Howdy, Stranger!

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





Ford Freestyle Real World MPG

11415171920

Comments

  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    I am glad they are doing this, and frankly, they need to go much further and increase the CAFE standards for fuel economy. it is the only way to force manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Yes, I have liked my big American cars with v-8s, but the time for a change has come. Engines are on the rise for size and power (unnecessary in most cases). Our appetite for power is irresponsible.
  • I'm pleased with EPA's change in methodology. It makes sense.

    I live in a very hilly area (Asheville, NC) and chose a 2005 FWD Freestyle for the CVT. I've driven hybrids (prius/escape/insight) around here and they get nowhere near their purported mileages because on grades they're hauling two systems uphill (they're heavier).

    I was pleased to compare the Freestyle's new nos. to the Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans. The new test favors the CVT. See for yourself at fueleconomy.gov
  • dnashdnash Posts: 35
    Why place the burden on the manufacturer. Why not create a FAFE and give each family a target to reach?
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,788
    "Why place the burden on the manufacturer. Why not create a FAFE and give each family a target to reach?"

    Probably because the mechanical and automotive engineers work for the manufacturers, not the families, and most families do not have the resources to develop MPG solutions.
  • dnashdnash Posts: 35
    While I was kidding (well halfway anyway), families can choose to buy more efficient vehicles and drive the market. Choose a crossover instead of an SUV or pick a focus for the daily commute. There are a lot of options and changing the environmental impact of autos should start at the lowest level possible.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    Raise the CAFE standards or tax more. It meeds to start at the top.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,788
    "There are a lot of options and changing the environmental impact of autos should start at the lowest level possible."

    Only if people care about such things, it is a free country... and should remain so.
  • People don't like higher MPG compared to power (acceleration). Look at how almost everybody complains that the Freestyle only goes 0-60 in 8.6 seconds, when they say it should do it in 8.0 seconds. To do this would mean a more powerful (TaurusX) engine that makes MPG fuel economy worse. Thats what the people demand, thats what they get. In truth, they make fun of Al Gore and drive their Hummer through protected wetlands anyway. Its an inconvenient truth about people's behavior.

    One request to posters on this forum: This is a Freestyle forum, so post at least one fact about the Freestyle per post, please. Like: "vote democrat, and my Freestyle gets 27 MPG on the highway" or something like that.
  • dnashdnash Posts: 35
    So are you saying that it should be free for people to do whatever we want to the environment, but not free for companies to make money as they choose. It would be one thing if we were talking about the polution that is being created by the manufacture of the vehicle (which I am sure there is some), but we aren't. To paraphrase another argument, cars don't create polution, people create polution.

    As a Freestyle fact, I have gotten a bit over 25 mpg a couple of times on 500 mile trips at 70-75 mph. These were about 75% interstate and 25% country roads (with a few small towns and many hills and no I didn't do 70-75 on the country roads)
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,788
    "So are you saying that it should be free for people to do whatever we want to the environment, but not free for companies to make money as they choose. It would be one thing if we were talking about the polution that is being created by the manufacture of the vehicle (which I am sure there is some), but we aren't. To paraphrase another argument, cars don't create polution, people create polution."

    My original comments were in response to a post which intimated that people should have to use less, and should be viewed in that context.

    I think both companies and people are pretty much free to do as they choose. The Companies have to meet EPA rules due to air quality, and the people decide which vehicles will sell, by their purchasing decisions. My view is that the companies should step up to the plate and develop the technologies of the future. I get concerned when people speak of "forcing" (they don't use the word, but that is what they mean) people to do something, regardless of if the issue is the environment or anything else.

    The FS is a case in point. Ford deployed a vehicle with decent MPG for the size and weight, and yet the main thing one hears from reviewers (and many customers) is - more power. So Ford is providing that power in the form of a larger V6 and conventional transmission. I don't think many people want to sacrifice power for economy at this point in time, and I disagree with any effort to "make" them change.

