Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    edited July 2013
    I think you and I have felt from the get-go that the 1.6 turbo was going to be challenged by mass in this application. I do think many people will be happy with it, as not everyone will employ full throttle acceleration between stoplights on a regular basis. Nor does everyone live in congested areas with stop and go traffic as a matter of course.

    There is a second ecoboost option that makes more sense in this car. The 2.0 turbo. With roughly 240 HP, this engine would be more able to keep up without gratuitous stabs at the throttle. I bet the MPG from both engines in this area would no more than 1 mpg +or - , and the 2.0 would be a more relaxed highway cruiser.

    I know the 1.6 is a smooth, reliable engine, and is used on many Ford models. I am not knocking it for those reasons.

    The 2.0 turbo has become the industry standard V6 replacement in modern mid and full size sedans, and I think I covered why in this post.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    edited July 2013
    I am aware of it's price tag....and I will not be running down to pick one up with three kids to put through college, but man it's a good looking sedan!

    To answer to my not liking Mazda's, it isn't that I don't like them (I bought two of them), it's that the 04 Mazda 6 had it's A/C compressor replaced twice under warranty and once out of my pocket. Also, with less than 120 k I had to put a $3000 transmission in it. Recently I found out that the outgoing models have been made in Detroit, on a Ford Assembly line with many Ford components under it's skin. My Mazda 3 was very reliable, but she almost got me killed in wet weather. (There are documented cases of it's frightening lack of traction, even two deaths). It spun while doing 45 on I-95 with no throttle application. Totaled.

    The new 6 is made in a brand new factory in Japan and with tight quality control. So with that said; I might give Mazda another shot if I was in the market for a new car. It's cool is that I can track its reliability and see if it lives up to it's full potential without any personal risk. Then I may consider it when my Optima is due for replacement.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    The 1.6L EB is being replaced with a new 1.5L EB with several improvements. I think it's going to take Ford a few years to figure out the tuning and engineering on the EB engines to get max power and fuel economy at the same time.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,426
    EB 1.6 isn't just a little behind - Mazda6 gets 28% better overall mpg (CR test 32 to 25) Ford has a long way to go. Of course Mazda, Honda and Nissan won't be standing still while Ford figures things out.

    I like Ford - they have a good chassis. Hopefully the 1.5 is an improvement.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    You can't go by one test and one driver. Based on my experience with the 2.0L EB you have to coast a lot and you have to take your foot completely off the pedal to engage the fuel cutoff. Just keeping your foot on the pedal even when not accelerating uses more fuel. It takes more talent and/or effort to get the advertised mileage in the EB engines. I also think they are more sensitive to E10 than regular engines.

    The other issue is that these EB engines seem to run very rich to prevent overheating - something that is fixed in the newer 1.5L EB and future revisions.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,680
    VW vows to spruce up lineup after sales dip in U.S.

    David Shepardson
    Detroit News Washington Bureau
    ....In 2007, VW made a declaration: It vowed to sell 1 million vehicles in the U.S. in 2018 — about 800,000 Volkswagens and 200,000 Audis. And it announced it would move its U.S. headquarters from Michigan’s Oakland County, the epicenter of the U.S. auto industry, to Herndon, Va., to be closer to its customer base on the East Coast.

    In 2011, it opened an assembly plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., its first since closing a U.S. plant in Pennsylvania in 1986. It now assembles in North America more than 72 percent of the vehicles it sells in the United States, and has vowed to boost that tally to at least 75 percent. It currently has the capacity to build more than 150,000 vehicles in Chattanooga. VW also has opened a parts center in Tennessee — its fifth — and will likely open a sixth in the northwest.

    Its U.S. dealer network has climbed from 577 in 2008 to 645 today.

    And the carmaker has launched a series of new or refreshed products that led to three straight years of double digit U.S. growth. In 2012, sales jumped 35 percent with 438,133 sold, marking the company’s best year since 1973. The automaker had its all-time U.S peak in 1970, with nearly 570,000 vehicles sold.

    But VW sales here fell by 0.9 percent in the first half of 2013, including a 3.2 percent drop in June. Its U.S. market share has slipped from 2.9 percent in the first half of 2012 to 2.6 percent in the first half of this year. U.S. auto sales as a whole are up 7.7 percent in the first half of the year....

    From The Detroit News:
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,680
    edited July 2013
    2014 Volkswagen Passat Rated at 24/35 City/Highway with New Turbo Four
    JULY 15, 2013 by ALAN ADKINS

    According to German automaker Volkswagen, the new 2014 Passat will boast improved fuel economy with a new, smaller base engine onboard. Following in the line of other carmakers ditching base engine options with more than four cylinders, Volkswagen has dropped the old 2.5-liter inline five base option in favor of a 1.8-liter turbo four capable of 170 horsepower and 184 lb/ft. torque. That’s the same amount of horsepower as the old five-cylinder base powertrain, but seven extra lb/ft. compared to the previous engine....

    In terms of fuel economy, the 2014 Volkswagen Passat will be capable of 24 mpg in the city and35 mpg on the highway with a five-speed manual transmission. Figures for the six-speed automatic option are 24 mpg city and 34 mpg highway. That represents an improvement over the 22/32 and 22/31 mpg figures on the 2.5-liter 2013 Passat for manual and automatic respectively. Other engine options include a 2.0-liter turbodiesel, which is capable of 31/43 city/highway mpg with a annual and 30/40 mpg with an automatic, and a 3.6-liter V6 with 280 horsepower and 20/28 mpg EPA estimates for city/highway driving.

    Apart from the new base engine, the 2014 Volkswagen Passat comes with several other new additions, such as a leather-wrapped steering wheel, parking brake and shifter for the Wolfsburg Edition and two-tone seats, push-button start, a backup camera and 18-inch wheels for the SE trim. Wolfsburg trim and higher would get Volkswagen’s Car-Net infotainment system. A Passat Sport edition is reportedly in the works, and could be unveiled later on in the year. - h-new-turbo-four-10458/matthewfaris.html
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    I thought it interesting to see that Consumer Reports states that if you drive the Fusion Hybrid at 55, you get 49 mpg. 65 gets you 41 mpg. Yet in the same issue, they report that the Lincoln MKZ hybrid gets 11 mpg lower overall than the EPA combined figure. So clearly, it depends on how you drive and what you drive. Hybrids are far more sensitive to variations from the EPA test parameters. Diesels on the other hand generally do better than the EPA standards in the real world. I don't think Ford is cheating, but it is possible to tune your car to the test. That is different from Hyundai's blatant misreport of mileage a couple model years ago.

    In the real world, there isn't any measurable mileage difference between the 1.6 EB and the 2.0 EB. The 2.0 can easily beat EPA estimates with careful driving. With careful driving, the 1.6 is really slow and still doesn't save much fuel over the 2.0.

    Tests provide some way to measure disparate models and engines against one another. But a different driving style can provide a much bigger advantage with one set-up v. another. The 1.6 is a good first step, but there are better choices right now, if both high mpg and good acceleration are your aims.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    It's a myth that you can "tune for the EPA test". Anything that you do to the car to make it perform better on the EPA test will also yield better results in the real world WHEN DRIVEN EXACTLY the same way.

    Since the new Ford hybrids can go 60 mph on electric only you see a big drop going from 55 to 65. Other hybrids are capped in the 40s so they don't see the same drop from 55 to 65 because they're off the battery at 55 too. And the EPA test starts with a full battery charge.

    It's more accurate to say that Ford's EB engines must be driven very carefully to get real world results close to EPA results. I suppose Ford could sandbag the test but that has CAFE implications. The only fair way is for the EPA to adjust the testing like they did in 2008 to match the current technology. That way it's the same for everyone.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,663

    You need to find a vehicle that fits your driving "zone". Many years ago I had a Honda Civic. It was a 1.6 but I couldn't get over 25ish mpg. I had that thing over 5000 rpm all the time.

    There is a minimum acceptable performance/feel/acceleration for me. So for me, I'd do better in a diesel for day-to-day driving because of the beautiful torque (I don't own one). If I'm running on a track, say an autocross course, I'd choose something other than a diesel...say an S2000...

    The 'potential' problem with the EB (theoretically...since I don't own one) is I may that I may get 'stuck' on the boost the whole time :)

    BTW, the only EB I've driven was the 2.0 in the Explorer which was very nice and more responsive than the V6. I've driven in an F150 EB (as a passenger) and that thing flew...amazing power everywhere and at any speed...
  • I think the driving environment must have more to do with the mpg you get with the Fusion 2.0 than any other factor. I've gotten as much as 50mpg and as little as 20mpg in mine, and I usually get 30mpg combined with it, which is still 4mpg over its rating. I definitely don't have to drive it very carefully to do this, nor do I have to spend alot of time coasting with my foot off the gas. I don't floorboard it everywhere I go, but I do floorboard it from time to time, and I rarely coast at all, it's either gas or brake, so why do we seem to be talking about two completely different cars? It has to be where you drive it more than how you drive it. All of my driving so far has been in TX, mostly in DFW, Houston, San Antonio, and all points between them, but also in Galveston and Corpus Christi, so the only terrain I haven't driven my car in yet is genuine mountains. I also haven't driven it in any snow yet, but I have driven it in temps ranging from 30f to 100f, on congested city streets, congested city highways, and on open roads with plenty of hills and twists for the pure joy of real driving. I've driven it as fast as 100mph more than once too, so what's the huge difference that causes you to get abysmal mpg in it? I wish I knew, but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. I've driven mine with the wind and against the wind, and in every combination of windows up or down and moonroof open or closed, and none of those things have made any huge noticeable difference in my mpg, it may go up or down slightly, but not enough to explain why others think I'm making all this up just to rub salt in their wounds with theirs. There has to be an explanation for it, I just don't know what it is. I haven't done anything special. I use regular octane unleaded gas from WalMart, no special additives and no mods.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    For this discussion, does the Audi A4 or A6 better fit into mid-size sedan?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    You and I, Allen, are basically saying the same thing in different ways. My point was that if you drive like the EPA test, you will get close to those results. Most people do not drive that way however.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    neither model fits this discussion very well, because they are in A near luxury or luxury class.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    I think the Jetta is more the culprit in the sales decline. It is about as exciting looking (inside and out) as a toaster. The low end "value" "S" model sports a torsion beam axle and the 2.0 engine with a whopping 115 hp, up ZERO from 1994. It was dubbed the "two-point-slow back then, so now it is just plain unacceptable. The flat black slab across the lower grill is awful, as are the gigantic flat black mirrors, which match the flat black interior I have just dubbed "coal mine graphite".

    It's supposed to be a young persons car, not a Moscow bureaucrat's new fleet replacement for the Trabant.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,680
    "It's supposed to be a young persons car, not a Moscow bureaucrat's new fleet replacement for the Trabant."


    All true.

    But they are having trouble selling the Passat to the point where they have cut production....
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    Mt Fusion seems to really like warm weather. Driving to work the last couple of days, my mileage went from 28.9 to 29.2 to 29.4.
    Some people are hang on every test result by C&D or CR. They should test those same cars in Denver.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,680
    edited July 2013
    VW plans to bring Phaeton back to U.S. as Passat fades

    FRANKFURT (Bloomberg) -- Volkswagen AG plans to bring back the Phaeton luxury sedan to the United States as the carmaker looks to reignite flagging growth in one of the few markets it has been unable to crack....

    The Phaeton, a pet project of VW Chairman Ferdinand Piech, last year sold about half the volume worldwide that the company initially targeted. Its U.S. comeback is part of a plan to spend $5 billion over the next three years to roll out new models and boost sales in the United States, where deliveries have started to slip after a two-year burst following the 2011 rollout of the Passat and Jetta sedans that were redesigned for American tastes....

    The company has been losing ground this year. VW's sales in the United States fell 0.9 percent to 206,792 in the first six months of 2013, while total light vehicle sales in the country rose 7.7 percent. The Jetta, Beetle and Passat models, which fueled VW's gains over the past two years, "reached maturity in terms of their sales cycles," said Tim Urquhart, a London-based analyst at IHS Automotive.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @Automotive_News on Twitter | AutoNews on Facebook
  • ral2167ral2167 Posts: 642
    Best looking non luxury sedans:
    1) Mazda 6 (not much of a contest)
    2-4) Tie depending on your biases: Malibu/Altima/Camry
    5) Sonata
    6) Accord
    No opinion: passat/optima/any thing else
    Comment: As stated, general consensus appears to be that the Mazda 6 is a really nice looking car. I kinda like the looks of the Malibu, even tho I hear it'll be moderately changed after just 1 year, but Altima and Camry also within the second tier. The Sonata is sharp, but now seems "dated"-- will be interesting to see the next generation. Accord appears very conservative to me-- somewhat like the previous generation camry was.
    None of this is a commentary on the interior/driving characteristics/etc. of the cars-- I'd rank those different. Just my opinion.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Since your Sonata has been so good to you why aren't you shopping that car? Ready for a change? I'm a big Honda fan, and think that the Accord is better than the Sonata in at least a few ways (visibility, handling, mpg, crash safety, etc.), but still I'm curious.

    It's been good, but I don't love the driving dynamics. I have a relative out of town for several weeks who has asked me to drive her car some - a 2002 Accord with 110k miles on it. At 11 years old, it drives much better than my Sonata. It rides harsher, but drives like a sports car in comparison. I had a 2006 and it was the same way. The Sonata rides soft and feels big; great for cruising but it produces zero driving fun (unless you mat the throttle; the 3.3L is plenty quick!). I bought the Sonata because of the value equation. I don't dislike it, but it doesn't make me want a new one either.
Sign In or Register to comment.