Ford Hybrid Owners Sue Over Fuel-Efficiency Rating Claims

[jpd80]

I'm not concerned with any car but mine. I came here to tell what I and my wife are able to do with our C-Max. You called folks dumb and ignorant about stuff you had no idea about yourself. I enjoy our car and seeing what we can do with it and saving money at the same time. The C-Max is a great car and one we can save considerable amount of money while we enjoy our investment.

 

As far as trying to convince you of anything, I have no intent to spend one more moment.

Good post.

What is being lost here is the silent majority who are pleased with their Ford hybrids, the people complaining are in the very minority of buyers with problems

and I would wonder if the court ever bothered to canvass all current model fusion and C-max hybrid owners regarding their perception of fuel economy.

I doubt this case would last another day...

[Plus 3 Golfer]

Good post.

What is being lost here is the silent majority who are pleased with their Ford hybrids, the people complaining are in the very minority of buyers with problems

and I would wonder if the court ever bothered to canvass all current model fusion and C-max hybrid owners regarding their perception of fuel economy.

I doubt this case would last another day...

I am very pleased with my C-Max and knew prior to purchase that I would not get 47/47/47. Why, because I did the research and it was obvious from reviews including CR that averaging 47 would be virtually impossible for me. Why, because I value time more than FE (taking freeways instead of ancillary streets), will not inconvenience others on the road (ie, coasting to stops, timing lights and driving 35 when the speed limit is 55 mph on 2 lane road with traffic behind me), and will not drive in what I believe is an "unsafe" manner (driving 55-60 mph on freeways when the flow is 70-75 mph). Getting near 47 mpg is not a problem with a C-Max. It's what one has to do to achieve 47 or near it on a consistent basis. If one drives as I stated I won't in the parenthetical above, one can approach and even surpass 47 mpg.

 

Now, let's get back to the issue of the suit filed in PA. The issue as I see it is not really the EPA rating but Ford's use of the 47 mpg in its ads. The ones that I feel are especially misleading to uninformed buyers are the "C-Max beats Prius V in mpg" commercials The commercials are cleverly constructed and the uninformed buyer can be misled by Ford using the EPA numbers and making FE claims that the average buyer won't achieve (get near 47 mpg and beat the Prius V mpg). The evidence is the fuelly data for the C-Max and the Prius V. But, I do think it will be hard for the Plaintiffs to show Ford violated the unfair-trade practices and consumer protection laws (I'm not a lawyer but I worked with a bunch throughout my career). Also, Ford likely knew that their ads could be misleading to the average consumer. If Plaintiffs can uncover internal documents which support this and if Ford's basis for the ads was to hurt it's competition, Ford could lose.

[fordtech1]

Not that it matters, but I just serviced a 13 FFH. The cluster showed 44.0mpg. It had 5k miles on it. I think it is feasible to get 47 with the right criteria.

[4d4evr-1]

I am very pleased with my C-Max and knew prior to purchase that I would not get 47/47/47. Why, because I did the research and it was obvious from reviews including CR that averaging 47 would be virtually impossible for me. Why, because I value time more than FE (taking freeways instead of ancillary streets), will not inconvenience others on the road (ie, coasting to stops, timing lights and driving 35 when the speed limit is 55 mph on 2 lane road with traffic behind me), and will not drive in what I believe is an "unsafe" manner (driving 55-60 mph on freeways when the flow is 70-75 mph). Getting near 47 mpg is not a problem with a C-Max. It's what one has to do to achieve 47 or near it on a consistent basis. If one drives as I stated I won't in the parenthetical above, one can approach and even surpass 47 mpg.

