What to Expect from Ford

[wifes2011xlt]

This issue has gone beyond the problem of poor fuel economy to being an issue of how Ford treats their customers. Their procedures for issues is designed to discourage customers from pursuing the problems and does not focus on resolving the issue, but more towards avoiding the problem. Pretty cowardly if you ask me.:thumbdwn:

I would venture to guess that, on average, a consumer will receive the same sort of response that you have gotten from other auto makers when the claim being made against them involves fuel efficiency, especially when the difference between EPA (28) and real world (~26) is, IMO, nominal.

If anyone might have a gripe on EB fuel consumption claims, it would be the F150 owners that were swayed from the Ram hemi. 1500 Ram Hemi returned better mpg over the course of a year than F150 EB based on motor trend testing.

 

[soulpatch]

You are talking 28 to 26 mpg and being upset. Really?

I would be ESTATIC if my Sport sniffed 20MPG. I typically get combined 18. On highway only I squeak around 21 but that is about my limit.

Typical highway road testing is also done at a speed of 65mph for the EPA from what I remember. Your increase to 70-75 drastically cuts that back.

Even still those 2mpg difference over the course of 5 years driving 20K miles a year (100K total) would result in a additional spend of $851. Or $170 a year. This isn't the Kia case where they are saying the cars got into the 30s but real life was well short of that.

You can't compare to other vehicles either as their drag would directly influence their reduced numbers at speeds above 65. So a Explorer might take a 7% hit to MPG while your Mustang only takes a 2%.

Just sounds like you have an agenda trying to rummage around to bring a slimy lawsuit or something over something so trivial. I mean whats next sueing the Keebler elves for not having the correct number of chocolate chips on a cookie?

 

[amd2800barton]

I know this is throwing fuel on the fire but...

I keep a spreadsheet of all our fill ups and miles driven. Our overall combined fuel economy (never reset) reports 20 something mpg, and my spreadsheet reports 19 mpg. Now 19mpg means that to go 1 mile, 6.7 ounces of fuel were used. For 20 mpg, to go 1 mile, 6.4 fl_oz were used. This means that the cars tripometer is reporting about 5% less fuel used than what I measure at the pump (which is required by law and tested to be accurate to within 0.5%). Tl;DR: the vehicles trip computer displays about 5% better fuel economy than is actually achieved.

I think its silly to quibble about a couple MPG difference between what you achieve in the real world and the unrealistic numbers determinedusing the EPA standard test.

Also to the Canadians: I assume your cars report fuel in L/100km, but when you convert into MPG, please be sure to use US gallons. Imperial gallons are about 20% bigger than US gallons, and US users may think you are reporting US gallons. IE - if you are getting 22 MPG in imperial units, that would be reported as 18.3 MPG in US units *cough* peter *cough*.

 

[peterk9]

I use fuelly.com to track my fill ups and yes you are correct about the conversion. I forgot about that at the time. The fill up today saw the best mileage achieved so far. Sightly better (18.4) that the one in July even though the weather has been cooler.

Peter

 

[principalpony]

Okay, hold on now. I am not complaining about 2mpg difference. That would be ridiculous and a waste of time for me and Ford. The 26 mpg I got was a few constant cruises at 65 mph (on secondary roads with a speed limit of 60 or 65) to compare to the Consumers Reports testing of a V6 AWD Ex that got the same 26 mpg. It's EPA Hwy rating is only 23 mpg so, by comparison, our Ex should have achieved 31 mpg. the V6 AWD got 3 mpg better than EPA rating so I would think our 2.0L Ex would too. So in this test we got 5 mpg less than we should have.

I am taking issue with the 4 mpg difference that I get. That's almost a 15% difference. Before buying the Ecoboost option I had done the math and figured that the $1k option would pay for itself in about 1.5 years with our typical driving of 20-25k miles/year. We should put 75-100k miles on it before we trade for another vehicle so we'd save about $3k with the Ecoboost. Of course the savings depend on the price of fuel and how many miles we put on it.

