LoveTaurus Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Official TaurusX fuel economy out! Too low! FUEL ECONOMY (city/hwy) AWD 15/22 FWD 16/24 http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_di...&make_id=92 I can't believe it. Lower than Outlook and Enclave even smaller in size! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I will not trust this until Fueleconomy.gov posts it .. the PR section of Taurus X is plagued with leftover pieces from the Freestyle. Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000SableWagon Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Official TaurusX fuel economy out! Too low! FUEL ECONOMY (city/hwy) AWD 15/22 FWD 16/24 http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_di...&make_id=92 I can't believe it. Lower than Outlook and Enclave even smaller in size! It beats the Pilot, CX-9 and Pacifica. The Edge, Acadia and Highlander barely edged it out. Acadia AWD 16/22 Highlander AWD 16/22 Edge AWD 16/22 CX-9 AWD 15/21 Pacifica AWD 14/22 Pilot AWD 15/20 I was hoping for better numbers, but it is in the middle of the pack. Ironically Honda is at the bottom with Chrysler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarentsBlueV50 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Official TaurusX fuel economy out! Too low! FUEL ECONOMY (city/hwy) AWD 15/22 FWD 16/24 I can't believe it. Lower than Outlook and Enclave even smaller in size! Are the Outlook and Enclave 2008 models? EPA testing procedures changed for 2008 model year. New methodology is supposed to be closer to real world mileage. Comparing 2008 models to prior years is comparing apples to oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 it doesnt sound that bad. Its about the same as my Ranger except its more powerful, larger, newer, more refined... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Are the Outlook and Enclave 2008 models? EPA testing procedures changed for 2008 model year. New methodology is supposed to be closer to real world mileage. Comparing 2008 models to prior years is comparing apples to oranges. correct .. the numbers that 2000SableWagon posted are the ones comparable to the new TaurusX numbers ... the nice to look at 20/26 numbers for the Lambdas are with the OLD EPA methodology .. the TaurusX numbers are perfectly on par and above the competition .. but I DID expect better since the car is so much smaller and lighter. Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explorer4X4 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I am willing to say its bull shit. I will wait for the official ratings. And thats not bad, as stated, others get lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000SableWagon Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 correct .. the numbers that 2000SableWagon posted are the ones comparable to the new TaurusX numbers ... the nice to look at 20/26 numbers for the Lambdas are with the OLD EPA methodology .. the TaurusX numbers are perfectly on par and above the competition .. but I DID expect better since the car is so much smaller and lighter. Igor Sorry I should have stated that all the numbers that I posted were using the 2008 calculations even for the 2007 models. This is an apples to apples comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meelaan Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Does it really matter when these vehicles never get their advertised MPG anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzhead Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 It's interesting that the ratings for the AWD Taurus sedan are 17/24. I'd think the Taurus and Taurus X would be similar. Does the third row seat and the boxier design really make that big a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Johnson Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 AWD 15/22 FWD 16/24 Those are the figure they are printing on the window stickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASword Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Does it really matter when these vehicles never get their advertised MPG anyway? The 2008 numbers are likely to be much more realistic. That said, it is suprising how much lower these numbers are than the sedan. It'll be interesting to see what we get in practice when our factory order arrives. The T-X weights about 10% more than the sedan, so 17/24 (sedan) to 15/22 (wagon) is slightly worse than you might expect if city mileage was directly proportional to mass (given the constant acceleration). It occurs to me that the remaining difference might be explained by differences in the software controlling the engine & transmission in order to deal with the T-X's greater load & towing capacity. Edited July 12, 2007 by ASword Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosh2258 Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) It beats the Pilot, CX-9 and Pacifica. The Edge, Acadia and Highlander barely edged it out. Acadia AWD 16/22 Highlander AWD 16/22 Edge AWD 16/22 CX-9 AWD 15/21 Pacifica AWD 14/22 Pilot AWD 15/20 I was hoping for better numbers, but it is in the middle of the pack. Ironically Honda is at the bottom with Chrysler. The X may be one of those vehicles that beats the EPA numbers in the real world. With the same drivetrain as the Edge and, I believe, being somewhat lighter weight it should do at least 1 mpg better. Considering the Taurus numbers and what the Freestyle could do I think these numbers for the X are pessimistic. The thing to keep in mind is that the EPA testing process really hasn't changed. They've just put math into it to adjust the number down to more realistic levels. This could work to Ford's advantage. If the numbers are pessimistic and buyers actually meet or exceed them, rather than falling short, that could make the buyers happier because expectations are being met. I guess time will tell. Ted Edited July 12, 2007 by kosh2258 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosh2258 Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Internet hiccup... Edited July 12, 2007 by kosh2258 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASword Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) The thing to keep in mind is that the EPA testing process really hasn't changed. They've just put math into it to adjust the number down to more realistic levels. Are you sure that is the case? My understanding was