 

Now, let's get back to the issue of the suit filed in PA. The issue as I see it is not really the EPA rating but Ford's use of the 47 mpg in its ads. The ones that I feel are especially misleading to uninformed buyers are the "C-Max beats Prius V in mpg" commercials The commercials are cleverly constructed and the uninformed buyer can be misled by Ford using the EPA numbers and making FE claims that the average buyer won't achieve (get near 47 mpg and beat the Prius V mpg). The evidence is the fuelly data for the C-Max and the Prius V. But, I do think it will be hard for the Plaintiffs to show Ford violated the unfair-trade practices and consumer protection laws (I'm not a lawyer but I worked with a bunch throughout my career). Also, Ford likely knew that their ads could be misleading to the average consumer. If Plaintiffs can uncover internal documents which support this and if Ford's basis for the ads was to hurt it's competition, Ford could lose.

 

 

Thanks for your info. I do not drive the way you describe above and now that the temps are 50 and above my wife and I are both getting an average of 50 and above and my wife drives much more than I do. We always drive limit and above but not much 65 MPH limits. We also do not drive much at night which helps and we keep in an attached garage which helps on cold mornings.

 

Welcome to blueovalnews and C-Max ownership.......

[akirby]

Now, let's get back to the issue of the suit filed in PA. The issue as I see it is not really the EPA rating but Ford's use of the 47 mpg in its ads. The ones that I feel are especially misleading to uninformed buyers are the "C-Max beats Prius V in mpg" commercials The commercials are cleverly constructed and the uninformed buyer can be misled by Ford using the EPA numbers and making FE claims that the average buyer won't achieve (get near 47 mpg and beat the Prius V mpg). The evidence is the fuelly data for the C-Max and the Prius V. But, I do think it will be hard for the Plaintiffs to show Ford violated the unfair-trade practices and consumer protection laws (I'm not a lawyer but I worked with a bunch throughout my career). Also, Ford likely knew that their ads could be misleading to the average consumer. If Plaintiffs can uncover internal documents which support this and if Ford's basis for the ads was to hurt it's competition, Ford could lose.

 

The EPA rating is the only number Ford can advertise as it's the only sufficiently controlled and reproducible test done on all vehicles. Ford's only choice is to not even mention the mpg number (which they have already started to do). The ads are not misleading because they're ony reporting the results that Ford is REQUIRED by LAW to post on the window sticker. I just don't see where they have any other choice.

 

The EPA needs to change the test so the new small turbos and new hybrids perform closer to the average real world mpg for most consumers.

[tanner83]

Technically, its not imo. I am going to get into trouble for my next statement. You have to realize the nuts that buy hybrids in general (not all) and what their mechanical aptitude is. Most dont know a spark plug from a cv joint. Somebody needs to tell them that when you let them warm up in the driveway for 10 minutes at sub zero temps it eats gas going 0 miles. Running the AC wide open in 100 degree heat in stop and go traffic eats more gas. Its just common sense stuff like keeping your speed down and planning stops ect...

 

These people have paid a premium to be part of the club that bests everybody elses gas mileage and when it does not happen they are pissed off. You have to drive them like a hypermiler does to squeeze out what the epa says.

 

Personally, I cant wait for the 3 cylinder Fiesta to see what it does for 40 percent less of the price of these "high tech green cars".

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid.........NO PREMIUM!!

[Mr. Green Jeans]

I have driven a Toyota Prius for three years and have a Ford C-Max Energi on order. I can tell you from experience that normal driving does not meet the EPA expectations for mileage. I have a best of 53.5 and a lifetime average of 48 with the Prius. MPG drops a lot in the winter and in the hottest summer weather. My father-in-law purchased a C-max hybrid this winter and he knows to be patient and drive a little more conservatively and the MPGs will go up this spring

[chucky2]

That's not even wrong.

 

Further--since you played the 'tens of millions of drivers' card:

 

Right now there are TWO numbers reported for over 190,000,000 drivers.

 

That's a ratio of .000000105.

 

If we up the number to your scientifically determined and oh so well reasoned category of five (and what would you call those five categories? "Big city", "Kind of big city that thinks its a big city, but really isn't because it doesn't have a sports team", "Medium sized city", "Guy living in a McMansion in the suburbs" and "Flyover country"?), guess what our ratio improves to:

 

.000000263.

