Sign In Join 



Ford Freestyle Real World MPG

372 messages,  Last post on Aug 18, 2009 at 10:07 PM

You are in the Ford Freestyle Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Ford Freestyle, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), SUV


Messages Page 33 of 38
1
...
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
...
38
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#313 of 372
Re: Fuel Econonmy [pnewby] by coldcranker
Feb 23, 2007 (5:52 pm)
Reply

Replying to: pnewby (Feb 23, 2007 6:37 am)

The range of MPG people see in a Freestyle is between 8 and 33 MPG. The EPA estimates for my 2WD are 20city/27highway, so I think the EPA has it right for most driving and would not revise their MPG testing techniques.
#314 of 372
Re: Fuel Econonmy [coldcranker] by helton
Feb 24, 2007 (6:53 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Feb 23, 2007 5:52 pm)

"I think the EPA has it right for most driving and would not revise their MPG testing techniques."
 
According to the EPA at fueleconomy.gov, their tests use an average of 20 MPH for city and 48 MPH for highway. If that’s right for most driving, I wonder why I see only a few of these drivers on the road? Also, they say they are revising their MPG testing techniques for 2008 models by adding three additional tests that will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures.
#315 of 372
Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [helton] by coldcranker
Feb 24, 2007 (9:02 am)
Reply

Replying to: helton (Feb 24, 2007 6:53 am)

helton, The 48 mph speed average is right on the money for the kind of suburban driving I do for 19 miles on the way to work every day. I cruise steady at 70, then slow to around 30 as traffic builds, then maybe get a break and take it up to 50 again, averaging about 48 for the entire trip. Very typical all around for other drivers doing similar things. And, amazingly, I get 25 to 27 MPG, right in line with the 27 MPG EPA highway estimate for the 2WD Freestyle.
 
The whole point of the traditional EPA estimates was always to compare one vehicle to another, never any absolute value. The EPA estimates, city/highway, give a rough range which I have always been easily able to stay inside of, and thats with several vehicles over many years.
 
The EPA has bowed to pressure from people who don't understand the purpose (comparison) of the numbers. That was why I did the earlier post of the incredible range you can get in MPG with the Freestyle (or any vehicle) depending on driving condition.
#316 of 372
Re: Poor Mileage [helton] by bruneau1
Feb 24, 2007 (11:12 am)
Reply

Replying to: helton (Sep 13, 2006 7:47 am)

The new EPA fuel economy estimates for the FWD Freestyle are 18 and 25 with a combined 20. The new method is more realistic and almost all cars drop about 3 mpg in comparison to the old method.
#317 of 372
Re: Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [coldcranker] by helton
Feb 24, 2007 (11:14 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Feb 24, 2007 9:02 am)

coldcranker,
 
The EPA defines highway driving as “a mixture of rural and Interstate highway driving with a warmed-up engine, typical of longer trips in free-flowing traffic”. They allow up to 60 MPH in this routine and the average speed is 48 MPH. They define city driving as “urban driving, in which a vehicle is started with the engine cold and driven in stop-and-go rush hour traffic”. They allow up to 56 MPH in their city driving routine, but the average speed is 20 MPH. I believe you are describing “city driving” in your posting, and I agree that what you describe is very typical for many other drivers. I also agree that it is amazing, if not unbelievable, that you get 25 to 27 MPG in what is essentially “city driving”.
 
All I am saying is that most people who are driving on the highway, as defined by the EPA, do not drift along at an average of 48 MPH. I believe that most of us drive on the highway at 65 to 75 MPH, and most of us who drive a FWD Freestyle get between 21 and 24 MPG. After understanding how the EPA estimates are developed, it is not surprising that most of us get gas mileage that is lower than the EPA estimates. It is unfortunate that many of us bought Ford’s crossover station wagon believing that it would deliver high mileage per gallon. The new EPA estimate for the 2005/2006/2007 FWD Freestyle is 18 MPG City, 25 MPG Highway and 20 MPG Combined. These estimates certainly would not have been enough to make me want to buy one.
#318 of 372
Re: Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [helton] by bruneau1
Feb 24, 2007 (11:17 am)
Reply

Replying to: helton (Feb 24, 2007 11:14 am)

Ok, but then all vehicles have gone down under the new method, some much more than the Freestyle.
#319 of 372
Re: Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [bruneau1] by helton
Feb 24, 2007 (1:33 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bruneau1 (Feb 24, 2007 11:17 am)

"Ok, but then all vehicles have gone down under the new method, some much more than the Freestyle."
 
I haven’t looked at others but I wouldn’t be surprised if some went down more than the Freestyle. At least the estimates are a little closer to reality. Funny thing, this makes the 500 miles to a tank of gas myth a bigger lie than ever.
#320 of 372
Re: Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [helton] by bruneau1
Feb 24, 2007 (1:47 pm)
Reply

Replying to: helton (Feb 24, 2007 1:33 pm)

I have compared the old and new figures for a wide variety of vehicles and it is a fact that all have gone down, some more than others. The hybrids went down the most, but of course they still get good mileage. You can't blame Ford for using the old figures when everyone else did too. And it wasn't a lie to say 500 miles on a tank, but rather an unrealistic figure based on unrealistic estimates from the EPA. How many cars are GM and Toyota advertising as having over 30 MPG? A lot. and most of them don't get it anymore.
#321 of 372
Re: Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [helton] by coldcranker
Feb 24, 2007 (4:06 pm)
Reply

Replying to: helton (Feb 24, 2007 1:33 pm)

The 500-mile tank is not a lie. I've done it twice in less than 2 years. I get 27 MPG often, and so do others who post here. That is with 60-to-75 mph driving in a 2WD model. About 1 MPG ( or less ) I attribute to the 5,000 feet altitude I drive at, as the air is 18% less dense, decreasing wind drag, which increases MPG more than the higher pumping losses (volumetric efficiency suffers) decrease MPG here.
 
I appreciate someone pointing out that ALL vehicle MPG EPA estimates drop with the new method. It was always to compare one vehicle to another anyway. Nothing has really changed except now we can't compare vehicles across model years quite as easily. I guess we can get close by subtracting 2 MPG off the highway figure and 2 off the city figure to arrive at the "new style" MPG figures. Well now you see how little any of this accomplishes. They simply used a tougher EPA driving test cycle, and, amazingly, MPG dropped! A miracle has happened!
#322 of 372
Re: Don't Miss the Whole Point ....Re: Fuel Econonmy [coldcranker] by bruneau1
Feb 25, 2007 (11:44 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Feb 24, 2007 4:06 pm)

I am glad they are doing this, and frankly, they need to go much further and increase the CAFE standards for fuel economy. it is the only way to force manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Yes, I have liked my big American cars with v-8s, but the time for a change has come. Engines are on the rise for size and power (unnecessary in most cases). Our appetite for power is irresponsible.

Messages Page 33 of 38
1
...
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
...
38
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement