Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1559560562564565723

Comments

  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited December 2012
    Very well spoken. I can't risk being at the service department and losing money hand over fist in resale value while a tech patches up design flaws with duct tape.

    Been there and done that.

    In Asia, if you are the guy that screws up part of the car he or she was responsible for designing or installing, I think they are publicly executed at dawn. Really though, a persons honor is an incentive to produce a quality car in many nations.

    A new car is a ton of money and I expect it to be right the first time. Period.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    The notion that mileage improves with time for the first 5-10K miles seems contrary to my experience with a 2010 Milan. From new to the present (28,000 miles) the MPG calculations have been within a 1-2 mpg of eachother with no trend except that in the winter the mpg seems to drop 2 mpg or so. I average somewhere between 30.5 and 32.5 mpg now with more than 50 tanks burned over different new england seasons) Is there any evidence that you need to "break in" a car to get best mileage? I understand the arguments which seem logical (new tires have more drag, new fitment is tight and needs to 'loosen up", etc.) but that which is logical is not always true.

    Is there a demonstrable difference between MPG in a new car and that car 5000 miles later? I doubt it based on my last two cars behavior
  • mtnman1mtnman1 Westerville, OhioPosts: 383
    I have found that in the many vehicles we have owned over the years that mileage does in fact improve as more miles are put on them. My 2009 Fusion SEL V6 initially got around the posted estimate of 26mpg Hwy. At about 5000 it started improving to the point that now with out fail it gets 30mpg Hwy with the cruise set at 70mph. It was the same with a 2003 Hyundai Sonata V6 for me. With that one once I got to 10,000 miles it started getting about 29 to 30 mpg Hwy. I really am convinced that cars have to have the engines thoroughly broken in before they hit their peak Mpg. I think Mpg can be helped by taking it easy in the first 1000 miles of a new car even though most manufacturers state there is really not a break in period anymore.
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Posts: 12
    That may have been true years and years ago but should not be today. There is no piston slop as in years ago where the rings finally seat ( is that the correct word) after heating and cooling. One thing, I hope someone can explain is how FORD can say you can use either 87 or 91 octane fuel??? Is this a high compression engine or not??? Being so tiny I would certainly think 91 would be a requirement but if it takes both??? if that was true wouldn't the computer have to retard the engine? Isn't that in all other manufactures engine warranty considered abuse along with a high chance for engine damage using 87 in a high comp engine? I know what the difference is between octane calcualtion and I realize as opposed to most morons out there that there is no such thing as premium
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Posts: 12
    So I understand there is a software fix for my daughters 2013 Fusion 1.6 along with all the Escapes. The claim is that the engine overheats because of pressure lost in the cooling system reducing coolant flow which allows boiling coolant in the top half of the engine. Like what happened on cars 30 years ago after you have your coolant changed and it needs to BURP the air trapped out.

    So... there have been no fires in any of the European Ford Escapes and Fusions (so they day)... What up with that??? Seems European engines run a different program that provides coolant flow even if the system looses presure. So why would US Ford run a different program??? One thing I have learned over the years is if you change one thing you change something else. That program is different for a reason... MPG??? Whatever, I bet in 6 months there will be some design change on the 1.6 engine no matter how small there will be a serial number break???
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    It's not the compression that changes - it's the timing. Advancing the timing will yield better performance but also increases knock. Ford's ECM strategy in some vehicles (all Ecoboost vehicles I think) will advance the timing as much as possible and then back it off if the vehicle knocks. This will allow improved power on 91 octane vs. 87. This is no different than what most tuners do - they simply advance the timing requiring higher octane.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    The cooling system design is different on the U.S. spec 1.6L EB engines - that's why the Euro versions aren't affected. It's a software fix to not close a valve that controls coolant flow under certain conditions.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited December 2012
    The reason there have been no fires on British Fusion, is due to a minor coolant formulation change.

    You see, all European Ford Fusion/ Escape 1.6 Eco-boosts use Guinness Stout as its primary coolant.

    The Brits have also found that it works great as hydraulic brake fluid.

    I hear rumors that...along with sugarcane; cheap Vodka will be tested as "flex fuel".

    I went down the rows of new cars at my local Sheehy Ford I just was checking out what they had on the lot. $48,000 for an SHO???? $39,000 for a 1.6 Eco-boost Fusion? OMG. I saw quite a few good deals too...like a new Focus ST for 28 grand.

    I have been pulling for Ford for a long time.....just hoping they end up on top, but they have some Quality is Job 1 issues to improve.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    It's a software fix to not close a valve that controls coolant flow under certain conditions.