 

It's so much more representative, isn't it!

By this post I take it that you've given up any rational debate and are resorting to just making shit up. Congrats. You beat your own strawman.

[chucky2]

Buyers already can't figure out the categories they are offered today. What makes you think they'd be better at figuring out which category their type of driving belongs in if they added more?

There are two main categories of buyers:

 

1.) Buyers who look at the City/High/Combined numbers, apply literally zero thought on what those really mean, and then go possibly compare those against other vehicles they are considering.

2.) Buyers who look at the City/Highway/Combined numbers, actually take the time to wonder what City and Highway (and thus, Combined) really mean, and then have no choice but to use those when cross shopping vehicles.

 

In either of those scenarios, actually taking the time to further delinate the categories so the #1 buyers can't use dur dur dur logic, and the #2 buyers can actually look and see which category/categories they actually match up to and thus make a much more informed decision, would be beneficial. Obviously, much less so to the #1 category vs. #2 category, but still, beneficial.

 

What you all strangely seem to be arguing for is what amounts to a meaningless set of numbers for people to compare to. Meaningless, as no one will know if they actually fit the specific driving usage that will actually compare accurately to the testing methodologies that brought about the current numbers. Or, taken another way: If the EPA numbers were truly accurate, I could drive stop and go/short trip driving and actually hit the City number - which we know we won't. If the present system is so good, how is that miss possible? If the present system is so accurate, why the diesel disparity? What we should all be pushing for is typical usage categories - that are feasible, listing 20 categories is just too cumbersome - and then having the testing model the usage for each of those categories. This gives you the most accurate picture realistically possible. This is simple. It is doable. One really wonders why it's not already being done...

 

Chuck

[NickF1011]

There are two main categories of buyers:

 

1.) Buyers who look at the City/High/Combined numbers, apply literally zero thought on what those really mean, and then go possibly compare those against other vehicles they are considering.

2.) Buyers who look at the City/Highway/Combined numbers, actually take the time to wonder what City and Highway (and thus, Combined) really mean, and then have no choice but to use those when cross shopping vehicles.

If only it was that simple. But I think you're missing the third, and considerably large, category of buyers:

 

3.) Buyers who look at the City/Highway/Combined numbers as gospel, determine their own driving style incorrectly, apply it incorrectly to the EPA numbers, and then complain when they do not achieve desired results.

 

That group will only be further confused and angered by the addition of even more numbers they will inevitably misconstrue.

[RichardJensen]

what amounts to a meaningless set of numbers

 

If two numbers are "meaningless" why will five numbers be "meaningful"?

 

You cannot declare something to be meaningless and then declare something else to be meaningful. And you didn't use "straw man" correctly in reference to my point either.

 

Also, this statement is hopelessly naive: "so the #1 buyers can't use dur dur dur logic"

 

I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that more information on labels makes people smarter. Or more careful.

[Deanh]

If two numbers are "meaningless" why will five numbers be "meaningful"?

 

You cannot declare something to be meaningless and then declare something else to be meaningful. And you didn't use "straw man" correctly in reference to my point either.

 

Also, this statement is hopelessly naive: "so the #1 buyers can't use dur dur dur logic"

 

I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that more information on labels makes people smarter. Or more careful.

more information on labels ultimately only leads to two things, confusion and dis-appointment.....much like "save up to $12000.........." and in some cases as we witness here, that dis-appointment leads to anger and subsequent frivilous lawsuits....

Edited April 30, 2013 by Deanh

[NickF1011]

more information on labels ultimately only leads to two things, confusion and dis-appointment.....much like "save up to $12000.........." and in some cases as we witness here, that dis-appointment leads to anger and subsequent frivilous lawsuits....

They should print five different ads and let buyers figure out on their own which ad should apply to them.

