Coldcrank said: Helton, you couldn't be more wrong.
I can only speak for my own car, but most of the people with ’05 and ’06 FWDs who post their mileage on fueleconomy.gov get mileage similar to mine (20.7 mpg for the ’06 and 22.3 mpg for the ’05). You are lucky to have a car that gets such good mileage.
As for being sturdy at high-speed, I have only tried once, but it seemed to take forever to get my nostyle up to 100 mph and it felt like it was going to come apart. I didn’t really look around, but I’m pretty sure you weren’t there.
It's absolutely pointless to compare one person's city mileage figures with another persons. Some people's city drive is Manhattan, and others are driving an outer city loop at 60 MPH to work every day. Since both are within the city limits of a metropolitan area, they both refer to it as city driving. Obviously, there would be a huge difference in mileage between these two vehicles. Personal driving habits can also account for a significant difference in mileage figures.
I'd say most people consider "city" driving to be anything other than highway driving, So "city" driving includes suburb, city, etc...basically, stop and go traffic. It doesn't really matter if you're officially inside the city limits.
With respect to the fueleconomy.gov, for 2005 there were 9 people who responded and one of those was a guy in California who posted 16mpg , which really brought the average down. If you didn't include that one, you'd have 8 people with an average of over 23, which is exactly the EPA average (20/27/23 city/highway/average).
For 2006 there were only 8 people who posted their mpg, one of which was from Nevada who posted 15mpg at 100% city driving. Getting rid of that one puts the average at 22mpg.
Bottom line is that a sample size of 7 or 8 folks isn't high enough to be significant. If they survey had maybe 100 folks posting their mpg then it might be more valuable. Plus there were folks posting 25-26mpg AND saying they had 80-90% CITY driving.
And if you still think the Freestyle's mpg is poor, here are some other examples from fueleconomy.gov that are even worse:
2005 Honda Odyssey EPA combined 23, reported avg 19 2005 Honda Pilot EPA combined 19, reported average 17.4 2005 Camry EPA combined 24, reported average 22.3
bobw3 said: “With respect to the fueleconomy.gov, ”
Bob, your math skills could stand improvement. You can’t calculate a new average for the people who have reported gas mileage at fueleconomy.gov by taking an average of the averages. This may be an indication that your gas mileage isn’t as good as you think!
Yes, I still believe the gas mileage delivered by some Freestyles is poor. In addition to people who have reported their gas mileage at fueleconomy.gov, all you have to do is review the comments in this discussion to see that there are lots of people who get less than EPA estimates with their Freestyles.
Bob, your math skills could stand improvement. You can’t calculate a new average for the people who have reported gas mileage at fueleconomy.gov by taking an average of the averages.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Fueleconomy.com creates a group average based on people reporting in their averages. As I said in my post, fueleconomy.com (not me) created their group average based on 9 people’s averages. All I did is remove 1 of the 9 people’s average (the one who reported 16mpg) just to show what the average would be for the other 8. I'm just looking into the numbers a little more deeply that's all.
These folks may not even be calculating mpg correctly. For example, in 2005 for the Freestyle FWD, one person driving 80% stop & go reported 26.9mpg, while someone reporting 90% highway reported 21mpg. Accurate? Maybe, but I’d like to know what sort of mpg the first guy gets on the highway!
The point is that with such a small sample size (8 or 9), you can have one person post their mpg and completely change the “consumer average” posted. Fueleconomy.com can be fun to look at, but it’s not even close to being a scientifically accurate.
Bottom line is that I’ve seen plenty of folks posting MPGs right in the EPA range for the Freestyle here on Edmunds and on fueleconomy.com. I’d say that most folks get poorer mpg because of their driving habits. If it was the car, how can you explain the MPGs in the mid to upper 20s?
This may be an indication that your gas mileage isn’t as good as you think!
TOM...these were numbers posted to fueleconomy.com are based on a few people posting their mpgs, so your mpg could vary widely. Plus I pulled V-6 Camry figures.
bobw3 said: "All I did is remove 1 of the 9 people’s average (the one who reported 16mpg) just to show what the average would be for the other 8. I'm just looking into the numbers a little more deeply that's all."
You need a course in high school math because you don't get the right answer by doing that. Can you take the 9 averages posted on fueleconomy.gov and come up with the average user mpg of 22.3? The answer is no. They don't give us enough data to make that calculation.
bobw3 also said: "If it was the car, how can you explain the MPGs in the mid to upper 20s?"
The explanation is simple. The quality control in manufacturing the Nostyle is very poor. If it was better, more of the Nostyles would get the EPA estimate.
Bull! Many averages will throw out the low and the high and average the rest. In this case, any of the numbers don't have nearly enough reporters to mean anything. At least most of the news polls (and I usually don't agree with them either) are scientific samples, meaning the samples are statistically significant.
As for Nostyle, I think mine is Greatstyle. If you want Nostyle, go for a CamCord, including the newest ones.
I normally get less than the EPA on mine, but if I try, even just a little, can get mileage => than the EPA. I'm wise enough to know my poor mileage is just due to my driving style. Another factor in the winter is also the additives in the gas. I always get better mileage in the summer. Also make sure you aren't using th3e 10-15% ethanol blends since they will retard mileage by about that same percentage.
pnewby said: "Bull! Many averages will throw out the low and the high and average the rest."