    Now I KNOW I'm getting old. I remember a time when a little mechanical device did exactly the same thing. And surprise surprise, it even worked with FI turbo charged engines. It was called a....wait for it.... thermostat! It was rarely troublesome and even when it was, was a do-it-yourself re and re and affordable to boot. And you didn't have to be in $bed$ with the manufacturer to fix it either.

    Right-to-repair..
    We are allowing this bed to be made for us and they've finally got us right where they always wanted us.. by the short and curly$.

    Global warming...."climate change". Pfffttttt...now they are talking about sending a particulate matter into the atmosphere to reflect heat from the sun, with the intent to help chill the Arctic and slow the ice melt. Crazy idiots shouldn't be messing with stuff just to ensure they have a job they created for themselves that could well cause a return of the Ice Age...that wouldn't help us much either would it?
    What does this have to do with software having control over coolant temps in a new FORD? The quest to be..according to them.. cleaner/greener of course. :totally rolling eyes here:

    Sigh.... take me back to the simpler days of a pretty good mid-size sedan I had back in the good ol' days...my 69 Falcon. With a simple thermostat...a simple solenoid bolted to the fender, a simple set of points that could be cleaned up with better half's nail file on the side of the road..and if need be..swapping out her underwear for a busted fan/water pump belt. And coincidently..that action had it's spin-off perks too sometimes..if ya know what I mean.. ;)
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    edited December 2012
    Yes, thermostats work great and are generally reliable. However, they cannot make minute and instantaneous adjustments designed to find more power, emit fewer pollutants, and use less fuel. Every situation has its drawbacks, but modern engines could not get the hp, torque and fuel savings we now enjoy without the huge computing power of modern vehicles. There is less to do under there, but less goes wrong. The reliability of even the most mediocre current vehicles greatly exceeds anything sold back in the 60s. They last much longer too, with much less maintenance required. But you are right...you generally can't fix much on the side of the road anymore.

    Also, remember, "they" is generally us. We elect people, or we buy their products, and we usually expect our culture and our governing bodies to meet our needs, even though everybody is an expert and everybody has preferences that conflict with those of others.

    I was around in the good old days, and while some things may have worked better, other things did not. Much of what we know now had not yet been conceived. Time only moves one way. On the whole, I prefer my present 3.0 liter six cylinder with 300 hp and instant on in whatever weather to the lethargic and thirsty V8 in my old Galaxie 500, or the gutless straight six that was in my 65 Mustang and 63 Falcon.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited December 2012
    Yes Greg, the Falcon was certainly no ball of fire. And I understand your post content. But I think the pendulum has swung too far though on the upstroke. We have had very impressively fuel efficient, 'green' and quick cars for a number of years already, that didn't have the..not sure how to say...dependence on the dealer/manufacturer to the degree that they seem to be in recent years.

    As for dependability, I guess I am not recalling this the same as you have. If a car is reliable and has a good rep, yes, it does seem to be the case to a greater degree than yesteryears, but if it has issues, they seem to be a lot more elusive and problematic for the guinea pigs which of course are the unfortunate owners. I could cite many many examples, but know this isn't the place for it.

    I know that in all new designs there are bound to be teething issues. But at a certain point, the degree at which we are experimented on or with (our $, time, inconvenience, stress, etc etc) is excessive. I get that they are anxious to try to get some $ back after seeing so many go out in R&D, but IMO, they spend too little test-time in their own hands before unleashing these inevitable unpleasant surprises on the consumer. These recent issues with FORD's new entries is a prime example of that. And when a new design has already been released overseas years prior, there are even fewer excuses for issues with that vehicle here.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    I drove over the to try and make some sense of all of this.Once I drive through an acre of Foci' and Mustangs I finally entered Fusion land. One of the Fusions' had its hood partially open, so I opened to the hood to get a gander and right on the plastic engine cover it had a TSB#. (sorry had no pen). It was a 1.6

    I looked further down the line, and there were 4 more Fusi', all 1.6 models. They were locked tight....but I bet TSB tags were on them too.

    It is very hard to bring a competitive midsize sedan to market.

    I really, really enjoyed my 5 minute test drive I took in a 2.0 Ecoboost. It was quick, but after getting out the windshield feel off the track a bit, leaving a 1/2" gap to get rained in. service guy came over and but a tarp over it.

    So, this concludes my Ford shopping. For about 1 year considering all the little niggles ford has yet to excise. :sick:
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    I drove over the to try and make some sense of all of this.Once I drive through an acre of Foci' and Mustangs I finally entered Fusion land. One of the Fusions' had its hood partially open, so I opened to the hood to get a gander and right on the plastic engine cover it had a TSB#. (sorry had no pen). It was a 1.6

    I looked further down the line, and there were 4 more Fusi', all 1.6 models. They were locked tight....but I bet TSB tags were on them too.

    It is very hard to bring a competitive midsize sedan to market.

    SO, I found a salesman who took me to a white 2.0. I really, really enjoyed my 5 minute test drive. The car was quick, but while getting out, the drivers side window got stuck on its way up. It was off the track by 1" leaving a 1/2" gap to get rained in. service guy came over and put a tarp over it.

    So, this concludes my Ford shopping. For about 1 year considering all the little niggles ford has yet to excise. :sick: :confuse: :mad:

    This concluded my interest in Ford.
  • After nearly 9 weeks of waiting for it, I finally have an estimated delivery date for my new Fusion! 12-20-2012, only one week from today! If I'm able to pick it up on 12-22-12, it will be exactly 10 weeks since I placed my order. Looks like I may actually get my new car right before Christmas! If that happens, that means I'll be spending my birthday driving around in it on New year's Eve!
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Posts: 12
    Ordered daughters Aug 8 got November 20th and gave back Dec 2. We will see if they really send back next week.
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Posts: 12
    Hope it's not a 1.6!!!
  • Hello all,

    I live in NJ and I want to buy a new 2012 Camry SE. I want to pay $23,000 out the door (including all taxes and fees) and do not have a trade in vehicle. Am I asking for to little or to much? Can somebody help me with this.

    Thanks in advance!
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    CR is doing some major backpedaling on their criticism of Ford's hybrid mpg rating and their test results.

    They're now reporting that because Ford's hybrid engines can go up to 62 mph in electric mode and the EPA test is run mostly below that speed, the vehicles do very well on the EPA test. However, CR's highway test (the one they reported) is well above that speed so the Fords are never in electric mode. In other words, if you drive like the EPA test you'll get the advertised 47 mpg. If you don't then you'll do much worse.

    Ford also showed the results of CRs City test for Prius, Prius V, Fusion and C-Max hybrids. On the city test the Fusion, Cmax, Sonata, Camry and Prius V were all between 10 and 12 mpg worse than the EPA rating. However, the Prius C was 16 mpg below EPA rating and the Prius was 19 mpg below the EPA rating.

    Why didn't CR complain about the Prius being 19 mpg worse than EPA rating on the city test?

    The answer should be obvious.

    http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/12/why-do-fords-new-c-max-fusion-hybri- ds-ace-the-epa-government-fuel-economy-tests.html?EXTKEY=I72RSC0
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,452
    same thing with the woman that sued honda because she did not get the mileage on the window sticker. Never mind that it clearly says "estimate", but it is what the government, by law, is telling them to put there! The EPA defines the test, so that is what the manufacturers do. It is not supposed to be exact real world #s.

    Hybrids though seem to be a much tougher target. Most cars seem to be reasonably close.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    The woman, a lawyer, you're referring to was fine with her hybrid until Honda discovered that it's expensive batteries were not going to hold up and they would be replacing a ton of them under warranty. They had owners bring their hybrids in and reprogrammed them to save the batteries. But by doing this the MPG was drasticallty reduced. That was the crux of the lawsuit and the lady won even against Honda's high powered lawyers. I'm sure Honda appealed or settled but I don't know about the follow up. It wasn't nearly as simple as someone just not getting EPA numbers with their new car. If it had been as simple as that the lawsuit never would have made it to trial.

    I think someone that has a law degree can figure out that the EPA estimates are just that and can be in a range depending on conditions and driving habits. However, if I was getting just fine MPG and than had a recall and repairs and when I got my car back my MPG was reduced by 25%, I would be PO'd too.

    So, you see, it is not quite the same thing.

    But I seem to recall that CR said the Fusion and C-Max tests were the furtherst off of any hybrid they had ever tested. I think that is for overall MPG, not just city MPG.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    But I seem to recall that CR said the Fusion and C-Max tests were the furtherst off of any hybrid they had ever tested. I think that is for overall MPG, not just city MPG.

