2013 Ford Fusion 1.6L EB mileage data point

[DriveHard]

Just wanted to post some quick impressions and data point for a 2013 Ford Fusion I just rented for a long road trip.

Car: 2013 Fusion 1.6L ecoboost 6 speed with ~46,000 miles and ~79% on the OLM when I left
Length of trip: ~2400 miles (Iowa to Georgia and back) in 3 days
Number of stops: 3 stops each direction
Mileage: 28.9 mpg
Hwy Rating EPA: 37 mpg
% difference: ~22% lower than rated
Driving Style: Set cruise at 3-4 over speed limit and forget it
99.9+% of the drive was Hwy

I have to say I was VERY disappointed with the mileage I got on the drive. The whole reason I rented this car with the intention that I could make up the cost of the rental in the gas savings over my wife's BMW...and sadly it fell very short. I can average 27 mpg in my wife's 4 wheel drive SUV under similar conditions.

There was light head winds, tail winds, and side winds. Temps were from 30 degrees to 65+ during the trip. No outstanding circumstances that should have caused poor mileage. The car was loaded with just my daughter and myself (this was a college visit) and one carry on sized bag each. I never ran the A/C and only ran the defrost for a handful of times in the morning or when driving through light drizzle.

Very Sad :-(

Other comments:
Worst shifting auto transmission I have ever experienced - would slam hard into 5th gear when downshifting from 6th even under light loads.

Ford dash - just like a Ford Taurus I drove recently, I can't reach anything - everything seems so far away.

Ford Connect - worked fine for the first half of the trip - on the way back it stopped recognizing that my iphone was plugged into it, and would no longer play anything.

Suspension - decent but too soft for my liking

I was really thinking on my last drive with it this morning. I used to own a 2002 Nissan Sentra SER Spec-V with a 2.5L NA engine in it. The torque of the ecoboost really reminded me of my old Nissan and its large 2.5L. Very similar feel and low 6000 rpm redline...and almost the exact same mileage. The Nissan was NA, and not direct injected. I think I would prefer the "old tech" Nissan over the new Ford Ecoboost.

 

[pbm]

This reminds me of my recently traded-in Chevy Cruze....a nice highway cruiser but the MPGs were not much better than my old Buick Century 6 cylinder.

Sometimes old technology is better...

 

[aa1986]

Not good.

Did you check the tire pressure?

 

[KrisZ]

Small engine + turbo + big car = most operation is in boost = poor gas mileage.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Your name probably says it all. It's eco *OR* boost. If you have your foot in it, it's going to get lousy mileage.

I have no problem getting 30,31,32 MPG out of my parent's 2013 Escape 2.0L AWD on the highway.

 

[DriveHard]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Your name probably says it all. It's eco *OR* boost. If you have your foot in it, it's going to get lousy mileage.

I have no problem getting 30,31,32 MPG out of my parent's 2013 Escape 2.0L AWD on the highway.


Guess you missed the part where I said I set the cruise at 3 - 4 miles per hour over the limit and let the computer keep the speed.

My "foot" had nothing to do with it. When I had to slow down or speed up, I used the cruise control buttons.

 

[Cujet]

I am able to "eek" out a few more MPG's than you with the Ecoboost fusion's I rent. However, I drive them at EXACTLY the speed limit, as my job requires that.

Also, they will get better MPG's with Premium fuel. And, of course, if you find fuel with zero ethanol, you will get a few percent better MPG's.

I like driving them, but you really must have a "hyper-milers" light touch on the throttle to achieve anywhere near rated MPG's.

 

[99Saturn]

Originally Posted By: pbm
This reminds me of my recently traded-in Chevy Cruze....a nice highway cruiser but the MPGs were not much better than my old Buick Century 6 cylinder.

Sometimes old technology is better...

What MPG were you getting with your Cruze?

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I am able to "eek" out a few more MPG's than you with the Ecoboost fusion's I rent. However, I drive them at EXACTLY the speed limit, as my job requires that.

Also, they will get better MPG's with Premium fuel. And, of course, if you find fuel with zero ethanol, you will get a few percent better MPG's.

I like driving them, but you really must have a "hyper-milers" light touch on the throttle to achieve anywhere near rated MPG's.


I'm interested to see how it does when I take another trip in the Escape. Finally got my parents to switch to premium. With the 20% increase they saw in daily driving from switching to 91, I bet mid 30s will be easy for me!



Originally Posted By: DriveHard
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Your name probably says it all. It's eco *OR* boost. If you have your foot in it, it's going to get lousy mileage.

