...and your statements that a Ranger gets the same mpg as an F150 are plain idiotic. And I'm sure your new Excursion gets at least 18 mpg, right?

As for the Smart Car, you have repeatedly said that the US version weighs 400 lbs more than the Euro version. The current 2008 Euro version is listed here as weighing 750 kg, which is 1650 lbs--a figure I've seen elsewhere. And I concur on the 1808 lbs for the US spec car. This makes for a 158 lb difference compared to your repeated statement about 400 lbs of difference....close to a 3x exaggeration which IMO is BS that you created to make a failed point.

smart fortwo passion (71bhp) Specifications | UK New Car Data

I'll have to do some followup on your recall links if I get the time but again, recalls are NOT any indication of long term reliability. As for your autotrader analysis, I have no idea what this says of long term reliability, except that there are more people selling high mileage Fords (to get rid of them) than there are selling imports.

Again, I want Ford to do well in the big scheme of things, but they have to first make desirable cars that people want and then establish the reputation of long-term reliability. Things like Explorer transmissions, blown mod motor spark plugs, etc do NOT make for happy customers in the long term.

As for the cruise switch, I know about that. I had the one on my van recalled twice for the fused harness fix. People have died when their attached garages have set their houses on fire.

George

 

Plain idiotic? Can you back that up?
A quick search on this forum will bring up lots of people with the 4.0 4x4 rangers getting the same MPG as an F150.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ml#post1120417
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ml#post1120762
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ml#post1123039
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ml#post1124728

Yes, I've highlighted the low MPG-scorers... notice most of em are the 4.0 4x4s i've been talking about - the heaviest of the rangers (closest possible to an F150).

My truck got an average of 14.5-15.5mpg around town; my commute is mostly highway, often enough rush hour stop and go though. it's right on the money with what it should have been if it was a pure 50/50 mix of the 13/17 2008 mpg rating. Has it gotten 20mpg on all highway long trips in good weather w/ cruise control at 65mph? Yeah (tires were stock at the time). Does that make it a 20mpg truck? nope. Considering the big *** tires it had on it, I think it did really well, and would have probably done 1mpg better easily with stock sized tires.

Under the same exact conditions (city/daily commute) my excursion gets 13.5mpg. You claimed in the past that was "very high for a V10". Again, I direct you to the forums:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/4...light=mpg+poll

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/4...light=mpg+poll

13+mpg combined is not unheard of, though it is on the high side. That's fully expected considering my commute is all highway, only thing making it combined is the stop and go traffic at congestion points, swapping of freeways, etc. If you're to look at the highway chart, you'd notice 43% of the V10s get 14 or over on the highway... if you still think 13.5 is "very high for a V10" I think you need to actually own one before you can talk.

I don't think that I've ever said the excursion gets 18mpg. Nice of you to try and put words in my mouth... is that what, a 150% exagerration?

Ahh, yes, very good and trustworthy website. Notice how, if you go to the stats for almost every other configuration, the statistics don't change at all? All of them have a 999cc engine, but power output changes...

10 less hp, different engine (which of course they don't bother mentioning) yet it still weighs the exact same thing and gets the exact same mileage. hrm...
smart fortwo pure (61bhp) Specifications | UK New Car Data

Notice, the Diesel is missing from there.. But based on that website, we can just assume that's 999cc and gets the same 46.3mpg city, 70.6mpg hwy and 60.1 combined like the 61hp and 71hp models, right?

and last but not least, how do you explain the huge MPG drop, which was the whole reason I bring up the Smart all the time - basically, how inefficient the EPA and NHTSA renders the thing... 70.6mpg to 41mpg. and 46.3mpg to 33mpg. Nice of you to leave that statistic out...

Ahh, yes, toyotas must be so good that the people are keeping them instead of selling them... but wait, we're dealing with percentages here... so what you're saying is basically, if you have a toyota, you either sell it soon, or after it gets to high mileage, you don't sell it at all, you keep it for eternity? whereas if you have a ford, you sell it if it gets to more miles?

It's a lot simpler than that. Out of cars that are sold, what percentage are over 100k. If you're going to argue or imply a demographic where toyota owners develop intimate relationships with their cars after the 100k mile mark, you need to put forward some facts to back that up.

Again, proof. If there were indeed deaths, the media would have made a huge frenzy out of it... remember the crown vics that "burst into flames" when rear ended (by a vehicle going 120mph - those small details...), remember the media frenzy caused by those?

