Last post on Dec 10, 2013 at 5:10 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#969 of 20238 Re: - [captain2]
May 14, 2007 (12:45 pm)
We have taken one 360-mile road trip with the 2007 SEL AWD when the car had 1,200 miles on it. It yielded 26 mpg going and 24 mpg returning. Average speed for the entire trip was 60 mph or so.
Dealer road tested the car with an on-board computer hooked up at 1,500 miles and got 24 mpg at 50, 60 and 70 mph during a 12-mile run. Shop foreman pronounced it to be AOK, according to specs. He provided computer printouts of the testing. At the time, the car was only getting 13 mpg. Now, with 3,200 miles, it is getting 14.8 mpg.
The original EPA estimate for this power train was 19 mpg city, 26 highway. That has since been revised to 17 mpg city and 24 highway. AWD is the culprit.
I have no doubts that the car will deliver the EPA estimate for highway travel and am equally sure that it is never going to yield 17 mpg in our city driving. I might as well shut up about the situation and live with the fact that we bought a gas guzzler, by today's standards.
Our 2000 2.0-liter I4 Ford Focus station wagon only delivers 22 mpg in city driving over the same route pattern and our 1997 3.8-liter V6 Thunderbird averages 13 mpg over the same course.
This being a 2007 model, I just naturally figured the Fusion would at least meet the EPA estimate. Obviously, that was flawed thinking on my part.
Worse, these averages have been achieved without the AC on. I imagine there will be a 2 or 3 mpg penalty for that as summer arrives. An all-black interior won't help any even though the car is white.
I still like the styling of the Fusion better than any of the other mid-size sedans but am convinced we should have gone with the I4 and that AWD was a very bad mistake.
What's the expression, live and learn? Well, I have learned a lot since Dec. 4, 2006. If we ever do buy another vehicle it will probably be an Accord. Might as well go with the flow. All those millions of other buyers simply can't be wrong.
May 14, 2007 (1:14 pm)
The mpg should not be the same at 50, 60 and 70 mph. 24 mpg at 50 mph is especially low - something is wrong. My Accord 4-cyl stick shift is close to 50 mpg at a steady 50 mph. When using a Scangauge in average mode over several miles on level ground with no wind.
You should be able to do much better than EPA highway at 50 mph.
#971 of 20238 Re: - [urnews]
May 14, 2007 (1:49 pm)
most folks can match or better EPA highway at 60 mph, which is effectively what you did do on that trip you were talking about. 24 or 25 mpg highway is a long way from a 'guzzler' IMO, although I think there are some larger sedans with V8s in them that may do what your Fusion does. I don't believe that Ford or any other mfgr. has any ability to 'cheat' the EPA tests any better or worse than they all already are. While it may be true that a Honda 6 (or 4 FTM) are more efficient engines, I can't imagine the Accord doing much better (FE wise) in your particular case. The DT 3.0, while I certainly don't like the engine much, is known for its reliability and relative FE - you may just be paying a big price for that 'gimmicky' AWD.
#972 of 20238 Re: - [urnews]
May 14, 2007 (2:28 pm)
I had a similar type drive to work...rarely did I drive more than 20 seconds without having to stop at a traffic light and my mph never went over 35. It took me 15 minutes to get to work and there were a few hills that I had to negotiate. My car at the time also had AWD and was a 2.5 liter Subaru, and I was usually around the 15 mpg mark when I was using the car to only go back and forth from work. I was driving my mazda 6 with a similar engine that you have along that route for a while and actually got better mileage (about 16 mpg), although my 6 is a manual transmission. I now take a different route to work that has less stops (although a little longer in distance, it takes less time if I hit the traffic lights right). Since there is a bit less stop and go, my mpg is up to 18. On longer drives with mostly highway, I get 27+ usually. Even when I took it to some really curvy roads with lots of hills and was almost always above 4k rpms in second or third gear, I got better than 20 mpg. So the distance and type of driving is killing your average... as others on this board have pointed out, there are not many cars you could get epa #'s with given your short distance with lots of stop and go.
