Ford is Being Sued in Federal Court Over The 2019 Ford Ranger

[jpd80]

Ford is Being Sued in Federal Court Over The 2019 Ford Ranger
Ian Thibodeau, The Detroit News Published 4:13 p.m. ET May 7, 2019
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...gs/1131809001/
The lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of Texas resident and 2019 Ranger owner Marshall Lloyd and "on behalf of all others similarly situated" alleges Ford deliberately miscalculated road testing factors during its internal fuel economy test process "in order to report that its vehicles were more efficient than they actually were."

Ford then used the higher fuel economy as a "selling tool," according to the lawsuit. Lloyd purchased his 2019 Ranger "on or about" Feb. 20, just a day before Ford publicly announced it was investigating the vehicle's fuel economy.

The lawsuit cites multiple blogs that claimed to find the Ranger's fuel economy was not close to the EPA rating. Berman and Hilliard also allege that Ford programmed the vehicle's computers "with a mileage cheat device to continue to lie about the vehicle's fuel economy in order to continually conceal the misrepresentation."

Good luck with that fishing trip......

If this was just an error in applying a new recommended road load factor, reported internally and acted upon, then how is that deliberate intention to mislead the public?

Lawyer's trying to get more mileage themselves by accusing Ford of using cheat software in the vehicles, that's very easy to prove or disprove.

[Vesper Martini]

This would be the petrol ecoboost.
it claims 23 MPG (10.23L/100) for a Ranger sized vehicle is pretty good for an average
but I couldn't see what figures the complainant was getting?

[Whitey-AMG]

LOL

My BF FPVGT was advertised and labelled as having an ADR Fuel Consumption: 15L/100km (combined cycle)

Im getting anywhere from 19 - 22L / 100

Should I sue ??

[GT450]

Yes and i will join you Jim!

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpd80

If this was just an error in applying a new recommended road load factor, reported internally and acted upon, then how is that deliberate intention to mislead the public?

From the last paragraph, it sounds like the trip computer itself returned an incorrect calculation of the economy. I'd be annoyed to if my car said 10L/100km, but I was putting 11-12L/100km. That said, I'd be very skeptical of the claims, such a 'cheat' would be very easily spotted by end-users.

[Bossxr8]

Good old USA. Sue for whatever tiny little thing you can in the hope of making a dollar.

Fuel economy ratings are nothing but a guide, under laboratory conditions, using a complex series of formulas. They don't represent real world driving at all.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Fuel economy ratings are nothing but a guide, under laboratory conditions, using a complex series of formulas. They don't represent real world driving at all.

Yes...Why would they......LOL If they did resemble anything remotely accurate , it would shock everyone and create an even bigger rort around CO2 emissions than it already does.....

https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au...nsumptionLabel

So old mate in the USA loads up his "Truck" with extra load and drives around with his windows down and underinflated tyres increasing drag by 20% and then complains he aint getting the economy advertised...

I guess its a lesson for all manufacturers to reconsider what they print .

[CATXR8]

A female a few years ago took mazda to court in USA stating she couldn't get the fuel milage as stated.
She one.

[jpd80]

What a lot of these folks are forgetting is that when you stick those large FX4 wheels and tyres
on the utes, the fuel economy drops away. In the USA, Colorado ZR 2 is supplied with large wheels
and tires, the official highway mileage for the AWD is 18 mpg, so the fact that lots of AWD big wheeled
Rangers get 20-21 mpg instead of 24 mpg is still brilliant in comparison to Colorado ZR2.

Ecoboost I-4s are strange beasts, it doesn't take much pressure to "crowd" the throttle and induce
partial enrichment on cruise. A lot of these new Ranger owners are used to atmo V6s and I-4 engines
where pushing the throttle a bit won't result in the engine going rich/ partial boost and drinking fuel.

Not saying that this is the answer but there could be something to it if Ranger has a quick throttle "tip in".

[prydey]

Fuel economy ratings are so that consumers can compare reasonably accurately between brands. They all test to the same method (adr 81/02 in oz). This is currently under review I believe because consumers can't comprehend how it works or what it represents.

Perhaps manufacturers should market their vehicles using the urban cycle instead of the combined cycle.

[Franco Cozzo]

Every vehicle I've owned with fuel consumption averages in the odometer has been wrong, it's always optimistic by 500ml-1L/100km compared to calculating it manually with fuel put in and distance travelled.

It's the manufacturers fault anyway, if they did realistic tests rather than tests devised by some curly redheaded flog in a white coat and safety glasses in some hermetically sealed dungeon they'd probably save millions in legal fees getting sued every 5 minutes.

[GTLEGEND]

To have repeatability and consistency in a test it has to be done in controlled environment for each vehicle/engine to be tested in the exact same condition. The only way that can happen is in a lab and this will always be different and usually better than real world results. If you based it on driving the vehicle on roads, the results would vary too drastically. Cars tested in hot weather would have worse figures than those in cold etc etc. As stated below, the gov wants the test changed to be more real world, yet the testing the manufacturers do are those set by the governing body for ADR/Emissions, so its a bit contradicting on themselves. Most people don't understand that the sticker consumption is usually really unattainable on any vehicle in real world situations, but its the only way to be able to compare make against make and model against model.

I hope the person suing has good evidence to say Ford have a cheat device, because that is a bold statement to back up!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GTLEGEND

To have repeatability and consistency in a test it has to be done in controlled environment for each vehicle/engine to be tested in the exact same condition. The only way that can happen is in a lab and this will always be different and usually better than real world results. If you based it on driving the vehicle on roads, the results would vary too drastically. Cars tested in hot weather would have worse figures than those in cold etc etc. As stated below, the gov wants the test changed to be more real world, yet the testing the manufacturers do are those set by the governing body for ADR/Emissions, so its a bit contradicting on themselves. Most people don't understand that the sticker consumption is usually really unattainable on any vehicle in real world situations, but its the only way to be able to compare make against make and model against model.
!

Exactly. It's not that difficult to understand and really, it's the only way to do it.

To make it more 'real world', who decides what constitutes real world? Should it be Sydney peak hour? Or Melbourne peak hour? Summer or winter? Hilly or flat? How much weight in the vehicle? How many occupants? How do you make sure the results are comparable between different brands?

In a controlled environment is the only way to do it so that it's meaningful.

[EBSXR6]

Spot on Prydey. It is not complicated.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by EBSXR6

Spot on Prydey. It is not complicated.

Actually, its very complicated....

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012L01037


In reality - manufacturers should consider gathering data from all their service centres and publishing average consumption of particular models from data on 100+ different cars of the same model. Its not hard to record average fuel consumption on modern cars these days. Data from real world driving over different geographies. They should also have data from their test cars on each new model - right ? After all , they claim that they do hundreds of thousands of test Klm on each new model over varying conditions before release - during those test cycles they will also be gathering fuel economy data. You'd end up with average consumption over hundreds of thousand klms instead of 20 mins on a chassis dyno over 100Klm measured at optimum operating temp. Many people these days do not warm up their cars before peddling off from home to get to work. Start the car and boot off...... cold cycle running over short distances.

[Vesper Martini]

Who gets 1000 kms out of their Territory tank to visit all their facebook friends?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Who gets 1000 kms out of their Territory tank to visit all their facebook friends?

theoretically, I could. I don't do fb, so therefore I don't have to stop to visit anyone, and provided the road was reasonably flat for 1000km with a servo at each end, it's possible. I have achieved low 7's with a full car and 4 occupants, so empty car and driver only, i'd give it a serious nudge. The biggest issue in real life is the spacing of servo's. you have to fill where they are.

[ute83]

The wife and I do better than factory figures in all our cars for the last decade and a half for the type of driving we do. I understand that the manufacturers fuel consumption figures are for comparison only. I also understand that the way the throttle is used will determine your actual figures. People driving around in peak hour/peak day or joining in the traffic light grand prix can't expect to achieve those numbers.

[Vesper Martini]

There is no way I would ever average that not even close. it would have to be down hill doing 80 on the Hume.


whereas I sit on 113 and it does 9.5 to 10

[au2000]

Fuel consumption figures is the last thing I look at with a car, if I want a cheap runabout then buy the cheapest 4 cylinder you like, need to tow buy the best 4x4 or tow vehicle you like, want performance, same deal, only fools in my opinion put any real weight on economy figures and select a car based on that when buying a car after all, I don't drive in a lab in peak conditions

[LTDHO]

Americans do one of the things they are good at.

