Fairlane People Mover Early Specs

[silvrsvt]

With bold, American design, three rows of seating and about 23 miles to the gallon, we believe this all-new vehicle can redefine the people-mover for the 21st century. We will build this new crossover at our Oakville Assembly Plant in Ontario to take advantage of the significant investment we’ve made in flexible manufacturing there.

 

Still no idea what the Edge and MKX get MPG-wise...go figure.

[waymondospiff]

What piqued my interest in the release was calling the Fairlane-like crossovers "fullsize." To me, fullsize is bigger than the Fairlane concept & Freestyle, both of which I'd consider "large midsizers" like Pilot, Rendezvous, & Pacifica. Is the "F-Mover" bigger than the concept or is it just roomy enough to be called fullsize?

 

Scott

[630land]

Good point, is it a full sized car or truck?

[silvrsvt]

Good point, is it a full sized car or truck?

 

 

Well I would consider GM's new Crossovers to be Fullsized..they are nearly the size of their GMT9000 SUVs!

[bystander]

I couldn't figure out why anyone would think 23mpg for a crossover was noteworthy enough to merit mentioning in the presentation yesterday. Twenty three mpg is nothing to write home about--in fact, it REALLY sucks. The damned Freestar gets 23mpg and it is completely uncompetitive with the leading minivans. The current Sienna is rated at 26mpg highway and the Odyssey (with its cylinder deactivation-equipped V6) is rated at 28mpg. By 2008, when the production Fairlane hits showrooms, the bar will probably be even higher than that.

 

The fact that such an uncompetitive figure was emphasized just reinforces the notion that Ford is out of touch with the marketplace.

Edited September 16, 2006 by bystander

[Edgey]

I couldn't figure out why anyone would think 23mpg for a crossover was noteworthy enough to merit mentioning in the presentation yesterday. Twenty three mpg is nothing to write home about--in fact, it REALLY sucks. The damned Freestar gets 23mpg and it is completely uncompetitive with the leading minivans. The current Sienna is rated at 26mpg highway and the Odyssey (with its cylinder deactivation-equipped V6) is rated at 28mpg. By 2008, when the production Fairlane hits showrooms, the bar will probably be even higher than that.

 

The fact that such an uncompetitive figure was emphasized just reinforces the notion that Ford is out of touch with the marketplace.

 

I watched the press conference yesterday and I to was a little perplexed by their focus on MPG for the Fairlane when it is apparently very poor.

[range]

The Odyssey is rated at 21 mpg combined and 23 only if you get the optional 3 cylinder DoD version (which as we know does not translate into to real world mpg figures):

 

 

MPG (city) 19

MPG (highway) 25

MPG (combined) 21

 

 

MPG (city) 20

MPG (highway) 28

MPG (combined) 23

 

The Sienna gets

 

MPG (city) 19

MPG (highway) 26

MPG (combined) 21

 

For the Fairlane to get at least 23 mpg, and to do it without relying on inflated and imaginary DoD numbers looks pretty competitive.

[bystander]

The Odyssey is rated at 21 mpg combined and 23 only if you get the optional 3 cylinder DoD version (which as we know does not translate into to real world mpg figures):

 

 

MPG (city) 19

MPG (highway) 25

MPG (combined) 21

 

 

MPG (city) 20

MPG (highway) 28

MPG (combined) 23

 

The Sienna gets

 

MPG (city) 19

MPG (highway) 26

MPG (combined) 21

 

For the Fairlane to get at least 23 mpg, and to do it without relying on inflated and imaginary DoD numbers looks pretty competitive.

 

 

You're assuming he was quoting combined city/highway mileage and not highway. If he was referring to combined (and I have my doubts), it was very foolish. Most people use the highway number as the gauge of a vehicle's fuel efficiency (for example, when Toyota advertises the number of cars it sells that get more than 30mpg, they're referring to highway mpg).

 

Whether or not DoD technology translates into "real world" fuel mileage improvement is debatable (if you drive at a steady speed or use cruise control on the highway, DoD WILL improve your fuel economy). The fact that a number of major manufacturers are implementing it and the fact that consumers use the EPA fuel economy rating when making purchasing decisions suggests Ford powertrain is missing the boat (again) by stubbornly refusing to incorporate it.

