Ford’s fine C-Max falls way short on mileage
Dec. 8, 2012, 11:32 a.m. EST
new
By Dan Neil
Dan Neil/The Wall Street Journal
As much as I hate to be topical, I have driven, in just the last few
days, a fresh-from-the-factory Ford C-Max Hybrid SEL. Last month, Green
Car Reports—that Bolshevik rag—reported that the C-Max Hybrid and the
Fusion Hybrid it tested (they share hybrid architecture) didn’t come
close to delivering their Environmental Protection Agency mileage
ratings of 47/47/47 miles per gallon, city/highway/combined. This
supports similarly scandalous findings this month in Consumer Reports.
I read that and thought, Yup.
Hyundai, Honda and now Ford
F
+2.14%
have been accused of cooking the mileage books, and in the first blush
of evidence—I just ran a tank of gas through the C-Max and got 33.9
average mpg—I also judge the C-Max’s rating to be grossly inflated.
C-Max falls way short on mileage
Dan Neil explains why he found the Ford C-Max Hybrid SEL's mileage rating to be grossly inflated.
But a couple of notes: I drive hard, especially when I’m alone.
And…wait, can I just take you somewhere on the driving-hard thing? I’d
like to introduce the Neil Scale of Necessary Cruelty. Driving a
high-performance street car—let’s say, the all-wheel drive,
545-horsepower Nissan GT-R—on public roads is frustrating to the point
of being sexual. That car is so toweringly capable, so effortlessly
violent, you cannot get anywhere near its limits on the street. You
spend most of your time throttling back your own testosterone.
However, a little commuter gelding such as the Ford C-Max Hybrid, that
you can thrash. It’s actually fun, and informative, to cane a family
car: tires squeal, wheels come off the ground. It’s a hoot. Around town,
the C-Max has loads of hybrid-system torque, blasting off quietly from
stoplights, a bookworm hooligan. Give that a 5 on the Neil Scale.
The point is, I drove the C-Max Hybrid pretty hard and that lowered my
mileage. Still, with the cruise control set on 76 mph on a dead-flat
four-lane highway in mild conditions, the C-Max’s instantaneous mileage
readout was fixed at 35.8 mpg, well short of nominal.
A patently suspicious number
It must be noted: The C-Max’s across-the-board 47 mpg is a monster
number, almost patently suspicious. We are looking at a 3,607-pound
vehicle with 188 hybrid horsepower (2.0-liter, 141-hp Atkinson-cycle
four-cylinder; continuously variable transmission; AC synchronous
electric motor; 1.4 kWh lithium-ion battery pack with 35 kW max output).
This is a five-seat, five-door hatch boasting zero-to-60 mph
acceleration of around 8.2 seconds, considerably quicker than the rival
Toyota Prius V, which is rated at only 44/40 mpg. The C-Max outweighs
the Honda CR-Z hybrid sport coupe by a half-ton and yet, by EPA
estimates, gets more than 25% better fuel economy.
And while the C-Max is aero-sleek to the eye, it actually puts a
significant dent in the air (63.9 inches high and 82 inches wide at the
side mirrors). Frankly, I’m impressed I got 33.9 mpg.
But merely awesome fuel economy is almost beside the point now, in light
of these unfulfilled expectations. The point now is to hiss and boo
Ford, which is so obviously trying to defraud the buying public. And
let’s not forget to blame the government. Everyone knows Corporate
Average Fuel Economy = Communism.
I mildly propose a third reading: It’s a testing effect.
First off, the EPA’s mileage numbers are comparative, not representative.
Where those mileage numbers come from
It cannot be otherwise, for if you demand that these numbers represent a
vehicle’s real-world fuel efficiency, you have to specify: Whose real
world? Me and mine, with my 40-pound right foot? Is this real world in
North Dakota, Florida or Colorado?
The feds’ five-cycle, 43.9-mile testing methodology is arcane—almost 200
pages in the Federal Register, including the CAFE calculations—but that
shouldn’t surprise anyone, since the process attempts to capture a
complex phenomenon, a vehicle’s fuel economy, in just two numbers
printed on new cars’ so-called Monroney label. Even the EPA’s “average”
mpg number is weighted in a way not beyond dispute.
It would be hard to overstate the consequence of these numbers. The
numbers determine which vehicle can claim best-in-class mileage, who has
to pay a gas-guzzler tax, and which technologies merit their relative
cost in fuel savings. CAFE was designed to inflect a manufacturer’s
entire portfolio, to bend it toward higher fuel efficiency, and it does
just that.
To complicate matters, the mileage of most vehicles is self-certified by
the manufacturers. The EPA does not, and cannot, verify mileage numbers
for the majority of light-duty vehicles (though I imagine there’s a
Ford C-Max Hybrid on the dynamometers in Michigan right now). Meanwhile,
the feds’ fuel-economy administrators are currently operating at a dead
run trying to keep up with a host of new, highly digitized fuel-saving
technologies, such as “Eco” throttle mapping and stop-start (the engine
cuts out as the vehicle coasts or stops), which were practically
invented to hack the EPA testing cycle.
So we have a very complex, specialized, high-stakes test, often
self-administered, being laid siege to by auto makers’ legion of code
writers, even as the standards themselves are soaring. In August, the
Obama administration completed rules setting national fuel economy
standards at 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025. Let’s not
even talk about California or the EU.
Where does all this leave the C-Max? I think it’s likely that Ford’s
hybrid powertrain programming is, let’s say, overly familiar with the
EPA’s testing regime. For example: Key to the Ford hybrid’s system big
numbers is its all-electric speed range of up to 62 mph. If you are
really gentle with the accelerator, you can reach highway speeds without
ever switching on the gas engine. That’s a huge win during the testing
cycle, though hard to replicate in the real world. I wouldn’t even call
it an attempt to game the system. It’s the result of human nature, to
the extent that automotive engineers are human.
Bouquets of kudzu notwithstanding ...
The C-Max’s mileage issue is the sort of thing that makes PR people
throw themselves off bridges. This is otherwise a hugely winning
vehicle, with a lot of smart cabin details and premium materials all
wrought in Ford’s current design vocabulary, a sort of low-key, friendly
futurism. The C-Max’s fold-flat rear-seat system is brilliant, and rear
cabin access is about as good as anything on the market. You can
actually get children’s car seats in and out of the door openings with
no problem. (Ford decided not to import what it calls in Europe the
Grand C-Max, an MPV version of the global C platform with minivan-like
sliding doors.)
Shoppers looking to bracket the C-Max will want to look at the Kia
Sportage, which has front-hinged doors, and the Mazda5, which has the
sliding doors.
But no matter how good it is otherwise, the C-Max keeps bringing the
conversation back to fuel efficiency. Among the many mileage-monitoring
displays and tutorials available in the LCD instrument panel is a
driving-efficiency “coach,” which gently nags you about your braking and
acceleration behavior. There’s a screen called Empower, another called
Engage. All are devoted to illustrating the thermodynamic flux in the
hybrid system, wavering like a candle in the wind. As you drive, the
right side of the instrument panel display fills up with encouraging
green leaves, like efficiency kudzu.
Well, I had whole bouquets of kudzu and I never saw anything close to 47
mpg. With respect, Ford, someone needs to recalibrate, and it isn’t me.
No comments:
Post a Comment