Ford to lower C-Max hybrid MPG numbers

[TomT]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/15/212351861/ford-expected-to-lower-mileage-rating-on-its-c-max-hybrid" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[KeiJidosha]

Press release only shows Hybrid. I wonder if the C-Max Energi EPA number(s) will also change?

 

[TomT]

Perhaps they should but likely won't regardless because it is a much lower volume car and thus there is less pressure on Ford to correct them...

Here is some additional info on Ford offering a refund to owners because of the shortfall...

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ford-cmax-fuel-economy-20130815,0,1906385.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Press release only shows Hybrid. I wonder if the C-Max Energi EPA number(s) will also change?

 

[evnow]

Actually, Energi numbers were already lower, right ?

Looks like Ford didn't test C-Max (hybrid) at all. They just used the fusion hybrid numbers. May be they tested c-max energy, and thus got the correct lower numbers.

When the energy numbers came out, there was general surprise at the lower numbers compared to the hybrid.

 

[DaveEV]

Looks like Ford didn't test C-Max Energi (hybrid) at all.

I think you meant just "Hybrid" above.

Anyway, I bet you (pizza?) Ford knew exactly what the C-MAX Hybrid would get on the EPA test. They simply played dumb and used the "General Label" rule which let them use the Fusion Hybrid EPA numbers because the vehicles use the same drive train and are the same weight.

Ford relabels 2013 C-MAX Hybrid to 43 mpg, upgrades 2014 C-MAX Hybrid to boost fuel economy; pitfalls of the EPA “general label” rule

Ford tried to pull a fast one, but they got caught. Someone should get reamed for this.

IMO the "General Label" rule is extremely dumb. The manufacturer should be required to provide separate numbers for any change which can change fuel economy - this means wheel/tire packages, body changes, etc. Then consumers would really know what that sporty wheel/tire upgrade costs them.

 

[TomT]

Just like with the Leaf... We know the different tires and 17" wheels on the 2013 SL cost range and efficiency, but the numbers are the same for all versions... But consider the costs (which ultimately we would pay) if every possible combination HAD to be individually tested!

IMO the "General Label" rule is extremely dumb. The manufacturer should be required to provide separate numbers for any change which can change fuel economy - this means wheel/tire packages, body changes, etc. Then consumers would really know what that sporty wheel/tire upgrade costs them.

 

[evnow]

I guess it is a compromise between "no regulations" and "consumer protection". Part of being "business friendly" (as opposed to citizen friendly).

Anyway, it does make some sense to have a "general" EPA number - when the differences are minor. Afterall, you can't test every combination of options that might add some weight.

 

[ydnas7]

IMO the "General Label" rule is extremely dumb. The manufacturer should be required to provide separate numbers for any change which can change fuel economy - this means wheel/tire packages, body changes, etc. Then consumers would really know what that sporty wheel/tire upgrade costs them.

I disagree, these tests must cost money, which must be amortised for the volume sold. consider a Tesla
should there be further costs for each wheel/tire package combination? a full EPA test regime would add signifiant cost without matching benefit? (perhaps a modifier test might be useful, but thats another issue) Would've Tesla been prohibited of changing tyre suppliers when the first one stopped supply? This would've really hurt Tesla big time.

What Ford did was wrong, and they knew it, but the collateral damage of making every combination that changes efficieny would be to reduce the variety of options available, and that would include reduce options that may increase or decrease efficiency.