[Bamm1]

The article linked below lists fuel economy ratings for all of the engine configurations (in litres /100 km) for the 2017 Fusion. The ratings for the models that already have official US ratings match exactly.

• 2.5: 11.3 city, 7.5 highway = 21/31
• 1.5T: 10.0 city, 7.0 highway = 23/34
• 2.0T: 11.2 city, 7.6 highway = 21/31
• Hybrid: 5.5 city, 5.7 highway = 43/41
• 2.7T: 13.5 city, 9.0 highway = 17/26

The only other AWD competitor in the midsize class is the Chrysler 200 with the 3.6 V6 and 9-speed Auto. Its "Pre-2017 EPA testing change" rating was 18/29.

The Honda Crosstour (which was sort of an AWD wagon version of the Accord with a higher ride height) was Pre-2017 rated at 19/28.

Review: 2017 Ford Fusion is the quiet giant among sedans - The Globe and Mail

 

[escape]

Well, I predicted 18/26 in one of the previous threads. I was close.

 

[Bamm1]

Well, I predicted 18/26 in one of the previous threads. I was close.

I am going to give it to you as prior to rounding the city is actually 17.4.

I guess in context this is actually an improvement. The Lincoln MKZ 3.7 AWD 6-Speed Auto, with its Pre-2017 change rating, came in at 17/24. The Sport ties/beats it using the 2017 test method along with a gain of 25 HP and 103 ft-lbs.

 

[escape]

For giggles, wife has a Q5 (AWD) 3.0T which is rated 18/26, but that's according to the pre-2017 rating methodology. However, the Q5 is heavier and has aerodynamics of a concrete brick. On top of that, it's actually next to impossible to achieve these figures in real world. So, if the Fusion Sport offers more power/torque and can actually achieve 17/26 (2017 rating) in real world, that's not too terrible, IMO.

I think the 6-speed auto trans may be hurting the Fusion's MPG. Personally, I'm not too bothered. By comparison, it seems like the 8-speed trans in the Q5 seems to be always busy shifting from one gear to another. Gotta put it in Sport mode to make it less so.

 

[escape]

Also, does the Sport require/recommend premium or regular gasoline?

 

[Drof]

I'm going to assume premium considering the high output performance

 

[escape]

I just looked in the owner's manual:

We recommend regular unleaded gasoline
with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane
rating of 87. Some fuel stations offer fuels
posted as regular unleaded gasoline with
an octane rating below 87, particularly in
high altitude areas. We do not recommend
fuels with an octane rating below 87.

For vehicles with EcoBoost engines, to
provide improved performance, we
recommend premium fuel for severe duty
usage such as trailer tow.

 

[Drof]

That's actually quite surprising, but oh so good at the same time ! My wallet is quite happy to hear this

 

[Bamm1]

I believe when Ford lists power ratings for their "performance" cars (like the ST's, Ecoboost Mustangs, etc.) there is usually an asterisked note that states the published power levels are only attained when using 93 Octane fuel. With ratings changing from 350 ft lb to 380 ft lb I don't think we have seen a final "official" communication with rating as of yet.

For the Ecoboost Mustang there is speculation that the horsepower level is reduced by 11-13%. Going from 310 down to as low as 270. Some claim that the torque is also reduced by ~ 6%, from 320lb-ft down to 300 lb-ft. Some Ford representatives have refuted this claiming that the torque stays the same regardless of octane level.

There have also been reports of reductions in fuel economy when switching from 91/93 to 87. This could be how the ECU handles boost, timing, etc changes when it sees lower octane fuel. It could also be people just applying the throttle more liberally now that there is less power.

With all that said the Ford F150 2.7 Ecoboost produces 325/375 and it is listed as only requiring 87 Octane as well.

 

[escape]

Wonder if all these F150 2.7 owners and Edge Sport 2.7 owners notice any performance difference or had their vehicles dyno'ed when running regular vs premium.

 

[Drof]

I believe when Ford lists power ratings for their "performance" cars (like the ST's, Ecoboost Mustangs, etc.) there is usually an asterisked note that states the published power levels are only attained when using 93 Octane fuel. With ratings changing from 350 ft lb to 380 ft lb I don't think we have seen a final "official" communication with rating as of yet.

For the Ecoboost Mustang there is speculation that the horsepower level is reduced by 11-13%. Going from 310 down to as low as 270. Some claim that the torque is also reduced by ~ 6%, from 320lb-ft down to 300 lb-ft. Some Ford representatives have refuted this claiming that the torque stays the same regardless of octane level.

There have also been reports of reductions in fuel economy when switching from 91/93 to 87. This could be how the ECU handles boost, timing, etc changes when it sees lower octane fuel. It could also be people just applying the throttle more liberally now that there is less power.

With all that said the Ford F150 2.7 Ecoboost produces 325/375 and it is listed as only requiring 87 Octane as well.

That's actually quite a drastic change which is very surprising. I would love dyno sheets to show the differences though, more of real world testing rather than just looking at manufacturers spec differences.

 

[Bamm1]

That's actually quite a drastic change which is very surprising. I would love dyno sheets to show the differences though, more of real world testing rather than just looking at manufacturers spec differences.

Cobb did some dyno testing of a stock Focus ST with 87 and 93 Octane. Below around 4 grand there is negligible difference but after that the 87 Octane starts to effect power production.

 

[Drof]

That's actually very interesting to see, thanks for the photo. Octane ratings are always a never ending discussion on forums like these but that's pretty concrete there

 

[Bamm1]

That's actually very interesting to see, thanks for the photo. Octane ratings are always a never ending discussion on forums like these but that's pretty concrete there

Here is a video with an Ecoboost Mustang switching from 87 Octane to 93 Octane. Without getting into driver skill, ECU adaptation times, how accurate Ford's performance gauges are, etc. we see a 2-4 tenths decrease in 0-60 times (with a lot more wheel spin) when using 93 Octane.

 

[Drof]

That is amazing. That video needs to be put in my archives now. But I'm positive this doesn't apply to many vehicles older than a couple of years ?

 

[Bamm1]

That is amazing. That video needs to be put in my archives now. But I'm positive this doesn't apply to many vehicles older than a couple of years ?

From what I understand Ford has done some groundbreaking stuff with ECU adaptations. For example, if you were to try to run a Subaru WRX (which requires premium fuel) on 87 octane it would at the very least throw a code (possibly going into limp mode) under anything above a light load. At the worst there could be detonation and engine damage.

This is not the case with Ford vehicles. They can adapt to a wide range of octane ratings (87, 89, ACN91, 91, 93, etc.). With those adaptations comes some compromises like power reductions at higher rpms, etc.

Also, by the nature of building in parameters to allow the use of 87 Octane, you leave a lot “on the table”. So tuners have been able to make changes where you lose the ability to run anything less than 93 Octane but end up with huge power gains all over the rpm range.

 

[Drof]

Active adapting ecu fuel maps in a nutshell ? That's really interesting and impressive to say the least.

 

[FordPWR]

Apparently even with much older cars running lower than recommended octane fuel is okay. Seen a video of this guy in a 10 year old Corvette running 87 octane with no problems.

 

[Drof]

Hm.. running the LS on 87 octane.. I mean I don't doubt it'll be okay for running it. But me personally, I wouldn't take the chance lol

 

[escape]

FYI, Ford's website now lists EPA estimated figures for the Fusion Sport:
17 city/ 26 hwy/ 20 combined