I have no problem getting 30,31,32 MPG out of my parent's 2013 Escape 2.0L AWD on the highway.


Guess you missed the part where I said I set the cruise at 3 - 4 miles per hour over the limit and let the computer keep the speed.

My "foot" had nothing to do with it. When I had to slow down or speed up, I used the cruise control buttons.


Ah, cruise control. Slightest hill? It's going to open the throttle as much as necessary to keep speed. Accelerating with the buttons? Same thing ...

 

[MNgopher]

We have a fleet (about 20) of the 2013 Fusions at work, though they are the 2.5L version. Our units in fleet usage (mixed driving, and usually lower mpg than one would expect) are averaging 28 mpg. In highway runs, the mileage is usually somewhere north of 32 mpg.

We have found the on screen mpg's to be incorrect and lower than what we actually find with pumped gas records and mileage. No idea why, but we've seen it across the fleet...

Have not had any reports of the harsh downshifting though. A few other minor issues, but generally been good vehicles.

 

[simple_gifts]

That is disappointing considering all the new bits under the hood.

 

[Nick1994]

28.9 mpg is sad. I drove my 97' Camry with 197,000 miles on a 3,000 mile trip in the mountains up to Montana last summer, cruise control at 80 mph and it was wide open throttle for a lot of the time up hills and averaged about 33 mpg.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
28.9 mpg is sad. I drove my 97' Camry with 197,000 miles on a 3,000 mile trip in the mountains up to Montana last summer, cruise control at 80 mph and it was wide open throttle for a lot of the time up hills and averaged about 33 mpg.


I get 34-37MPG in the 2015 forester at 55mph 31-32@65mph, 30@70, 28@75

under ideal conditions.

A side wind totally kills MPG as well. Thats with the oem yokos

With the blizzacks in the winter its much lower

23mpg around town, 27-28@65 26@70mph
averaging about 24mpg but I have many short trips of 1mile.

 

[DriveHard]

Originally Posted By: aa1986
Not good.

Did you check the tire pressure?


I did not. It did have TPMS though. It also had what appeared to be brand new Goodyear Eagle Sports. The tires were very quiet, and rode nice.

 

[Danh]

All anecdotal experience, of course, but this pretty much matches my experience with a 2.0 Fusion EcoBoost Fusion rental: several hundred miles of 75 mph interstate cruising with flat roads and little wind yielded about 25 mpg. Or about the same as my departed '99 Acura 3.2 TL which had a 4 speed automatic instead of a 6 speed, no direct injection, no turbocharging, etc. Makes you wonder...

 

[racer12306]

I just drove a Fusion Ecoboost last week. Started my trip in Cleveland, worked down to Columbus, then Dayton, then Cincy and filled up. I never trust the first tank as it's "full" from the rental facility.

However the second tank impressed me. I drove with cruise all the time and I regularly use the accel and decel buttons instead of my foot. I returned 34.5 calculated MPG from this trip:

http://goo.gl/maps/xocYr

This includes speed no more than +5mph of the limit.

 

[ford46guy]

My 98 MGM can get in the high 20s (it is geared with 2.79) on such a highway trip with cruise set under 60. It also has 150K. I think the MGM is rated 25 hgy. That is not remarkable at all for a 4cyl. Emissions don't always translate into economy BTW. The newer cars could be tuned more toward very low emissions, that is why older cars could actually get better mileage.

 

[gregk24]

That's sad. On a recent trip I averaged 36 MPG in my 2.4 Accord with a 5 speed auto, AC on 80% of the time, with 5 people and luggage for 5 people. Average speed was 80 mph with some 85 mph driving as well. Not impressed with your posted MPG. I recently rode in a new Fusion and also noticed how clunky and UN refined the transmission felt.

 

[sciphi]

Not surprised. It's 0.2 liters bigger than the turbo engine in my Cruze, yet hauling around ~700 lbs more car. A poorly programmed automatic will also wreck fuel economy. Lastly, despite the manufacturer recommendations, regular unleaded isn't the ideal fuel for these small and highly strung turbo engines. It won't knock itself to death on 87 thanks to aggressive knock algorithms and running pig-rich. Filling up with 91/93 likely would have yielded better results, enough to make the cost per mile cheaper.

 

[hattaresguy]

A little motor has to work hard to push that big car.


All the 1.6 is is a cheater CAFE motor. If you drive like an 80 year old grandmother and stay out of boost it would do OK, but no one does that.