By on July 23, 2019

Ford badge emblem logo

As if preordained to coincide with Ford’s announcement of its electric F-Series prototype, news of a class-action lawsuit accusing the automaker of falsified fuel economy tests surfaced last night. The suit, filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Seattle law firm Hagens Berman, asks $1.2 billion in damages for customers it claims are overspending on fuel.

The legal action piggybacks on the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of Ford’s testing procedures for the 2019 Ford Ranger in April. However, the civil suit also ropes in the F-Series — claiming that customers could spend upwards of two grand in gas they never budgeted for. 

“We did the math and based this lawsuit on our own independent research. Ford’s fuel economy promises are all smoke and mirrors,” Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, told the Detroit Free Press. “Ford’s lies about the F-150 are masking the truth: Consumers are paying far more for these trucks than meets the eye. Over the lifetime of the vehicle, we believe F-150 owners are paying more than $2,000 more for fuel.”

While the race to achieve desirable fuel-economy targets have encouraged many automakers to cut conners from time to time, Ford has yet to be proven guilty of flubbing its truck data. That said, it’s been getting slapped with some ugliness in regard to how it does its business of late. Earlier this month, we discussed an extremely critical report (also from the Free Press) outlining the way it handled issues with the DSP6 gearboxes that went into the Focus and Fiesta. While we sympathize with the problems the company was confronted with, it was the worst kind of publicity for an automaker.

The Detroit outlet said Ford spokesman T.R. Reid reported the automaker had not yet been served the filing as of Monday, adding “what was announced today appears to be similar to two other filings by the same law firm in the same court. I’d ask you not to confuse claims with merit.”

However the Free Press suggests there is merit to the civil suit:

On Feb. 21, 2019, Ford said its employees, through an anonymous reporting process, had raised concerns about the way Ford calculated road loads, which are used to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with vehicle miles per gallon ranges.

At that time Ford said it had begun an internal investigation into whether its vehicles have worse gas mileage and emit more pollutants than car, truck and SUV labels state, going back to 2017 models.

“Our investigation continues into how Ford estimates road load as part of the U.S. fuel economy and emissions certification process,” Kim Pittel, the company’s vice president of sustainability, environment and safety engineering, said at the time.

The anonymous report was made in September 2018.

The Department of Justice is focusing its efforts on exactly this, hoping to determine if Ford manipulated data or testing procedures — specifically via the intentional reduction of rolling resistance. According to the suit, plaintiffs conducted their own tests using EPA-mandated coastdown procedures and found that Ford overstated the fuel economy in its F-150 trucks by 15 percent for highway mileage and 10 percent for city mileage. But, as this is a civil suit seeking 1.2 billion in damages, it would be surprising to hear anything else.

That’s not to presume its research is phony, but the testing procedures will have to hold up under enhanced scrutiny to be taken seriously. Any truly damning evidence will likely come from the DOJ probe, however. That investigation is still ongoing but Ford has already said it “cannot provide assurance [the probe] will not have a material adverse effect” on the company. It’s currently cooperating with the Justice Department while continuing its own internal investigations into the possibility of incorrect mathematical calculations impacting the mileage and emissions data submitted to regulators.

 

[Image: Ford Motor Co.]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

70 Comments on “Billion-dollar Lawsuit Accuses Ford of Falsifying Pickup Fuel Economy...”


  • avatar
    ravenuer

    Blah blah blah blah blah….All lawyer cwap. People aren’t getting the gas mileage “they budgeted for”? If you have to “budget” for your gas, don’t buy a pickup truck! A used Corolla perhaps.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Yeah. I’m pretty peeved at Ford for their DCT shenanigans, but this is silly. $2000 over the life of the vehicle is what, a hundred bucks a year? Who budgets that tightly and buys a $30,000+(+++) truck? Looks like a class-action money grab by the lawyers, they’ll rake in millions and actual customers will get a Happy Meal coupon.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Misrepresentation of a vehicle’s specifications (whether intentional or accidental) makes the government unhappy. VW, Ram, and others are experiencing that now.

        Customer satisfaction and affordability is a moot question.

