Real world MPG not even close to Ford's Hybrid EPA MPG claims

[Recumpence]

Yes, a number of us have posted the method of obtaining high MPG. It seems like those getting poor mpg have the same things to say. It normally goes something like this;

"I have been getting 35 to 37mpg on my C-Max. I have tried everything, to no avail. I wish Ford was honest about the mpg of this car."

After that, they typically add.....

"I do not care if I get mid 30s. This car is wonderful to drive, quick and very entertaining. It is worth it even for mid 30s mpg."

Those statements let me know they really do not try anything to improve their mileage. Also, a couple guys on the C-Max forum have "Discovered" Pulse and Glide recently and have gone from 35mpg to 50mpg with that simple "Discovery". So, they are learning!

Oh, yesterday, we as a family did a bunch of driving around with the heat on (engine running much more than needed to provide heat), I was on the gas more than normal, and the car was full with 5 people on board. I averaged 43mpg all day. I was actually up at 46mpg earlier when I was trying for higher mileage. But, after a while, I loostened up and just drove it while pretty much ignoring the mpg and we ended the day at 43mpg.

Matt

[ChazInMT]

Another Log for the Fire here.

Autoblog.com → EPA to investigate Ford C-Max, Fusion fuel economy

[WesternStarSCR]

I thought I read on EPA test website that they use a custom fuel blended just for EPA, along the lines of 93 octane, no ethanol? Have to double check, but that would be a factor as well, testing versus real world.

Maybe list the type of fuel used on the car sticker, with big font words about E10 and lower octanes WILL reduce your MPG?

I could be way off, but fuel type used could be a part of these discrepancies?

[Recumpence]

Yes, E10 or E15 will reduce MPG. They did, indeed, use 100% gasoline in their tests. That is one factor. However, my lifetime mileage on my car is 46mpg and this is carrying a few hundred pounds of equipment for work 100% of the time. So, something is amiss with other people and their low mileage........

Anyway, I love this car. Of course, if my mileage was 35mpg on a car rated at 47, I would be very upset. Of course, in my case, I bought this car for the high mileage because of my work. Inside of about 8 years the car will have paid for itself in gas savings over my Caravan I had been using. So, if the mileage wasn't as high as quoted, I would be squauking about it too.

I stand behind the statement that there is something those 35mpg people are doing very wrong.......

Matt

[Recumpence]

My 46mpg is 1 short of EPA. However, there are a few factors going on here;

#1 The weather has been cold most of the time I have owned it.

#2 I have 200 miles of 70mph+ running at 41.5mpg in that average.

#3 I carry alot of equipment with me.

#4 The first couple thousand miles were lower than it is now that the car is broken in.

When the weather is 60 degrees, I typically average 50 to 52mpg.

My driving style is to hypermile when I can, and just drive with traffic when I am in a busy area so I do not annoy people around me.

The biggest issue when it comes to my MPG is outside temp, period. It is very direct, when the weather is below 50 degrees, my mpg is 45 to 46, when it is 40 to 50 degrees, the mpg goes up to about 48 to 49, when the temp is over 60, I see 51 or 52mpg.

Matt

[Daox]

Yeah, I actually deleted my comment after posting it. My wife took my Prius up for a weekend of shopping with her Mom and brought it back also for 1 mpg under EPA rating (first tank with the new Prius). She drives semi-conservatively and normally beats EPA in summer. So, it is hard to tell simply because of the weather.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think that some (a lot of?) people think that the EPA rating is some sort of guaranty? As we all know, adjusting the nut behind the wheel makes all the difference. Inflating tires makes a big difference, as does weather and temperature, and running the defroster kicks in the A/C which kills the mileage, too.

Let's not get our knickers in a twist...

[WesternStarSCR]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I think that some (a lot of?) people think that the EPA rating is some sort of guaranty? As we all know, adjusting the nut behind the wheel makes all the difference. Inflating tires makes a big difference, as does weather and temperature, and running the defroster kicks in the A/C which kills the mileage, too.

Let's not get our knickers in a twist...

I think this is very true at the INDIVIDUAL level, each driver uses common sense to realize the, indeed, YMMV. Buyers will let their dealers know thier happiness or not if this becomes either a non-issue, or more widespread and the 'common man' balks in great numbers and decibels.

However, I think the bigger picture is, IMHO, is that more people looking at MPG when shopping makes it more of a marketing issue than it has in the past. So greater visibilty. Hence, more knickers, knotting more than they used to be. MPG is a premeir number now in marketing, not small print back of brochure.

I am sure if people had dynos, they would be mad at thier cars not getting stated horsepower all these years. But, MPG is measurable by EVERYONE, so the advertising better be as spot on as possible, or you have a marketing and trust issue on your hands.

And, perhaps, the 'biggest' big picture issue: this number means EVERYTHING for the OEM in meeting thier CAFE numbers. That makes Ford's fleet look better than it should?

SIDEBAR ANALOGY?
My dad-in-law (retired GM engineer and kit car nut) pointed out the 1 to 4 skip shift in many GM cars being engineered specifically for the EPA test parameters and acceleration rates. He points out that when going around a corner, assuming you will accelerate in first and then go 1 to 2, but it goes 1 to 4, could cause an unsafe condition and possibly rear ending. It was all about the EPA test cycle, not real world safety and economy he said.


So, IRT the Ford issue, maybe thier software is SO tuned into the 100% petrol, and the exact speeds and accel rates of the test, that they are "Engineering to the Test", a test cycle which apparently is better than it used to be, but is still very flawed when taking into account how 'real people' drive it, and the 'real' fuel that is used.

I have no skin in this game, I hope the truth gets tweaked and it starts falling closer to advertised. Or Ford comes right out and posts their test methods and results, and forces the EPA to re-verify that Ford' methods and numbers are legit. Which will then let the EPA yell at the average driving for not driving like thier test

That would prove that the EPA methodology still needs work to match real life.

[tjts1]

The EPA window sticker numbers are completely useless. If you want to know real world fuel economy just check fuelly.

2013 Ford C-Max MPG Reports | Fuelly

2013 Ford Fusion MPG Reports | Fuelly

How hard was that? I would eliminate the EPA test all together and calculate each manufacturer's CAFE number based on the previous model year real world fuel economy. All new cars at this point can calculate their own fuel economy in real time and they have a data connection for GPS, streaming music, etc. Use it to report fuel economy in real time in the real world.

[gone-ot]

Repeat 3 times fast, "...a lead foot leads to lousy economy...", in the presence of person(s) it applies to.