Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Your are correct Backy. However, I foolishly thought it might actually deliver the original EPA estimate of 19 city (since revised downward by the EPA to 17 mpg city). For the first 2,000 miles the car was stuck at 13 mpg but it has improved to 14.8.
I didn't think a 4 cylinder would be powerful enough for a 3,200 midsize car but now believe I could have been mistaken, that we really don't need a V6 for the kind of driving that we mostly do.
Hindsight is always 20-20. The EPA estimates for midsize V6s are pretty close together, I believe, within 1 to 3 mpg of each other.
We consider our Fusion to be a great value as a midsize sedan, EXCEPT for the mileage. I expect we will have the car for seven to 10 years. We also have a 1997 V6 3.8-liter Thunderbird and an I4 2.0 liter 2000 Ford Focus station wagon, which I still love.
I really liked the Honda Accord. My wife really liked the Ford Fusion. We ended up with the Fusion. That's how it goes sometimes. The distinctive styling of the Fusion won out.
I think potential midsize sedan buyers are very fortunate to have so many totally acceptable choices from a diverse variety of manufacturers.
Do appreciate your encouraging words about the mileage, too. We have noticed that it is slowly creeping upward, albeit at a very slow rate. The highway mileage seems fine. It's just the 14.8 mpg in-city mileage that is the killer. Then again, neither the Accord or Camry even offers AWD, at any price. Subarus do, of course, but the nearest dealer is 30 miles away.
Nope, I don't believe the vehicle "B" would get better real world mileage than a Fusion. Indeed, I think the EPA's city mileage is terribly optimistic for all makes and models. I was just hoping that our Fusion would reach that level, which it has not done.
I also believe people often fudge their mileage statistics. Some people might even believe it's impossible for us to get such bad mileage. It is a sad truth, though. Our best in-city only mileage so far is 14.8 mpg and for the first 2,000 miles it was 13.0, which was painful to the pocketbook.
Our terrain is flat as a fritter. The climate is mild. The tires are properly inflated. My wife and I are conservative, gentle drivers. But the car only travels short distances at a time, barely even getting up to operating temperature. I doubt any car would match its EPA city rating given our usage.
We didn't buy the car to be a mileage champ, just hope it will eventually do better than 14.8. We would be delighted if our Fusion actually reached the revised EPA city estimate of 17 mpg for this powertrain.
I would suggest you use a timer and use the block heater for about 1 hour every morning, before the car is started.
It will do wonders for reaching the operating temperature sooner and it will cost you less than 10 cents a day.
Installation with purchase should not be more than 150 bucks at most. You won't regret it.
I live near Vancouver, Canada and it does not get really cold here, may be 22 or 25 degrees in December and January. Still, I use my block heater (in a 2001 Toyota Echo and my 98 Chevy full size truck all year round and over 6 years the difference has been up to 8 mpg better in winter and 2 mpg better in summer. It more than pays for itself through gas savings, not to speak of being easier on the battery, the starter, the oil and the alternator. The heater works sooner and this is more pleasant to me, the driver.
Ditto for me.
so is someone trying to make an unscientific assertion that some cars are more likely than others to achieve EPA mileage? I hope not...this forum does not have nearly the sample size to draw any useful conclusions.
I agree. But, considering that the EPA is revising its estimates downward, I'd say it safe to assume most driver don't get the milage that is claimed.
The new rating of 31 mpg is just absurdly low. Over 3,100 miles I average 30.9 mpg, and that includes day to day city trips of just a couple of miles each. I don't see how anybody can get only 31 highway unless they don't use their highest gear, or they are going extremely fast.
Midsize sedan examples Accord epa 34 CR 38 Camry epa 33 CR 36.
One example (midsize sedan) of missing the numbers is the new Altima. EPA 34 CR 33 But I think CVT's do artificially well on the test along with the hybrids.
The 2007 EPA tests did not use the A/C and the speeds were too low while the idle time was too short for today's average city driving. 2008 tests are simply more realistic. The only big change to the highway test was to add an acceleration run up to 80 mph.
Nobody will always get the EPA average, even using the 2008 numbers (that's why it's called an average). As others point out the numbers were never meant to be absolute - only relative so you can compare 2 vehicles.
Blah, I think the EPA totally wussed out. If you want the mileage on the sticker, you can't drive like Mario Andretti. If you want to drive like a racer, thats fine but don't expect the mileage on the sticker. I have always done better than EPA estimates and I don't drive particularly slow. Its about anticipating stops and starts; every time you hit the brakes you are converting $$$ (fuel) to heat.
I also thing cities that don't time their lights (or time them poorly) should be fined by the EPA or get dinked on some type of federal funding (or given funding to fix traffic flow). If you don't have to lead foot it to make the lights, or spend half of your life idling at them, you get better mileage (if your not moving, your MPG is 0).
Exactly. My dad and I drive completely differently (and we both know it). We made the same commute (within a few blocks of each other) and both had Accord 4-cylinder, EX, Automatics. I average around 29-30 MPG on this route. Dad averaged 24 or so.
Now that you mention that, I forgot about the vw golf diesel i had. I don't know what the epa for it was, but I got about 60 miles a gallon on it. The thing wasn't pretty, and only had 75 hp, but boy did it just sip gas. as for my current cars, they do pretty well, but not epa. My 200sx gets about 40mpg highway and is rated 43. my 07 altima is right now showing 32.2 mpg on the 34 estimate. that probalby has something to do with my driving though. I don't know about anybody else here, but where I live (50 miles south of DC) if you drive 55 on the interstate you'll either get run over or shot. :P
Not sure about the wife's civic, I haven't checked it in awhile.
No, it's just that only those who get lower complain.
Part of the problem is what people call "city" driving can vary a whole lot. For some the CR test will be more accurate, for others it will be the EPA test that is closer to their reality.
who knows how any of this is calculated. the only mpg i worry about is what i get based on my driving - not the sticker, not joe schmoe down the street...we all drive differently (speeds, braking habits, acceleration habits, crusing speeds, type of driving city/highway, etc)
my two cents...
-thene
if we all had to 'drive' in Manhattan, mileage would be more properly measured in gallons/mile?
my Avalon, which is rated at 22/31, gets me 27 mpg overall with the benefit of about 70% high speed (80 mph or so) highway miles, about what I expected - a run of Suburbans I had which were rated at 13/17, regulary returned 15.5 under the same conditions. So sure, it is possible, to work well within even the current EPA ratings, but if I wanted to drive like Andretti, as one poster pointed out, I would likely be seeing maybe 20 mpg on my car - and a few speeding tickets! Andretti, notwithstanding however, the EPA test procedures on the City side are especially unrealistic when it comes to the 'gridlock' that many of us face day-to-day, those folks most likely to complain about it.
I know that this was important for me since many times in my job, I'm required to bring large(r) displays that usually would not fit into a standard sedan. Also, I tend to get a bit impatient and don't like waiting for help to do something that I feel like I should be able to do. For example, getting my 42 flat screen the day after thanksgiving would have been hard to get anyone to fight the traffic and help me get the tv home. It was very nice being able to fit it into my mazda 6 hatchback despite the sceptical looks from the guys at Best Buy. I'm sure all of you know by now that I like cars that handle well, so an SUV with a higher center of gravity was not an option. Besides, I've read a high percentage of auto fatalities are due to rollovers which SUV's are much more prone.
So in the end, she got a Subaru Outback. It's a great little car with an added advantage of AWD. I was suprised at how quick it was; acceleration from a stop was better than what I remembered when I test drove a 4 cylinder Legacy before getting the Mazda. It's a touch on the slow side, but then she's not so interested in enthusiastic driving either. All in all, it's a good fit for what she wants. And if she needs to toss her lawnmower in it or bookshelf, there's no stopping her.
Since many people bring up how much space there is for passengers, I find that I am carrying things more than people so to me this is an important factor to consider. By opening up space, the amount of things I can do increase considerably.
As it was we decided on keeping the minivan for one of our kids to use for the next few years. After he no longer wants to use it we figure on keeping it for utility use and as a spare vehicle. So I decided to save the $1000 extra that the hatch costs, plus get a bit more headroom in the rear and not be forced to have a wing on the back of my car.
But I agree with you that a midsize wagon or hatch does provide great utility and there are not many out there. The Mazda6 hatch gives you that utility while still being a great looking and great handling car.
There is (or was) a Subaru Legacy wagon (a conventional wagon unlike the elevated Outback) also. Have they dropped that?
Its gone next year. It is still around for '07. Thats what happens when you get bought by Toyota, you become a 1 size fits all.
Toyota bought Subaru? When?
Toyota bought the part of Subie GM sold (and a little more, I believe), mostly to get access to additional manufacturing capability in Indiana. Coincidentally perhaps, they have cut their product mix considerably, and "simplified" the available drivetrain packages.
New numbers are all the result of speculation but internal Ford sources have claimed it will produce 240+ HP on premium fuel with a slight loss of power if you use regular. Direct injection is also rumored as are improved fuel economy numbers based on the new EPA tests. 3-4 MPG for both city and highway is what I've read. The latter is supposedly the entire reason for the update so definitely expect that to happen.
The Fusion will continue on with the 6-speed tranny (no word on a manumatic) and the Escape with the 4-speed. Once the run is over for these two, both are expected to get the Duratec35 and the Escape a brand new transmission too.
I thought that was rather interesting so I decided to share.
1) it's about time and we'll see how long it takes to make it in real cars and
2) as soon as "Detroit" says 'improved'- visions of the 50 year old 3.8 appear which over this period of time hasn't really improved much and
3) why not use the vaunted 3.5 NOW, which at 250hp+ would really make the Fusion something to contend with. If it is as you say, 240hp, 30 mpg highway, and 6-7 second 0-60 would definitely serve to give the car the heart it so badly needs - but is also nothing remarkable in this class even today never mind in a year or two or however long it takes Ford to fulfill its promises.
Definitely interesting. Thanks for sharing. A new lease on life for a very dependable, durable mill.
Boz
The Fusion has a number of good things going for it thanks to Mazda. Had Ford been able to even put the 233hp Sonata engine in it, 2 years ago, I don't think you hear nearly so many negative comments about it. How is it, do you suppose that lil ole Hyundai can do what Ford can't dream of?
IMO a 'good' car has everything to do with the sophistication and engineering prowess under the hood and very little to do with styling details, or even improved relabilities, and especially how cheap it is. On that basis, the Honda 4 banger is head and shoulders above the rest for those folks that prefer such things, and the Toyota, Nissan and Honda 6s define what those sort of engines should be.
Precisely what Ford SHOULDN'T do if it ever expects to sell competitive cars again.
with gas prices on the rise, a smaller engine is not a bad thing, especially if it can provide better power, mileage, emissions than the current iteration of the same size.
Right. And keep the price of the vehicle itself low.
That seems to be a popular question on the Ford forums too. The most common answer that I saw related to a production issue. Everythng else is getting the 3.5, Taurus/X/Edge/Flex/CX-9/Mazda6/maybe Explorer/maybe Mustang/some Mercury models, or the 3.7 (mfd in the same plants BTW), several Lincolns/maybe Mustang/maybe Explorer/F-150. Until they can get all plants tooled and able to meet those demands, extra capacity can shift to the next Fusion and the next Escape.
I feel it has more to do with the engines efficiency in the lighter Fusion and Escape though. Or maybe there's a better answer we have to wait to hear. :confuse:
Why? Most Fusions sold are V6 equipped as opposed to the Accord and Camry which are I4 equipped. If they can offer you a V6 for roughly the same price and fuel economy of an I4 wouldn't that interest you?
FWIW I do see V6 Fusions all over the road around here. I see some V6 Accords, but to date I can count the number of V6 Camrys I've seen on one hand. And I think I've seen the same one more than once. Ford is selling all the Fusions it can make right now. Making the top engine a little better is only going to help. That's my take anyway. :shades:
There was something about the Duratec23 being upped to 2.5L too but that wasn't discussed much and no one form Ford wanted to confirm it.
RWD. 2.4 - 3.0L Inline 6(VVT of course). This offers the best compromise of power, torque, fuel efficiency, reliability, and weight. Merceds and BMW knew this fifty years ago(fourty in BMW's case) Oh - and it's as smooth as a baby's butt while running. Want to beat the Avalon at its own game? Make a 300HP VVT I-6 engine. Stuff it in every car that you can.
It's also what people want in midsize cars and small SUVs and so on. As for RWD, you can have RWD and not have a problem with a driveshaft tunnel. It just wakes a multi-part driveshaft like Volvo put in its 960.
GM and Ford, actually could pull apart an old 960 and learn thing or two I bet. Absolutely superb car.
Duh, don't you think they would, if they could? A lot more technology goes into building an engine than the shape of the block. :confuse:
The 3.6L in the Cadillac cts (and Saturn Aura XR/Outlook) will have a Direct injection model for 2008. Unfortunately it won't be in the Saturns
But if you can swing the Cady... :shades:
***
Two things come to mind:
1 - an inline engine is much simpler to make and is much more reliable. Less custom tooling and such as well, especially if it's an OHC design.
2 - Mercedes made a 200HP(NET, to the wheels!) 3.0L i-6 engine 45 years ago. Not in a racing car, but in their normal passenger car line. A 300HP VVT and computer controlled(as opposed to mechanical fuel injection, no less!) should be able to get 300HP quite easily out of a 3.0L engine. If not, slap a small supercharger on it. It'll still weigh less than the 3.6VVT(or about the same)
The 3.6VVT is a good compromise, I guess. GM has a winner -- the next 3800 in that engine. MY only gripe is that they need to put more of the low-end torque versions like in the Lacrosse CXS in cars instead of the high HPO tuned vesions(CTS, etc). Honestly, the LaCrosse CXS is more fun to drive than the current CTS because of the diesel-like torquer curve(maxxes at something silly like 1400-1600rpm, IIRC)
GM can do it, to be sure. I hope they do. But if they don't, well, life is tough and there are a LOT of things I care more about than car companies.
Chrysler - lost cause.
Ford - too slow to react, and also doomed to failure. They don't have the R&D that GM has on tap and their mangement isn't as willing to change as quickly(GM is retiscent but when it has to move, it can - Ford will whine and look for a change in the laws or regulations or something)
this is a cost issue that Ford shares with Hyundai, the fact that the Fusion V6 will be about the same dollars as an I4 Camcord. Those folks that buy the Camcord I4s getting a better smoother and less bothersome engine and a whole lot better FE. Ford is only 'selling' (given the rate at which they are losing money maybe 'selling' and 'giving away' are interchangeable terms in Fordspeak) all the Fusions they can make right now because they are intentionally limiting production down there in Mexico. I assure that if the engines in the Fusion was even close to those others I mentioned, not only would the Fusion production and sales be up, but also that the price differential would be a whole lot less - apples to apples. If Ford truly wants to sell 'a better idea' they need to start with truly better drivetrains - in the process of producing a car that can justify a premium price. For Ford to have to compete with the Hyundais of the world is a losing proposition, because right now that Korean V6 is clearly superior to that 'old tech' DT.