        As for any potential settlement, Hyundai customers received some decent settlement money for its mis-stated fuel economy figures a few years ago.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Being that the Government has limited resources, they are dependent on the manufacturer data. The solution for this is easy. If (and has to be proven so) the manufacturer willfully lies, make the penalty so exorbitant they won’t take the chance. You see these “$20M in penalties” in the news and think wow, they took it on the chin…well, if lying saved the company $60M and they got dinged for $20M, the boardroom is fine with that. Good ‘Merican business. Screw that. If the charges are real blast them so they bleed and it won’t happen again. Problem solved.

          • 0 avatar
            JoeBrick

            @GoldenShowers- “The government has limited resources.” Limited only by the amounts of money that they can STEAL from the citizens- which is EVERYTHING.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @JoeBrick:
            Taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

            It’s a real cost, but you can get a lot of value for your money, too.

            Our obsession with reducing taxes (regardless of the value of services provided to the taxpayer) is rapidly turning the USA into a 3rd world country, except for a few bright spots (mostly in large cities).

            But, this slide into 3rd world poverty for most Americans is currently unstoppable because your guys are currently coming out on top in the ballot box.

            But, seriously, next time someone talks about taxes ask yourself about value for money “stolen”. You’ll find that the USA isn’t doing so well there, either (countries like Canada provide way more value to their citizens per dollar “stolen”). If you understand this model (I’m NOT asking you to agree with it, just to understand it), then you’ll be able to understand why sometimes people like me in favor of tax & spend — and sometimes we’re not. It’s all about value to the average person per dollar of tax “stolen”.

  • avatar
    rpn453

    If they falsified data to gain a competitive advantage they deserve to be punished.

    However, I suspect that the problem is with the testing procedure rather than Ford itself. Consumers should have been made aware that smaller turbo engines will only have an advantage if you never accelerate hard enough to work the turbo.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “…15 percent for highway mileage and 10 percent for city mileage”

    Those are big discrepancies which should be verifiable through rigorous testing and statistical study.

    Emperical testimony from Ecoboost owners and test reviewers indicates that their fuel economy is less than expected.

    But let’s not forget that the EPA test protocols are not in step with real driving conditions, even after the 2008 adjustment to them. I’ll assume the law firm didn’t just drive an F-150 at 75 mph, declare it to be a gas hog, and then filed a knowingly frivolous lawsuit.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      ” I’ll assume the law firm didn’t just drive an F-150 at 75 mph, declare it to be a gas hog, and then filed a knowingly frivolous lawsuit.”

      Well we are talking about lawyers looking to make a buck no matter how you slice it, however they claim to have done coast down testing by the EPA procedure and claim that Ford’s numbers were wrong. However I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion as that is not something an automaker makes public.

      You are correct that the testing regimin has not changed since it was developed in 1975 when the speed limit was 55mph and the hwy test just gets to that speed for a short portion of the test. The majority of it is done at 50mph or less. So yeah you are not going to get the advertised mpg at the 75mph that is common on the interstate in many parts of the country.

    • 0 avatar
      SirRaoulDuke

      I am sure there are technical engineering stuff to answer the question for the money-grubbing lawyers.

      What I can tell you from my experience is that Ecoboost power is addicting. There is no way I could own one of these and hit the city MPG rating, because I would be playing ride the torque wave all day long.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Your mileage may vary. You’ll also be using ethanol mixed fuel, and the EPA test requires non-ethanol fuel. The EPA test requires a lot of things that make the EPA mileage far from the real world, but generous enough that automakers don’t squawk over the stringent standards. But automakers can only use EPA mileage figures in advertising, for comparison purposes.

        IOW, no connection to the real world of available fuel and normal driving habits. The lawyers know it, but unless the judge is savvy enough to throw out the lawsuit, they’ll take their chances with a low-information jury delivering a big award.

    • 0 avatar
      NG5

      What’s more, this unusual disdain for class actions seems to be in defense of Ford, who is in the midst of a widely-known scandal involving defrauding millions of working people by knowingly selling them faulty transmissions. I have no empathy for a giant corporation that sells a vehicle which misrepresents its performance _under the manufacturer’s specified testing conditions_. They already can design those testing conditions to be misleading of what one actually gets. There are many commenters suggesting that this class action lawsuit will be based on disgruntled gas hogs’ personal driving styles, but I don’t think that would hold water at all. This is likely an estimation question at a fleet level, and should be easy to prove. If you filed a case of this magnitude which could be proven in roughly a weekend of instrumented testing, you are probably expecting a quick settlement if you’ve done it before and have the experts around to do this kind of litigation regularly.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    As some one who obsesses over fuel economy, I can tell you it’s very difficult to accurately determine fuel economy for a specific trip, or specific circumstances. MPG computers are (now) close, but not totally accurate–99% is 0.3 mpg of 30 mph.

