backtop


Print 184 comment(s) - last by Screwballl.. on Dec 17 at 12:16 PM

Journalists crank out high MPGs from Ford's latest hybrid

Ever since the economy imploded a few months ago, it seems as though gas prices have been steadily declining as well. Whereas gas price were flirting with $4.00 a gallon during the summer here in North Carolina, gas is now as cheap as $1.47 a gallon in some areas.

Despite the lower gas prices which could possibly be here only temporarily, there is still a demand for fuel efficient cars. Last month, DailyTech told you about the upcoming 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid which will do battle with Toyota's Camry Hybrid.

The Ford Fusion Hybrid uses a modified 2.5-liter four cylinder engine in conjunction with a revamped hybrid-electric system. Although the hybrid system is based on the unit used in the Ford Escape Hybrid, this version has been tweaked for greater power output and fits into a more compact space.

These improvements to the drivetrain in addition to the ability to drive up to 47 MPH on battery power alone led Ford to proclaim that the Fusion Hybrid would achieve at least 38 MPG in the city -- 5 MPG better than the mid-size champ Toyota Camry Hybrid. Highway mileage is equally impressive at an estimated 37 MPG.

Although Ford expects the 38 MPG city rating to hold up once the official EPA numbers come down within the next few weeks, early testing by auto journalists shows that the Fusion Hybrid is already surpassing the 38 MPG figure. Gil Portalatin, Ford's Hybrid Applications Manager, was able to extract 46 MPG out of the Fusion Hybrid during a "mileage challenge" between Beverly Hills and Hollywood. Writers from Car and Driver and Autoblog were able to achieve 43.6 MPG and 43.1 MPG respectively for the city loop.

Although these are still early numbers from a pre-production model, the results are still impressive for a mid-size sedan. The Fusion Hybrid also gives Americans some hope that Detroit can build fuel efficient cars that are worthy of our dollars.

Ford's Fusion Hybrid will be priced from $27,270 -- Toyota's Camry Hybrid and Nissan's Altima Hybrid are priced from $26,150 and $25,480 respectively.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 4:25:04 PM , Rating: 4
Quite impressive for a regular looking sedan. And being able to drive up to 47 mph on just the battery is friggin awesome! My bro-in-law could drive back and forth to work on just battery power.




RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Jedi2155 on 12/9/2008 4:30:46 PM , Rating: 1
Must be a really powerful motor in there....I wonder how the torque curve is.

I can't stand the huge chrome grille in the front though makes it look really ugly.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By austinag on 12/9/2008 5:43:22 PM , Rating: 4
I hear ya on the grill. but at least it's not another Prius clone.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By GaryJohnson on 12/9/2008 5:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
At least they fixed the headlights as compared to the 2009 model. Those things were huge.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By MonkeyPaw on 12/9/2008 6:01:53 PM , Rating: 1
That's what I drive at work, and I actually get a lot of comments/compliments on the looks of the Fusion. I agree that it is nicely styled, while not overdone. It's an okay car, power-wise, but it can't pull better than 29 MPG on the highway to save its life (runs an I-4). That's pretty sad considering my brother's 4 year-old Accord gets close to 36 MPG highway on an I-4. And the big 3 wonder why they're fledgling...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 6:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
You have the new 2010 Fusion already?


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By TheSpaniard on 12/9/2008 7:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
he is refering to his late model fusion not the new one...

the current fusion has an I-4 or V6 option


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Samus on 12/10/2008 3:29:15 AM , Rating: 3
They have a black chrome kit for all these fake-chrome fords that tints the chrome to make it a mirror black finish.

http://www.cobra-dan.com/fusionchop2.jpg

absolute must if you decide to buy one.

also, as soon as Ford relaunches SVT in 2009, there will be a SVT Fusion and a SVT Fiesta for the 2011 model year.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/07/ford-working-on...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Flunk on 12/10/2008 4:59:14 AM , Rating: 2
"fake" chrome doesn't rust or pit like "real" chrome. It's also lighter and shinier, I don't see why you're complaining.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By vapore0n on 12/10/2008 8:24:47 AM , Rating: 3
fake chrome just flakes, peels off and looses its shine.

Only reason chrome rusts is because people dont take proper care of it.
My first car was 13 yrs old(1987) and had no rust in chrome bumpers


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By UNCjigga on 12/10/2008 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 3
Relaunch SVT? Seriously? Something tells me that wasn't mentioned in the plan that Ford's CEO presented to Congress.

I'm not trying to knock the enthusiast market, I'm just saying that Ford [should] have higher priorities for 2009...like making money.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Samus on 12/11/2008 4:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
SVT was profitable. The problem was the CAFE requirements Ford had to meet and there wasn't any room left to make the Focus and Lightning. Remember, there wasn't even a launch-Cobra when the new Mustang came out. It wasn't really a question of polution, it was the fuel economy is terrible in SVT vehicles.

My SVT Focus gets 15mpg city the way I drive it, sometimes WORSE. However, if you behave on the highway it still gets near 30MPG. The problem is the intake valve timing is so agressive to built power in the low end that it dumps a lot of fuel (maximizing power efficiency, but at the cost of fuel economy) so constantly reving through 2000-3000 RPM is notoriously inefficient. The SVT Lightning and Cobra/Roush have super-chargers. Not fuel economy friendly, especially when you beat on them.

SVT will be back if making money is a priority, which it is. Especially now that gas is cheap people will be even more likely to buy them...if they have the money in the first place :\


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Joey B on 12/10/2008 12:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
I get 34 on the freeway, but that is probably because I have a manual.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Obsoleet on 12/10/2008 1:17:01 AM , Rating: 3
37MPG on the highway in my 2007 Pontiac G5 (manual). 27 city. I love my car. American.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By 67STANG on 12/10/2008 2:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
33MPG in my massive 2007 Chrysler 300, thanks to it's awesome gearing and transmission. Only has a 3.5 V6 in it, but not too shabby for a 3800lb. car... Of course, the only thing american on that car are the Chrysler badges. Everything else is Mercedes Benz...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By bpt8056 on 12/10/2008 8:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 2006 Fusion and I get 34 MPG on the highway with the 4-banger. I wonder why we have such a huge difference. My wife and I love the car especially its handling and I'm glad to see Ford making actual improvements to the car.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Mozee on 12/10/2008 10:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure how you drive yours, but I've had an 08 Fusion I4 auto that I rented in Portland, OR that I put 350 miles on (city & highway including 2-lanes through the mountains) and averaged 32.5mpg for the trip...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By blppt on 12/15/2008 10:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
"It's an okay car, power-wise, but it can't pull better than 29 MPG on the highway to save its life (runs an I-4). "

I have an '07 Milan I-4 automatic, and I just got 30.6 averaging 70mph from eastern NY to eastern CT over Thanksgiving. And thats on awful winter fuel. During the summer, I would usually get 32-33 on the same trip. The 2.3 is noisy and gutless, though. The 2.5 will be a Godsend for this car.

