|
|
|
|
 |
CarGuyLee
 |
|
Hondarulez wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
TonyE wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
To me the real story is....the Passat rated so much less than the others managed to get the same MPG... The other 3 cars have all this new hyped efficent tech and yet the passat finished the same as them. I haven't driven one of the 1.6 Ecoboost, but don't remember C & D saying anything overly negitive about it....it's been a few days since I read it in the paper mag.
And while there was a big fuss about the Accord getting 'similar MPG' than the Altima, it managed to get 1mpg better.
|
As I've said often, ultimately, it's mainly down to how much weight the engine has to move when you are driving hard.
All of these engine downsizing, direct injection, start-stop, and other technologies are mainly useful when you are driving normally. I mean, the engine won't stop itself when you are gunning it the whole time. Direct injection enables ultra lean burn mode in low load. When you are going full throttle, that's high load, not low load. Engine downsizing with turbocharger might work in theory and in EPA test cycles, but once you drive aggressively, the turbocharger will start working by drawing more air and thus burning more fuel like a larger engine.
These are some of the reasons all of these cars have almost the same observed mpg.
|
Yes and the most inefficent in terms of EPA#'s by a good margin.... The Passat had the same MPG as the the offerings of Nissan and Honda
|
JeffX
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
TonyE wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
To me the real story is....the Passat rated so much less than the others managed to get the same MPG... The other 3 cars have all this new hyped efficent tech and yet the passat finished the same as them. I haven't driven one of the 1.6 Ecoboost, but don't remember C & D saying anything overly negitive about it....it's been a few days since I read it in the paper mag.
And while there was a big fuss about the Accord getting 'similar MPG' than the Altima, it managed to get 1mpg better.
|
As I've said often, ultimately, it's mainly down to how much weight the engine has to move when you are driving hard.
All of these engine downsizing, direct injection, start-stop, and other technologies are mainly useful when you are driving normally. I mean, the engine won't stop itself when you are gunning it the whole time. Direct injection enables ultra lean burn mode in low load. When you are going full throttle, that's high load, not low load. Engine downsizing with turbocharger might work in theory and in EPA test cycles, but once you drive aggressively, the turbocharger will start working by drawing more air and thus burning more fuel like a larger engine.
These are some of the reasons all of these cars have almost the same observed mpg.
|
Yes and the most inefficent in terms of EPA#'s by a good margin.... The Passat had the same MPG as the the offerings of Nissan and Honda
|
I'm not sure why you're surprised by this or even pointing it out. Clearly the cars were driven quite hard during this test to get to the "observed" fuel economy numbers. Under those conditions, I would expect the least powerful and slowest vehicle to at least perform "on par" with, if not better than its more powerful and faster competitors (in terms of fuel economy). The Passat is the least powerful car of the 3 and delivers considerably less performance (more than 1 second slower to 60mph compared to the Accord and Altima). Less performance and less power generally means there's less work being done and less fuel being used.
Last edited by JeffX on 10-10-2012 19:53
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Jeff wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
TonyE wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
To me the real story is....the Passat rated so much less than the others managed to get the same MPG... The other 3 cars have all this new hyped efficent tech and yet the passat finished the same as them. I haven't driven one of the 1.6 Ecoboost, but don't remember C & D saying anything overly negitive about it....it's been a few days since I read it in the paper mag.
And while there was a big fuss about the Accord getting 'similar MPG' than the Altima, it managed to get 1mpg better.
|
As I've said often, ultimately, it's mainly down to how much weight the engine has to move when you are driving hard.
All of these engine downsizing, direct injection, start-stop, and other technologies are mainly useful when you are driving normally. I mean, the engine won't stop itself when you are gunning it the whole time. Direct injection enables ultra lean burn mode in low load. When you are going full throttle, that's high load, not low load. Engine downsizing with turbocharger might work in theory and in EPA test cycles, but once you drive aggressively, the turbocharger will start working by drawing more air and thus burning more fuel like a larger engine.
These are some of the reasons all of these cars have almost the same observed mpg.
|
Yes and the most inefficent in terms of EPA#'s by a good margin.... The Passat had the same MPG as the the offerings of Nissan and Honda
|
I'm not sure why you're surprised by this or even pointing it out. Clearly the cars were driven quite hard during this test to get to the "observed" fuel economy numbers. Under those conditions, I would expect the least powerful and slowest vehicle to at least perform "on par" with, if not better than its more powerful and faster competitors. The Passat is the least powerful car of the 3 and delivers considerably less performance (more than 1 second slower to 60mph compared to the Accord and Altima). Less performance and less power generally means there's less work being done and less fuel being used.
|
+1.
