EPA to Consumer reports - "your tests are awful" - hybrids do better than you test

IMO, this is what the EPA needs to fix IMMEDIATELY!!! Their tests are terribly skewed from the fuel they use. I routinely average 2-4 MPG better when I can find non-ethanol gas of almost any grade and run it in Ema. Of course their is another slight bump up from 93 but that gets pricey, lol. Plus it aworks best as a "cleaner" every 4-5 tanks rather than running continuously, again my opinion.

Christopher Grundler needs to think about using REAL gasoline for his test not defending the EPA against CR. Take the constructive critisism and make some more meaningful changes to the EPA's testing procedures. With more and more hybrids and electric vehicles hitting the road every year test changes are going to become a routine thing in the future.

Happy driving,
Chris

 

Looks like Ford ditched the Hybrid Games video showing C-Max passing semi quicker than Prius liftback, then Bob Brandt bragging about 188 HP and 47 MPG. ... they're retreating

2013 Ford C-MAX | Hybrid Games | Ford.com


Bit of Ford Fusion trivia: anyone else notice how the exterior side windows are larger than the trim inside the windows? IOW, windows made to look larger than view outward.

 

Thank goodness for YouTube ... (Published on Oct 5, 2012

C-MAX "Hybrid Games" Commercial; Semi-Pass
The digital component of the C-MAX advertising launch​

 

They can't. The reason the EPA tests are more valid for comparisons between models is because the tests control variables. With the differing blends between states, cities, and seasons, pump gas is too variable for comparison tests. It is a problem with CR's test. Because of its nature, ethanol can contain a variable amount of water. Which will add a variable to the test.

It is high octane so that they don't need two test blends, and introduce a variable, for differing requirements in models. Premium fueled cars couldn't run regular in the past, and now, doing so will lower the car's fuel economy. Running premium in a regular fuel car won't hurt their test results.

 

Ford should not only be paying their own suckers for buying their lies, but also paying Toyota for their slanderous lies. Their new numbers of combined 43 mpg still does not match real world results turned into fueleconomy.gov. Compare Side-by-Side

 

I am not sure the EPA considers their gaso test blend beyond improvement so much as they are limited by funding to stick with what they are using. It would be a massive program to change, but I tend to feel EPA should be using the same EPA-mandated real-world USA gasoline that the rest of us have to use. They could have contractors blend up exact E10 RFG fuel with no water comtamination if they wanted to (better yet add some water if that's what I am really buying with E10).

The new point I am trying to make more clearly than I have in prior posts, is the EPA certification fuel is not just E0, it is also apparently a higher energy content base gasoline than most of us are allowed to use in RFG areas (we are also not allowed to use E0).

 

A care with a small a mount of legroom in the back,
Maybe a personality issue? The CMAX MPG issue didn't embarrass you. Funny how Ford basically lied about the MPG ratings, and continues to position the CMAX against the Prius V, which has an Immensely larger cargo hold. They only do this because their MPG lie of (opppps now 43 mpg combined), would fail to beat the Prius. So they continue to lie and rate it 1 mpg ahead of the V. It's like pitting a Fiat against an 18-wheeler.

You're on the wrong side of this pi$$ing match. The Fusion is next. A car with limited rear-seat legroom, lies about gas mileage, and quite possibly about to be gobbled alive by the next Honda Accord Hybrid.

Ford has great marketing, little else.

 

Putting Ford ethics aside for a moment (but only for a moment), I would view low 40s MPG by EPA as acceptable for a powerful, heavy car like the c-max *EV. I would not buy it, but that would be my consumer preference for fuel economy over HP, suspension and big tyres.

Ford screwed up: they might have a nice offering but it is now bundled with lousy company ethics.

 

The E0 vs E10 issue is just 3%, small potatoes compared to the fudge factors used in the EPA number on the Monroney Sticker.

The real dyno test results haven't been on that sticker for nearly three decades. Because of unhappy consumers, the EPA marked down the numbers in the mid-1980s, with a 22% discount on the highway rating, 10% on the city figure.

That worked for a while, but drivers continued driving faster and more aggressively, getting poorer mpg. So with MY2008, the labels (from 2-cycle tests) are discounted even more.

Well, consumers continue to drive ever faster and harder, getting poorer results from the equivalent (now very gutless by modern standards) vehicle.

The real problem is that the EPA / CAFE test cycle designed four decades ago does not represent how people drive today, so it has been repeatedly fudged by empirical discounts. The three additional tests added for 2008 help other factors, but don't change that now-unrealistic cycle. Compared to this, the fuel issue is small potatoes.

Even if the EPA test is completely revamped and modernized, the separate CAFE requirements are still based on the original test cycle. Changing that will create an entirely separate mess.

 

^^ Spot on summary. I have to say though, I fail to see why the EPA has to fudge some more just to move aggressive drivers to the median.

 

... especially when 'median' remains a moving target. Even at today's low (by world standards) fuel prices, any new 're-normalization' of the EPA scale will still become outdated and optimistic within a decade.

 

Thank you for the explanation. I did say earlier that somehow EPA uses the wrong fuel but gets the right answer for Prius. Ah yes: fudge factors...I am pretty good at that myself.

CAFE has to go too. I was tying to explain CAFE MPG to some friends this weekend and they totally don't get what I was talking about that 54 MPG CAFE is not 54 MPG in reality.

 

The president also seemed to be confused by CAFE. Remember when he said that Detroit was producing 50 mpg cars already ?

 

Of course I remember...that speech was in my backyard (Georgetown DC) and that was when you guys taught me CAFE MPG was an "other worldly" or political MPG measurement scale.

 

This entire notion of using the auto MPG sticker as a value of what drivers can expect is silly. The EPA should just print in huge letters "FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY" and get out of this rat race of trying to appease aggressive drivers that they are "normal."

By the way, my Prius vagon hit 71.3 mpg on the way to work today -- 30 miles, 300 feet elevation drop. No doubt about the same ballpark as a C-max

 

Whao Hoss!

Gasoline quality can be handled by requiring the pump to have the "% energy content" relative to the EPA standard gasoline. Update the energy placard every quarter and the problem is solved.

It sounds like the EPA is considering new regulations. So it makes sense to put yourself in their shoes and come up with practical solutions. Solutions that have legs and can adopt to the future.

Bob Wilson

 

I haven't had time to follow all the threads and reports but it seems doubtful that they didn't test the C-Max Hybrid. I mean, throughout its whole development cycle nobody tested its mileage, even on some other test rather than the full-blown EPA test? And, instead, they were just going to rely on the stupid general label loophole? Seems like quite a dumb gamble.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ford found the numbers were lower, possibly thru a partial test and decided to fib via the general label rule.

I don't know about him saying that but, technically he was right, I think, if you go by the dumb unadjusted EPA numbers, which are what are used for CAFE anyway. 47 mpg combined would be way above "50 mpg" for CAFE purposes.

IIRC, 50 mpg combined Prius is "~70 mpg" for CAFE purposes.

 

Yes, very annoying that we have this confusion and political doublespeak. Hope you can point them to useful articles like the ones at EPA and DOT to Require 54.5 MPG by 2025 | PriusChat.

 

All the auto manufacturers use sophisticated simulation software. Of course they had a very good idea of fuel economy on the EPA 5 test protocol.

Ford chose to exploit a loophole and treat their customers like trash.

 

CAFE is kept as is to provide a baseline for US fleet improvements in fuel economy. Period.

Perhaps it is time to change the units from 'MPG' to 'EPAl's, to avoid confusion. For that matter I suggest that we do away with mpg on the car sticker, too. Let the Prius be 100, and every other car a fraction thereof.