Fusion (Not Prius) is America's Most Fuel Efficient Car

Most fuel efficient mid-sized car made by an American company? No (Ford makes more fuel efficent cars in other markets)
Most fuel efficient mid-sized car made in America? No (Fusion is assembled in Mexico)
Most fuel efficient mid-sized car available for purchase in America? No
Most fuel efficient mid-sized car for sale in the US by an American company? Yes

 

Yeah, thats right up there with Mercedes' big "World's Cleanest Diesel" signs on the "stretch-the-truth-o-meter".

Rob

 

How about: "...travel up to 47 miles per hour in pure electric mode, faster than all other hybrids currently on the road."
I'm able to run my Prius at 49 or 50 on pure electricity.

 

What is America's obsession with large engines? I was looking at BMW USA's site earlier - for details on their new hybrids - and discovered that the 1 Series starts with a 2.8 litre engine, or a 3.5 litre option. That's ridiculous. The original European car comes, in the UK, with a choice of 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 litre petrols and diesels, a 2.3 diesel on the SE and M Sport models, and a 3.0 litre petrol on the M Sport model.

Ford's Focus comes only with a 2.0 litre engine in the US. In the UK you can have a 1.4, 1.6, 1.6 with variable valve timing for an extra 15 horsepower, 1.8 or 2.0 petrols; two different power-rating 1.6 litre diesels, a 1.8 diesel, or a 2.0 diesel, plus a 2.5 litre petrol in the ST model.

The Saturn Astra (who said GM didn't sell small European cars in the US?) has a 1.8 litre engine with 138hp. The same car sold here has a very wide range of engines. Somehow they've made the fuel economy worse than the 2.0 litre North America Focus, though.

The American market has to learn that you do not get engine power without paying the price for that in fuel economy. There is no free lunch. The 1.6 petrol Focus does 0-62mph (100km/h) in 11.9 seconds, compared to the 2.0 litre's 9.2 seconds, but gets 42.2mpg (Imperial, New European Driving Cycle) versus 39.8mpg. That's 6% more fuel consumption. The 115bhp 1.6 Ti-VCT (Twin Independent Camshaft Timing) gets slightly better economy than the 100hp fixed-timing 1.6 and is a over a second quicker - 42.8mpg and 10.8 seconds. Why aren't you putting Ti-VCT on all models, Ford?

The cars close to Prius efficiency are mostly diesels - diesels don't have the partial-power problem that conventional Otto-cycle petrols do. The prize for 'most efficient' car actually does go to Ford - but the new Fiesta takes 12.9 seconds.

So yes, Ford does make more fuel-efficient cars in other markets. They don't believe they can sell them to North American customers.

What's happened here is that the SFGate, in a great display of space-filling, have republished Ford's press release with a staff writer's byline. Shoddy, shoddy journalism, but exactly what we've come to expect.

 

If they base it on passenger volume, then the fusion is the leader since it has more passenger volume than the prius, cargo is the same in both.

Prius 96CuFt
Fusion 100CuFT
Trunk 16 CuFT

Either way, there isn't a need to bash it, praise it, a step in the right direction. The fact they use 100% recycled materials for the interior is also a plus. Ford has come a long way recently and is the best US car company, period. Their quality is right on par with Toyota, and exceeds it is some cases. My TCH is becoming a rattle trap and it isn't even a year old yet. 17500 miles and the steering wheel rattles, the dash squeaks and the drivers door has wind noise. The Sunroof sticks at times, and sometimes doesn't want to close. The quality in my Hyundai Veracruz is far better, no squeaks, no rattles, not a single problem other then two broken seat belt clips by a careless teenager.

I had a prius, after 24K miles I was glad to be rid of it, it wasn't a very comfortable car to drive, and the lack of traction, and shoddy TC and handling were enough for me to say 50 MPG isn't worth it. It has been gone nearly a year and I don't miss it. OTOH, I really like my Camry Hybrid, and wish I had purchased that instead of the Prius from the start, has the room I need and is comfortable to drive, and doesn't have the "reputation" that a prius has. I have driven a fusion a few times, and it is also more comfortable than the Prius, at least I was able to stretch my legs out.

And EZW1, did you have your prisu tweaked? There is no way you can run on electric above 42 MPH with the synergy drive, it isn't designed to. No matter how delicate I am, when it hits 42 MPH, even going down hill, the engine will kick in, and that's in both the prius and the Camry.


EDIT: BTW, the Fusion is comparable to the Camry, not the Prius, which does put it at the top. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/jan/03/2010-ford-fusion/

 

ok... so qualify the statement with enough boundaries and yes it is true

 

Yes the Title is misleading, I give them that. The Prius just barely squeaks into the mid size category, BUT the Prius is also in a class by itself, it has no other car to compare to.

Title should read Ford Fusion most fuel efficient Family Sedan in US.

I don't consider the Prius a family sedan, no one else I know would either. In fact, most people would compare the Prius to the Corolla or Civic.

 

A family sedan, no, but a family car, yes. The hatchback is far more versatile than a trunk.

 

In a word - marketing

Bigger is better and more is not enough

I used to have a 2000 GMC Sierra, a pickup. It had a 5.3 litre V8, and was so powerful that if I wasn't careful at a green light, and stepped on the gas pedal more than 1/3 of the travel, both rear tires would spin. Yet folks demanded superchargers as they felt that particular motor was too weak

I had a lot of reliability issues with the drivetrain, and can only imagine how much worse those issues would have been with a supercharger. But the last word I'd use to describe the 5.3 litre V8 in my old pickup, was "weak"

I also have a 4 litre V6 in my FJ Cruiser. A lot of FJ drivers consider this to be a "weak" motor, which again I find funny. Yes, a supercharger is also offered for the FJ Cruiser

I have driven 1 litre three cylinder cars in the EU and see nothing wrong with them. It's not like you're taking advantage of more than a fraction of the power in heavy city traffic.

 

well the 2010 has 5 cu feet more room, but putting the cup holder in the center, imho, was a mistake

 

The Fusion mileage looks like that of a Camry hybrid, and lower than a Prius.
I suspect the Fusion is much more like the Camry in size, as well. 41/36 mpg is way below the Prius and more like the Camry.
I routinely get 50-52 mpg in the warmer months, and am getting 45 mpg right now in the dead of PA winter. And that's with a lot of short trip driving and cold starts.

 

Design laziness in Detroit and a mind-set that stems from the era of plentiful 30 cent/gallon gas, when vehicle weight or engine efficiency was irrelevant and annual model-year styling ruled the day.

Now that Ford is headed by an ex-aerospace engineer, where overall weight in any vehicle design is crucial to performance, improvements are becoming apparent. In regions where car fuels have always been more expensive, such as Europe and Japan, vehicle design for fuel efficiency has always predominated, other than at the top luxury tier of the market.

And yes, I am biased!

 

If you're quoting the cargo space of the Gen II Prius against the 2010 Fusion (not yet available) consider the Gen III Prius is over 5 cubic feet larger then Gen II . . . thus the Gen III Prius would trump the Fusion regarding interior room.

As for ev above 42, one of the PHEV companies jacks into the hardware enabling the existing motor to run pure EV at 60 . . . so it is possible.

Lastly, as to mpg / efficiency, quoting the article:
41 mpg city and 36 mpg highway

Averaging the 2 figures, I come up with 39mpg. The Gen III Prius (not even using 'econo mode') gets 50mpg. Soooo . . . what am I missing.

 

I used to think that about the Prius from just seeing them on the road. Then when I sat in the back seat, saw all the hidden storage and test drove one that all changed. I tell everyone that makes a comment about Prius being small, that its bigger on the inside than on the outside.

I needed a 4 door with decent room and good mileage and am very satisfied with my '08.

 

I think Fusion Hybrid epa mpg ratings will backfire in the end, with both Edmunds and Car and Driver finding TCH more economical in their tests despite Ford doing 15%-20% better at epa tests. With people buying hybrids for the mileage, too much epa test optimization will for sure annoy some people when they realize whats happened.

Problem with hybrids being new technology is that people might associate any bad story about any particular hybrid as if it applies to all hybrids on the market.

 

Yes, Ford has come a long way, and I agree they probably are the best US car company now. But, they have had a huge quality gap to close, and are still not there yet. No, they're not yet on par with Toyota. According to the 2008 "power circle" by JD Power for both quality and dependability, Ford rates 3 stars, Toyota and a select few other companies rate 4 stars. Only Porsche rated 5 stars. JDPower.com | Ratings: New & Used Cars

Consumer Reports is has been less kind to Ford over the years (sorry I cannot provide a link due to subscription service).

