
Ford C-Max SE
37
47
10
Ford Fusion Hybrid SE
39
47
8
Toyota Prius C Two
43
50
7
Toyota Prius
44
50
6
Honda Civic Hybrid
40
44
4
Infiniti M35h
25
29
4
Lexus ES 300h
36
40
4
Buick LaCrosse (4-cyl., eAssist)
26
29
3
Honda Insight EX
38
41
3
Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
33
36
3
Lexus RX 450h
26
29
3
Lexus CT 200h
40
42
2
Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE
38
40
2
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid
19
20
1
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
27
28
1
Toyota Prius V Three
41
42
1
Chevrolet Malibu Eco
29
29
0
Honda CR-Z EX (manual)
35
34
Wow the discrepancy for the C-MAX is huge. I'd say, 10% is fine (like the Camry, Insight, Civic and Sonata), after all, reality and EPA are different. But some of the cars in the list.............there's certainly a concern....at the very least things should be investigated....
Agreed, but typically Honda is conservative in their MPG estimates.
Wonder when the EPA audit will ensue? Probably will take more angry (Ford) motorists complaining before that will occur, but once they do, it will be a sea of bad news for Ford. And if the audit includes the F-150 and there's any discrepancy, the liability could be HUGE.
sa3eedi wrote: I would wait to see how the Accord does before gloating at all
A.W.E.S.O.M. - O wrote: I am shocked that information is out the EPA actually test just 15% of models in the U.S. ... the rest is on the 'honor' system.
No wonder 'cheating' and 'gaming the system' is so rampant. The number deciding one factor in '12 for the automobile industry purchases is MPGs. The EPA needs to be testing these cars.
I'm sure the EPA would test every car if they could, but this is not simply a 5 minute test per vehicle. There are a number of tests performed, and the EPA is the average of those tests. AND, everytime anything is changed with a vehicle's engine (including plastic cladding!), transmission, aerodynamics, or weight (must be significant), the vehicle must be re-evaluated. They simply do not have the manpower to test all vehicles on the road.
All the EPA has to do is have an 'EPA' certification fee that covers the cost of testing. What ... $100,000? $250,000? Manfacturers would pay it ... and it's chump change in the cost of the vehicle.
If they are unwilling to do that, they should attach a fine for cars that don't meet what a manufacturer states are the estimate. Nice 'n big too. How about a $10,000,000 fine for overtating mileage estimates ... per model.
What would have that cost Hyundai/Kia? I believe they had 13 models overstated ... that'd have been a $130,000,000 fine. Sounds about right for a cheater on the scale of Hyundai/Kia.
How can you account for all the different driving styles? The numbers are what are theoretically possible in the pie in the sky. If Ford could show that under light acceleration on the flattest roads that 47 is possible then it is possible. If one person gets 20% worse, someone gets 10% worse, and someone else gets 2% better...all it shows me is that there are too many variables to measure. Cities where you run your A/C all the time, or cities that have lots of hills, or cities with horrible traffic, or drivers with lead feet, or hyper-miler drivers, etc all vary real world MPGs and if Ford followed EPA rules it isn't their fault. We can't say that they cheated based upon one magazine's findings...that is very reactionary and hardly fair.
CarPhreakD wrote: Well, the Japanese 3, plus GM and Chrysler have publicly stated they are confident on their fuel economy ratings. Nissan's spokesman specifically said that they went back to recheck their procedures after Hyundai was outed for lying. Everyone seems confident so far.
And until the EPA's audits say otherwise, Ford is innocent. What CR did was their own random drive cycle, they in no way simulated the EPA mandated dyno test procedures. And that standard, flawed as it is, is what the automakers are allowed to advertise.
as per video, on the ending stated that the discrepancies are the worst so far..means Hyundai/Kia (that was found cheated) achieve better result from the CR testing
Don't misunderstand me. I am not talking about "discrepancies" when comparing lab vs. real world analysis. I am talking about the fact that the way that Hyundai/Kia arrived at their mileage figures and submitted to the EPA is false. That wasn't a situation where Hyundai/Kia did not match their numbers, it was a situation where they simply lied about the numbers in the first place.
Consumer Reports had a chart comparison to their other hybrid vehicles. No Korean car manufacturers on that list: The second worst offenders belong in the Prius family.
