That’s the same scheme they are using like the ambulance chasers advertising on tv… exposure to asbestos, defective breast implants and so on
The lawyers get rich and you get a pittance.
Sounds like the same mistake they made on the c-max and other hybrids a couple years ago.
Ford voluntarily told authorities back in February that it had detected a possible issue with its testing procedures that could mean some of its vehicles pollute more and get less fuel economy than initially stated. The new 2019 Ford Ranger was among the vehicles with possibly wrong numbers. The DOJ announced it was kicking off a Ford investigation late last month into potential emissions testing irregularities. Ford vehicle owners might be wondering what the investigation could mean for them.
The high profile investigation into VW resulting in a massive fine against the automaker for its diesel emissions cheating scandal is nothing like what is going on with Ford right now. In VW’s case, it was using bypass devices to cheat emissions tests. Ford has been clear that the investigation has nothing to do with bypass devices. The Ford investigation has to do with questions about testing procedures and possibly incorrect numbers used in calculations.
Ford has stated that something caleld “road load” that has to do with bringing real-world factors into the lab setting where the vehicles are tested could be wrong. Essentially Ford seems to think it used incorrect numbers for road-load that may mean less fuel economy and more pollution for impacted vehicles.
If Ford did use incorrect numbers and reported incorrect fuel economy and emissions to the government and buyers, it would need to settle with regulators and the DOJ for the errors. If the Ford investigation finds that the automaker knowingly used bad math to make its vehicles look better to consumers and regulators, the penalties will be much worse. There is no evidence that Ford knowingly miscalculated its figures at this time.
When VW was caught, it was forced to buy back massive numbers of polluting diesel cars and SUVs. The buyback turned into a significant windfall for some VW diesel owners. If Ford’s mistake results in nothing more than misstated fuel economy figures, a payout is likely and class action suits would presumably crop up.
It’s worth noting that Ford made a similar mistake for some of its 2013-2014 hybrid vehicles with road load miscalculations. Owners of those vehicles ended up with payments of $200 to $1,050 for the lowered fuel economy ratings. Ford has stated that it doesn’t know what the investigation will ultimately cost it noting that it can’t provide assurance that the results of the investigation won’t have a “material adverse effect on us.”
It’s good that Ford has been forthcoming with this information, and that could work in their favor. Working against them is that they did this before. Don’t they have any corporate memory?
I’ve heard and read that the new Rangers aren’t getting anywhere near their advertised fuel economy, but haven’t heard anything about emissions violations.
The investigation starts with the Ranger but Ford’s test methods are being questioned.
What putting in that little four banger in a heavy truck isnt working out for them ?
IIRC they had to use a four cylinder as the engine bay, as designed on the euro-spec Ranger, which the U.S. spec Ranger is heavily based can only accommodate inline four cylinder engines. Ford wanted to get Ranger to market quickly and at minimal cost. So the 2.3L Ecoboost was most powerful option they had. The EU-Rangers mostly have I4 turbodiesels, which Americans aren’t big on, so that wasn’t going to be an option. Had the design allowed it, I’m sure the 3.3 N/A V6 from the F-150 or even the 2.7L V6 Ecoboost would’ve been engine options.
On a side note, GM just doubled down with their 2.7L I4 turbo on their full sized Silverado.
1 Like
You beat me to it. I was going to mention the 2.7 liter 4 cyl available in the GM half tons. I don’t see those selling that well. I don’t think the mpg’s are a ton more than Ford’s own 2.7 turbo, and the Ford has quite a bit more power, I think. Then again, I wasn’t sure the Ecoboost line in the F150 would catch on. I was wrong there for sure.
Was this the C-max . . . ?
Nothing new there . . . seems to be a pretty common scenario nowadays
I dunno, most newer cars tend to get close to their EPA mileage estimates these days. This is more of a function of the post 2007 testing methodology, if you look fuel economy estimates from the 80’s they were pretty outrageous like this one for example http://www.classiccarstodayonline.com/classic-car-print-advertisements/1981-ford-f-150-ad-a/
21 MPG city 29 MPG highway from a F-150 with the 300 I6 ; maybe going downhill with a tailwind.
The modern methodology seems to produce realistic results, I’ve had no problems meeting or even beating the modern numbers without even trying too hard. The rub though, is that the manufacturers are the ones submitting the numbers to the EPA, the EPA doesn’t actually test every make/model. So it’s not difficult for the numbers to get fudged, and there have indeed been a few instances over the past ten years or so where the manufacturer submitted very optimistic fuel economy numbers and got caught, but I don’t think it’s a big a problem as it used to be.
C-Max and the Fusion Hybrid if I recall correctlly
1 Like