Ford takes hit on C-max mileage claims
Economy ratings get a downgrade
In a move that surprised few — especially those who’ve followed our recent fuel-economy testing — Ford recently announced that it will downgrade the official fuel economy ratings for its C-Max Hybrid both in Canada and in the United States.
The American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ratings will be reduced by some 8.5%, from 47/47/47 miles per gallon city/highway/combined to 45/40/43, while Transport Canada figures drop from 4.0/4.1/4.0L 100 kilometres to 4.2/4.9/4.5. It’s a precipitous blow to Ford’s corporate ego.
Ford has vociferously touted its fuel-economy leadership, a large portion of Ford’s recent marketing centred on the C-Max’s fuel-economy rating and its supposed advantage over Toyota’s Prius V.
News of the C-Max’s consumptive ways quickly surfaced. We averaged an overall 7.6 L/100 km in multiple tests of the C-Max and Consumer Reports magazine managed just 37 m.p.g. in its test unit, both numbers recording discrepancies in rated and observed fuel economies.
Automotive News reporter Larry Vellequette, one of the first to break the story of the C-Max’s profligacy, averaged just 35.4 m.p.g. in his 28,500 kilometres of C-Max ownership. Indeed, scouring the blogosphere, Vellequette’s consumption (equivalent to about 6.6 L/100 km) seems about the norm for C-Max owners. So what went wrong?
According to Ford and the EPA, the problem is one of testing or, more accurately, the lack thereof. Ratings agencies, unknown to most, do not test all vehicles, and instead rely on manufacturer-generated data to issue their mandated ratings. And, beyond the issue of whether those testing criteria are realistic (as I have often recounted, neither the EPA or Natural Resources Canada’s testing cycles mirror typical driving habits), some substitution is allowed when similar engines are used.
Ford says that’s how the C-Max debacle occurred: Since they use identical powertrains, Ford simply used the Fusion Hybrid’s test numbers for the C-Max (note that the Fusion’s ratings remain unchanged). Of course, one has to ask why no one seems to have noticed that one is a long, low, sculpted sedan, while the other is a big, square not-nearly-so-aerodynamic lump and wondered how the latter could match the highway consumption of the former. And why Ford decided to base an entire marketing campaign on a vehicle that it didn’t even test is a question that will probably remain unanswered.
Going forward, Ford plans to make significant changes to the C-Max to recoup some of the losses (according to Consumer Reports, some software and aerodynamic changes have already been made; otherwise, the C-Max’s revised fuel economy rating would have been 41 m.p.g.) including alterations to the transmissions, lower-friction oil and more aerodynamic improvements.
Current owners will receive a cheque for $895 and leasers for $550, there being no comment on the difference from our domestic distributor other than to say that the Canadian figure was based on six years of ownership and a fouryear lease and the annual costs based on NRCan numbers.
What is sad about all of this is that it was totally unnecessary.
It really wasn’t necessary for Ford to, shall we say, exaggerate the C-Max’s ratings, especially in its much-ballyhooed comparison to the aforementioned Prius V.
The Ford has a bigger engine (2.0-litres versus 1.8L), more power (188 horsepower versus 134 hp), and better performance (you’ll have to take my word for it), so matching the Toyota’s fuel economy was unnecessary, if not outright hubris.
Factoring in its larger engine and greater horsepower, not to mention the fact that the C-Max is 151 kilograms heavier than the Prius V, and then trying to claim fuel economy superior to the industry leader in hybrid technology is inviting skepticism. In Consumer Reports’ testing, the Prius V got better fuel mileage than the C-Max.
The question is whether the negative effect of these embellishments will linger. I suspect that the biggest issue for Ford will not be the actual numbers but that, like the Explorer/Firestone debacle, it did not respond quickly enough to criticism (Consumer Reports first divulged its results in December of last year: as we did in this space shortly thereafter). I do know that, until the rules and methodology of fuel economy ratings are made more stringent, consumers’ faith in advertised consumption figures will further deteriorate.