A.W.E.S.O.M. - O wrote: I am shocked that information is out the EPA actually test just 15% of models in the U.S. ... the rest is on the 'honor' system.
No wonder 'cheating' and 'gaming the system' is so rampant. The number deciding one factor in '12 for the automobile industry purchases is MPGs. The EPA needs to be testing these cars.
Yeah, they can do that. Unless the government mandates that car manufacturers pay for the tests though, then you will have to shell out of your own tax money. This also expands the EPA's authority quite a bit.
You can guess what happened with Hyundai though right? One of their cars were audited and then found not to match their stated FE. They tested some more and then the shit hit the fan.
I'm pretty sure that even now as we speak, the EPA is stepping up the number of audits.
NSXman wrote: How can you account for all the different driving styles? The numbers are what are theoretically possible in the pie in the sky. If Ford could show that under light acceleration on the flattest roads that 47 is possible then it is possible. If one person gets 20% worse, someone gets 10% worse, and someone else gets 2% better...all it shows me is that there are too many variables to measure. Cities where you run your A/C all the time, or cities that have lots of hills, or cities with horrible traffic, or drivers with lead feet, or hyper-miler drivers, etc all vary real world MPGs and if Ford followed EPA rules it isn't their fault. We can't say that they cheated based upon one magazine's findings...that is very reactionary and hardly fair.
Like I said, the only way to say that Ford cheated is to run the actual EPA cycles, on a dyno, per test conditions, and then report the findings. That's the only way.
Stien Azani wrote: as per video, on the ending stated that the discrepancies are the worst so far..means Hyundai/Kia (that was found cheated) achieve better result from the CR testing
As far as I can understand this, I think the only thing I could say is Hyundai/Kia got closer to their EPA ratings under CR's testing. [Less discrepancy - if that's what you're referring to as "better result", not necessary CR's has achieved "better result" than EPA's rating]
CarPhreakD wrote: Consumer Reports had a chart comparison to their other hybrid vehicles. No Korean car manufacturers on that list: The second worst offenders belong in the Prius family.
I think you need to read that again, carefully this time.
According to another poster, CR found Hyundai Sonata hybrid to be 3 mpg short.
BTW, that doesn't mean Kia Optima hybrid is cleared by CR. I just don't think it was tested.
NSXman wrote: How can you account for all the different driving styles? The numbers are what are theoretically possible in the pie in the sky. If Ford could show that under light acceleration on the flattest roads that 47 is possible then it is possible. If one person gets 20% worse, someone gets 10% worse, and someone else gets 2% better...all it shows me is that there are too many variables to measure. Cities where you run your A/C all the time, or cities that have lots of hills, or cities with horrible traffic, or drivers with lead feet, or hyper-miler drivers, etc all vary real world MPGs and if Ford followed EPA rules it isn't their fault. We can't say that they cheated based upon one magazine's findings...that is very reactionary and hardly fair.
Sorry, that's not a valid excuse.
The EPA ratings comparison only works for similar types of engines.
This is because real world driving, irrespective of driving style, is far more strenuous than the EPA cycle.
Any time you start allowing different types of engines with truly wildly different modes of operations when running outside the parameters of the EPA test, then you run into a serious issue.
The important thing here is when there is a non linear discontinuity in the performance of the engine between the EPA performance and real life performance. This is how manufacturers 'honestly' game the EPA test.
Such engines will do wonderfully within the parameters of the EPA test but will fail miserably in the real world.
Examples:
1) Small, undersized turbo engines that run non turbo in the EPA test.
2) Plug in hybrids.
3) hybrids with regenerative braking and large batteries.
4) Automatic transmissions that are programmed to go high gears under even medium loads.
The solution, of course, is for the EPA to implement a new set of tests and ratings.
a) Standard EPA light test... current.
b) Urban/Traffic Jam EPA test... lots of stop and go, medium acceleration, 50 mpg max
c) Suburban EPA test... less few stops and go, medium to fast accelerations, speeds between 0 to 70.
d) Highway test.. very few stops and go, a few fast accelerations to simulate passing, speeds of 50 to 70
e) Freeway test.. almost no stops and go, steady speeds between 65 to 80.
Add the California penalty to achieve CARB numbers...
e1) AC at full blast
e2) DC loads for two smart phones and a iPod.
e3) worn out Moonbeam stickers on the bumper induce a 3% hit due to wind drag.
