Discussion in 'Articles' started by xcel, Feb 26, 2013.
In most cases I would say those engines don't deliver what they advertise.
The linked article also says that EPA is re-testing the C-Max so we'll find out if/to what extent Ford fudged their testing. Maybe we should set up a poll guessing what EPA's result will be?
Ford C-Max Does Not Beat Prius V Wagon In Real-World Use
CleanMPG is mentioned in the article.
I'd say in those cases the comment, YMMV, applies even more. If you drive it to use the turbo-supplied power, you'll pay for it at the pump. If you drive to use the eco side you'll save that much more at the pump. It just magnifies the differences in driving style.
The question is whether using that "turbo-supplied power" only occasionally will cost you more than using the same power from an equally powerful NA engine. If (at least hypothetically) the turbo engine is less efficient at high power but more efficient at low power, then it is would be better for efficient drivers, but worse for the other folks. Of course, my choice would be the smaller engine without the turbocharger, in order to get the efficiency without the complication.
See this: http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1303_fuel_economy_numbers_gone_wild/
So basically the adjustment comes from coasting down 70 mph to 10 mph in neutral outdoor. It's difficult for EPA to verify that since it requires a big track (and not to mention outdoor conditions). This is also the part where Hyundai had to adjust their results.
EPA definitely has several flaws although European ECE has much more exaggerated numbers (typically around 20% higher).
More detail on how they utilize data from that 70-10mph coast-down test would be interesting. For it to be accurate, they need the deceleration rate at every speed on the way down, or at least several speeds with interpolation. Then the dyno drag needs to be set to follow that curve at every speed.
We still don't know how the Fusion and the higher-drag C-Max could've possibly scored identically, unless they used the C-Max drag data for both to save testing cost.
The dynamometer is calibrated based on the coast-down tests to apply resistance unique to that vehicle. Not sure if that's done for every speed but potentially.
One thing that is interesting is that Wayne got better city mpg with Prius V compared to C-Max while Consumer Reports saw the opposite (same for Fusion compared to Camry).
I guess must be unique to that CR test although C&D also got better city results (but nothing scientific or reproducible with C&D obviously).
It appears as if CRs tests are not as accurate as mine!
Of course. However most likely it's rather they are not as good in getting best mpg.
They take several drivers and then take the average. Few of these drivers probably watch their mpg and aren't very sensitive with the throttle or brakes (arguably like the average person).
One thing to also seem to ignore is temperatures (and they are on the east coast I believe).
Winter vs summer testing should make a difference with EV's and hybrids.
The city and highway test had nothing to do with getting the best mileage. There were also different drivers in different positions for the lengths of both. It was stop light to stop light and I was allowing a minimal differential between each car as I was always the chase driver in the city test.
Winter vs. summer always makes a difference so I temperature compensated for it in the Speed vs. FE graphs.
Ah right, I forgot. Yes your test is definitely more accurate.
CR obviously can't test all cars at same time under same conditions. That most likely explains the difference.
Yes, they claim to do most of their auto testing in Connecticut, as far as I know.
Not that the 2013 Camry Hybrid is any more efficient than the 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid but Ford likes to sling around their EPA figures. In a release from earlier this week, they made the following pronouncement yet again...
I have driven the 2012 TCH to some pretty decent numbers around town and I doubt the current Fusion Hybrid is 6 mpg better in any realm.
2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid First Drive
77.9 mpgUS displayed over an 18-mile RT drive loop.
A higher speed highway drive with 45.1 mpgUS displayed over 18.4 miles after a 700 ft. climb to the driver changeover point.
I have to wonder how the two would stack up against one another?
Looks like maybe we could get a little comparison review going with a statement like that.
I can see another San Diego to Las Vegas fuel economy comparison run run coming in the next few months. I know Toyota would probably love to do it, the question is will Ford want to put their EPA Hybrid numbers to a real world test.
On Fuelly 2013 Camry Hybrid is 40.3mpg & 2013 Fusion Hybrid at 41mpg
My magical 8-ball says : Not likely.
Maybe so , but at fuel.economy.gov , the 2013 TCH is slightly better than both the 2013 C-Max and Fusion Hybrid.
Aren't you glad you bought your c ?
Surveys of self-selected respondents are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't take either fuelly or the corresponding numbers at fuel.economy.gov too seriously.
I have my C-max on Fuelly and on the .gov site. It is not a survey. You actually enter the miles and gallons used after each fill up. My numbers on those sites are extremely accurate. It would be time consuming and pointless for a large percentage of people to enter fake numbers. And there are 239 C-max drivers reporting on Fuelly for the 2013 C-max. You can take those numbers very serious.
Separate names with a comma.