Mbtauber Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 My style I would say is fairly aggressive. Daily commute is around 36 miles...half highway, half regular roads. My point was that my previous car (2010 fusion SEL withy he four cylinder), driven the same way, same commute, got well over 340 miles per tank. I expected to get less mileage given this is a bigger engine, but not this much less. I do not believe this is a gas tank issue, but real world mileage is based on the entire system. To understand our results, you need to look at everything that effects this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey151 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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 I didn't get over 36 - it was a short stint (maybe 150 miles) on the highway.........and as I mentioned it was flat & traffic was light = constant speed, ideal. I only count actual calculated mpg. Highest to date was 30.3 (same tank with maybe 25% city). That's what I count (excluded from the 24 something I listed before, that's commuting). I would expect the Honda to do better overall, much better it's not even in the same performance league - it's in the 1.6L category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcats98 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 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 So if most are averaging just under 30 and using 10% Ethanol, how much does that close the gap? I am personally not sure of the exact numbers but ethanol has much less "power" per gallon than pure gas. Plus we are just coming out of winter blend up here in the North (well in theory as snow is forecast for today.. :-S). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackTitanium Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. That's exactly my point. Forget about the 2013 Fusion being heavier than the 2001 Accord. It's about the ratings. The ratings already take into account the size, weight, aerodynamics, etc. And my driving habits didn't change when I bought a new car, so the whole "your mileage may vary" argument shouldn't really apply. With the old car, my fuel economy fell right within the EPA estimates. With the new one, it doesn't. The EPA estimates gave me the impression that I would be spending less money on gas, and I'm not. If I averaged 22 MPG (the low end estimate for city driving), I would need to buy about 545 gallons of gas per year. Averaging 18 MPG, I will buy about 667. That's an extra $475 per year (gas is at $3.90 here), and that's a significant amount of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogs Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 And my driving habits didn't change when I bought a new car, so the whole "your mileage may vary" argument shouldn't really apply. You sure they didn't change? I ask because I know mine did, subconsciously. Not my commute, nor my "hey I'm gonna run to the store" habits. But my rate of acceleration from a stop or "there's some straight, open road ahead, let's give it the beans" habits. My previous car was a VW GTI VR6, so I went from a 175hp (probably lost a few hp over the course of 12 years) V6 in a little car to a 240hp turbocharged 4-cyl in a bigger car. The engine difference alone is enough to make me drive differently, whether I'm conscious of it or not. And that's reflected in my mileage rating (23mpg in the fusion) I'm not trying to discredit you here. I'm simply saying that while your driving habits may not have changed, your car obviously has, which has to count for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryVIII Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 That's exactly my point. Forget about the 2013 Fusion being heavier than the 2001 Accord. It's about the ratings. The ratings already take into account the size, weight, aerodynamics, etc. And my driving habits didn't change when I bought a new car, so the whole "your mileage may vary" argument shouldn't really apply. With the old car, my fuel economy fell right within the EPA estimates. With the new one, it doesn't. The EPA estimates gave me the impression that I would be spending less money on gas, and I'm not. If I averaged 22 MPG (the low end estimate for city driving), I would need to buy about 545 gallons of gas per year. Averaging 18 MPG, I will buy about 667. That's an extra $475 per year (gas is at $3.90 here), and that's a significant amount of money. Are you driving conservatively? Keeping the engine under 3k rpms? Premium or regular? I see you're in the NE. Just wondering on your driving style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackTitanium Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Are you driving conservatively? Keeping the engine under 3k rpms? Premium or regular? I see you're in the NE. Just wondering on your driving style. I'm using regular gas, and I can't say I've driven conservatively since day 1 with the car, but the last few tanks I have been very conservative. I haven't been watching the tach for the last couple weeks...been using the "instant fuel economy" display to see what the car thinks I'm getting. We'll see what happens once we're off the winter fuel mix and I the car isn't burning gas for 5+ minutes while it's warming up before I drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcats98 Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 We'll see what happens once we're off the winter fuel mix and I the car isn't burning gas for 5+ minutes while it's warming up before I drive. You cant even "track" MPG per say while you are doing this. It completely skews the numbers and will torch your bottom line value. Its a data point I wouldn't use. Assuming you drive to and from work minimum that's ten minutes of fuel burn with no intention to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluspikez Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 You cant even "track" MPG per say while you are doing this. It completely skews the numbers and will torch your bottom line value. Its a data point I wouldn't use. Assuming you drive to and from work minimum that's ten minutes of fuel burn with no intention to move. As the car sits while running, if you have the fuel economy screen or advanced trip computer up you'll see the averages continually drop. Obviously they have to since you're using fuel but not moving, but this is one of those things that is hard to measure or compensate for. The way I've been keeping track is to leave one of the trip computers at what it was from the factory, capturing the lifetime MPG of the car. I then use the other trip computer to measure the mileage and economy for the set of tires I have on the car (just reset it when I put the 19" wheels back on). I frequently reset the fuel economy screen for trips, and do this after getting up to speed to avoid any warm up or acceleration numbers being factored in when I'm interested in highway numbers. I already know pretty well what the in-town mileage is like, and would like to focus on the steady-state highway mileage when I'm taking a trip. Speaking of trips, I put some miles on this weekend to see family for Easter. For the 270mi there, my average was 28.5mpg. The snow tires were still on the car for the trip up, and I'm sure they were the reason for the slightly lower mpg performance, as it was quite warm (around 50F) and the rubber was quite squishy due to the temps. I put the 19" h-spokes with the ContiProContacts back on the car over the weekend (I keep the extra set in my grandfather's garage). For the 270mi back, my average was 30mpg. Temps were right around 32F and it was breezy for this trip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcats98 Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 As the car sits while running, if you have the fuel economy screen or advanced trip computer up you'll see the averages continually drop. Obviously they have to since you're using fuel but not moving, but this is one of those things that is hard to measure or compensate for. The way I've been keeping track is to leave one of the trip computers at what it was from the factory, capturing the lifetime MPG of the car. I then use the other trip computer to measure the mileage and economy for the set of tires I have on the car (just reset it when I put the 19" wheels back on). I frequently reset the fuel economy screen for trips, and do this after getting up to speed to avoid any warm up or acceleration numbers being factored in when I'm interested in highway numbers. I already know pretty well what the in-town mileage is like, and would like to focus on the steady-state highway mileage when I'm taking a trip. Speaking of trips, I put some miles on this weekend to see family for Easter. For the 270mi there, my average was 28.5mpg. The snow tires were still on the car for the trip up, and I'm sure they were the reason for the slightly lower mpg performance, as it was quite warm (around 50F) and the rubber was quite squishy due to the temps. I put the 19" h-spokes with the ContiProContacts back on the car over the weekend (I keep the extra set in my grandfather's garage). For the 270mi back, my average was 30mpg. Temps were right around 32F and it was breezy for this trip. The problem with that is you are using the computer to "guess" and while it will get you close at times; that's why the hand calculated number is still the preferred way to go. Injector cycle, ambient temp and all kinds of other items are tossed into an algorithm to give you an idea via the computer. I am currently doing testing on my Sonata with my wife to determine if we will get better MPG going to a sedan or just eat the mileage bullet and get another small SUV (she is currently in a 07 Rav 4 4 banger averaging 20.3 MPG on 65% Highway). I am praying the sedan gives her great numbers and then I can get the Fusion. However the first test shows that the computer calculated 27.8 miles on her trip. Hand calculated number indicate 23.4. That was just last night into this morning. There are flaws to both methods but relying on the computer to give you a reliable number can be shaky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluspikez Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 The problem with that is you are using the computer to "guess" and while it will get you close at times; that's why the hand calculated number is still the preferred way to go. Injector cycle, ambient temp and all kinds of other items are tossed into an algorithm to give you an idea via the computer. I am currently doing testing on my Sonata with my wife to determine if we will get better MPG going to a sedan or just eat the mileage bullet and get another small SUV (she is currently in a 07 Rav 4 4 banger averaging 20.3 MPG on 65% Highway). I am praying the sedan gives her great numbers and then I can get the Fusion. However the first test shows that the computer calculated 27.8 miles on her trip. Hand calculated number indicate 23.4. That was just last night into this morning. There are flaws to both methods but relying on the computer to give you a reliable number can be shaky. Yep I totally agree, but so far in my Fusion the computer has done a great job of being relatively close to correct. I can use the BT gauge cluster I set up on an old android phone to see the raw data for fuel level, and the fuel use numbers the computer grabs on the trip computers always match the fuel usage I see either at the pump or on the raw fuel level data. Taking the fuel used vs miles traveled to calculate it by hand always ends up almost spot on for what the computer says, so I've been trusting it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcats98 Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 Yep I totally agree, but so far in my Fusion the computer has done a great job of being relatively close to correct. I can use the BT gauge cluster I set up on an old android phone to see the raw data for fuel level, and the fuel use numbers the computer grabs on the trip computers always match the fuel usage I see either at the pump or on the raw fuel level data. Taking the fuel used vs miles traveled to calculate it by hand always ends up almost spot on for what the computer says, so I've been trusting it. I PM'd you about that. :-D You captured my interest for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neod192 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I PM'd you about that. :-D You captured my interest for sure. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004KL0I9I/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluspikez Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I PM'd you about that. :-D You captured my interest for sure. I sent you one back - it's funny how we were thinking about the same thing! The link neod192 posted is almost identical to the adapter I'm using. There was a thread somewhere that I started about it if you want to check it out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcats98 Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004KL0I9I/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Fantastic! Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey151 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 That's exactly my point. Forget about the 2013 Fusion being heavier than the 2001 Accord. It's about the ratings. The ratings already take into account the size, weight, aerodynamics, etc. And my driving habits didn't change when I bought a new car, so the whole "your mileage may vary" argument shouldn't really apply. With the old car, my fuel economy fell right within the EPA estimates. With the new one, it doesn't. The EPA estimates gave me the impression that I would be spending less money on gas, and I'm not. If I averaged 22 MPG (the low end estimate for city driving), I would need to buy about 545 gallons of gas per year. Averaging 18 MPG, I will buy about 667. That's an extra $475 per year (gas is at $3.90 here), and that's a significant amount of money. That's exactly my point. Forget about the 2013 Fusion being heavier than the 2001 Accord. It's about the ratings. The ratings already take into account the size, weight, aerodynamics, etc. And my driving habits didn't change when I bought a new car, so the whole "your mileage may vary" argument shouldn't really apply. With the old car, my fuel economy fell right within the EPA estimates. With the new one, it doesn't. The EPA estimates gave me the impression that I would be spending less money on gas, and I'm not. If I averaged 22 MPG (the low end estimate for city driving), I would need to buy about 545 gallons of gas per year. Averaging 18 MPG, I will buy about 667. That's an extra $475 per year (gas is at $3.90 here), and that's a significant amount of money. I never said the ratings didn't take XYZ into account - what I said was your getting approximately the same fuel economy from a much bigger & heavier car, that is an improvement. Who said anything about driving style? What I did say was that your driving style (or general driving) may have larger impact on fuel economy with a 4cyl than a 6cyl. And it still comes down to within EPA estimates plus or minus 20%. Knowing this one might factor this into the equation before purchase as in "best case.......worst case". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Ford's computer is usually within 1-2 mpg of actual. It's not guessing about fuel used - it knows exactly how many times each injector was fired and how much fuel was injected with each pulse so it can come pretty darn close. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyTi Fusion Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Interesting article that may help: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/your-fuel-mileage-may-vary-—-and-heres-why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey151 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Interesting article that may help: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/your-fuel-mileage-may-vary-—-and-heres-why Yep, all good points that have been brought up in this thread. Been seeing a climate related change here. Mornings still need heat but afternoons do not, mpg is going up a bit closer to the 26 Ford says for average. When it gets a bit warmer & no heat and no AC I expect as good as I'll get. Sadly the "no heat/no AC" season is very short here. One can "wah...wah...wah" all they want but really one should be more aware of what they can really expect, i.e. don't expect optimum mpg when you're wasting 5 minutes of fuel on a warm up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinx8402 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 That and people are comparing a brand new car, with one that has been broken in over thousands of miles and with tires that have worn tread (which reduces rolling resistance) among other factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superfords Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Well, that's reality. Anticipating lights and avoiding starts from zero is more efficient. It's just physics. If the Fusion teaches us to drive that way, we are doing a better job of using resources efficiently. You are kidding right? Of course it's reality. Physics apply to ALL automobiles, not just the Fusion. So why am I not required to drive all vehicles in this manner??? The car shouldn't be "teaching us" to have to drive a certain way, especiallly if the reward is still 8mpg below it's rating!!! I work for Ford & I love my fusion, I'm not hating on the vehicle, but the fuel economy is terrible so far (still very low miles on mine <1000) but in VERY moderate driving I'm getting 18mpg mixed! the car is rated for 22 city/33hwy/26combined. How does my consistent 18mpg return fit into that math at all??? "we are doing a better job of using resources efficiently" BWAHHHAHA! if you consider 18mpg "efficient" then I guess you are right... ? again, I love my car, it is beautiful/stylish, luxurious, quiet, powerful, fun to drive, well equipped, but the fuel economy so far is pretty poor. just the facts here sir. Edited April 4, 2013 by superfords 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 but in VERY moderate driving I'm getting 18mpg mixed! the car is rated for 22 city/33hwy/26combined. How does my consistent 18mpg return fit into that math at all??? Simple - you're not driving it like the EPA test cycle. And you're probably not using 100% gas without ethanol. And you're probably using the A/C all the time (auto climate control). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey151 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 You are kidding right? Of course it's reality. Physics apply to ALL automobiles, not just the Fusion. So why am I not required to drive all vehicles in this manner??? The car shouldn't be "teaching us" to have to drive a certain way, especiallly if the reward is still 8mpg below it's rating!!! I guess you missed the point - yes physics apply to all cars but given the design the respond differently to the same situation. We can use the example of ecoboost in the F150, it really shows the difference. Pickuptrucks.com did towing tests of the Ford F150 Ecoboost a few years ago.They got 8.5 mpg while towing a 9000 pound trailer (21 mpg empty). They also did a tests of the heavy-duty diesel pickups. According to their results. The Ford F250 diesel Superduty (the 390 hp version) got 13.91 mpg towing a 10,000 pound trailer. The Superduty was a 4x4 weighing 7840 pounds empty while the F150s were 4x2s that weighed 5500 pounds. That means that the combined weight of the diesel Superduty was 3340 pounds more. Two vehicles both dealing with relatively similar physics but respond entirely differently. In no small matter due to the fact 1 gallon of diesel fuel has 30% more energy than a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of ethanol blend has even less energy than a gallon of 100% gasoline. Also is the fact diesel engines respond very well to low rpm/high load environments - given the design load has minimal impact on fuel economy for diesels. It's similar with gassers & displacement - a larger gas engine will not have to "work as hard" = under some conditions it will as efficient as the smaller 4cyl w/ a turbo. The ideal efficiency of a small 4cyl turbo is under light load conditions - aka - the highway. Worst case is under heavy loads - like overcoming the inertia of moving a 3,500lb load from a stop. Difference in engines - a VW Passat (about the same size as a Fusion) diesel makes maximum torque (the ability to do work) @ 1,900 rpm. You can drive this vehicle around all day keeping up with or exceeding the acceleration of most traffic without going over 2,500 rpm. Try that with an ecoboost - see how far you get not exceeding 2,500 rpm. Toss in the extra 30% in energy & you get 40 mpg city for the Passat versus 26 for the Fusion. Both are 2.0L turbo charged engines, but are bound by the laws of physics......but both respond differently. Nobody said you need alter your driving style...............it's your choice............but then if you choose not to then do not expect to achieve maximum efficiency either. It's like driving on the highway - I can drive 65mph & maximize fuel efficiency.........OR.....I can drive 70mph - but I damn well should be aware it's going to cost me economy. Same on the days when it's a bit cool - I can leave my jacket buttoned up & turn on the butt warmers.........OR.........I can turn on the auto climate at the expense of fuel economy. If you want to drive it however the hell you want & return near EPA estimates I suggest a visit to your local VW dealer (tidbit - they don't deal much on mid sized sedans that return 40mpg). FWIW - today's fillup was a calculated 25.86 - pretty damn close to EPA estimates. The instant readout for today's commute right after reset for fillup was 27mpg - above the EPA estimate. No special technique (10 years of driving a diesel) just try to be smooth & pay some attention to stop lights (coast up when possible). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcats98 Posted April 5, 2013 Author Share Posted April 5, 2013 Simple - you're not driving it like the EPA test cycle. And you're probably not using 100% gas without ethanol. And you're probably using the A/C all the time (auto climate control). I like auto climate but my 01 Nissan did it the best in my opinion. Hyundai does it the worst and Toyota does it close to Hyundai. On the Nissan you had an econ button which activated auto climate but with a lockout on the compressor and an auto button which allowed compressor use. So if I wanted to have auto climate with the knowledge its not going to get any cooler than the outside; that was great. On the Hyundai and Toyota it automatically assumes you want compressor and kicks it on. Most times the outside air (when its just me in the car) is more than adequate baring the humid season. The Toyota had it programmed that any change to Auto (vent direction, Auto/On/Auto/Off) the AC would kick. I had that changed at the dealer that the AC is not assumed on. The Hyundai; there is no way to do that short of kicking auto and then cycling the AC button until the LED goes on and then it goes back off. Pretty dumb in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogs Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) Difference in engines - a VW Passat (about the same size as a Fusion) diesel makes maximum torque (the ability to do work) @ 1,900 rpm. You can drive this vehicle around all day keeping up with or exceeding the acceleration of most traffic without going over 2,500 rpm. Try that with an ecoboost - see how far you get not exceeding 2,500 rpm. Toss in the extra 30% in energy & you get 40 mpg city for the Passat versus 26 for the Fusion. Both are 2.0L turbo charged engines, but are bound by the laws of physics......but both respond differently What do diesels have to do with anything? Edited April 5, 2013 by boogs 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.