    Topping off the tank introduces variables at the filling process.

    Now, ask me what my mpg is for the month or year, and that will be pretty accurate, PRESUMING the pumps are accurate, since the variation is only between the first and last fill-up, spread out over several fill-ups.

    So, what’s an 0.3 mpg among friends? People don’t buy trucks for fuel economy. So, we do our lab test, and we get 17.4 mpg. That’s so tantalizingly close to 17.5, which is 18mpg on the window, which is 6% better than 17mpg. Let’s redo it….. Oops, it’s 17.2 mpg now…oh, you must have made a mistake, my dear subordinate. Try again, you’re missing something. 17.3 mpg boss. Did you check? Try again? 17.6 mpg boss? Are you sure? Well, we had 3 tests? Well, just be sure you can document this one, since after 3 tries, I’m sure you did a more precise job. OK boss, it’s 17.6. Good. Put 18 on the window sticker.

    Now, does CAFE go with 17.6 mpg? 18mpg? I actually think CAFE uses the 1970s formula—the same one that gave our Fairmont 38mpg highway (I’m not making this up). So, 17.6 mpg might translate to 30% more. So, telling EPA 17.7 mpg, vs 17.2 mpg, is about 0.67 mpg more, and that could be the difference between million in CAFE Fines, vs selling more and more optioned trucks generating million in profits.

    And mpg is so hard to measure. The winds. Gravity. Outdoor temp. Road condition. Front end aligment. So many variables. Socrates said, “what is truth?” Ford (and everyone else say), “what is mpg?” So, what’s 0.3 mpg among friends? It is what it is, unless you are caught with a big discrepancy. What is big? LOL

    This whole CAFE thing is a joke. Just tax fuel. Dedicate the money to fixing the roads AND funding our military operations in the middle east. Problem solved. People can read Consumer Reports for fuel consumption numbers, the carmakers use their bright engineers to actually improve efficiency, rather than game the system.

    Lots of pressure to crank up the numbers, to pay the Ford Family, and Mr. Hackett’s bonues, ditto FCA and GM across town….

    Now, a $30k F-150 is a bargain.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      You’ve described how *you* measure fuel economy, but that’s not how the EPA does it, or how they mandate mfrs do it when they self-report.

      Test protocols and statistics will rule the day here. A multitude of instrumented tests will be run, and expert third-party statisticians and engineers will be brought in to review the data and declare their findings. Variables will be considered and weighed in the calculations. This is how you tease out differences between targets and actual performance. It won’t be a bunch of dudes driving around Dearborn with gas cards and hand calculators.

      And BTW, IIRC the EPA test protocol was last updated in 2008 to more accurately reflect actual driving, but it isn’t realistic enough. For example, the highway test uses an average speed of 48 mph.

      • 0 avatar
        tomLU86

        I realize the EPA-mandated procedure is different. They have a cycle and analyze exhaust emissions.

        It’s best viewed as a comparative tool. The American carmakers were the first to try to ‘game’ the cycle–hence our 1980 Ford Fairmont, 23/38 mpg.

        My point was simply that, the intense pressure and massive sums involved push automakers to push the envelope for that extra mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      cprescott

      I agree with most of your points – I laugh when Motor Trend has their own gimmick of measuring fuel economy and it claims 75 mph as “highway speeds”. I don’t know where that has ever been the standard of highway speed since that already knocks off between 5-10% of highway economy right now; and since the EPA does not measure any vehicle (manufacturer self test) going through any wind at all, Motor Trend is fabricating MPG failure stories when they don’t exist at all. And if you drive that fast, you are costing yourself big time.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        In most of the country driving 75 in a highway will get you ran over, on roads with 75 – 80 MPH speed limits you may even get pulled over for suspicious behavior. Highway tests should be done at 80MPH to accurately reflect real world driving.

        Doesn’t matter if it impacts mileage, if it’s the speed most motorist drive on the highway it’s the speed that should be tested.

        • 0 avatar
          redapple

          STUPID QUESTION HERE.

          EPA TEST CYCLE IS ON 100% PURE GAS.

          WE PLEB SCUM SUBJECTS TO THE IMPERIAL FEDERAL A HOLES MUST USE EVIL 10 % ETHANOL >>>> WHICH KNOCKS YOU MPG DOWN BY ABOUT 4-6%.

          DOES THIS ENTER IN THE ARGUMENT>?

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Probably not, but you know there is pressure right now to allow even more ethanol in fuel. Being somebody way up high wants to ameliorate the cost of certain tariffs to Big Ag, it is likely to happen….

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            Between that and Iowa being first in the primary cycle, thus compelling candidates to pander for better than a year to the “real Americans” living there, the ethanol mandate will never be reduced.

            Continuing on the insane path of burning food as inefficient fuel is possibly the only thing that could get me excited for an electric car.

          • 0 avatar
            tomLU86

            Question for Redapple–and commentariat, please.

            I thought BP and Mobil gasoline does not have ethanol. Others say that all fuel is the same, “it’s from the same wholesaler”

            I purposely buy BP or Mobil 93 for my 86 GTI because premium was ‘recommended but not required’ and also to minimize ethanol.

            Does BP and Mobil have ethanol like, say, Sunoco?

            I know Costco does, so I have stopped using Costco premium (even though it costs much less, I drive this car barely 1000 miles a year).

            Thanks

          • 0 avatar
            Matt51

            You can do a web search for a list of the gas stations that sell pure gasoline. There are very few stations that sell pure gas, and it is expensive. So you have been buying a gas/alcohol blend.

            Then there is “top tier” gasoline. Do a web search, and you will see which companies offer top tier gasoline – such as Shell, BP, Marathon and Citgo. An extra cleaning package is added to their gas, and magazine reviews demonstrate it is well worth it.

          • 0 avatar
            tankinbeans

            TomLU, I think it depends on the state. In Minnesota it’s mostly Kwik Trip and Holiday stations who offer non-ethanol fuel in 91, our highest grade. I’ve seen some Marathon stations and a couple Super Americas offering the same, but not nearly as frequently.

            We have an ethanol mandate in our state so there’s usually a “warning” that the non-ethanol is for collector cars, small engines and some other such nonsense. Also, we get the notice that E0 is for flex fuel vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Yes the test is mandated on 100% pure unadulterated “top tier” gas. So yeah those of us that are forced to use E10 are going to get lower fuel economy.

            To Tom, it all depends on your area, many states do have ethanol content mandates. Some are E10 all across the board, some have exemptions for premium, some have exemptions for premium put in classic cars.

            Others like my state have a minimum average content so 100% pure gas is legal in all grades and if they sold enough E85 regular gas would not need any.

            However that doesn’t mean it is easy to get pure gas in my state since the distribution system is shared with OR that has a 10% mandate. That means all the refineries along the pipeline inject sub-octane (85) to be blended with 10% Ethanol for 87, or mid grade to turn into premium with it’s dose of alcohol.

            What I can get in my state seems to all come from the Conoco refinery in Montana, not from the big players in WA and OR.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      How CAFE and sticker numbers are not the same. CAFE and emissions compliance is the same 2 tests they have been doing since 1975. The sticker numbers on the other hand have a correction factor that is a gov’t mandated formula, which has been updated twice and they have added another test that is factored into the sticker numbers.

      The actual dyno testing is very tightly controlled. There are very specific speeds, acceleration and deceleration rates that must be strictly adhered to. Take a little too long accelerating from a stop to 30 mph, abort the test and start over.

  • avatar
    Matt51

    Of course, if the lawyers get rich here, they will go after the others. The lawyers will go where the money is, per Willie Sutton ” Willie Sutton, who reputedly replied to a reporter’s inquiry as to why he robbed banks by saying “because that’s where the money is.”

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “if the lawyers get rich here”

      Edit: “if there is a finding of wrongdoing here”

      Fixed it for you.

      By the way, everyone hates on the lawyers making money until the people in the class receive a check for their work. We need watchdogs like this.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        Yeah the lawyers make millions, the “class” gets a $20 coupon. Seems like a good deal for the class.

