RichardJensen Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The 24 mpg figure is overall fuel economy, not highway. The Fusion 1.5L Ecoboost achieved 34 mpg in the highway test. Both are worst in class. That doesn't address the stupidity of using steady-state cruise to evaluate highway mileage. And, OMG, the Fusion has the worst steady-state cruise speed at 65MPH? That would mean oh so much to me if I spent all day driving 65MPH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 That doesn't address the stupidity of using steady-state cruise to evaluate highway mileage. And, OMG, the Fusion has the worst steady-state cruise speed at 65MPH? That would mean oh so much to me if I spent all day driving 65MPH. well Richard Ford and every other Manufacture use Brake Specific Fuel consumption (BSFC) in the lab to determine the overall efficiency of an engine it determine the maximum possible Efficiency of the engine. EcoBoost performs well in BSFC, but in the real world Ford's engines don't perform as well as they do in the lab or in CR tests. Which is a valid test of Fuel Economy under perfect conditions. I still think Ford's programming of its engines is weak. performance is too inconsistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) And, OMG, the Fusion has the worst steady-state cruise speed at 65MPH? That would mean oh so much to me if I spent all day driving 65MPH. Fusion equipped with the 1.5L Ecoboost engine and 6F35 tranny provides the worst combination of highway fuel economy, mixed driving loop fuel economy, and performance of any vehicle in its class, so it's meaningful even if you're not driving 65 mph constantly. Among the several design and engineering flaws that characterize the current generation Ford Fusion, the very poorly designed 1.5L Ecoboost + 6AT powertrain is the most notable. Edited November 7, 2014 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 EcoBoost performs well in BSFC, but in the real world Ford's engines don't perform as well as they do in the lab or in CR tests. Which is a valid test of Fuel Economy under perfect conditions. Why is that? Because of the driver of the vehicle! The issue is the more power you have, the more likely your going to use it, which explains why magazine reviewers get crappy gas mileage with Ecoboost engines. FFS, I can watch my MPG drop .3-5 a gallon when I floor my car from a stop to 60 MPG pulling out into the highway at 3/4 throttle. If I keep my foot out of it and modulate my acceleration, I get 20 MPG or so in mixed stop and go city highway driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 +1 Ford's 6F35 wasn't all that competitive back in 2009 when it was introduced on the model year 2010 Fusion. Has the wet clutch Powershift transmission suffered from reliability issues like the dry clutch version has? No, AFAIK. I think Ford should double down on DCTs and Replace the Dry DCt with the compact and lightweight Wet Clutch 7 speed 7DCT300. http://www.getrag.com/media/products/powershift/7dct300/7DCT300.pdf http://www.getrag.com/media/media/text/dtf_2012/DTF_2012_04_DCT300.pdf the most impressive Features are: It's lightweight only 150 lbs or 15lbs less the Dry DCT used in the Fiesta and Focus Gear Span of up to 8.6 vs 5.6 of the DCT and 6.1 of the 6F35 Torque Capacity 300nm or 220ft/lbs vs 200ft/lbs for the Dry DCT. It cheaper than a Conventional ATX. the Problem with ford is that our small and midsized cars are not properly matched with our Low torque transmissions, the move the GTDI technologies only exacerbates this problem by forcing the use of heavier and less efficient transmissions like the 6F in applications that the current DCT isn't optimized for. I.E. Ecoboost 1.0, 1.5, and 1.6. the 7DCT300 solves this problem. Honda's CVT is amazing. gear span of 6.53 better than the 6.1 in the 6F35 for better acceleration and Fuel Economy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 mixed driving loop.....meaningful even if you're not driving 65 mph constantly. So, if I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter if one of the tests is absurd because of a number that is derived using the results of that test along with other tests of dubious quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 FWIW: There are 18 1.5L Fusions with mileage reports on FE.gov and Fuelly.com. Self-reported mileage at FE.gov is 27.9MPG for the 2014 Fusion Self-reported mileage at Fuelly.gov is 28.2MPG for the 2015 Fusion (1 vehicle) Self-reported mileage at Fuelly.gov is 30.1MPG for the 2014 Fusion (11 vehicles) EPA combined rating for the 1.5L Fusion is 28MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 So, if I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter if one of the tests is absurd because of a number that is derived using the results of that test along with other tests of dubious quality. Why do you think the tests are absurd and/or of dubious quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Honda's CVT is amazing. gear span of 6.53 better than the 6.1 in the 6F35 for better acceleration and Fuel Economy. I'm sure it's amazing to you; to me, a CVT is an unpleasant driving experience that feels like a rental go-kart transmission. You take the savings, I'll take the 6F35. The overall driving experience is more important to me than throwing nickels around like manhole covers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Why do you think the tests are absurd and/or of dubious quality? The highway test is absurd because it consists of a steady-state cruise at a single speed. The city test is of dubious quality because it's not well controlled for externals. CU says that they use SAE adjustment factors to account for wind, temp, humidity, etc. But those adjustment factors are a poor substitute for performing the test in a closed environment where all external factors can be controlled for. And before you point out that CU running their test on a track is more 'real world' than the EPA lab tests, I would point out that CU attempts, by means of SAE adjustment factors, to control for 'real world' factors. Essentially, the CU test is worse than the EPA test because the EPA test has more rigid controls-------------and the EPA tests are published and can be externally verified! So, yes, the CU city test is dubious: Dubious because its results cannot be externally verified and dubious because its methodology is demonstrably inferior to the EPA test. Edited November 7, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Among the several design and engineering flaws that characterize the current generation Ford Fusion, the very poorly designed 1.5L Ecoboost + 6AT powertrain is the most notable. As an owner of a 2013 Fusion SE with a 2.0L EB; I want to know what these design & engineering flaws are. Apparently I've missed them, or I don't consider important enough to acknowledge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 No, AFAIK. I think Ford should double down on DCTs and Replace the Dry DCt with the compact and lightweight Wet Clutch 7 speed 7DCT300. http://www.getrag.com/media/products/powershift/7dct300/7DCT300.pdf http://www.getrag.com/media/media/text/dtf_2012/DTF_2012_04_DCT300.pdf the most impressive Features are: It's lightweight only 150 lbs or 15lbs less the Dry DCT used in the Fiesta and Focus Gear Span of up to 8.6 vs 5.6 of the DCT and 6.1 of the 6F35 Torque Capacity 300nm or 220ft/lbs vs 200ft/lbs for the Dry DCT. It cheaper than a Conventional ATX. the Problem with ford is that our small and midsized cars are not properly matched with our Low torque transmissions, the move the GTDI technologies only exacerbates this problem by forcing the use of heavier and less efficient transmissions like the 6F in applications that the current DCT isn't optimized for. I.E. Ecoboost 1.0, 1.5, and 1.6. the 7DCT300 solves this problem. Honda's CVT is amazing. gear span of 6.53 better than the 6.1 in the 6F35 for better acceleration and Fuel Economy. CVTs suck.....AWFUL...just AWFUL....dont care HOW efficient they supposedly are, and Im glad Ford DITCHED theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 CVTs suck.....AWFUL...just AWFUL....dont care HOW efficient they supposedly are, and Im glad Ford DITCHED theirs. I agree...the only ones worth a damn are found in Hybrids I don't like my engine to be stuck at 2k RPM when I try to accelerate. Its going to be really hard to deprogram 20-25 years of driving experiences (going by average car buyer age of 51) to accept how a CVT feels vs a regular transmission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I'm sure it's amazing to you; to me, a CVT is an unpleasant driving experience that feels like a rental go-kart transmission. You take the savings, I'll take the 6F35. The overall driving experience is more important to me than throwing nickels around like manhole covers. have you driven the CVT in the Accord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 CVTs suck.....AWFUL...just AWFUL....dont care HOW efficient they supposedly are, and Im glad Ford DITCHED theirs. have you driven the CVT in the Accord? I agree...the only ones worth a damn are found in Hybrids I don't like my engine to be stuck at 2k RPM when I try to accelerate. Its going to be really hard to deprogram 20-25 years of driving experiences (going by average car buyer age of 51) to accept how a CVT feels vs a regular transmission have you driven the CVT in the Accord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 have you driven the CVT in the Accord? have you driven the CVT in the Accord? TO BE HONEST NO, and have absolutely no desire too, Ive driven them in umpteen vehicles, and every single one has sucked....and based on driving Civics, Ridgelines, accords, in fact the entire Honda lineup, I dont see that they would be anything other than their usual mantera...OVER RATED because they are Honda after all....5 years from now if they are still utilizing the molasses trans I will take notice, right now I veiw CVTs as an illfounded novelty, I dont care WHO makes em...ask Nissan about theirs and its issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 have you driven the CVT in the Accord? have you driven the CVT in the Accord? have you driven the CVT in the Accord? "Best CVT" = "tallest midget." And the fact that the newest ones have fake shift points programmed in further reveals how too many people still don't like what they're supposed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 TO BE HONEST NO, and have absolutely no desire too, Ive driven them in umpteen vehicles, and every single one has sucked....and based on driving Civics, Ridgelines, accords, in fact the entire Honda lineup, I dont see that they would be anything other than their usual mantera...OVER RATED because they are Honda after all....5 years from now if they are still utilizing the molasses trans I will take notice, right now I veiw CVTs as an illfounded novelty, I dont care WHO makes em...ask Nissan about theirs and its issues. Ford ditched theirs, and recently so has Audi. I'm hoping Nissan ditches theirs, but since they pretty much make them in-house and install them in absolutely everything FWD now, that's big money for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Ford ditched theirs, and recently so has Audi. I'm hoping Nissan ditches theirs, but since they pretty much make them in-house and install them in absolutely everything FWD now, that's big money for them. I always defer to the "how come only a few use em and a majority do not...that to me signifies a serious weakness, because lets face it, if it WAS superior, then EVERYONE would go the same route....Tesla anyone?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictor Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 "Best CVT" = "tallest midget." And the fact that the newest ones have fake shift points programmed in further reveals how too many people still don't like what they're supposed to be. My Audi has the fake shift points, hell, it even has an manumatic shift function built into the shifter. I was disappointed they didn't sell a real manual transmission with the convertible in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 All this whining about CVTs just reminds me how much I prefer a good old fashioned 3 pedal manual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I always defer to the "how come only a few use em and a majority do not...that to me signifies a serious weakness, because lets face it, if it WAS superior, then EVERYONE would go the same route....Tesla anyone?.... Then there's the required drive belt replacement at around 100,000 miles depending on the unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Then there's the required drive belt replacement at around 100,000 miles depending on the unit. I remember hearing the replacement costs were one reason Ford went conventional...that and the CVT in the 500 actually got WORSE mileage than the regular 6 speed.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) I remember hearing the replacement costs were one reason Ford went conventional...that and the CVT in the 500 actually got WORSE mileage than the regular 6 speed....The CVT was grossly expensive for Ford and to repair. Plus it was heavy. The internal parts were massive but the bearings are what failed and internal seals to leak pressure. Plus the mechatronics unit was crazy high when it failed. The CVT you either got a good one and got over 100k+ out of it or it started causing issues at 60k. The 60k service was important but the cost was high. Really no plus side to the CVT behind the weak 3.0. A replacement complete CTV costs in excess of $6k. If you can get one. Don't think ford ever got a supplier. Edited November 7, 2014 by fordtech1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Not sure when this thread derailed (seeing a bunch of stuff about CVTs at moment), but to the original topic: My father purchased a Fusion Sport brand new in 2011, and I know when he went to get another, I had told him how that version had never got replaced with the new body style, but he loved the new Fusion's looks and decided to try a new one out anyway with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost. He absolutely hated it. He could tell it was slower than his Sport (remember, those came with the 3.5 V6), and was just really dejected that the new ones were "really lethargic." (His words) Anyway, he's been hanging onto his car hoping that Ford would get around to making a proper Sport or at least offer a Titanium with a Sport Package and a higher-output motor of some sort, but I don't know how much longer he's going to hang on. He's getting itchy. He's mentioned numerous times that he'd willingly pay a premium to get the 3.7-liter out of the MKZ. 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.