And bull right back at you. This has nothing to do with throwing numbers out. The issue is calculating an average for a group. If you have the average mpg for a group of eight, and you want to find the average for the group, you can’t just add up the averages and divide by 8 as bobw3 did. You have to divide miles driven by all eight people by the gallons of gas used by all eight people in order to get the group average.
Sometimes anecdotal evidence is appropriate. I drove our our 2006 FWD for its first 3000 miles, and my wife has driven it since (another 9,000 for 12,000 total) in the year we've owned it. We've been driving it over familiar commute routes - mine was mostly freeway on Highway 99 between Turlock and Modesto on Highway 99, and hers has been mostly country roads with somewhat fewer stop signs than usual - Turlock to Patterson.
I averaged about 25 mpg during my mostly freeway 3000 miles, and she has averaged about 22.5 mpg on her 9000 miles. These figures are almost exactly what our experience was with the 2002 Ford Taurus station wagon the Freestyle replaced, over the same routes.
As far as we can tell, the Freestyle gets slightly worse milage than our Taurus wagon in local plus stop & go traffic, significantly better milage in freeway miles at 60-67 mph (32 mpg in one 200-mile drive!), and slightly worse milage in freeway miles at 68-72 mph.
These results are consistent with the Freestyle weighing more than a Taurus wagon, and having a larger displacement engine, and so producing slightly less mpg in local traffic, and having an exceptionally fuel-efficient power train at legal freeway speeds.
The key to determining real milage is to compare the Freestyle to another vehicle operated by the same drivers over the same routes for a period of 6-12 months.
Here it is safe to say that real Freestyle mpg is comparable to that of a Taurus station wagon. The Freestyle is larger and heavier, with a greater displacement engine, but makes up for that with a more fuel-efficient power train. Which is what the hype boils down to.
And the Freestyle is much more enjoyable to drive, as well as being safer with far larger passenger and cargo capacity. Again, that is comparable to the hype.
These results are what common sense says too - the Freestyle is a significantly newer and better design than the Taurus. It seems to be a successful vehicle so far, with the only significant known flaw being its rear brakes. That is addressable with a new model.
IMO there won't be a new model due to Ford's problems overall, but that is a different issue.
It seems that there are quite a few people satisfied with their MPG, and one person trying his best (and failing) to show that the Freestyles in general gets poor MPG.
BTW, when I did my calculation I took the liberty in assuming that everyone who posted traveled the same average number of miles. Considering that people are posting their MPGs for a variety of different driving conditions, there are already several averages of averages built in. Plus in statistics it's pretty common to make certain assumptions, as well as remove outliers.
Another way of looking at it is that just because one car drove 80,000 for example and averaged 28mpg, while the other 7 cars only drove 10,000 miles each and averaged only 20mpg. By your calculation (considering the miles driven) the average for the 8 cars would be 24mpg, since out of the total of 160,000 miles driven 1/2 of the miles driven had 28mpg while the other 1/2 had 20mpg. By calculating it on a car-basis, then the overall average drops to 21mpg. Either way is correct, but based on this example, it seems that the 21mpg is more accurate.
And the comment about increased quality control will make MPGs get into the EPA range was pretty funny.
Some math errors above from some quick typing. Should be 8 cars at a 20mpg driving 10,000 miles to get the total of 160,000, and then the averages are slightly off, but you see the point. You can calculate the averages a couple of different ways, and their is no "right" way. But breaking it out by car makes more sense to me.
I don't believe bobw3 was talking to himself. He was making a good point. Something you, nohelton, can't seem to do. Bobw3 thanks for sharing and helping the rest of us understand.
I guess I'm getting too complicated. Bottom line is that any MPG estimate is only a range. Some people are at the low end of the range and some at the high end. There are a lot of factors that can affect MPG, such as driver, engine, tires, transmission, brakes, gas, weather, road conditions, etc..., so with the Freestyle, if your average is in the low 20's vs the mid 20's, you're still in the normal range.
If someone says they're getting 15mpg average, then I'd tell them to head to the shop! But if they're in the normal range, then I'd tell them to be satisfied and maybe with their next car they'll be in the higher end of the range, unless it's soley due to their driving habits.
It's sort of like complaining because your transmission fails. It may be that only one car in thousand has a transmission failure, but if you have the bad luck to be the one, there's no point saying that all of the same vehicle have lousy transmissions...it's just that you have lousy luck!
I own a 2006 Ford Freestyle FWD and thought it would be nice to join this forum to share problems and advice with others. I came to this discussion about real world mileage because that is one of the problems with my car. I have decided to not post my issue here, however, because some of the people who post here seem to enjoy attacking those who say, for example, that they don’t get good mileage. Who needs that kind of crap? Not me.
If you're coming here to post that you're getting poor mileage and looking for advice on improving it, or to see what you're mileage is in comparison to others, then you won't be "attacked."
But if someone is just posting again and again and again that most Freestyle's have poor MPG because they're getting in the low 20s on average, then you can expect others to question the reasoning.
I got an email about your posting before I could block CarSpace from my computer, so I’ll just make a comment. I have not read all of the postings about mileage but I saw enough to see that some people say they get good mileage and some people say they don’t get good gas mileage. In my opinion, getting in the low 20s on average is not good gas mileage for a 2006 Ford Freestyle FWD. I wish I had read the comments posted here before I bought my car. If I had, I would probably be driving something else.
I question your reasoning for not wanting people to talk about their poor MPG. Dude, do you sell these things? Want to buy one that gets great mileage in the low 20s?
I typically get low 20's in my 2005 Freestyle . . but, it's an AWD, and I also tend to drive very fast on the freeway. Average around 75mph, I'd say. And it's the "sometimes faster" that kills my mpg, I'm sure.
All I'm saying is that when the EPA rates the Freestyle FWD 20 city, 27 highway, and 23 combined, and someone is complaining about getting 21-22 mpg average, then what's the big problem? They're right about in the EPA average range. Maybe a little low, but certainly not "bad." Plus based on their driving style and type of driving they're doing, being in the lower end of the EPA range might be pretty good.
Now if you're driving 70mph on flat interstate and you're only getting 21-22mpg, then you might want to check things out. But if the low 20s is the combined EPA estimate and you're getting in the low 20's, then how is that "bad" mpg?
What other car would you be driving, if not the Freestyle if you're looking for a 7 passenger vehicle? The Honda Pilot is rated 18 city, 24 highway, 20 average by the EPA. The FWD Highlander V4 is rated 19 city, 25 highway, 21 average. Compared to those, the Freestyle is pretty good. Or if you want to hear some real complaints, go over to the Odyssey Real World MPG forum. Some people there are reporting getting in the mid teens MPG and the Odyssey is rated 20/28, but I don't hear anyone complaining there for their Odyssey averaging 22mpg.
My wife is a milage freak - she's always trying lots of little tricks to improve her 2006 FWD mpg, and she still can't get above 23mpg on her mostly commuter route milage - it's hovered around 22.5 - 23 mpg since late August. The problem is that her to & from work route is on country roads rather than freeways - there are just too many stop signs and traffic signals.
I averaged about 25mpg when I drove it because it was mostly freeway milage, albeit rush hour milage, and I wasn't trying any tricks beyond using the cruise control when I could.
But we were both AMAZED when it got 32+mpg on a 200 mile freeway trip under close to ideal conditions - I drove out and she drove back.
My advice is to try to stay under 1800 rpm when accelerating from a stop, avoid any kind of heavy acceleration save for emergency purposes, and use the cruise control as much as possible. On freeways try to keep about 7-10 car lengths between you and the vehicle in front, to minimize braking and accelerations.
Do this and you should smoke Toyota Highlanders in milage. My next door neighbor says she gets only her 20 mpg with 2006 Highlander.
I get 24mpg combined on my mostly highway commute with my 07 Mustang V6 and I am definitely known to GET ON IT at stop lights so EAT YOUR HEART OUT!
(having stick helps)
One thing you should check btw is your tire pressures especially now that we are in the cold months. Under inflated tires have more friction. Every 10 degree drop in temp lowers your tire pressure by 1 pound of pressure.
Also, stop carrying that 80 to 150 pounds of extra crap in the truck around.
Use your cruise control, even on back roads.
HOWEVER, lets be realistic for a moment. Suppose that you drive 300 miles per week, get 20 mpg and pay $2.00 per gallon of gas.
Your fuel cost for the week was $30.00 (300/20*2)
Now, lets suppose that you put a magic pellet into your fuel tank and now get 25 mpgs (a 20% increase) for 300 miles at $2.00 a gallon. Your fuel cost is now $24 per week.
at $2.50 a gallon your cost goes up to $37.5 at 20 mpg and $30 at 25 mpgs. These are not big differences in my mind.
If you really want to save money on gas, DRIVE LESS MILES
I’m amazed that you get such high mpg with your Mustang. Way to go! As I have said again, and again, and again, etc., I am not happy with the low mpg delivered by my 2006 FWD Freestyle.
I agree with your suggestions, especially save gas by driving less. In your example of a 300-mile weekly commute to work, the annual savings would be $300 if you worked 50 weeks per year. Some of us would consider that significant, but that’s just my opinion.
If you are so unhappy about Freestyle mpg, get a Toyota Highlander. My neighbor's overall mpg with her 2006 Highlander is the same as the town milage of my wife with our 2006 Freestyle FWD (20mpg/20mpg).
You might also consider getting a signifcantly smaller vehicle with less passenger and cargo capacity.
Unless there is some vehicle out there in the Freestyle's weight class which gets better milage. If there is, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
But if there isn't, what are you complaining about? AFAIK, the Freestyle gets the best milage in its class.
"But if there isn't, what are you complaining about? AFAIK, the Freestyle gets the best milage in its class."
It is largely a matter of perception. People look at the FS and think station wagon, but in reality it is designed as an SUV on a crossover body. It is heavy and has a large cross section to the wind (but I love those large windows). If one thinks of it as an SUV, the mileage is impressive. If one compares it to a smaller sedan, then the mileage appears lacking.
I generally get 19 MPG for all in-town, around 25 on the road. If someone is getting less that 16 MPG in the city, there is probably either something wrong with their FS, or they are a true leadfoot.
BTW, I think that mustang weighs about 600 lbs less than a FS? That an the manual transmission are enough to explain 24 MPG in the city for a Mustang... plus, I'd hate to see 7 people in that 'Stang! :surprise:
I had a '99 Cougar V-6 and I'd get 30mpg on the highway. During the last year before I got rid of it I was still averaging 26mpg in mixed highway/suburb. But then again, it's hard to compare cars like my old Cougar or a Mustang that can only carry 2 + 2 with a 7 passenger vehicle like the Freestyle. Then again, if you don't need a vehicle as big as the Freestyle, then get something else. My second car is a Honda Fit and it gets 40mpg on the highway in ideal conditions, but generally in the mid 30's driving normally with a mix of highway/suburb driving.
