Ford C-Max Hybrid gas mileage revised. EPA to update rules industrywide.

Ford is the latest in a string of auto companies that have scaled back mileage claims, after customers complained that the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid did not live up to its fuel economy label.

Seth Perlman/AP/File
A motorist puts fuel in his car's gas tank at a service station in Springfield, Ill. Ford is the latest in a string of auto companies that have scaled back mileage claims, after customers complained that the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid did not live up to its label values of 47 miles per gallon.

Cars are not what they were 40 years ago, but some gas-mileage rules are.

That has prompted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rethink how it rates the fuel economy of new cars. Traditionally, the EPA has allowed companies to use the same fuel-economy rating for cars with the same engine, transmission, and weight class.

But today's highly efficient hybrid cars are more sensitive to minor design differences, even when the core of the car is virtually identical. That can cause discrepancies between estimated and actual mileages, which rankle consumers looking to save on gas costs.

Ford is the latest in a string of auto companies that have scaled back mileage claims. It acted after customers complained that the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid did not live up to its label values of 47 miles per gallon (m.p.g.) for combined highway and city driving.

Ford based its rating for the C-Max on the test done for the Ford Fusion Hybrid, which has the same engine, transmission, and test weight. But the C-Max has a bulkier design than the Fusion, analysts said, which could account for the difference in their actual mileages.  

EPA announced Thursday it would revise that number down to 43 m.p.g. combined. Ford is voluntarily revising its labels and refunding $550 to customers who have purchased the vehicle.

“This is yet another sign that real-world fuel economy has to match manufacturers’ claims,” Karl Brauer, senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book, said in an e-mailed statement. “Ford isn’t the first automaker to run into trouble here, but with today’s heightened level of accountability, maybe they’ll be the last.”

Last November, automakers Kia and Hyundai revised mileage claims on about 900,000 vehicles combined after the EPA announced it was investigating overstated mileage claims. Label values were revised downward by an average of 3 percent – from 27 to 26 mpg. 

Fuel economy ratings have taken on greater significance as automakers increasingly compete to satisfy federal efficiency standards and appeal to eco-friendly, budget-constrained car buyers. There's been pressure on EPA to revise the standards, analysts said, and the agency announced Thursday it "will be working with consumer advocates, environmental organizations and auto manufacturers, to propose revised fuel economy labeling regulations to ensure that consumers are consistently given the accurate fuel economy information on which they have come to rely."

It's unclear how or when to expect changes to gas-mileage labels, but it could one day lead to "one set of tests for cars with pure internal combustion engines and another set of tests for hybrids and all-electrics," said John O'Dell, senior editor for fuel efficiency and green cars at, a car-shopping website based in Santa Monica, Calif.

"They're trying to do it all with one test cycle and you just can’t," Mr. O'Dell added in a telephone interview.

Even with a perfect system, analysts stressed that there will always be discrepancies between how a car performs on the test track and in the real world. Fuel-economy ratings serve as a good benchmark for comparing between vehicles, but drivers shouldn't be surprised if expectations aren't always met. 

"The EPA rating has become sort of a gospel," O'Dell said. "It’s not gospel, but we’re tending to look at it as gospel."  

Weather, road conditions, tire pressure, and a host of other factors can significantly affect the efficiency of a car. One of the most important variables is how aggressive a person drives, analysts said.

"Drivers can control their fuel economy by accelerating a little more slowly and taking their foot off the gas sooner, rather than braking early," John Nielsen, managing director of engineering at national auto club AAA, said in a telephone interview. "It adds up to big savings."  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Energy: Transportation is the second-most energy intensive sector in the US, behind electric power.  

Environment: More efficient cars and driving behavior can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to