[Deanh]

They should print five different ads and let buyers figure out on their own which ad should apply to them.

sadly, the most common trait I see from my end is the absolute REFUSAL to read fine print....apparently thats our job....lol.....Human Nature is such that one only sees and hears what one wants to hear, at least when it comes to vehicular transactions....

[4d4evr-1]

I have driven a Toyota Prius for three years and have a Ford C-Max Energi on order. I can tell you from experience that normal driving does not meet the EPA expectations for mileage. I have a best of 53.5 and a lifetime average of 48 with the Prius. MPG drops a lot in the winter and in the hottest summer weather. My father-in-law purchased a C-max hybrid this winter and he knows to be patient and drive a little more conservatively and the MPGs will go up this spring

 

One of the more intelligent posts I have read on BON....... Thanks

[chucky2]

If only it was that simple. But I think you're missing the third, and considerably large, category of buyers:

 

3.) Buyers who look at the City/Highway/Combined numbers as gospel, determine their own driving style incorrectly, apply it incorrectly to the EPA numbers, and then complain when they do not achieve desired results.

 

That group will only be further confused and angered by the addition of even more numbers they will inevitably misconstrue.

While I'm not sure how anyone could be so dumb to incorrectly determine their own driving style, even if they did determine their own driving style(s), guess what? The "City" "Highway" and "Combined" are impossible for 99% of car buyers to determine if they match up or not. Your #3 example is really a category that no information will solve, so it's a category that doesn't need to be addressed. They are unhelpable.

[RichardJensen]

The "City" "Highway" and "Combined" are impossible for 99% of car buyers to determine if they match up or not.

[citation needed]

[chucky2]

If two numbers are "meaningless" why will five numbers be "meaningful"?

Because the two numbers we presently have are so vague as to what they cover, and, are setup to cover a range so broad, as to make the meaningless all but to the lucky however many that the test proceedures used to derive these two numbers accurately models. Out of all the vehicle buyers, how many would that be? I'd maintain not many. Going to 5 categories won't accurately include everyone, but it sure as heck would allow many more to determine which numbers fit them best...as opposed to the current system, where no one can determine what either of the numbers mean (they may think they know, but, they don't, they're just assuming).

You cannot declare something to be meaningless and then declare something else to be meaningful. And you didn't use "straw man" correctly in reference to my point either.

Yes, see above. I don't even know what the point of your post was, it was essentially nonsensicle.

Also, this statement is hopelessly naive: "so the #1 buyers can't use dur dur dur logic"

Naive? No. Accurate? Yes. Those type of buyers in #1 are like squirrels with corn on the ground.

I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that more information on labels makes people smarter. Or more careful.

You've convinced me! Lets offer customers completely vague and largely inaccurate information that they have no hope of understanding and expect them to make informed decisions with it. Brilliant! <thumbsupicon>

 

Chuck

[chucky2]

[citation needed]

No citation needed. There are an overwhelming amount of Mr. Green Jeans posts on the internet and real life. I'm sorry you're clinging (for some reason I've yet to determine...you don't have some kind of stake in EPA or the present numbering scheme, do you?) to the present vague and inaccurate system. Change is often good, embrace it.

[Deanh]

You've convinced me! Lets offer customers completely vague and largely inaccurate information that they have no hope of understanding and expect them to make informed decisions with it. Brilliant! <thumbsupicon>

 

Chuck

Whats new....welcome to a land of reality TV, gossip columns, conspiracy theories and distorted media.....

[silvrsvt]

No citation needed. There are an overwhelming amount of Mr. Green Jeans posts on the internet and real life. I'm sorry you're clinging (for some reason I've yet to determine...you don't have some kind of stake in EPA or the present numbering scheme, do you?) to the present vague and inaccurate system. Change is often good, embrace it.

 

 

Your real life and even internet is different then mine...

[RichardJensen]

No citation needed.

 

So your "99%" figure is scientifically derived and not based on an exaggeration of your own anecdotal evidence?

[RichardJensen]

False statements are green, incomprehensible arguments are in purple, unnecessary statements have been stricken through, unsupported assertions are in blue.

