Ford is hoping 6,700 free miles, or thereabouts, will allay some dissatisfied C-Max Hybrid buyers. The automaker said in August that it would send out rebate checks after it had to lower its fuel economy rating on much-hyped model has now started making good on that promise, Automotive News reports. Have you gotten yours?

The Blue Oval cut $550 checks for C-Max buyers and $325 checks for those who leased the newer model. Do that math, and that $550 buys about 157 gallons of gas (using AAA's current average gas price estimate of about $3.50). With the C-Max hybrid now rated at 43 miles per gallon, that fuel buys about 6,700 miles of driving, or about six months for a typical American. Of course, it's that 43 mpg rating that got Ford into trouble in the first place. Ford had originally rated the C-Max Hybrid at 47 mpg combined before bringing that figure down by four mpg in August. Ford estimated then that it would send checks out to about 32,000 C-Max owners and lessees.

During Autoblog's week-long review of the C-Max this spring, the car averaged about 36 mpg. Ford says its put software improvements in some of the cars in order to boost fuel economy and is making engineering improvements in the 2014 model-year edition to further increase gas mileage.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 12 Comments
      NL
      • 2 Days Ago
      We test drove the C-Max when it first came out and liked it, with some reservations about cheap fabric seats, non-flat load floor and confusing electronics. But the real turn-off was the fuel mileage. We decided to wait until fuelly.com showed enough real-world fuel economy numbers to validate the 47mpg claims. Oops. We might reconsider if they really have worked some of the efficiency kinks out going forward.
      Ryan
      • 2 Days Ago
      They should have bought the Energi model and get an actual mpg for daily driving around town that is much higher.
      paulwesterberg
      • 2 Days Ago
      The resale value of their vehicles is likely to be somewhat lower now. So they are not exactly laughing all the way to the bank.
      DaveMart
      • 2 Days Ago
      Mea Max-ima Culpa?
      Technoir
      • 2 Days Ago
      This proves once again that industry REGULATION is needed. If you let any corporation or industry sector cheat, it will cheat. The beast always looks for a shortcut, it's nature's laws. If you allow automakers test their own fuel efficiency, guess what, they'll give you the highest number they achieved. If you allow Wall St to rip everyone off, then guess what.........
        Actionable Mango
        • 2 Days Ago
        @Technoir
        Your response is really ironic because it was an EPA regulation that allowed Ford to come up with the original inflated number in the first place. EPA rules state that automakers can use the same fuel economy numbers for similar-size vehicles equipped with the same engines and transmissions. EPA states that you have to test only the biggest-selling model in a specific category. So, Ford tested the Fusion sedan (because it was the top seller in the category), and then, due to EPA rules, applied the same 47 mpg that the Fusion achieved to the C-MAX. The fact is EPA had that rule since the 1970's to reduce the burden on automakers from repetitive testing, and save consumers from associated costs. The EPA rule has worked well for 35 years, and now that we see signs of a problem, EPA is fixing the rule. Everything is working fine. I'd also point out that EPA MPG rules result in US figures that are much more accurate than, say, Europe, where the test cycle is unrealistically generous despite Europe's reputation for excessive regulation.
        JJ
        • 2 Days Ago
        @Technoir
        Does not prove anything. Toyota pointing out bad real life MPG of C-Max in a TV add would have had the same effect.
        Levine Levine
        • 2 Days Ago
        @Technoir
        Private business sectors have been regulating various industry without the costly and corrupt government bureaucrats. Big Government would have people believing Big Government regulations are the answer. The fact is that most people are ignorant of the important regulatory functions of UL, ANSI, ASTM, IAMPO, IEEE, ASCE, ASME, ACI, ASI, API, AMA, ABA, and others. Nevertheless, consumers have benefited from these private regulatory organizations and their respective industries.
      ANDY
      • 2 Days Ago
      Not only did I receive $550 in the mail today, BUt, FORD installed new fuel managment software several weeks ago. My avg. milage is now 44 to 46 mpg vs. original 40 to 42 mpg. It should be noted I do try to be a conservative driver. I do NOT hyper-mile and put forth a special effort not to infuriate the folks around me.
      Jimmy
      • 2 Days Ago
      I have a C-Max and never got a rebait check. I would never buy another one. In fack I am thinking about going back to GM after being gone since 1979.
      SteveG
      • 2 Days Ago
      I would be pissed. They were sold a car that could do X and now they get a measly $550 and a car that can't?
      • 2 Days Ago
      Do Not buy/lease this car. One of my considerations when leasing this car was its expected 47 mpg. Lucky if I get 37. $325 big deal. I have an app that is counting down the return date of my lease. Car rattles. Ford dealership "we tightened everything" but can fix it till the part breaks. Oh and the flat tire...NO spare.. Road side assistance..Tow to ford..Oh wait when the tow truck arrived, cant tow that mam, going to send another truck, needs to be flatbedded back to ford.. Yes thats ok late a night, I get the car tomorrow. Call Ford next day. Will car be ready for pick up by 5pm( yes the next day) for the flat. Not sure its a warranty item. Yeah so..FIX it then. Car clock hasn't kept the right time since I got the car. Time changes when ever. Multiple recalls on this car. NOT worth the driving experience. 598 days left to return the car. Can't be soon enough