        Look at the Equifax settlement. Lawyers get 300 million. I get free credit monitoring for a few years max. It doesn’t matter that hackers might have social security numbers for half the country, and your number might not used be an identity thief for decades.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Agreed, the masses get screwed on class-actions. But it is still better to extract big dollars out of those who do wrong than to do nothing at all…

        • 0 avatar
          brn

          I’m with MBella. I was involved in a class action lawsuit, where I was out tens of thousands of dollars. They were found guilty. My class action settlement? Eleven dollars! I’m sure the lawfirm got a hundred million.

          The system is broken. Who creates the laws for the broken system? Primarily lawyers. Coincidence?

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m saddened by the hate on the lawyers here. They perform a valuable service for the rest of us, namely prosecution of criminals.

    How would you like it if TTAC reported the following, assuming it’s proven:
    “Ford Knowingly Falsified MPG Ratings – EPA Judge Says It’s OK Because Anyone Buying a $40k Pickup Knows What They’re Getting Into”?

    or:
    “House Thieves Set Free – Judge Says Homeowners Could Afford the Loss”?

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      The hate is because it’s an obvious money grab, similar to most class action lawsuits. It’s way past time for the so-called English rule that the rest of the world uses. If you sue somebody and lose, you pay their legal fees.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        “If you sue somebody and lose, you pay their legal fees.”

        No argument there.

        I’m just not as certain that this is a frivolous lawsuit. Asking $1 billion is what makes people jump to this conclusion, but that figure is a product of doing the math. Suing Fiat for a similar infraction would produce a much lower figure simply because nobody buys their cars.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Not so sure about “no argument there”. It is not uncommon for those with deep pockets to be able to rig the legal system against those who have modest means. So what should be a slam dunk could become a disaster for the person who filed a legitimate suit. This “make the loser pay” mindset just pushes the legal system even further out from the reach of average people. Just like the “forced arbitration” BS that the masses are being saddled with. Won’t somebody think of the middle class for once? Why is every damn thing written to benefit those who need it the least? Nothing wrong with getting rich, but the rules shouldn’t be rigged in their favor.

    • 0 avatar
      JoeBrick

      @SCE- “I’m saddened by the hate on the lawyers here”. It’s a classic case of 99.9999% of the lawyers giving the other ones a bad name.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      I’m saddened by the hate on the lawyers here. They perform a valuable service for the rest of us, namely prosecution of criminals.

      How would you like it if TTAC reported the following, assuming it’s proven:
      “Ford Knowingly Falsified MPG Ratings – EPA Judge Says It’s OK Because Anyone Buying a $40k Pickup Knows What They’re Getting Into”?

      or:
      “House Thieves Set Free – Judge Says Homeowners Could Afford the Loss”?

      ——————————————————————

      Ambulance chasers don’t prosecute criminals. District attorneys do. Over the past few years, George Soros has dumped millions into electing district attorneys who won’t enforce a laundry list of laws, including decarceration of property criminals, so good luck with being a robbed homeowner looking for justice.

      Lawyers have a system built by and for them with an utter contempt for people who actually create anything of value. They don’t get to be respected too.

  • avatar
    cprescott

    I have no dog in this hunt as I am an ex-Ford-fanboi – divorcing said company after 38 Ford only exclusive ownership years. I abandoned this company after they abandoned my vehicle of choice – a small, affordable car.

    I can say, in general, if you cannot hit the EPA mileage, it is YOUR fault. If you think you can drive a turbo engined product the same as you do a non-aspirated vehicle, you are an idiot. As someone who has a long history of beating the EPA mileage out of every product I have driven (and I’m no hypermiler), I can say that if you exceed the speed limit, you are a clown – you are costing yourself dearly. If you make lots of short trips and don’t batch them together, you are an idiot. And if you race to stoplights and take off like the start of a NASCAR race, you are an idiot. And if you don’t bother to check your tire pressure, you are an idiot. Those things will impact your mileage significantly enough for you to miss mileage sticker claims.

    I’m sorry – this is a frivilous lawsuit – Right now I am besting my 2016 Hyundai mileage (measured by miles traveled divided by gallons actually pumped into the tank) by a good 8 mpgs EVERY tank. I had to learn how to shift my car into its best mileage (and you have to learn an automatic’s sweet points since I could get a Lincoln Town Car to average 28 mpgs getting it into 4th as quickly as possible).