Edited September 16, 2006 by bystander

[tim kakouris]

DoD is a myth. it is employed in such a narrow band of use that i would call it useless except for steady state highway use, where most vehicles get their best milage already. read up, you'll be surprised.

[bystander]

DoD is a myth. it is employed in such a narrow band of use that i would call it useless except for steady state highway use, where most vehicles get their best milage already. read up, you'll be surprised.

 

Like, say, when the family goes on vacation on interstate highways or when, oh I don't know, people happen to commute to their jobs on the local freeway. As long as you don't drive like an erratic maniac, DoD will save fuel. I think much of this poo-pooing of DoD on BON is sour grapes from the Ford diehard contingent because Ford doesn't offer it.

[J-150]

Like, say, when the family goes on vacation on interstate highways or when, oh I don't know, people happen to commute to their jobs on the local freeway. As long as you don't drive like an erratic maniac, DoD will save fuel. I think much of this poo-pooing of DoD on BON is sour grapes from the Ford diehard contingent because Ford doesn't offer it.

 

 

 

most commuting is actually stop and go, whether thats highway or city.

 

Most freeway vacation speeds are NOT 55. They are 75.

 

 

There is EPA estimates, and then there is real life.

[focus05]

Cylinder deactivation does provide some improvement to some people. That's the truth. But, most importantly, it boosts up your mileage rating because the tests for gas mileage are woefully inadequate. So, even though it doesn't provide improvements in mileage for most people, the 16/22 sticker on the Chevy Tahoe will pull buyers away from the 15/19 sticker on the Explorer, for example, even though the Tahoe will never get 22 on the highway unless you are on a flat highway going 55 mph with a light load (which maybe two people in the U.S. will EVER do). In fact, most testing of Chevy's Tahoe has reported 12-13 mpg overall.

 

This is a problem with mileage estimates and how they are determined. Toyota does a brilliant job of making sure they're numbers are great. And while, overall, Toyota has fairly efficient engines for their size, the numbers are not near the truth. The new Rav4 for example averages about 19 for most people as opposed to the 22-29 that it advertises for its 3.5L. The new Camry averages about 22 on a rating of 22-31. Obviously that depends on your driving habits and your city/hwy mix. Both based on rental experiences of mine.

 

Others are: Corollas average about 30 overall where I drive and how I drive. Focus's average about 29. Accents average about 28. That's probably close for the latter two, but the Corollas I drive are supposed to be getting 31-38.

 

Now, I assume that Mark Fields was quoting a combined figure, which means the actual rating would probably be like 19-25 (and real world after about 3,000 miles of engine break-in would be 18-24), which is competitive with minivans and larger SUVs out there. But, the truth is, companies can make a car that really gets probably 18-24 be rated at 21-29 through different tricks, so which one do you want to buy? A 19-25 or a 21-29? That's what I thought.

[RichardJensen]

The target combined mileage for the Fairlane is 23mpg. Like Ford's emphasis on 87 octane hp numbers, the mention of 23mpg is designed to be more indicative of real world experience. The 23mpg figure is probably based on estimates that factor in engine displacement, transmission stats, a Cd, and a weight--all of which should be more or less ironed out by now. If the design is frozen, and it should be, the Cd is known, therefore, an estimate of combined gas mileage should be pretty easy to supply.

Edited September 16, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Michael Reynolds]

Like, say, when the family goes on vacation on interstate highways or when, oh I don't know, people happen to commute to their jobs on the local freeway. As long as you don't drive like an erratic maniac, DoD will save fuel. I think much of this poo-pooing of DoD on BON is sour grapes from the Ford diehard contingent because Ford doesn't offer it.

 

Have you driven a vehicle with DoD for an extended period of time? Just curious?

 

Anyhow I drove the 2007 Suburban for several days, said vehicle had about 4K miles on the odo and yes it was equipped with DoD. Cruising along at highway speeds at approx 65 mph, I tried my hardest to keep it in V4 mode (feathering the gas to merge, using cruise control). What I found was that in most cases you either had to have your foot off the gas, or barely be on the gas in order to keep the vehicle from running on all 8. Hate to break it some of you but in order to keep a vehicle that isn't very aerodynamic at X speed you have to ensure you are giving the thing a reasonable amount of gas in order to do so.

[igor]

BACK ON TOPIC:

 

a bout the "vehicle formerly known as Fairlane" being FULLSIZED.

 

The concept was built on a CD3 platform, but the production vehicle mwas moved to D3. This in and of itself provides larger wheelbase, and wider track.

 

The freestyle is quite "full-sized" crossover - but I little low - especially compared to the upcoming Lambrdas.

 

I still have trouble with seeing the differentiation between Freestyle and the "V-F-K-A-Fairlane" - they are on the sme platform, they both have 3 rows, they will likely use the same engine ...

 

we shall see.

 

Igor

[Harley Lover]

BACK ON TOPIC:

 

I still have trouble with seeing the differentiation between Freestyle and the "V-F-K-A-Fairlane" - they are on the sme platform, they both have 3 rows, they will likely use the same engine ...

 

we shall see.

 

Igor

 

I'm repeating myself, but I'm convinced the differentiation will be that the Freestyle will wear SUV sheetmetal (in the manner of the Escape) while the Fairlane will have crossover sheetmetal (in the manner of the Edge). Thus Ford covers both markets.

Edited September 16, 2006 by Harley Lover

[waymondospiff]

a bout the "vehicle formerly known as Fairlane" being FULLSIZED.

 

Hmm...I didn't some checking, sure enough, the Freestyle and Acadia are fairly close, the biggest differences being in width, height, wheelbase, & weight. The overall dimensions maybe close, but it seems like GM is squeezing more room out of their models. I also threw in the Sienna as a comparison to competitive minivans, as neither GM nor Ford has a competitive minivan.

 

Acadia - 118.9" whlbse...200.7" lgth...78.2" width...69.9" height

Freestyle-112.9" whlbse...199.8" lgth...74.4" width...65.9" height

Sienna - 119.3" whlbse...200.0" lgth...77.4" width...68.9" height

 

Acadia - 4500lbs. towing...116.9 cu.ft. cargo...4722lbs FWD/4936lbs AWD curb weight

Freestyle-2000lbs. towing... 85.2 cu.ft. cargo...3959lbs FWD/4112 lbs AWD curb weight

Sienna - 3500lbs. towing...148.9 cu.ft cargo...4180lbs FWD/4330 lbs AWD curb weight

 

Interesting information I thought. The Acadia uses almost identical specs to a minivan, and achieves similar numbers...albeit with a smaller interior & heavier curb weight. Hopefully the "F-Mover" will keep the Freestyle's light weight but add a couple of inches in width & height.

 

And to agree with Harley Lover, I think "butchifying" the Freestyle and "city-fying" the "F-Mover" could create two separate, stand-alone vehicles.

 

Scott

[igor]

I'm repeating myself, but I'm convinced the differentiation will be that the Freestyle will wear SUV sheetmetal (in the manner of the Escape) while the Fairlane will have crossover sheetmetal (in the manner of the Edge). Thus Ford covers both markets.

 

Harley, I should have mentioned your interpretation in my post, rather than having you explain it to me for about 3rd time :D .... the thing is ... I do not see the Freestyle as SUV styled - it is actually wuite a bit car/wagon styled - ... I am sure we will knoe soon enough - but for now I am still unsure about this whole thing.

 

waymondospiff

 

thanks for the specs ... so - the acadia (lambdas) truly is GM's new minivan ... hmm ...

 

And afte rreading your post .. HARLEY ... I think if they do CHANGE the Freestyle look to look more like an SUV .. that could work.

 

Igor

Edited September 16, 2006 by igor

[bystander]

Have you driven a vehicle with DoD for an extended period of time? Just curious?

 

Anyhow I drove the 2007 Suburban for several days, said vehicle had about 4K miles on the odo and yes it was equipped with DoD. Cruising along at highway speeds at approx 65 mph, I tried my hardest to keep it in V4 mode (feathering the gas to merge, using cruise control). What I found was that in most cases you either had to have your foot off the gas, or barely be on the gas in order to keep the vehicle from running on all 8. Hate to break it some of you but in order to keep a vehicle that isn't very aerodynamic at X speed you have to ensure you are giving the thing a reasonable amount of gas in order to do so.

 

A friend of mine owns the latest generation Odyssey and reported mileage in the high 20s when he took it on vacation.

 

There are two ways to look at this:

1) DoD does provide a "real world" fuel mileage benefit (I have a hard time believing so many automakers are adopting it if it does not really work--are they all stupid and Ford is brilliant?).

2) DoD does not provide a "real world" fuel mileage benefit, in which case all the other automakers are adopting a technology that does not provide much of a beneft EXCEPT for the fact that they can now advertise EPA numbers that are 10-15% higher than similar vehicles without DoD. Since Ford has shunned this technology and many other companies are implementing it, Ford will stand out with uncompetitive EPA fuel mileage ratings.

 

 

Either way, Ford loses.

[tim kakouris]

manufacturers are making hybrids, and we know they don't provide even the efficiency of a diesel. who says car makers don't jump on band wagons?

 

i don't care one way or another if ford loses out on it. what i care about is the fact that it doesn't work, and people should be informed of it. it may do much more good for lighter cars, which can take advantage of the technology. the heavy, hulking suv's are too heavy, and most of their gas is wasted in acceleration. taking a family on vacation matters, what, twice a year? the rest of the year, just like someone said, a normal commute is stop and go, exactly where DoD doesn't do a damn bit of good and adds cost and complexity to an engine.

 

oh, and of course, it adds more to the fantasy that appears on new car stickers, EPA milage figures. if we are going to have such information displayed on our new cars, at least it should be honest.

[J-150]

oh, and of course, it adds more to the fantasy that appears on new car stickers, EPA milage figures. if we are going to have such information displayed on our new cars, at least it should be honest.

 

 

 

it is honest. A uniform test is applied to all cars.

 

The test itself is outdated and needs to be revised, but there is a degree of truthfulness to EPA estimates.

[tim kakouris]

the test is honest, but the results are fantasy. the test may be uniform, but the procedure is so out of touch with the way real cars are driven by real people that the numbers it spews out are not relavent. and, they can't be compared because different cars behave differently under different test conditions; you can't use the relative numbers and just skew them up or down.

 

again, i'm not bitching about this because it makes ford look bad. this is not blue oval news exclusive information...it's been talked about in the press and on prime time news. that's why it's being revamped.

[igor]

the test is honest, but the results are fantasy. the test may be uniform, but the procedure is so out of touch with the way real cars are driven by real people that the numbers it spews out are not relavent. and, they can't be compared because different cars behave differently under different test conditions; you can't use the relative numbers and just skew them up or down.

 

again, i'm not bitching about this because it makes ford look bad. this is not blue oval news exclusive information...it's been talked about in the press and on prime time news. that's why it's being revamped.

 

 

let's compatre it to crash tests ... if your car gets the "Top pick" and 5star all around, does that mean you will walk away from ever accident with only a couple of scratches? NO ..

 

but it means that you re more likely to do just that in that "top pick" car than a car iwth less stars all around.

 

EPA mileage numbers do not agree with real world numbers mostly. However they CORRELATE with the real world numbers, meaning that even yough you might not get the 37mpg on the 07 Focus, you are very liekely you will get better mileage than the 32mpg Cobalt (pulled this number out of my behind, so please do not flame for being incorreect - just making an example).

 

PS: I have been getting perfect EPA fgures in my Mazda3s stick .. even beat the HWY number on several occassions - once by whole 3mpg. (got 35+mpg while hte EPA figure is 32)

 

Igor

[ANTAUS]

I've also beat my EPA mileages as well on my LS V8...not for the positives though. Window said 18/25, I get an average of 13. And if I'm having a good week, maybe 14-15MPG, Woohooo !

 

Realistically If the "Fairlane" F---en-Mover, gets 23...chances are it's probably a 16-18MPG vehicle. By the time you get 600lbs of mommy and daddy in the front seat, littel Timmy and Billy in the 2nd row with their McD's value meals, and their 2 daiper changing bags which that entourage weights around 20lbs each, and Grandma in the 3rd row (Maria the maid if you live in Miami), and throw in a few strollers, a cooler for fresh drinks from and to the mall 10 blocks away, your easily looking at an additional 1200lbs the vehicle has to drag around, lowering the fuel economy quite a bit.

Edited September 17, 2006 by ANTAUS

[oac bodyboy]

this full size label has me excited! not one product is available to a large family, unless you go to a full size van or SUV that are $45,000 plus. full size with 3 rows of seating and CARGO ROOM BEHIND THE 3RD ROW IS A MUST. windstar wasn't big enough , freestar better but 2nd and 3rd row seating was compromised! a guy i work with has 5 kids and he has said over and over that someone needs to build an affordable big family vehicle.