Agreed on the spark plugs. But hey, they fixed the spark plugs on mod motors. They no longer blow out. Now they don't come out even if you want them to. I imagine this issue will drive customer satisfaction way down as soon as more 3v headed mod motor cars/trucks hit the 100k mile mark and do the spark plugs... That was one of the reason I traded my truck in. You once mentioned I didn't take into account the possibility of the excursion breaking down? I did. It's a possibility vs the certainty of my F150 (being already broken in several areas). The spark plug problem on the PI headed mod motors is FAR less common than the breaking spark plugs on the 3v heads; and is in fact avoidable with preventive maintenance, more often spark plug changes and proper torquing of the plugs. On the F150 I didn't have that option. By the time I found out about it, it had 75k miles, pretty much a sure bet that it would break plugs when trying to change em.

 

I don't care enough to worry about dem apples.

Tim

 

This post is a good example of the mistakes that occur when comparing European mileage to American mileage. The post is comparing apples & oranges.

Using this smart car example, let me try to answer the question: How do you explain the hugh MPG drop . . . ?

Since this thread was initiated a few things have changed. EPA now reports the MPG of the smart fortwo as 36 mpg combined (h'way/city).

The EU reports the MPG of the smart fortwo wieth the same 1.0 liter (999cc) 71 bhp engine as 65 MPG.

Is their really a 30 MPG difference?

No.

First, the Imperial gallons used in Britain must be converted to US gallons for the purposes of comparison

65 mpg (Imperial) = 54 mpg (US)

The difference is now 36 vs 54. Valid? No.

In 2008, EPA changed its testing methodology which lowered everyones MPG. The EU does not use this methodology, nor is it comparable. Canada reports 43.5 mpg for the smart fortwo, equipped exactly the same as the US version. This is more comparable to the EU estimate. It is also comparable to mpg calculated under the old (pre-2008) EPA methodolgy, which estimated the smart at 39 (h'way), 46 (city). So, for comparison purposed, the Canadian numbers should be used with the EU numbers.

So is the 43.5 vs 54 valid?

No.

Standard equipment on the smart fortwo sold in Europe is a "micro hybrid drive (mhd)" which is not included on the version sold in the US or Canada. It's estimated to improve overall mpg by about 10%. So, the European version without MHD would only be expected to get about 49 mpg combined.

So is the 43.5 mpg (US) vs 49 mpg (EU) a valid comparison? Yes.

So, the only thing that remains is to explain a difference of about 5.5 mpg - not 30 mpg.

It's likely that the difference between the 2 versions is due to safety & emissions equipment that is required in the US but not required in version. A heavier steel bumper & heavier steel crash box parts, extra air bags, extra emissions euipment, & miscellaneous othe extras raise the weight of the smart for two by about 155 pounds as it travels from Europe to the US - a weight increase of almost 10%. Ths laws of physics dictate that the greater the weight, the great the energy required to move it.

A weight increase of 10% alone probably explains the approximately 10% drop in mpg, but certainly the weight increase + the reduced fuel efficiency resulting from US emissions compliance requirements are enough to explain the difference between the two.

So, the Europeans get a car with a little better fuel economy & we get a car that is a little safer & that burn a little cleaner. But either way the car is the most fuel efficient gas only engine on the market by at least 10%. When combined with it's cheap purchase price, the cost of ownership is easily the lowest on the market.

 

so you dug up this old post to make this point why?

 

Wow this was an old thread

 

Unlike GM, Ford is not going to the government for help. GM is going to be Government Motors before its all done the way Obama has now trying to nationalize our car makers.

 

Because it was a good example of how mpg comparisons between US & EU can be highly misleading.

I didn't dig it up. I actually was looking for something else when I stumbled across it in my google search. My curiosity got the better of me when I started reading it, so I kept on reading. I was struck by how many errors & exaggerations were included to make a point.

How often have you seen someone make a point about something that seemed incredibly outrageous on the surface? Usually that means that some of the facts are missing - as in this case. These kinds of cynical posts that use half the facts to knock the government, or the big car companies, or some other big industry or interest group are almost always misleading as this one is. That kind of half baked argument irritates me & in this case I was moved to use it to make a point.

 

I was involved in the original thread, and appreciate your clarification of the apples and oranges US and European gas mileage differences.

The numbers you provided definitely are a help in clarifying diff's in standards.

George

 

You're welcome, George. I thought that you made excellent points in the thread that were not heard - and not just on the smart car example.

Cheers . . .

 

Toyota's are excellent vehicles except for the new Tundra. Ford has only recently gotten anywhere near sniffing distance of Toyota. Sounds like you have no clue about cars.
As far as the Yaris and Honda element goes, many people in this country think that's the direction we are headed.