Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
silvrsvt

Ford faces lawsuit claiming it used 'mileage cheat device‘

Recommended Posts

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/05/08/ford-lawsuit-fuel-economy/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016

 

seems like some ambulance chasing lawyers are at it again...WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached is the class action filing. This is the same lawsuit mentioned in the Ranger sales off to a slow start thread. As I mentioned there, it will be interesting to see where this goes.

2019-05-06classactioncomplaint1123731.1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the mileage cheat device is purported to be the miscalculation of what is displayed to the driver as actual fuel mileage.  

I’ve never looked at what truck says I get for mileage I use Fuelly. I’ll have to look tomorrow as I’ve never reset it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anthony said:

Ok so the mileage cheat device is purported to be the miscalculation of what is displayed to the driver as actual fuel mileage.  

I’ve never looked at what truck says I get for mileage I use Fuelly. I’ll have to look tomorrow as I’ve never reset it. 

Ok, if you watch sites like TFL you'll know that not all these are accurate. Some are closer than others. If that's all they have that seems pretty weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last time I checked-doesn't it say ESTIMATED MPG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

As I mentioned there, it will be interesting to see where this goes.

As with most class action lawsuits, this will go nowhere.  The only people who benefit are the lawyers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/05/08/odds-of-a-payoff-in-consumer-class-action-less-than-a-straight-flush/#1eff4a962782

 

.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MY93SHO said:

Ok, if you watch sites like TFL you'll know that not all these are accurate. Some are closer than others. If that's all they have that seems pretty weak.

Most Fords are about 5%-7% higher than actual.  But it is just an estimate - to get the real number you have to calculate it manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I checked mine this morning, I've never reset it from the day I bought it.  I read 20.5 as my average MPG in the dashboard.

Per Fuelley, my average is 19.3 mpg, a difference of 1.2mpg.  Which is about a 6.03015% difference.  I think that is well within the range and not a cause for concern.  But, as akirby said above, Ford seems to always err to the side of making the mileage look better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the opposite issue-calculating mileage on my car has been higher then what the dash reports-I religiously reset it when I top off.

One thing I have noticed-is the trip computer often doesn't get the total fuel usage correct-It says I used say 15.2 gallons, but when you top it off its actually 15.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care what my MPG is.  I want to know what the fuel usage (gallons per minute) is at 0 MPH (idle/in a traffic backup) , 40 MPH (avg. speed on a secondary road) and 60 MPH (highway).  Should I take a route that is shorter but 45 mph speed limit with some traffic lights, or highway which is longer but speed is about 60 mph?  Do NOT jump to conclusions.  If I get to my destination 5 minutes sooner, that means my engine is off 5 minutes sooner, right?  I wish Mythbusters was still on!  Maybe they could have done a test!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 7:17 PM, akirby said:

Most Fords are about 5%-7% higher than actual.

Does anyone have a solid explanation for why that calculation is incorrect?

My personal speculation is that the engine control computer back-calculates out the ethanol proportion of the gasoline to determine the 'pure gasoline equivalent' volume, and uses that as the basis of its MPG calculations - maybe based on the calculations done as part of managing the air-fuel ratio. That seems like it would be a pretty reasonable basis to use, since it would even out the differences between fuel so that the displayed measurement would reflect only on driving conditions, driving style, and engine health.

(In my Fuelly stats, I use the 'gallons' reported by the second trip odometer for the top-line stats, but record the volume pumped as an 'additional comment')

Edited by Noah Harbinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it should be doing anything to “even out the differences between fuels”.   It should be showing you exactly how much fuel you’re using on that particular tank so you can see the difference between different fuels.

I assumed it was using injector pulses to do the calculation so that wouldn’t matter which fuel would be used.

Whatever they’re using it’s still an estimate so they’re probably erring on the positive side to be safe and not to understate the mpg which could lead to more service calls.

Or they’re just fudging it to make it look better.   Not really sure but it does seem to be consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Thank you  for the link.🤗

The last paragraph says it all for me,

Quote

So basically, we’re saying that the Ford hasn’t performed wholly unexpectedly in our hands. Ford should put a feather in its cap knowing the only pickups to better the Ranger in our highway fuel-economy test have been either diesel-powered or unibody construction.

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently, Ford's Ecoboost engines perform better in lab settings than in real-world applications.  Magazine tests, reports of customers, and my own experience owning 3 Fords with Ecoboosts all suggest that reaching EPA estimates is frequently difficult and, with some drivers (say, my wife, for instance), probably impossible.  That being so, I see other car makers who have not just the "sport" and "normal" drive modes, but also an "economy" setting. Given that most of my commute and driving uses considerably less than 50% of the available power (in other words, I don't need all the engine offers), I wonder whether the direct injection/engine control management/turbo management could have a separate configuration that would maximize economy at the expense of power.  Perhaps the system could be set to run a Miller Cycle at times or deliberately short-shift, or back down the FI system for instance.  It seems like a worthwhile venture given that the Ecoboost seems so sensitive to throttle input and load.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just drove 45 miles to the airport on interstates at 65-70 in my 3.5 EcoBoost F150 and got 30 mpg most of the way.  I think I ended up around 29.  Older EBs were worse because they had to run rich but the newer ones are spot on.  I’m averaging right around 20-21 since I bought it a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After almost 7500 miles on my 2019 Nautilus with the 2.0 EB My overall mileage is 25.7 MPG, most;y rural highway driving with lots of hills and curves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got a little over 21,000 miles on my 2018 Mustang Ecoboost (Premium Performance Pack A10).  Lifetime average is 24.99.  EPA ratings are 20/29.  I’m pleased with those numbers. 

Edited by CurtisH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×