Real world MPG for Titanium FWD/Gas grade?

[Bearcats98]

Heathen..........why do you hate 'merica? Pay attention to driving...while you're driving? What are you thinking?

 

Oh I am a HUGE promoter of "Do what you are supposed to do in the left front seat....DRIVE.". To me its a huge chess match driving and keeping the car rolling.

 

Gas, brake, honk, gas, brake, honk. brake, honk, punch.... :D

[rprobst]

Yes, the instant MPG indicator in my Sonata really opened my eyes to what consumes fuel. Granted its a glorified manifold pressure sensor with some other algorithms but the use is the same.

Yes, my dad taught me to drive with a manifold pressure gauge. He put one on each of his cars, and wrote articles about the topic for car magazines. He was an automotive engineer and the son of a famous automotive engineer. I thought he was crazy to put ugly after-market gauges on his cars, with wire bundles coming out from under the dash. But now that info shows up in pretty little screens, and it all takes me back to when I was learning to drive wisely.

[mb27]

I'm at about 3200 miles. I've been pretty consistent with 22MPG tanks. I use 93 octane and my drive is mostly city.

[BlackTitanium]

I have a Ti AWD. I have about 8k miles on it. I have consistently averaged about 19 mpg. I do a lot of around town driving, not stop and go, but trip to store, 40-50 mph, couple stop light kind of driving. The mpg dies anytime you touch the gas pedel. Best I have ever gotten was an all highway trip where I got about 24-25 mpg.

 

Oh and I had a 2009 maxima before and with the premium gas it got about 22 mpg and I drove it a little harder.

 

That's pretty depressing that you're still averaging 19 with 8k miles on it. I would think that it's fully broken in at that point. I'm at about 1.5k on my Ti AWD, and I'm getting 17-18 mpg, and I would describe my typical trips and driving habits basically the same way you do. Before this, I had a 2001 V6 Accord that I got around 19 mpg on. I never expected to get the advertised MPGs, but I definitely thought I'd get a little better fuel economy than the old Accord had. I love the fusion, but I'm honestly disgusted with the real world fuel economy.

[Bailey151]

I'm at about 3200 miles. I've been pretty consistent with 22MPG tanks. I use 93 octane and my drive is mostly city.

Which is right at Ford's number.

 

That's pretty depressing that you're still averaging 19 with 8k miles on it. I would think that it's fully broken in at that point. I'm at about 1.5k on my Ti AWD, and I'm getting 17-18 mpg, and I would describe my typical trips and driving habits basically the same way you do. Before this, I had a 2001 V6 Accord that I got around 19 mpg on. I never expected to get the advertised MPGs, but I definitely thought I'd get a little better fuel economy than the old Accord had. I love the fusion, but I'm honestly disgusted with the real world fuel economy.

Hmmm....disgusted? You're about 18% from Ford's number. Remember EPA designed the tests to be "real world" which may not match your actual driving.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised there's little difference. To me this is a classic example of the need to educate the buying public's expectations. There's a myriad of reasons why they would be very close, not the least of which would be the old saying "there's no replacement for displacement". It's a 2.0L engine pulling a relatively heavy 1 3/4 ton vehicle. The combination is horrible for drive a block & stop operation. The 6 cyl with a larger displacement will have a much easier time of it. In this case you have a 3,600 lb car being pulled by a 2.0L engine versus a 2,800 pound car being pulled by a 6 cyl (3.0l? I forget). Edge to the 6cyl with less weight to pull. Now if the city driving is more bumper to bumper......i.e. sit, idle forward, sit, idle forward the edge now goes to the 2.0L as less displacement means less fuel consumed. On the highway the 2.0L will be better, though given the weight discrepancy (it costs fuel to haul another 1/4 ton around) it won't be a massive difference.

 

So you're disgusted with 17-18 from a vehicle rated at 22mpg city but 19 mpg from a vehicle rated at 22 mpg is a-okay? Or in numbers - if you drove 15,000 miles a year the Ford would cost you about $3,036.85 and the Accord $2,879.85 (using the $3.65/gal in my area - ratio would be the same anywhere).................or.........a whopping $157 a year more for the Ford. The Ford that hauls a 1/4 ton more weight around?

 

(note - not really ragging on you as much as it seems, just doing the numbers = perspective)

[Bearcats98]

So you're disgusted with 17-18 from a vehicle rated at 22mpg city but 19 mpg from a vehicle rated at 22 mpg is a-okay? Or in numbers - if you drove 15,000 miles a year the Ford would cost you about $3,036.85 and the Accord $2,879.85 (using the $3.65/gal in my area - ratio would be the same anywhere).................or.........a whopping $157 a year more for the Ford. The Ford that hauls a 1/4 ton more weight around?

 

(note - not really ragging on you as much as it seems, just doing the numbers = perspective)

I think a lot of "expectation" comes into play. There is so much emphasis touted on "xxx" MPG's shown on that sticker and the truth of the matter is only a fraction of the people purchasing are going to drive in a manner or in an area to get those numbers. And when people dont get that exact number they get upset. And like you pointed out, the fusion is a physically different car (more weight in your example) and its as close.

 

I learned a while ago that my drive to work was going to torch my numbers. Period. So there was no real point to watch city. Its nice to see real word numbers as to get a better guess at the numbers. Also when people report their numbers I tend to look at locality to see if it might match mine a bit. Also the person has the most chance getting better gas mileage.

 

For example my FI car (a 91 MR2) I can get well over 30 on the highway with the tops out and the windows down as long as I am not flogging her. However if I have that boost meter at zero or greater, it will act like a much larger engine. The EcoBoost motor (a turbo motor) is almost the same as a six cylinder when you are mashing the right foot. When you back out, feather and keep that boost below zero you are an economical four banger. With the boost spooling at 3K for grin factor...it just means you will be sucking more gas quicker.

 

Nice to see people responing about their results. I hope they keep coming. I just found a person willing to give me an XPlan pin. I just have to see what that would do to pricing. I really hadn't planned on buying until fall so I could put a couple more K's down.

 

 

[boogs]

I think a lot of "expectation" comes into play. There is so much emphasis touted on "xxx" MPG's shown on that sticker and the truth of the matter is only a fraction of the people purchasing are going to drive in a manner or in an area to get those numbers. And when people dont get that exact number they get upset. And like you pointed out, the fusion is a physically different car (more weight in your example) and its as close.

 

 

Yep. I'm actually quite glad that my salesman was up front with me about expected mileage, especially because I was initially looking to get the Hybrid. He basically said what everyone here has already concluded. "Ford designed the cars around the EPA tests. You won't get those numbers. In the hybrid, you might see 40mpg, but probably more like 30-35."

 

I decided then and there that if I bought the hybrid I'd spend my days moping about my shitty mileage and being duped by advertising. So I went with horsepower instead.

[jared6788]

I think a lot of "expectation" comes into play. There is so much emphasis touted on "xxx" MPG's shown on that sticker and the truth of the matter is only a fraction of the people purchasing are going to drive in a manner or in an area to get those numbers. And when people dont get that exact number they get upset. And like you pointed out, the fusion is a physically different car (more weight in your example) and its as close.

 

I learned a while ago that my drive to work was going to torch my numbers. Period. So there was no real point to watch city. Its nice to see real word numbers as to get a better guess at the numbers. Also when people report their numbers I tend to look at locality to see if it might match mine a bit. Also the person has the most chance getting better gas mileage.

 

For example my FI car (a 91 MR2) I can get well over 30 on the highway with the tops out and the windows down as long as I am not flogging her. However if I have that boost meter at zero or greater, it will act like a much larger engine. The EcoBoost motor (a turbo motor) is almost the same as a six cylinder when you are mashing the right foot. When you back out, feather and keep that boost below zero you are an economical four banger. With the boost spooling at 3K for grin factor...it just means you will be sucking more gas quicker.

 

Nice to see people responing about their results. I hope they keep coming. I just found a person willing to give me an XPlan pin. I just have to see what that would do to pricing. I really hadn't planned on buying until fall so I could put a couple more K's down.

 

 

 

Not to derail the thread, but I was able to beat X-plan by quite a bit.

[Bearcats98]

Not to derail the thread, but I was able to beat X-plan by quite a bit.

 

Yeah, I have seen that. My first attempt was going to see what I can negotiate on my own and then go from there. Internet sales groups are way quicker to get to the bottom line than sitting in front of a sales guy.

[akirby]

"Ford designed the cars around the EPA tests.

 

Once again - that's not accurate. Ford designed the cars for maximum fuel economy. Anything that Ford did to increase fuel economy works just as well in the real world as in the test lab. The key is you have to drive it just like the EPA test.

 

The difference is Ford's new hybrids can go faster in EV mode than any other hybrids and the EB engines are much more sensitive to throttle input than NA engines.

 

As other mfrs start to do the same thing they'll have exactly the same problems with real world mpg. Ford has asked the EPA to adjust the window stickers to better reflect real world mileage so it's the same across the board for all mfrs.

[HenryVIII]

The other issue is that the EPA is using 100% gasoline to begin with. It's near impossible for most people to find 100% gasoline fueling stations. Talk about skewed numbers to begin with!

 

[boogs]

Ford designed the cars for maximum fuel economy. Anything that Ford did to increase fuel economy works just as well in the real world as in the test lab. The key is you have to drive it just like the EPA test.

 

 

Isn't that what I said?

 

 

1. EPA designs test for maximum fuel economy in "ideal" driving conditions.

2. Ford designs cars for maximum fuel economy in "ideal" driving conditions.

3. You can get Ford's numbers if you drive like the EPA test.

4. Ford designed cars around the EPA test.

 

 

Am I missing something here?

[akirby]

Am I missing something here?

 

It's just semantics. Ford doesn't design cars around the EPA test. They don't say "how can we design this so it works on the EPA test" but not in the real world. Many people accuse automakers of doing something that only works on the EPA test and never works in real life. In this case it is possible to get the same results in the real world as the EPA test. Anything that Ford does helps fuel economy in both the real world AND the EPA test as opposed to something that only works on the EPA test. It may just be semantics but I'm a stickler for stuff like that.

[jared6788]

Yeah, I have seen that. My first attempt was going to see what I can negotiate on my own and then go from there. Internet sales groups are way quicker to get to the bottom line than sitting in front of a sales guy.

Yep just email all your area dealers. I specifically said "I'm getting offers from all area dealers, what can you for a Fusion with options blah blah blah." Then, if you like one dealer better than the other, use other offers and try to make them beat each other.

[Bailey151]

The other issue is that the EPA is using 100% gasoline to begin with. It's near impossible for most people to find 100% gasoline fueling stations. Talk about skewed numbers to begin with!

Good point, hard to find in anything under premium. Tests are generally done with premium also, EPA makes no specification that I'm aware of...............

[BlackTitanium]

So you're disgusted with 17-18 from a vehicle rated at 22mpg city but 19 mpg from a vehicle rated at 22 mpg is a-okay?

 

My 2001 V6 accord was rated at 18 city / 26 highway, and I averaged 19. That fell right within the numbers and made perfect sense to me.

 

My new 2013 Fusion 2.0 turbo was rated at 22 City / 31 HWY, and I average 18.

 

So, yes...I'm absolutely disgusted with the fuel economy that I'm seeing on the new Fusion. Your numbers are off.

Edited March 30, 2013 by BlackTitanium

[Mbtauber]

I just want to know when I am going to be able to get more than 280 miles on a tank of gas. My 2010 fusion which yes, had a smaller engine than my 2.0 got mileage of over 350 miles on a tank of gas. I have 2,700 miles on my car now....my DTE will read zero and will drive another 10 miles or so. Fill up when it says 13.7 gallons used. Out in 13.7-14.7 gallons when I fill up. Sorry but I should be able to go at least 300 miles on a tank of gas.

[neod192]

Food for thought: I just took a 142 mile trip in my dad's '13 Accord and got 36.4 MPGs. We had 4 adults in the car and I set the cruise control at 70 MPH. So why can the Accord beat its EPA rating of 36 MPG highway and the Fusion is struggling in the low 20's?

 

PS, I don't care for the Accord styling and prefer the Fusion, but sure do like how efficient it is!

Edited March 31, 2013 by neod192

[ATC Buckeye]

Who cares, drive more worry less!

[Bailey151]

My 2001 V6 accord was rated at 18 city / 26 highway, and I averaged 19. ...........So, yes...I'm absolutely disgusted with the fuel economy that I'm seeing on the new Fusion. Your numbers are off.

 

They were from Edmunds, but comes down to the same........still within 18%. It all depends on the type of driving hence the "your mileage may vary" disclaimer the EPA allows. Also don't forget the old EPA weren't very accurate & easy to beat estimates...........which is they changed the test.

 

But hey if $157 bucks a year is a deal breaker & "disgusting" for a far bigger & heavier vehicle then sell it & move on. If you really want to beat the EPA estimates go to the local VW dealer & buy a Passat TDI. Oh crap, then there's the whole $4/gallon with 40+ mpg versus $3.65 w/ 18mpg calculation.

 

I just want to know when I am going to be able to get more than 280 miles on a tank of gas. My 2010 fusion which yes, had a smaller engine than my 2.0 got mileage of over 350 miles on a tank of gas. I have 2,700 miles on my car now....my DTE will read zero and will drive another 10 miles or so. Fill up when it says 13.7 gallons used. Out in 13.7-14.7 gallons when I fill up. Sorry but I should be able to go at least 300 miles on a tank of gas.

The fuel tank is an entirely different issue, there's a couple threads about it around here somewhere - one was mine about a "funky fillup". At this juncture it's unknown if we'll ever see a resolution.

 

Food for thought: I just took a 142 mile trip in my dad's '13 Accord and got 36.4 MPGs. We had 4 adults in the car and I set the cruise control at 70 MPH. So why can the Accord beat its EPA rating of 36 MPG highway and the Fusion is struggling in the low 20's?

 

PS, I don't care for the Accord styling and prefer the Fusion, but sure do like how efficient it is!

Low 20's is city not highway. Indicated 36.4 or actual? I've gotten over the 36 rating on the highway - indicated (36.7). But that was the highway portion, haven't done a 100% highway tank yet. So I'd say they're about the same..............except that the 2.0L offers much better performance than Honda's 4 banger (and their 6 wouldn't get the 36 highway).

[jared6788]

There is a huge difference between averaging 19 in a car rated 18/26 (the Accord) in 2001 and a 2013 vehicle averaging 18 in a car rated 22/31. You should NOT compare the vehicles, you should compare the vehicles to how they're doing against their respective ratings.

[jared6788]

They were from Edmunds, but comes down to the same........still within 18%. It all depends on the type of driving hence the "your mileage may vary" disclaimer the EPA allows. Also don't forget the old EPA weren't very accurate & easy to beat estimates...........which is they changed the test.

 

But hey if $157 bucks a year is a deal breaker & "disgusting" for a far bigger & heavier vehicle then sell it & move on. If you really want to beat the EPA estimates go to the local VW dealer & buy a Passat TDI. Oh crap, then there's the whole $4/gallon with 40+ mpg versus $3.65 w/ 18mpg calculation.

 

The fuel tank is an entirely different issue, there's a couple threads about it around here somewhere - one was mine about a "funky fillup". At this juncture it's unknown if we'll ever see a resolution.

 

Low 20's is city not highway. Indicated 36.4 or actual? I've gotten over the 36 rating on the highway - indicated (36.7). But that was the highway portion, haven't done a 100% highway tank yet. So I'd say they're about the same..............except that the 2.0L offers much better performance than Honda's 4 banger (and their 6 wouldn't get the 36 highway).

 

Old vs. current EPA estimates: The new estimates are lower. The 18/26 rating on the Accord is in fact using the "new" rating. It was rated 20/28 using the old standards. So, old EPA estimates were harder to beat on average.

 

Yes, the fuel cost difference is only $150. As mentioned above, it's more about expectation and feeling deceived to most people.

 

You got 36 on the highway in a 2.0T? You would probably be the only person in history.

[boogs]

I just want to know when I am going to be able to get more than 280 miles on a tank of gas. My 2010 fusion which yes, had a smaller engine than my 2.0 got mileage of over 350 miles on a tank of gas. I have 2,700 miles on my car now....my DTE will read zero and will drive another 10 miles or so. Fill up when it says 13.7 gallons used. Out in 13.7-14.7 gallons when I fill up. Sorry but I should be able to go at least 300 miles on a tank of gas.

 

 

What's your driving style/typical commute like? I feel like I drive pretty aggressively, and with the 2.0EB I'm consistently getting over 300 miles per tank (before the low fuel indicator even pops up).

 

My fills are between 12.5 and 14.5 gallons, usually filled a few miles after MTE hits zero. ~4k on the odometer.

[Bailey151]

You got 36 on the highway in a 2.0T? You would probably be the only person in history.

You'll note I said indicated..........I don't count that. Yep, it was also dead flat & lighter traffic. Highway terain plays a big role. Going north the inlaws in PA is geographically uphill, never get the max - coming home I better than avg. In my old car it could vary as much as 4mpg.

 

Trips south of me (VA) is through the Carolinas (low country) = flat and straight = I do better. Same as commuting = all depends on how many lights I hit (can vary an indicated 3mpg) or if I need the heat.

 

Doubtful I'll be the only one - check jeff_h's hybrid posts, he hits the number (or close) when few others do..........but then he has the experience w/ hybrids.

[neod192]

Low 20's is city not highway. Indicated 36.4 or actual? I've gotten over the 36 rating on the highway - indicated (36.7). But that was the highway portion, haven't done a 100% highway tank yet. So I'd say they're about the same..............except that the 2.0L offers much better performance than Honda's 4 banger (and their 6 wouldn't get the 36 highway).

This was a whole trip from a cold start until I got home. At the beginning it started with city driving and speed limits of 45/35/55, then 70 on the highway. It was as indicated by the car's computer, we had just filled up that morning. The trip started averaging 33 MPG (@45-55 MPH) then going up to 36+.

 

Yes, it's the 4 cylinder engine with 185hp, vs the Fusion's 231hp EcoBoost (w/ regular fuel).

 

Most people here (yes, I read the whole thread) get under 30 MPG for their highway driving and I didn't see anyone taking a long 100+ miles trip with the cruise control set at 70MPH. I'm glad you got 36, that's good news since the 2.0L Fusion is rated at 33 Highway. I'd love to see more people get that on a regular basis and not just going downhill

Edited March 31, 2013 by neod192