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

I heard this on the radio this morning:

Automotive Insight with John McElroy « CBS Detroit

Ford Hybrids Not Achieving EPA MPG Ratings: Report | AutoGuide.com News

Ford Hybrids' Fuel Economy Failing To Live Up To EPA Ratings?


I sure hope Ford, for all of our sake, can quickly come out with its own, EPA certified information regarding test results, that re-validates their 47 combined MPG, to put these real world tests by real drivers in context to the EPA test methods. That is my optimism speaking...

I have never owned a Ford, but I am rooting for all car companies to improve their MPG, and hopefully, have the test methods to back up their results... uggh

Choosing a car is complicated enough without even more debate on if the EPA numbers are close to being true or not these days.

Can the EPA and the OEM's just hire some experienced Eco Modder members to run each new model through its paces as a 'sanity check' against what their test results are showing?

I dont think most folks drive vehicles in any sense that the two could come up with a suitable design short of something with a battery reserve of 10-15 minutes. I think the Prius design was pretty dead on to meet or beat epa since it can sit with the ac on and not use any gas with its pack.

Ive driven a prius and for the first 10-15 minutes you are stuck in traffic it doesnt idle. After then with the ac on it idles just like the cars next to it and its mpg drops til you get up any real speed, then it builds back up the pack as well as mpg.

To really test the vehicles they should start any epa testing with 30 minutes of traffic. You know, move a thousand feet at up to 35 mph, stop for 7-10 minutes for a mile, then move to a 65mph mile loop for a few laps, then thats your mpg. :eek:

I've been hearing a lot about this at thetruthaboutcars... Apparently a lot of media outlets have been asking, for quite a while.

Maybe the EPA just needs to audit Ford's numbers.

Perhaps there was a "procedural error" in their testing, just like Hyundai & Kia: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...epa-19675.html

.

Same old story, people who probably have never matched EPA with their old car complain when the new one doesn't either.

No, unfortunately its more than that. I was reading the other day about a Prius driver who was getting above EPA with his 3rd gen, then he gets a C-max and is only getting mid 30s for mileage. This is one of several stories. Something isn't right.

I don't know anything about this car, never even heard of it. Only 21 2013 C-max's on fuelly averaging 39 mpg of rated 47(hwy, city & combined). 83.6% of epa. I just picked 2012 Cruize for comparison, 276 of them averaging 33.2 mpg, combined rating of 27 to 30, using 29 gets 115% of EPA.

Just for giggles, compared to 2012 Prius, 352 on fuelly with 49 mpg average, combined rating of 50 so 98% of EPA. 2010 Insight 177 cars with 44.1 mpg, rating of 41 = 107%

So Ford is looking a little low, but also has a pretty small sample size.

The only guy on Ecomodders with a C-Max is consistently beating the window sticker numbers. Batting a thousand.

Small sample size. But the automotive press are the ones sort of moaning about this. Along with the fact that all 3 numbers (city, hwy, comb.) are 47 mpg, so they rightly point out that this sort of mpg should transcend the driving style modifications some of the Ford engineers are suggesting. EPA has test methodology listed on their website, but the big font number on a car sticker is what counts for consumers, not some boring test procedure.

In schools they 'teach to the test'. One wonders if manufacturers are 'engineering to the test' to have their MPG sweet spots right at the ambiant temps, MPH, and A/C settings where the EPA tests at, vs what the "real world" driver may do.

Either way, I hope this issue resolves to the positive of course...

The EPA should just take a few random cars from the manufacturer and test themselves.

The EPA randomly tests about 200-250 vehicles each year.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-mpg-estimates

Hey Guys,

I am the only person AFAIK on Ecomodder with a C-Max. Allow me to share my experience and my personal feelings on the matter here;

At this point, I have 3,400 miles on my car. The Lifetime average MPG is currently 46.8mpg. That includes 100 miles of test drivers beating the car before I bought it, and the first 1,000 miles or so of the car learning my driving style and only returning about 43 mpg. So, the last 2,400 miles have been around 50mpg. I have seen numerous 120 mile days above 52mpg.