Suing others!

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by prydey

theoretically, I could. I don't do fb, so therefore I don't have to stop to visit anyone, and provided the road was reasonably flat for 1000km with a servo at each end, it's possible. I have achieved low 7's with a full car and 4 occupants, so empty car and driver only, i'd give it a serious nudge. The biggest issue in real life is the spacing of servo's. you have to fill where they are.

I'm with you prydey, we've been Melb to Adelaide and still had 250km in the tank but my Facebook friend list stretches to one if you don't count my daugter.... actually forgot I was on it until I checked a little used email account and found all these emails as I'd never re-opened the app on my phone.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Actually, its very complicated....

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012L01037


In reality - manufacturers should consider gathering data from all their service centres and publishing average consumption of particular models from data on 100+ different cars of the same model. Its not hard to record average fuel consumption on modern cars these days. Data from real world driving over different geographies. They should also have data from their test cars on each new model - right ? After all , they claim that they do hundreds of thousands of test Klm on each new model over varying conditions before release - during those test cycles they will also be gathering fuel economy data. You'd end up with average consumption over hundreds of thousand klms instead of 20 mins on a chassis dyno over 100Klm measured at optimum operating temp. Many people these days do not warm up their cars before peddling off from home to get to work. Start the car and boot off...... cold cycle running over short distances.

And here in lies the problem, how do you standardise a tsting cycle that was
begun in the early 1970s to test mostly carburettor vehicles that also had
completely different vehicle sizes, weights, transmissions and rear axle gear ratios.

The US has fallen into the trap of collecting data and trending it to previous
years without realising just how much gaming of tests is going on outside
of the parameters being tested. All CAFE considers is highway fuel consumption,
so hybrids don't have the big impact they they should. with say combined figures.

In the first ten years 1976 to 1986 the US doubled it corporate fleet average
for cars from 13.5 mpg to 27 mpg but then that went flat as they concentrated
on lowering emissions, now the swing is back on fuel economy.

[Bolly47]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Who gets 1000 kms out of their Territory tank to visit all their facebook friends?

My 2008 turbo territory got max 720 km on country highway and trying get 1000Km on on one tank however didnt make it .

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

LOL

My BF FPVGT was advertised and labelled as having an ADR Fuel Consumption: 15L/100km (combined cycle)

Im getting anywhere from 19 - 22L / 100

Should I sue ??

All in the usage I guess. I actually have a lower average fuel consumption in my SS than claimed. Driving to work and back it’ll sit on 11L/100km. But on my days off it’s 20+L/100km.

[babyf6]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

All in the usage I guess. I actually have a lower average fuel consumption in my SS than claimed. Driving to work and back it’ll sit on 11L/100km. But on my days off it’s 20+L/100km.

Well, Holden does have a tendency to overstate their figures.....

[Vesper Martini]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nl3OpRA674

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nl3OpRA674

It's a theoretical distance based on tank capacity and extra urban consumption, but it's not a stretch to achieve it in the real world. It's 7.5L/100km or 13.3km/L, which I can achieve in my car with 4 occupants and a rear full of luggage.

[thefargo]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Americans do one of the things they are good at.

Suing others!

Australians not far off either
https://www.abc2c.com.au/australia-c...eing-litigious

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by prydey

It's a theoretical distance based on tank capacity and extra urban consumption, but it's not a stretch to achieve it in the real world. It's 7.5L/100km or 13.3km/L, which I can achieve in my car with 4 occupants and a rear full of luggage.

I had the opportunity to drive on a flat freeway this morning without the usual carnage.

I set my cruise to 98, set that instant fuel readout.. I know its only a guide but only briefly did it drop below 7.5. as said above Id have to drive at 80 on a flat road to achieve an average in the 7's.

With the last couple of days traffic I'm averaging 10.2 now.

PS the stop-starts in that video would most certainly kill the odds of achieving such fuel economy.