BTW - The 24 mpg is what we usually get. When it's not getting the 24 mpg, it usually gets less, sometimes as low as 21 or 22. Rarely it will get close to 25 mpg. These are at the 70-75 mph we usually travel on interstate highways. I usually go a little slower as I keep trying to get the mpg a little higher, but I will not go below 70 mph on the interstate. That's just plain dangerous.

 

[jmr061]

Okay, hold on now. I am not complaining about 2mpg difference. That would be ridiculous and a waste of time for me and Ford. The 26 mpg I got was a few constant cruises at 65 mph (on secondary roads with a speed limit of 60 or 65) to compare to the Consumers Reports testing of a V6 AWD Ex that got the same 26 mpg. It's EPA Hwy rating is only 23 mpg so, by comparison, our Ex should have achieved 31 mpg. the V6 AWD got 3 mpg better than EPA rating so I would think our 2.0L Ex would too. So in this test we got 5 mpg less than we should have.

I am taking issue with the 4 mpg difference that I get. That's almost a 15% difference. Before buying the Ecoboost option I had done the math and figured that the $1k option would pay for itself in about 1.5 years with our typical driving of 20-25k miles/year. We should put 75-100k miles on it before we trade for another vehicle so we'd save about $3k with the Ecoboost. Of course the savings depend on the price of fuel and how many miles we put on it.

BTW - The 24 mpg is what we usually get. When it's not getting the 24 mpg, it usually gets less, sometimes as low as 21 or 22. Rarely it will get close to 25 mpg. These are at the 70-75 mph we usually travel on interstate highways. I usually go a little slower as I keep trying to get the mpg a little higher, but I will not go below 70 mph on the interstate. That's just plain dangerous.

Comparing it to what someone else gets with another engine is pure ludicrous. Compare it to what the EPA sticker of the vehicle you have. There is ALWAYS a variance in EPA versus real world and each and every different vehicle of the same make, model and engine size. No one gets identical MPG. If you honestly think something is wrong with your vehicle your dreaming. Go to the gov't website I linked before. Do some reading. As a former ASE certified mechanic you should be fully aware of all of this.

As far as Ford sending form letters and such, while you haven't posted them for everyone to read if they just are form letters and blow you off without any detail for your perceived problem then yes shame on them but that is how most large corporations operate these days. I'll compare it to the ford customer service people on these forums.....90 percent of the time they say go see your dealer....thanks for the great advice, lol. They should at least directly address your concern (telling you there is no issue with your vehicle) and advise you with such resources as the govt fuel economy website and such.

Personally my feeling is a 2.0 liter/4 cylinder motor would be under powered for an Explorer in the first place.

 

[adamjeeps]

BTW - The 24 mpg is what we usually get. When it's not getting the 24 mpg, it usually gets less, sometimes as low as 21 or 22. Rarely it will get close to 25 mpg. These are at the 70-75 mph we usually travel on interstate highways. I usually go a little slower as I keep trying to get the mpg a little higher, but I will not go below 70 mph on the interstate. That's just plain dangerous.

So you are getting above the 20 city / 28 hwy / 23 combined rating and are complaining?

 

[wifes2011xlt]

Maybe it's just me, but you're kinda all over the place with your facts, calculations and assumptions. I hope you articulated your argument a little clearer with Ford than you are here or, again, maybe it's just me that needs a remedial version of what your trying to prove. 24 or 26, IMO, it's still a nominal difference from 28 EPA rating. Personally, I don't think you have much of a case, but I can't fault you for your tenacity. Hope you keep us posted.

 

[goochman]

Drive it at 55 mph on level pavement with no braking and let us know the results. Every mph above 55 will impact your MPGs.

 

[peterk9]

According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:

- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

Peter

 

[amd2800barton]

Okay, hold on now. I am not complaining about 2mpg difference. That would be ridiculous and a waste of time for me and Ford. The 26 mpg I got was a few constant cruises at 65 mph (on secondary roads with a speed limit of 60 or 65) to compare to the Consumers Reports testing of a V6 AWD Ex that got the same 26 mpg. It's EPA Hwy rating is only 23 mpg so, by comparison, our Ex should have achieved 31 mpg. the V6 AWD got 3 mpg better than EPA rating so I would think our 2.0L Ex would too. So in this test we got 5 mpg less than we should have.

