Post by jeffolie on Aug 16, 2013 7:39:02 GMT -6
Ford lied, no mpg test, pays $550/car, govt failed
my jeffolie view: corporations like Ford push lies knowing that sales matter more than apologies later, govt enabled the lies by blatantly accepting Ford's lies without govt testing ... even so the govt test methods fail to get real world driving results because of corruption impacting govt testing methods as practiced ... govt failed to perform reasonable actions to enforce a truth in advertising goal
============================================
The Truth About Cars Blog
Ford Downgrades C-Max Hybrid To 43 MPG – Will Give Current Owners $550 Compensation – C-Max Hybrid Was Not Actually Tested
By TTAC Staff on August 16, 2013
After facing consumer complaints and lawsuits over consumers failing to get advertised fuel economy Ford announced on Thursday that it will be downgrading the combined MPG rating of the C-Max Hybrid from 47 to 43.
The company says the discrepancy consumers have been seeing is because the C-Max Hybrid was never actually tested. Instead the Ford says that it relied on data from the Fusion Hybrid, with which it shares drivetrain components. Ford says that it will now test the C-Max Hybrid itself. Current C-Max Hybrid owners will be compensated with $550 and lessees will receive $325. Cars still on dealer lots will be relabeled with new Monroney stickers while owners and lessees will be notified by mail. It’s not clear if Ford will drop the price of the C-Max Hybrid by a similar amount. If you are a C-Max owner or lessees and have questions, you can contact Ford’s Customer Relationship Center via the web, or by phone at 800-392-3673.
Using the Fusion Hybrid MPG test results was allowed under EPA rules. Raj Nair, who is in charge of global product development at Ford, said, ”This is an industrywide issue with hybrid vehicles. We’ve learned along with EPA that the regulations create some anomalies for hybrid vehicles under the general label rule.”
www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/ford-downgrades-c-max-hybrid-to-43-mpg-will-give-current-owners-550-compensation-c-max-hybrid-was-not-actually-tested/
====================================
Editorial: Time For Fuel Economy Reform
By Derek Kreindler on August 16, 2013
The revised fuel economy ratings for the Ford C-Max aren’t the first time that an auto maker has been forced to backtrack on fuel economy claims – nor will it be the last unless meaningful reform is undertaken to ensure that fuel economy figures more accurately reflect the way motorists drive their cars in the real world.
The discrepancies between the EPA’s fuel economy figures and what consumers can expect stem from a number of issues. For starters, manufacturers are allowed to self-report their findings, with the EPA only auditing about 10 to 15 percent of the vehicles on sale in any given year. There are all kinds of tricks that auto makers can use as well. In the case of the C-Max, Ford used data from its Fusion Hybrid to determine the C-Max’s fuel economy, which lead to inflated ratings. While this may seem nonsensical to the outside observer, this is allowed under EPA guidelines, as the auto makers are only required to submit data for the volume model of any group of nameplates that use the same powertrain – even if they bear little to no relation to one another, as was the case here.
EPA test procedures also do not permit the use of ethanol. Across the country but particularly in emissions-conscious states, many pumps dispense gasoline with up to ten or even twenty percent alcohol, which significantly reduces mileage. The driving conditions used bear little resemblance to anything encountered in the real world. Tests are conducted on a dynamometer rather than on a real road, and 48.3 mph is considered “free-flowing traffic” on a freeway while city driving cycles use a barely-crawling speed of just 21.2 mph. Despite being utterly detached from reality, there is a good reason why the EPA fuel economy tests are designed this way. They aren’t meant to really test fuel consumption.
An article by Consumer Reports quotes one expert as stating that the tests
“…were originally designed to test emissions, not fuel economy. They wanted to test a variety of speeds and accelerations.”
CR’s own fuel economy tests revealed significant discrepancies between the EPA numbers and their own road test cycles, with the biggest culprits being small turbocharged 4-cylinder engines. These tend to do well on EPA tests, since the low speeds don’t require much boost from the turbocharger. By contrast, real world driving does require the turbo to work harder when driven at speeds above 21.2mph, which is how a car like the Lincoln MKZ, with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine, can return 16 mpg in the real world despite being rated for 22 mpg by the EPA.
With gas prices edging higher and fuel consumption becoming a priority among car shoppers, fuel economy tests have become increasingly importance for shoppers. Consumers compare “em-pee-gee” figures like they would have once looked at 0-60 mph times or crash test safety ratings, and rely on the EPA numbers to make purchasing decisions. Automotive marketing types know this, it’s not unreasonable to assume that powertrain calibration has sometimes been designed specifically with the fuel economy testing procedures in mind. Being able to hit a “magic number” like 40 mpg highway is a marketing coup. But being exposed as unable to hit that number in real life is a tenfold embarrassment, as Ford and Hyundai both know.
