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.