## Ford Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid sedan EPA-rated at 108 MPGe city, 92 MPGe highway and 100 MPGe combined; Ford projects best hybrid sales quarter ever

##### 29 December 2012
 2013 Fusion Energi. Click to enlarge.

The US Environmental Protection Agency has rated the new Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid (earlier post) at up to 108 MPGe city, 92 MPGe highway and 100 MPGe combined (2.2, 2.6 and 2.4 l/100km-equivalent, respectively).

Fusion Energi is the Ford brand’s fifth electrified vehicle to launch in the past year—and its second plug-in hybrid after the C-MAX Energi. Ford expects the Fusion Energi to accelerate its record hybrid sales pace, including its highest monthly hybrid sales month ever in November. Ford projects 19,000-plus hybrid/electric vehicle sales in the fourth quarter of this year, making it the company’s best quarter for hybrids ever and besting its own previous hybrid vehicle sales record by more than 50%; Ford expects more than half of hybrid sales this year to come in this quarter.

With Fusion Energi and Fusion Hybrid, the Fusion lineup brings the widest range of powertrain options to the US midsize segment. Fusion also is available in gasoline-fueled versions with a choice between a pair of fuel-efficient EcoBoost engines and a normally aspirated four-cylinder engine.

Like its cousin, the C-MAX Energi PHEV, the Fusion PHEV offers:

• SmartGauge with EcoGuide to provide in-vehicle customizable displays, including instantaneous fuel economy readings and coaching functions to help drivers understand and optimize their fuel efficiency.

• SYNC with MyFord Touch to manage and control phone, available navigation, entertainment and climate functions. Plug-in hybrids and all-electric models have additional options for monitoring information like battery state of charge.

• EV+ combining the built-in GPS of Ford SYNC with proprietary software algorithms developed by Ford engineers to learn frequent destinations. As a result, vehicles give drivers more drive time in electric-only mode.

C-MAX became the fastest-selling hybrid ever at launch after 8,030 units were sold in October and November, the first two months C-MAX was on the market. The pace beat Toyota Camry Hybrid’s 7,300 sales in its first two full months of availability in May and June 2006.

The response to C-MAX really shows the amount of pent-up demand from a specific market for C-segment hybrids. Fusion Energi has a different audience in the midsize sedan market, but delivers many of the characteristics and technologies that make C-MAX Energi so great, which is why we’re anticipating a similar positive response.

—C.J. O’Donnell, marketing manager, Ford Electrified Vehicles

Ford differentiates between the two PHEVs by noting that C-MAX is geared toward those most concerned with fuel economy, but designed so that owners aren’t forced to sacrifice comfort and convenience. Fusion is designed with the driver’s sense of style in mind, delivering a midsize sedan that offers functional design elements that enhance its sleek exterior and promote fuel economy.

Many of the technologies of Fusion Energi are shared across Ford’s electrified vehicle lineup and draw from the automaker’s portfolio of about 500 patents related specifically to hybrid technology:

• MyFord Mobile: Enables access via smartphone or Web-based interface to perform key tasks, such as monitoring a vehicle’s state of charge and current range or locating charge stations and planning routes to find them.

• Eco cruise: Saves vehicle energy by relaxing acceleration compared to standard cruise control.

• EV mode button: Conveniently mounted on the console to the right of the shifter—allows a driver to switch vehicle operation between three modes: all-electric, normal hybrid operation and conserve battery power for later use.

• Regenerative braking is capable of capturing and reusing more than 90% of the braking energy normally lost during the braking process.

• Hybrid transmission, designed by Ford engineers in-house, is capable of operating at high speeds and in a smooth, fuel-efficient manner at the same time. (Earlier post.)

• Advanced lithium-ion batteries covered by an eight-year/100,000-mile component limited warranty.

• Charge port with LED light ring, conveniently located on the driver’s side and near the front of the car, it features a light ring that illuminates to indicate charge status.

At 100 mpge combined for a mid size car, it is a real achievement. Will it be attainable by the majority of drivers?

An excellent interim solution, at least for the next 10+ years or until affordable 500+ miles BEVs become available.

...until affordable 200 miles BEVs become available.

The next step is for HEVs and PHEVs to become enough of the market that the body design is changed to put the battery in the floor pan, a la the Tesla Model S.

I liked the Cmax PhEV until I saw the huge bump in the trunk, where the battery is stored, an unsightly view.

EP:
Bumps to hold the battery are pretty much an American company thing.
Those that are coming or on the road and don't include the Fit EV, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, the Renault Zoe, VW UpE, VW Golf plug in hybrid and anything else the VW group decide to do as all of their chassis have been redesigned to enable a variety of drive trains.

(continued)

What better alternatives are there: Well, a diesel hybrid will get much better real MPG (energy and CO2) than any plugin or pure EV vehicle. This will remain the case until nuclear power replaces coal and natgas in the grid mix, and this will take several decades at a minimum. In the meanwhile, we are all better off (energy-wise and CO2-wise) driving efficient (>50mpg) hybrids rather than charging vehicles with electricity from the grid.

What happened to my first post?

MPGe is a fraudulent measure of vehicle efficiency. It assumes that electrical energy comes into existence by immaculate conception. Please do nut be lulled into a false sense of green accomplishment by these impressive-looking but completely meaningless MPGe numbers.

http://www.deathbycar.info/2012/03/mpge-scam/

In reality, a large fraction (>60%) of the US electric grid-mix is generated from fossile fuels (coal and natgas), and MPGe does not account for any of the CO2 emitted nor energy lost in generation (huge losses) and distribution (around 7%).

Coal-fired electricity has an energy efficiency of around 33%, which means that a car that is rated 100MPGe in reality only gets the equivalent of 33MPG in terms of energy and CO2 usage when run on coal-fired electricity. With average grid mix (not just coal-fired), a 100MPGe plugin car gets maybe 50MPG in real life. This is no better than a Prius.

MPGe is a fraudulent measure of vehicle efficiency. It assumes that electrical energy comes into existence by immaculate conception. Please do nut be lulled into a false sense of green accomplishment by these impressive-looking but completely meaningless MPGe numbers.

In reality, a large fraction (>60%) of the US electric grid-mix is generated from fossile fuels (coal and natgas), and MPGe does not account for any of the CO2 emitted nor energy lost in generation (huge losses) and distribution (around 7%).

Coal-fired electricity has an energy efficiency of around 33%, which means that a car that is rated 100MPGe in reality only gets the equivalent of 33MPG in terms of energy and CO2 usage when run on coal-fired electricity. With average grid mix (not just coal-fired), a 100MPGe plugin car gets maybe 50MPG in real life. This is no better than a Prius.

"..assumes that electrical energy comes into existence by immaculate conception.."

It has been my contention for years that energy to create electricity needed to be accounted for, that point was refuted by the usual suspects.

UCS (ucsusa.org) published a study recently that showed 100 MPGe is actually more like 50 MPGe , when energy consumed to make the electricity is taken into consideration.

Some are concerned that natural gas to synthetic gasoline is 60% efficient, which is allegedly horrible, but 40% efficiency to create and transmit electrical energy is perfectly acceptable.

Poetic justice for Ford for their early disdain for EVs.

GM forged ahead initially with the EV1, then fell by the wayside.

Toyota stayed the course with the Prius family.

Now the Ford C-MAX comes late to the game and becomes the fastest-selling hybrid ever at launch.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every purpose under heaven:

- a time to be green and a time to wait.

Um, if
"..it assumes that electrical energy comes into existence by immaculate conception..
It has been my contention for years that energy to create electricity needed to be accounted for..."

then are EVs claimed to get millions of MPGe?

Do you mean you have an issue with the MPGe formula?

Never debate with fools nor idiots, it is really futile to debate with foolish idiots.

Some are concerned that natural gas to synthetic gasoline is 60% efficient, which is allegedly horrible, but 40% efficiency to create and transmit electrical energy is perfectly acceptable.
Feeding GTL gasoline at 50% efficiency (which is about the best it appears you can do) to an ICEV achieving 30% efficiency nets 15%.  The ICEV could burn the NG directly at 30%, or a CCGT at 60% feeding the grid, charger, EV etc. at perhaps 70% bus-to-wheels would net 42%.

Building physical plant with a 50-year lifespan which throws away a minimum 2x improvement in efficiency in order to support assets with 10 years or less remaining useful life... insane.

SJC, thanks for the referral to the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists).

They have a pretty decent white-paper at

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

The paper does cover the concept of MPGghg (greenhousegas), and also talks about MPGe, but they have not been good at explaining the fraud of MPGe. UCS also sticks their head a bit in the sand when they look at CO2/kWh and pretend that it depends on which state/region you live in. They have not quite understood that the grid is near fully interconnected and that electron are fungible.

But they (UCS) are better than most.

Jus7 - first half of the year we got 36% of our electricity from coal and 32% from renewables and nuclear. I suspect by the end of 2013 non-carbon generation will have surpassed coal.

Natural gas is playing a large role at the moment, but we're in transition away from fossil fuels. It won't happen overnight. In the meantime we'll improve our electric vehicles so that they require even less electricity.

Bob, natural gas is fossil fuel. It is a lit cleaner than coal.

PiP is the cleanest PHEV, per EPA beyond tailpipe emission site. It is the only plugin hybrid with a flat cargo floor and 5 seats.

I have it for about two months and I have been averaging 264 Wh/mi (128 MPGe) on electric miles (charging loss included) and 55 MPG on gas miles.