    Read the link I posted. It was the highway test that skewed the results for the Ford hybrids because the EPA test is conducted mostly under 62 mph and the CR test is a steady 65 mph. That was the difference. The City test for the Ford hybrids was in the same range as the Prius C, Sonata and Camry hybrids (10-12 mpg below EPA). The Prius was 19 mpg below EPA on the City test but you don't see CR making headlines with it.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    In other words, if you want to drive on a freeway at a typical speed limit, 65-70 mph, you won't get anywhere close to the "highway" fuel economy on a Fusion hybrid.

    But if you drive 65-70 mph on a typical ICE car, you stand a good chance of getting at least close to the EPA highway fuel economy. For example, in CR's test of the 2013 Altima, they easily exceeded the EPA highway number on their 65 mph test.

    So the lesson here seems to be, if you intend to drive a lot on the highways and freeways of the USA, the Fusion hybrid isn't a good choice, since you're paying much more for that car than for a regular mid-sized sedan that will probably get better highway fuel economy than the Fusion hybrid.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    It only means that if you drive 65 you won't get 47 mpg. But they didn't say that the Fusion hybrid's highway mpg was worse than other vehicles - they only said that it was further below the EPA estimate. But the EPA estimate of 47 mpg is far above the other vehicle's EPA estimates to begin with.

    It will still beat the Camry hybrid, Infiniti hybrid and Lexus ES hybrid at those speeds in overall mpg. And if you can drop back from 65 to 60 you'll beat them by a larger margin. And it still beats most non hybrid midsized sedans even on the pure highway test. All for only about a $2500 premium. I only drive 9K miles per year and I'd break even in only 3 years.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    And if you can drop back from 65 to 60 you'll beat them by a larger margin.

    Good luck with that on most freeways in the USA. You'll also beat the EPA ratings for ANY car cruising at 60 mph.

    Altima was in the low-40s on the highway in the CR tests. So you are saying the Fusion was better than that on the CR highway test?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    I said it beats most midsized sedans, not all. And nobody drives 65 mph 100% of the time.

    Not sure what point you're trying to make.
  • b25nutb25nut Templeton, CAPosts: 199
    Buying the 2013 Fusion Hybrid, regardless of the MPG (which is still excellent), you're still getting a better car than the Altima. Just check out the Consumer Reviews for both cars on this site. The difference in city mpg will put the Fusion far ahead of the Altima in overall mpg for almost everyone. I came very close to buying the 2013 Altima. I'm glad I didn't.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    What is not being discussed here, though, is that even if you do stay under 62 mph, you are on the batteries..great..but for how long? Many highway commutes will deplete the batteries since there is no active braking or other regenerative means to recharge the batteries, and at that point you are using even more fuel to actually throw a minimum charge back into the batteries, and when you do finally get off the freeway, there will not be much battery reserve available to give you the higher coveted city FE you expect from a hybrid.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    Nobody drives under 62 on the highway much of the time.
  • No, it's a 2.0!
  • fury63fury63 Posts: 18
    edited December 2012
    Well after having the Titanium for 2 months I can give a bit better review. Overall I really like the car. It handles very well in turns and is a great drive both city and highway. I have Goodyear Eagle LS2's for OEM. They seem to do okay in the snow. The car gets it's share of looks and I have yet to see another on the road.

    Mileage is not what I hoped it would be. I'm getting 28-30 on the highway - mostly 65mph+. You can get 32-34 mpg doing 55 but that's not most of my driving. In the city, you really need to look at the instantaneous mileage meter and use a really light foot to get good city mpg. Overall I have 24.7 mpg combined with probably 60/40 city/highway so not too bad (my foot is still heavy). I hope that after 5K miles that maybe it gets better. Coming from a 6 cylinder engine, I see hills and wind really impact a 4 cylinder.

    The one thing I can't get used to is the digital fuel gauge. It's not adjusted right and is almost impossible to show full. If you do get it full, a mile of driving will pull it off pretty quick. I thought this had a 13 gal gas tank but the specs say 16.5. It would suck renting this and trying to get from the gas station back to Hertz without the tank showing not full! Not sure if the dealer can fix this or not (or whether they would acknowledge its an issue). The other day I was down to 1/8 tank and I was only able to get 12 gal in.

    The mic for hands free is pretty bad for iPhone users. I got complaints of a lot of wind noise. I tried a Samsung Galaxy and there was much less noise. In any case, I found a Jawbone Icon that plays really well with my iPhone and Sync so I can answer calls, etc. from the steering wheel controls.

    Overall, coming from an '06 and then a '10 Maxima, I'm happy with the car. I do miss my heated steering wheel though the remote start makes up for it a little!
Sign In or Register to comment.