Posted on 06/13/2014 4:25:36 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Ford will compensate owners of about 200,000 U.S. vehicles after discovering the cars' gas mileage was overstated. The automaker said it recently discovered an error in the calculation used to determine fuel efficiency. That meant the gas mileage was less than advertised, usually by between one and five miles per gallon.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
And no one forced them to do it. This was the result of their own findings and their own choice to publish them.
“The automaker said it recently discovered an error in the calculation used to determine fuel efficiency.”
Perhaps they were using Common Core math.
How do they make an error? More like they got caught fudging the numbers. Can’t trust anyone these days.
No doubt the government will try to wring a hefty fine out of Ford, which took no bailout. Of course, the money then disappears into the bottomless maw of government, instead of going to the consumers.
The EPA formula for calculating mpg is pretty complex, and takes a number of variables into account. It’s entirely possible that there’s a typo in Ford’s formula somewhere, and they only recently discovered it.
This article isn’t about Ford but appears similar to the Ford story:
“My theory has been that the easiest, and most difficult to catch, way for an automaker to inflate its fuel-economy ratings would be by deflating the “road load” power curves it uses to calibrate dynamometers (stationary vehicle test-lab treadmills) for EPA highway emissions/fuel economy tests. Because dynos operate indoors, these road-load numbers are needed to simulate aerodynamic drag and other factors that affect a vehicle’s real-world energy usage.
A vehicle’s road-load power requirements – the energy it needs to roll, throttle off, at a constant speed – is determined by very precise coast-down testing. According to the SAE procedure, these tests are run with the vehicle coasting in neutral on a long (typically two-mile) stretch of dry, clean, straight, perfectly-level road, at air temperatures between 41 and 95 degrees F, with little wind and no precipitation. A minimum of 10 runs (five each direction) is required, each beginning at a minimum of 125 kilometers per hour (77.7 miles per hour) and ending after the vehicle has coasted down to 15 kph (9.3 mph). Data is continuously recorded between 115 and 15 kph.
With no suitable facility to run their own coast-down tests, the EPA has had to accept automakers’ road-load power numbers.
Through complex calculations, this data then determines a vehicle’s road-load energy usage as a function of speed, which becomes a major mathematical factor in the EPA’s highway test calculation. So if its reported road-load curve is inaccurately low, a car’s EPA highway rating (and also, as a result, its city/highway “combined” rating) will be unrealistically high. And while the EPA audits automakers’ test procedures and runs emissions/fuel-economy tests (on a small percentage of vehicles) in its own Ann Arbor, MI dynamometer lab to validate their results, with no suitable facility to run their own coast-down tests, they have had to accept automakers’ road-load power numbers as submitted.
And, sure enough, Hyundai/Kia says the “procedural errors” that led to its bogus fuel-economy claims involved coast-down testing. Is it possible that their engineers misinterpreted the very specific SAE procedural instructions and/or miscalculated the road-load numbers derived from their coast-down data? Possible, yes. But not if they’re the world’s smartest.”
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/03/fuel-economy-follies-cheatin-or-mistaken/
Ford cuts fuel economy estimates on 9 models, faces EPA scrutiny
For the second time in less than a year, Ford has again overstated its EPA numbers.
I have never believed those mpg estimates anyway.
Huh?
Would they coast if the road was perfectly level?
I don’t buy all this theoretical testing. Why isn’t the mileage figure derived by having an expert driver drive a car in real world conditions to see what can be realistically achieved? By the way I am convinced that the single greatest thing to be done to increase real world MPG would be to junk the cruise control and teach people to drive for best mileage. The meme that people should always use cruise control on the highway to improve mileage is absurd. I have proven over and over that I can achieve well over the EPA mileage figure WITHOUT using cruise control but as soon as I return to using it my mileage drops rapidly. The only exception is if you are driving on very flat roads and then the cruise control does ALMOST as well as I can do without it. Anyone who tries to use the cruise control on very hilly roads is simply fooling himself.
Sweet.
I have a Ford Fusion.
Awesome car but, I’ll take the check...
I have a F-250 pickup and a “Edge”, How much will be on the check?
To coast on a perfectly level road, you just have to lift the back end of the vehicle up...then you are always going down hill. Physics is easy.
Eco-boost -> Eco-bust
Who cares?
I’ve got a Ford Explorer Sport - and that thing moves!
No way to estimate a true overall average gas mileage because conditions are always different for different drivers in different scenarios. Some may get better than posted mileage,but most will not in my opinion. Then again,many drivers may not accurately figure their mileage,either. Hard to advertise mileage estimates,but I think some companies do fairly well.
Have you ever met an engineer on that program or discussed their 125+ patents and see what they have actually accomplished with a flat torque curve in a few of the applications which in theory turns a variable air-pump into a constant one? Nah to easier to use a one liner to bust their chops....
ease-up. you’re douchebaggery is unseemly and uncalled for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.