It is amazingly efficient and I am thrilled with getting those numbers in a midsize.

Bob Wallace:
The notion that renewables will allow a 'transition away from fossil fuels' is, to put it bluntly, a flaming lie based on anything we can remotely do technologically.

They can certainly reduce fossil fuel use, but are utterly dependent on burning huge quantities of them to function. In fact, since power plants last decades, they are building in fossil fuel use for equally long.

With anything like present technology 'transitioning away from fossil fuels' is spelt 'nuclear power.'

Of course energy efficiency is an important metric, but it is not the only one.

I ran some numbers recently to take a look at the meme that battery electric cars are constantly said to be 2-3 times as efficient as fuel cell cars.

Using present production techniques and the transmission efficiency of the US grid and power production, fuel cells actually work out at around as efficient per mile as battery cars.

Once the figures are looked at in more detail however, then for instance nuclear runs at around 32% efficient and then has a 7% transmission loss.

Coal is more efficient, and advanced turbines could make it more so.

But one is tempted to ask: 'So what?'
Clearly whatever one thinks about nuclear power, if you are running a plant at all then the additional pollution per MW is tiny, whereas every MW of coal comes at large environmental cost.

Solar is only around 15% efficient, but again: 'So what?'

Energy efficiency figures are important, but should not be seen in isolation.
If that was the only metric, then we would all be riding bicycles instead of driving.

The trick is to attain good standards of comfort and convenience whilst keeping damage from energy production within reasonable bounds.

If you wanted to obsess about efficiency, you'd shut down fuel ethanol immediately.  The efficiency of conversion of sunlight to fuel is a fraction of a percent!

Of course, these things don't matter.  What matters is what generates unwelcome changes in the environment.

Re: coal's drawbacks--don't forget that coal plants don't just despoil the land and air, they have huge effects on human health. People freak out about the overblown risks of radiation from nuclear power, while coal plants kill thousands of people year after year.

'coal plants kill thousands of people year after year'

Hundreds of thousands at least, more likely millions.

How can you turn a decent 5 passenger family car into a $40k Detroit rip off? “Advanced lithium-ion batteries covered by an eight-year/100,000-mile component limited warranty. ” For the price of two new cars, you get batteries in one car. Most advocates of hauling batteries around do not have a clue where the power comes from but it is pretty simple. Find out what power plant is supplying power for load following when you plug in to the battery charger. It is almost always a fossil plant. For a few weeks in the spring in the PNW, wind and hydroelectric can supply the very low demand. “Coal-fired electricity has an energy efficiency of around 33% ...” Many coal plants are much more efficient but the very efficient coal plants are based loaded first leaving the more inefficient plants to load follow. “first half of the year we got 36% of our electricity from coal and 32% from renewables and nuclear. I suspect by the end of 2013 non-carbon generation will have surpassed coal.” I always love when predictions are made by those who do not understand the basics (aka clueless). So what would need to happen for BS Bob predictions to happen. First nuclear would have to get back to where they were the year before. BS Bob has argued nuclear is dead. Then hydroelectric would have to get back to the year before. Next we would need to double wind production. Without a PTC, we may not see a 1% increase let alone 100%. Next the price of NG would have to decrease from rock bottom to paying power companies to burn NG. Also the economy has to say depressed and the weather mild. “What matters is what generates unwelcome changes in the environment. ” What matters is that energy is delivered when and where it is needed. Watch how pragmatic people come when there is a shortage. “Hundreds of thousands at least, more likely millions. ” Not in the US! The air quality in the US is better than the threshold of harm. That means no one is being hurt by emissions from cars, trucks, buses, factories, and power plants. I have read all the EPA references and there is no 'smoking gun'. There is a claim of premature death associated with air pollutions but it is very weak on the data side. Association is not causation! If I was to tell you that a person over 75 who smoked all their life and had severe chronic heart disease died of heart failure what would you think is the cause? The obvious answer is not air pollution so why are researchers looking a weak statistics? It is true that millions die every year but mostly from old age or a destructive life style. Our last Nuclear plant closed down (permanently) yesterday after 29+ years of service. The accumulated burnt fuel is temporarily stored at the site. A permanent solution will cost another$1.8B. One large standby NG power plant has not been used for the last 5 years. Cola fired power plants were all dismantled years ago.

We currently have about 44,000 mega-watt of hydro and 2,000 mega-watt of wind power installed. Both will go up progressively to meet all future requirements. The only NG power plant will be sold soon (to a nearby aluminum plant?) or dismantled.

The potential Hydro and Wind are each evaluated at about 95,000 mega-watt for a total of about 180,000 mega-watt. That level of consumption may not be reached before 2300 or so. Nearby USA East Coast States are not buying much these days because of the very low cost of NG/SG and the buy American policy.

The comments to this entry are closed.