Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Hybrid

2456738

Comments

  • mtnman1mtnman1 Westerville, OhioPosts: 383
    Yeah, but the Prius and Insight won't be as classy or as fun to drive either. I'd happily give up a few MPG to drive a car that in my opinion is so much better looking. I guess my experience with talking to a couple of Prius owners is their smugness and a "I'm smarter than you" attitude they have that totally turns me off toward the car..
  • jd25jd25 Posts: 43
    Until now I have not considered a hybrid because I thought we have to wait couple of more years for the technology to mature. But after reading about Fusion Hybrid '10 now I'm seriously considering it if it is available in next couple of months. Does anyone when it would be available for sale and the approx. pricing?

    Thanks in advance!
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    I received a sopec .pdf file from the dealer on the Milian, I am impressed but still no info on how to pre-order. Should I just wait?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    Job 1 is first week in February - hybrids may be a bit later. We should know more next week. My guess is they'll hit dealers in April-May.

    All you need to do to pre-order is talk to the dealer, agree on a price (e.g. MSRP) and have them put in the order whenever the order banks open.
  • jd25 said: "Until now I have not considered a hybrid because I thought we have to wait couple of more years for the technology to mature."

    I think you're right to go ahead and buy now, because Ford has a ton of experience with the Ford Escape hybrid in the marketplace for about 5 years now. Lots of New York taxi experience in there, too. The Fusion improves on the Escape's hybrid system, evolving the design further. I'm an engineer, and your perception is correct that the engineers need time to evolve something, to get the bugs out. The Escape is generally well thought of in the market, and the Fusion will take it to a whole new level. Very exciting for us engineers, too.

    In that same Car and Driver issue (Feb. 2009) that the glowing Fusion hybrid article is in, notice the editorial column about hydraulic hybrids. That is awesome, game-changing tech for current polluting, gas-hog urban trucks and SUVs. Hybrids don't have to mean ANY electric motors or batteries!
  • scape2 said: "the CD article.. pass it on in other forums...
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/green_machines/2010_f- - ord_fusion_hybrid_short_take_road_test "

    Thats a nice test, but remember Car and Driver (the paper Feb. 2009 issue) has a full test and comparison of the Fusion hybrid against Camry, Altima, Malibu hybrids. Guess how the Fusion came out in that test? Notice the colorful language the normally-cynical Car and Driver writers use on the Fusion. Wow.
  • jd25jd25 Posts: 43
    Thanks for the reply!

    April-May seems a little too far away for Fusion Hybrid, I was hoping it'd come out in March time frame...

    Also the MSRP $28K of the base Hybrid is a little too steep compared to the gas only Fusion base price $20K... is there any tax rebate that we would qualify for the Hybrid? Do we get such tax rebate deducted from the purchase price or is this a tax rebate adjusted in 1040 filing for 2009?

    Thanks in advance!
  • Its true hybrid cars have never been a great economic decision, unless you put over 15,000 city-driving miles on the vehicle each year. Taxi service qualifies, and some other heavy-use stuff. The premium is just too much for most people. That said, some people see a victory over foreign oil there.

    It looks like Honda, with their newest Insight hybrid, to be out sometime in 2009 or early 2010, will make a $20,000 small hybrid, within reach of more people. If you want a car bargain now, its hard to beat a new 2009 Ford Fusion S 4-cylinder, which I think you can get for around $17,000 now, with Ford discounts. It will get good MPG, and the cost is not that much compared to a $24,000 Prius. Thats $7,000 worth of difference, which buys a lot of gasoline.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    March is theoretically possible, if they start hybrid production on day one and there are no launch delays. But remember - when Ford launches a new product they require 5 consecutive days of error free builds before they start shipping. One error on one vehicle and the 5 day clock starts all over. So it could be end of February before they really start shipping.

    We should get more details at the Detroit auto show starting next week.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Its true hybrid cars have never been a great economic decision, unless you put over 15,000 city-driving miles on the vehicle each year.

    This is not competely accurate. The first part is correct in that unless you drive a goodly number of miles such as 15K or 25K or 35K it really doesn't matter which vehicle you drive. The second part about they being only good for city driving is a common misconception, for two reasons.

    1. The current hybrids as well as the new FFH will get at least 20% better fuel economy on the highway as a non-hybrid version.
    2. This is almost always misunderstood, the pricing often has little or nothing to do with the decision. Why? Buyers that are on a tight budget normally don't look at $28000 vehicles. Buyers that expect to pay $25000 to $35000 for a vehicle see no problem with a hybrid in this range. That's what they normally spend.

    This is the real question that you have to ask. 'In the $25000 - $35000 price segment what vehicle can you buy that get the fuel economy of this new Fusion hybrid.' The only one close is the TCH. Nothing else qualifies. That's a nice position to be in....for both manufacturers.

    Ford and Toyota are making vehicles for this demographic segment. They are not making vehicles for the under-$20K segment...that's Honda's territory. That's also not a coincidence.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    The current hybrids as well as the new FFH will get at least 20% better fuel economy on the highway as a non-hybrid version.

    Camry I4 - 21/31
    Camry I4 hybrid - 31/34

    That's only 10% better. The Fusion numbers will be higher for both but the ratio should be similar. The improvement for city driving is so much higher than the highway improvement that people focus on the city MPG.

    As for the pricing - I've seen countless owners of $50K+ vehicles who use regular instead of premium just to save 20 cents/gallon. People who buy a $30K Fusion are just as likely to be concerned with fuel mileage and fuel savings as someone in a $20K vehicle.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    TCH has combined MPG of 33 and the non-hybrid I4 has a combined MPG of 26.

    That's a 26.9% improvement.

    Just Sayin'.
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    Does anyone think the extra 5k will be worth it to get the Milian hb?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    It is not $5K more than the Fusion hybrid. Equipped the same, the two will be at most a couple hundred dollars apart, and in real world sales prices, they will be the same (comparing Fusion and Milan hybrids). If you mean the hybrid over the 4 cylinder Milan, then it depends on what you want. I'd get the hybrid myself...uses less petrol--whether or not it ever pays me back that way--is a quieter car with more gadgets, has more panache, and will have much better resale.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    kdhspyder said the highway mileage was at least 20% better on the hybrid vs. non hybrid. The example I gave showed 31 vs. 34 for the TCH which is a 10% improvement, not 20% - on the highway.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The realworld number for all TCH's according to GreenHybrid is about 36+ mpg day on a day-in day-out driving, both highway and city. Most customers that have the TCH report 38-41 mpg on long highway trips ( 500 mi or more ).

    Of the 4 Camrys I've owned the lifetime averages have always been about 31 mpg. 85% of my driving is Highway.

    I'd expect both the TCH and certainly the FHH to approach 40 mpg all the time on the highway. The two that I've driven for more than 300 mi at Interstate speeds both got 38-39 mpg. From the available data and my own personal experience I think that the difference is about 20% on the highway, I'm pretty certain that I could push that towards 30%.

    YMMV.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    As for the pricing - I've seen countless owners of $50K+ vehicles who use regular instead of premium just to save 20 cents/gallon. People who buy a $30K Fusion are just as likely to be concerned with fuel mileage and fuel savings as someone in a $20K vehicle.

    Yep that was precisely my point. Buyers who expect to pay $25000+ for a vehicle with certain amenities will not flinch a bit at the FHH or TCH in the $28000 range. This is the demographic toward which these vehicles are aimed.

    These vehicles are NOT airmed toward the budget conscious buyer limited to vehicle prices in the $20K or lower range. That's Honda's territory.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    There is WAY too much variability in "real world" numbers to do a comparison. The EPA tests are highly controlled and exactly repeatable and I'll believe those over "real world" tests unless the "real world" tests are conducted in a similar manner - both vehicles tested exactly the same way - same weather, same route, same driver, same acceleration, speed, duration, same type of fuel (E-10 or E-0, etc.).
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    I thought the Milian HB was more than a Fusion HB?
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Actually, you have it reversed. The EPA "lab tests" just SIMULATE real driving.

    Real drivers, and real owners, are not SIMULATING anything - their results are "real world" results - much closer to what a REAL driver will get.

    People in the real world don't drive in a lab, the same way, with the same weather, the same route, same driver, same acceleration, speed, duration, same type of fuel.

    It's the EPA numbers which should be taken with a grain of salt and the real-world numbers which are more realistic - not the other way around.

    The EPA numbers are merely a basis of comparison to be used by car shoppers when comparing one or more potential cars to buy. That's all.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    I didn't say the EPA tests were a good predictor of real world results. The point was comparing highway mileage of a hybrid with it's non hybrid counterpart. The ONLY way to do that type of comparison accurately is to test both vehicles under exactly the same circumstances. It doesn't matter whether it's a real world test or lab test as long as both vehicles are tested THE SAME EXACT WAY. Using anecdotal evidence from multiple different drivers in different areas who drive differently doesn't prove anything - there are way too many variables that could affect the outcome.

    Like you said - the EPA test is for comparing vehicles, which is exactly what we were doing - comparing hybrid vs. non hybrid highway mileage. I think the FFH FE numbers will also show approximately 10% better highway mileage over the non hybrid I4.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    At some point the weight of evidence begins to point out the truth. The fact is that while the current EPA tests are accurate metrics of driving under specific controlled circumstances those values coupled with significant real world results after millions of miles give a more accurate picture of what the likely outcome will be.