    Fools.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “And if you race to stoplights and take off like the start of a NASCAR race, you are an idiot.”

      I can afford it and I’ve been called worse.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      Life’s too short, man.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Someone’s grumpy, I see.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      To each their own. That being said, I’m not going to sue a manufacturer because my more aggressive driving style doesn’t achieve EPA targets.

    • 0 avatar
      tankinbeans

      I’ve only ever kept track of combined mileage since I can’t estimate with any great degree of accuracy my percentage of time driving city versus highway. Generally in the 4 cylinder vehicles I’ve had I can beat the combined estimate, but in the V6 equipped vehicles I cannot.

      The handy dandy mileage graph in my Mazda has helped me adjust my driving style slightly, have gotten it up to an indicated 45 mpg on a 100 mile trip. The calculated average over that entire weekend was a hair under 40. I’d say it’s doing pretty good.

      Of course I vacillate back and forth between E0 and E10. Thay throws the numbers slightly. Over the 27k miles I’ve track my average is 30.7.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    “I’d ask you not to confuse claims with merit” – that reminds me of my last performance review (both sides of the table).

    Newsflash:
    – Automakers game fuel efficiency ratings
    – Attorneys, spokespeople and the DOJ all shade the truth as convenient

  • avatar
    JoeBrick

    First, we should kill all the lawyers…

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      …and then resurrect them once we need them.

      Everyone hates attorneys until they become useful.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        The ‘become useful’ by other lawyers creating your need for one.

        • 0 avatar
          JoeBrick

          The ‘legal’ profession translates plain English into Legalese, and gets paid to do so. They then translate Legalese into obscure English, and get paid to do so.They then translate the obscure English into plain English, and get paid to do so.
          They also make legal contracts for you, and get paid to do so. They also break legal contracts for you, and get paid to do so.
          They also write laws that are never read, and guess what ? They are paid to do so. Then they make the police enforce those laws. Then some of them prosecute the people arrested for violating those laws. And some of them defend those arrested for violating those laws. Some of them judge and sentence those who break those laws, then some of them appeal the convictions of those who were found guilty of breaking those laws. They pass so many laws that the average citizen violates 3 felony laws per day, on average, without intending to or even knowing that they did so. No one knows how many laws there are in the United States. Apparently, no one can count that high.There are about 20,000 laws just governing the use and ownership of guns.New laws mean new crimes. From the start of 2000 through 2007, Congress had created at least 452 new crimes, so that at that time the total number of Federal crimes exceeded 4,450. Shakespeare was right. How many lawyers do we really need ? I think that a half a dozen would be a plenty.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          And one of the most prodigious users of lawyers (actual lawyers that is and not “fixers” – tho he used one of those as well) is the Oran”genius.”

          And when he doesn’t sue (or hire lawyers to defend against multitudes of lawsuits, he threatens to do so.

          Basically how he scams small business owners and contractors who have done work.

          Claims that they did a “shoddy” job and thus, will pay only a portion of the agreed upon amount and if they don’t like that, that they can just go ahead and sue him.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I doubt this will go far.

    This is the key problem with the Mulroney sticker and EPA MPG numbers on turbo charged vehicles.

    If you’re driving your F-150 as a commuter in suburban traffic and not driving it like it is stolen, congrats, you’re probably getting better than EPA Mulroney numbers.

    If you’re carrying cargo, stop and go and spooling that turbo, steep terrain, towing a trailer, basically if you’re using the truck as a truck, you’re probably not even coming close.

    The test cycle assumes a conservative driving style. The numbers are probably spot on within the nirvana of the testing model, but in the rear world to get those published numbers, you need to add boost, which means using the skinny pedal more.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “The numbers are probably spot on within the nirvana of the testing model”

      That’s the only question that needs to be answered via this lawsuit.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Exactly. There is merit when it comes to the question of MPG and forced induction in a truck. If you’re using it as a truck and you’re sensitive to the price at the pump, there is still no replacement for displacement.

        The GM 6.2L V8 as I’ve read, and I will point to TTACs owns Jack Baruth, gets practically the same MPG when empty and when hauling 5000 pounds.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Good. I hope Ford has to pay through the nose.

    They are the most dishonest company on the face of the planet.

