1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.

Vile Gossip | Adventures in tire testing

Jean Jennings has been writing about cars for more than 30 years, after stints as a taxicab driver and as a mechanic in the Chrysler Proving Grounds Impact Lab. She was a staff writer at Car and Driver magazine, the first executive editor and former president and editor-in-chief of Automobile Magazine , the founder of the blog Jean Knows Cars and former automotive correspondent for Good Morning America . She has lifetime awards from both the Motor Press Guild and the New England Motor Press Association. This is her first column for Autoblog — look for more Vile Gossip in the future. I began writing at Car and Driver magazine back in its golden age in the 1970s, before I'd actually read it. I knew very little about cars. The only magazine I read religiously was Four Wheeler because I owned big trucks and liked to go off-roading with my Chrysler Proving Grounds friends. My vast 10 years of driving experience up to that point (high-speed dirt-road idiot, taxicab driver, Chrysler Proving Grounds test driver) had less bearing on my being hired at Car and Driver than the fact that the editor just wanted to rile up the all-male staff. He didn't need me for that. They were already in full dudgeon when I arrived. They'd just spent a chunk of time testing a stack of tires for their big tire-test issue, and the editor-in-chief was toe-to-toe with the technical editor over the rankings of the top 10 tires. It was loud, and it was angry. I had no idea that car magazines tested tires. Cab driving had led me to believe that airing up a tire and changing a flat was all you needed to know. I changed so many flats on that cab, I eventually wound up in front of a live audience on the " Oprah Winfrey Show" demonstrating my brilliance with a jack and a tire iron. My point, of course, is that tires are more controversial, and also more essential, than you'd think. My other point is that it's good to get worked up about the subject, but not quite so good to let yourself be seen, as I did, on my hands and knees with my ass up in the air on national TV. This is how I prefer to test a tire: First, pick a top brand. Then accept their invitation to try and beat the crap out of their tire. I chose Yokohama, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. The big news for them was the GEOLANDER M/T G003!

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.