2010 Ford Fusion 4-banger scores best-in-class 23/34 mpg!
Click above for high-res image gallery of the 2010 Ford Fusion
When we drove the thoroughly refreshed Fusion out in California after the LA Auto Show, it proved to be a thoroughly enjoyable ride. It now turns out that the Fusion is not only fun to drive, but also fuel efficient in forms other than the new Fusion Hybrid. The EPA has just finished crunching the numbers on fuel consumption for the four-cylinder Fusion and Mercury Milan, and the results are good. Very good. The 2.5L four-cylinder with new six-speed automatic is rated at 23 mpg city and 34 mpg on the highway. By comparison, the 2009 2.3L Fusion was rated at just 20/28 mpg.
Those numbers are good enough to beat out every other four-cylinder mid-size sedan sold in the U.S. Compared to offerings from Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Chevrolet and Hyundai, it beats the the Altima's 23 mpg city mileage and the Malibu's 33 mpg highway number.
Related:
Gallery: First Drive: 2010 Ford Fusion Sport
Gallery: First Drive: 2010 Ford Fusion SEL
Photos Copyright ©2008 Drew Phillips / Weblogs, Inc.
FORD FUSION TOPS TOYOTA CAMRY, HONDA ACCORD AGAIN WITH BEST-IN-CLASS 34 MPG 4-CYLINDER MODEL
DETROIT, Jan. 9, 2009 – The Ford Fusion is now America's most fuel efficient mid-size sedan for both hybrid and conventional gasoline models.
Ford announced today that new four-cylinder Ford Fusion S has been certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 34 mpg on the highway and 23 mpg in the city – beating both the gasoline-powered Camry and Honda Accord models. The news follows certification of the Ford Fusion Hybrid at 41 mpg rating in the city and 36 mpg on the highway, topping the Toyota Camry hybrid by 8 mpg in the city and 2 mpg on the highway.
"Take your pick: Whether you want a gas-powered or hybrid mid-sized sedan, the new Fusion offers the best fuel economy in America," said Barb Samardzich, Ford's vice president of Powertrain Engineering. "We promised to offer best-in-class or among the very best fuel economy with every new vehicle we introduce, and we are making good on that pledge with hybrids, new high-tech gasoline engines, new six-speed transmissions and other fuel efficient technologies."
The 2010 Ford Fusion fuel economy certification was conducted at Ford's testing laboratories in Allen Park, Mich. The Ford Fusion S and the base-level Mercury Milan, both powered by a new 2.5-liter Duratec 4-cylinder engine mated to a fuel efficient six-speed automatic transmission, will carry an EPA label of 34 mpg for highway driving and 23 mpg in the city when they go on sale this spring.
The latest news on Fusion joins other Ford fuel economy leaders, including:
The Ford Focus with 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine and manual transmission delivers 35 mpg on the highway, 5 mpg better than the Toyota Corolla's 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine and 2 mpg better than the Honda Fit's 1.5-liter 4-cylinder engine, both also with manual transmissions.
The all-new 2009 Ford F-150 – which just recently was named Motor Trend magazine's Truck of the Year – achieves 3 mpg more than the Toyota Tundra pickup on the highway and 1 mpg better in the city with its 4.6-liter V-8 engine, compared to Toyota's 4.7-liter V-8. The F-150's larger 5.4-liter V-8 achieves 2 mpg better on the highway than the Tundra's larger engine.
The 2009 Ford Escape with new 2.5-liter 4-cylinder engine achieves 28 mpg on the highway, the same as Toyota's RAV4 and 1 mpg better than the Honda CR-V, both with 4-cylinder engines, too.
The Ford Expedition achieves 20 mpg on the highway, beating Toyota Sequoia's 4.7-liter V-8 engine by 3 mpg and its 5.7-liter V-8 by 1 mpg.
