DarkeRetribution Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 2012 FORD FUSION Non-Hybrid MPG = 23/33 (taken directly from Ford website) Hybrid MPG = 41/36 (taken directly from Ford website) Non-Hybrid Tank Size = 17.5 Gallons (official source) Hybrid Tank Size = 17 Gallons (official source) This means at 23 mpg and a 17.5 gallon tank 2012 Ford Fusion can (at best) expect a return of 402.5 miles between fill ups. This means at 41 mpg and a 17 gallon tank 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid can (at best) expect a return of 697 miles between fill ups. 2013 FORD FUSION Non-Hybrid MPG (top tier titanium version) = 23/33 (revealed at Detroit Auto Show) Hybrid MPG = 47/44 (revealed at Detroit Auto Show) Non-Hybrid Tank Size = 16.5 Gallons (official source) Hybrid Tank Size = 14 Gallons (official source) This means at 23 mpg and a 16.5 gallon tank 2013 Ford Fusion can (at best) expect a return of 379.5 miles between fill ups. This means at 47 mpg and a 14 gallon tank 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid can (at best) expect a return of 658 miles between fill ups. Now all this to me seems confusing. Why are the numbers lower? Especially- why are the Hybrid numbers lower? Why would they decrease the tank size by that much? The hybrid version does worse than last years model. I would of expected better- and all because they lowered the fuel capacity by that much! Makes no sense to me. The hybrid version still beats the non-hybrid version by far...but compared to the current 2012 version I am severely disapointed. Let's just hope these official numbers change before the car is released, otherwise Ford won't be totting around the 700 miles advertisement anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogo88 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The 17.65% hit in the gastank took it's toll. Why did they reduce it? Don't know. Maybe they thouhgt anything over 600 miles it a lot. Very few other vehicles do that. Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FusionDiffusion Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't think Ford reduced the tank size to be nefarious. They are switching over to the European body design, so the tank is a little smaller (Europeans don't need big gas tanks because they don't drive long distances through nowhere like Americans do). I'm sure some of the hybrid gas tank was sacrificed for batteries. More batteries equate to better milage. Since milage is practically the #1 issue for new car buyers, Ford probably decided the slight decrease in range would not be noticed or cared about greatly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolder Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think the title of this thread is misleading. The word "Fails" used in this context implies that the 2013 FFH gets less mpg than the 2012 which is not true. The words "Gas Mileage" can be interpreted to mean range but that is not ones first take on the meaning of the thread title. My 2010 FFH Owners guide says the tank capacity is 17.5 gals. If they lowered it to 14, that would save 21 lbs. and a lighter HVB would total about a 50 lb. saving. That is significant in todays designs and a RANGE lowering of 10 % to a mere 611 miles would be acceptable. I'm using calculations that assume 16.5 and 13 gal. ( i gal. remaining ) usage. I can't imagine that would dissuade many buyers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 More importantly - who cares? Fuel tank capacity has nothing whatsoever to do with fuel consumption. And the difference on the hybrid is ONE extra fuel stop PER YEAR. Puh-lease..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeRetribution Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) @ akirby = It would be more than one extra fuel stop per year unless you drive 658 miles a year... And you're right, there is a big difference between fuel tank capacity and fuel consumption. HOWEVER. Ford advertises the current 2012 Ford Fusion (even on their site) as capable of getting 700 miles per tank. THAT can only mean they are doing what I'm doing and going by capacity and not consumption OR their capacity matches consumption (which I highly doubt any vehicle is that efficient)...so in other words... I'm being as realistic as Ford is by saying the new 2013 will get, at best, 658 miles per full tank. I'm sure real world applications such as weather, drivers patterns, driving conditions, etc. take into effect and actual miles per gallon and miles per tank are smaller. I doubt many people would get the full 697 miles with their 2012 but its a high enough number to where they can at least expect somewhere in the high 600s on return. However with the new 2013 you would have to expect really low 600s...and I just feel, personally that that is a step back for hybrids here in America. Maybe in Europe it's not a big deal..but here in America where every car company is trying to inch closer and closer to the Prius' 50mpg and call it a breakthrough every year their numbers increase by 1-3mpg a rise from 41mpg (2012) to 47mpg (2013) looks excellent on the surface...but when you look under those superficial numbers and see the tank size has been reduced greatly that number doesn't really mean much overall as you get lower ranger in all. It's simple. Edited February 20, 2012 by DarkeRetribution 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeRetribution Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Oh and I'm going to be first in line for the 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid regardless. Forgot to mention that. I'm so anxious I look online for any new articles or videos EVERY DAY.. This is going to be my first car and I'm very excited. This won't detour me from purchasing the car... It's just for someone following the line closely until I'm a proud owner that was a bit of a let down that's all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolder Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Oh and I'm going to be first in line for the 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid regardless. Forgot to mention that. I'm so anxious I look online for any new articles or videos EVERY DAY.. This is going to be my first car and I'm very excited. This won't detour me from purchasing the car... It's just for someone following the line closely until I'm a proud owner that was a bit of a let down that's all. You're having a problem with numbers and concepts. If the range is 10 % less, you will make 10 % more fuel stops. If you make 25 stops with the 2012 FFH, you'll make 27-28 with the 2013. Using the city numbers and 14000 miles per year, the 2012 uses 341 gal, the 2013, 298 gal. That's 43 less gallons or $160. So for at most three more stops, you're saving $ 160 ! Why did they reduce the tank size? Weight ! They haven't released the curb weight of the 2013 yet and that will be interesting. They've reduced the ICE size 20 %, reduced the Cd from .33 to .27, the LI battery probably is 30 % lighter. The Prius is 20 % lighter and less powerful than the 2012 FFH and gets 20 % better mpg. If the 2013 sheds 350 lbs., that's the mpg. gain right there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chingon Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 For the non-hybrid, you used 23/33 mpg - I thought the new best for the non-hybrid (1.0 ecoboost?) was 37mpg highway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 @ akirby = It would be more than one extra fuel stop per year unless you drive 658 miles a year... And you're right, there is a big difference between fuel tank capacity and fuel consumption. HOWEVER. Ford advertises the current 2012 Ford Fusion (even on their site) as capable of getting 700 miles per tank. THAT can only mean they are doing what I'm doing and going by capacity and not consumption OR their capacity matches consumption (which I highly doubt any vehicle is that efficient)...so in other words... I'm being as realistic as Ford is by saying the new 2013 will get, at best, 658 miles per full tank. I'm sure real world applications such as weather, drivers patterns, driving conditions, etc. take into effect and actual miles per gallon and miles per tank are smaller. I doubt many people would get the full 697 miles with their 2012 but its a high enough number to where they can at least expect somewhere in the high 600s on return. However with the new 2013 you would have to expect really low 600s...and I just feel, personally that that is a step back for hybrids here in America. Maybe in Europe it's not a big deal..but here in America where every car company is trying to inch closer and closer to the Prius' 50mpg and call it a breakthrough every year their numbers increase by 1-3mpg a rise from 41mpg (2012) to 47mpg (2013) looks excellent on the surface...but when you look under those superficial numbers and see the tank size has been reduced greatly that number doesn't really mean much overall as you get lower ranger in all. It's simple. At 15k miles per year, you fill up 21 times with the 2012 and you fill up 22 times with the 2013. Over the course of a year you stop one more time. However, that doesn't mean anything. Why are you so obsessed with tank size? The 2013 will still go farther on one gallon of fuel and will use less fuel overall. If you had a choice between a 2012 with a 20 gallon tank or the 2013 - which would you choose? If you said the 2012 then you're really not grasping the concept here. It sounds like you just want to be able to brag that you get 700 miles on a tankful. I say 'who cares'? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CometFlash Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just as an FYI: It's been a few months since I've been at my usual 44.4mpg. Been hovering in the 39.5 to 39.6 range since the winter began. But my 2011 FFH in typical spring-summer-fall driving at 44.4mpg gets a really great range per tank. I want to say it's like 740 miles per tank on my cars screen when I fill up those 9 months of the year. So if you get even better than 44.4mpg in the new 2013, even with a smaller tank, it may still be right about 700 miles per tank or so. At any rate, I'd take the 2013 over the 2011 any day of the week. But since I bought a hybrid with the purpose of saving money to pay off my mortgage, I won't be rushing out to spend tons more to eek out a teenie bit more in fuel savings over the year - it'd take me years upon years to recoup the initial investment (at least with the FFH, perhaps a good deal less time with the PHEV model). But for anyone who doesn't have one yet and needs a car or needs to replace a dying car, the new FFH, especially the new FFH PHEV, looks pretty damn sweet. Imagine what getting 100+MPGe would feel like?! Can't wait to see what Ford does with the new F-150 in the works. That beast needs some MAJOR mpg surgery and I have a feeling Ford's been working overtime to achieve some greatness there too! Just to add to the bragging side: It feels damn good to be sitting in traffic using no fuel while gas hogs around me inch and push their way in & out of traffic. And in the end, many times I still end up passing them by anyways. Many times I wonder if they don't like being behind me becuse it reminds them how much money they're using on fuel compared to me cruising along silently in EV in rush hour traffic. I saved over $1,000 in fuel costs in 2011 compared to 2010 when I had my F-150 Platinum. And that's with the learning curve after buying my FFH. I bet 2012 will be even better now that I've mastered how to eek the best MPG possible out of her. It'll be interesting to hear what people are able to eek out of their 2013's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 .but when you look under those superficial numbers and see the tank size has been reduced greatly that number doesn't really mean much overall as you get lower ranger in all. It's simple. So are you saying the fact that it will cost $9-$15 less to fill the 14 gallon tank on the 2013 vs the 2012 is superficial?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I feel like the European tank size was acceptable to the American dealers and customers since the fuel economy was improved that much (helped in part by the reduction of 18+ pounds of fuel.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisw Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Just as an FYI: It's been a few months since I've been at my usual 44.4mpg. Been hovering in the 39.5 to 39.6 range since the winter began. But my 2011 FFH in typical spring-summer-fall driving at 44.4mpg gets a really great range per tank. I want to say it's like 740 miles per tank on my cars screen when I fill up those 9 months of the year. So if you get even better than 44.4mpg in the new 2013, even with a smaller tank, it may still be right about 700 miles per tank or so. At any rate, I'd take the 2013 over the 2011 any day of the week. But since I bought a hybrid with the purpose of saving money to pay off my mortgage, I won't be rushing out to spend tons more to eek out a teenie bit more in fuel savings over the year - it'd take me years upon years to recoup the initial investment (at least with the FFH, perhaps a good deal less time with the PHEV model). But for anyone who doesn't have one yet and needs a car or needs to replace a dying car, the new FFH, especially the new FFH PHEV, looks pretty damn sweet. Imagine what getting 100+MPGe would feel like?! Can't wait to see what Ford does with the new F-150 in the works. That beast needs some MAJOR mpg surgery and I have a feeling Ford's been working overtime to achieve some greatness there too! There is no reason you can't remain achieving 40's in the winter months I get some of my best mileage in the winter. The A/C uses the battery at a faster rate in somer months than the heater blower turned on low spread does in the winter, and my experience in my FFH the winter gas has not affected my mpg. I totally agree about the feeling rolling along in EV using no gas will others waste their fuel with their heavy foot speeding to go then only to be the same place with me in a few hundred feet while I'm still using no fuel. Just to add to the bragging side: It feels damn good to be sitting in traffic using no fuel while gas hogs around me inch and push their way in & out of traffic. And in the end, many times I still end up passing them by anyways. Many times I wonder if they don't like being behind me becuse it reminds them how much money they're using on fuel compared to me cruising along silently in EV in rush hour traffic. I saved over $1,000 in fuel costs in 2011 compared to 2010 when I had my F-150 Platinum. And that's with the learning curve after buying my FFH. I bet 2012 will be even better now that I've mastered how to eek the best MPG possible out of her. It'll be interesting to hear what people are able to eek out of their 2013's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay2000 Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Hi DarkeRetribution, There have been lots of car ( and truck) buyers that have historically cared a lot about range. I suspect that is not so true of hybrid buyers. MPG rules. One thing you can be sure of, Ford would not have decreased the range if they did not have to. They are saving the weight of the tank, the weight of the gas that a full tank holds, and they probably cannot get the 17 gallon tank to fit into the same space. ( Bigger battery?) Who knows, maybe they are selling the car a little bit cheaper as a result. Well.......maybe not. Jerry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CometFlash Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Who knows, maybe they are selling the car a little bit cheaper as a result. Well.......maybe not. Jerry :P It should be interesting to see what Ford will charge for a fully-loaded '13 FFH compared to the '10-'12 model. I'm especially interested to see what they'll charge for a loaded PHEV model, especially since most people will also need to pony up for a charge station and installation of said station in their garage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_h Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 One thing you can be sure of, Ford would not have decreased the range if they did not have to. They are saving the weight of the tank, the weight of the gas that a full tank holds, and they probably cannot get the 17 gallon tank to fit into the same space. ( Bigger battery?) This is my guess as well, I believe it's probably driven by engineering and that's all they could get space-wise and make it fit alongside the battery, exhaust, suspension, give a little trunk space, etc. As much as the commercials from a couple years ago touted the ability to go 700 miles on a fill-up, I doubt they reduced the tank size and thus nullified the ability to make the same claim without a good reason. ... or maybe they read the long-running sloshing thread on this site and redesigned it just for US. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFHdriver Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 This is my guess as well, I believe it's probably driven by engineering and that's all they could get space-wise and make it fit alongside the battery, exhaust, suspension, give a little trunk space, etc. As much as the commercials from a couple years ago touted the ability to go 700 miles on a fill-up, I doubt they reduced the tank size and thus nullified the ability to make the same claim without a good reason. ... or maybe they read the long-running sloshing thread on this site and redesigned it just for US. It's interesting that only one owner has posted about getting the sloshing fix done. Must not have been as bad a problem for other owners as they said it was or they haven't bothered to post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdii Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sloshing? Whats that? 15K on the clock so far on my 2010 since I got it last September, and the only problem I have had was a bad MAP sensor, most likely plugged up from sitting for a year. Oh, I have a creak in the dash, is that it? I really doubt a decrease in the range will turn buyers away,especially with how freaking cool the 2013 model looks. Now I wish I had waited before buying the one I have(not really, the Sport was out of warranty, and the miles were piling up, miles goes up, value goes down). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.