I kind of suspected this might be an issue when I first heard the EPA rating for the Fusion Hybrid. Not necessarily about the real world discrepancy (because of course there always is), but rather that it would be more noticeable due to the common city/highway rating.
The Civic HF, for example, is rated 29 city, 41 highway. That's a wide stretch. If you're getting 30mpg, it's not great, but you're still falling within the "expected" range. When a car is rated 47/47... well, you expect to get 47. And anything less will be less than expected. It's setting consumers up for disappointment.
Let's see if the RLX Hybrid has the same issue. With a rating of 30/30, how is it going to be received when the reviews start showing low 20s, high teens during their tests?
NSXman wrote: How can you account for all the different driving styles? The numbers are what are theoretically possible in the pie in the sky. If Ford could show that under light acceleration on the flattest roads that 47 is possible then it is possible. If one person gets 20% worse, someone gets 10% worse, and someone else gets 2% better...all it shows me is that there are too many variables to measure. Cities where you run your A/C all the time, or cities that have lots of hills, or cities with horrible traffic, or drivers with lead feet, or hyper-miler drivers, etc all vary real world MPGs and if Ford followed EPA rules it isn't their fault. We can't say that they cheated based upon one magazine's findings...that is very reactionary and hardly fair.
Sorry, that's not a valid excuse.
The EPA ratings comparison only works for similar types of engines.
This is because real world driving, irrespective of driving style, is far more strenuous than the EPA cycle.
Any time you start allowing different types of engines with truly wildly different modes of operations when running outside the parameters of the EPA test, then you run into a serious issue.
The important thing here is when there is a non linear discontinuity in the performance of the engine between the EPA performance and real life performance. This is how manufacturers 'honestly' game the EPA test.
Such engines will do wonderfully within the parameters of the EPA test but will fail miserably in the real world.
Examples:
1) Small, undersized turbo engines that run non turbo in the EPA test.
2) Plug in hybrids.
3) hybrids with regenerative braking and large batteries.
4) Automatic transmissions that are programmed to go high gears under even medium loads.
The solution, of course, is for the EPA to implement a new set of tests and ratings.
a) Standard EPA light test... current.
b) Urban/Traffic Jam EPA test... lots of stop and go, medium acceleration, 50 mpg max
c) Suburban EPA test... less few stops and go, medium to fast accelerations, speeds between 0 to 70.
d) Highway test.. very few stops and go, a few fast accelerations to simulate passing, speeds of 50 to 70
e) Freeway test.. almost no stops and go, steady speeds between 65 to 80.
Add the California penalty to achieve CARB numbers...
e1) AC at full blast
e2) DC loads for two smart phones and a iPod.
e3) worn out Moonbeam stickers on the bumper induce a 3% hit due to wind drag.
DrWhiner wrote: Make & model CR overall mpg EPA combined mpg Difference
Ford C-Max SE 37 / 47 / 10 / -21% Ford Fusion Hybrid SE 39 / 47 / 8 / -17% Toyota Prius C Two 43 / 50 / 7 / -14% Toyota Prius 44 / 50 / 6 / -12% Honda Civic Hybrid 40 / 44 / 4 / -9% Infiniti M35h 25 / 29 / 4 / -14% Lexus ES 300h 36 / 40 / 4 / -10% Buick LaCrosse (4-cyl., eAssist) 26 / 29 / 3 / -10% Honda Insight EX 38 / 41 / 3 / -7% Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 33 / 36 / 3 / -8% Lexus RX 450h 26 / 29 / 3 / -10% Lexus CT 200h 40 / 42 / 2 / -5% Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE 38 / 40 / 2 / -5% Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid 19 / 20 / 1 / -5% Toyota Highlander Hybrid 27 / 28 / 1 / -4% Toyota Prius V Three 41 / 42 / 1 / -2% Chevrolet Malibu Eco 29 / 29 / 0 / 0% Honda CR-Z EX (manual) 35 / 34 / +1 / +3%
1. Thanks for doing all this work, I just copied and pasted, some people have a lot of time on their hands since nothing else is going on in life.
2. Joking aside, the percentages do help.
3. Back to the time on your hands thing. I do recall a recent article showing CR was able to get #'s a lot higher than EPA especially on HWY. I think Civic was 47, the Altima was 44. Since you don't have anything going on maybe you can find them for us.
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