The only thing I'm able to understand from your math is that because one vehicle with a different powertrain got 3mpg above its EPA rating, yours should too (terrible assumption).

I am taking issue with the 4 mpg difference that I get. That's almost a 15% difference. Before buying the Ecoboost option I had done the math and figured that the $1k option would pay for itself in about 1.5 years with our typical driving of 20-25k miles/year. We should put 75-100k miles on it before we trade for another vehicle so we'd save about $3k with the Ecoboost. Of course the savings depend on the price of fuel and how many miles we put on it.

100,000 miles at 24mpg is 4166.7 gallons. At 28 mpg it is 3571.4 gallons. Difference of about 600 gallons. At $3.50/gallon you save $2,100 over the course of 100,000 miles by buying the 2.0L 4 cyclinder over the 3.5L V6. Your math calculating that it would pay off in such a short time span is based on some bad assumptions.

BTW - The 24 mpg is what we usually get. When it's not getting the 24 mpg, it usually gets less, sometimes as low as 21 or 22. Rarely it will get close to 25 mpg. These are at the 70-75 mph we usually travel on interstate highways. I usually go a little slower as I keep trying to get the mpg a little higher, but I will not go below 70 mph on the interstate. That's just plain dangerous.

No car manufacturer rates their fuel economy at 75 mph. Try going 55 to 60 mph with an empty car. You don't seem to understand that the ratings are under "ideal" conditions. Weather, passengers, speed, and a multitude of other factors that are difficult to simulate in a laboratory all work to your detriment.

 

[Dr Plastic]

 

[DeepBlueSC]

WHY?!!!! Do we continue to jump into these baited posts?!
Why do we continue to follow the trail of breadcrumbs posters' leave on this forum, knowing full well, in advance that there is either an agenda on the part of the OP; an unreasonable expectation on the part of the OP; or just plain trolling for the sake of trolling?!

Here are questions nobody else asked, so I will:

Did you pay MSRP for this Explorer? I bet not.

Did you send Ford a letter complaining about how you got cheated out of paying full retail price? I bet not.

Did you demand the dealer take full retail price for this Explorer? I bet not.

Did your math regarding your 'projected' and 'expected' return on investment consider, calculate and compensate for all patent equities and latent equities? I don't know, show your math.

Did you actually recoup a portion of your expected back-end investment realizations at the inception of this transaction? I bet so.

Are you expecting to get full retail market price for this Explorer at trade-in or sale date, and do you intend to fully disclose the gas mileage figures at that time?

Just wondering...

 

[wifes2011xlt]

Wait, what?

 

[principalpony]

The only thing I'm able to understand from your math is that because one vehicle with a different powertrain got 3mpg above its EPA rating, yours should too (terrible assumption).

100,000 miles at 24mpg is 4166.7 gallons. At 28 mpg it is 3571.4 gallons. Difference of about 600 gallons. At $3.50/gallon you save $2,100 over the course of 100,000 miles by buying the 2.0L 4 cyclinder over the 3.5L V6. Your math calculating that it would pay off in such a short time span is based on some bad assumptions.

No car manufacturer rates their fuel economy at 75 mph. Try going 55 to 60 mph with an empty car. You don't seem to understand that the ratings are under "ideal" conditions. Weather, passengers, speed, and a multitude of other factors that are difficult to simulate in a laboratory all work to your detriment.

1. When one goes car shopping, doesn't one look at the EPA ratings to compare one vehicle to another even if they are different brands and different drive trains? So why shouldn't an Ex w/2.0L rated at 28 mpg hwy get better fuel economy than an EX V6 AWD rated at 23 mpg hwy under similar conditions?

2. I assumed that, over ~5 year time span, that big oil will be screwing us with gas prices over $4/gal. When we bought our Ex the prices were close to $4/gal.I believe that Ford fudged on the EPA tests on the Ecoboost Ex just to have the claim of 28 mpg & "Best in Class fuel economy"; just like they did on ALL of their hybrids.

3. True, but if you check out the EPA test cycles they don't just cruise at a steady speed for the duration of the test. They speed up & slow down & stop. We test drove an Ex w/V6 before buying (no 2.0L was available) and drove it for several miles at 70-75 mph & it got ~24 mpg, so our assumption was the 2.0L would do better than that.

For the record, I have checked the EPA website and others and fully understand the factors affecting fuel economy and how EPA tests are done by the manufacturer on a chassis dynamometer, and that a manufacturer can use the testing results of another vehicle with the same drive train for the results of that vehicle. We do know several people with Ex V6 who get their EPA hwy mpg at 70-75 mph, just as the one did on our test drive. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the 2.0L to do better just as Ford claims it will.

Also, my first letter to Ford was 2.5 pages long with 5 pages of supporting documentation, so there was a lot more detail than what I have provided on this thread. If I had included all of that info, either people wouldn't read it all or would just cherry-pick some facts and go from there.

What I would really just like a respectful response from Ford, not just another form letter or contending with their system designed to discourage & frustrate a customer. My purpose in starting this thread was to let others know how Ford's system for issues with their vehicles is one of avoidance and discouragement and frustration that it is for resolution. It's kind of funny how Ford recently sent us a promotional flyer that stated "To us, you're more than a Ford owner... you're a valued part of our community." What I want to say to Ford is "Is this how you treat valued parts of your community? If so, I guess I'll be moving."

 

[adamjeeps]

My opinion is 70-75 mph is too fast for a 2.0 4 cylinder to efficiently power a vehicle the size, shape, and weight of an Explorer. That speed is pushing the engine into the rpm range where it is not at its highest efficiency. And I disagree about the highway speed, 55 is a highway speed standard. You admit to getting 28 mpg going 55, so I don't understand your complaint.

 

[amd2800barton]

pony - you have straight up said that you can get the EPA fuel economy if you drive 55, which is where the fuel economy was rated. Based on your numbers of real world driving you are getting a 3 mpg hit when driving in conditions you know will hurt your fuel economy, but you claim if you had only gotten the V6 you would be getting the same MPG. Based on the average fuel economy reported on fuelly, you're wrong. You're still getting better fuel economy than the V6. All your assumptions are based on the incorrect premise that you can get the EPA rating while not driving like grandma. That isn't Ford's fault that you have unrealistic expectations.

Also even assuming $4/gallon you're only saving $2,400 over the 100,000 miles you stated you intend to keep the vehicle. Again, not Ford's fault you messed up the cost-benefit analysis.

Clearly you have buyers remorse. You bought a vehicle without test driving a model with the same powertrain, did some bad math / bad research to justify the purchase, and are now unhappy with it. That sucks, really - it does. But no-one on this forum, or at Ford owes you an apology for your mistakes. Sell the vehicle and move on with your life if you're so unhappy with it.

 

[wifes2011xlt]

Just curious, what remedy are you seeking from Ford other than better responses to your complaints?

 

[principalpony]

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA! We need to back up the whole fuel economy debate here and re-examine my thread. The title is "What to expect from Ford". My intent was, and is, to let people know what to expect when they have an issue that the dealer can't/won't resolve and the Ford Customer Service Rep can't resolve so you try to go "up the ladder" as I did. Whether or not you agree with my complaint is not the point.

I used my complaint only as an example. The issue has already been discussed on a thread about poor fuel economy in the Ecoboost Explorer.

What I'd like to know is if anyone else has ever taken a complaint beyond the Ford Customer Service Rep level (real people with whom you can have a phone &/or email conversation) to the Ford Consumer Affairs Dept. and perhaps up further to the Ford Executive Liaison Office, both of which require, and only allow, snail-mail communications. From my experience and perspective, I doubt anything ever happens to reach resolution or satisfaction from either.

 

[principalpony]

Just curious, what remedy are you seeking from Ford other than better responses to your complaints?

What I'd really like is for our Explorer to deliver on the promise of "Best in Class Fuel Economy" as advertised. I seriously doubt that would happen.

A real conversation with a Ford Executive Liaison is what I want now, and where the conversation goes would be up to the two of us.