mmarshall

A $700 rebate, even at the average $3.80 or so for regular 87-octane here in the U.S., will buy a fair number of tankfuls of gas to compensate. And, if the vehicle is leased instead of bought, if it depreciates more than expected because of this, it will be Ford losing the money at the end of the lease term, not the customers. Even for customers who bought instead of leasing, they may (?) end up saving money in other areas, such as insurance premiums, because it will be cheaper for insurances companies to replace a totalled or stolen vehicle.

So, in other words, all I'm saying is that a $700 rebate and a drop in the car's value is not a disaster...it has potential good points, too.

mmarshall

Well, that's why we're having this entire thread and discussion in the first place....to discuss both sides of it. Ford may not come out of this smelling like a rose, but there were also some factors that may have been beyond its control.

Now, to set the record straight, that doesn't mean that I aways agree with the way Ford does things. Lately, they have been running a set of TV ads (some of you may have seen them) that show Ford, Toyota, and Honda products on closed-courses being test-driven by random members of the public, and the drivers gleefully picking out the Ford products over the competition with the silliest and lamest comments usually reserved for a five-year-old. Those commercials (as with many auto-ads) are an insult to one's intelligence.

Sulu

You cannot have a "real world testing cycle"; the results of different cars would not and could not be comparable because of all the variables that you cannot control in real world testing. The goal of the EPA testing is not just to give you fuel consumption numbers, but to give you numbers that be truly compared from car to car (because all tests were done in the same, controlled environment), and that can be repeated (and get the same results each time) because the tests were done in a controlled, lab environment.

In "real world tests" there are too many variables that could affect the fuel consumption results, including temperature, humidity, winds (strength and direction) and others; these variables could change from moment to moment and one test to another so that you may not get the same results from one test to another. To be able to determine numbers that are comparable, you need to test all cars in the same conditions. To be able to test all thousands of different cars available for sale in the United States and get comparable numbers, the EPA would need a test site that is absolutely huge to be able to get all thousands of different cars and different models in one spot at one time. The costs to the EPA (that would have to be paid for through your taxes or tacked onto the price of new cars) would be horrendous.

LexFather

^^^ which is why you should be conservative or even understate figures. If Ford said 40 MPG and they got 43 MPG that could create some huge press and happy owners. Staring 49 MPG and getting 41 MPG pisses people off and creates not just a PR disaster but now Ford is paying money back to customers.

Toyota has done hybrids right. They didn't advertise 50 MPG with the Prius and people got 42 MPG. People are happy with the advertised ratings. Toyota likely tested the snot outta their cars before releasing figures. Contrarily it sounds like Honda, Hyundai, Ford are making hybrids with faulty ratings to make a splash.

LexBob2

Under promise, and over deliver, and you can't go wrong.

It's not as exciting as the big splash but in the long run it works out better.

FrankReynoldsCPA

Mike is right, it's way better to give yourself some space and then come in better than that.

I'm sure, given the right circumstances, you maybe could see the EPA ratings originally offered, but 90% of drivers probably won't and they are disappointed.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Exactly

Why do you think engines are also underrated. Companies do this to protect themselves

spwolf

so 20% bigger gas bill each month + drop in value of the vehicle is far worse than $700... not sure hows that good for the consumer.

Once again, people are confusing this with real world numbers... these are not real world numbers - these are still EPA ratings that have little to do with real world... it is just that Ford mistated their EPA ratings by up to 8 MPG. New ratings are still based on EPA tests... just correctly applied this time around.

mmarshall

When early versions of the Prius came out with the 51 (advertised) rating, the Toyota service people in this area here told customers to expect 45 under most local suburban driving conditions. They were right. That is what most owners got...and few owners complained. They were glad to be getting that much to start with (which, IMO, is pretty darn good).....not b**ching that they weren't getting the whole 51.

Goffinluvr

One of my current vehicles is a 2010 Fusion Hybrid that equals or slightly exceeds EPA estimates. Spent some time evaluating the current version but was skeptical of the marked increase of their MPG claims. Overall it is a better vehicle, but Ford's second-generation hybrid drivetrain is not more efficient. Deal-killer, better options are available!

FrankReynoldsCPA

The salesman at the Ford dealership I went to wouldn't take me near the current Fusion. He was actually rattling off about how bad the MPG was on the new ones. I was a little surprised. My guess was he knew that I wasn't going to spend money on a brand new car, so he was trying to build up the cars in the price range I was looking at. Ended up buying a 2012 Fusion from another dealer. I think I would have given the current gen a chance if it had a V6. I'm not sold on the turbo 4's yet.

LexFather

Yup.... At this rate who is to day another correction doesn't come in a few months.