"We've done it in the heart of the truck segment with the new 2010 Ford F-150, and now we've done it in the heart of the car segment with Fusion," Samardzich said. "We understand how important fuel economy is to customers, and Ford is committed to delivering leadership. The great news is that our significant investment in fuel efficiency leadership is going to continue to pay off with every new vehicle launch."
Fuel Economy Leadership Priced Right
Ford has announced pricing for the new 2010 Fusion. The fuel-economy leading Fusion S with the six-speed automatic transmission features a base price of $20,870, plus destination and delivery charges.
Fusion also offers more engine choice than Camry and Accord, with two V-6 engine options – the 240-horsepower 3.0-liter flex-fuel V-6 and the 263-horsepower 3.5-liter Duratec V-6 engine. The 3.0-liter V-6 models start at $23,760.
The base price of the all-new Ford Fusion Hybrid is $27,270.
The new Fusion builds on the strong quality reputation of the current model, which has gained important third-party accolades, and will offer class-exclusive features, including Ford SYNC®, SIRIUS TravelLink™, BLIS™ (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross Traffic Alert and Sony®-branded audio.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Kotse 2:10PM (1/09/2009)
"2010 Ford Fusion 4-banger scores best-in-class 23/34 mpg!"
Excellent!!!
Reply
Conundrum 3:30PM (1/09/2009)
Domestic manufacturers with the number one (Fusion) and number two (Aura/Malibu) mid-size sedans for highway economy.
Domestic manufacturers with some phenomenal quality ratings: Fusion better than Camry per Consumer reports and Malibu best initial quality per JD Power.
WHAT'S THIS WORLD COMING TO?
Randy 4:43PM (1/09/2009)
Awesome! Keep up the good job Ford!
Ford is on a roll of success! This is just awesome!
Blackstar 7:03PM (1/09/2009)
Nothing against any particular car company, but I don't see how 34 mpg is anything to write home about. While this maybe special for Ford or this particular Ford model, the Honda CRX's from the 80's were getting 50 mpg+ on a regular basis and many models were getting 60-80 mpg. Now that is special, even by todays standards.
So until car companies seriously start looking to increase the real mpg number of cars and not just keep the status quo for fuel corporations, 30+ mpg is really nothing fantastic.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm?postversion=2007121916
Brn 8:18PM (1/09/2009)
Blackstar, stop making up numbers. According to the EPA, the 1.3L , manual, Honda Civic got 32/38. That's pretty good, even for a tiny, light weight, death trap, but it's no where near the numbers you claim.
Matt 9:05PM (1/09/2009)
The most common complaint about this car is the grill so I messed with some things in gimp/photoshop and made this.
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z173/matthoffman22/fusion_comparo.jpg.
Toledo Guy 10:10PM (1/09/2009)
Blackstar -
You are not comparing apples. Yes there were models of the CRX that got great mileage. But they were built under different rules. Your friends in the federal government have added a lot of weight to the average car. Airbags, side impact beams, newer pollution control, rollover protection, tire pressure monitors, etc, etc, etc. It all adds weight, which reduces efficiency despite gains in engine and transmission efficiency.
Blackstar 10:33AM (1/10/2009)
@ Brn
Lol, I'm not making anything up. Right there is black and white. "The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving." Even accounting for the scale change from their requirements to now, that's still only down to 51 mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml
http://hi-mpg.org/gas-mileage.php?vehicle=honda_crx_hf88
One owner's numbers on a '91:
"I bought this car new in 1991 at a cost of $9,500. It has A/C, 5 speed manual and not much else. The CRX HF has a 10.5 gallon tank and gets over 550 miles on a tank; the most efficient car I have ever owned. - 52 mpg"
One guy got almost 61 with his without even trying:
"I just bought a trashed "85 CRX HF. A new waterpump and timing belt and I was brave enough to take it on a 130 mile trip. I recorded 60.48 miles per gallon while pasing other cars at up to 80 mph and driving with the window down for some time. Now if I really tried, I think I could record serious fuel efficency. I like this thing so much I may even make it a look nice. The thing has about 200,000 miles and is showing its age."
And several car owners were able to achieve far better; through good driving behavior or simple modifications or both. Being such a light no frills car gave it a great advantage in efficiency.
Looking for the heavy modder that got 80 but I could only find a fourm replay from someone else who say the same listing as I did:
"Here are some >60mpg testimonials :) there are others... but you get the idea...
I also read some post by this lunatic on usenet awhile back...who had a CRX HF...however, he had performed some tweaks..and was making claims about mileage...perhaps it was 80mpg or so...but he had changed the tires to something taller and perhaps even narrower(if possible?) to make the gearing even taller and reduce rolling resistance .. and he had a special driving technique ... from what he was saying, his modified HF and methods for driving definately made for a miser's dream come true... however, I dont remember the specific mods he did...."
Oh, and every car is a death trap. Only takes a single person to die in one to make it so.
@Toledo Guy
I see what you are saying, and that's my point. Until they can balance the safety and emission requirements of today or achieve the same requirements with lighter materials to get better numbers than what was does before, 32 mpg is still not that impressive to me; it's just average for a car class. Especially considering over the life of the car that 32 number is going to drop rapidly and is not indicative of real world conditions over the life of the car, the same way like the ones I posted above are with cars still running today.
From the article I posted:
"And despite that all-impressive number, CNN says today's Civic is still efficient. Although the current Civic weighs 2,600 pounds, it has 140 horsepower to lug that weight around. When the numbers are crunched, it carries around 12 pounds per horsepower less than the CRX did."
So until car manufactures can improve on that through design and better use of stronger, lighter and cheaper to produce materials, and couple them with better more efficient engine and body designs they are not going to gain the greatly needed high fuel efficiency. And I'm sorry, but I don't think being thrilled at 32 mpg, is the best way to go about changing it. In the age where 5 mpg SUV's the size of living rooms are the norm, this may seem special, but not compared to what was not too long ago.
Blackstar is Dumb 1:57PM (1/10/2009)
Blackstar,
You are comparing a two seat deathtrap with a soon to be top safety pick that can transport 4-5 people comfortably and provide ample trunk space.
That's like seeing a moped get 120 mpg and complaining because a heavier, safer, more powerful, and more desirable Honda Goldwing with ABS and Air Bags can't get the same.
That car was efficient for two reasons. It didn't weigh anything and it had a tiny pathetic engine. Fine for around town, but a slug on the freeway, and dances around with the slightest breeze.
Go ahead and drive one. Just tell me how it feels when some oblivious house wife is on top of you in her Tahoe. No comparison.
It offends me that you get the right to vote.
Compare Apples to Apples
Blackstar 9:42PM (1/10/2009)
@ Childish Boy
(sigh)
Since reading comprehension is not a skill you seem to possess but sophomoric behavior is, let me reiterate.
Nowhere was I directly comparing the the Ford car or the company. In fact in my first post I said so. The only cars I did directly compare were the new Civic and the old CRX. And the CRX was simply an example of what was achievable in mpg numbers back then, not a make and model to equate too. Brn then took issue with my numbers and I sited my sources.
So even comparing this particular Ford to todays exact same models in the exact same class (mid-sized sedans), here is what you get:
2008/2009 Mid-Sized Sedans
Dodge Avenger SE model 2.4-liter, 4-cylinder; 173 hp • MPG: 21 city/30 hwy
Nissan Altima 2.5-liter I4, 175 hp • MPG: 23 city/32 hwy
Chevrolet Malibu Ecotec 2.4-liter 4-cylinder • MPG: 22 city/32 hwy
Honda Accord 2.4-liter, 16-valve DOHC i-VTEC 4-cylinder; 177 hp • MPG: 22 city/31 hwy
Toyota Camry 2.4-liter I4, 158 hp • MPG: 21 city/31 hwy
Toyota Camry Hybrid model 2.4-liter 4-cylinder, 147 hp • MPG: 33 city/34 hwy
Volkswagen Passat 2.0-liter turbo-4, 200 hp • MPG: 23 city/32 hwy
Nissan Altima Hybrid 2.5-liter DOHC, 158 hp • MPG: 35 city, 33 hwy
2009 Hyundai Sonata 2.4-liter inline-four-cylinder, 175 hp • MPG: 22 city/32 hwy
2008 Chevrolet Malibu 2.4-liter inline-four, 164 hp • MPG: 22 city/32 hwy
All between 140 - 200 hp
All between 2.0 and 2.5 liters
All between 21-35 city / 30-34 hwy
Now before you and the Ford fanboys get their collective panties in a bunch let me clarify by saying Ford's new numbers here (assuming they are accurate in real world conditions) are by no means bad. They are however average, run of the mill, boilerplate, standard, normal, typical, regular. Ford (and every other manufacturer) is in serious financial trouble and this 'baby-step' improvement is simply to highlight some/any difference in the minds of potential car buyers to pick Ford. That's it.
I have no doubt those same MPG results can be achieved by any of these other cars by not driving around with extra junk, keep it tuned and not using a lead foot. MPG numbers are far more impacted by the way one drives. So, while you personally are impressed by a 2 mpg difference over the competition in a Ford press released, I am not. If they had gotten somewhere between 38 and 42 on regular gasoline, I might have been.
You like Apples? How do you like them Apples?
Ken Stamper 2:10PM (1/09/2009)
Cars like this make me feel a little better about the bailout.
Reply
Tony K 2:24PM (1/09/2009)
Yes, nice car; however, Ford isn't part of the bailout... Seeing this car makes me want to take away Chrysler's bailout money even more.
Jerk Face 2:35PM (1/09/2009)
My thoughts exactly Tony. There is something to be said about Ford having the foresight to do things right BEFORE the economy crapped out. Now they're coming out ahead. Good for them!
GM is catching up, but Chrystler? They're doing it wrong.
Jerk Face 2:36PM (1/09/2009)
There's no T in Chrysler! What a Jerk Face.
Starnerf 2:42PM (1/09/2009)
They may end up needing a savior.
falcon5768 3:06PM (1/09/2009)
No "JerkFace" GM isnt catching up, they WHERE up there. The Malibu and Aura both have gotten 33 for a couple years now, its the media and congressional hacks who want you to think they where doing terrible in the MPG race.
My Cobalt got over 35mpg BEFORE they made that special XFE version or whatever its called.
The Japanese manufacturers are getting a free pass from people, their cars on the other hand have slowly gone significantly downhill on all but the BASE model, while the Americans have been doing much better even with their more powerful plant models.
tankd0g 3:16AM (1/10/2009)
All that matters to the government is fleet averages, and if you are still selling mostly trucks and big cars, your average is going to suck. So the Japanese are not getting a "free" pass, they are doing better. However they are only doing so because they leave the sometimes necessary gas guzzler building up to the Americans.
Matt 2:12PM (1/09/2009)
Still a butt ugly car. Clearly the 4th graders designing it didn't consult with each other.
That being said, can you get AWD with the 4-banger? If not...why? That would be a really stupid way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Reply
RSR 2:16PM (1/09/2009)
How is no AWD with the 4-cylinder engine stupid? AWD adds typically around 200 lbs, taxing small engines. I can't think of any other AWD mid size sedan with 4-cylinder engine. Help me if I am missing something.
Ken Stamper 2:21PM (1/09/2009)
Looks are in the eye of the beholder, but I think it's pretty handsome, although the grille is too big for my taste.
As for the AWD and four cylinder... I think the market for such a car would be, to put it mildly, really small given the performance penalty of AWD with a low-torque engine. Other than Subaru buyers, I don't think a lot of people are clamoring for such a car.