In your example of a 300-mile weekly commute to work, the annual savings would be $300 if you worked 50 weeks per year. Some of us would consider that significant, but that’s just my opinion.
If $300 a year is that significant, then I can't see how a person could justify driving a $25,000+ vehicle in the first place. But that's just me.
Not as long as you keep it to a steady cruise control speed under 65 mph for long distances, and assuming no wind. My wife and I got an amazing 32mpg on an almost entirely 200 mile freeway round trip to the San Jose, California, airport and back when picking up her mother from a trip to Illinois. Road conditions were almost close to ideal for maximum milage.
I have found that Freestyle mpg drops off dramatically going over 65mph - that seems to be where drag becomes a major factor.
The Freestyle is anything BUT aerodynamic . . and that drag KILLS gas mileage.
It seem like going over 70mph is where most cars start losing their MPG significantly. Remember, that was the whole reason for the 55mph national speed limit...gas savings. Can you imagine what the Freestyle (and most other cars) would get if cruising down the interstate with the cruise set to 55mph. The Freestyle would probably get 35mpg and my Honda Fit would probably hit 50mpg!
"If $300 a year is that significant, then I can't see how a person could justify driving a $25,000+ vehicle in the first place. But that's just me."
What an impertinent and stupid comment! I’m retired and living on a fixed income. I take advantage of any savings that comes my way, and I have no trouble paying cash for a $25,000+ vehicle.
(barnstormer64): If $300 a year is that significant, then I can't see how a person could justify driving a $25,000+ vehicle in the first place. But that's just me.
That was totally rude, Dude. What does a mean personal remark like that have to do with real world MPG? I have a good education and a great job. I can’t pay cash for an automobile but I have no problems making payments, and I scoop up all of those $300 savings that I can. I’m going to keep right on doing that and driving whatever I can afford. Go back in the barn, Man.
plug a website that allows you to become "carbon neutral"
Be aware that it is a commercial website selling a product. Also, we'll pull the plug if the thread degenerates into global warming flames. There are more suitable venues for those discussions.
Driving style of course affects MPG. However, I sometimes suspect the engine and tranny may have additional friction which brings down MPG as well. Ford needs 2 things for us to determine whether or not our cars are sick:
1. A coasting test to determine if the wheels/brakes/bearings are generating excessive friction. Problem is the CVT is always engaged, so Ford will have to be more clever to figure that one out. The rear wheels can be spun when the car is on a lift to check them out. Engine-on for full brake pressure.
2. A fuel flow rate test at, say, 55 mph to determine if the car is burning too much fuel on a flat road at steady speed. The fuel flow rate reading is available from the engine computer, and indeed, on non-SE model Freestyles, this data is used in the instantaneous MPG readout (that's car speed divided by fuel flow rate ). Therefore, that readout should say "28 MPG" at a steady 55 mph, no wind, one or two people inside, flat ground, warmed up, on a 50 to 100 degree day, 32 psi tires. (Assuming FWD models, subtract 1 or 2 MPG for the AWD models.)
A poster named "fordwrench", a Ford tech, and myself once reasoned together to conclude the engine will likely break-in if there are internal tolerances which are too tight, relieving extra friction there in time. The engine also maintains low emissions via the OBDII sensor/actuators and therefore near-stoichiometric conditions, meaning its probably the tranny that may be giving extra gas-robbing friction. (My '05 Freestyle gets around 25 MPG, so I know its running right, but some people can't seem to get above 20 MPG no matter how they drive.)
Also, you lose about 1 MPG if you use a "30" oil over the recommended "20" oil. That has been shown from plenty of tests by engineering organizations.
I agree with Helton, if I can save $300/year or $30/year it's worth it to me.
But on the other hand, if the $$$ are so tight, it would have probably made more sense to buy a low mileage used Freestyle. With the high depreciation, you could probably get a 2 year old Freestyle for about $15K, and save $10K over buying a new one. That's a lot of savings compared to the $$$ saved/lost in a few mpg.
But back to this topic of MPG, I found it interesting on the Honda Fit site I visit, that someone has a Fit that gets only about 25mpg for purely city driving, but then even Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas, while they can get 40mpg on the highways with careful driving, can also get in the low to mid 20's mpg if they have automatic transmissions, and the owners do a lot of city driving. I guess that's the main reason the I'm pretty happy with a vehicle as big as a Freestyle getting in the low to mid 20's in mixed driving.
I had to switch cars with my wife yesterday, so she put the first 40 miles on this tank of gas. When I got into the car this morning, it said 17.2. I drove 30 miles today, and the MPG said 18.1. I expect to make 19 -20 on this tank (assuming the wife doesn't get it again)...
Thus one can see that the driving style makes a considerable difference.
I'll pipe in again, if the trans were to be the cause of even 2-3 mpg something is about to break in it! I still say THE MOST EFFECT ON MPG is the DRIVER! We at the dealer level have available to us on our scan equipment a fuel mileage "test". Every time the price of gas or diesel goes up we have numerous complaints of poor mileage. I go out & drive the vehicle in a very normal way and can produce mpg numbers at or above the federal numbers, every time! By the way thoughs numbers are going way down on the window stickers next year because the gov. is revamping the test to show a more realistic number. Also how can anybody complain of 20,19, or even 18 mpg on a Freestyle that can hold 7 people and is such a substantial vehicle.