I've owned 6 Toyotas in my lifetime (Celica, Corolla, Camry, RAV4, HyHi, Prius, and never had replace anything other than due to normal wear. I said "goodbye" to the first four with an average ODO reading of 180,000 miles, and sold them for a very decent price above KBB value, thank you very much Toyota. My parents and in-laws keep buying Fords and Oldsmobiles, and continue to have huge maintenance costs in all their vehicles over several decades. They won't consider buying an equivalent Toyota because they cost a little more up front, and they never think of the long-term costs.

Hey, if Ford wants to put out misleading advertising, fine by me. A lot of ignorant Americans will eat that up and buy a product inferior to the Prius. I do give Ford credit in their development of higher efficiency cars, as they are ahead of GM and Chrysler.

 

Well, that's probably why they said 'America'.... If it's left general, like America, then it could be North America, Central America or South America. They are counting on the general public assuming that America = U.S.A. which in this case it doesn't.

 

Well, I'll give this a shot:

How many miles do you drive a year? I drive about 20-22K miles a year, give-or-take, and that's just generally to work and back home, and 90-95% of that drive is at highway speeds). How long does it take you to drive see your family? I've got relatives who live in TX, and it's a 14 hour drive to get there, at "70 MPH" (no one in TX drives slower than 70) - one way. That's south-central KS to southern TX. Look at a map, see how much distance that is compared to the country as a whole. I just recently did a trip across 4 states (KS, OK, NM and AZ), and a bit of TX, and back, and it was nearly 3000 miles. 16 hours one-way, non-stop at posted limits (south central KS to Sedona, AZ).

In the UK, you can drive from London to Edinburg in just a bit over 7 hours (approx 7h 15m). Try a google directions for Missoula, Montana to Glendive, Montana. That's a nearly 8 hour drive (7h 45m) - all within ONE state, and isn't even the entire width of the state. And while Montana is large, it isn't as big as California or Texas.

The US really doesn't have good public transportation. For a number of reasons, and don't think they all have to do with the US having a "gas hungry"/car mentality. There's some long distances to cover, even for rail, and keeping that rail system up and running. You used to be able to go on rail from Newton, KS to Houston, TX, and it took over 22 hours. You could drive the same thing in 13 hours (at 55MPH), now it only takes about 9.5 hours (at 65-75MPH, depending on posted limits in each state).

One thing many Europeans don't realize is how big the US is. I've talked to several Europeans who have moved here and become citizens, and they are always amazed at how large the continental US is. If memory serves, it's about 5 times larger than all of Western Europe put together.

While not necessarily true today, but certainly was in "yesteryear" (not all that long ago), big motors equated to longer life on the road, when you're driving long distances at highway speeds. Those larger engines then ran at slower RPMs, given the same speed, as smaller engines did. That was a big difference when you drove long distances for long periods of time. Yes, cars are MUCH better now, but those ingrained habits die hard, and people have long memories of the bad cars they bought. (I'll never own a Ford again, for instance. Tried twice, both were pieces of junk, and I've got a few co-workers who have traded in Fords at 18-24 months at a loss to get rid of them).

So, for years, it's been ingrained that if you drive long distances for long periods of time, you got a bigger motor to last longer, and to pass those on the highway. Those things have changed, but not all that long ago. It wasn't all that long ago that it was a miracle to get a US car to go much beyond 100,000 miles. Now it's a pretty regular occurance to get 140,000 out of most vehicles. It wasn't all that long ago (15 years), that cars with 4 cylinder engines in the US were wrapping at high RPMs just to drive at highway speeds (60-65MPH+), and trying to pass another vehicle - well, just don't.

So, at least to me, it's little wonder of our "obsession" with larger engines, given the distances many travel, the highway speeds, and the old thoughts that lower RPMs equate to better life, and mileage. Sometimes, those V8s, even though they were MUCH larger, weren't all that inefficient as you'd think, driven at highway speeds for long periods of time.

Now, I'm not necessarily making excuses - but sometimes you need to walk (or in this case - drive) a mile in someone else's moccasins to understand where they are coming from and why they do things the way they do. Does everyone in the US need to think about this - no. But it's something that was ingrained at an early age for many of us (at least those of us older folks), and was certainly true for a very long time.

Anyway, just some thoughts to put some things into perspective.