What to Expect from Ford | Page 3 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

What to Expect from Ford

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.

Right, but the point being driven home here is that you don't really have an issue. If you don't have an issue, then Ford, and frankly any auto maker, IMO, is treating your complaint with the appropriate level of due diligence, which in this case, seems to be not much more than snail mail communications in the form of boilerplate letters. That is already what I personally would have expected even before you made your post. So, to be frank, I don't think your complaint is a good example of how Ford would respond to a valid complaint.

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.

"Best in class x.." aren't anything more than marketing badges, IMO. I personally have never held them out to be promises. Has Ford (I'm asking seriously, you might be onto something)?
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Right, but the point being driven home here is that you don't really have an issue. If you don't have an issue, then Ford, and frankly any auto maker, IMO, is treating your complaint with the appropriate level of due diligence, which in this case, seems to be not much more than snail mail communications in the form of boilerplate letters. That is already what I personally would have expected even before you made your post. So, to be frank, I don't think your complaint is a good example of how Ford would respond to a valid complaint.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
You took the words out of my mouth.....I agree 100%.
 






michael-jackson-popcorn-meme-generator-i-m-just-here-for-the-comments-0de49c.jpg
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

This "issue" and the outrage from the OP are part of the reason people with genuine issues have such a hard time getting a response from manufacturers.
 






Okay, so what I'm hearing here is that even though our Ex only got the same 26 mpg on a 65 mph test cycle which is the same as a V6 AWD Ex as tested by Consumers Reports, and we only get the same 24 mpg that a FWD V6 Ex gets at 70-75 mph; we should be happy with that. Just because Ford advertises the 2.0L as "Best in Class fuel economy at 28 mpg" and charges $1k extra for it, that's okay, no problem. So for my $1k investment I don't get any better fuel economy, I don't get the tranny with a manual shift mode, I have less towing capacity, and I can't use Flex-fuel; but that's okay.

So I guess that those of you who paid extra for AWD would be okay if you didn't get any better traction than the FWD Ex; or those of you who paid extra for the Sport package would be okay if the standard V6 could blow your doors off. I see your point.

Looks like we just have to agree we disagree on this. Have a nice day!
 






So true.

IMHO Ford is looking at this MPG complaint as whining about nothing. They see that you basicly want something for nothing. MPG is based on 55 MPH. They see that you are pushong 70-75 MPH and are expecting "industry leading MPG's" is nothing more than whining about a self induced issue that will not garner any corporate attention so they will in a sense "blow you off". I say this because I had lemon lawed 2 vehicles, an Audi A4 Quattro and a VW Passat W8. I got corporates attention because of bonified service issues. The VW in 12 months was in the shop 16 times, 32 separate job order repairs and was out of service 62 days. This in thier eyeys was a major problem that need tp be rectified. If it was a MPG issue then they would have ignored it unless the issue was so bad the car was not usable.
 






I feel that the OP has a legitimate concern. If I spent an extra $1000 to get an engine that was advertised to achieve better mileage than an other less expensive one, I also would be upset. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done to correct it. It basically comes down to 'it is what it is'. There are many examples across all automotive brands where actual mileage figures don't match the advertised ones. I believe this is currently being addressed by the use of more realistic everyday driving testing.
There are several posts on the forum where members mentioned that they felt the 2.0L Ecoboost was underpowered for the size of the vehicle. I would not be surprised to see the 2.0L engine replaced with a slightly bigger one for 2016.

Peter
 






The little turbo 4 will work much harder at the higher vehicle speeds than the V6. When on the boost you will suffer mpg. That is both the tradeoff and beauty of a turbo. You get good mileage under light load (no/low boost) and you get the power when you need it. The assumption is flawed....
 






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.

First off, EcoBoost is not the Utopian thing that you believe it is. While it's true that you can achieve reasonably decent highway mileage from a small motor without feeling like it's a completely underpowered slug is true, there are a LOT of variables that you almost certainly haven't considered or are willing to accept.

- Tire pressure
- Winter blend versus summer blend fuel (have you already changed over if your area? MPG suffers hard when you do).
- What's IN the vehicle? Are you loaded down with family and cargo?
- EPA -ESTIMATE- (let's let that settle in for a minute)
- You're driving over 55MPH in ALL tests

So, you're conducting your own tests, using different "settings" for all of the variables versus what the EPA uses to conduct their tests, and you're complaining that the numbers are different.

I also use Fuelly to track MPG on multiple vehicles.

2010 Flex Limited AWD - 3100 miles, 18.1MPG average (my car)
2011 Explorer XLT 4WD - 5000 miles, 19.5MPG (my car)
2013 Flex Limited AWD - 3200 miles, 17.1MPG (wife's car)

I've also driven my wife's Flex enough times to know that the drop-off in MPG from the '10 to the '13 is because of the CAR and not the driving style. She's mostly around town, I'm a mix with more highway.
 






So for my $1k investment I don't get any better fuel economy, I don't get the tranny with a manual shift mode, I have less towing capacity, and I can't use Flex-fuel; but that's okay.
I must disagree. You get MUCH better fuel economy than most evidenced by the responses from this thread alone. What you choose to do, however, is create a complaint that only takes into account those tests that support your claims and taking less stock in those examples that do not support your theory. As for not getting manual shift mode, flex fuel compatibility, etc…you presumably knew those were the drawbacks of the EB when you decided to purchase your unit so complaining about not having those features now is at the very least, not helpful to your MPG complaint.

So I guess that those of you who paid extra for AWD would be okay if you didn't get any better traction than the FWD Ex; or those of you who paid extra for the Sport package would be okay if the standard V6 could blow your doors off. I see your point.
Actually, I would be pi$$ed if my AWD didn't get me "better" traction than FWD but the devil is in the details and we don't have it so I can't comment either way. As for another model blowing my doors off, I don't buy cars based on this ability so someone else will have to chime in.

Bottom line is, you MAY have a valid complaint depending on who you ask and which evidence you decide to look at but, IMO, you can't have a valid complaint by picking and choosing which evidence and who's opinion is valid or invalid.
 






The little turbo 4 will work much harder at the higher vehicle speeds than the V6. When on the boost you will suffer mpg. That is both the tradeoff and beauty of a turbo. You get good mileage under light load (no/low boost) and you get the power when you need it. The assumption is flawed....

IMHO, this is a KEY point. Again, citing the fact that EPA tests are done at 55MPH and that's how the vehicles are built (geared) to achieve the EPA mandated results for fuel economy. Once you deviate and go faster, the efficiencies that the vehicle was specifically designed and built for go completely out the window.

When looking at both of my Flexes, the Fusion we had, AND the Explorer I have now (and another I'm searching for), I specifically EXCLUDED the EcoBoost motor as an option because their real-world highway MPG based on ACTUAL 65MPH speed limits is quite sub-par compared to a motor that operates more efficiently (V6 or even V8) at those speeds.

You could have very easily RENTED a vehicle for a few days with an EcoBoot motor and driven on a couple of typical trips to understand that you will not achieve the EPA MPG rating because you don't drive the way their tests were conducted. Anyone that buys a vehicle based purely on marketing information, INCLUDING the window sticker information, is doing themselves a huge disservice.

If you're so put off by this, go back to the dealer and enlist their help in getting you out of that Ex and into a vehicle that you'll actually be happy with.
 






Agreed. You can have the eco and you can have the boost but you can't have both.
 






I feel that the OP has a legitimate concern. If I spent an extra $1000 to get an engine that was advertised to achieve better mileage than an other less expensive one, I also would be upset. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done to correct it. It basically comes down to 'it is what it is'. There are many examples across all automotive brands where actual mileage figures don't match the advertised ones. I believe this is currently being addressed by the use of more realistic everyday driving testing.
There are several posts on the forum where members mentioned that they felt the 2.0L Ecoboost was underpowered for the size of the vehicle. I would not be surprised to see the 2.0L engine replaced with a slightly bigger one for 2016.

Peter

Thank you! At least you get it.
 






Thank you! At least you get it.

Drive it the way the testing is done with the same fuel and then if you have a MPG issue I will agree. Until then you are in the minority. You don't seem to grasp that not to mention EPA ratings are an ESTIMATE.
 






Thank you! At least you get it.

He sure does…


I feel that the OP has a legitimate concern. If I spent an extra $1000 to get an engine that was advertised to achieve better mileage than an other less expensive one, I also would be upset. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done to correct it. It basically comes down to 'it is what it is'. There are many examples across all automotive brands where actual mileage figures don't match the advertised ones. I believe this is currently being addressed by the use of more realistic everyday driving testing.
There are several posts on the forum where members mentioned that they felt the 2.0L Ecoboost was underpowered for the size of the vehicle. I would not be surprised to see the 2.0L engine replaced with a slightly bigger one for 2016.

Peter
But lemme guess, that's not the part that you picked and chose to find support for your theory though
 






Here is the definitive testing information straight from the gov't fuel economy EPA testing site. The highway testing is done with a top speed of 60 MPH, AVERAGE speed of 48.3 MPH, distance of 10.3 miles with an already warm engine with no air conditioning

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
 






While the OP did state he was disappointed with the mileage, his main concern and reason for posting was the lack of or a failure to specifically address his concern other than to say "it is normal" which seems to be a catch-all phrase used by dealers as well.

Peter
 






While the OP did state he was disappointed with the mileage, his main concern and reason for posting was the lack of or a failure to specifically address his concern other than to say "it is normal" which seems to be a catch-all phrase used by dealers as well.

Peter

But, how -should- a company respond to a complaint that has little to no basis in actual fact? Especially if that company has heard that complaint over and over, has already evaluated the details, and has determined that, given the conditions the OP was operating under, it IS normal?
 








Is this what you are talking about Principal ?
 






So, you're trying to say that once the OP has irrefutable proof that the EPA tests were a lie, he'll have cause to force Ford into "doing something"?
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





I guess the manufacturers feel they are covered when they state, "Actual mileage may vary."
Their mileage figures for the Ecoboost were also reached using 93 octane gasoline.

Peter
 






Back
Top