Topic: Comparison Test: 2014 Mid-Size Sedans

[jyarkony]

Main purpose of the turbos, it does good on paper with the EPA, which is what car manufacturers have to do to meet CAFE standards, in the real world, same or worse than a V6... I know I will be never getting a turbo, if I can help it...

this...i've said it before...the purpose of the turbo fours is simple...they ace the HWY fuel economy test...if you take that Fusion, in the middle of summer, and put the cruise on a 77 km/hr on a nice flat highway, it will sip gas and provide great fuel economy.

you put in silly regulations, and this is what you get.

If you look up the 1.6L on Fuelly, they seem to be getting from the high 7s to the high 9s, so they are getting better fuel economy than the Accord V6s high 8s to high 10s. The 1.5L is a bit more modern, so it should be at least similar, if not better.

The current EPA test has speeds up to 80mph and a number of full throttle runs. In good weather, there's not much reason why a person can't hit the EPA numbers.

the 1.6/1.5 Ecoboost are equivalent to 2.4/2.5 four-cylinder power from other brands, not the V6s. The real-world economy we get in these tests is always something I'm curious to see how it will turn out.

didn't expect the turbos to all be less efficient than the V6s here - that surprised me, and the amount of power of this 1.5 also surprised me - that low-end torque got the car off the line really well and it did not seem 50+ hp short of the 2.0 turbos, that's for sure. We did request the 2.0 Ecoboost several times, but none were available, and it likely would have been well optioned, making it pricey and less of a value as this 1.5 SE was.

[jamesautos]

Is there any kind of scoring scheme for the test?

The Mazda 6 is the winner but it is a sales loser... General public must have a different opinion than you guys

[fixer]

Is there any kind of scoring scheme for the test?

The Mazda 6 is the winner but it is a sales loser... General public must have a different opinion than you guys

The general public are basically blind to a lot of things people who read about cars will look at and consider, hence the number of Camry's on the road.

[CAS]

I was considering the Mazda 6 with manual but the NVH was a turnoff.  With the long drives I do, the Accord Touring with manual was the clear winner. Destination in, it cost under $33K which is less than the Mazda.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Main purpose of the turbos, it does good on paper with the EPA, which is what car manufacturers have to do to meet CAFE standards, in the real world, same or worse than a V6... I know I will be never getting a turbo, if I can help it...

this...i've said it before...the purpose of the turbo fours is simple...they ace the HWY fuel economy test...if you take that Fusion, in the middle of summer, and put the cruise on a 77 km/hr on a nice flat highway, it will sip gas and provide great fuel economy.

you put in silly regulations, and this is what you get.

If you look up the 1.6L on Fuelly, they seem to be getting from the high 7s to the high 9s, so they are getting better fuel economy than the Accord V6s high 8s to high 10s. The 1.5L is a bit more modern, so it should be at least similar, if not better.

The current EPA test has speeds up to 80mph and a number of full throttle runs. In good weather, there's not much reason why a person can't hit the EPA numbers.

the 1.6/1.5 Ecoboost are equivalent to 2.4/2.5 four-cylinder power from other brands, not the V6s. The real-world economy we get in these tests is always something I'm curious to see how it will turn out.

didn't expect the turbos to all be less efficient than the V6s here - that surprised me, and the amount of power of this 1.5 also surprised me - that low-end torque got the car off the line really well and it did not seem 50+ hp short of the 2.0 turbos, that's for sure. We did request the 2.0 Ecoboost several times, but none were available, and it likely would have been well optioned, making it pricey and less of a value as this 1.5 SE was.

Oh I agree. That's the intent of the small turbos, to replace conventional 4 cylinder models, while adding torque where most people use it.

For whatever reason, Ford has been stingy with the 2.0L. It think they're trying to showcase the small engine and don't want to confuse the message with a bunch of 2.0L reviews floating around. WAG on my part though.

[fixer]

I was considering the Mazda 6 with manual but the NVH was a turnoff.  With the long drives I do, the Accord Touring with manual was the clear winner. Destination in, it cost under $33K which is less than the Mazda.

for me  and the family I would actually look at the Malibu. Biggest trunk and a nice all around cruising car. Just don't know if I can get by that rear end

[jyarkony]

Main purpose of the turbos, it does good on paper with the EPA, which is what car manufacturers have to do to meet CAFE standards, in the real world, same or worse than a V6... I know I will be never getting a turbo, if I can help it...

this...i've said it before...the purpose of the turbo fours is simple...they ace the HWY fuel economy test...if you take that Fusion, in the middle of summer, and put the cruise on a 77 km/hr on a nice flat highway, it will sip gas and provide great fuel economy.

you put in silly regulations, and this is what you get.