CarGuyLee, another way to think of it is that, when the Passat is driven at 100%, it's equivalent to like 80% of the Accord and Altima. The one second difference is huge.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
TonyE wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
To me the real story is....the Passat rated so much less than the others managed to get the same MPG... The other 3 cars have all this new hyped efficent tech and yet the passat finished the same as them. I haven't driven one of the 1.6 Ecoboost, but don't remember C & D saying anything overly negitive about it....it's been a few days since I read it in the paper mag.
And while there was a big fuss about the Accord getting 'similar MPG' than the Altima, it managed to get 1mpg better.
|
As I've said often, ultimately, it's mainly down to how much weight the engine has to move when you are driving hard.
All of these engine downsizing, direct injection, start-stop, and other technologies are mainly useful when you are driving normally. I mean, the engine won't stop itself when you are gunning it the whole time. Direct injection enables ultra lean burn mode in low load. When you are going full throttle, that's high load, not low load. Engine downsizing with turbocharger might work in theory and in EPA test cycles, but once you drive aggressively, the turbocharger will start working by drawing more air and thus burning more fuel like a larger engine.
These are some of the reasons all of these cars have almost the same observed mpg.
|
Yes and the most inefficent in terms of EPA#'s by a good margin.... The Passat had the same MPG as the the offerings of Nissan and Honda
|
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Least performance with similar fuel economy? How exactly is that great?
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
|
As long as everyone remembers this the next time some car mag reviews a car and it doesn't get the best MPG....suprise they don't drive them for fuel sipping
|
talon95
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
As long as everyone remembers this the next time some car mag reviews a car and it doesn't get the best MPG....suprise they don't drive them for fuel sipping
|
We all get that. Really, we do. Auto testers don't drive the cars that they're testing for fuel sipping. We all knew that long before this thread started and we all still know it. That's a constant across all auto testing. What YOU don't seem to get is that, since "not driving for fuel sipping" is a constant, it doesn't explain why the average mpg result in the current test was 6 - 7 mpg less across the board when compared to their test of a similar group of mid-sized sedans from last March, when those results should have been at least in the same ballpark. Which is the basis for all of the questions about the unusually low mpg figures in the latest test. Nobody is having a fanboy reaction of "unfair", since all 4 cars got similarly low figures, so none of them had either an advantage or a disadvantage regarding the mpg scores.
For the record, C&D attributed the atypically low mpg figures to extremely hot weather and lots of idling.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Yea, in this test, they seem to have driven the cars pretty hard. In another C&D test, the observed mpg are more...."normal."
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2010-acura-tsx-v6-vs-2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo-2010-volkswagen-cc-20t-r-line-comparison-test
TSX V6: 28mpg
Passat CC 2.0: 29mpg
Regal CXL Turbo: 27mpg
We normally don't care much about the observed mpg if it's only a road test for one car. But when it's a comparison test with multiple cars, you can more or less compare real-world mpg numbers between them since they are all tested in the same condition, with the same group of drivers, and at around the same time.
|
6SPDTL
|
|
|
Consumer reports also has given a glowing first impression.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Article posted to C&D website: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2013-ford-fusion-se-ecoboost-vs-2013-honda-accord-ex-2013-nissan-altima-25-sv-2012-volkswagen-passat-25-se-comparison-test
Honda did a great job designing a very functional and high quality Accord. As a complete system, the 9G Accord does seem to be a step above the competition.
It's nice to finally see what Obsidian Blue looks like in real life photographs. The color pops out a lot more than the CGI renderings on Honda's website suggest.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
+1 atomic.| We’ve got exciting news: Honda wants to be Honda again. |
Thanks for the post.
Malcolm
:)
|
Waldo
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
It's nice to finally see what Obsidian Blue looks like in real life photographs. The color pops out a lot more than the CGI renderings on Honda's website suggest.
|
It's a very nice dark blue, and very similar to last year's Royal Blue. I saw both a 2012 and 2013 parked side by side, and there was slightly less red in the Obsidian, making it a little less purple looking. This was mostly noticeable in the sunlight. When some clouds came over, it was almost impossible to tell the difference.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