    One could be considered hypothetical predictions and the other field testing of the hypothesis. It's pretty clear from millions of miles of field testing that the TCH will be able to exceed the non-hybrid version of the Camry and FHH the non-hybrid version of the Fusion by at least 20% on the highway. If you disagree then we'll leave it thusly...

    I can make the TCH and the FHH exceed their non-hybrid siblings by 20% on the highway. I've done it already so I'm confident enough in my own personal results to believe that the results will be consitent. Therefore like everything else in life personal experience is far more important than hypothetical predictions. YRMV.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Unfortunately that evidence is anecdotal and dependent on individual circumstances. I'm glad you at least are pointing out that people's results may vary because there are some hybrid-lovers who insist they will solve all the ills of the world, including huge improvements in highway mileage. I haven't tried it, but given evidence of those who DO drive hybrids on my same commute, the major increase is only realized when the highways are slowed to stop/go traffic levels, so it really does depend.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    It's absolutely possible for some people to get 20% better highway mileage - possibly even 30%. But it's also likely there are others who only get 10% better or less. You have no idea how these people reporting FE are driving or even if they're being honest.

    There's a big difference in highway mileage depending on how fast you drive and whether you include getting on and off the highway or not, etc as well as whether you're using E-10 or not (which drops mileage noticeably in most vehicles). Your anecdotal evidence does not account for these differences - the EPA test does.

    Even with hundreds of online accounts, the sample size is still way too small and potentially skewed to be accurate.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    Another skew in all this is that applying a particular lab test to a gasser, a hybrid and diesels does not control very well for the advantages/disadvantages each may have at a particular spot in the cycle...stuff unlikely to show up the same way in the real world. The EPA adjusted their tests for 2008 models for many reasons of course, one being hybrids were reading high..another being a lot of people weren't getting EPA numbers with their gassers either. Now they have a test that gives results almost anyone can beat with normal driving with any of the common propulsion systems. I do not know that this is any better than the yardstick we had before.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    akirby says, "Even with hundreds of online accounts, the sample size is still way too small and potentially skewed to be accurate. "

    Actually, the gh.com website has 148,512,469 miles registered.

    Even if you take into account that the number of "fudgers" in the group is 10%, which is probably about right based on societal norms, you still have a HUGE number of miles being reported accurately and honestly.

    Until someone shows me another better source, that site is and should be the Bible of real-world mileage reference.

    There are government fleet studies too which have registered real-world numbers. There are those at fueleconomy.gov which are real-world drivers. The various TDI forums have hundreds or thousands of real-world results.

    The smallest sample of all is the EPA test. It should be the least likely to be correct regarding real-world mileage.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Repeat: the EPA is a baseline test of different cars using the EXACT SAME test under the EXACT same conditions and the EXACT same driving style. In other words, all else being equal, Car A will get x/y and Car B will get w/z .

    it's impossible to compare Car A getting x/y using Test 26 while driving aggressively and Car B getting n/m using Test 34 while driving conservatively.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Yes we are in agreement with this but that's why I suggest that the EPA tests are hypothetical while the results being posted on various sites in huge volumes are the actual field tests in verification of the hypotheses.

    I personally had no problem meeting the 'old' EPA test values with any vehicle I've owned since the 80's. I also understood that the values posted were hypothetical for controlled circumstances. Outside conditions could increase or decrease the real world results.

    The weight of evidence supports the fact that today almost any driver can exceed the new EPA numbers by 5-15% in their daily usage. Going back to the original point that set off this discussion. The various hybrids on the road today are NOT solely intended for slow-and-go city or highway driving. That's an old and since-disproven misconception. Every one of the current hybrids is far better on the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts.

    I suggest that this 'far better' value runs from 20-30% better. You may have a different value and that's OK. Nonetheless it remains that the hybrids do outperform the non-hybrids significantly on the highway. When coupled with the phenomenal improvement of the worst case driving situation, i.e. slow-and-go traffic, then the hybrids are a solid economic decision for the appropriate buyer.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    You guys are TOTALLY missing the point. The question is NOT whether the EPA tests are realistic. In this case it doesn't even matter. If you want to compare 2 different vehicles then you have to test them the same way - EXACTLY.

    Now it's entirely possible that if you did a controlled test in the real world where both vehicles were driven the same way on the same route with everything being equal that the numbers would be different than the EPA test numbers. HOWEVER, until someone can find a test like that the only VALID comparison numbers are from the EPA tests.

    This is basic science folks. The key to a valid test is repeatability. If you run the EPA test over and over you'll probably see only a very minor variation in the figures - I'm guessing 2 percent or less. Compare that with the owner reported fuel mileage which I'm guessing has a very wide range (someone mentioned 38-42 mpg). That alone should tell you how unscientific the measurements are.

    If you're trying to figure out what your mileage may be in the real world then those measurements are fine. But you can't use them for comparisons.
Sign In or Register to comment.