BTW, both the motor and the transmission are designed by Mazda (Duratec23 is same motor as the 2.3 in the Mazda3 & 6) as is parts of the chassis, so dont blame American car manufacturers for not being able to match Honda. Its basically a stretched first-gen Mazda 6 with Ford/Mercury cladding.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By stevenplatt on 12/10/2008 8:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
It looks as though they tried to make it look as close to the European Mondeo sedan as possible, without charging $35,000.
The Mondeo looks great, but fords styling team could have done better on this one.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Fireshade on 12/10/2008 11:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
Another missed opportunity for Ford to capture the passion of car enthusiasts for hybrid technology... *sigh*
Why not use their European Mondeo to showcase their hybrid??
http://www.arthurarts.nl/blog/images/FordMondeo200...
Obviously they do have the design talent in house. One wonders why they take the wrong strategic marketing decisions. Every. single. time.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow!! That looks awesome!


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2008 4:38:15 PM , Rating: 3
That's for as long as the battery lasts. Not indefinitely.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 4:42:03 PM , Rating: 3
He's only a 1 mile or so from work. He could do it for at least a couple of days I imagine.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By heffeque on 12/9/2008 9:46:19 PM , Rating: 5
ONE mile from work and he doesn't walk or go by bike? No wonder people in the US are getting fat. You even take the car just to go to the bathroom!
(yeah, yeah... I'm just trolling)


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 11:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
He's a real estate agent but thanks for asking before passing judgment.

A$$hole.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By BZDTemp on 12/10/2008 5:29:20 AM , Rating: 1
So real estate agents can't walk a mile!

:-) Seriously I get that he need the car to get round while working but that kind of a special case so I say you're the a.hole for not mentioning it.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 2:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So real estate agents can't walk a mile!
So when he needs to go show a house, look at homes, etc, he should walk back to house and get his car? How about when his clients show up at the office to look at homes (now that never happens /sarcasm)? Should he say, "wait here a few minutes while I walk back to my house and get my car". If an agent told me that, I'd go somewhere else because obviously this guy isn't prepared. The point is, he wouldn't expend an ounce of gas just going down the street to his office AND when he's cruising the streets with clients in tow, he wouldn't necessarily have to use gas either. And that's just awesome for someone in that line of work.

PS - I was trying not to have to explain why a real estate agent needs a car but like most other things it seems, DT readers are just plain ignorant.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 2:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but that kind of a special case
Special case? LOL! A real estate agent actually using his car is a special case? On what planet? Real estate agents put hundreds of miles a day on a car. You can't sell homes without a car. Maybe you're not an American and agents are different in other countries but here in the US, agents typically drive their clients around in their own personal cars to find homes. They also drive around to look at these homes beforehand, if possible, so there are no surprises. A car is a requirement in that field.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Ytsejamer1 on 12/10/2008 9:48:07 AM , Rating: 1
I work four miles from the house...in the spring and summer, I bike to work. Takes me five to ten minutes longer than my drive due to lights. I always enjoyed seeing people in their big SUVs, as i kept pace with them from light to light.

Actually it was refreshing to get that exercise and decompress after work on the ride home. I felt good about the exercise AND leaving my car in the driveway.

But back to the car thing...if I had to, I'd enjoy traveling all on battery power as I'd rarely go above 40MPH on the way to and from work. That'd be awesome...depending on how long I could continue running on the same batteries.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 2:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's nice. Are you a real estate agent too?


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 7:58:13 AM , Rating: 4
I live 2 miles from work and drive. Why? Because I go to the gym 3 times a week and it's too far to walk (sure I could be it'd take me an hour or more to get there vs. a 15 minute drive). Also I go out to lunch some days and also need to go to the store after work other days.

When it comes down to it, I can spend 20 minutes walking to work or 5 minutes driving there. Not to mention there isn't a side walk to walk on and walking along side the road I live off of would be a death sentence.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By noxipoo on 12/10/2008 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
1 hour to walk 2 miles? 15 mins to drive 2 miles? are these russian miles?


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By hashish2020 on 12/10/2008 11:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
You drive to go waste calories at a gym

Genius


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 2:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know where his gym is, genius?


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Entropy42 on 12/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 4:54:18 PM , Rating: 3
I KNOW!!!!! He's only 1 mile from work and the speed limit is 45 mph. He could easily go from his house to his office without the engine switching on and not hold up traffic in the process.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Sooticus on 12/9/2008 5:15:24 PM , Rating: 5
at 1 mile, he could also walk.

43MPG for a petrol car is pretty good, my 2006 model diesel does 44MPG, and was cheaper to buy (comparatively, since im in a different country)


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 5:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
at 1 mile, he could also walk.
He's a real estate agent.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 6:25:24 PM , Rating: 4
I got a one for saying he's a real estate agent? LOL! Someone must have lost their house and took it out on me.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By ebakke on 12/9/2008 7:24:32 PM , Rating: 3
Either that, or someone disagreed with your assertion that he could drive 1 mile "to work" with the electric motor alone. Being a real estate agent, it's unlikely that he stays in the office all day. If he's anything like my agent, that car's going to be driven all over town.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 9:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he's anything like my agent, that car's going to be driven all over town.
I agree. He mostly works in his own "town" (planned community) but does get out and about. He drives at slower speeds most of the time and that 47 mph all battery would save him even more gas than now.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Aloonatic on 12/10/2008 4:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
MPGs on international sites are always a pain as it's hard to compare.

First off the size of a gallon is different in different countries.

Then the methods used to calculate the MPG often vary, I assume.

Am I wrong in thinking that the speed that the "highway" MPG is calculated (in the US) is 50 MPH?

In the UK "motorway" driving is supposed to be at 70 MPH, but that varies from country to country across Europe too.

If your country (typically) has a highway/motorway speed limit that is greater than the USA's the comparison in MPG is probably meaningless?

If it is greater than 50MPH, if you dropped your speed down to 50 you might find that your figures improve and quite dramatically too.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Black69ta on 12/10/2008 11:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
In US the EPA ratings used to be figured @ 55Mph but I think as of 2008 they made it high although I'm not positive on that one. I know the Ratings went down that year. Also horsepower changed recently to a lower figure because they started requiring engines to be tested with accessories installed.

A gallon is a gallon except I think there is an Imperial Gallon but those are the only two variances I know of. at least official Gallons, that is.

Our speed limits vary by state but most are 70-75 Mph

yes showing at 55mph does improve mpg significantly


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 2:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yes showing at 55mph does improve mpg significantly
Depends on the car.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Ammohunt on 12/9/2008 6:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
$27K? PASS


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Davelo on 12/9/2008 9:41:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
$27K? PASS


Yep. Why would somebody buy this when they can get the Toyota for less cash? Although it could be that when all is said and done the Ford may be cheaper with discounts and rebates and all the other crap.

I actually don't mind Fords but I never want to spend another minute of my life sitting in a Ford service dept waiting room. It's sheer torture.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 11:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's only a little more than Camry Hybrid and the Camry can't do 47 mph on just the battery. That's worth the extra coin right there.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By EglsFly on 12/9/2008 11:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
That is a lot cheaper than the $40K that GM is going to try and sell the Volt for...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By joeindian1551 on 12/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: 43 MPG!!!
By tallcool1 on 12/10/2008 9:08:41 AM , Rating: 3
Probably referring to:
quote:
Current estimates place the base price of the vehicle at $40,000 or higher.
http://www.dailytech.com/Chevrolet+Volt+to+Receive...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:01:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and the Volt has the potential to hardly ever use gas unlike the Fusion or the Camry. In reality, people who own Volts and only drive about 20 miles a day will probably need to keep some sort of fuel stabilizer in the tank. Since the only time they'll ever use gas is on days they take longer trips.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Screwballl on 12/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Jimbo1234 on 12/10/2008 2:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
The last time I checked the Volt was a plug-in Hybrid. So you're wrong on the ICE requirement.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200809...


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Screwballl on 12/17/2008 12:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The last time I checked the Volt was a plug-in Hybrid. So you're wrong on the ICE requirement.


That is the first time I had heard about the plugin for the Volt... but the fact remains whether 1) we will ever see the Volt in production, and 2) if it will include the plug in option.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By walk2k on 12/10/2008 1:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
47mph for how long? 5 minutes?


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By ira176 on 12/10/2008 2:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
I agree the mileage sounds great, but wouldn't it be interesting to see what a diesel, electric hybrid would be capable of?


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By Major HooHaa on 12/10/2008 6:49:37 AM , Rating: 1
43 MPG? Our "Toyota RAV 4 SUV with a 2.2 litre diesel" has an official average 42.2 MPG. But ours does more country than town driving and so is currently showing 46 MPG.

It is most effective at high-speed long distance cruising, you can have the engine spinning at below 2,000 RPM on the motorway in 6th gear.

But 43 MPG for a petrol engined car is okay and more important is that the car is contributing to the development of these new, cleaner technologies.

Oil reserves won't last forever, so we had better find cleaner energy sources long before the oil runs out... Otherwise it could all go a bit Mad Max.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By otispunkmeyer on 12/10/2008 7:48:07 AM , Rating: 1
why's it got a 2.5 liter 4 pot though? surely they can use a 2 or even 1.8 liter engine? they should use the PSA-Ford 2.0 TDCi's they'd probably eek even more mpg out


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/10/2008 9:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
That figure means that you can drive up to a speed of 47 miles per hour before the gasoline engine kicks in, not up to a distance of 47 miles before you need the gas engine. Toyota Camry does up to 45 mph before the gas engine kicks in.

Since when do we use marketing mpg instead of EPA in press releases? I reglarly get 38+ mpg in my Camry, plus its not a Ford. I get over 44 mpg on some drives. Let's see what the EPA says and quote those against Camry's EPA figures, not marketing hype against EPA.


RE: 43 MPG!!!
By mxnerd on 12/13/2008 12:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the article said 47 mph, not 47 mpg, is that a typo? Or should it say 47 miles on battery alone? This is confusing.

And if Fusion can really drive up to 47 miles on battery alone, why GM Volt can only drive 40 miles on battery alone and will cost close to $50,000?


Underwhelming
By McDragon on 12/9/2008 5:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, being a european I might expect more when it comes to fuel efficiency, but this doesn't sound impressive to me.
A BMW 320 Diesel with active particle filters will do 50mpg and can go from 0-60 in less than 8 seconds.
Imagine what it could do with hybrid technology on top of that.




RE: Underwhelming
By Sooticus on 12/9/2008 5:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think Citroen was working on a hybrid diesel a while back...

One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone has access to diesel. Here in Australia we mainly use petrol and LPG because thats the kind of natrual resources we have. If we want diesel we have to import the oil.


RE: Underwhelming
By juuvan on 12/10/2008 2:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
well, there are countries who needs to import every type of oil they are planning to use. Bad excuse.


RE: Underwhelming
By Jimbo1234 on 12/10/2008 2:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
And gasoline doesn't come from oil? Flawed logic there. It's what refinery infrastructure you have in place that makes the difference.


RE: Underwhelming
By ChronoReverse on 12/9/2008 5:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
Is that the Imperial gallon or the US gallon you're thinking about there?


RE: Underwhelming
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 5:29:15 PM , Rating: 3
Is that 50 mpg US or 50 mpg imperial?


RE: Underwhelming
By heffeque on 12/9/2008 9:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder why the US and the UK still use medieval systems. The International System was built so that no one would have these kinds of mistakes. Mostly the rest of the world use it. I wonder why they're so picky about staying with those dated (and not very practical) systems.


RE: Underwhelming
By SRoode on 12/9/2008 10:25:49 PM , Rating: 3
It's good to be the king...


RE: Underwhelming
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 11:29:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I wonder why the US and the UK still use medieval systems.
Money.


RE: Underwhelming
By heffeque on 12/10/2008 11:28:10 AM , Rating: 3
And sex.


RE: Underwhelming
By Smilin on 12/10/2008 1:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
"I wonder why the US and the UK still use medieval systems."

Shuttup! Go play me a fiddle and dance you peasant.


RE: Underwhelming
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 5:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the Fusion is a larger sedan than a 320.


RE: Underwhelming
By feelingshorter on 12/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Underwhelming
By McDragon on 12/9/2008 6:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
To other posters, US gallons! I use google to convert, and it uses US gallons as standard. I can actually write '21.1 km/l in mpg' and get the answer. Neat.

As for getting better mileage from Diesels, yes you can. The reason is much higher compression ratios in the engine.


RE: Underwhelming
By Keeir on 12/9/2008 6:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Was it European or US testing methods? Or Actual experience?

Its certainly true that you can get better per gallon efficieny from Diesels, but Diesels also have a higher per gallon energy and carbon content. Overall, a Diesel engine is more efficient than gasoline engine, however when you compare at price/energy levels the efficieny gain is not as impressive.


RE: Underwhelming
By rmlarsen on 12/9/2008 7:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
It is basic thermodynamics, really. Higher compression ratio means higher Carnot cycle efficiency. Of course that is a theoretical upper limit, but it still sets the basic constraints that an engine designer has to work within.


RE: Underwhelming
By Solandri on 12/9/2008 7:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel is about 15% denser than gasoline. It has 15% more material per gallon, so it has about 15% more energy per gallon, but also puts out about 15% more pollutants per gallon. So you really need to reduce the diesel MPG figures by about 15% for any fair comparison to gasoline other than price per gallon or liter. Density also varies slightly with temperature.

For these reason, I really wish we measured automobile fuel by mass like we do for aircraft (lbs or kg of fuel). Mass of a continuously moving liquid was more difficult to measure in the first half of the 20th century. But nowadays gas stations could just add a thermal probe to the fuel stream in the fuel pump, and a computer could do the volume to mass conversion on the fly.


RE: Underwhelming
By juuvan on 12/10/2008 3:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
What about measuring the pollutants caused by the burning of a specific fuel? Wouldn't that be as accurate measurement plus it gives one a change to evaluate the efficiency of the burn.

I don't know how this works in US but the above is the exact thing we are doing. This is because the taxation being bound to the CO2 emissions.


RE: Underwhelming
By Major HooHaa on 12/10/2008 8:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
Where does the way in which a diesel works, comes into the equation? A diesel car will pull from much lower rev's. We can drive down a country lane on almost tick-over and on the motorway you have to keep an eye on what gear you are in and speed you doing. When the traffic builds on the motorway you can let the rev's drop as low as 1,500 RPM in a high gear without really noticing.


RE: Underwhelming
By feelingshorter on 12/9/2008 11:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
You can also turbo charge a gas engine and use premium fuel. Whats your point?

Ill break it down for you:

Crude oil: c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c
Gasoline: c-c c-c c-c c-c
Diesel: c-c-c-c c-c-c-c c-c-c-c

Its all made from crude oil! Fine lets all use diesel cars. Where are you going to get the fuel from? Pull it out of thin air? You cannot compare by gallons because the diesel is merely more dense = more energy. Its all carbons and hydrogen chains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_2hyqdOO8

Prius vs Jetta vs Focus vs Smart

Hybrid Prius vs Jetta TDI diesel, which one has better price/mileage? The Prius.

True cost to own of Prius VS Jetta:
Prius = $36,319
Jetta = $37,466

Annual fuel cost based on 15,000 miles/year, 45% Highway - 55% City miles, and with differences in fuel costs taken into account:

Prius = $1175
Jetta = $1780

Go to Edumunds.com and check the info yourself.


RE: Underwhelming
By Mortando on 12/10/2008 11:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
Pssst... the OP was just saying that if:
diesel > gas
and
electric/gas-hybrid > gas
then why not electric/diesel-hybrid?


RE: Underwhelming
By menace on 12/10/2008 2:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
To expand on the point I think he is making, the more diesel cars on the market, the more the price of diesel goes up and the price of gasoline gets relatively cheaper. (Does this explain why today diesel is $2.20 while gas is $1.45?) Cheap gas will then drive more people to stop buying so many diesel cars. Market forces rule. But by all means, everyone go out and buy diesel so I can get cheaper gas.

Crude oil has hydrocarbons ranging from propane (C3) thru paraffin (C40) it is not a fixed chain. Also gasoline while mostly hexane can contain significant amounts of C5 thru C8 and likewise diesel contains a range of hydrocarbons. Both gasoline and diesel are contained within crude oil and comprise of about 60% of the total distilled products. Cracking the heavier oils and reforming the lighter naphta can yield like an additional 20% of fuels from the barrel.

A previous poster made a statement that all diesel is hydrocracked. Not true. The majority is simply distilled out directly. A significant portion can be cracked from the heavier oils. The cracking processes can be manipulated to vary the production between gasoline and diesel as required to adjust to product demand variances.


RE: Underwhelming
By dubldwn on 12/9/2008 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Europe is clearly a different playing field, for a lot of reasons. Other than the Prius, I’m not aware of any vehicle sold in America by a major manufacturer that gets better city milage than this Fusion. Looks better than the Prius and the Insight, too, IMO, mainly because it doesn’t have the “required fuel efficient shape”. It also beats the Prius in all interior dimensions except rear passenger room. 47 mph on battery power alone? Amazing. I give Ford a lot of credit for this.


RE: Underwhelming
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Electric motors have tons of instant torque, so 47 MPH on batteries is entirely unimpressive. If they were able to sustain that for a reasonable amount of time it would be different.


RE: Underwhelming
By compy386 on 12/9/2008 7:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
You can't compare European fuel economy with US. They're not the same standard. Mazdaspeed 3 gets 20 MPG in the US and 24 MPG (both US gallons) in Britain. It's the same exact car.


RE: Underwhelming
By TheSpaniard on 12/9/2008 7:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
there are different requirments for vehicles in Europe vs US...

resulting in the US having "safer" cars as well as produce less emissions

the result is our cars are heavier and the engines are choked by emission lowering tech...


RE: Underwhelming
By Dribble on 12/10/2008 5:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
And a new bmw would pass all those requirements with ease and then some, while still using less fuel, handling better, lasting longer, etc.

Germans just make better cars then Americans period. It's a major reason why the big 3, despite having a very large and loyal market are facing the firing squad - and bmw aren't.


RE: Underwhelming
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 9:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah that's why many Mercedes and BMWs have average to below average reliability ratings.

Mercedes and BMW are doing well because the people who generally buy them are those who don't worry about the cost as much. They'll pay whatever price the company charges so they can say they drive a BMW or Mercedes.

Nor is the US their primary market either.


RE: Underwhelming
By TheSpaniard on 12/10/2008 8:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
I know saftey yea

but emissions? not a chance! I have never seen a vehicle come from europe and not need extensive mods to the engine to make it pass emissions... then I have never seen an econo-anything cross the pond either


RE: Underwhelming
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much everyone makes better cars than the Americans.... except the French. I'd rather buy a Yugo than a Renault.


RE: Underwhelming
By walk2k on 12/9/2008 7:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt you would get 50 mpg going 0-60 in 8 seconds everywhere, but yeah.


RE: Underwhelming
By ira176 on 12/10/2008 2:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what a particle filter is let alone an active particle filter. Would it have something to do with filtering the diesel fuel or air or something totally different?


RE: Underwhelming
By juuvan on 12/10/2008 2:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
diesel engine burns the fuel in different way resulting much higher content of macroscopic particles from the exhaust. Particle filter burns these and the result is near zero particle emissions. I don't know what the difference here is when talking about active filter, but there are two kind of filters in use. One use urea as an additive and doesn't need cleaning cycle. One implementation is MB's BlueTec engines. The other use cleaning cycle, which superheats the particle filter and burns the trapped particles. This is more common and known as DPF, FAP or something else depending on the manufacturer.


RE: Underwhelming
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
0-60 in less than 8 seconds huh? Wow. Good to know a crappy Hyundai Sonata can beat your BMW. And grandmas Grand Marquis can keep up with you.


RE: Underwhelming
By McDragon on 12/10/2008 2:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Can they do 50mpg ?.....Didn't think so.

And FYI I don't own a BMW.


RE: Underwhelming
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
This BMW can't do 50 MPG. Maybe in crazy Euro-gallons it can but not here, not using US gallons.


Owned
By xenos123 on 12/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Owned
By Nfarce on 12/9/2008 6:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do the American auto companies actually have a clue what happens, when you: -make a car with an engine LESS than 2 litres in size


Yeah. Boring as hell. Ask former Geo Metro owners how they liked their 3-cylinder engines. (I'll take my Infinity G35 3.5 liter engine at a bare minimum, thanks).

quote:
-turbo/supercharge it


My girlfriend spent over $2,500 repairing the turbocharger in her Mitsu Eclipse Spyder several years ago, and the 4-cyl engine was still fine (probably why Mitsu stopped the 4-cyl turbo and went with a V6). I'll stick with naturally aspirated larger engines, thanks.

quote:
-make sure its not too heavy


Definitely agreed there.

quote:
-design it to be aerodynamic


Uhm, have you seen any new American cars these days?

quote:
-stop using outdated engine technology


Most definitely agreed there.

quote:
-build a product that is of a high quality, so you don't need a new one every single year.


No, you haven't seen a new American car recently, nor obviously have you owned one. This isn't the 1980s and 1990s anymore in America. The New Chevy Malibu for example is a very good car.


RE: Owned
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 7:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My girlfriend spent over $2,500 repairing the turbocharger in her Mitsu Eclipse Spyder
She got ripped off. Even new, the turbocharger in that car cost $750. Also, turbocharger rebuilds cost even less than that. Another thing, 2008 turbo tech is vastly difference from early 90's tech. Today's turbo's are oil and water cooled, made from better materials, and the engine management systems have a tighter reign on engine and turbo operations. If you change the oil regularly (should be doing that anyways), you won't have a problem in the life of the car.

And lastly, get used to turbo's. Because of CAFE, they're coming back with a vengeance and better than ever!! I can't wait. I love turbo cars. My present car is turbo'd from the factory.


RE: Owned
By xenos123 on 12/9/2008 8:39:08 PM , Rating: 1
I agree.

200bhp twin-turbo diesel BMW 1 series Coupe M Sport anyone?

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/index/0,,1156___bs-MQ%3...

Oh and official 55MPG.

Emissions of 138g Carbon/KM or 148 with an automatic.

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications...

On anything less developed hybrid seems a complete waste. you spend thousands on R&D and mass production of hugely polluting batteries, when you just need to shed weight from the car and uprate the technology to the standard in the rest of the developed world!

For a country as forward looking as the US it seems a major stumbling block.


RE: Owned
By xenos123 on 12/9/2008 8:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
The Beamer isn't a hybrid just to be clear.

Just common sense.

BMW calls its method of eeking out the extra MPG 'efficient dynamics'. A lot of other car manufacturers have similar programs, the US car companies would seem to benefit from this kind of thing hugely.

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/efficient_dynamics/bc/h...


RE: Owned
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah because those higher end BMWs getting like 10-12 mpg are just eeking of fuel efficiency. Larger engines (using that "old" technology no less) are far better for having high horsepower and maintaining efficiency than a smaller one turning higher rpms.


RE: Owned
By Nfarce on 12/10/2008 12:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
200bhp twin-turbo diesel BMW 1 series Coupe M Sport anyone?


Seen the price of diesel in the US compared to gas? It all but erases any benefits of fuel economy.


RE: Owned
By Aikouka on 12/10/2008 10:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
You know, I actually wonder why it's more? I remember back about a year or two ago when Diesel was always cheaper. Once gas started going up, Diesel just shot up way past it.


RE: Owned
By Nfarce on 12/10/2008 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Simple. Government mandated low sulfur emission additives. That is also another factor in the US why gas is much higher in the summer in certain areas, like here in Atlanta. We have special formulations that need to be added at the refinery level to lower smog producing emissions.


RE: Owned
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 3:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel is $2/gal now.


RE: Owned
By Nfarce on 12/9/2008 9:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And lastly, get used to turbo's. Because of CAFE, they're coming back with a vengeance and better than ever!! I can't wait. I love turbo cars. My present car is turbo'd from the factory.


Actually I prefer superchargers over turbochargers (2009 Corvette ZR1 anybody?). Of course, most of our full sized diesel powered pickup trucks these days are turbocharged, so they do have their applications. Finally, who could ever complain about owning a Porsche 997 Twin Turbo?

I just don't particularly care for a 4-banger turbo in place of a smooth V6 (or V8). Hmmm... my G develops 306hp from 3.5 non-turbo liters, and the BMW 335i has 300hp from 3.0 turbo liters.

Sorry if I'm not sold yet in car apps...


RE: Owned
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 9:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry if I'm not sold yet in car apps...
No problem. We all have our preferences. Just so you know, that BMW also has 300 lb-ft of torque. Your G doesn't. My car makes 260hp and 260 lb-ft of torque from a 2.0L 4 cyl. With GM's newly released, CARB legal, warranty friendly performance upgrade, it will be 290 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque. :)


RE: Owned
By Nfarce on 12/10/2008 12:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just so you know, that BMW also has 300 lb-ft of torque. Your G doesn't.


Oh trust me, I know a little about cars too :D . I'm only around 270 on the twist index. My wallet is also about six grand fatter over buying the 335i, although the BMW is the better car (and smaller).

Point being, turbos aren't all that. Ok, so you can hop up your turbo four to nearly equal my bone stock normally aspirated six. While we are comparing sizes ;-) , with a few aftermarket bolt ons and engine remap chip (voiding the warranty of course), I get easily get that six up to over 350hp ... without putting a blower on it.

Oh, and back to American cars, the new Camaro's base V6 engine will produce 300hp and be normally aspirated too.


RE: Owned
By Nfarce on 12/10/2008 12:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
Let's also not forget that that VQ35 V6 is as smooth as a baby's powdered backside as well.


RE: Owned
By Black69ta on 12/10/2008 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
If you want smooth get the rotary engine in an RX-8 crappy mpg but a smooth wide powerband.


RE: Owned
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 3:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but you need displacement to get your power. I can just use a fuel mileage friendly small 4 cyl to get the same power as your car and still get the same gas mileage as before. :) So you know, I'd rather have a G37 than the 335i. I really like the new 3 series coupes (not sedans) but only because they're turbocharged LOL! If they weren't, I wouldn't even consider one. Turbo or not, the G37 is the better car, IMO, and would be my first pick.

quote:
Oh, and back to American cars, the new Camaro's base V6 engine will produce 300hp and be normally aspirated too.
It should make that power with 3.6L of displacement. The mpg that car will make is more impressive IMO than the power. Direct injection is awesome!!! I honestly can't wait to see more DI, normally aspirated cars hit the market. I wonder what the compression ratio will be in that car? The Lambo LP560-4's DI engine has a 12:1 compression ratio and gets a jaw dropping 23 mpg on the hwy!!


RE: Owned
By juuvan on 12/10/2008 2:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
In contrast to the supercharger, the turbocharger contributes to the overall efficency of the ICE.

When you count in the fact that small displacement I4 with turbo weight probably two thirds of the V6, we same some mass, and moving bigger mass requires more energy and thus more fuel...


RE: Owned
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
A supercharger adds to the efficiency of an engine too numbnuts.


RE: Owned
By Black69ta on 12/10/2008 11:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
No a supercharger robs energy just like every other belt driver accessory on a car. it just makes more than it uses. that 638 bhp ZR1 is probably robbed of 70-100 Hp because its Supercharged instead of Turbo'ed however the supercharger gives it a wider powerband especially down low whereas a Turbo has to spool up to reach max efficiency.


RE: Owned
By foolsgambit11 on 12/10/2008 7:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a supercharger robs energy.... it just makes more than it uses.
That sounds so ridiculous. I'd totally just take the engine out and use the supercharger by itself if it makes more energy than it uses. Perpetual motion ftw.

Don't worry, I do get what you were trying to say.


RE: Owned
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
With the displacement that the ZR1 has, two VERY small turbo's would only be required to make that much power. And you would have a TON of low end torque. My 2.0L 4 cyl turbo makes max torque (260 lb-ft) at 1750 rpm. A 6.2L V8, even with two of those, would spool those suckers right off idle while still make 600+ hp in the process and even more torque. The supercharger is there only for marketing reasons. You would have clowns on the vette forums swearing to God that there was turbo lag even though there could not possibly be any with the right sized turbo's paired with that kind of displacement.


RE: Owned
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
How do we know its a good car? We can't say its long lasting because it hasn't been around very long. We'll see in time.

And JD Power's reliability tests are BS. Who calls a car that's run for 3 years reliable based on that? A car is still new after 3 years if you ask me. Averaging 15k miles a year thats only 45k miles, and if it breaks by then something is very wrong.


RE: Owned
By joeld on 12/9/2008 6:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you could make a killing if you started up your own car company here in the US. Cost of entry is kinda steep though -- maybe you can pick up one of the big 3 for cheap pretty soon to get a head start on manufacturing capabilities... ;)


RE: Owned
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 7:12:07 PM , Rating: 3
Americans generally don't like very small cars. That's why cars like the Camry and Accord are best sellers here. Even the US Corolla/Matrix (which is 2nd to the Camry/Accord) is larger than the Euro versions. Also, US emissions regulations and a perception issue (that's still around) keep diesels from gaining wide acceptance here.

Small cars in Europe makes sense considering the cost of fuel and the fact you guys mostly live in cities. Here in the US, we're half in cities, half in rural areas. And most of our cities have more space than yours. It's just a different culture here than in Europe.


RE: Owned
By HVAC on 12/9/2008 7:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
Diesels introduced into passenger cars in the 70s sucked bad. Bad smell, bad acceleration, and high price meant only idiots with too much money drove them.

The rest of us drove pony cars ...


RE: Owned
By Black69ta on 12/10/2008 11:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah my grandma owns a '77 Rabbit diesel. It has a label stating that it didn't come with air conditioning and the motor wouldn't make enough power to run an air conditioner so don't install one. But it was made in '77 and regularly got 45-50 mpg.


RE: Owned
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2008 9:41:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Americans generally don't like very small cars.


I think its more about not NEEDING one because we have a higher standard of living.


RE: Owned
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2008 9:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
http://cars.uk.msn.com/Reviews/article.aspx?cp-doc...


Looks like another ugly Euro shitbox.

I'm no fan of American automotive, but I would hate to live somewhere where the ONLY option is a car like that. And all other options have the piss taxed out of it, making them prohibitive.


RE: Owned
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
-stop using outdated engine technology


My "outdated" V8 making 400 hp gets close to the same fuel economy as some V6 sedans. Would get even better mileage if they had gone with a taller 6th gear. The T56 in my dad's TA has a .5 6th gear while my 6th gear is .76 (pretty much his 5th gear). And the Vette with its "outdated" V8 gets 30 mpg highway.

Many GTO owners with Magnachargers(supercharger) on their LS2s get 30 mpg highway.

You can thank the heavier weight of our cars partly on the government though.


RE: Owned
By jive on 12/12/2008 11:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of Newtons first law?

I bet I can make my 150hp Octavia to go momentarily infinite miles per gallon, when the wind is correct and there is suitable down hill.

How much did you say your consumption was in the city? - yeah...


Flirting?
By UNHchabo on 12/9/2008 4:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
Prices were definitely over $4/gal for me in New Hampshire, peaking at about $4.30 for regular 87 octane fuel.




RE: Flirting?
By ninjit on 12/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Flirting?
By CommodoreVic20 on 12/9/2008 4:17:26 PM , Rating: 4
key word: 'were'


RE: Flirting?
By UNHchabo on 12/9/2008 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
I was talking about the peak price. It's around $1.50 in New Hampshire at the moment, as well.


RE: Flirting?
By MonkeyPaw on 12/9/2008 6:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
We're down to $1.25 here in Kansas City. We've always been fortunate in the Midwest when it comes to gas prices.


RE: Flirting?
By rudolphna on 12/9/2008 6:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
Here in Upstate New York, its $1.87 A gallong down the street.


RE: Flirting?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/9/2008 4:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
I was talking about here in NC. I've never paid over $4.00 a gallon. The closest I came to was probably $3.95 in Raleigh.


RE: Flirting?
By Mitch101 on 12/9/2008 4:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
In Charlotte gas hit around $4.30 a gallon but the day BEFORE the hurricane hit Texas gas was $5.00 a gallon and selling out.

How nice of the stations here to speculate damage before it happened. When the reports that the refineries were fine the gas was back down to $4.00 a gallon.

Were about $1.65 a gallon now.


RE: Flirting?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/9/2008 4:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I got lucky -- I filled up my tank a few days before the hurricane and I normally can go about 2+ weeks before filling up again, so I never paid those prices.

Even during the hurricane, most prices here in town stayed right around the $4.00 mark IIRC for fear of being busted for price gouging.


RE: Flirting?
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2008 4:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
It took a few weeks here in Charleston for the prices to come back down to reasonable levels. It's currently around $1.55 for regular here. Highest I paid was about $4.30 for premium back when gas was high.


RE: Flirting?
By dever on 12/9/2008 6:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$5.00 a gallon and selling out
quote:
How nice of the stations here to speculate
Do you not see the connection? Consumers were obviously "speculating" as well if the stations were running out. Obviously the price wasn't high enough. Simple supply and demand.


RE: Flirting?
By juuvan on 12/10/2008 3:07:25 AM , Rating: 1
Why can't you people realise the price you're paying for your gasoline is ridiculously low even at $4 per gallon? We're now at $5,70 per US gallon for 95oct and when the oil was a bit expensive $7,37 per US gallon.

Keep your moaning to your selves until you pay $5 per gallon as a standard.


RE: Flirting?
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:11:03 AM , Rating: 4
Thank your socialist government for that. Don't blame the US for it.


RE: Flirting?
By MadMan007 on 12/10/2008 8:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
I am surprised you even bother with saying that, you should know in Europe that a larger amount of taxes is included in fuel prices.


RE: Flirting?
By Jimbo1234 on 12/10/2008 2:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just so there's no confusion, your 95 is our 91. Your 92 octane is our 87. They're different measurements.

The US uses the anti-knock index (AKI) = (RON+MON)/2 and Europe uses RON. The AKI is 4 points lower than an equivelant RON.


RE: Flirting?
By juuvan on 12/11/2008 2:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
thanks. I though there must be some difference in the way the octane index is calculated. Actually the brands available to us are 95/99/99+/102 which are probably due to the high content of different ethers and alcohols used as an additive.

To the comment on the socialist government. The price difference is at it's lowest $4/$7,5 roughly 190% and now $1,5/$5 roughly 333%. So you are saying we what? -quadrupled our taxation or something?
Do you want to reconsider which government affects more to the price? Your's by subsidising or ours by burdening it by taxation? Or could it be that as we don't have oil resources of our own, we must pay part of your consumption also?


RE: Flirting?
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
The US doesn't subsidize gas. It subsidizes ethanol (despite the many, many drawbacks). In the US Gas is actually taxed, just not anywhere close to as much as in Europe. Also we get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico, so NAFTA helps keep costs down.


RE: Flirting?
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 4:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Paid for $4.85 for premium at the peak out here in CA. I think my wife paid $4.65 for regular.


RE: Flirting?
By walk2k on 12/9/2008 7:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
I paid $4.79 for 91 but that was at the budget gas station (lol) at the Chevrons and such it peaked closer to $4.99 and near the airport it was over $5.

It will be again soon, you can bank on that.

Anyway as far as hybrids go this things sucks (even for a Ford) a Prius owner would be embarrased to get only 43 mpg.


RE: Flirting?
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 9:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway as far as hybrids go this things sucks (even for a Ford) a Prius owner would be embarrased to get only 43 mpg.
Huh? Other than the Prius, which hybrids get better gas mileage?


RE: Flirting?
By walk2k on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Flirting?
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
Honda Insight gets better mileage than the Prius. It just looks really, really, homo.


RE: Flirting?
By Major HooHaa on 12/10/2008 7:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
Lol! Over here in the U.K. fuel is sold by the litre! Recently when fuel prices sky rocketed, diesel was over £1.30 per litre. Petrol was just over a pound a litre.

