backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by priusone.. on Jan 14 at 1:08 PM


2013 Ford Fusion EcoBoost 2.0
Ford assaults the midsize sedan market with the 2013 Fusion

The next generation Ford Fusion has been a highly anticipated vehicle in the auto industry. The midsize sedan market has been heating up and Ford needed to bring its A-Game in order to stay competitive. Well we can safely say that Ford did indeed bring its A-Game, and may end up sending its competitors back to the drawing board early in the powertrain department.
 
The new Fusion lineup which now consists solely of four-cylinder engines:
  • 2.5-liter naturally aspirated (170hp/170 lb-ft)
  • 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
  • 2.0-liter EcoBoost (237hp/250 lb-ft)
  • 2.0-liter naturally aspirated (Atkinson-cycle) hybrid
  • 2.0-liter naturally aspirated (Atkinson-cycle) plug-in hybrid 
The 1.6-liter EcoBoost will deliver 26mpg in the city and 37mpg on the highway, topping all non-hybrid competitors.


2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid
 
Likewise, the new Fusion Hybrid with the normally aspirated 2.0-liter engine will now deliver 47mpg in the city and 44mpg on the highway. The increased fuel economy (from 41/36) comes from the downsized engine (the old Fusion Hybrid used an Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine) and a new lithium-ion battery pack. Thanks to the more powerful battery, the Fusion Hybrid can now travel at up to 62mph on battery power alone.
 
For comparison (city/highway):

2013 Ford Fusion Energi

As for the Fusion Energi Plug-in Hybrid, Ford will only say that it will be rated for 100 MPGe, which makes it more efficient than a Chevrolet Volt.
 
The 2.0-liter EcoBoost will take the place of the previous V6 engine. Although fuel economy numbers haven't yet been released for this model, there's no doubt that the 2.0-liter EcoBoost will offer similar performance while sipping less fuel. The 2.0-liter EcoBoost will also be available in FWD and AWD variants.
 
And we can't forget the dramatic new styling direction with the Fusion. Gone is the Gillette-esque grille that has been replaced with a nose that wouldn't seem out of place on an Aston Martin. There's no doubt the 2013 Ford Fusion will be the most dramatically styled mainstream sedan on the market, and consumers won't have to drive "design-challenged" vehicles like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight to get incredible fuel economy across the board.

2013 Ford Fusion interior 

When it comes to technology, the Fusion Hybrid will be available with SYNC, the much-maligned MyFord Touch infotainment system, lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control, active park assist, and blind spot monitoring.

The 2013 Ford Fusion will be in U.S. showrooms in the latter half of 2012.

Source: Ford



Comments     Threshold


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

1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By Putradude on 1/9/2012 1:15:51 AM , Rating: -1
Maybe not everyone think like me, but ford may have push the fuel economy further. I personally have a 2000 Mazda 1.6L 105 hp and for me it's powerful enough. For the smaller model, with EcoBoost technology, they should have just bring it to maybe 130 hp to get some amazing fuel consumption...




RE: 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By retrospooty on 1/9/2012 7:11:38 AM , Rating: 4
"2000 Mazda 1.6L 105 hp and for me it's powerful enough"

This is a mid size sedan, not a wee size econo-box. The #'s are amazing.


RE: 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By Putradude on 1/9/2012 7:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
like I said not for everyone, the Mazda curb weight is above 2600lbs, the fusion 2012 is under 3200lbs. Keep the same ration hp/weight and you'll be under 130 hp.

I just ask the smaller model to be more Atom Processor minded. The question is not to be the more powerful but to be powerful enough for what you do. If it's not for you just buy upper model.


By retrospooty on 1/9/2012 9:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
Point taken... I bet Ford applies the same improvements to the Focus next and you get your wish.


By gvaley on 1/9/2012 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever driven a down-sized turbo engine? You get the benefits of both worlds--you can save fuel by driving it with ease, as if it was the naturally aspired engine in your Mazda, or you can push it hard to get the full power, as if you had a 2,5 litter engine under the hood.


By Keeir on 1/9/2012 6:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy numbers are based on the EPA Testing Cycle, which uses set speeds over set intervals. Having a more or less powerful engine does not affect the actual cycle itself. (Though in the real world it would likely affect things)

Having an engine capable of producing more HP does not immediately change the fuel economy numbers. The question is more about how the automaker went about producing more HP. In the case of NA engines, the engine designer essentially plays with displacement and stroke length to add a higher upper end power. Typically higher displacement engines require more fuel during idle/low load situations than lower displacement engines, and thus score worse of the EPA cycle. This can be somewhat countered by cylinder de-activation. Higher displacement engines also tend to mass significantly more, leading to lower fuel economy numbers as well. In the case of Turbo, Super Chargers, etc, the engine designer creates a situation where more air is forced into the same displacement area allowing more fuel and thus more power. In this situation, the effects of producing higher theoretical hp may not have a significant effect on EPA cycle results. In practice, fuel injectors typically need to be upsized, which leads to less tolerance, which leads to higher idle consumption and the turbo parts do have mass. Its unlikely that a 1.6 engine producing 130 hp or so would be more than 5% more economical that the ecoboost they are choosing for the Fusion. Potentially you'd be looking at maybe a 1 MPG combined difference. Faced across from that might be a result that is not good for the US market. For example, 0-60 times slower than 10 seconds is usually a significant problem for marketing.


By alcalde on 1/9/2012 11:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
I had a 1996 Ford Escort for two years. A little under 2400 pounds, 88HP engine. People riding with me would complain about my driving as I'd sit forever waiting to merge into traffic. I'd have to explain that if I could SEE another car coming, it was too late to merge onto the highway.

My routine way of driving the car was essentially to push the gas pedal all the way down when traffic lights turned green. As I used to say, "Some cars go 0-60 in 7 seconds. This car goes 0-7 in 60 seconds." My next car was a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am with a 175HP V-6 (amazing they can get more HP from V-4s these days). I was at a red light almost immediately after driving it off the lot. Not thinking about it, I pressed the pedal down all the way when the light turned green. When I looked in the rear view mirror and noticed all of the other cars behind me hadn't even begun moving yet, I realized I was going to have to adapt my driving style to a car with something better than a lawn mower engine! :-)

I never, ever want to go back to those days of sitting two minutes with cars honking behind me as I refused to merge onto the highway because of the patently unsafe lack of acceleration of a sub-100HP engine on anything larger than a motorcycle. Maybe that's why my dream car is the 556HP Cadillac CTS-V! :-)

Oh, the escort is listed as getting 31/38 MPG on carsdirect, so the Fusion is both more fuel efficient AND more powerful (as well as being more attractive both inside and out).

Purtadude, please don't petition for the return of the American Yugo. :-) I don't think we need more cars that attain 0-60 in 14 seconds and are light enough to actually get blown off of bridges.
I remember a comedian telling a joke about driving a Yugo and getting stuck and needing to call a tow truck. The tow trucker went to hitch the car and told him, "Well, here's your problem right here. You drove over some chewing gum." :-)


By GruntboyX on 1/9/2012 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
problem is people dont buy cars on fuel economy alone. Some heavily weight the feel of the test drive. Even though it gets great gas mileage, people do not want to feel like they have sacrificed power. I give you the wieght/hp ratio. However they probably needed the extra hp because of the effect on torque.

Additionally, they needed the hp numbers because of the influence of the auto press on the buyer. If Car and Driver suddenly rates the car as ok, but is a dog compared to xyz. Then it would effect sales.


RE: 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By werfu on 1/9/2012 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 1
You can't have this kind of car with a lower class engine. It's not that it couldn't be done, it's because the hybrid trim isn't part of the lower end. Even if you'd strip it of all the luxury stuff they add to it, it'd still be too expensive. And not to mention that car makers have an higher margin on higher trims. Hybrids are pricier to build, and I guess makers maybe reduce their margins to keep them somewhat affordable.


By Colin1497 on 1/9/2012 6:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much that they reduce their margins, it's that the government heavily subsidizes hybrids, both directly and indirectly. Directly they subsidize with tax credits ($7500 for a plug-in hybrid, I believe) and indirectly they give manufacturers bonuses on their CAFE fleet mpg ratings, so a notional hybrid vehicle sale that is at 50mpg counts as, I believe, a 100mpg vehicle when averaged into their fleet for CAFE purposes. This allows people within the administration to say that they're forcing new higher mpg requirements even when they're not achievable and nobody thinks they're realistic. At the same time, it allows car manufacturers to pay not pay the penalties for not meeting said new, unrealistic targets.

The US taxpayer carries a pretty heavy burden on hybrid sales and they turn the already comical CAFE system into a worse joke.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki