Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Gassaver
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?
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.
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.
Freestyle mpg seems to drop significantly at speeds above 65 mph, or when not using cruise control.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
Only if people care about such things, it is a free country... and should remain so.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
link title
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.
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.
33mpg?
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.
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.