  • avatar
    redgolf

    Geez, I thought GM and Chrysler were the “dishonest companies” ya know for taking the buy outs! Now Ford is the big liar? Trying to link up with VW to build vans and trucks, as if VW is a truthful company!

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Isn’t this the same slip-and-fall lawyer that sues everybody over fuel economy and emissions?

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    It amazed me how many ignorant people have commented on this article that believe this is solely about Ford trucks not hitting their claimed fuel economy numbers.

    Do you people have reading issues or is this a bit?

    Here are the facts, try and keep up:

    1. Ford sells a lot of trucks

    2. Ford, for years, has made grandiose claims that their trucks get great fuel economy as evidenced by the numbers submitted to the EPA.

    3. Ford has used those fuel economy figures in their ads to sell said trucks.

    4. Recently, Ford ADMITTED to the feds that, with the Ranger, they did not calculate road load correctly and is going to investigate internally.

    Here is what a reasonable person can assume:

    1. That the fuel economy error is NOT in the customers favor

    2. That other trucks most certainly used the same road resistant calculations and thus have fraudulent fuel economy numbers too.

    3. This affects more than just the gas guzzling “Eco”Bust engines. It involves every engine put into a Ford truck.

    ———————————————

    This is not about simply “your mileage will vary”. Everyone knows your mileage will vary. This is about testing products improperly resulting in fuel economy results that are not accurate which lead to misleading ads, and misleading consumers. It also gave Ford a massive advantage over the (better) competition.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed.

      However, I’m not sure the alleged shenanigans gave Ford a massive advantage over the competition. Most of the posters here figure pickup truck buyers don’t care about fuel economy. My point is this: how many fewer trucks would Ford have sold if they achieved 2 mpg less?

  • avatar
    redgolf

    Yeah, just like the fraudulent test VW did with their diesels! (known as DIESELGATE ) Understood !

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    One other issue that effects all the truck-makers is they get to choose their ‘representative sample’ and this goes for all trucks. The manufacturer tests a 6.2 or a hemi or an ecoboost or whatever but it has a 3.21 diff and highway tires. Then the buyer buys an FX4/rebel/AT4 because they look cooler, so already off to a bad start. I’ve personally experienced where tire tread alone can be worth 10% on a truck.

    But it does seem that most ecoboost engines fall shorter of the mark than the NA products.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      When I swapped out the rubber on my 2017 Lacrosse my fuel economy dropped. The ride and handling is much better than the stock Contientials but I don’t hit the number now.

  • avatar
    86er

    First comment: what do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

    Second comment: isn’t the addition of turbos how Ford games the EPA tests in the first place?

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Oh noes! Another Ecoboost Ford product that doesn’t live up to its mileage ratings. And its comical how a base short cab model with base gearing and the smallest tires is rated the same mileage by the crooked EPA as a 4 door model wearing massive 20 or 22″ rubber and numerically higher gears. Their is no way in hell the 2 get the same mileage!

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Matt51, tankinbeans, scottdude, thanks for your inputs.

    I did a search for top tier gas stations in the Detroit area. Nearest me, I found a Sunoco station I know well–but the pump say 10% ethanol! I also found Marathon, which I don’t use normally.

    So maybe I should use Costco premium, since BP and Mobil have ethanol.

    What’s interesting is that my 86 GTI’s mileage seems to have dropped in the past 10 years. I attributed this to maybe driving it less, maybe the engine just isn’t as good at GTI number one (which I sold at 144k miles in 1999). But now, I’m thinking, it might be that the gas has changed…

    Anyway, thanks for your comments. As my time and motivation allows, I’ll do some more checking into this.

  • avatar
    Matt51

    Tom,
    top tier refers to an added cleaning package. It still has ethanol.
    https://toptiergas.com/licensed-brands/

    For no ethanol gas locations:
    https://www.pure-gas.org/


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToddAtlasF1: The mushroom treatment really suits you.
  • kjs: As far as design, I quite like all of Buick’s current lineup, excluding the Envision and Encore. The one glaring...
  • redgolf: After talking to an insider friend of mine last night who works at the Smyrna, Tn plant, not any word on...
  • ToddAtlasF1: Your problem is one of reading comprehension. My post quite clearly says that Buick is a nightmare...
  • Daniel J: I test drove both the TourX and Sportback last year when was shopping to replace my 2010 Mazda 6. Both were...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States