Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Freestyle Real World MPG

123457

Comments

  • tango_28tango_28 Member Posts: 35
    This was a mix of 80% highway 20% suburban driving. I have been trying to keep engine RPM at 1800. If I were to do 100% highway driving I think I can get 27mpg at 65mph.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    With an AWD, it might not quite reach 27 MPG at 65. I have a 2WD Freestyle, and thats what I get. Remember the AWD gear eats gas at about 1 or 2 MPG.
  • tango_28tango_28 Member Posts: 35
    I know it has different gearing from FWD FS, It would be close to 27mpg @65. When I drive for fuel economy I watch the tach rather than the speedometer. Here is good website to learn good mpg driving skills

    Gassaver
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    "I know it has different gearing from FWD FS, It would be close to 27mpg 65."
    I'll bet you can do it, tango_28. :) Sounds like you have the right car and really know how to drive. Why not give it a try and let us know how you do?
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    tango_28, By "gear" I meant that turning all the extra mechanical system components in the AWD models burns more gas since it is wasting energy having to do this, compared to a 2WD model. Also, the AWD mechanicals weigh about 200 lbs, eating more gas just from the weight increase. Thats what accounts for most of the MPG drop in AWD models. Thats why a steady cruise at 65 in an AWD model will get you about 25 MPG, not 27. (AWD models also accelerate slower than 2WD models for the same reasons.) I'll take my 2WD model, with better MPG and better acceleration.
  • tango_28tango_28 Member Posts: 35
    Yes I knew this when I bought the car, If I really wanted to get great mpg and faster acceleration I would use my modded 03 TDI Jetta wagon. I think it's possible to achieve 27mpg at 65mph. Granted I not going attempt this feat until weather gets warmer here in MN. Also I will buy the fuel in WI because MN mandates 10% ethonal in our gasoline.
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    "I think it's possible to achieve 27mpg at 65mph."

    The EPA highway estimate for this car is 24 mpg, so 27 mpg would really be good. I’m looking forward to warm weather and a report on what kind of mileage tango_28 was able to achieve.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    65 mph just has too much wind drag to get 27 MPG in an AWD model, but you can probably get close.

    Here is how to get the best MPG out of your Freestyle:
    --- 60 degree F day
    --- zero wind (actually, a tailwind would help)
    --- tires all at 40 psi
    --- just you in the car, no luggage or people
    --- 2WD model
    --- using a 0w-20 or 5w-20 oil; do not use a 0w-30 or 5w-30 oil, as your MPG suffers about 1 MPG compared to a "20" oil.
    --- flat, smoothe concrete road surface (asphalt absorbs energy a little, so concrete is slightly better).
    --- 40 to 50 mph speed, steady
    --- Not using any ethanol mixed into the gasoline
    --- Octane does not matter at all, since we don't have a knock sensor to take advantage of that.

    With all the above conditions met, you should be able to get about 33 MPG. (I've done 31 MPG with some of the conditions met.)

    Here's how to get the worst MPG:
    --- stop-n-go, stop-n-go, stop-n-go Chicago rush-hour downtown, idling, idling, idling, AWD model.
    And with these condtions, you're lucky to get 10 MPG.
  • tom_holsingertom_holsinger Member Posts: 58
    I get 27mpg easily at 65mph on the freeway in my 2006 FWD, and actually got 32mpg under ideal conditions on a trip from Turlock, California (halfway between Sacramento & Fresno) to the San Jose airport and back.
  • pnewbypnewby Member Posts: 277
    I actually got 26mpg in my AWD limited, anything but flat(Lex.,KY to North side of Cincy.,OH), near perfect temps, and light winds. And that was at 70+mph using cruise most of the time. Not so good on the trip back since I got caught in rush hour traffic leaving Cincy, going home to Ky.
  • tom_holsingertom_holsinger Member Posts: 58
    Use of cruise control seems to be more important with a CVT than a regular transmission. I get 25-27 mpg in commuter freeway traffic at 65 mph in a 2006 FWD without using cruise control, and much better with cruise control in long freeway drives outside commuter hours.

    Freestyle mpg seems to drop significantly at speeds above 65 mph, or when not using cruise control.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    The range of MPG people see in a Freestyle is between 8 and 33 MPG. The EPA estimates for my 2WD are 20city/27highway, so I think the EPA has it right for most driving and would not revise their MPG testing techniques.
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    "I think the EPA has it right for most driving and would not revise their MPG testing techniques."

    According to the EPA at fueleconomy.gov, their tests use an average of 20 MPH for city and 48 MPH for highway. If that’s right for most driving, I wonder why I see only a few of these drivers on the road? Also, they say they are revising their MPG testing techniques for 2008 models by adding three additional tests that will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    helton, The 48 mph speed average is right on the money for the kind of suburban driving I do for 19 miles on the way to work every day. I cruise steady at 70, then slow to around 30 as traffic builds, then maybe get a break and take it up to 50 again, averaging about 48 for the entire trip. Very typical all around for other drivers doing similar things. And, amazingly, I get 25 to 27 MPG, right in line with the 27 MPG EPA highway estimate for the 2WD Freestyle.

    The whole point of the traditional EPA estimates was always to compare one vehicle to another, never any absolute value. The EPA estimates, city/highway, give a rough range which I have always been easily able to stay inside of, and thats with several vehicles over many years.

    The EPA has bowed to pressure from people who don't understand the purpose (comparison) of the numbers. That was why I did the earlier post of the incredible range you can get in MPG with the Freestyle (or any vehicle) depending on driving condition.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member Posts: 468
    The new EPA fuel economy estimates for the FWD Freestyle are 18 and 25 with a combined 20. The new method is more realistic and almost all cars drop about 3 mpg in comparison to the old method.
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    coldcranker,

    The EPA defines highway driving as “a mixture of rural and Interstate highway driving with a warmed-up engine, typical of longer trips in free-flowing traffic”. They allow up to 60 MPH in this routine and the average speed is 48 MPH. They define city driving as “urban driving, in which a vehicle is started with the engine cold and driven in stop-and-go rush hour traffic”. They allow up to 56 MPH in their city driving routine, but the average speed is 20 MPH. I believe you are describing “city driving” in your posting, and I agree that what you describe is very typical for many other drivers. I also agree that it is amazing, if not unbelievable, that you get 25 to 27 MPG in what is essentially “city driving”.

    All I am saying is that most people who are driving on the highway, as defined by the EPA, do not drift along at an average of 48 MPH. I believe that most of us drive on the highway at 65 to 75 MPH, and most of us who drive a FWD Freestyle get between 21 and 24 MPG. After understanding how the EPA estimates are developed, it is not surprising that most of us get gas mileage that is lower than the EPA estimates. It is unfortunate that many of us bought Ford’s crossover station wagon believing that it would deliver high mileage per gallon. The new EPA estimate for the 2005/2006/2007 FWD Freestyle is 18 MPG City, 25 MPG Highway and 20 MPG Combined. These estimates certainly would not have been enough to make me want to buy one.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member Posts: 468
    Ok, but then all vehicles have gone down under the new method, some much more than the Freestyle.
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    "Ok, but then all vehicles have gone down under the new method, some much more than the Freestyle."

    I haven’t looked at others but I wouldn’t be surprised if some went down more than the Freestyle. At least the estimates are a little closer to reality. Funny thing, this makes the 500 miles to a tank of gas myth a bigger lie than ever. ;)
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member Posts: 468
    I have compared the old and new figures for a wide variety of vehicles and it is a fact that all have gone down, some more than others. The hybrids went down the most, but of course they still get good mileage. You can't blame Ford for using the old figures when everyone else did too. And it wasn't a lie to say 500 miles on a tank, but rather an unrealistic figure based on unrealistic estimates from the EPA. How many cars are GM and Toyota advertising as having over 30 MPG? A lot. and most of them don't get it anymore.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    The 500-mile tank is not a lie. I've done it twice in less than 2 years. I get 27 MPG often, and so do others who post here. That is with 60-to-75 mph driving in a 2WD model. About 1 MPG ( or less ) I attribute to the 5,000 feet altitude I drive at, as the air is 18% less dense, decreasing wind drag, which increases MPG more than the higher pumping losses (volumetric efficiency suffers) decrease MPG here.