 

Because the two numbers we presently have are so vague as to what they cover, and, are setup to cover a range so broad, as to make the meaningless all but to the lucky however many that the test proceedures used to derive these two numbers accurately models. Out of all the vehicle buyers, how many would that be? I'd maintain not many. Going to 5 categories won't accurately include everyone, but it sure as heck would allow many more to determine which numbers fit them best...as opposed to the current system, where no one can determine what either of the numbers mean (they may think they know, but, they don't, they're just assuming).

 

Problem one: 'The numbers are meaningless because they are vague' is a logically false construct. If I make a 'vague' threat, is it a 'meaningless' threat?

 

Problem two: I can't even fathom the statement in purple. What does 'the meaningless all but to the lucky however many' mean?

 

Problem three: Can you demonstrate that 'no one can determine what either of the numbers mean' is an accurate statement?

 

Problem four: Assuming that your statement "they may think they know but they don't" is correct as it relates to the city & highway numbers, why would this statement not be as correct for your three additional numbers?

 

Let's say a test is labeled "suburban", and it is intended to model a 15,000 mile a year driver who commutes to a crowded city center every day.

 

Now what happens if a driver who lives in the suburbs and puts 12,000 miles a year driving a short distance down a freeway to a nearby suburban office park sees that number? Isn't it true that "he may think he knows, but he doesn't"?

Edited May 1, 2013 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

False statements are green, incomprehensible arguments are in purple, unnecessary statements have been stricken through, unsupported assertions are in blue.

 

 

Problem one: 'The numbers are meaningless because they are vague' is a logically false construct. If I make a 'vague' threat, is it a 'meaningless' threat?

 

Problem two: I can't even fathom the statement in purple. What does 'the meaningless all but to the lucky however many' mean?

 

Problem three: Can you demonstrate that 'no one can determine what either of the numbers mean' is an accurate statement?

 

Problem four: Assuming that your statement "they may think they know but they don't" is correct as it relates to the city & highway numbers, why would this statement not be as correct for your three additional numbers?

 

Let's say a test is labeled "suburban", and it is intended to model a 15,000 mile a year driver who commutes to a crowded city center every day.

 

Now what happens if a driver who lives in the suburbs and puts 12,000 miles a year driving a short distance down a freeway to a nearby suburban office park sees that number? Isn't it true that "he may think he knows, but he doesn't"?

maybe this is Consumer Reports plan all along...they want to be listed under the EPA numbers....ie EPA 22 city 35 hwy....what CR acheived 10 and 15..........lol

[RichardJensen]

There are so many variables affecting mileage that increasing the number of tests reported by some trivial amount (say, 3) will not result in, IMO, more satisfying results.

 

Odds are that all three new tests will fall between the city & highway numbers, which means you could have numbers like:

 

City: 27

Suburban Street: 30

Suburban Freeway: 33

Inter-city: 36

Highway: 38

Combined: ???

 

And really, how useful is that? Or maybe one number is below, so you'd have:

 

Urban core: 25

City: 27

Suburban: 30

Inter-City: 36

Highway: 38

Combined: ???

 

And if you do that, why aren't you taking altitude into account? Or average temperature? What about places like the upper midwest that have significant temperature differences from winter to summer?

 

And what do you do to prevent confusion about what the test describes? Should you have an explanatory paragraph that notes that "inter-city refers to drivers who, as part of their daily commute, spend between 20 and 30 minutes traveling at highway speeds (65+MPH) on limited access roads, with limited slowdowns for traffic"? "Urban Core refers to drivers who, as part of their daily activity, drive less than three miles, with no more than a half a mile on limited access roadways, and who spend between 15 and 20 minutes a day idling in traffic.

 

What if you took all five of those numbers and provided winter variants, really cold winter variants, summer variants, and high altitude variants? What about people that live in very hilly locales? Should we have another variant of those numbers that reflect hilly terrain?

Edited May 1, 2013 by RichardJensen