that they considerably modified the "routine" that vehicles are put through to measure their actual performance. In particular the use of the heat and A/C has had a dramatic effect on the performance of hybrids. They have also changed the speeds and frequency of acceleration, stopping and idling to try and model current driving conditions better (than the 1950 or so when the original standard was set up). It is possible that for pre-2008 cars the new numbers are computed from the old numbers since not all the vehicles have been re-tested. Edited July 12, 2007 by ASword Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 the testing changed .. so all 08 models are tested differently than before.. however what IS calculated is 08 ratings for 07 vehicles ... so everything we are comparing the Taurus X to had simply their ratings mathematically adjusted. I assume once the official 08 models are released, EPA will re-test them Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000SableWagon Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 the testing changed .. so all 08 models are tested differently than before.. however what IS calculated is 08 ratings for 07 vehicles ... so everything we are comparing the Taurus X to had simply their ratings mathematically adjusted. I assume once the official 08 models are released, EPA will re-test them Igor There are many legal ramifications to changing the test. The CAFE is based upon the test, so changing the test could alter a companies immediate and long term planning for compliance. From a CAFE point the original numbers are still used for the companies calculation, the refactored numbers are for display purposes only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 There are many legal ramifications to changing the test. The CAFE is based upon the test, so changing the test could alter a companies immediate and long term planning for compliance. From a CAFE point the original numbers are still used for the companies calculation, the refactored numbers are for display purposes only. They still use the same tests for 08 that they used for pre-08 so the CAFE calculations haven't changed at all. What they've done is add MORE realistic tests to the mix that gets averaged together for the 08 sticker values. It's all explained at fueleconomy.gov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000SableWagon Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 They still use the same tests for 08 that they used for pre-08 so the CAFE calculations haven't changed at all. What they've done is add MORE realistic tests to the mix that gets averaged together for the 08 sticker values. It's all explained at fueleconomy.gov. I stand corrected. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASword Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) In another thread I posted the fuel economy numbers for the T-X AWD according to CanadianDriver.com -- I don't know which measurement standard these are done with. I would speculate that these numbers are more comparable to the '07 numbers for the other vehicles. city 13.4 L/100km hwy 9.1 L/100km The website http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/fuel_economy.php gives these mpg equivalents: city 17.55 mpg hwy 25.85 mpg The FWD T-X was given as 12.8 / 8.4 ... but I'll leave that for you to convert since I ordered the AWD version. Edited July 13, 2007 by ASword Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 In another thread I posted the fuel economy numbers for the T-X AWD according to CanadianDriver.com -- I don't know which measurement standard these are done with. I would speculate that these numbers are more comparable to the '07 numbers for the other vehicles. city 13.4 L/100km hwy 9.1 L/100km The website http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/fuel_economy.php gives these mpg equivalents: city 17.55 mpg hwy 25.85 mpg The FWD T-X was given as 12.8 / 8.4 ... but I'll leave that for you to convert since I ordered the AWD version. the FWD Freestyle is 11.5 and 8.5 L/100km. So that isn't too bad given its a new tranny and more powerful engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 correct .. the numbers that 2000SableWagon posted are the ones comparable to the new TaurusX numbers ... the nice to look at 20/26 numbers for the Lambdas are with the OLD EPA methodology .. the TaurusX numbers are perfectly on par and above the competition .. but I DID expect better since the car is so much smaller and lighter. Igor Sorry I should have stated that all the numbers that I posted were using the 2008 calculations even for the 2007 models. This is an apples to apples comparison. No, it's not. The new figures have posted: 2008 GMC Acadia FWD Regular Gasoline 16 City 19 Combined 24 Hwy 2008 GMC Acadia AWD Regular Gasoline 16 City 18 Combined 22 Hwy 2008 Ford Taurus X FWD Regular Gasoline 16 City 19 Combined 24 Hwy 2008 Ford Taurus X AWD Regular Gasoline 15 City 18 Combined 22 Hwy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000SableWagon Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Sorry I should have stated that all the numbers that I posted were using the 2008 calculations even for the 2007 models. This is an apples to apples comparison.No, it's not. The new figures have posted: 2008 GMC Acadia FWD Regular Gasoline 16 City 19 Combined 24 Hwy 2008 GMC Acadia AWD Regular Gasoline 16 City 18 Combined 22 Hwy 2008 Ford Taurus X FWD Regular Gasoline 16 City 19 Combined 24 Hwy 2008 Ford Taurus X AWD Regular Gasoline 15 City 18 Combined 22 Hwy I never posted 20/26, Igor did. I correctly posted the 16/22 numbers for the 2007 AWD Acadia using the 2008 method per the EPA web site. All these vehicles are in a tight group at about the same economy except for the Honda which seems to really suffer on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASword Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The T-X numbers are somewhat mysterious. The Duratec 35 is an efficient motor and the vehicle is 800 lbs less than the Outlook/Acadia, and both have the same tranny. So why the lower rating? The rating is slightly lower than the Edge despite being 100 lbs lighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regfootball Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 the taurus x will likely get a tish better mpg than the slightly heavier edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.