How the heck do reviewers and auto journals get such lousy mpg's?

[higheroctave32]

I did some driving around this morning to go pick a friend up and drive him home then head back home myself. I pulled back into my driveway and was very pleased to see the resulting trip info. 50.6 MPG. I was paying very little attention to how I was driving for the most part of it as we were busily chatting away about the VW debacle. I Google mapped it out exactly to see how far I had gone and thought to myself, what the heck are these people doing to only get mileage in the 30's!? The ambient was about 75 and I did not need the air running. A good chunk of it was freeway also. I included the map info as a link. I fail to understand how someone can accurately comment on the mileage of a car if they drive it like a tool.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Nancy+Way,+Carmichael,+CA+95608/38.6068694,-121.347497/Blue+Collar+Customs/38.6233356,-121.5181981/38.4998669,-121.4224625/38.5500939,-121.427378/Nancy+Way,+Carmichael,+CA+95608/@38.5649109,-121.4332977,11.86z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m5!1m1!1s0x809adc73bcc28069:0x7cd71742e9f61be7!2m2!1d-121.347497!2d38.6068694!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x0:0xde29bed3e2eabae8!2m2!1d-121.3518744!2d38.6574372!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-121.4366271!2d38.4960507!3s0x809ac57aee28fc65:0xc882bc0cbea457d9!1m0!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x809adc73bcc28069:0x7cd71742e9f61be7!2m2!1d-121.347497!2d38.6068694!3e0

[aschulz261]

I would imagine the published mileage includes all the performance testing and photo shoots. I am just guessing but I bet their mileage includes far more full throttle and far more idling than a typical car.

[lolder]

Reviewers typically get a new car model in the fall when the weather is turning colder and mpg is plunging. They're gear heads and wring them out performance wise. They are not hyper-milers.

[Cobra348]

Reviewers typically get a new car model in the fall when the weather is turning colder and mpg is plunging. They're gear heads and wring them out performance wise. They are not hyper-milers.

I'm no hyper-miler by any stretch, but I'm easily in the 44+ MPG range per receipts and 45+ per the car. I use ICE to get off the stop line in traffic and other things I shouldn't do. Reviewers just do not take the time to even consider giving their vict ... er, vehicles a chance.

 

Also, if they are going for performance and stuff, might I suggest that they stay with performance cars and not expect everything to be a Veyron or F-Type?

[jeff_h]

And the fact that their test car is likely new with few miles can make a difference too. I think after about 5k miles on my hybrid my MPG went up 5-10% or so.

[CCalvinN]

I think one thing that many quality auto journalists try to achieve with any car they are testing is consistency. The same way they test the Z06 Corvette is the same way that they test the Fusion Hybrid, the Alpha Romeo 4C, the Tesla S, Jeep Renegade, and any other model. And many auto sites look at and try to achieve the best numerated results like Top Speed, 0-60, Quarter Mile Time/Speed, and Braking Distance at 60mph. That consistency is a good thing. When driving a car aggressively most people will achieve similar results.

 

That constancy can be used by people that drive differently. For example Car and Driver had an observed 32 mpg for the FFH (2013). The same type of testing rated the Ford Focus (2012) at 21 mpg. As a previous Focus owner I can say that it gets WAY more than 21 mpg when driven anywhere near what we would call 'normal'. I imagine that there are some outlets that try to wring every mile out of every gallon used, regardless of drive train (all electric, hybrid, diesel, gasoline...). Those outlets just aren't going to be nearly as popular as the Car and Drivers of the world.

 

When you try to sell a steak you don't sell the juice per cubic inch, you sell the sizzle. Most auto journalists are simply tuned to test the sizzle and no other metric.

 

I think we can all agree that to get the best mpg out of a hybrid you don't drive it like a regular car. I didn't expect to change my driving technique but after months (and over 15,000 miles) of hybrid ownership, my driving has changed dramatically. It wasn't intentional, but it increased my mpg. I'd say I'm somewhere in between the 'aggressive' driving style and the 'hypermileing' driving style. As such my average mpg is in between the C&D 32 mpg and the hypermilers that regularly get over 50 mpg.

 

When I shop around for a new car I'll still utilize main stream auto press and their mpg numbers. But I'll use it as a comparison against different models (say for example the Ford got 32, the Toyota got 34, the Hyundai got 27...). I won't use it as a measure of what I will get out of these vehicles, just that I should get the most out of a Toyota and the least out of a Hyundai. What I won't do is head over to the Hyundai forum and see what their owners are getting vs the Toyota forum and what their owners are getting and compare those to the Ford forum and what their owners are getting. No consistency.

[lolder]

My pet peeve is about reviewers who complain about the eCVT lack of feeling like an ordinary automatic transmission or "yo-yoing". It indicates they haven't the faintest idea of what's going on inside it. In older times they complained about automatic transmissions and self ( electric ) starters

[GrySql]

No one reviews the reviewers and gives them a score, they just get a paycheck. Only someone interested in hybrids and the net result of using less fuel will test an EV, HEV or PHEV properly, because they are really interested in the overall dynamic.

 

Ford doesn't help this either, when is the last time you saw a Ford Super News Ticker on this Forum about their advances in these high mileage vehicles? The vast majority of Ford's Advertising effort is in EcoBoost engines, trucks and go-fast vehicles that use lots of fuel, not less.

[talmy]

My pet peeve is about reviewers who complain about the eCVT lack of feeling like an ordinary automatic transmission or "yo-yoing".

 

 

Yes, why should it be the same? My "complaints" about the eCVT is that it tries to be like an automatic (coming from driving stick shifts for nearly 50 years). Why does it creep when you've stopped? Why does the gear shift have a "L" position when there are no gears?

[talmy]

Ford doesn't help this either, when is the last time you saw a Ford Super News Ticker on this Forum about their advances in these high mileage vehicles? The vast majority of Ford's Advertising effort is in EcoBoost engines, trucks and go-fast vehicles that use lots of fuel, not less.

Doesn't help that gas prices are super-low, at the moment. I'm sure when prices jump back up to $4/gal or above we'll see the advertising efforts change.

[GrySql]

 

Yes, why should it be the same? My "complaints" about the eCVT is that it tries to be like an automatic (coming from driving stick shifts for nearly 50 years). Why does it creep when you've stopped? Why does the gear shift have a "L" position when there are no gears?

Creep, did you say Creep? ;)

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/9602-ffh-factoids-parts-quiz/?p=90904

 

Here's your 'L' answer too:

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/9602-ffh-factoids-parts-quiz/?p=91409

[Texasota]

Ford doesn't help this either, when is the last time you saw a Ford Super News Ticker on this Forum about their advances in these high mileage vehicles? The vast majority of Ford's Advertising effort is in EcoBoost engines, trucks and go-fast vehicles that use lots of fuel, not less.

It is hard to blame Ford for that. Trucks and go-fast vehicles are what the customers are purchasing and that is where Ford makes their money. The high mileage vehicles contribute relatively little to Ford's bottom line and in many cases are big money losers.

[machoman1337]

I was getting 7-8 L/100 km (that's the low 30s in mpg) during my first few days with the car.

 

I soon learned how to drive like a grandma and properly play the braking regen game, and I'm consistently getting 6.0 L/100km or less, which is 40+ mpg. I often get below 5 (exceeding 47 mpg) on my downhill drive home.

 

If you just drive casually without caring about how smooth your braking is, how gradually you accelerate, etc, you'll never get close to the advertised mileage.

[jdbob]

 

Why does the gear shift have a "L" position when there are no gears?

 

Because Ford misspelled the letter "B".

[ElectricFan69]

My pet peeve is about reviewers who complain about the eCVT lack of feeling like an ordinary automatic transmission or "yo-yoing". It indicates they haven't the faintest idea of what's going on inside it. In older times they complained about automatic transmissions and self ( electric ) starters

With all the 'piped in' engine sounds various manufacturers are supplying, maybe Ford could do various 'racing soundtracks' as synthetic engine simulations. Sort of like an iPhone ring tone sounding like a Bell 500 desk phone.

 

I can see it now - having a new 'car engine tone' as a add-on accessory that simulates a 60's Ferrari on full howl - or a Ford GT 7 liter V8's at Le Mans. Simulated notes of shifting notes included.

:drool:

Edited December 4, 2015 by ElectricFan69

[IZOPNYDE]

This is my second fusion. While I was disappointed in my mileage with my first one, attaining 41.2 out of 47, my 2016 fusion energi plugin barely gets 38mpg. What's going on, and don't say it depends upon my driving? I got that mileage in my 1962 MG.

[md13ffhguy]

This is my second fusion. While I was disappointed in my mileage with my first one, attaining 41.2 out of 47, my 2016 fusion energi plugin barely gets 38mpg. What's going on, and don't say it depends upon my driving? I got that mileage in my 1962 MG.

First, welcome to the FFH forum! You know that Ford downgraded the estimated MPG on the early second gen FFHs from 47 to around 43, right? Give us some more details on the Energi. 38 MPG over what distance? Does that represent a single tank or multiple? Sounds like you're not really taking advantage of the Energi's battery. How long are your trips/commutes? More info will help people make a better assessment.

[bdginmo]

This is my second fusion. While I was disappointed in my mileage with my first one, attaining 41.2 out of 47, my 2016 fusion energi plugin barely gets 38mpg. What's going on, and don't say it depends upon my driving? I got that mileage in my 1962 MG.

 

The Energi is rated at 38 mpg combined. With that said I typically get much better than that even when running in hybrid mode. What is your typical speeds? How long are your trips? High speeds and short trips will negatively impact your mpg.

Edited January 3, 2016 by bdginmo

[ElectricFan69]

This is my second fusion. While I was disappointed in my mileage with my first one, attaining 41.2 out of 47, my 2016 fusion energi plugin barely gets 38mpg. What's going on, and don't say it depends upon my driving? I got that mileage in my 1962 MG.

How are you computing the 'gets 38 MPG' and for what sorts of trips?

 

The Energi variant value proposition shines when you use it as a 'plug-in' and take advantage of the expanded battery capacity, which allows you to avoid gasoline use for short-trip driving cycles. For longer commutes where the all-electric range is exceeded or for long trips, it will consume more fuel than the 'conventional' hybrid due to the extra weight of the battery pack. The relative numbers were spelled out on the EPA fuel rating sticker.

When I evaluated the different vehicle variants for my driving patterns, the Energi compromises weren't 'worth it', particularly the luggage space loss. Although 60% of my driving would fit within the all-electric range, the local lack of recharging infrastructure (that would have allowed more all-electric use), combined with the loss of cargo capacity and the extra cost made it a poor value for me. The increase in the 'hybrid mode' fuel consumption was the final straw.

 

Honestly, there are a number of integration points for the hybrid powertrain that could be done better - particularly for component packaging. The battery packaging is a case in point, particularly as it relates to the omission of the spare tire. Lock the body engineers in the same room with battery packaging engineers for a couple of weeks and have them work together, and come up with structure and battery that would be able to manage crash energy as well as leave maximum usable cargo space. With a bit of smart engineering (e.g. changing the spare tire well stamping to accommodate the battery below trunk floor), the battery could be packaged so it doesn't reduce luggage space I totally get the cost dimension - but honestly, the incremental costs for some of the items shouldn't be that bad if it's part of the base design. And with CAFE rising, improving the hybrid powertrain take rate would do wonders for CO2 emissions compliance - particularly for the Energi variants that suffer the most from packaging compromises.

[jeff_h]

This is my second fusion. While I was disappointed in my mileage with my first one, attaining 41.2 out of 47, my 2016 fusion energi plugin barely gets 38mpg. What's going on, and don't say it depends upon my driving? I got that mileage in my 1962 MG.

 

I think in most cases it does "depend on your driving" and while smooth gradual stops that recapture the most energy are important, I think the cruising speeds make a bigger difference, in my opinion anyway. Here is the recap of this past week's trip down to Lynchburg VA and back where 90% of the driving was on rolling winding roads with speed limit of 55 (I had cruise set on 55) then rolling hills with less curves and speed limit of 60 (I had cruise set on 64), and cruise was engaged almost all the time except when going through the little podunk towns here and there. This was also with not using HVAC much since temps were mild. If someone were only getting 38 MPG I'd wonder about the HVAC use (I think that matters a little) and cruising speed (I think that matters a lot).

 

[hybridbear]

The increase in the 'hybrid mode' fuel consumption was the final straw.

Part of the 47 MPG fiasco was that Ford used an EPA loophole to use the FFH test results for the C-Max Hybrid window sticker, since the FFH was expected to sell better. For the Energi vehicles they used the C-Max Energi test results for the Fusion Energi window sticker since the C-Max Energi was expected to sell better (the 2013 Fusion Energi originally cost $40k+). Ford never changed that procedure, even when reevaluating the MPG results. Thus, to see the comparable difference in MPG of Energi versus hybrid you need to compare C-Max Hybrid versus C-Max Energi.

C-Max Hybrid

42/37/40

C-Max Energi & Fusion Energi

40/36/38

Fusion Hybrid

44/41/42

Source: http://insideevs.com/ford-reduces-mpg-figures-plug-energi-models-c-max-fusion/

The Energi powertrain reduces highway MPG in the C-Max by 1 MPG. I'd expect similar results in the Fusion Energi if tested separately, something like 42/40/41. We have always seen better highway MPG in our Energi than we ever got with the FFH because of the larger battery pack. While the impact is small when doing 600+ miles per day with only one charge, it can be felt.