Ford Hybrids Not Achieving EPA MPG Ratings: Report
 

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/w...ion-Hybrid.jpg

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...gs-report.html

The EPA test isn't real world.

Manufacturers are probably just tuning their cars to maximize mpg on the EPA test cycle.

-Justin

Who cares, Fusion looks amazing.
Go buy one.

I agree on the looks. IMHO, very Aston Martin in the front.

-Justin

Does anyone see a trend here?.First it was the Prius and Insight,then the Hyundai and Kia's. There is not one hybrid out there getting close to advertised mpg.

The manufacturers were forced to produce cars with better fuel economy,but the reality is the "gasoline" engine has hit its limits of efficiency.Instead of building an pushing diesel technology,Auto makers would rather lie about what their vehicles are getting and send the product out to save their asses.

I read reports of VW diesel owners getting anywhere from 700-1000 on full tanks
Close to 70 mpg highway and automakers are still parading this "hybrid" technology.:bonk:

The b.s. regarding the *alleged* mileage of diesels is getting a bit out of hand...

70mpg hwy? Bull, F-ing, S.

I never had any trouble getting the rated fuel economy in my father's Prius, btw. 46 was nothing. Even got 37mpg on a trip where I averaged ~85mph, and spent about 1/4 of the time with the cruise set at 92.

I can't see them getting 70mpg.But diesel has come a way since my brother had his 96' TDI and could get to Boston (700mi)on one tank with miles to spare.He was getting 55 back then on the 1.9L engine.

lol, diesel paraders. Stop getting brainwashed by Europeans.

A Prius will do 80mpg+ if you keep the speed down (on low speed limit roads some hypermilers are able to get 100mpg or more on a stock Prius). If you get 46mpg on the highway, you're driving over the speed limit for sure.

In Europe they do not regulate NOx emissions as tightly so diesels can easily get higher efficiency. If you let gasoline engines put out NOx the way diesels do they can gain 10% efficiency *easy*, and the engines cost much less to build. Diesel fuel has higher energy per unit volume anyways, so 70mpg is not the same as 70mpg on gasoline.

On a stock manual FRS you should be able to get 50mpg if you just roll along at 45-50mph, and the gearing isn't even that great. I'm pretty sure that's how fast those 70mpg diesels are going. You can't blast down the highway at 80mph like most people do and expect great fuel economy, that's not how it works.

What did Ford do to piss off American media?

I guess it takes a non-American to notice these things quickly lol. :laughabove:

Some lady sued Honda because her Civic Hybrid didn't meet the EPA mileage with her driving method.

The lady won. Luckily some other judge had enough of a brain to reverse the decision.

Take any car, drive like a retard, see shittier than ESTIMATED rating. How is this news?

Toyota was kicking GM's ass, hence the blown out of proportion acceleration BS in the shittily reported news. Then Hyundai.

So looks like a media issue to me.

Exactly why Honda underrates their MPG. Most American don't drive efficiently.

Ford seems to be spot on from what I've seen. No more no less but not much room for error if somebody drives like a ****.

Don't people ever read the small text when looking at EPA MPG Ratings?!?!

http://ridethisbike.com/uploaded_ima...bel-795050.gif

If you're getting between the advertise city/highway MPG then you're doing pretty good with mileage and anything over that is superb.

I cannot understand people's stupidity and common sense or lack there of.

A 2007 dodge ram 2500 with a diesel, mine, gets 24-27 mpg bone stock at exactly 70 on the highway.. Please show me a full size gas powered truck returning the same... This is real world driving.. Not the EPA estimate of the newer trucks with the cylinder disengage stuff

Uh, I think the 5.4L V8 F250s get like 18mpg doing 70 or something? (I browsed a bunch of forums) That might sound a lot worse, but you have to remember that if you relax emissions requirements gas engines can pick up as much as 20% cruising fuel economy with zero physical modifications in some cases, and 1 gallon of diesel fuel "=" 1.1 gallons of gasoline.

My dads old f150 with the 5.4 and a exhuast intake and tune got 16.... But we live in the mountains.. So our fuel mileage is a bit worse.. I do know of a guy that drives a beetle that's diesel powered.. We rag him all the time.. But on his bio diesel conversion and mods he has don't he gets 85 mpg daily driven.. I don't know all his mods and stuff, but his exhaust really does smell like French fries lol

I've yet to run into a converted diesel that burns veggie oil and smells like French Fries rofl, I am sure the day I do I will laugh out loud. Picking up free restaurant grease and filtering it is certainly a great way to reduce fuel cost to near 0!

Older cars can be real mileage champs. http://ecomodder.com/blog/20-yearold...l-economy-run/
He really doesn't have that many modifications, the giant front splitter probably doesn't actually do that much, the removed mirror and wheel covers probably were most of the gains. Of course this guy is not driving with constant load, but 118mpg is nothing to scoff at either way.

Honda's HF and VX models were pretty exceptional mileage cars. But they were designed to be lean burn from the ground up. Casualties of NOX requirements.

Heh, if it were easy to flash the ECU on these 1ZZs, mine would be running 1.25 lambda already. 70kPa vacuum on the highway (well, 31% calculated load), seriously what the f*** Toyota. Of course it would be reverted for the biannual smog check.

If money grew on trees, I can imagine you ceramic coating the combustion chamber, bumping compression to 15:1, an Atkinson cycle intake cam/VVT-i strategy, and maybe standalone sequential port water injection to keep your ultra-lean mix from melting your motor. Oh and a TVS blower with bypass and EM clutch.

But seriously, could you reduce blowing up a leaned out NA motor under load with straight up water injection? Similar to too much boost in a way.

Nah peak temperature is only higher than stoich from 1.0-1.1 lambda. Think about it, more air, less fuel, temperature can't just keep going up right? At 1.2 lambda the peak temperature flame temperature is about the same as stoichiometric, and that's where you have the lowest CO/HC emissions. Most people who don't know what they're doing bump it to 1.1 lambda for fuel economy, which helps, but not that much. After 1.2 you start losing efficiency because the flame speed drops, but it still beats incurring higher pumping losses with less air and a richer mix, which is why Honda went up to 22:1 (that's like 1.5). At that point you need significant timing changes to compensate for the slower burn, which is too much of a hassle.

EDIT: Might I add, if they used lean burn instead of cooled EGR a Prius engine could get pretty close to ideal idling efficiency (minimum possible fuel consumption given any set of cams you want) :D

The lean combustion stuff is not something I look into since I'm pretty much programmed from turbo experience to believe that anything less that 12.5:1 under load is instant motor death... My buddy runs like ~11.5:1 at peak boost on 94 octane (street map).

You guys and girls/women might find this interesting.

http://www.rtugroup.com/revolutionar...iabatic-engine

This video does not say much. But its really good engine porn! :p
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVnM8z1nX4k"]RTU eFone - Super Motor - YouTube[/ame]

Here is some teaser stats:

5-cylinder Turbo 2.5 liter
Power: 598kW (814 HP)
Torque: 1.000+ Nm (dyno limit)
Radiatorless Water System
Exhaust Gas Temp. 351°C
No catalityc converter needed
1.850 rpm - 115km/h - 5.3l/100km (47.04 MPG)

I had a VW Golf Bluemotion (diesel) in 2010 (company car). And I was able to reach about 64mpg average over some distance. Sometimes I saw better numbers, but that was based on the computer.
(Mostly highway speed of 50mph and some lower speeds roads)

I just checked some numbers on earlier records attempts where people have driven a whole tank of diesel. Almost 2500 km on one tank in a VW Passat. That would be quite close to 73 US MPG.
Some Norwegians drove a Ford Mondeo Diesel to get more than 71+US MPG on a tank and got near 2000km out on one tank. At the time they had the world record.

Not sure if anything simular have been done lately in Hybrids. But diesel cars are certainly capable to get some extreme MPG.

I believe the next VW Golf Bluemotion was said to get about 10% more MPG compared to the model I drove.

But in normal daily driving. Most numbers are worse. Especially when cold and the engine is not up in temperature.

I once had the pleasure of ridding in a two bus caravan that was supplied by the university. After about 20 minutes of staring at the rear of the bus in front of us and wondering what that strong smell was, I finally figured it out. Emblazoned upon the rear of the lead bus was a sign that said "Powered by Biodiesel."

So yes it does smell like french fries. I've heard similar comments for ethanol too.

Anyway, just browsing the EPA website for reported MPG numbers suggest the hybrid Fusion is overestimated but nothing solid. Out of 5 reported numbers for the 2013 hybrid Fusion the average MPG is 37. There's only two for the 2012 so not even worth mentioning. The numbers are all over the place for the few listed on Fuelly. 37 is close enough to 40 so it might just be that the huge MPG jump for the 2013 is exaggerated. :iono:

Diesels get much better mileage than gasoline engines, this is not in dispute.
But 27mpg or even 24mpg sustained, real world, not going down a hill, without a continuous tailwind in a Dodge 2500 at 70mph? I doubt it...
At fuelly dot com, most are reporting between 14 and 17mpg for mileage in 2007 Ram Diesels: http://www.fuelly.com/car/dodge/ram%...iesel%20l6/all

There are two outliers above 20, one at 24 and another at 27.
The reported 24 is based on only two fills, so not exactly a reliable figure.
The 27mpg report is based on ONE fill, likely off by a huge margin. My bet is it's off on the high side...

I'll believe 27mpg at 70mph when I experience it myself!

Clickie here to see what Diesel Jetta owners are reporting.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen...20l4/sedan/all
Median is 41 mpg. Very few reports above 50, above 53 look like outliers, no reports above 64mpg.

Compare with reported actual mileage for the Prius:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/all
Median is 48mpg. Very few above 58mpg, max reported = 68.

This is what is actually happening in the real world.

'96 TDi is rated quite a bit higher at 34/38/44 (revised) vs. 30/34/42 for a '13 Golf TDI ('96 sticker EPA was 41/44/49).
1984 Rabbit diesel is also rated higher combined revised vs. new TDI at 36!

We've come a long way in the wrong direction as far as vehicle size/weight go...

All day every day man.. It is true on one way to work its slightly down in elevation most the way.. And of course up hill back.. I live in the high desert of Cali.. It's mountains all around and I have to go over a pass on the way to work.. The fuel mileage computer reads way high close to 30... I do average closer to the 24.. Best have been closer to 28 when I am leaving Cali heading to Texas.. Take it for what ever you think it's worth.. I don't see the reason I need to lie or exaggerate on a forum.. And as far as I know it's a bone stock truck.. It's been into dodge for its maintenance and a couple reflashes, but I don't think any. Of that would dramatically up fuel mileage

Huh? Getting 70 miles out of a gallon of fuel is the same thing regardless of the energy content of the fuel. 70 miles is 70 miles and one gallon is one gallon. It doesn't matter which fuel you're talking about.

"So you mean it won't get 47mpg averaging 85mph uphill? Ford lied, f***ing liars."

Yeah, w/e. I hate the media for this and many other reasons, they'll take anyone they want and demonize them for whatever reason they feel would make people pay attention.

Hybrids are fine, they get roughly the mileage posted. You just need to drive them with some semblance of sanity.

Diesels are incredibly fuel efficient, and in a decent number of cases more so than hybrids. Diesels burn 5 times less fuel idling than petrol vehicles so while they may not be better around town than hybrids they're still better than regular petrol. The variance we see between the godlike numbers they get in Europe and the fairly good numbers we see here are emission based. Safety and emission standards in the states are strict, no one should have to tell anyone that lives here that.

Petrol vehicles are still far from "reaching their max" until volumetric efficiency is 100%, without the use of forced induction there will ALWAYS be innovations to be had.


Hybrids are great, Diesels are great AND torquey, Petrol vehicles are great you just need to drive like you've got a brain.

One of the reasons for high MPG figures from Europe is that we get them from the UK. The UK uses a larger gallon than the US (160floz vs 128floz) so any figures from them are 20% higher.

-Justin

How are they strict?
I consider the US to be far behind (maybe not California)..

In EU most new diesel cars/engines have emissions of roughly
110g CO2 per km
and NOx in the range of 110-150mg per km.

Petrol:
125g CO2 per km
about 30mg NOx per km.

In 2020 the goal is to get CO2 down to an average of 85g CO2 per km. (not sure about NOx)
85g CO2 per km is 3,66l per km (gasoline) which is 65 US mpg.

I think we will see a little shift more towards petrol engines again. Diesel engines have had much better torque and quite lower CO2 emissions. But now there are so many turbo petrol engines that some of the benefits with diesel are lost.
Ive never been a fan of diesel, and considering how good turbo petrol engines are the choice is quite easy for me considering a petrol engine have many benefits.

Comparing fuel economy between different fuels using only volume(gallons) is tricky. Diesel has more energy content per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has less energy per gallon. Plus they don't cost the same.

I use this chart. Diesel #2 has 11% more energy (BTU British Thermal Units) per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has 41% less energy.

Plus diesel gets a pass on NOX emissions. Balance that by requiring catalysts that convert NOX and CO to CO2, and they lose some more of their advantages, both from engine efficiency (the catalyst obstruction) and the fact that they end up making more CO2 from the catalyst.

In America, Clean diesels are required to emit .07g per mile of NOx

The current standard in Europe is .29g per mile. That's just over four times as much, in 2014 they're reducing that figure to .13g per mile which is still twice as much.

Actually, just a bit off topic. You know what I find hilarious, here in 'Murika we're 4% of the worlds population (rough figure) and generate 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions. Like a baws

As long as we're all buying liquid fuels and the unit of measure is gallons, that's what we're gonna stick with.

Premium and regular gas don't cost the same either. But that's not a problem since nobody is talking about measuring fuel economy in miles per dollar, or, for that matter, in btus per gallon. Compensating for the potential energy of different fuels will only make sense if every engine converted its fuel to mechanical energy with a constant efficiency, which is not the case with internal combustion engines.

So, miles per gallon it is. And when we find a solid, gaseous or electric fuel source, we'll convert that sh*t to miles per gallon too.

-Justin

The price of progress.