The current regimen of fuel economy tests have clearly outlived their usefulness.If the EPA test really is designed to measure emissions rather than fuel consumption, then that’s a strong indication of how relevant their guidelines really are. The next step is, what should be done to bring them back to relevance? Can the EPA test process be reformed? Should there be an end to manufacturer reported figures? Or is it worth ignoring EPA figures from now on in favor of someone like Consumer Reports or even a self-reporting site like Fuelly?
www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/editorial-time-for-fuel-economy-reform/
my jeffolie view: corporations like Ford push lies knowing that sales matter more than apologies later, govt enabled the lies by blatantly accepting Ford's lies without govt testing ... even so the govt test methods fail to get real world driving results because of corruption impacting govt testing methods as practiced ... govt failed to perform reasonable actions to enforce a truth in advertising goal
============================================
The Truth About Cars Blog
Ford Downgrades C-Max Hybrid To 43 MPG – Will Give Current Owners $550 Compensation – C-Max Hybrid Was Not Actually Tested
By TTAC Staff on August 16, 2013
After facing consumer complaints and lawsuits over consumers failing to get advertised fuel economy Ford announced on Thursday that it will be downgrading the combined MPG rating of the C-Max Hybrid from 47 to 43.
The company says the discrepancy consumers have been seeing is because the C-Max Hybrid was never actually tested. Instead the Ford says that it relied on data from the Fusion Hybrid, with which it shares drivetrain components. Ford says that it will now test the C-Max Hybrid itself. Current C-Max Hybrid owners will be compensated with $550 and lessees will receive $325. Cars still on dealer lots will be relabeled with new Monroney stickers while owners and lessees will be notified by mail. It’s not clear if Ford will drop the price of the C-Max Hybrid by a similar amount. If you are a C-Max owner or lessees and have questions, you can contact Ford’s Customer Relationship Center via the web, or by phone at 800-392-3673.
Using the Fusion Hybrid MPG test results was allowed under EPA rules. Raj Nair, who is in charge of global product development at Ford, said, ”This is an industrywide issue with hybrid vehicles. We’ve learned along with EPA that the regulations create some anomalies for hybrid vehicles under the general label rule.”
www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/ford-downgrades-c-max-hybrid-to-43-mpg-will-give-current-owners-550-compensation-c-max-hybrid-was-not-actually-tested/
====================================
Editorial: Time For Fuel Economy Reform
By Derek Kreindler on August 16, 2013
The revised fuel economy ratings for the Ford C-Max aren’t the first time that an auto maker has been forced to backtrack on fuel economy claims – nor will it be the last unless meaningful reform is undertaken to ensure that fuel economy figures more accurately reflect the way motorists drive their cars in the real world.
The discrepancies between the EPA’s fuel economy figures and what consumers can expect stem from a number of issues. For starters, manufacturers are allowed to self-report their findings, with the EPA only auditing about 10 to 15 percent of the vehicles on sale in any given year. There are all kinds of tricks that auto makers can use as well. In the case of the C-Max, Ford used data from its Fusion Hybrid to determine the C-Max’s fuel economy, which lead to inflated ratings. While this may seem nonsensical to the outside observer, this is allowed under EPA guidelines, as the auto makers are only required to submit data for the volume model of any group of nameplates that use the same powertrain – even if they bear little to no relation to one another, as was the case here.
EPA test procedures also do not permit the use of ethanol. Across the country but particularly in emissions-conscious states, many pumps dispense gasoline with up to ten or even twenty percent alcohol, which significantly reduces mileage. The driving conditions used bear little resemblance to anything encountered in the real world. Tests are conducted on a dynamometer rather than on a real road, and 48.3 mph is considered “free-flowing traffic” on a freeway while city driving cycles use a barely-crawling speed of just 21.2 mph. Despite being utterly detached from reality, there is a good reason why the EPA fuel economy tests are designed this way. They aren’t meant to really test fuel consumption.
An article by Consumer Reports quotes one expert as stating that the tests
“…were originally designed to test emissions, not fuel economy. They wanted to test a variety of speeds and accelerations.”
CR’s own fuel economy tests revealed significant discrepancies between the EPA numbers and their own road test cycles, with the biggest culprits being small turbocharged 4-cylinder engines. These tend to do well on EPA tests, since the low speeds don’t require much boost from the turbocharger. By contrast, real world driving does require the turbo to work harder when driven at speeds above 21.2mph, which is how a car like the Lincoln MKZ, with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine, can return 16 mpg in the real world despite being rated for 22 mpg by the EPA.
With gas prices edging higher and fuel consumption becoming a priority among car shoppers, fuel economy tests have become increasingly importance for shoppers. Consumers compare “em-pee-gee” figures like they would have once looked at 0-60 mph times or crash test safety ratings, and rely on the EPA numbers to make purchasing decisions. Automotive marketing types know this, it’s not unreasonable to assume that powertrain calibration has sometimes been designed specifically with the fuel economy testing procedures in mind. Being able to hit a “magic number” like 40 mpg highway is a marketing coup. But being exposed as unable to hit that number in real life is a tenfold embarrassment, as Ford and Hyundai both know.
The current regimen of fuel economy tests have clearly outlived their usefulness.If the EPA test really is designed to measure emissions rather than fuel consumption, then that’s a strong indication of how relevant their guidelines really are. The next step is, what should be done to bring them back to relevance? Can the EPA test process be reformed? Should there be an end to manufacturer reported figures? Or is it worth ignoring EPA figures from now on in favor of someone like Consumer Reports or even a self-reporting site like Fuelly?
www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/editorial-time-for-fuel-economy-reform/