29th Jan 2011, 21:19
After all the discussion about the difference in using cheap gas or premium gas, I decided to conduct my own test. I drive 58 miles to work each day round trip. I decided to drive 400 miles on regular, check the mileage, then drive 400 miles on premium and check it again. I drive the exact same route every day and traffic conditions are always the same. It is 90% freeway with fast-moving traffic. I fill up at the same service station and all grades contain the same percentage of ethanol (which lowers both performance and gas mileage).
On regular I got 25.3 miles per gallon. On premium I got 29.1 miles per gallon. Factoring in the 24-cent-per-gallon extra cost for the premium, it cost me almost exactly 50 cents more to go 400 miles on premium. To me, the far better acceleration I got using premium is worth an extra 50 cents.
2nd Feb 2011, 11:24
I must be the odd one out from the premium group. I got a 1.4 MPG decrease (from 22.3) on the same city route for a month over two tanks. Engine performance was almost exactly the same. It didn't become a magical race car, but it did at the most feel a bit (a BIT) smoother at idle. It cost me $15 extra to fill up with both premium tanks. Not worth it, I want my coffee back.
2nd Feb 2011, 12:38
People that are thinking there is a great advantage to running super in their cars are greatly mistaken. With computer control, the car will just adjust to its most optimum setting, no matter what type of fuel you are running. You will not notice much of a difference. If you are suddenly getting more mpg's, then it is attributed to something else like temperature or humidity or driving style. Super unleaded use in regular unleaded engines is just a waste of money. It is 20 cents per gallon difference here, so about $5 per tank.
4th Feb 2011, 18:25
I can't fathom why a car's engine computer would make it run LESS efficiently and use MORE fuel with premium. That makes no sense at all. Just today I read another car review in which the reviewer stated "The car is designed to run on regular gas, but will perform much better with mid-grade or premium". That has always been my experience. The last time I did an oil change on my wife's SUV, I took it out and filled it up with premium. When she drove it later, she came in and said "Did you do something to my engine? It runs like a race car!" I guess all these deluded drag racers who spend a bundle on nitro should just fill up with regular unleaded?
4th Feb 2011, 18:30
"It cost me $15 extra to fill up with both premium tanks. Not worth it, I want my coffee back."
Wow. Either you have a HUGE gas tank or gas prices vary a LOT between regular and premium where you drive. It costs me $3.60 more to fill up with premium than with regular.
6th Feb 2011, 13:07
Because your wife said so, eh? Must be legit. Also, see above, two people (or one person with a double post?) explained the whole compression deal already. As a chemical engineering student and amateur mechanic, I can say they make sense.
"Wow. Either you have a HUGE gas tank or gas prices vary a LOT between regular and premium where you drive. It costs me $3.60 more to fill up with premium than with regular."
It's a bit of both. And that's a total of $15 for both tanks, not $15 extra per tank.
7th Feb 2011, 08:19
"I can't fathom why a car's engine computer would make it run LESS efficiently and use MORE fuel with premium."
No one said it would run less efficiently. There is an optimum range in which the computer will keep the engine running at, no matter which fuel type you are using. I used to be on the premium fuel train too with my old 5.0 Mustang, but I switched to regular, at the recommendation of a few different mechanics who said I was wasting money, and it really never made a difference. I was going just as fast off the line, and still not losing many races. I also was getting around 27 mpg on highway trips with regular unleaded, and this was in the 80's with a V8.
I wasted a lot of money needlessly thinking I was able to go so much faster, but it was just that... wasted money. You can argue this back and forth all day long, but the truth is it only costs you more money, not me, so I don't really care. I learned the lesson 20 years ago. I refuse to buy any car that requires premium, and I certainly won't ever be using it in a car that doesn't. But hey, you are making the oil companies happy... I guess that is something!
12th Apr 2011, 01:48
This review is about Ford, not GM. I agree, I would never buy GM again, but Ford is way ahead of them, and I'm pleased with their cars.
28th Aug 2012, 18:16
Well since your Fusion is based on a Mazda 6 platform & assembled in Mexico, I think it has a few imported cousins.
I'll give you this - It is a vast improvement over the Tempo, however the Camry & Accord both far outsell the Fusion.
30th Aug 2012, 02:52
Outselling doesn't mean better. I've driven and compared the Camry and Accord to the Fusion, and the Fusion is a far better car in every way. It's what we bought.
30th Aug 2012, 13:06
We are not going to start with this whole "Fusion is built in Mexico" debate again are we?
Talk about broken, skipping records.