2008 Malibu vs. Fusion

[suv_guy_19]

Not really. I was referring to the 2007 Malibu...with a 3.5 V6 and a 4-speed. That car gets better mileage than a '08 Taurus. Not by much...but better none-the-less.

 

Again, my point was that a 4-speed is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

And, FWIW, I have driven my grandmas '05 Buick Rainier, with the 5.3 V8 (and no DOD), at 70MPH and got between 22 and 22.5 MPG. It gets close to 27 at 55MPH. Not too shabby for a pushrod, OHV engine and a 4-speed.

 

 

Well, its too bad my dads Rendezvous can't do the same thing. I'm hoping that the thermostat is broken as it seems to be. That should help things a great deal when it is replaced...I hope.

[P71_CrownVic]

Well, its too bad my dads Rendezvous can't do the same thing. I'm hoping that the thermostat is broken as it seems to be. That should help things a great deal when it is replaced...I hope.

Screw gas mileage...you need heat.

 

That was the ONLY thing that went wrong with my grandma's OHV 4.0 Explorer. The t-stat died and thus took a long time to get any heat. I swapped it myself and the difference was absolutely amazing.

 

I miss that truck. I am kicking myself for not buying it.

 

On a side note, figure out a way to keep those damn birds up where they belong. They are nothing but flying poop machines.

Edited December 3, 2007 by P71_CrownVic

[suv_guy_19]

Screw gas mileage...you need heat.

 

That was the ONLY thing that went wrong with my grandma's OHV 4.0 Explorer. The t-stat died and thus took a long time to get any heat. I swapped it myself and the difference was absolutely amazing.

 

I miss that truck. I am kicking myself for not buying it.

 

On a side note, figure out a way to keep those damn birds up where they belong. They are nothing but flying poop machines.

 

 

Well, it should help out both the heat and the mileage. It doesn't get hot enough in the cab or the engine. As for the birds, I agree lol.

[Ken F.]

Calibration, Calibration, Calibration ! ! !

 

I can't say it enough. I am traveling on business and I am driving an '08 Malibu "Classic". (It's an '08, but not the new car)

 

This thing has a 4 cylinder with a 4 speed auto trans and it is BETTER on fuel than my '07 Focus!!! (Mailbu is better by atleast 4MPG) But it is geared so that it only spins 2400 RPM @ 75 MPH. My Focus spins close to 3100 RPM at the same speed. And it is NOT a slug! If you put it to the floor this thing scoots. I would say better driveability than the Focus as well.

 

I have had (2) different Malibu rentals and I can EASILY get 38 MPG out if them driving 75 MPH. The Fusions I have driven are LUCKY if they see 28 MPG.

 

About a year and a half ago I test drove a 500 with a 6-speed auto. I got out of thinking who ever calibrated it and chose the gearing was clueless. It spun way too many RPM.

 

So, all the gears in the world aren't worth a handful of spit if they are not properly calibrated.

[Furious1Auto]

Calibration, Calibration, Calibration ! ! !

 

I can't say it enough. I am traveling on business and I am driving an '08 Malibu "Classic". (It's an '08, but not the new car)

 

This thing has a 4 cylinder with a 4 speed auto trans and it is BETTER on fuel than my '07 Focus!!! (Mailbu is better by atleast 4MPG) But it is geared so that it only spins 2400 RPM @ 75 MPH. My Focus spins close to 3100 RPM at the same speed. And it is NOT a slug! If you put it to the floor this thing scoots. I would say better driveability than the Focus as well.

 

I have had (2) different Malibu rentals and I can EASILY get 38 MPG out if them driving 75 MPH. The Fusions I have driven are LUCKY if they see 28 MPG.

 

About a year and a half ago I test drove a 500 with a 6-speed auto. I got out of thinking who ever calibrated it and chose the gearing was clueless. It spun way too many RPM.

 

So, all the gears in the world aren't worth a handful of spit if they are not properly calibrated.

You don't calibrate a gear, you choose the proper ratio in order to acheive the desired result! You could have 20 gears but if they are not poprely choosen for the application you will never get the desired result! I own a Fusion and get better mileage than most with the same set up. If you drive conservativly it is possible to get over 30 MPG in the city, I do!

Edited December 29, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[351cid]

About a year and a half ago I test drove a 500 with a 6-speed auto. I got out of thinking who ever calibrated it and chose the gearing was clueless. It spun way too many RPM.

 

So, all the gears in the world aren't worth a handful of spit if they are not properly calibrated.

 

 

My Five Hundred spins 2200 rpm @ 75 mph with the 6-speed.

[FordBuyer]

Calibration, Calibration, Calibration ! ! !

 

I can't say it enough. I am traveling on business and I am driving an '08 Malibu "Classic". (It's an '08, but not the new car)

 

This thing has a 4 cylinder with a 4 speed auto trans and it is BETTER on fuel than my '07 Focus!!! (Mailbu is better by atleast 4MPG) But it is geared so that it only spins 2400 RPM @ 75 MPH. My Focus spins close to 3100 RPM at the same speed. And it is NOT a slug! If you put it to the floor this thing scoots. I would say better driveability than the Focus as well.

 

I have had (2) different Malibu rentals and I can EASILY get 38 MPG out if them driving 75 MPH. The Fusions I have driven are LUCKY if they see 28 MPG.

 

About a year and a half ago I test drove a 500 with a 6-speed auto. I got out of thinking who ever calibrated it and chose the gearing was clueless. It spun way too many RPM.

 

So, all the gears in the world aren't worth a handful of spit if they are not properly calibrated.

 

 

I don't think you are being honest here. I drive a 2002 Taurus with DOHC V6 and get 29mpg on highway at 70mph. I had a 2005 Focus as company car for awhile and easily got 37 mpg on highway and 26 mpg in mixed driving with more of it being city and stop and go. I doubt very much if Malibu will get 41mpg and 30 in mixed driving. The Chevy Cobalt is only rated at 32mpg on highway. The new Malibu is rated at 30mpg highway. I had a Chevy Cavalier as company car and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, and the Focus that followed had more room, better ride, and got 1mg better fuel mileage in mixed driving. My Taurus gets 22mpg in mixed driving.

[P71_CrownVic]

My Five Hundred spins 2200 rpm @ 75 mph with the 6-speed.

That seems really high...for a 6-speed.

[Ken F.]

I don't think you are being honest here. I drive a 2002 Taurus with DOHC V6 and get 29mpg on highway at 70mph. I had a 2005 Focus as company car for awhile and easily got 37 mpg on highway and 26 mpg in mixed driving with more of it being city and stop and go. I doubt very much if Malibu will get 41mpg and 30 in mixed driving. The Chevy Cobalt is only rated at 32mpg on highway. The new Malibu is rated at 30mpg highway. I had a Chevy Cavalier as company car and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, and the Focus that followed had more room, better ride, and got 1mg better fuel mileage in mixed driving. My Taurus gets 22mpg in mixed driving.

 

Don't know what to tell you. These are my experiences and I am being completely honest. I have owned (2) Foci and I have put 3000+ miles on (2) of these 4 cylinder Malibu rental cars. The Malibu is a bigger car and it is better on fuel than the Focus.

 

Actually, I am a little disappointed in the '07 Focus. It is rated at 37 highway. The absolute best I have ever gotten is 36 and that is with the cruise set at 65 mph max. Real world in this car is 32-33 mpg. This car replaced an '02 Focus wagon that got just as good with 130K miles on it. I am starting to regret making a change.

 

I don't know where you're getting 41 with the Malibu. But I think the Focus could break 40 if it were geared so it pulled 2500 RPM or less at 75 MPH.

[Ken F.]

My Five Hundred spins 2200 rpm @ 75 mph with the 6-speed.

 

 

That seems really high...for a 6-speed.

 

It's been a while, but I was thinking it was even higher than 2200. But I agree with your statement. I expected 1800 RPM or so. If I remember right, my 1 ton dually pick up pulled less than 2200 @ 75MPH.

 

 

To others, sorry for my choice of words. I consider gearing a form of calibration.

 

 

 

.

[Ken F.]

Here are links to a web site where people report there actual experiences.

 

Focus Data

 

 

Malibu Data

 

 

Fusion Data

 

 

The Focus and the Fusion would both benefit from different gearing.

 

 

 

 

.

[P71_CrownVic]

Here are links to a web site where people report there actual experiences.

 

Focus Data

Malibu Data

Fusion Data

The Focus and the Fusion would both benefit from different gearing.

.

The Fusion's gas mileage with the 3.0 is disgraceful and unacceptable. Someone should be fired for allowing a 3 liter V6 get that bad of mileage.

[Michael Reynolds]

The Fusion's gas mileage with the 3.0 is disgraceful and unacceptable. Someone should be fired for allowing a 3 liter V6 get that bad of mileage.

 

Someone should fire you for being so f'n dramatic all the time.

 

The fuel economy on the V-6 Fusion is rather abysmal if you drive even somewhat aggressively. I'm getting about 19.5 MPG with a heavy mix of city driving and average temperatures during the day @ 80?F. The last time I drove the car down to the Forida Keys with the cruise set on 60 MPH, my calculations were returning 31.2 MPG. On the flip side of that the other half's parents drive a Zephyr, and assuming the trip computer was fairly right it was indicating that they were getting 22 MPG.

 

I suppose it could be worse, the G is getting somewhere around 16 MPG gulping down premimum fuel.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Michael Reynolds

[P71_CrownVic]

Someone should fire you for being so f'n dramatic all the time.

 

Dramatic about what??? Under 20MPG average for a 3.0 24V DOHC V6 is terrible. GM gets better mileage with an ancient 3.5 OHV V6...in a heavier car with 2 less gears.

 

Ford's 3.0 is not what I would consider "efficient".

[timmm55]

Here are links to a web site where people report there actual experiences.

 

Focus Data

Malibu Data

Fusion Data

The Focus and the Fusion would both benefit from different gearing.

.

 

Thanks for the link. It's helpful but not necessarily accurate. Some of the cars have a sample of 1! And you have to trust some yahoo's ability to use a calculator LOL. And driving style, time spent at stop lights, hills, MOUNTAINS....they all affect mileage greatly (look at the Mustang GTs for example, one person says 10 mpg! most say 20 something).

 

I would consider a sample suspect if they claim it gets 40 mpg when the highway EPA MPG is 32. And are we talking 55 mph or 85 mph?

[FordBuyer]

Dramatic about what??? Under 20MPG average for a 3.0 24V DOHC V6 is terrible. GM gets better mileage with an ancient 3.5 OHV V6...in a heavier car with 2 less gears.

 

Ford's 3.0 is not what I would consider "efficient".

 

You guys need to learn how to drive. I have a 2002 Taurus with same engine as Fusion V6 and two less gears and last long trip got 29.2 highway with cruise at 72mph. So a V6 Fusion with two more gears should be able to get at least 30mpg highway and I4 should get at least 32mpg and I have read many results from many who own the two Fusion versions and they get around the above figures. That gentlemen is not abysmal. I have no idea why Fusion got creamed in tougher EPA ratings. I know I could pull 30 highway out of v6 Fusion and 22 mixed as I do 22 mixed with my Taurus.

[P71_CrownVic]

It's helpful but not necessarily accurate. Some of the cars have a sample of 1! And you have to trust some yahoo's ability to use a calculator LOL. And driving style, time spent at stop lights, hills, MOUNTAINS....they all affect mileage greatly (look at the Mustang GTs for example, one person says 10 mpg! most say 20 something).

 

Which is why the EPA guidelines are a much better tool when comparing MPGs. Each car is tested to the same set of standards thus eliminating any driving style, stop lights, hills, mountains, etc.

[Michael Reynolds]

Dramatic about what??? Under 20MPG average for a 3.0 24V DOHC V6 is terrible. GM gets better mileage with an ancient 3.5 OHV V6...in a heavier car with 2 less gears.

 

Ford's 3.0 is not what I would consider "efficient".

 

Could it be due to the fact that you are jumping to a silly conclusion? Possibly? Maybe?

 

As mentioned before as long as the car is driven with some restraint, if you read my entire post, over 20 MPG in the city can be obtainable.

[Michael Reynolds]

Which is why the EPA guidelines are a much better tool when comparing MPGs. Each car is tested to the same set of standards thus eliminating any driving style, stop lights, hills, mountains, etc.

 

You mean the same EPA that had some of the most inefficent guidelines for years on end?

[timmm55]

You mean the same EPA that had some of the most inefficent guidelines for years on end?

 

I never had a problem getting the HWY MPG, city driving always seemed to be worse, mostly due to looooong stop lights.

[Ken F.]

Again, in my humble opinion Ford would have done itself a favor by gearing for fuel economy.

 

1st thru 5th could have stayed the same. 6th should drop RPM considerably. These aren't race cars. We don't need a 6 speed close ratio here. (I consider this part of the calibration.)

 

Also, a lower stall converter would help in city driving.

[Michael Reynolds]

Again, in my humble opinion Ford would have done itself a favor by gearing for fuel economy.

 

1st thru 5th could have stayed the same. 6th should drop RPM considerably. These aren't race cars. We don't need a 6 speed close ratio here. (I consider this part of the calibration.)

 

Also, a lower stall converter would help in city driving.

 

And the automotive writers would have had a field day with it. The Fusion only has 220hp and it is obvious, because it is so sloooow.

[P71_CrownVic]

Could it be due to the fact that you are jumping to a silly conclusion? Possibly? Maybe?

 

As mentioned before as long as the car is driven with some restraint, if you read my entire post, over 20 MPG in the city can be obtainable.

Yes, yes, yes...keep making excuses.

[silvrsvt]

I saw my first Malibu today on the road in black...and the thing was pretty damn bland looking, just as bad as the 500 was...I don't get where people say its a "good" looking car..the Aura is a better looking car IMO

[suv_guy_19]

I saw my first Malibu today on the road in black...and the thing was pretty damn bland looking, just as bad as the 500 was...I don't get where people say its a "good" looking car..the Aura is a better looking car IMO

 

 

I agree with you. Thats what I have been thinking the more I look at it.