Now, why the mileage reports showing low averages? Well, my theory is multifaceted. Here are my thoughts on it;

First off, the C-Max has a combined output of 188hp. It just plain moves out when you get on it. Also, it has low profile, wide tires with a low stance. It handles very well for what it is. These two things make it an exercise in personal restraint to try for decent mpg. Most people that drive it enjoy it so much they tend to get on the gas and drive it hard. Ford made this car as a drivers car, not just an exercise in extreme efficiency.

Second, (at this is confirmed on the C-Max forum I frequent) the car requires a good 2,000 miles or so for the computer to memorize your driving style and compensate along with the normal break-in period. The C-Max is so new, most are not even over that break-in/learning phase yet.

Anyway, I am absolutely in love with this car!

I cannot wait to get a full pan and some other hyper-miling mods installed to see what it is really capable of. :)

Matt

That is great to see! Maybe that is the risk / reward proposition when you are considered a class leader. Dodge Dart is at 41 mpg, so if journalist gets close, he is happy. Looks like c-max has a higher bar set, but perhaps a less forgiving one, when the driver chooses to flex his right foot, hence same 41 mpg on a c-max being considered low. In a few years, hopefully mid 40s and 50 will be more the norm even for lead foots.

Ford Fusion/C-Max MPG falling short?
 

Tests show Ford Fusion, C-Max hybrids don't live up to 47-mpg claims

I wonder how hard they were really trying.

Here's a thread too
 

We now have at least one brother in arms with a C-Max and we will hopefully start getting better data than the automotive press is seeing.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post342127

Based on how the general population drives in general so fast, jack rabbit starts, hammer down, I'm not surprised they didn't get close to the advertised ratings.

What I see from all these "oh my car doesn't get the window sticker rating" complaints is that people who buy these cars probably buy them basically just for fuel economy. Yet what I notice is that the Prii on the road are usually the cars going the fastest.

Anyways, the EPA tests are IMO completely off from real world driving, there is no reason to complain that your car gets worse than what the sticker says because the sticker means very little. My car supposedly does 27 mpg highway. Even with the ludicrously short 5th gear I don't understand how it's even possible to get such bad fuel economy. Yesterday I pulled out my phone and opened Torque and discovered that going 55mph at 3000rpm in gear was returning 38mpg. 27mpg is what happens when the engine is screaming at 4300rpm and I'm doing about 80.

it's impossible for everyone to just "average" a set MPG for a car..some people have short commutes which kills MPG...some people drive 75 mph on the highway and expect 46 MPG...it's not gonna happen

I gotta tell you, there are some really pissed off people on the C-Max forum.......

Honestly, I cannot help but criticize their driving habits. My C-Max is really easy to get mid 40s, low 50s is doable if care is taken.

I have 4,500 miles on mine, so I speak from experience.

Matt

Thats great to hear.

Have you posted your driving habits and your mpg experiences there? I'd bet a good many of them have no clue why they are getting poor mpgs.

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

Another Log for the Fire here.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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...

CAFE numbers and Engineering to the Test
 

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.

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.

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

OK, today it was 23 degrees out for most of the day. Also, I was driving much harder than normal because I was running behind schedule for much of the day. I just rolled into my driveway with over 100 miles and I averaged 43.0 mpg. I have no clue how some people are seeing only 32 or 33mpg. They must be freaking lead footed!

The last short burst of warm weather (two days), I saw 51.0 mpg one day and 52.2 mpg the second day (over 100 miles each day).

Weather affects this car alot, along with the nut behind the wheel. :)

Matt

Or Ford's reputation for hit or miss quality. Its only natural for Ford to have a high ratio of duds early in the production run. They see early adopters are beta testers. I'm sure the fleet wide FE will improve in the second and third model year.

even more angry (yet politely so) Canadians?
 

I have to laugh: this ad from Ford of Canada keeps popping up in this thread for me:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1355361587

Note that we're still using essentially the "pre-2008" EPA equivalent formula (no 2nd layer fudge factor applied).

