D35 wins - Taurus more efficient than Fusion

[igor]

Well EPA has been hard at work adding more and more models under their official 2008 Model information ..

 

and to a big surprise:

 

Fusion is rated at 18/26 MPG (FWD)... this compares to 18/28 for the Taurus (FWD). So a larger heavier car gets better mileage with a more powerful engine ... hmm ... And I know taller 6th can take care of the 2mpg on HWY, but the City mileage is equal - and that is where the lighter Fusion should shine ... and it does not.

 

Fusion: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

 

Taurus: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

 

For due reporting - we should note that the AWD Fusion is rated at 17/25 while the Taurus is rated at 17/24 so here the Fusion is more efficient ...

 

Blue II what CAFE reasons are you talking about with the PIP D30?

 

Igor

Edited July 18, 2007 by igor

[MGallun]

Well EPA has been hard at work adding more and more models under their official 2008 Model information ..

 

and to a big surprise:

 

Fusion is rated at 18/26 MPG (FWD)... this compares to 18/28 for the Taurus (FWD). So a larger heavier car gets better mileage with a more powerful engine ... hmm ... And I know taller 6th can take care of the 2mpg on HWY, but the City mileage is equal - and that is where the lighter Fusion should shine ... and it does not.

 

Fusion: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

 

Taurus: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

 

For due reporting - we should note that the AWD Fusion is rated at 17/25 while the Taurus is rated at 17/24 so here the Fusion is more efficient ...

 

Blue II what CAFE reasons are you talking about with the PIP D30?

 

Igor

 

agree with very tough city driving... lots of stop lights and so on, but normal driving around town, stops here and there i dont... here are my 1 year numbers for my 3.0 fusion..

 

city, combined with heavy stop and go, and the normal local streets it gets 21mpg... highway? they are way off.. i have run my tank dry with cruise on with hilly roads and get a easy 28mpg... thats at 75mph and 80mph.. i bet if i dropped to 65mpg i would get around 29...

 

also, i get 400 miles before every fill up, and normally have to put in 16 to 16.5 gallons of gas.

 

again, thats just my real world useage...

Edited July 18, 2007 by MGallun

[Traveler]

I can't understand why a 3.0 and 3.5 doesn't get better than that, especially with a 5 or 6 speed automatic transmission. These cars are smaller and have smaller displacement motors, but don't hardly get any better than what I'm getting.

[akirby]

How do you know those are the actual results and not the estimated values?

 

I think an awful lot of tuning for FE went into the Taurus 3.5L application. The Fusion was tuned for emissions thanks to Bill Ford's Kermit imitation. There's a good chance they can retune the 3.0L in the 08 Fusion for better FE. I guess we won't know for sure until the 08's hit the lot.

[spudz64]

How do you know those are the actual results and not the estimated values?

 

I think an awful lot of tuning for FE went into the Taurus 3.5L application. The Fusion was tuned for emissions thanks to Bill Ford's Kermit imitation. There's a good chance they can retune the 3.0L in the 08 Fusion for better FE. I guess we won't know for sure until the 08's hit the lot.

 

Whats interesting is that the 2008 Lincoln MKZ equals the 2008 Taurus, so it appears it is the 3.5L thats raises the rating, although one would think the heavier/bigger Taurus would still trail the smaller bodied Fusion/MKZ.

[Josh Oliver]

I will admit it, I am impressed.

[RichardJensen]

Well, as late to the game as Ford is, at least they brought something worth paying attention to.

[FordBuyer]

Let's see now:

 

2006 Fusion V6 got 29mpg highway

2007 gets 28mpg highway

2008 gets 26mpg highway and all have same engine

 

Not good for future sales IMO. I realize 2008 EPA ratings are more stringent, but the yearly drop in fuel mileage for the V6 Fusion is not good. Guess we will have to wait and see competitors V6 fuel mileage to see how disappointing it really is. Ford needs to address this and start getting fuel mileage back up there towards 30. My gosh, my 2002 Taurus with 4 speed automatic and same engine as Fusion V6 minus one tailpipe was rated at 27mpg. With two extra gears, the V6 Fusion should be better than Taurus and especially when you consider its smaller vehicle with smaller engine. We can only hope Camry, Malibu, and Accord take big hits for 2008 fuel mileage of at least 3 miles/gallon. If not, V6 Fusion definitely has problem in garnering increasing sales.

[Roadrunner]

WTF mate

 

This is not factual.

 

 

From the link you posted: Fusion I4 automatic

20 city / 28 hwy

 

so Fusion I4 more efficient than Taurus V6 (although, that just screams "duhhhh" because a V6 is more thirsty than an I4)

Edited July 19, 2007 by Roadrunner

[Roadrunner]

(Fusion) // highway? they are way off.. i have run my tank dry with cruise on with hilly roads and get a easy 28mpg... thats at 75mph and 80mph.. i bet if i dropped to 65mpg i would get around 29...

 

also, i get 400 miles before every fill up, and normally have to put in 16 to 16.5 gallons of gas.

 

again, thats just my real world useage...

 

I kept it on cruise control at 70/80mph from here to the coast and got above 30mpg with my I4.

Then again, I also made sure to keep it at 2,200-2,5000 rpm by playing around with cruise control.

[jpd80]

Let's see now:

 

2006 Fusion V6 got 29mpg highway

2007 gets 28mpg highway

2008 gets 26mpg highway and all have same engine

 

Not good for future sales IMO. I realize 2008 EPA ratings are more stringent, but the yearly drop in fuel mileage for the V6 Fusion is not good. Guess we will have to wait and see competitors V6 fuel mileage to see how disappointing it really is. Ford needs to address this and start getting fuel mileage back up there towards 30. My gosh, my 2002 Taurus with 4 speed automatic and same engine as Fusion V6 minus one tailpipe was rated at 27mpg. With two extra gears, the V6 Fusion should be better than Taurus and especially when you consider its smaller vehicle with smaller engine. We can only hope Camry, Malibu, and Accord take big hits for 2008 fuel mileage of at least 3 miles/gallon. If not, V6 Fusion definitely has problem in garnering increasing sales.

 

Weren't EPA tests changed to reflect more real world driving, are you spanning changing years?

[suv_guy_19]

Weren't EPA tests changed to reflect more real world driving, are you spanning changing years?

 

 

for 2007 the fusion got all safety equip standard.....that would have upped the weight...maybe enough to change the mpg...?

[TomServo92]

2006 Fusion V6 got 29mpg highway

2007 gets 28mpg highway

2008 gets 26mpg highway and all have same engine

 

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the V6 numbers should be:

 

2006: 18 city / 27 highway

2007: 18 city / 26 highway

2008: 18 city / 26 highway

 

I'm a bit confused...

Edited July 19, 2007 by TomServo92

[MGallun]

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the V6 numbers should be:

 

2006: 18 city / 27 highway

2007: 18 city / 26 highway

2008: 18 city / 26 highway

 

I'm a bit confused...

 

their highway numbers are a bit off, i have made 4 trips about 410 miles one way, my car gets there no problem on one tank of gas... computer reads 28s.. thats with a v6 at 75 to 80mph..

 

city 18 is probably really close, for alot of stop and go sitting at stop light driving, but in your normal rural area where you stop here and there 20 or 21 is what i get...

 

this is real world use, not just somebody taking a car for a drive or 2 and guessing.

 

combined, 50 - 50 i get 24mpg...

 

again 06 fusion 3.0, with the ford retune.. and i do get on it at times.. and the freeway speeds are 70+

[suv_guy_19]

their highway numbers are a bit off, i have made 4 trips about 410 miles one way, my car gets there no problem on one tank of gas... computer reads 28s.. thats with a v6 at 75 to 80mph..

 

city 18 is probably really close, for alot of stop and go sitting at stop light driving, but in your normal rural area where you stop here and there 20 or 21 is what i get...

 

this is real world use, not just somebody taking a car for a drive or 2 and guessing.

 

combined, 50 - 50 i get 24mpg...

 

again 06 fusion 3.0, with the ford retune.. and i do get on it at times.. and the freeway speeds are 70+

 

Today I drove a fusion for the first time...i4 se....i only got 28 mpg highway....but its brand new.....speaking of which...I don't understand how people trash the i4.....the only problem i see is that it can be a little loud under acceleration...and it doesn't make an unpleasant sound...although it does rev high....it gravel drives better than my dodge magnum, f150, or intrepid....and those cars can be driven at 100 across washboard with me not holding the steering wheel (well, not the f150)...it seems like a really good car to me.

[2005Explorer]

it gravel drives better than my dodge magnum, f150, or intrepid....and those cars can be driven at 100 across washboard with me not holding the steering wheel (well, not the f150)...it seems like a really good car to me.

 

I really hope you are just saying that and not actually driving 100 MPH (unless you are saying km/h, just noticed you are from Canada) on a gravel road, because that would be very unsafe in any vehicle. I grew up in an area with a lot of gravel roads and they have caused countless rollovers when people drive too fast and loose control.

Edited July 19, 2007 by 2005Explorer

[TomServo92]

Today I drove a fusion for the first time...i4 se....i only got 28 mpg highway....but its brand new.....speaking of which...I don't understand how people trash the i4.....the only problem i see is that it can be a little loud under acceleration...and it doesn't make an unpleasant sound...although it does rev high....it gravel drives better than my dodge magnum, f150, or intrepid....and those cars can be driven at 100 across washboard with me not holding the steering wheel (well, not the f150)...it seems like a really good car to me.

 

My Fusion I4, which just hit 2,800 miles, just got slightly over 31mpg on a recent all-highway road trip. I'm very pleased it. I don't get the complaints about the engine either. It growls when revved. Personally, I like it!

[Michael Reynolds]

Where are you guys getting these numbers from?

 

I took a quick trip over to fuelecon.gov, and this what I found:

 

21 City 29 Hwy (under old EPA guidelines) - 2006

20 City 28 Hwy (under old EPA guidelines) - 2007

 

Under the new guidelines:

 

2007 V-6 Camry - 19/28

2007 V-6 Sonata - 18/27

2007 V-6 Aura (low end V-6) - 18/28

2007 V-6 Accord - 18/26

2007 V-6 Fusion - 18/26

 

Out of all the vehicles listed there only the Camry averaged above 21 MPG, every other vehicle listed there acheived no better than that. People looking for fuel effieceny won't even touch anything with a V-6 (due to common misconceptions).

 

Things change quite a bit when compared to competitor's 4s. The Fusion lags there.

[ANTAUS]

From my expoerience, I've driven the 4Cylinder Mazda6 on the turnpike, and have gotten around 19-21MPG HWY doing around 99-100MPH, the poor little engine revving around 4200-4400RPM the whole time. And then I've done a V6 Mustang, whereas the same trip at the same speeds generate around 22-23MPG. Obviously this is an example where in certain higher speeds, the V6 is more efficient.

[30 OTT 6]

This just renforces my belief that the PIP (Performance Improvement Program) for the Duratec 3.0, which was discussed here a few months ago, is a waste of time and money. The new Duratec 3.5 is the same size as the 3.0L, cheaper to build, produces more power (without VCT) and now gets better fuel economy.

 

I think Ford should be working at increasing Duratec 3.5 production instead of trying to squeeze another 15 Hp out of the old 3.0L.

Edited July 19, 2007 by 30 OTT 6

[falconman13]

I think the difference in Highway number is probably more due to the final drive ratio than the engine. Granted, the higher torque numbers of the 3.5 would allow a taller final gear in whatever vehicle in which it replaces the 3.0.

I think even the 4cyl Fusion could stand a little taller final drive.

 

I just got back from a trip from the east coast to the mid west with 3 people in the car and all the luggage associated with that. We drove I40, I 77 and I 64 through the mountains with the cruise on and at 70 to 75 and never had to take it out of 5th. That's the 4 cyl/manual, The car never even slowed down much pulling the mountains. So that tells me, it could use a taller gear which would produce generally better highway numbers.

 

Also , we averaged just over 30 MPG. Which I would think is dead on the 2007 EPA numbers

[suv_guy_19]

I really hope you are just saying that and not actually driving 100 MPH (unless you are saying km/h, just noticed you are from Canada) on a gravel road, because that would be very unsafe in any vehicle. I grew up in an area with a lot of gravel roads and they have caused countless rollovers when people drive too fast and loose control.

 

 

lol...sorry...forgot...km/h

[mkaresh]

This just renforces my belief that the PIP (Performance Improvement Program) for the Duratec 3.0, which was discussed here a few months ago, is a waste of time and money. The new Duratec 3.5 is the same size as the 3.0L, cheaper to build, produces more power (without VCT) and now gets better fuel economy.

 

I think Ford should be working at increasing Duratec 3.5 production instead of trying to squeeze another 15 Hp out of the old 3.0L.

 

Makes sense to me. The 3.0 is a very old engine at this point. The new 3.5 should be more efficient.