baltimorebadger

I don't think stop/start will affect your remote start uses. The system monitors both the engine temperature and the climate control before deciding to turn off. So if the cabin's much colder than what the climate control is set to, the system will not turn off. Same is true for the summer, if the cabin's much warmer than the temp, the car will keep running so the A/C stays on. Also, I have yet to see the car have stop/start kick in while the car is in park. If the car is in drive and the engine off (stop/start engaged), if I shift to park the engine turns back on. So either it does that by design or I've never left the car in park with conditions that merit stop/start kicking in.

I'm pretty skeptical of Ford's claim saying driver's could save $1000 in five years. Using my back of the napkin math and today's gas prices, I estimate the stop/start would have to have turned the engine off for 30 minutes a day. $1000 of savings in five years is possible, but most people won't save that much and if they do they'd be much suited by a full hybrid. Another thing, the $295 option on the Fusion included the active-grille shutters and the under body molding. So the start/stop system just by itself should be less than that. Make it a standard feature on all the cars and the economy of scale should push the price down further.

On the 2013 Fusion, there's a defeat switch right next to the gear selector that can turn it off. Useful if you're in heavy stop and go traffic. Typically I try to drive it like a manual - crawl along so I never come to a complete stop, then if I do stop, remain stopped for as long as is reasonable. If that's not possible then hit the defeat button and just keep the car on. The start/stop can be turned off all the time by going through the driver's menu options.

For looks my favorite mustang would be a triple black - '67 convertible. That car just looks sharp and I love the way the chrome accents looks against the black paint. Now favorite for sound, that belongs to the 2012 Boss 302.

We're saying the same thing now.

You're cutting the disclaimer text short. The full text is: "However, dedicated alternative-fuel vehicles, dual fuel vehicles when operating on alternative fuel, and MDPVs may use the derived 5-cycle method for determining fuel economy labels for 2011 and later model years whether or not the criteria provided in this section are met." All the car manufacturers can still use the derived 5-cycle results but only if they meet the required criteria. The alternate fuel vehicles can use the derived numbers but don't have to meet the criteria. In 2012 only 14% of car models used the 5-cycle test, the rest used the derived 5-cycle numbers. (source: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/fetrends/1975-2012/420r13001-appx-a.pdf) The intent for this rule is to reduce the testing costs for the automaker. Costs which ultimately affect the consumer either through higher price tags or fewer model choices. Also, I just realized that the formula's posted above were outdated. I'll edit the previous post with the correct values.

Manufacturers can use the above formulas to go from the two-cycle test to the derived 5-cycle numbers. There are certain conditions where the actual 5-cycle results are needed to be used and not the derived 5-cycle results. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/600.115-08 explains the rule and the conditions, but my understanding of it is still a little murky. To me it reads like the manufacturer needs to take the lower of the two test scores, whether its the actual 5-cycle results or the derived 5-cycle results. The EPA test data spreadsheet indicates which test is being performed and if the manufacturer was using the actual 5-cycle results, the test data for the car would include US06 or SCO3 tests. The Fusion, Altima and Accord up above only contained FTP and HFET test results which makes me believe they used the derived 5-cycle number.