    2006 SEL FWD: I get about 25 MPG @ 80 MPH on pure interstate driving - great for such a large vehicle and cross - section.
  • dnashdnash Posts: 35
    I understand where you are coming from, but my original comment on FAFE was in response to a post about increasing the CAFE requirements on the manufacturer. You state that companies are pretty much "...free to do as they choose." and then follow that with "The Companies have to meet EPA rules..." which is a contradiction. I agree that companies "should" step up to the plate but EPA rules (well NHTSA rules based on EPA testing) are trying to force it. While I like personal freedom, I don't agree that companies or people should be allowed to do things unchecked that have ramifications to others.

    With that in mind, it is the driver that creates the pollution, not the manufacturer of the car. FAFE was a joke but I have a problem with the way that this issue is always pushed at the manufacturers rather than the users. We don't just have to focus it on cars. We could extend it to your total pollution emissions, including the power you use in your home (Al Gore would be in trouble) or the exhaust from your lawnmower. You get to make a certain amount of pollution and thats it. I know that is extreme and unenforceable, but imho is much more fair than the current systems we have in place or that are being proposed. Sometimes things have to be forced for the common good. That's why I am not allowed to go around randomly firing bullets or putting my trash in the local park. Somewhere out there there is a happy medium between freedom and the common good but who knows if we will ever find it. Most people would agree that we need to help the environment (at least I hope so) but like you stated, they want more power in their car. I like my power as much as the next guy but I agree the Freestyle has plenty of power for what it is designed to do.

    I feel like I am rambling so I will end it with another Freestyle fact. I tend to average about 18MPG on my 4 mile city driving commute to work with several instances of accelerating on a highway only to soon stop. That is 3-4 MPG better than my Wrangler.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Over the past 2 years and 44,000 miles, I get in the low 20sMPG in mixed driving, mid 20sMPG in 70-75MPH highway driving, and in the upper 20sMPG if I keep the speed in the low 60sMPH.

    My other car is a Honda Fit, and I get in the low 30sMPG in mixed driving, high 30sMPG in pure highway driving at about 70mph, and if I take it easy on the highway and keep the speed in the low 60sMPH, then I can get 40mpg.

    So in general, I get about 50% better mileage in my Fit, but I'm satisfied with my real-world MPG in both vehicles.
  • fordenvyfordenvy Posts: 72
    should give better performance but the same MPG, possibly higher, we have to wait for the EPA on that. I estimate same city mileage, but 2 mpg higher on the highway.
  • tango_28tango_28 Posts: 35
    I did manage to get 27.6 mpg on our Freestyle last weekend. I was coming back from Chicago to St Paul. Outside temp was 62F degrees and was going 65mph. I did fill with gas in IL and mileage was much better than gas for Mn.
  • mrdinmnmrdinmn Posts: 9
    I usually get about 18 in the city and nearly always get 28.5 on the highway driving at 67 MPH. Cold temperatures decrease the mileage I experience, but the car's load seems to make little to no difference.
  • tango_28tango_28 Posts: 35
    Just got a Scangauge for the Freestyle and manage to get 32mpg @60mph with the AC. This car is awsome for Awd car, I could never get that kind mpg with my Subie.
  • heltonhelton Posts: 56
    "Just got a Scangauge for the Freestyle and manage to get 32mpg"

    Just out of curiosity, do you believe the Scanguage helped you get 32 mpg, or were you not able to calculate your gas mileage without the Scanguage?
  • saabturboidsaabturboid Posts: 178
    I don't know what a Scangauge is but the most accurate way of calculating fuel economy is to fill the car, drive it, then fill it again and calculate the miles driven vs. the amount of gas used. On our '05 AWD Freestyle the best fuel economy I've ever gotten on a full highway tank with the cruise set at 70mph was 25mpg. Unless it was all downhill with a 30mph tail wind I find 32mpg with the AWD Freestyle a little hard to believe.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    I assume you're calculating the mpg manually?
  • tango_28tango_28 Posts: 35
    If you look at hp require at 60mph VS 70mph that where you figure out your fuel savings. Driving fast is easy compare to hypermiling a car. It does take some skills to hyper mile a car. I calculate my mpg by hand and with the Scanscage and it comes pretty close. If you think 32mpg on a Freestyle is a far fetch, check out this guy out with a 06 Dodge Carvan with only a 4speed tranny.

    link title
Sign In or Register to comment.