Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2013 Ford Fusion SE AWD; Day 1

[Fobroader]

I think it looks a lot better with this front

European Ford Mondeo?  Looks sharper/cleaner.

Isnt that always the case, we always get the sister who dresses like a nun, while they enjoy the one who dresses designer.

[ipolski]

I think it looks a lot better with this front

Isn't it the same two-grill setup as the C-Max?

[cruzzer]

Any predictions on mpgs? My guess is 21 or 11L/100km. Great looking car. AWD is super useful if you live in the mountains or spend a lot of time on winter highways. Good that Ford makes it available for those that need or want it.

[wing]

Well to give it a run for the money Tracy took it grocery shopping today...

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think it looks a lot better with this front

Grass is always greener....

I prefer our version, though it's be nice to get the hatch and/or wagon.

[mixmanmash]

"if I were shopping I’d be sure to test it along with the Sonata, Altima, Camry and Accord."

I'd delete the Sonata, Camry, Altima and add the Mazda 6 if I were shopping."  It's a personal preference to have a manual and decent driving dynamics.

[JRM]

"if I were shopping I’d be sure to test it along with the Sonata, Altima, Camry and Accord."

I'd delete the Sonata, Camry, Altima and add the Mazda 6 if I were shopping."  It's a personal preference to have a manual and decent driving dynamics.

+1  THOSE THREE ARE ON THE TOP OF MY LIST.  THE SONATA, CAMRY AND ALTIMA ARE WHAT I CONSIDER OLD MAN'S CARS AND I'M 65.

[Danno001]

FWIW, a recent 1,000 km Ottawa round trip netted me 6.5 L/100 with my 2013 Sonata 2.4L. 

Almost 50% premium in fuel use for a turbo 4 with AWD.

[ipolski]

FWIW, a recent 1,000 km Ottawa round trip netted me 6.5 L/100 with my 2013 Sonata 2.4L. 

Almost 50% premium in fuel use for a turbo 4 with AWD.

Not a fair comparison.  Wing usually reports, in I'm not mistaken, approx. 500km of mixed driving - let's say 50:50.  Your trip is all (mostly?) highway.
Don't get me wrong, I think over 9L/100km is a lot for a modern family sedan.  Just because its called EcoBoost it doesn't mean its Eco at all, just marketing trick.
Speaking of which, didn't Ford plan to call it's turbocharged engines PowerBoost, but renamed them just before they came to the market?

[Danno001]

FWIW, a recent 1,000 km Ottawa round trip netted me 6.5 L/100 with my 2013 Sonata 2.4L. 

Almost 50% premium in fuel use for a turbo 4 with AWD.

Not a fair comparison.  Wing usually reports, in I'm not mistaken, approx. 500km of mixed driving - let's say 50:50.  Your trip is all (mostly?) highway.
Don't get me wrong, I think over 9L/100km is a lot for a modern family sedan.  Just because its called EcoBoost it doesn't mean its Eco at all, just marketing trick.
Speaking of which, didn't Ford plan to call it's turbocharged engines PowerBoost, but renamed them just before they came to the market?

Quoted from Day 4.

"I expected better from the EcoBoost 2.0L engine than I achieved with mostly highway driving"

That's why I related my experience with my Sonata on a recent highway trip.

PS I have seen in the 5L per 100Km range on extended highway trips at the legal limit.

[Jaeger]

As expected (from previous tets of this model) pretty darned unimpressive fuel economy for "mostly highway driving".  If it were an even split highway / city that number would be just fine.  Since over 80% of my driving is done on the highway, I tend to pay close attention to real-world reports of observed economy in that context.  Let's just say that fuel consumption does rank among this vehicle's strengths. 

This is surprising - because good highway economy is generally a plus for boosted 4-posts over similarly powered large-displacement V6s.  As is the case with my Sonata turbo as compared with my Altima 3.5 V^ - similar fuel economy around town, but the Sonata holds a clear and significant advantage in (largely off-boost) highway cruising.

[Danno001]

As expected (from previous tets of this model) pretty darned unimpressive fuel economy for "mostly highway driving".  If it were an even split highway / city that number would be just fine.  Since over 80% of my driving is done on the highway, I tend to pay close attention to real-world reports of observed economy in that context.  Let's just say that fuel consumption does rank among this vehicle's strengths. 

This is surprising - because good highway economy is generally a plus for boosted 4-posts over similarly powered large-displacement V6s.  As is the case with my Sonata turbo as compared with my Altima 3.5 V^ - similar fuel economy around town, but the Sonata holds a clear and significant advantage in (largely off-boost) highway cruising.

I believe the difference lies in the extra weight of the Fusion and AWD system making extra demands on the Ecoboost engine which means it is always on some boost.

Boost = significant extra fuel use.

The Sonata can probably get away with zero boost while on the highway due to slippery shape and low weight.

The curb weight of the Fusion AWD is 3,681 lbs while the Sonata turbo is 3,250. Huge difference.

On a side note, I will be interested in seeing how these turbo engines hold up post warranty.

[Solstice2006]

Can't imagine the turbo engines being a problem post warranty, just a matter of proper maintenance.  They are less forgiving than a normal aspirated engine, if neglected.  Cooling is a big issue, and this has been improved.  Small displacement turbos have been used in Europe for years, with good results... 

[Jaeger]

As expected (from previous tets of this model) pretty darned unimpressive fuel economy for "mostly highway driving".  If it were an even split highway / city that number would be just fine.  Since over 80% of my driving is done on the highway, I tend to pay close attention to real-world reports of observed economy in that context.  Let's just say that fuel consumption does rank among this vehicle's strengths. 

This is surprising - because good highway economy is generally a plus for boosted 4-posts over similarly powered large-displacement V6s.  As is the case with my Sonata turbo as compared with my Altima 3.5 V^ - similar fuel economy around town, but the Sonata holds a clear and significant advantage in (largely off-boost) highway cruising.

I believe the difference lies in the extra weight of the Fusion and AWD system making extra demands on the Ecoboost engine which means it is always on some boost.

Boost = significant extra fuel use.

The Sonata can probably get away with zero boost while on the highway due to slippery shape and low weight.

The curb weight of the Fusion AWD is 3,681 lbs while the Sonata turbo is 3,250. Huge difference.

On a side note, I will be interested in seeing how these turbo engines hold up post warranty.

Fair points.  While turbo offerings are new for Ford and Hyundai in this segment, the technology itself is nothing new.  VW / Audi have been putting out countless numbers of turbo mills in mainstream vehicles for a good long while.  I wouldn't say that there is neccessarily a post-warranty question mark hanging over turbo engines.

[Danno001]

Call me a jaded Ford user and with alot of expereince with Ford turbo diesels - 6.0L cough cough.
The technology may not be new, but the devil is in how it is implemented.

Just my opinion that they are doing way too much with these Ecoboost engines too quickly.

Popcorn is ready with lotsa butter.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Call me a jaded Ford user and with alot of expereince with Ford turbo diesels - 6.0L cough cough.
The technology may not be new, but the devil is in how it is implemented.

Just my opinion that they are doing way too much with these Ecoboost engines too quickly.

Popcorn is ready with lotsa butter.

Navistar engines. There's a reason the relationship soured.

[Danno001]

Navistar engines. There's a reason the relationship soured.

The 7.3L Navistar was a good Navistar product. Ford 6.0 L or VT365, not so much. Rushed to market to address changing emissions standards.
I did a plant tour in 2003 watching the engines being built in Alabama. The press at the time was pretty positive on the 6.0L - VT365.

Time will tell on the Ecoboost as it did on the 6.0L.

I will be getting into some major 3.2L 5-cyl Transit purchases. Should be interesting times.

[Fobroader]

The 6.4 wasnt as bad as the 6.0 (not much is) but still pretty crappy.

Sent from my Galaxy S3