    I appreciate someone pointing out that ALL vehicle MPG EPA estimates drop with the new method. It was always to compare one vehicle to another anyway. Nothing has really changed except now we can't compare vehicles across model years quite as easily. I guess we can get close by subtracting 2 MPG off the highway figure and 2 off the city figure to arrive at the "new style" MPG figures. Well now you see how little any of this accomplishes. They simply used a tougher EPA driving test cycle, and, amazingly, MPG dropped! A miracle has happened!
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member 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.
  • mfkoerschnermfkoerschner Member Posts: 6
    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 Member Posts: 35
    Why place the burden on the manufacturer. Why not create a FAFE and give each family a target to reach?
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "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 Member 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 Member Posts: 468
    Raise the CAFE standards or tax more. It meeds to start at the top.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "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.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 4,098
    "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 Member 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 Member Posts: 2,989
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 2,989
    I assume you're calculating the mpg manually?
  • tango_28tango_28 Member 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
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    The Scanguage is a little gizmo that attaches to the car computer to measure mpg. Tango_28’s post implied that the Scanguage was somehow responsible for his “great” gas mileage, but I guess he was just saying that he didn’t know how to manually calculate mpg. I also find the 32 mpg a little hard to believe, but I suppose anything is possible if you drive slow enough, on a flat road, by the light of a full moon, etc., etc.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    Thats 25 MPG in a front wheel drive, air conditioner on, some headwinds, mostly going about 75 mph, 400 lbs of people and cargo, few hills, over 2300 miles.

    Just got a letter from Ford about the brake recall. The dragging brakes they talked about could account for horrible gas mileage figures some have reported!

    On the subject of MPG, have you seen the EPA figures for the latest '08 Taurus sedan (a Ford500 with the new 3.5L V6)? That thing gets 31 MPG on the highway compared to the old Ford500's 29 MPG highway, comparing the back-converted 2008-style numbers with the old-style EPA figures. I want one. I haven't seen the figures for the Taurus X (Freestyle evolution) but an improvement over the '07 Freestyle's MPG would be awesome, too.
  • mrsajmrsaj Member Posts: 2
    I just had rear brakes changed ,along with rotors,on my 2005 Freestyle. Car has 20k miles,is AWD ,SEL, I like the car, so far, but was told by dealer that Ford used organic brake pads that don't last. Seems to me it would be a defect. What's up ?
  • pnewbypnewby Member Posts: 277
    Was it done for free? If not go back and make sure he knows about the extended warranty on the brakes. Good for 3/3600, or Dec. 31, 07 if already over 36k. They are supposed to be new pads that are much better.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I just did a 6000 mile road trip out West and in the Rockies. My best MPG was 29.9 driving about 65mph and even with the cruise set on 80mph (in the 75mph states) I still got about 24mpg. Even in the mountains my mpg never went under 23mpg. And I had plenty of power going up the mountains and the CVT was great for going down the mountains, although I wish it had an even lower "gear" when I went down Pike's Peak. Overall, we had a great 2 week vacation...much of it spent in the Freestyle!
  • tango_28tango_28 Member Posts: 35
    Most people have bad driving habits for mpg (including me). Scanguage just show your bad driving habits.
  • heltonhelton Member Posts: 56
    "Scanguage just show your bad driving habits."

    You’re right about that. My other car, a 2007 Honda Accord Hybrid, has a computer display of MPG and I do pay attention to it, and often make driving corrections when the mileage isn’t as good as I think it should be. So, in a way, I guess it does help with better gas mileage.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Would all FS owners who have gotten 30 mpg please say aye?
    33mpg?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Why just the over 30 people? That's going to skew the numbers, big time.

    I'd like to hear from people that have ever seen less than 20mpg.

    I'm sure that's every one at one point or another.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "I'd like to hear from people that have ever seen less than 20mpg.

    I'm sure that's every one at one point or another."

    Aye again! If a tank is "all in-town" the FS is about 19 - 20. Driven hard, 17.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles