[Drof]

Understandably, we don't have any first drive reviews or anything yet. But AutoBlog has written an article with remnants of bang for your buck, some comparisons, and just a love for what the Fusion Sport is.

Yes, the Fusion is finally worthy of its Sport badging, thanks to its 2.7-liter, twin-turbocharged V6. That's five more horsepower and 50 more pound-feet than a BMW 340i.

But power isn't the Fusion Sport's only trump card – there's also the price. At just $34,350, it's a staggering performance bargain.

Full Article : 2017 Ford Fusion Sport earns its badge with 380 lb-ft - Autoblog

 

[Bamm1]

Understandably, we don't have any first drive reviews or anything yet. But AutoBlog has written an article with remnants of bang for your buck, some comparisons, and just a love for what the Fusion Sport is.




Full Article : 2017 Ford Fusion Sport earns its badge with 380 lb-ft - Autoblog

This also confirms a good number of items discussed in the fuel economy thread.

• The 325 hp / 380 tq rating requires 93 Octane
  
• This is the first time in a US article I am seeing 17/26 as the fuel

economy rating.

 

[escape]

This also confirms a good number of items discussed in the fuel economy thread.

• The 325 hp / 380 tq rating requires 93 Octane

That's interesting because Ford's own website does not mention the 93 octane requirement to achieve these hp/torque numbers.

For example, for the Mustang, they do specify that 93 octane is required, right next to the engine specs. But for the Fusion, it does not mention this.

 

[escape]

But power isn't the Fusion Sport's only trump card – there's also the price. At just $34,350, it's a staggering performance bargain.

From a pure performance standpoint, the Mustang is an even better bargain - you can get a 435HP V8 Mustang for around $30K.

Granted, it's not as practical as a Fusion if you need to carry passengers or more cargo.

 

[Bamm1]

That's interesting because Ford's own website does not mention the 93 octane requirement to achieve these hp/torque numbers.

For example, for the Mustang, they do specify that 93 octane is required, right next to the engine specs. But for the Fusion, it does not mention this.

Here ya go, directly from Ford:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...ves-owners-of-german-sedans-380-reasons-.html

 

[escape]

Thanks. dissapointing.

 

[Drof]

Here ya go, directly from Ford:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...ves-owners-of-german-sedans-380-reasons-.html

Here's the snippet from that

Peak torque of 380 lb.-ft. from a 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged EcoBoost® engine makes Fusion Sport stouter than established performance sedans like BMW 535i, Audi A6 3.0T and Mercedes-Benz E400. Ford Fusion Sport torque rating is achieved with 93-octane fuel.

 

[Bamm1]

Thanks. dissapointing.

MT is reporting that anything less than 93 Octane and you are back to the original power estimate for the Fusion Sport at 350 ft- lb.

2017 Ford Fusion Sport Packs an Insane 380 Lb-Ft of Torque - Motor Trend

 

[Drof]

I mean... it is a drop, but I don't think it's super bad... at least you can switch between the two. I think it's alright

 

[Brando632]

Thanks. dissapointing.

Jeez, give people the ability to personally choose their priorities between fuel cost and power, and they complain. I like choice. The German sedans used for comparisons here recommend premium fuel, to be fair. Having this choice is becoming more common. Hyundai says you get 10 more horsepower off premium in the 2.0 turbo. Mazda published two different power ratings for the new 2.5 turbo in the CX9, also dependent on octane.

 

[Bamm1]

Jeez, give people the ability to personally choose their priorities between fuel cost and power, and they complain. I like choice. The German sedans used for comparisons here recommend premium fuel, to be fair. Having this choice is becoming more common. Hyundai says you get 10 more horsepower off premium in the 2.0 turbo. Mazda published two different power ratings for the new 2.5 turbo in the CX9, also dependent on octane.

I don't think its complaints about the ability to run on different grades of fuel (which would allow people to save cash when max power is not needed). I would guess most people would think that is pretty impressive.

However, some people got very excited when they saw Ford only required 87 Octane and there was no mention of impact to the final output (other Ford vehicles had an * with the power output numbers mentioning 93 Octane). Now that the same caveat has been added to the Fusion Sport the air has been let out of balloon for those that thought they had their cake and could eat it too.

 

[escape]

Jeez, give people the ability to personally choose their priorities between fuel cost and power, and they complain.

I'm just expressing my opinion on how ambiguous Ford chose to be with regard to published performance specs and fuel requirements. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that.

I like choice. The German sedans used for comparisons here recommend premium fuel, to be fair.

Well, it looks like Ford is recommending premium, too, if you want to achieve their claimed power/torque numbers.

 

[Fallout4]

Well I assume most people who are looking to purchase a performance car is willing to pay more for premium fuel and 93 Octane isn't really that much more expensive than regular.

Can you cycle between 87 and 93 Octane fuel or will the constantly changing Octane level affect the Fusion sport?

 

[Bamm1]

Well I assume most people who are looking to purchase a performance car is willing to pay more for premium fuel and 93 Octane isn't really that much more expensive than regular.

Can you cycle between 87 and 93 Octane fuel or will the constantly changing Octane level affect the Fusion sport?

The current national average for regular is $2.378. The national average for premium is $2.852. According to Ford the AWD '17 Fusions have an 18 gal gas tank. Most people fill up when their fuel light comes on. I think with Fords that means ~ 3 gal are left. So with 15 gal fill ups each week you are looking at ~370 bucks savings a year using regular fuel.

I believe Ford certifies the power ratings using 93 Octane and runs the EPA fuel economy testing with 87 Octane. I see no reason you could not switch between 87, 89, 91 or 93 Octane from fill up to fill up.

 

[Drof]

The main thing is the capability to run both. Daily commute to work and back, run the 87 and save some bucks. On the days you know you're gonna go out and hoon around, fill up with the 93

 

[escape]

The main thing is the capability to run both. Daily commute to work and back, run the 87 and save some bucks.

Well, we don't know what impact, if any, higher octane gas would have on fuel economy. If you're getting better fuel economy on 93, then it may be a wash from an overall cost perspective.

 

[Drof]

Hmm.. Didn't take that into consideration. I just went on the assumption of more power, worst fuel economy. But that is something interesting to ponder on.

 

[Bamm1]

Well, we don't know what impact, if any, higher octane gas would have on fuel economy. If you're getting better fuel economy on 93, then it may be a wash from an overall cost perspective.

Some information can be gleamed from other applications of the 2.7 Ecoboost engine.

Real MPG* as reported by MT(city/highway/combined):

• 2015 Edge Sport (93 Octane): 18.5/24.3/20.7
• 2016 Edge Sport (87 Octane): 16.5/23.9/19.2

*EPA (Pre-2017): 17/24/20

Most of the "real world" fuel economy figures as reported by owners for the F150 application of the 2.7 Ecoboost (that reference 87 vs. 93 Octane) usually involve towing. In those instances people are reporting 2-3 more MPG using 93 Octane.

 

[Drof]

Ohh okay that I see as I've read many times under certain applications and depending on what you're towing, stepping up the octane range can prove to be beneficial indeed

 

[Bamm1]

If you are going to tune, you really don't have a choice. Either 93 or 91 (if you can't get 93). Tuners can really wring out the torque with higher octanes. They can firm up shifts with lower octanes but with the higher octanes they can up the boost, timing and AFR more.

Most tuners in the Ecoboost world have multiple tunes for multiple Octane levels. There are 87 Octane tunes, 91 Octane, etc (with or without TCU modifications). The timing, boost, AFR, etc. are altered on every tune (including the 87 Octane version). You obviously won't see near the same power increases with lower octane fuel.

In addition some tuners produce fuel economy tunes using various octane levels as well. So not all tunes are "performance" driven.