2013 Hybrid MPG Results

[hybridbear]

Sounds crazy I know, I really should just stick with the FFH, but I got so obsessed with the MPG in it, that it drove me nutz, drove my dealer nutz, and alienated me here with some of you. Completely agree, if the sticker had the Canadian mpgs listed the obsession would be gone. But then again I would have probably purchased a kia optima hybrid instead. Anyway I just hope ford corporate does something ASAP because I went to have it appraised as trade and in and if they don't buy it back its going to put a big hole in pocket and upset me even more.

 

The Canadian 35/50 MPG is for the gas powered Fusion. Canadian MPG estimates are much higher than US estimates, just like how in England their MPG numbers on the window sticker are much higher than the US.

 

In Canada and Europe car buyers know that they won't get anywhere near the window sticker number because it is unrealistic. I think some of the problem here is that the US EPA estimates have been much more realistic for gasoline only cars and that has spoiled us as consumers. We're used to being able to achieve the EPA ratings in our previous gas only cars without much effort, even greatly exceed the EPA estimates on long highway cruises. Now that we, along with the automakers, the EPA and the rest of the US car buying public, are discovering that the EPA estimates for hybrids are less realistic than the EPA estimates for gas powered cars we're seeing this outrage over MPGs

[Fynack]

The Canadian 35/50 MPG is for the gas powered Fusion. Canadian MPG estimates are much higher than US estimates, just like how in England their MPG numbers on the window sticker are much higher than the US.

 

In Canada and Europe car buyers know that they won't get anywhere near the window sticker number because it is unrealistic. I think some of the problem here is that the US EPA estimates have been much more realistic for gasoline only cars and that has spoiled us as consumers. We're used to being able to achieve the EPA ratings in our previous gas only cars without much effort, even greatly exceed the EPA estimates on long highway cruises. Now that we, along with the automakers, the EPA and the rest of the US car buying public, are discovering that the EPA estimates for hybrids are less realistic than the EPA estimates for gas powered cars we're seeing this outrage over MPGs

 

http://www.ford.ca/ if you click on Hybrids and EV youll see it there , but oddly thats the only place unless you download the brochure. They dont seem to advertise it much no even on the main FFH page. After looking through the brochure your right .... this must be just a typo

Edited February 25, 2013 by Fynack

[Fynack]

http://assets.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/assets/2013_Ford_Fusion_J1_CA/NGBS/Nameplate_SpecificationLiteDoc/Nameplate_SpecificationLiteDoc_8801EF28-63A0-B8AA-7070-307570703075.pdf

 

http://www.ford.ca/ also if you click on Hybrids and EV youll see it there too, but oddly thats the only place unless you download the brochure. They dont seem to advertise it much no even on the main FFH page.

 

Wow i just noticed the fusion hybrid numbers are 71/69??? WOW thats seriously bold numbers in car that has heat retention issues.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Fynack

[GrySql]

Imperial gallons perhaps?

Low bid calculators?

[hybridbear]

Wow i just noticed the fusion hybrid numbers are 71/69??? WOW thats seriously bold numbers in car that has heat retention issues.

 

That shows the difference in testing cylces. We have been spoiled in the US that our EPA test numbers are much more accurate to real world driving than the tests are in other countries

[hybridbear]

Here is a very balanced article about the Ford hybrids and their MPGs

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2013/02/21/are-we-becoming-a-society-of-fuel-economy-whiners/?mod=google_news_blog

[Code_Warrior]

Thinking back to that road test now makes me believe, it isn't how I drive the car anymore, but that there really is an issue somewhere in the cars software that cant be found.

Here is my 2 cents: I think you have a defective sensor causing the computer to generate late ignition timing.

[acdii]

Here is my 2 cents: I think you have a defective sensor causing the computer to generate late ignition timing.

Me too, however, their fancy expensive computer is telling them that the fuel delivery is spot on.

[acdii]

Here is a very balanced article about the Ford hybrids and their MPGs

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2013/02/21/are-we-becoming-a-society-of-fuel-economy-whiners/?mod=google_news_blog

 

 

 

Were the people in that line of cars behind me angry when I dropped below 50 mph crossing the Berry’s Creek Bridge? Maybe, but I was too deep in the “hypermiling” zone to worry. Coasting into the tunnel under the Hudson River I reached a peak of 56 mpg on the trip computer.

After the long climb back to street level I had 53 mpg in hand. The reading was 52 mpg when I reached my destination a few blocks away at 54th Street.

I wonder what the temps were. This is pretty much how mine has to be driven to GET 40 MPG.

[Code_Warrior]

Me too, however, their fancy expensive computer is telling them that the fuel delivery is spot on.

The fuel delivery may be spot on but if the ignition timing is late, you will get reduced power and fouled plugs.

[ptjones]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict a software update that will take care of some of these problems. Things like grill shutters not closing, etc-- that can all be done through software. There have got to be several things Ford can due without rebuilding our engines from scratch that will help those who are struggling with mileage.

Somehow you guys aren't getting it. The software is working fine, the shutters are open when they are suppose to be, they aren't doing a very good job. That is why my grill covers work so well plus an aerodynamic improvement at Hwy speeds. I have 15k on my CMAX, same drive system as FFH with 43MPG actual vs 43.6MPG in car, 75% hwy so I think it is safe to say I have been doing a lot of testing. My tests should you lose 2mpg for each 10deg.F drop in temp from 70deg. Shutters don't open until 190deg..F So by blocking off the center and bottom grills the ICE heats up faster(saving mpg's) and gets up to 202-215deg.F to run ICE at max efficiency(saving mpg's).

 

So stop complaining and Tape/block off the center and bottom grills it doesn't cost anything and you could be increase your MPG's by 3-4mpg's. The one test I did on 2013FFH it looked like a 3mpg improvement, but I would to a lot more testing to verify that.

 

acdii I was wondering if K&N would make an less restrictive air filter(I would be afraid to run with no filter) that might lean the ICE a little and keep your plugs from fouling.

I did have one incident on congested Fwy(55mph) where I had to jam on the brakes and then jam on the throttle and white cloud of smoke came out of the exhaust. It sure scared me but it hasn't happen since. My oil level was at half way at 5.5k miles on oil change.

[lolder]

Air filter restrictions don't affect anything. The mass airflow sensor accounts for the air intake changes due to temperature and altitude. You might lose a little power.

[ptjones]

Air filter restrictions don't affect anything. The mass airflow sensor accounts for the air intake changes due to temperature and altitude. You might lose a little power.

You would think so but I have practical experience that contradicts that. I had a 2007 Focus which I removed total air filter system which was a big job and installed a Sneeda air filter system. It was very obvious HP improvement and 1-2mpg increase(averaged 40mpg on hwy) and had no exhaust residue after 63k mi. Our cars don't do that.

Edited February 26, 2013 by ptjones

[Da0ne]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="acdii" data-cid="43628" data-time="1361829425"><p>

<br />

<br />

<br />

I wonder what the temps were. This is pretty much how mine has to be driven to GET 40 MPG. </p></blockquote>

 

Well me being from new York city I can tell you its been in the mid 30s n low 40s

 

Today on the drive home I got 45 mpg on my 13 mile drive home and the temp was 45 I've added the pic to prove it to my gallery

[acdii]

Well, I picked mine up from the dealer after I discovered how little I was getting for it, and I hypermiled to the gas station, which is about 15 miles, and got 40.6, then hypermiled to my house after filling up and again got 40.6. Temps mid 30's. On the trip home from work in my 2010, just driving like I always do, 41.8 MPG. I would really like to know just what the heck is causing it to use so much gas. If I had more time to play with it, I would try blocking off everything and seeing if the temps are the problem.

[Fynack]

Somehow you guys aren't getting it. The software is working fine, the shutters are open when they are suppose to be, they aren't doing a very good job. 9That is why my grill covers work so well plus an aerodynamic improvement at Hwy speeds. I have 15k on my CMAX, same drive system as FFH with 43MPG actual vs 43.6MPG in car, 75% hwy so I think it is safe to say I have been doing a lot of testing. My tests should you lose 2mpg for each 10deg.F drop in temp from 70deg. Shutters don't open until 190deg..F So by blocking off the center and bottom grills the ICE heats up faster(saving mpg's) and gets up to 202-215deg.F to run ICE at max efficiency(saving mpg's).

 

So stop complaining and Tape/block off the center and bottom grills it doesn't cost anything and you could be increase your MPG's by 3-4mpg's. The one test I did on 2013FFH it looked like a 3mpg improvement, but I would to a lot more testing to verify that.

 

acdii I was wondering if K&N would make an less restrictive air filter(I would be afraid to run with no filter) that might lean the ICE a little and keep your plugs from fouling.

I did have one incident on congested Fwy(55mph) where I had to jam on the brakes and then jam on the throttle and white cloud of smoke came out of the exhaust. It sure scared me but it hasn't happen since. My oil level was at half way at 5.5k miles on oil change.

Im sorry im going to complain if I have to duct tape crap on my car to get a few more mpgs when even doing so wont be near epa estimates.Am I obsessed with mpg ? Yes , I wasnt expecting to fill my tank so much. Ive put a deposit on a 2013 es300h so I have a car that gets epa without duct taping it.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Fynack

[B25Nut]

Fynack: So you're going to spend about $10k more so that you can increase your mileage by about 7 mpg? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Isn't getting good mileage about saving money? Your decision seems to be based only on principle. If you read the Toyota forums, they are also getting less than EPA in this colder weather. One poster who came close to getting the FFH but got a great deal on a TCH was a little shocked when his mileage was around 26 mpg the first three weeks he had it.

[ace8726872]

Im sorry im going to complain if I have to duct tape crap on my car to get a few more mpgs when even doing so wont be near epa estimates.Am I obsessed with mpg ? Yes , I wasnt expecting to fill my tank so much. Ive put a deposit on a 2013 es300h so I have a car that gets epa without duct taping it.

 

If you have the means to buy a new 2013 FFH and then turn around and buy a new Lexus, why not spend a bit more and buy something like Tesla Model S? That way, you will never have to worry about MPG numbers. You will have to make sure that the car is giving you the range at that point though.

[acdii]

Fynack: So you're going to spend about $10k more so that you can increase your mileage by about 7 mpg? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Isn't getting good mileage about saving money? Your decision seems to be based only on principle. If you read the Toyota forums, they are also getting less than EPA in this colder weather. One poster who came close to getting the FFH but got a great deal on a TCH was a little shocked when his mileage was around 26 mpg the first three weeks he had it.

I disagree, I test drove both a Camry and an Avalon Hybrid in 20* temps, and both of them got 40 MPG. I can drive the 2010 Fusion and get 40 MPG in the cold. None of them have their grills covered. None of them require Pulse and Glide to get 40 MPG, but if you do P&G you can get much higher results. The Fusion is the ONLY hybrid I have not been able to hit EPA in on a test drive, regardless of the temps.

 

I have to agree with Fynack on this though, the tank is way too small, and has to be filled twice as often as the one in our 2010. When you consider that it is getting about what a 2.5L Fusion gets, that is 10K right there! We already know not to drive over 62 MPH or there is a huge MPG hit, add in the cold temps and it is even worse. This is the only Hybrid I have had that has taken such a HUGE cold temp hit. 17% acceptable, 30% is not. Never has any of the hybrids I owned dropped this much in cold weather. When you consider that the 2010-12 FFH has a combined of 39, and it gets it, and in the very cold weather drops to maybe 34, that is only a 5 MPG penalty. When the 13 FFH rated at 47, gets 34, that's a 13 MPG penalty. Neither the Prius, Camry or older Fusion dropped that much, not even when I was goofing off and wasting gas! Majority of my trips are at least 30 miles, so I dont count in short runs where I know it wont get above 30 in any of them, but the daily drive is 34 miles each way, mostly highway @ 55MPH, and the new Fusion just does not cut it, not when I can get into any other hybrid and get at or very near the EPA in them.

[elle]

Somehow you guys aren't getting it. The software is working fine, the shutters are open when they are suppose to be, they aren't doing a very good job.

Oh, no. I get it. I read early on that the shutters are to close at high speeds to reduce wind resistance.

 

I'm simply saying that in addition to doing what they were designed to do, the shutters could also be employed to help the engine retain heat. That would be an easy software change.

[ptjones]

Well, I picked mine up from the dealer after I discovered how little I was getting for it, and I hypermiled to the gas station, which is about 15 miles, and got 40.6, then hypermiled to my house after filling up and again got 40.6. Temps mid 30's. On the trip home from work in my 2010, just driving like I always do, 41.8 MPG. I would really like to know just what the heck is causing it to use so much gas. If I had more time to play with it, I would try blocking off everything and seeing if the temps are the problem.

Using my graph You are getting the mileage you should be getting at that temp. Add 8mpg and you are right where you should be.

 

Im sorry im going to complain if I have to duct tape crap on my car to get a few more mpgs when even doing so wont be near epa estimates.Am I obsessed with mpg ? Yes , I wasnt expecting to fill my tank so much. Ive put a deposit on a 2013 es300h so I have a car that gets epa without duct taping it.

I don't think your are going to get any better MPG's with es300h according to Fuelly.com

[ptjones]

Oh, no. I get it. I read early on that the shutters are to close at high speeds to reduce wind resistance.

 

I'm simply saying that in addition to doing what they were designed to do, the shutters could also be employed to help the engine retain heat. That would be an easy software change.

No, the shutters are closed to 190deg.F then they start to open so in most cases at high speed they are open not closed. If the car doesn't get to 190deg.F how is a software change solve that problem, the shutters aren't open. Edited February 26, 2013 by ptjones

[acdii]

Using my graph You are getting the mileage you should be getting at that temp. Add 8mpg and you are right where you should be.

So you are saying that the new 2013 Fusion Hybrid is far less efficient than the 2010-12 Fusion hybrids? Maybe Ford shouldn't be selling these where it gets below 50*, then they wont have so many complaints.

 

IOW that is a bag of BS. Ford has the only Hybrid, the Fusion/Cmax that gets punched down 30% or more when its cold, while all the others have 17% or less cold temp affects? Please tell me more, I really am interested how I was able to get 41.8 MPG in my 2010 yesterday in 38* weather, which BTW is rated at 41 City, 36 Highway, and 80% of the drive was HIGHWAY. Why then does it take extreme driving techniques to squeak 40 MPG out of a car rated 47 MPG, when those same techniques can get 90 out of a Prius?

 

Ford screwed up big time on these, the new one is not as efficient as the first generation, Especially not on the highway! Regardless of the EPA ratings, they aren't even getting what the previous generation can get! I have BOTH cars, and I can easily get EPA in the 2010, and better even when its 20* outside, yet the new one can barely crack 30.

 

That crap might pass for a newbie hybrid owner, but that BS stops at my door, it holds as much water as a sieve. Remember I said the 2010 is rated 36/41/39? It can do much better than that on the interstate.

 

[neod192]

Ford has the only Hybrid, the Fusion/Cmax that gets punched down 30% or more when its cold, while all the others have 17% or less cold temp affects?

 

Ford screwed up big time on these, the new one is not as efficient as the first generation, Especially not on the highway! Regardless of the EPA ratings, they aren't even getting what the previous generation can get!

Not defending Ford or anything, but I think the '13 FFH is less efficient partly due to the new Li-Ion battery. It is affected by cold weather more than the old batteries and it's noticeable. Ford gambled by switching to these batteries and it's coming back to byte them in the a**. It's one of the risks a company has to take if they want to be on the bleeding edge of technology. A similar thing happened with Boeing and their Li-Ion batteries - they're now removing all of them from their planes.

 

If this is what causes it, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like when companies take risks and innovate, but I also hate it when I don't get what I paid for... Maybe those batteries were not ready for prime time, and Ford made the wrong decision in using them.

[Riggo]

Not defending Ford or anything, but I think the '13 FFH is less efficient partly due to the new Li-Ion battery. It is affected by cold weather more than the old batteries and it's noticeable. Ford gambled by switching to these batteries and it's coming back to byte them in the a**. It's one of the risks a company has to take if they want to be on the bleeding edge of technology. A similar thing happened with Boeing and their Li-Ion batteries - they're now removing all of them from their planes.

 

If this is what causes it, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like when companies take risks and innovate, but I also hate it when I don't get what I paid for... Maybe those batteries were not ready for prime time, and Ford made the wrong decision in using them.

 

Where did you see that the batterie are affected by cold weather? The stories I've read on the lithium-ion in the Boeings just say they were prone to leaking and that's what caused the fires.