Ford Pays Millions Over False Claims About Its 2013 Hybrid's Fuel Economy (consumerreports.org) 32
Ford's fuel-economy figures for the 2013-2014 C-Max hybrids "were not based in reality" says Iowa's attorney general.
And now the Ford Motor Company "will pay $19.2 million to a consortium of 40 states and Washington,D.C.," writes Consumer Reports (which also covers additional false advertising about the payload capacity of its Super Duty pickup trucks). In these two cases, Ford exaggerated numbers for an advantage in competitive segments. And it was caught....
Ford ran a series of ads that claimed the C-Max provided better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius. The 2013 C-Max was originally rated at 47 mpg in city and highway driving, and 47 mpg overall. The claim was that it delivered 47 mpg in every situation. Back on Dec. 6, 2012, Consumer Reports wrote... "After running both vehicles through our real-world tests, we have gotten very good results. But they are far below Ford's ambitious triple-47 figures." We got 37 mpg overall in our tests. That's close to what owners reported on the Environmental Protection Agency's fueleconomy.gov, at 39 mpg.... In our tests, the Toyota Prius at the time got 44 mpg overall, far more than the C-Max.
Iowa's attorney general notes that "In 2013, Ford admitted that its initial fuel economy rating for the C-Max hybrid was likely overstated. The carmaker announced at the time that it would make a 'goodwill payment' of $550 to consumers who purchased a 2013 C-Max hybrid and $325 to those who leased the vehicle, according to Edmunds."
Consumer Reports adds: It then made hardware updates for new models, including a higher final gear ratio, lower-viscosity motor oil, and aerodynamic improvements, including a rear spoiler, new hood seals, and air deflectors in front of the tires, and a higher speed threshold for the electric drive. The new mpg figures were 39 mpg combined for 2014 through 2016 (41 city, 36 highway)...
This case underscores why Consumer Reports goes to great lengths to test the fuel economy of every nonelectric car we purchase. It provides realistic, objective, independent information for car shoppers and helps keep the auto industry honest.
Consumer Reports also quotes Ford's statement on their false advertising. "We are pleased that the matter is closed without any judicial finding of improper conduct."
"We worked with the states to resolve their concerns."
And now the Ford Motor Company "will pay $19.2 million to a consortium of 40 states and Washington,D.C.," writes Consumer Reports (which also covers additional false advertising about the payload capacity of its Super Duty pickup trucks). In these two cases, Ford exaggerated numbers for an advantage in competitive segments. And it was caught....
Ford ran a series of ads that claimed the C-Max provided better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius. The 2013 C-Max was originally rated at 47 mpg in city and highway driving, and 47 mpg overall. The claim was that it delivered 47 mpg in every situation. Back on Dec. 6, 2012, Consumer Reports wrote... "After running both vehicles through our real-world tests, we have gotten very good results. But they are far below Ford's ambitious triple-47 figures." We got 37 mpg overall in our tests. That's close to what owners reported on the Environmental Protection Agency's fueleconomy.gov, at 39 mpg.... In our tests, the Toyota Prius at the time got 44 mpg overall, far more than the C-Max.
Iowa's attorney general notes that "In 2013, Ford admitted that its initial fuel economy rating for the C-Max hybrid was likely overstated. The carmaker announced at the time that it would make a 'goodwill payment' of $550 to consumers who purchased a 2013 C-Max hybrid and $325 to those who leased the vehicle, according to Edmunds."
Consumer Reports adds: It then made hardware updates for new models, including a higher final gear ratio, lower-viscosity motor oil, and aerodynamic improvements, including a rear spoiler, new hood seals, and air deflectors in front of the tires, and a higher speed threshold for the electric drive. The new mpg figures were 39 mpg combined for 2014 through 2016 (41 city, 36 highway)...
This case underscores why Consumer Reports goes to great lengths to test the fuel economy of every nonelectric car we purchase. It provides realistic, objective, independent information for car shoppers and helps keep the auto industry honest.
Consumer Reports also quotes Ford's statement on their false advertising. "We are pleased that the matter is closed without any judicial finding of improper conduct."
"We worked with the states to resolve their concerns."
There is only restorative justice (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is not restorative justice because the parties actually harmed the most, the consumers, are not being made whole.
Ford needs to be required to pay the owners for the difference in fuel costs over the expected lifetime of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
While I wouldn't complain about getting a check, the reality is that my 2013 C-Max Energi's fuel economy is good enough to make me happy.
No, I don't get anywhere close to the claimed 95 MPGe, let alone the originally claimed 108 MPGe. But that's mostly because I don't drive like a granny, and I'm happy enough with 50 MPGe.
Re: (Score:3)
Supposedly per TFA they actually did cut checks to a bunch of owners, so you probably oughta be pissed if you didn't get one.
But moreover, if it's profitable to lie, they will just keep doing it. Fraud is supposed to be illegal. They did it on purpose for profit...
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't get paid. How do I go about making that happen? I owned one for six years in California.
Re: (Score:2)
elefino but I found this [ford.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the original owner, so I didn't get that check. I got the car in 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, then Ford doesn't care about you. Me either, same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
50 MPGe is just 1.48 mi/kWh. Are you sure ? That seems crazy low.
I can't even imagine getting that low mileage. I have driven a 2012 Leaf, and currently have a 2015 Volt and 2017 Bolt. .I would have to really try, though.
I think under the worst possible conditions, with high rate of speed, elevation, and heat, I could get average as low as 2.5 miles/kWh
3.3 mi/kWh is about my average in the Volt in winter time. Perhaps 3.5 in the summer. Ie. between 111 and 118 MPGe. And the car is rated at 98 MPGe.
The Bolt
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can only compute MPGe when using electricity.
MPGe stands for "Miles par gallon equivalent". Where the "gallon equivalent" is electricity, in this case 33.7 kWh for 1 gallon according to the EPA. A bit less according to CARB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent
The formulas on that page for calculating MPGe don't include gasoline as input. The only variable is EM, which is "wall-to-wheel electrical energy consumed per mile (Wh/mi) as measured through EPA's five standard drive
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. I don't know of any vehicle that displays MPGe. It's not a very useful unit. miles/kWh makes more sense, except for mixing imperial and metric units. km/kWh or kWh/100km would make more sense, but these units aren't used in the US. Neither makes sense still if you gasoline, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like my Ford Escape but (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ford fusion 2.0 ecoboost owner here. Claims 22 mpg city, real life: 17mpg. Claims 31mpg highway, real life: 32mpg.
Let me clarify some things here, I have AWD so I expect that to cut 2mpg off city readings. 19 is still not close to 22. On the highway, I drive below the speed limit at 55mph (our highways are 60-75mph). We are a relatively flat area so on the highway with cruise control my car regularly finds instantaneous gas mileage around 34-36mpg. If I drive at 65mph which is the most common speed, my mi
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf are you talking about? By your own estimates, Ford's penalty was approximately the amount of money car owners lost if they owned the car for four years. How is requiring them to pay just the amount they defrauded customers considered holding Ford accountable? If you robbed a bank and got away with $19mil, I wouldn't consider you to have been held accountable if you got caught 9 years later and your
$550 in fuel... (Score:2)
Or, around $4000 in total fuel.
Call it $2.50 per gallon, or 10000 miles.
So, any customers that drove their vehicle under 10000 miles were made whole by the settlement.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they'll continue to own and drive their cars, and continue to lose money compared to what they expected at purchase. And their only recourse now is to sell them and buy a different one. With used cars now extraordinarily expensive, plenty of people will have no choice but to continue to drive the car and pay more for fuel than they were promised.
They should be made whole for excess fuel spent over the entire life of the vehicle.
Lying is profitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think they've always known that lying is profitable. "C'mon down to Crazy Maximus' New and Used Chariots! We'll find a way to get you into half a wagon or I'll eat a dung beetle!"
Re: (Score:2)
I average in the 70s with my 22yr old gasser (Score:2)
My 2000 Insight with a manual and 1.0 3cyl (hybrid battery long ago failed and is disabled) still averages in the 70mpgs driving regular with just the gas engine.
Its light at 1850lbs and through its light weight and correctly sized engine at 1.0 liter with 68hp runs just fine.
Cmax is a joke. I get 55mpg completely floored through the gears. Not sure how I could possibly get it below that down into the 40s.
Re: (Score:2)
I get 55mpg completely floored through the gears.
The lady with the walker beside you is not using any gas at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised your 2000 Insight could even move without the hybrid battery. My 2001 Prius couldn't when its hybrid battery failed in 2009. Sure wish the hybrid battery could be "disabled". Not possible. It had to be replaced.
Have you actually measured your gas mileage with pump / odometer and not just the display ?
The lifetime average MPG on my Prius as about 43 MPG, and most of my miles were city, not freeway, so that made sense.
The EPA significantly changed its test fuel efficiency methodology for the yea
That's sad (Score:2)
There are standard gas guzzlers in the US that get better fuel economy than that, real-world. My 2019 Jetta used to get over 40 MPG, and my Taos is getting around 35.