So that 4.0L / 100 km = 59 MPG (US).

While NRCAN freely describes its ratings as "aspirational" rather than trying to be "real world", I can't help but wonder if anyone's getting those kind of numbers!

The EM Forum politely invites the EPA, NRCAN, and Ford...
 

to 2 beautiful places this time of year, to settle the score:

Uvalde, Texas Test Track

Chris Allen's Spectacularly Mediocre Blog: Honeymoon Day #8: Winnipeg to Thompson


Please Note: Don't bring your fuel flow meters. We will provide accurate ones for you...

Complimentary heat, cold, boredom and caffeine to round out your experience.

Have a nice stay... we look forward to hearing your feedback. Comment cards will be provided in your glove boxes.

:D

Hi Matt,
We have at least one member over at PriusChat who is having severe MPG problems with his:
Consumer Reports MPG Result For 2013 Fusion & C-Max Hybrids! | Page 7 | PriusChat

@55 mph 38 MPG
@60 mph 38 MPG
@65 mph 38 MPG
@70 mph 33 MPG
@75 mph 32 MPG

Have you considered doing a 'roll down' test and using the spreadsheet to measure the rolling and aerodynamic drag?

Bob Wilson

Thanks for the link
 

I just read some of the last couple of pages of that thread. WOW! So Ford dealer takes the owners car for a few days, and returns it to owner saying it is within spec for economy and MPG, so good luck?

And their engineers are on record saying they could have detuned it for more economy, but did not, for a better driving experience?

If you are selling, and people are buying, the hybrid version of a car that also has a non-hybrid version, why would you NOT maximize effeciency in the hybrid version?

Interesting that they (Ford) has not exactly said anything yet regarding the EPA test discrepency, witch is sort of the point, right, that started this discussion and the CR article to begin with? Just sort of deflecting for now, maybe until they can get the audit results back from the EPA first?

Maybe they would have better served to not say anything other than something like 'the EPA has decided to audit our numbers and we will comment further when the EPA testing is complete', instead of questionable PR moves of blaming drivers driving styles, and admitting that they could have detuned for better efficiency, but chose not to.

Keep us posted...

Greencarreports had an article last week on this and it basically said that Ford did optimize the car to some extent for the EPA testing. Let me see... ah here it is:

Ford: High Hybrid Mileage May Require No-Fun Delicate Driving

The tests are specified by the respective government establishments, and each manufacturer normally has the means and data to back them up.

In the EU, manufacturers have to follow the NEDC. Mandatory.
So they "improve" their cars' ratings on this test.
A large proportion of the NEDC test is at standstill.
Hence the rush towards auto stop/start.
You won't be stopped for that long, relatively speaking, during the car's in-traffic life.

At least VW cylinder deactivation can be used all day in part-load driving conditions.


Any hybrid fools this kind of test by at least partly powering the car off the battery - usually during the low speed part of NEDC - but said energy has to be restored later on in the drive ... or even later by plugging it back in.
But the test isn't long or hard enough to get the battery depleted and then recharged.
Max. electric speed is usually the top speed in the low speed part of NEDC ...

Let's take the Volvo V60 plug in.
Do you honestly believe it'll do on 1.9L/100km ?
That's 124 mpg US.
Well, it does, on the NEDC ... and only there !
Use it beyond the test conditions, or beyond its electric range or speed, and it's just your ordinary, overweight and overpowered diesel-burner !


The only solution is a climate controlled, fully enclosed test track where tests are done at various speeds - until any and all available fuel in the car is drained.
Then see what it consumed while actually driving WITH wind drag (NEDC runs are done on a dyno).

As the test procedures are laid out, all companies engineer their vehicles to pass the mandated tests as good as they can.

When real-life driving conditions don't sort of match the test conditions, you can get severe discrepancies.

While many can match EPA numbers, most people here in Europe won't match their car's NEDC numbers.
That's not because they drive with even less concern that the Yanks or idle even more - quite on the contrary, with $8 gas and diesel ... - it's simply because the NEDC test is a far cry from reality.