Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18398408428448451065

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Get a car and rerun the EPA test and see if they get 47 mpg. Any other testing or speculation is irrelevant. Too many variables.

    Yes, Ford engines require around 5K miles to yield maximum mpg. Winter blend fuel lowers mpg compared to the EPA test. Optional tires lower mpg if they are not LRR. Winter heat requirements lower mpg in hybrids.

    All those COULD explain CRs lower mileage. Maybe something changed with the driver or the course.

    I'm not saying there isn't a problem - there could be something that changed in production or a bad part of software. But the only way to know is to rerun the EPA test the same way it was run before. Anything else is apples to oranges.
  • Oh, joy. Is this a separate issue from the original headlight problems a couple months ago?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    In the same test (CR), they got well over 40 mpg highway on the new Altima 2.5 with CVT. Odd how a conventional and relatively powerful 4-banger can easily over-achieve the EPA ratings on CR's test, but the Ford hybrids cannot. Most cars in fact get over the EPA rating on CR's highway test. But they tend to under-achieve on the CR test compared to the EPA city rating, as CR's "city" test is pretty severe (read "more real world") from what I've read about it.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Most updates provided from any manufacturer, whether memory stick or CD, take that much time or longer. The data being entered are huge. Be glad that software can now be updated in this manner, improving the performance of the electronic controls, navigation and sound systems.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Yes, it is odd and that's why it needs to be investigated further. But it's premature to declare it's a problem based on ONE non scientific test. It doesn't matter how "real world" the CR test is - it's not how the EPA test is conducted and there are far more variables.

    I'm sure Ford will retest and we'll know one way or the other. Sometimes things change during production that produce unintended consequences or parts get changed by the suppliers.

    Ford is having serious issues with its "global" vehicles designed and/or sourced from Europe. They absolutely need to get that addressed before the next product launch.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    So, you are saying the only way to test fuel economy is the EPA's test? :surprise:

    The real world does have variables--sorry. And CR does document how they perform their test. It could even be considered "scientific"... but clearly not by you.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    It is if you're comparing something to the EPA 47 mpg rating. CR does not document the details of the test like the EPA does. The EPA test limits variables as much as possible. The CR test - while arguably more representative of "real world" driving - does not control things like fuel mix, ambient temperature or even driving style. They use 5 different drivers in one test. So while it may be more scientific than surveying owners it is far from scientific.

    When were the other hybrid models tested? What was the ambient temperature? That alone could result in a 4-5 mpg difference.

    Re-run the EPA test and that will show if something is wrong with the vehicles or if it's just the way they're being driven.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    It's not just CR that is finding the Ford hybrids aren't getting their EPA ratings in "real world" tests...

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/healey/2012/12/08/test-drive-ford-- c-max/1752359/

    In that test, 38.4 mpg (computer) vs. EPA rating of 47 mpg average.

    Ford better watch out, the class action suits will start popping out any day now. ;)
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,733
    edited December 2012
    This is an old, old trick. Since the test is known, they alter the computer and transmission to get optimal results at exactly the test speeds. For instance, they make sure that the torque converter locks up at 1-2mph lower than the cruising speed. They make sure that the city portion of the test utilizes 100% electric power if it's a hybrid. And so on.

    Because rather than driving like a 90 year old person, if your car is going too slow or is underpowered, you don't deal with it. You hammer the gas and get where you want to go before you die of old age.

    A good example of this is driving behind a Prius driver who is playing "MPG-O-Matic" with the computers. And making everyone behind them want to do ugly things to them.

    In most automatics, the second you drop a gear and aren't in overdrive, you lose almost 25% of your MPG. You can try it by running a tank of fuel with overdrive locked out. It's also why manuals still get better MPG. They have a more forgiving gearing and typically can accelerate a bit in top gear without down-shifting.

    So real-world tests are more important than made-up nonsense to satisfy the EPA. Myself, I use the Euro ratings and convert to U.S. gallons.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    edited December 2012
    Well, I don't know if I would feel comfortable driving my new car while doing a software update.....if there was a snag, could the car end up with error code 421? (no brakes). LOL.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    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: 382
    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: 7,666
    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: 7,666
    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: 1,179
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.