2004 Ford Mustang Base Coupe 2-door 3.9l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.

Ford not backing down on MPG-based marketing strategy

The Blue Oval may have to back off a bit from the green messaging. Ford has had to lower fuel-economy ratings on a number of 2013 and 2014 model-year vehicles, namely its hybrids. And that may force the US automaker to rethink some of its marketing strategy, Automotive News reports. Ford has spent much of the year pushing its fuel-efficiency improvements, with everything from a Super Bowl ad saying its Fusion Hybrid gets "almost double" the fuel efficiency of an average vehicle (after the recalculation, it's now more like 75 percent better) to claiming the Fiesta is the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid in the US (it's actually the Mitsubishi Mirage) to stating the C-Max Hybrid gets better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius V (it doesn't). Nonetheless, Ford doesn't plan on changing its mpg marketing emphasis anytime soon, the company said in an e-mailed statement to AutoblogGreen. "Providing customers great fuel economy is a key part of our Ford vehicle DNA." "Providing customers great fuel economy is a key part of our Ford vehicle DNA," the company said. "We will continue to highlight our vehicles features and attributes in our advertising and marketing, which includes fuel economy and fuel-saving technologies like EcoBoost and hybrids." Earlier this month, Ford said it would lower the fuel-economy ratings of models such as the C-Max, Fusion and Lincoln MKZ Hybrids as well as most of the Fiesta line because of mistakes in the company's internal testing data. It was the second change for the C-Max Hybrid. The good news for Ford is that its fleetwide fuel economy is up almost 40 percent from a decade ago, compared to an improvement of around 23 percent for Toyota. Still, while sales of Ford hybrids and plug-ins are about even with last year through the first five months of 2014, C-Max Hybrid sales have plunged 49 percent from a year earlier. Earlier this year, Ford admitted that the first fuel economy downgrade had a negative effect on sales and we can find proof in the numbers. Before that the change was announced, in August 2013, Ford was consistently selling over 2,000 – and sometimes over 3,000 – C-Max Hybrids a month. In September, it dropped to 1,424, then to 1,438 in October. It didn't climb back above 2,000 until May 2014. The second mpg adjustment was announced in June.

Dealers price gouging Ford Mustang 50th Anniversary Edition by up to $20k [UPDATE]

UPDATE: Sheehy Ford's Cory Belcher got back to us, confirming that the price premium was related to the limited nature of the 50th Anniversary Mustang and that the figure listed was based on what other dealers were charging, while adding that the dealership was "very flexible" on the final price of the special edition car. So while there remains a hefty markup, it's possible that consumers could get out the door without spending quite so much over MSRP. It's no secret that dealers take some – let's call them "liberties" – with the prices on vehicles that are very new, highly in demand or available in very limited numbers. As we've explained before, they're well within their rights to charge so-called market value adjustments. We don't usually see these adjustments on mainstream vehicles, though. Then again, you could argue that the 2015 Ford Mustang 50th Anniversary Edition is not necessarily a mainstream vehicle. It starts at $46,170, which isn't peanuts, but it's still a Mustang. There's still a large portion of the buying public that could put one in their driveway, if they so chose. Then again, maybe they can't. That's because dealers are (still) issuing massive premiums on top of MSRP for the limited-edition model. It's happening at Sheehy Ford Gaithersburg, where a salesperson named Lou confirmed to Autoblog that the dealership is charging around $20,000 over MSRP on not one, but two Anniversary Editions. He explained that Sheehy isn't alone in the upcharge: "We like to see what other dealers are asking for," he told us, in reference to the limited edition 'Stang. We have a message in for the dealership's general manager for deeper info, too, and will update this post when/if we hear back. We corroborated Lou's story, though, with another Maryland area dealer, Century Ford, who confirmed that the $46,995 listed on the dealer's website for its Wimbledon White Anniversary car was incorrect, and the actual price was "around $64,000." He echoed Lou's reasoning for the upcharge, while adding that dealers are likely only going to see one or two examples, of the 1,964 produced. Perhaps the most worrying part of this entire affair is the sense of deceit that accompanies it. Neither of the dealers we spoke to copped to the market value adjustments on their website. We had to call and ask specifically about the cars in question to get the actual price.