The mpg audit should be interesting depending on what data points they're actually collecting and publishing. Doing just the coast down tests will be boring as the correlation between those results and actual mpg results are fuzzy at best. Now if they re-do the coast down test then re-test the vehicles on the dyno that might be interesting. What will also be interesting is what cars they decided to audit and why. Back in March the EPA published the test car data. Both the manufacturer provided data and the results that the EPA got. The files can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tcldata.htm This file has a ton of raw data most of which isn't useful until it's manipulated. For the cars that were tested on the two-cycle test, the equations to go from the unadjusted fuel economy to the city and highway numbers that we're used to, can be found in this file on page 18 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/February/Day-01/a451.pdf (*Note: This is from 2006, if it's been updated since then, somebody please tell me) City FE = 1/(0.003259+1.1805/FTP_FE) Hwy FE = 1/(0.001376+1.3466/HFET_FE) Using those equations and the EPA published data, the numbers for some mid-size cars that the EPA tested look like: MFR Tested Fusion 1.6T = 23.40mpg city and 35.59mpg hwy (23/36 advertised) EPA Tested Fusion 1.6T = 21.06mpg city and 30.79mpg hwy MFR Tested Accord 2.4 = 26.54mpg city and 36.06mpg hwy (27/36 advertisted) EPA Tested Accord 2.4 = 25.69mpg city and 35.26mpg hwy MFR Tested Altima 2.5SL = 27.18mpg city and 38.67mpg hwy (27/38 advertised) EPA Tested Altima 2.5SL = 26.12mpg city and 38.60mpg hwy One thing to note: The Road Load HP was lower for the Manufacturer than it was for the EPA for both the Fusion and Accord in the numbers above, this explains a little bit why the MFR got slightly better numbers than the EPA. The RLHP is derived directly from the coast down test. (See http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/real-world-mpg-not-even-close-fords-hybrid-24125-5.html for RLHP and TLHP) What does all this mean? Not a whole heckuva lot, these tests were done with prototype cars and with the current state of computer controlled everything, a simple software update can change things substantially. But with Ford advertising 36mpg hwy and the EPA seeing a test result of 30.57mpg, I would expect that to get extra scrutiny.

Been lurking around the forums for a while and decided to finally start posting. I ordered a Deep Impact Blue 2013 Fusion SE with Start/Stop back in January and took delivery in early February. Since then have put on nearly 13,000 miles and I am really liking this car. The only doubt I have about the car is whether I should have gotten the hybrid instead of the 1.6t. PROS: Looks great, the interior is really what drove me to this car versus the other midsize cars I was looking at. Great handling Accelerates quickly up to city speeds (Great for merging onto busy roads) Quiet, by far the quietest car I've owned (but completely killed car karaoke) Comfortable seats - Have driven multiple 8+ hour long trips and have been comfortable the whole time, unlike every other car I've driven for that long CONS: Fuel economy - The car can get semi-decent mileage but it takes a ton of effort to do so. Even using an OBD2 sensor as a boost gauge it still takes a lot of effort. What's also bad is that I am consistently putting in 0.5-1.0 gallons more than the dashboard computer thinks I've used, so what the dash is reporting is always optimistic. Auto-climate control - I personally dislike auto climate control and would have preffered a normal three dial climate system. Unfortunately it was bundled in with a lot of other features I did want. Having to do a kludgy work around to actually turn off the air conditioner is a bug that needs fixing. Using Bearcats method to turn off the air conditioner has increased my fuel economy of my normal commute route by about about 2-3 mpg. The highway power of this car feels lacking. Above 50mph it seems sluggish like the transmission is hesitant to shift. Big contrast with the way the car handles at lower speeds where it feels quick. OTHER: A few weeks ago I put the rear seat down and then couldn't get it back up. The middle seat belt had locked up in the fully retracted position preventing the seat from going back up. I took it to the dealer, they fixed it and while they were testing it after the fix it locked up on them a couple more times. They ordered a replacement retractor and will be installing it next week. Chalk it up to bad luck with a fauly part. I like the features of MyFord Touch and on paper it sounds like a great system, but there are a few major areas that need improvement. The Start/Stop feature I'm indifferent about. Using the OBD2 sensor, the reported fuel consumption at idle is .5 gallons per hour, so if gas were $3.60 a gallon I save one penny every twenty seconds (assuming the amount of gas needed to restart the car is negligible) During my normal commute the engine is stopped for at most four minutes a day which would save me at most 12 cents a day. That by itself doesn't make it seem worth the money to get add the feature, especially since I don't know the repair costs on the starter or larger battery yet. The other features that come with the start/stop, the active-grille shutters and the underbody molding, I have no way of quantifying their fuel economy gains, so I'll just have to hope that they'll eventually offset the costs of the system.