Here’s a question you might be able to help me with. I have an Actron Auto Scanner – a gift from one of my kids. When it’s plugged into the computer on my 2006 SE FWD Freestyle, and I am cruising at 55 mph, the Actron reads 53 mph. At 65 mph it reads 63 mph, and so on. The tachometer reading is also about 50 to 65 rmp lower on the Actron than on the dashboard. Here's the question: If the speedometer is running fast, would that cause the digital odometer to show more miles than actually traveled or is the odometer driven by the computer?
In the case of my car, if the odometer is driven by the speedometer, it is adding about 3.6% more miles than are actually traveled. That would make my warranty disappear faster than it should, and it would mean that my gas mileage is even a little worse than I thought.
I just did an advanced search for "speedometer accuracy" and I've found that the following cars have about a 2mph difference in what the speedometer says as compared to reality. I think all cars have always been a little conservative because they'd rather read a little high versus a little low and cause more speeding tickets. Also, just switching tires and even tread wear can have an affect on speedometer accuracy.
In the past there wasn't anyway for people to know, but today with GPS and other electronic gizmos, now we can see the difference. But you are right in that in can make the MPG seem a little better and reduces the length of the warranty by a fraction.
Here are the cars that came up on the Edmunds search for speedometer accuracy: Honda CRV, Toyota Tacoma, Honda/Acura in general (class action lawsuit), Ford Focus, Honda Pilot, Infiniti G35, Camry, Chevy Tracker, Jeep Liberty, Mazda3, Toyota Avalon, and on and on.
Probably in the future, all cars will have GPS installed, so distance won't be calculated by the spinning of the tires but by the onboard GPS.
You're caught up in a "which clock is reading the correct time" situation. Buy a handheld GPS (or borrow someone else's) and see if it's displayed speed agrees with the cars speedometer. My Freestyle matches up exactly with a GPS's speed readout.
I believe you meant to say "too fast at 80 MPH". Tire wear can account for this degree of difference. All vehicles are thus subject to the same errors.
Helton, what I've seen even on factory scanners is that there is a buffer on the output for speed signals. Some speed outputs will even start at 3mph even at a standstill. A gps is a sure way to check mph but in general I have not seen any speedometers in for replacement because of inaccuracy.
fordwrench has a point. If, say, a rod journal bearing was fitting too tightly, causing extra friction, it would wear down until there was clearance. Friction should then return to normal. If the tranny CVT chain or some other part was tight, lowering MPG, then it might persist for some time, likely failing (heat, wear).
Still, it would be interesting to know, not speculate, on fuel flow rates. I've got OBDII software running on a laptop computer, so I'll put the Freestyle in Park, rev the engine to 1500 RPM, and see if I can find fuel flow rate. I wonder what the variation would be in 10 Freestyles doing this? Fordwrench could tell his customers: "Look, your Freestyle consumes fuel at 0.02 gallons/minute at 1500 RPM, so you match the average Freestyle gas consumption."
"I believe you meant to say "too fast at 80 MPH". Tire wear can account for this degree of difference. All vehicles are thus subject to the same errors."
Sorry, yes, too fast at 80 MPH. I don't think tire wear is involved; my FS has only 10K miles on the tires, and they were rotated at 5K.
Comments
I can only speak for my own car, but most of the people with ’05 and ’06 FWDs who post their mileage on fueleconomy.gov get mileage similar to mine (20.7 mpg for the ’06 and 22.3 mpg for the ’05). You are lucky to have a car that gets such good mileage.
As for being sturdy at high-speed, I have only tried once, but it seemed to take forever to get my nostyle up to 100 mph and it felt like it was going to come apart. I didn’t really look around, but I’m pretty sure you weren’t there.
With respect to the fueleconomy.gov, for 2005 there were 9 people who responded and one of those was a guy in California who posted 16mpg , which really brought the average down. If you didn't include that one, you'd have 8 people with an average of over 23, which is exactly the EPA average (20/27/23 city/highway/average).
For 2006 there were only 8 people who posted their mpg, one of which was from Nevada who posted 15mpg at 100% city driving. Getting rid of that one puts the average at 22mpg.
Bottom line is that a sample size of 7 or 8 folks isn't high enough to be significant. If they survey had maybe 100 folks posting their mpg then it might be more valuable. Plus there were folks posting 25-26mpg AND saying they had 80-90% CITY driving.
And if you still think the Freestyle's mpg is poor, here are some other examples from fueleconomy.gov that are even worse:
2005 Honda Odyssey EPA combined 23, reported avg 19
2005 Honda Pilot EPA combined 19, reported average 17.4
2005 Camry EPA combined 24, reported average 22.3
Bob, your math skills could stand improvement. You can’t calculate a new average for the people who have reported gas mileage at fueleconomy.gov by taking an average of the averages. This may be an indication that your gas mileage isn’t as good as you think!
Yes, I still believe the gas mileage delivered by some Freestyles is poor. In addition to people who have reported their gas mileage at fueleconomy.gov, all you have to do is review the comments in this discussion to see that there are lots of people who get less than EPA estimates with their Freestyles.
Your 2005d Camry statistics are suspicious. My 2002 Camry 4 cylinder XLE has an average of 30.8 mpg over 88,000 miles.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Fueleconomy.com creates a group average based on people reporting in their averages. As I said in my post, fueleconomy.com (not me) created their group average based on 9 people’s averages. All I did is remove 1 of the 9 people’s average (the one who reported 16mpg) just to show what the average would be for the other 8. I'm just looking into the numbers a little more deeply that's all.
These folks may not even be calculating mpg correctly. For example, in 2005 for the Freestyle FWD, one person driving 80% stop & go reported 26.9mpg, while someone reporting 90% highway reported 21mpg. Accurate? Maybe, but I’d like to know what sort of mpg the first guy gets on the highway!
The point is that with such a small sample size (8 or 9), you can have one person post their mpg and completely change the “consumer average” posted. Fueleconomy.com can be fun to look at, but it’s not even close to being a scientifically accurate.
Bottom line is that I’ve seen plenty of folks posting MPGs right in the EPA range for the Freestyle here on Edmunds and on fueleconomy.com. I’d say that most folks get poorer mpg because of their driving habits. If it was the car, how can you explain the MPGs in the mid to upper 20s?
This may be an indication that your gas mileage isn’t as good as you think!
TOM...these were numbers posted to fueleconomy.com are based on a few people posting their mpgs, so your mpg could vary widely. Plus I pulled V-6 Camry figures.
You need a course in high school math because you don't get the right answer by doing that. Can you take the 9 averages posted on fueleconomy.gov and come up with the average user mpg of 22.3? The answer is no. They don't give us enough data to make that calculation.
bobw3 also said: "If it was the car, how can you explain the MPGs in the mid to upper 20s?"
The explanation is simple. The quality control in manufacturing the Nostyle is very poor. If it was better, more of the Nostyles would get the EPA estimate.
As for Nostyle, I think mine is Greatstyle. If you want Nostyle, go for a CamCord, including the newest ones.
I normally get less than the EPA on mine, but if I try, even just a little, can get mileage => than the EPA. I'm wise enough to know my poor mileage is just due to my driving style. Another factor in the winter is also the additives in the gas. I always get better mileage in the summer. Also make sure you aren't using th3e 10-15% ethanol blends since they will retard mileage by about that same percentage.
And bull right back at you. This has nothing to do with throwing numbers out. The issue is calculating an average for a group. If you have the average mpg for a group of eight, and you want to find the average for the group, you can’t just add up the averages and divide by 8 as bobw3 did. You have to divide miles driven by all eight people by the gallons of gas used by all eight people in order to get the group average.
Sometimes anecdotal evidence is appropriate. I drove our our 2006 FWD for its first 3000 miles, and my wife has driven it since (another 9,000 for 12,000 total) in the year we've owned it. We've been driving it over familiar commute routes - mine was mostly freeway on Highway 99 between Turlock and Modesto on Highway 99, and hers has been mostly country roads with somewhat fewer stop signs than usual - Turlock to Patterson.
I averaged about 25 mpg during my mostly freeway 3000 miles, and she has averaged about 22.5 mpg on her 9000 miles. These figures are almost exactly what our experience was with the 2002 Ford Taurus station wagon the Freestyle replaced, over the same routes.
As far as we can tell, the Freestyle gets slightly worse milage than our Taurus wagon in local plus stop & go traffic, significantly better milage in freeway miles at 60-67 mph (32 mpg in one 200-mile drive!), and slightly worse milage in freeway miles at 68-72 mph.
These results are consistent with the Freestyle weighing more than a Taurus wagon, and having a larger displacement engine, and so producing slightly less mpg in local traffic, and having an exceptionally fuel-efficient power train at legal freeway speeds.
The key to determining real milage is to compare the Freestyle to another vehicle operated by the same drivers over the same routes for a period of 6-12 months.
Here it is safe to say that real Freestyle mpg is comparable to that of a Taurus station wagon. The Freestyle is larger and heavier, with a greater displacement engine, but makes up for that with a more fuel-efficient power train. Which is what the hype boils down to.
And the Freestyle is much more enjoyable to drive, as well as being safer with far larger passenger and cargo capacity. Again, that is comparable to the hype.
These results are what common sense says too - the Freestyle is a significantly newer and better design than the Taurus. It seems to be a successful vehicle so far, with the only significant known flaw being its rear brakes. That is addressable with a new model.
IMO there won't be a new model due to Ford's problems overall, but that is a different issue.
I think the Taurus had the 3.0 Duratec engine in the wagon. The 4 door had an I4 option, but I don't think it was available on the wagon.
But then I also didn't know the wagon was available in 2002. You sure it wasn't 1992?
BTW, when I did my calculation I took the liberty in assuming that everyone who posted traveled the same average number of miles. Considering that people are posting their MPGs for a variety of different driving conditions, there are already several averages of averages built in. Plus in statistics it's pretty common to make certain assumptions, as well as remove outliers.
Another way of looking at it is that just because one car drove 80,000 for example and averaged 28mpg, while the other 7 cars only drove 10,000 miles each and averaged only 20mpg. By your calculation (considering the miles driven) the average for the 8 cars would be 24mpg, since out of the total of 160,000 miles driven 1/2 of the miles driven had 28mpg while the other 1/2 had 20mpg. By calculating it on a car-basis, then the overall average drops to 21mpg. Either way is correct, but based on this example, it seems that the 21mpg is more accurate.
And the comment about increased quality control will make MPGs get into the EPA range was pretty funny.
No right way to calculate an average :confuse: Give it up, Bob. You are only making it worse.
If someone says they're getting 15mpg average, then I'd tell them to head to the shop! But if they're in the normal range, then I'd tell them to be satisfied and maybe with their next car they'll be in the higher end of the range, unless it's soley due to their driving habits.
It's sort of like complaining because your transmission fails. It may be that only one car in thousand has a transmission failure, but if you have the bad luck to be the one, there's no point saying that all of the same vehicle have lousy transmissions...it's just that you have lousy luck!
I own a 2006 Ford Freestyle FWD and thought it would be nice to join this forum to share problems and advice with others. I came to this discussion about real world mileage because that is one of the problems with my car. I have decided to not post my issue here, however, because some of the people who post here seem to enjoy attacking those who say, for example, that they don’t get good mileage. Who needs that kind of crap? Not me.
Won’t be coming back here again.
But if someone is just posting again and again and again that most Freestyle's have poor MPG because they're getting in the low 20s on average, then you can expect others to question the reasoning.
I got an email about your posting before I could block CarSpace from my computer, so I’ll just make a comment. I have not read all of the postings about mileage but I saw enough to see that some people say they get good mileage and some people say they don’t get good gas mileage. In my opinion, getting in the low 20s on average is not good gas mileage for a 2006 Ford Freestyle FWD. I wish I had read the comments posted here before I bought my car. If I had, I would probably be driving something else.
I question your reasoning for not wanting people to talk about their poor MPG. Dude, do you sell these things? Want to buy one that gets great mileage in the low 20s?
Now if you're driving 70mph on flat interstate and you're only getting 21-22mpg, then you might want to check things out. But if the low 20s is the combined EPA estimate and you're getting in the low 20's, then how is that "bad" mpg?
What other car would you be driving, if not the Freestyle if you're looking for a 7 passenger vehicle? The Honda Pilot is rated 18 city, 24 highway, 20 average by the EPA. The FWD Highlander V4 is rated 19 city, 25 highway, 21 average. Compared to those, the Freestyle is pretty good. Or if you want to hear some real complaints, go over to the Odyssey Real World MPG forum. Some people there are reporting getting in the mid teens MPG and the Odyssey is rated 20/28, but I don't hear anyone complaining there for their Odyssey averaging 22mpg.
My wife is a milage freak - she's always trying lots of little tricks to improve her 2006 FWD mpg, and she still can't get above 23mpg on her mostly commuter route milage - it's hovered around 22.5 - 23 mpg since late August. The problem is that her to & from work route is on country roads rather than freeways - there are just too many stop signs and traffic signals.
I averaged about 25mpg when I drove it because it was mostly freeway milage, albeit rush hour milage, and I wasn't trying any tricks beyond using the cruise control when I could.
But we were both AMAZED when it got 32+mpg on a 200 mile freeway trip under close to ideal conditions - I drove out and she drove back.
My advice is to try to stay under 1800 rpm when accelerating from a stop, avoid any kind of heavy acceleration save for emergency purposes, and use the cruise control as much as possible. On freeways try to keep about 7-10 car lengths between you and the vehicle in front, to minimize braking and accelerations.
Do this and you should smoke Toyota Highlanders in milage. My next door neighbor says she gets only her 20 mpg with 2006 Highlander.
(having stick helps)
One thing you should check btw is your tire pressures especially now that we are in the cold months. Under inflated tires have more friction. Every 10 degree drop in temp lowers your tire pressure by 1 pound of pressure.
Also, stop carrying that 80 to 150 pounds of extra crap in the truck around.
Use your cruise control, even on back roads.
HOWEVER, lets be realistic for a moment. Suppose that you drive 300 miles per week, get 20 mpg and pay $2.00 per gallon of gas.
Your fuel cost for the week was $30.00 (300/20*2)
Now, lets suppose that you put a magic pellet into your fuel tank and now get 25 mpgs (a 20% increase) for 300 miles at $2.00 a gallon. Your fuel cost is now $24 per week.
at $2.50 a gallon your cost goes up to $37.5 at 20 mpg and $30 at 25 mpgs. These are not big differences in my mind.
If you really want to save money on gas, DRIVE LESS MILES
Mark.
I agree with your suggestions, especially save gas by driving less. In your example of a 300-mile weekly commute to work, the annual savings would be $300 if you worked 50 weeks per year. Some of us would consider that significant, but that’s just my opinion.
You might also consider getting a signifcantly smaller vehicle with less passenger and cargo capacity.
Unless there is some vehicle out there in the Freestyle's weight class which gets better milage. If there is, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
But if there isn't, what are you complaining about? AFAIK, the Freestyle gets the best milage in its class.
It is largely a matter of perception. People look at the FS and think station wagon, but in reality it is designed as an SUV on a crossover body. It is heavy and has a large cross section to the wind (but I love those large windows). If one thinks of it as an SUV, the mileage is impressive. If one compares it to a smaller sedan, then the mileage appears lacking.
I generally get 19 MPG for all in-town, around 25 on the road. If someone is getting less that 16 MPG in the city, there is probably either something wrong with their FS, or they are a true leadfoot.
BTW, I think that mustang weighs about 600 lbs less than a FS? That an the manual transmission are enough to explain 24 MPG in the city for a Mustang... plus, I'd hate to see 7 people in that 'Stang! :surprise:
Ugh . . I can't STAND people who accelerate that slowly.
IF you do this, PLEASE don't do it in an area where you're bottle-necking the traffic behind you.
If $300 a year is that significant, then I can't see how a person could justify driving a $25,000+ vehicle in the first place. But that's just me.
That, too. But the main difference is in the aerodynamic profile. The Freestyle is anything BUT aerodynamic . . and that drag KILLS gas mileage.
I have found that Freestyle mpg drops off dramatically going over 65mph - that seems to be where drag becomes a major factor.
The Freestyle is anything BUT aerodynamic . . and that drag KILLS gas mileage.
Ford sponsors the Terra Pass program.
Mark
What an impertinent and stupid comment! I’m retired and living on a fixed income. I take advantage of any savings that comes my way, and I have no trouble paying cash for a $25,000+ vehicle.
That was totally rude, Dude. What does a mean personal remark like that have to do with real world MPG? I have a good education and a great job. I can’t pay cash for an automobile but I have no problems making payments, and I scoop up all of those $300 savings that I can. I’m going to keep right on doing that and driving whatever I can afford. Go back in the barn, Man.
Be aware that it is a commercial website selling a product. Also, we'll pull the plug if the thread degenerates into global warming flames. There are more suitable venues for those discussions.
tidester, host
1. A coasting test to determine if the wheels/brakes/bearings are generating excessive friction. Problem is the CVT is always engaged, so Ford will have to be more clever to figure that one out. The rear wheels can be spun when the car is on a lift to check them out. Engine-on for full brake pressure.
2. A fuel flow rate test at, say, 55 mph to determine if the car is burning too much fuel on a flat road at steady speed. The fuel flow rate reading is available from the engine computer, and indeed, on non-SE model Freestyles, this data is used in the instantaneous MPG readout (that's car speed divided by fuel flow rate ). Therefore, that readout should say "28 MPG" at a steady 55 mph, no wind, one or two people inside, flat ground, warmed up, on a 50 to 100 degree day, 32 psi tires. (Assuming FWD models, subtract 1 or 2 MPG for the AWD models.)
A poster named "fordwrench", a Ford tech, and myself once reasoned together to conclude the engine will likely break-in if there are internal tolerances which are too tight, relieving extra friction there in time. The engine also maintains low emissions via the OBDII sensor/actuators and therefore near-stoichiometric conditions, meaning its probably the tranny that may be giving extra gas-robbing friction. (My '05 Freestyle gets around 25 MPG, so I know its running right, but some people can't seem to get above 20 MPG no matter how they drive.)
Also, you lose about 1 MPG if you use a "30" oil over the recommended "20" oil. That has been shown from plenty of tests by engineering organizations.
But on the other hand, if the $$$ are so tight, it would have probably made more sense to buy a low mileage used Freestyle. With the high depreciation, you could probably get a 2 year old Freestyle for about $15K, and save $10K over buying a new one. That's a lot of savings compared to the $$$ saved/lost in a few mpg.
But back to this topic of MPG, I found it interesting on the Honda Fit site I visit, that someone has a Fit that gets only about 25mpg for purely city driving, but then even Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas, while they can get 40mpg on the highways with careful driving, can also get in the low to mid 20's mpg if they have automatic transmissions, and the owners do a lot of city driving. I guess that's the main reason the I'm pretty happy with a vehicle as big as a Freestyle getting in the low to mid 20's in mixed driving.
I apologize to those who think it was rude, but I stand by my statement.
If $25 per month were a "significant savings" to me, I wouldn't dream of owning an automobile that was 25k and up.
Thus one can see that the driving style makes a considerable difference.
What you could afford and dream of is, of course, your own business. However, I wouldn't presume to speculate on anyone else's behalf.
tidester, host
Here’s a question you might be able to help me with. I have an Actron Auto Scanner – a gift from one of my kids. When it’s plugged into the computer on my 2006 SE FWD Freestyle, and I am cruising at 55 mph, the Actron reads 53 mph. At 65 mph it reads 63 mph, and so on. The tachometer reading is also about 50 to 65 rmp lower on the Actron than on the dashboard. Here's the question: If the speedometer is running fast, would that cause the digital odometer to show more miles than actually traveled or is the odometer driven by the computer?
In the case of my car, if the odometer is driven by the speedometer, it is adding about 3.6% more miles than are actually traveled. That would make my warranty disappear faster than it should, and it would mean that my gas mileage is even a little worse than I thought.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
In the past there wasn't anyway for people to know, but today with GPS and other electronic gizmos, now we can see the difference. But you are right in that in can make the MPG seem a little better and reduces the length of the warranty by a fraction.
Here are the cars that came up on the Edmunds search for speedometer accuracy:
Honda CRV, Toyota Tacoma, Honda/Acura in general (class action lawsuit), Ford Focus, Honda Pilot, Infiniti G35, Camry, Chevy Tracker, Jeep Liberty, Mazda3, Toyota Avalon, and on and on.
Probably in the future, all cars will have GPS installed, so distance won't be calculated by the spinning of the tires but by the onboard GPS.
I own a 2006 FWD SEL. My speedometer is 1.5 MPH too slow at 80 MPH. The GPS said I was doing 78.5, and my speedometer said exactly 80.
Still, it would be interesting to know, not speculate, on fuel flow rates. I've got OBDII software running on a laptop computer, so I'll put the Freestyle in Park, rev the engine to 1500 RPM, and see if I can find fuel flow rate. I wonder what the variation would be in 10 Freestyles doing this? Fordwrench could tell his customers: "Look, your Freestyle consumes fuel at 0.02 gallons/minute at 1500 RPM, so you match the average Freestyle gas consumption."
Sorry, yes, too fast at 80 MPH. I don't think tire wear is involved; my FS has only 10K miles on the tires, and they were rotated at 5K.