#973 of 20238 Re: - [captain2]
May 14, 2007 (2:31 pm)
While I don't know that "gimmicky" is the right word for the AWD option I do believe that the mpg culprit. The car was equipped that way on the lot, it's not something we consciously ordered. It snows very little, if ever, in Salisbury, Md. But I suppose all-wheel drive may be a factor any time the front wheels lose traction, such as wet or sandy conditions.
The people who have the 3.0-liter V6 without AWD on the several forum where I participate generally seem to get good mileage. I seem to be the only exception, although a few owners with AWD have likewise reported poor mileage.
I will say that the car handles exceedingly well but we did not test drive any other Fusion. That was a mistake. The dealer only had eight Fusions on the lot. This was the one we liked best. We should have ordered one rather than buying what was in stock.
Several people have suggested the power train will not be broken in until the car gets to about 5,000 miles or so. We are at 3,200 now. I am pessimistic about that.
#974 of 20238 Re: Evaluation and Ranking of 25 Family Sedans [rhduke00]
May 14, 2007 (3:07 pm)
I could have told you about No. 24-21 on their list. The Avenger/Sebring isn't even discussed about here it seems. I spent about 2.5 weeks in a rental Dodge Avenger SXT with the 2.7L V6... it wasn't a total stripper either, had alloys, Sirius sat radio and so on.
Worse seat I've tried yet - I couldn't ever get comfortable in it. Way too much lumbar support built into the shape of the seat for my liking. Then you get all the chrome shiny bits that glare in your eyes when the sun's up. Not to mention the corporate bluish greenish gauge lighting that's just horrible looking IMO. Plenty of cheap plastics to go round.
How it drives wasn't much better either - basically transportation. Lumpy V6, not a lot of smoothness and honestly I prefered the Vulcan V6 in my old Taurus compared to this 2.7L V6. And then you have this look of the driver's seat where you're sunken in tons of sheetmetal... there isn't a lot of greenhouse to work with.
And yeah, Daimler just paid someone to buy Chrysler today. No wonder!
#975 of 20238 Re: - [urnews]
May 14, 2007 (3:15 pm)
While I don't know that "gimmicky" is the right word for the AWD option I do believe that the mpg culprit.
I'd call it gimmicky cause it isn't a true AWD system like in Subaru/Audi. Basically you have a FWD that can transfer some power to rear wheels when wheel slip is detected.
Let us know if you ever get fed-up of your Fusion, what you get for it in a trade-in. A lot of people here can't seem to agree if the Fusion will be worth anything in a trade-in or not. Some think so, others think not.
#976 of 20238 Re: - [neteng101]
May 14, 2007 (3:35 pm)
According to one Yahoo cars Web site the one-year depreciation on a similar Fusion was about $4,600, if I remember correctly, but only about 1,200 for the second year.
One of two things is going to happen: I'm either going to trade it for a 2009 "something" or drive it for as long as it will run. I don't except to posting on here at the time. But who knows? Everyone is so friendly.
I just like reading about cars and daydreaming about them. The J.D. Powers' "Most Appealing Mid-Size Sedan" award for the Fusion was a big factor in our buying decision, reinforced by its Consumer Reports marks.
Even the "experts" and "pros" are wrong some of the time. I didn't do enough homework and got burned for it. According to my math it's "only" going to cost me an EXTRA $524 a year in gasoline costs for the crummy 14.8 mpg. I guess having a 2007 SEL AWD might be worth an extra $10 a week.
How about Chrysler being sold? That's the big automotive news of the day. I wonder how that will pan out.
#977 of 20238 Re: Evaluation and Ranking of 25 Family Sedans [elroy5]
May 14, 2007 (4:05 pm)
If you look at the top picks summary page, you would see Hyundai Sonata / Kia Optima seat as best-in-class family sedans overall.
#978 of 20238 Re: Evaluation and Ranking of 25 Family Sedans [joe97]
May 14, 2007 (4:49 pm)
My sister has an 06 Optima, and the seats are not comfortable at all. She says she can not stand more than 1/2 hour in the driver seat.