If you look up the 1.6L on Fuelly, they seem to be getting from the high 7s to the high 9s, so they are getting better fuel economy than the Accord V6s high 8s to high 10s. The 1.5L is a bit more modern, so it should be at least similar, if not better.

The current EPA test has speeds up to 80mph and a number of full throttle runs. In good weather, there's not much reason why a person can't hit the EPA numbers.

the 1.6/1.5 Ecoboost are equivalent to 2.4/2.5 four-cylinder power from other brands, not the V6s. The real-world economy we get in these tests is always something I'm curious to see how it will turn out.

didn't expect the turbos to all be less efficient than the V6s here - that surprised me, and the amount of power of this 1.5 also surprised me - that low-end torque got the car off the line really well and it did not seem 50+ hp short of the 2.0 turbos, that's for sure. We did request the 2.0 Ecoboost several times, but none were available, and it likely would have been well optioned, making it pricey and less of a value as this 1.5 SE was.

Oh I agree. That's the intent of the small turbos, to replace conventional 4 cylinder models, while adding torque where most people use it.

For whatever reason, Ford has been stingy with the 2.0L. It think they're trying to showcase the small engine and don't want to confuse the message with a bunch of 2.0L reviews floating around. WAG on my part though.

Actually, Ford had a 2.0 EB on fleet in the fall, but the 1.5 is the new kid on the block, so that was our only option. but sales volume-wise, Ford would not give specific numbers, but the 2.0 is the top seller, engine wise, and accounts for at least 35% of Fusion sales - that only made us want it more, because it is one of the few top-spec engines that does dominate sales.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Actually, Ford had a 2.0 EB on fleet in the fall, but the 1.5 is the new kid on the block, so that was our only option. but sales volume-wise, Ford would not give specific numbers, but the 2.0 is the top seller, engine wise, and accounts for at least 35% of Fusion sales - that only made us want it more, because it is one of the few top-spec engines that does dominate sales.

I knew it was in the 30-35% range. Most top engines for the mid-sizers only make up 10-15% of sales. The Fusion has always been higher mostly because the top engine was the only way to also get AWD.

BTW, what glitches were you having with MFT?

[Ace]

If I was shopping for a 2014 mid-size sedan I would probably end up with the VW Passat TDI MT. But I always buy year old, low mileage demos, so I spent under $24k on a 2013 Chrysler 300 Touring , loaded with 23k kms.

Find that a little interesting.  I understand the 1-2 year old, low mileage.  Not often one goes looking a Chrysler 300 and a VW Passat... Yes they are large cars, but the 300 is RWD, no manual, not very fuel efficient...

You're correct, two different vehicles. Nothing will be as fuel efficient as the Passat TDI, but the 300 was such a good deal and surprisingly economical with the V6 and 8 speed.

[SKYMTL]

I'll just leave this here:   

[Sir Osis of Liver]

How about a Fusion Focus ST wagon? Oops

This is would be the Fusion (Mondeo) wagon:

[stargazer68]

This...

 That’s despite the Fusion’s tiny 1.5L EcoBoost (that’s Ford-speak for “turbo”) four-cylinder, by far the smallest of this group. Despite the smaller engine, the 1.5L tied for the worst fuel economy of the day with the Kia Optima’s 2.0L turbo – size and economy are not always linked.

What a waste of time and money putting these wheezy under achieving and undersized 4 pots in a relatively large car.  Say what you want about the advancement and application of materials science and the like, but the proof of this flawed philosophy is in the lackluster real world mileage.  This new Fusion 1.5L actually get worse mileage than my 4 yr old V6 that has been flawless to date.  Looks like we'll be keeping ours for a while yet. 

The V6 Accord gets my vote out of this bunch.

In the meantime, Ford is crowing about its superior fuel economy in virtually every model in their lineup.  So Hyundai is getting heat for admitting their mileage figures are inaccurate!  Wait till we hear from Ford owners about their real-world results.
Not only are those turbos not delivering better economy, I suspect the lifespan of those small engines will be shortened by expecting them to haul larger vehicles around.  Ford is not the only culprit here.  Fiat/Chrysler uses the same engine in the FIAT500 and the Drat (sic).  My memory of FIATs of old is tiny, high-strung engines that needed constant attention.  This is, of course, similar to most Euro cars from the early days of their lives (and demises in many cases - including FIAT).  Although engines universally have improved dramatically in the last half-century, there has been no quantum leap in ICE engineering.
I also remember the early smog-control cars, in 1973 and beyond.  Chev Novas, for example, came with a six cylinder engine or one of a variety of V-8s.  The 283 eight routinely outperformed the six, not only in acceleration, but in fuel consumption.  And GM brushed off all complaints, blaming driver habits rather than the crummy engineering.
I think Ford is traveling down that same road today.

[Minou]

http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-buying/chrysler/200/review/

How would the new Chrysler 200 have fared against the current crop of midsize cars?


My guess, near the top in V6 AWD trim and near the bottom with the 4.

[stargazer68]

Dutch:

Yes, every maker has done the creeping expansion across their lines.  When Honda brought the Fit to North America,I dug into the archives and found that the Civics of the '80s had almost identical specs as the Fit.  Same displacement engine (1.5L), same wheelbase, overall length, width, most interior dimensions, curb weight.

[SKYMTL]

How about a Fusion Focus ST wagon? Oops

This is would be the Fusion (Mondeo) wagon:

My heart is breaking.      

[ArticSteve]

Honestly, what is a manual shift Mazda 6 sedan doing in this review. 

So the Fusion won fair and square.  However, turbos have an expiry date.  With sport/performance cars turbo or related turbo system failure is accepted as just the price of admission.  Ford is doing well with this turbo strategy now.  But long term it will hurt their brand reliability because ppl who don't understand the nature of turbos systems won't be expecting to pay the related repair costs.

The Camry is an old unit, but still soldiers on.  That is the Toyota way.  In 10 years that Camry as tested will still be something ppl can use for another 5 years without drivetrain issues $$$$.  That V6 and automatic may be ancient, but it sure does deliver.

However, the interior pretty well sucks and the lack of climate control in the SE model, STILL, defies logic.  Will things of this nature change on the new model?  Has to. 

[dkaz]

I won't comment much on the 6's abysmal sales, but that Mondeo wagon is beautiful. I still think the 6 wagon has an edge. But you can't get either here. Sad face.

Speaking of 10 year old Camries, there has been a sudden influx of 2000-2008 Camry manual transmissions on the used market in Vancouver lately.

[Noto]

If you look up the 1.6L on Fuelly, they seem to be getting from the high 7s to the high 9s, so they are getting better fuel economy than the Accord V6s high 8s to high 10s. The 1.5L is a bit more modern, so it should be at least similar, if not better.

I'm kind of curious - part of me is wondering if the type of people who will write to fuelly will 'fudge' their numbers because they paid for a downsized turbo expecting great fuel economy.  Who knows, maybe it's perfectly accurate.  One thing is for certain - turbos offer a wider range of fuel consumption than naturally aspirated engines.  That is, you're more likely to find fuel consumption to be (e.g.) 6-11L/100km instead of a V6 being 7-9L/100km depending on driving habits, etc.

turbos have an expiry date. 

I'm no gearhead, but I'd say that any turbo offered with a factory warranty will likely outlast the projected (15yr) life of a vehicle.  Past 15 years, the cost of a turbo would be more than the value of the car (in these, at least - we're not talking about $$$,$$$ supercars).

[stargazer68]

If I was shopping for a 2014 mid-size sedan I would probably end up with the VW Passat TDI MT. But I always buy year old, low mileage demos, so I spent under $24k on a 2013 Chrysler 300 Touring , loaded with 23k kms.

Find that a little interesting.  I understand the 1-2 year old, low mileage.  Not often one goes looking a Chrysler 300 and a VW Passat... Yes they are large cars, but the 300 is RWD, no manual, not very fuel efficient...

I find it interesting that  a one-year -old car with 23K is considered "low-mileage."  Black book rates "average mileage" at 20K or 12,000 miles.  Of course, if your usage is less than average, then the lifespan of a car won't be impacted (assuming you own the car for the long haul).  You've still got warranty and the tires shouldn't need replacing for a while, and the interiors are still near-new.

[dkaz]

At low boost and RPM, your engine will only make 100HP maybe, your fuel consumption will stay low. At high boost and RPM when you want that 250HP the powertrain can make, you're going to use that much more fuel. More than a V6 with similar power.

It's pretty simple. Get a V6 if you plan on driving fast all the time. Get a small turbo if you drive slow most of the time but want the option of power say to accelerate onto an aggressive freeway. Salespeople need to stop blindly selling small turbos thinking it's the right engine for everyone.