backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 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