But then we do have somewhere around 80% tax on our fuel... While (I think I am right in saying that) aircraft fuel is exempt from tax.


Charge from the grid?
By Brazos on 12/9/2008 5:00:58 PM , Rating: 1
But can you plug in it and charge it at night?




RE: Charge from the grid?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/9/2008 5:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
No


RE: Charge from the grid?
By Rubinsson on 12/9/2008 5:45:30 PM , Rating: 1
by Brandon Hill on December 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM
quote:
No


And that's about crashes the whole idea as the mpg isn't that great either(but hey I'm a european so I might be biased).

I do not really see the point without the ability to jack it in the grid...


RE: Charge from the grid?
By mholler on 12/9/2008 6:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to the 20-30 MPG most U.S. sedans average 44 MPG is pretty good. The move towards fully electric cars in the U.S. is still in the distant future, and will remain so unless government decides to interfere and mandate it or gas prices go through the roof again and remain there for an extended period of time.


RE: Charge from the grid?
By Etsp on 12/9/2008 6:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
You may be thinking of Imperial Gallons, the article is using U.S. Gallons.

One U.S. Gallon is about 4/5 of an Imperial Gallon. So, the MPG in Imperial Gallons would be:
Expected EPA rating of 38 Miles Per U.S Gallon = 45.6 Imperial Gallon

The 43 mpg mentioned in the article would be 51.6 miles per Imperial Gallon.

Personally, I'm kinda impressed.


RE: Charge from the grid?
By Mr Perfect on 12/9/2008 10:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
So that pretty much makes it a parallel hybrid then? The gas and electric trade off, taking turns at powering the drive wheels? It would be interesting to see them try a serial hybrid like the Volt, where the gas engine is purely there to generate power for the leccy.


By Beenthere on 12/9/2008 11:21:34 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure the good Senator has no clue that Ford or any of the Big Three actually sell cars that consumers desire. Mr. Shelby can't be bothered with factual information when he can instead talk smack and act ignorant.

Well it seems some Americans have had enough of the good Senator's B.S. lies and they are doing something about it. If you check the link below, specifically the Fact and Fiction tab, you can see how out of touch with reality Mr. Shelby and some of his ill informed colleagues are. It's simply amazing that many of our elected officials can't find their azzes with both hands and a roadmap.

http://www.boycottalabamanow.com/




By Ringold on 12/10/2008 12:44:00 AM , Rating: 3
Do you even pretend to have an open mind or a neutral stance? That site's just full of bull.

The first point on the Fact/Fiction page, for example. Shelby said they aren't making products Americans want. Why are most of the top selling cars imports if he is wrong? That you speak of facts as if you care what the facts are is astounding.

The second point; the website goes off an a tanget on man hours required to build a car. Yes, that's very nice. But thats entirely irrelevant that Chrysler can build cars with the same number of labor hours as Toyota -- why? Because Toyota's hourly labor cost is so much lower.

I'll skip the third, as thats a "he said she said" point to a degree, and the economic argument of moving past the industrial age in to the information age would be lost on you anyway. The fourth point, about the money. Almost nobody believes their most recent requested amount, $35b, would've done the trick. Most economists, analysts, etc, put the number vastly higher, in some cases over $100b. As for Chyrsler being a "success," I'm not sure how it's a success if a company needs massive government help every 20 some years.

Shelby's also right about it being a largely local problem. Florida would feel relatively little impact (many of our dealers have already gone in to bankruptcy anyway, so couldn't get much worse). Michigan, on the other hand, might as well have ICBM's rain from the sky. Why should Floridians have to pay for Michigan's decades of socialism and failed industrial policy?

My last point gets to why Shelby would be opposed to the bailout. All other factors aside, his constituents, unlike those from the North, are not labor union neo-Marxists that suck the life out of business. They accept lower, competitive, sustainable wages. Bailing out the Big Three amounts to taxing his constituents to help fund Alabama's economic competitors to the North.

Then the site claims Shelby was wrong suggesting the Big Three's problems were not due to the wider economic situation, and the site cites falling sales at Toyota. Apparently, through the red-shaded lenses of their Marxist sun glasses, they don't see the key point that Toyota doesn't need a bailout, but the American firms do.

That sites a joke, many of its "facts" are wrong, I see no evidence they understand (or care to understand) even basic economic principles, and if you really believe it all, well.. I recall in high school, a teacher had a bunch of random proverbs on little signs on a wall. One of them I remember; "If you believe everyone you read, you had better not read." I'd suggest less reading, more porn.

By the way, the site? Made by a Michigan man, whose lived and worked there in the beachhead of socialism for 34 years, and for GM no less. Of course he doesn't know the truth, he's been in a mini-France for so long he wouldn't know a competitive economy if he got air dropped in to the middle of one. Michigan's even had France-like unemployment for about a decade now.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/226...
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/08/a...

Do note the most business friendly states are ones still hanging in there, where California, ranked in many surveys as the most anti-business state in the nation, is being raked over the coals and faces massive budget problems. Meanwhile, Florida and Texas don't even have state income taxes.


By Beenthere on 12/10/2008 9:37:10 AM , Rating: 1
Denial doesn't change the FACTS. If you chose to be in denial to the FACTS, that's fine except you, me and every American citizen is going to suffer as we pay higher taxes, up until we all lose our jobs.

Talking SMACK don't make it FACT.

Not only is Senator Shelby an ignorant disgrace to all Americans, he is bad for America. It's the false beliefs held by Mr. Shelby and others who refuse to get the FACTS that have led us into a recession and will certainly force us into a long, painful economic depression.

If you want the facts, they are easily available with the stroke of a few keys. If you prefer to stay in denial, you will pay dearly for your decision and unfortunately, all Americans will suffer as a result.

You have provided nothing to refute the FACTS but instead you've posted your condescending, uninformed opinion.

Try getting the FACTS instead of posting dribble. The job you save may be your own.

These are the FACTS, not baseless opinions:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20081205/F...

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20081126/FREE/8112...

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20081205/FREE/8120...

http://nascar.speedtv.com/article/cup-2008-year-in...

http://nascar.speedtv.com/article/jensen-do-the-ri...


By Ringold on 12/10/2008 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
You can say FACTS until you're drooling all over the place, that doesn't change the 'fact' that your original link lead to a site that simply was either opinion or propaganda copied and pasted from UAW literature.

The first link talks about job losses, but so far they are barely related to the Big Three. Plus, all of their restructuring plans include massive layoffs even WITH a bailout.

The second is vaguely relevant, but no real economic argument made. It also comes close but doesn't see the point many make: Yes, Honda & Toyota are hurting too, but due to prudence and viable businesses they aren't in need of massive bailouts.

The third is an op-ed piece, and after the admission of bias below, I only skimmed:
quote:
I am an unabashed and unashamed car enthusiast, and I am an enthusiast of the car business

He also makes the same point I did above, but fails to understand the relevance. Yes, Alabama is full of "foreign" plants. Toyota doesn't seem worried that a GM collapse will take them under, so Shelby shouldn't be worried either. More business, in the long run, for his states home businesses.

The Fourth, uh, relevance?!? Yet another business hit by a recession. My god, who'd of thunk it?! Does NASCAR need a bailout now too?

The last one, another blatant op-ed piece by an insider with vested personal and professional interests. He whines about the banking system bailout, but the difference is key; no banking system, the entire economy, in all 50 states (and most of the world) collapses. No GM, Ford, and Chrysler, and the global system survives.

So, in the end, you didn't post any "facts" either. There are some you can't get away from. The F-150 still hangs in there, but you can't escape Toyota slowly working on becoming the largest car company in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2008/12/03/2008-ca...

I'd also suggest that, perhaps, the F-150 wouldn't be up there if not for the collapse in oil prices starting in July or August.

As for the rest of my "facts," you can find the basic principles in a variety of economics textbooks out there, if you've ever read or studied such things.

Got any unbiased analysis from sources that lack vested interests in the matters at hand, or do you want to link to more sources that either actually work for GM, have emotional attachment to GM, or are otherwise financially heavily dependent on the success of domestic auto's?


By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
The unions have a place.....

In the 1800;s.


Trolls
By chmilz on 12/9/2008 7:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
Get over it, not everything built by domestic car companies is trash. Ford is in the least-worst situation of the three companies due to smart lineup decisions over the last few years, and the Fusion is one of those smart decisions.




RE: Trolls
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2008 9:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
due to smart lineup decisions over the last few years


Just not smart enough to avoid having to beg for a bailout I guess...


RE: Trolls
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 11:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ford thinks they can weather the storm and is only asking for a line of credit just in case.


MPG sucks !!
By shady3005 on 12/10/2008 6:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
Can we all switch to KMPL and make this a more compatible world ... :)

Diversity rocks but atleast in terms of measurement units .. diversity sucks ..

SI UNITS ALL THE WAY FOR ME AND FOR THE PLANET EARTH !!




RE: MPG sucks !!
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 10:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
-1 for trolling


Fixed That
By TomZ on 12/9/2008 10:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed that for you:
quote:
The Fusion Hybrid also gives Americans some hope that Detroit can build fuel efficient cars that are worthy of our tax dollars.
LOL. :o)




$27K+ MSRP!
By Jiggz on 12/9/2008 10:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good start for Ford but for more than $27K MSRP, even with a 6 MPG better than Camry I doubt it will dominate over. Ford needs to place its pricing and quality strategically until they recover or develop their prestige just like Toyota, Nissan and Honda!




Looks nice
By stlrenegade on 12/10/2008 9:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
I've always liked the Fusion, and my wife and I test drove one last year when we were looking at cars. It drives nice and has great handling. This hybrid looks even better. However, I will not consider purchasing this car because of the $27,000 price tag. I understand that this new technology and Ford's second hybrid entry. But that is priced way out of range for families looking for a mid-size sedan. If you financed this at 0% with no money down for 60 months, it's a $450 dollar car payment. Who's going to pay that for a mid-size? It's not much bigger than a Focus.




It will sell because its not fugly
By UNCjigga on 12/10/2008 2:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
...not just because it gets great mpg!




1.29 a gallon on my street.
By overlandpark4me on 12/15/2008 11:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
It amuses me to watch how people are getting gouged in East and West. It's going to spike a little because the terrorists are going to drop production again, but I still we have a chance for 99 cents a gallon here (KC).




I call BS on the mileage
By dsumanik on 12/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 5:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the mileage. My bro-in-law gets high 30's in his current Camry Hybrid in mixed driving. The Fusion has newer tech and more than likely has benefited from previous hybrids. The 47 mph battery only speed is awesome enough as is.

BTW, I own a 2004 Tundra with 91k miles on it and it's a great, super reliable truck. I tow a horse trailer normally with it and have towed a travel trailer with it once. The travel trailer was too heavy for the truck (didn't realize it until months afterwards researching a truck to tow a 5th wheel) but braking was still good and the sway bar worked great.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By UNHchabo on 12/9/2008 6:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
American cars are much more reliable these days. I think you're thinking of the late 80s through the 90s when they were producing the really cheap stuff.

I haven't driven a bad American-made car made since 2000.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Jiggz on 12/9/2008 10:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely correct, US made cars are a lot better than the ones they made in the 80's! However, the competition didn't stand still, it kept moving forward with Toyota, Honda and Nissan on the lead. So in short, US cars may have improved compare to the 80's but are still way behind the competition! This is the same reason that stigma with US made cars will not go away.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Spuke on 12/9/2008 11:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in short, US cars may have improved compare to the 80's but are still way behind the competition!
According to JD Powers, the domestics are right there quality-wise with the major Japanese automakers. The only problem is perception and it will take some time for them to shrug that off.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 11:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
JD Power's tests are absolute garbage. They consider a 3 year old car tested with AVERAGE miles per year (15k) as "reliable". Seriously?

Reliable is if your car starts on a -5 degree day after 250k.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By MadMan007 on 12/9/2008 9:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever actually read an auto magazine? Because when I have the test drivers always got worse observed overall mileage than the EPA estimate. They tend to drive cars hard to push them and find any faults, the fact that this car actually beats the EPA estimate at the hands of auto journalists is impressive.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 9:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
They always observed worse mileage because they were testing the cars acceleration and all that. They weren't just driving it down the highway for 100 miles and topping it off to see how much gas it actually used. Motor Trend just gives the EPA estimates in its long term reviews and their overall observed mileage. It was generally pretty close to EPA.

And Car & Driver is to automotive reporting what the mainstream media is to political reporting. Heavily biased against America.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Finnkc on 12/10/2008 10:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
Motor Trend isn't much better. Both of them are garbage if you ask me. The numbers might be right or close but really who knows how long it will work, it's a US car, it is made of hopes and dreams ... hopes that someone will buy the pile of crap and dreams that one day US cars will stack up to the rest of the World.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Spuke on 12/15/2008 4:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
hopes that someone will buy the pile of crap and dreams that one day US cars will stack up to the rest of the World.
Read some JD Powers surveys. American car quality is just as good as everyone else. Things have changed.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 11:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not true.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 8:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This car could have been invented 20 years ago.


Really? 20 years ago huh? When the computers involved in the running of these hybrid systems didn't exist? When fuel injection was still not standard on many vehicles? When battery technology was even less advanced than it is today?


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Jimbo1234 on 12/10/2008 2:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel injection was standard on a vast majority of vehicles in 1988. The last production car in sold with a carburetor in the US was the Ford Crown Vic Police Interceptor in 1991. The last truck, a 1994 Isuzu.

In 1987, 77% of cars had fuel injection.


RE: I call BS on the mileage
By Darkskypoet on 12/10/2008 4:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well.. perhaps not 20 years ago, however... 12? Sure. 12 years ago, we could've had a volt. 12 years ago we had a production EV-1, strap a lawnmower engine* on the back and charge the batteries...

20 years, was a shot from the hip, and inaccurate, but hey; there is a point to it that shouldn't be missed. GM had an all electric car in production that had a decent cult following 12 years ago, and from what I have seen / read, it worked rather well. Its range mainly suffered from the poor battery tech at the time. However, their choice not to keep it going, I think, was a bad idea as they would be much farther ahead in this segment today.

*Yes I am aware, it would've needed to be a sort of 3 cyl like on the tin foil Geos, or some other petrol based Power Plant, but you get the idea.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki