Full review of the 2013 Ford Fusion [Hybrid trim gets 40mpg combined in the real world]

i do not know, the old one was getting 40-50 wasn't it?

 

huh. that's surprising. i guess i only heard from the ones who were doing well.

 

He is driving through a hilly canyon winding road and he feels the car is under power with 180+ hp, meaning he is pushing the pedal hard, getting 40 mpg under this condition is excellent. It should be much better drivng in flat highway.

 

old one was over-rated, and pretty much every one that mentioned real life mpg of new one so far said it was not good.

few people still hope though...

 

i would rather buy Fusion than Camry.... although I am European .

We will see how sales go, every time new Ford comes out, they shoot for the stars with it... Fusion is more expensive though than competition.

 

2012 Fusion Hybrid 39 mpg combined.
2013 Fusion Hybrid 47 mpg combined.

That's 7 mpg more than a 2012 Camry Hybrid.
That's 5 mpg more than a Prius V.

A Plug-In Fusion with 20-40 mpg EV mode would be a killer.

 

our hycam get's 35-45 mpg. i'm not interested in epa or reviewers numbers. they're usually foolishness and a waste of time.

 

EPA numbers are accurate and only way to really compare vehicles using same test criteria. EPA rating is right in the middle of your actual range so not sure why you diss the EPA ratings when you seem to be proving them right in practice.

 

Camry hybrid LE......$25,990
Camry hybrid XLE....$27,500
Fusion hybrid...........$27,200

A $1210 difference with the LE. Enough to give a buyer pause. However, anyone coming from a hybrid will be disappointed in the hybrid display in the LE. I didn't think there was one looking at the dash.

If you want something approaching the Fusion's Smartgauge, you have to upgrade to the XLE. In balance, the Fusion and XLE are equal in standard features. They are basically the same price.

The Hyundai/Kia beat them both on price.

 

what are you talking about? EPA tests are lab tests. Manfacturers can chose to do their best in EPA tests and optimize their cars for them.

Ford is constantly doing so... easily proven by checking their EPA ratings of hybrids and ecoboost engines and then checking on fuelly or any reviews/long term reports.

 

And are accurate and a good yardstick between vehicles.

Toyota Prius rated 50 mpg. I get 54 mpg doing tricks. Accurate.

Same for every car I've had recently from Explorer to Hybrid Escape to Prius. EPA numbers are what regular driver can expect. People who work at it can get a bit better.

 

That is why the EPA tests allow comparisons between cars. They are put through the same paces on the test. A review can never be the same. Without the monitoring of the emission test, cars can't be driven over the same road. Then there variables like the Edmunds Prius v and C-max review where there was a 23F degree difference in air temperature.

I've said it before. The people complaining of getting low fuel economy in a car probably have no clue of what their real economy was in their old car. Fuel consumption gauges are a relatively new addition to every car.

Want to save gas. The first, and most effective, step is to change your driving style. The wife's car is a 2001 Sable rated 16mpg city/25hwy/19combined. The transmission's design does not lend itself to advanced hypermiling techniques. So I'm limited, but can 29mpg with it while not impeding traffic and mostly keeping with the flow.

Most people are unwilling to change their driving behavior.

That's even more important with a turbo. If anyone got a little 'frisky' in their hybrid, they've seen how quickly hard acceleration can plummet the mpg.

It took some effort to reach the pre-2008 EPA numbers. Not reaching them now just means the driver doesn't really give a damn.

 

Still not as good as my c!

 

all of that has nothing to do with the fact that they optimized their technology to score better on EPA tests.

There are dozens of Fusion vs Camry tests of before where Fusion on average could only match Camry, and not exceed, despite 5 mpg comibined better on EPA.

Same will happen here again, based on reports so far.

Same goes for small turbos... sometimes it makes sense, but often it is EPA sense and not real life. I am reading same thing in German Automagazines, as every manufacturer here has small turbos.

Everything else is just trying to paint a pretty picture over situation thats easy to understand.

 

I hope Ford's real world MPG's come closer to the 47 mpg EPA rating. I'd love to put this car through the paces for a few weeks to see what I could do with it.

Ford will be able to sell this car on looks alone (assuming that it even has a modicom of performance to match its exterior styling).

 

I can see how conventional cars might be engineered to game the EPA test, but I am skeptical the same can be said of CVT based cars. And as for the blind faith in 'real world' fuelly results, people should remember that results are voluntary, suffer from selection bias, and there is no reason to think that the drivers and locales are similar. Heck, we don't even know if there is consistency in using the car MPG meter or a calculated result, or whether the car meters have similar accuracy.

Criticism of the EPA test to compare cars strikes me as at best theoretical, while the problems with Fuelly are obvious.