Jump to content

Talk:Ford Fusion Hybrid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by The Master of Hedgehogs (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 15 April 2024 (Assessment: banner shell, Brands (Low) (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Reliability

[edit]

This article needs to address the reliability of the Fusion as compared to other cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.11.115 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources? If so, please provide some pointers (url) here and I can work it out.-Mariordo (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mariordo reversion of my table revisions

[edit]

Copied and pasted from my response to Mariordo (talk · contribs) on his talk page:

You apparently have an objection to the Ford Fusion Hybrid table edits I made. I reverted for a few reasons:

  1. It included updates on models already in the table. That should not be reverted, no matter what. (As I noted, the 2011 Camry's numbers are out, while the 2009 Prius and the 2009 Malibu/Aura really aren't "available" any more.)
  2. The table is entitled, "Economic and environmental performance comparison among hybrid car models available in the U.S.," not "comparable models." It would, in fact, be POV to include the Honda Insight (which is not really a comparable) but not include the Lexus HS (which is much more of a comparable). Further, as entitled, the table is incomplete.
  3. If you have specific objections to the inclusion of the HS/GS/LS/Active Hybrid 7, please discuss them -- but even if you didn't, you should just remove those rather than removing/reverting things altogether.

These notes will also be copied and pasted to Talk:Ford Fusion Hybrid. If you have specific responses, please respond there. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the edit summary, you included autos that belong to another league of price range (the Lexus hybrids and the BMW Active Hybrid), and so I will remove only those as you suggested, because it does not make sense to mix luxuries with mid-sedans. In regard to the other vehicles we need to decide how do we want this table will look like now and in the future. When I edited first the objective was to compare the Fusion with vehicles of similar type and price already in the market when the Fusion hybrid was launched in March 2009. Since the Fusion is still 2010 and it won't change its characteristics until 2013 (see here and here) and do not think I will be fair to keep updating to compare it with other competitor's more recent models. An alternative is to keep several year models (2010, 2010 , 2011 ...) up to some point. I am open to other ideas, but the objective is not to allow this table to become a mess.---Mariordo (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PD: I am proposing today to rename the article Historical sales of hybrids in the United States to Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States (see the justification in the Talk page there). For that purpose I will copy and merge the updated table you did plus the one I put in the general hybrid article (here) as I think it will useful for readers to have the key performance characteristics of all HEVs available in the US. The renamed article will be a better place to do this type of comparisons.

The HS starts at $34,650; it's not really out of the Fusion Hybrid's price range. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good argument! Furthermore, the Insight's price is actually lower than the Fusion almost in the same amount as the Lexus HS is more expensive, so to be fair, indeed should be included. So, I will restore the HS. --Mariordo (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010 multiple issues

[edit]

I have tagged this article with {{multiple issues}} because:

  • It reads like a review: the independent fuel economy tests are un-encyclopaedic (see WP:Not), and goes against the consensus not to include them in the encyclopaedia (as documented at WP:CARS/Conventions). This consensus is obviously not set in stone so you are welcome to open up a new debate at a relevant hub.
  • It contain an excessive amount of intricate detail which may only interest a specific audience: the independent fuel economy tests and comparisons with other vehicles are excessive and highly un-encyclopaedic. It also lists subjective information such as "annual fuel cost", "carbon footprint (Ton/year of CO2)" and "Annual Petroleum Use (barrel)". Those "annual fuel cost" numbers are obviously just another (and thus redundant) way of expressing MPG. And who wants to keep updating the fuel costs as fuel prices change? Attribution: Mr.choppers.
  • Unbalanced: the "awards and recognitions" section only contains praise, which gives the car undue admiration without a corresponding criticism section. Also, the amount of weighting given to "fuel economy and environmental performance" is utterly absurd.
  • It contains a section with a list of miscellaneous information: Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, so why are we comparing the Fusion Hybrid with other hybrids? The article is about THIS car, not OTHER cars. In a similar vein, we do not compare the fuel economy of a Volkswagen Polo diesel against other diesels in its segment, acceleration of the Nissan 370Z against its competitors, luggage space of one make of station wagon vs another et cetera. These types of comparison tables are problematic in terms of synthesis and you'd have trouble identifying which vehicles (in the entire world automobile market) to include or exclude in the comparison. IF this type of exhaustive tabular info is suited to Wikipedia at all (which I am not convinced of), it is best left to a "comparison of..." article. Attribution: Zunaid. Comparisons are also made with the non-hybrid Fusion in the "environmental performance" table. If the intention is to keep the two articles separate, why are we listing detailed information about an unrelated subject?
  • It contains material not appropriate for an encyclopaedia: see my last point.
  • Original research: selecting vehicles that the Fusion Hybrid competes with in the "fuel economy and environmental performance" table is considered original research. For example, the Civic Hybrid is a compact (not a mid-size), the Lexus HS is a luxury car that is a fair amount more expensive to purchase, as it the Lincoln MKZ. Again, see my response two points above. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I do not agree with all the issues you raised but because to address all your comments properly will required a significant amount of time, I will come back to you on these issues after I am back from my vacation on January 11.-Mariordo (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have placed this page on my watchlist, so I can see how this article progresses. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative sales in the U.S. market

[edit]

I removed the info about 'cumulative sales in the U.S. market' (but the link remains) because it may confuse readers that it is talking about sales of the year as 1) most published reports are reporting current month/year's sales; 2) most articles in WP about particular automobile model seldom covers 'cumulative' sales of that model. ---North wiki (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Δ mpg to km/L (moved from my talk page)

[edit]

QUOTE: "These ratings allowed the 2013 Fusion Hybrid to outperform the 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE by 4 mpg-US (59 L/100 km; 4.8 mpg-imp) city and 8 mpg-US (29 L/100 km; 9.6 mpg-imp) highway"

Are you sure that Ford burn 29 or 59 less liters of gasoline per 100km then Toyota? ;) Not sure where to ask, here, on talk page or Energy portal etc... Sorry. 65.95.176.252 (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Mathematically is correct (just divide by 100 and calculate 1/x to obtain km/L, but it looks weird (0.59L/km looks better!), so I changed all the conversions related to Δ mpg to km/L to look more reasonable. For 59L/km now it reads 1.69 km/L. Thanks again.--Mariordo (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Australia we use L/100 km. Some places use km/L. I don't know any that use L/km because the numbers are always so small. I think the original conversion should have said 2.9 or 5.9 L/100 km (ie divide by 10 needed somewhere). To provide a real world figure, my wife's Prius gets 4.7 L/100 km in daily city driving.  Stepho  talk  22:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to explain... May be I'm a bit picky, and no one would actually pay attention to that 1.69 km/L you have manage to come up with... It indeed look not just better, but very believable... Looks great! But...

Lets take a look at fuel savings of different vehicles each next one have 4 mpg better fuel consumption then previous:

  1. 10 mpg‑US (24 L/100 km; 12 mpg‑imp)
  2. 14 mpg‑US (17 L/100 km; 17 mpg‑imp)
  3. 18 mpg‑US (13 L/100 km; 22 mpg‑imp)
  4. 22 mpg‑US (11 L/100 km; 26 mpg‑imp)
  5. 26 mpg‑US (9.0 L/100 km; 31 mpg‑imp)
  6. 30 mpg‑US (7.8 L/100 km; 36 mpg‑imp)
  7. 34 mpg‑US (6.9 L/100 km; 41 mpg‑imp)
  8. 38 mpg‑US (6.2 L/100 km; 46 mpg‑imp)
  9. 42 mpg‑US (5.6 L/100 km; 50 mpg‑imp)
  10. 46 mpg‑US (5.1 L/100 km; 55 mpg‑imp)
  11. 50 mpg‑US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg‑imp)

As you can see second one consume 7 liters less per 100km then first one (ok, 6.72L without rounding error). That basically mean that #2 would go exactly 140km if we use 23.52L of gas that was used to fill #1 to get driven 100km. So 6.72L of fuel bought us 40km, so one extra L of gas will buy us 5.95km...

Lets do the same for #11.

As you can see eleventh one consume 0.4 liters less per 100km then tenth one (ok, 0.41L without rounding error). That basically mean that #11 would go exactly 108.72km if we use 5.11L of gas that was used to fill #10 to get driven 100km. So 0.41L of fuel bought us 8.72km, so one extra L of gas will buy us 21.28km...

Remember, difference in fuel economy among cars is 4mpg, in both cases.

Bottom line, if you translating delta mpg to metric without taking into account base mpg value, you are obviously doing something wrong.


Now important part.
59L/100km is the exactly same thing as 0.59L/km and exactly same thing as 1.69km/L !!!!!!!!!!!!



All three numbers indicate same fuel efficiency. And such fuel efficiency more suitable probably for main battle tanks, rather then for compact cars on a highway. Just think about it. Or you do know that? If yes...

I could not agree more, QUOTE:"0.59L/km looks better!". And driving 1.69km on one liter of gas looks even greater! Simply cuz most ppl are not comfortable with km per liter notation. If how article looks to crowd the thing that concerns you, then yeah, I admit, you have probably archived your goal. 65.95.176.252 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Sorry for too many letters to read:( 65.95.176.252 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No guys, you are not being picky. These are all valid questions, but I moved the discussion to this talk page, where it belongs and to give opportunity to others editors to participate. In the meantime, I will remove the conversions for the Δ mpg until consensus is reached.--Mariordo (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the correction I tried to keep the math simple by making all Δ mpg conversion in the same units of distance per volume of fuel (i.e. km/liter and miles per imperial gallon), as traditionally fuel economy has been reported in the US (by the way, in Latin America km per liter is used, not so much L/100 km as used in Europe and Australia). The problem arises because liters per 100 km is a measure of consumption, the inverse of mpg (1/x) with the added 100 km base in the denominator. In mathematical terms, the difference between two fuel economy rates x1 - x2 expressed in distance per volume of fuel is different than 1/x1 - 1/x2. So, if there is consensus to keep the conversions to L/100 km, my suggestion is to use only km/liter and mpgimp. Otherwise, we need to do the exact math to avoid the error illustrated above. A third option is not to make the conversion, and since this is an American car, to show the Δ in mpg should be fine with Wiki policies.--Mariordo (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... Ok, I'll address point later.
1) Ok, I like the idea, lets screw those who use metric system, who cares?
2) If that is not an option, why don't you do very simple calculation of L per 100km of Ford and Toyota models in question, whatever mode was used, city/highway... And subtract one from the other. I have not done it, but it would be something like 0.2L/100km or around it. This approach should produce sensible number. But do not ask me:P
3) Fuel economy(mpg or km/L) or fuel consumption (L/100km) are just different ways to present same thing to end user reading the article. Fundamentally there is no difference as to what way you would use. But probably it is better to use notation that is most common among readers.
4) Never thought that someone actually using km per liter out there. Learned something new today:p Thanx!

But first and above all my post was made with intent to poke/pun you, Mariordo. And that is why it was made on your talk page:) Ok, whatever "the consensus" will decide is fine with me, but I do believe you can make your own judgement and subsequent correction that have generally more chance of being sane(in comparison with consensus). IMHO. 65.95.176.252 (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overly tag

[edit]

I removed the "Overly tag" included by Checkingfax because no input was left on the talk about the alleged "unnecessary detail." So please, point out here the specifics of your concern. Nevertheless, let me explain that this article is not your regular automobile piece but it is about a green vehicle, and therefore, it is normal to highlight the green features, such fuel economy, emissions, and comparison with other ICE models. Furthermore, electric-drive vehicles have their unique features such as all-electric range, specs of the li-on battery pack and electric control systems, and pricing (due to the premium paid for the batteries and other related components). You can check other articles of hybrid electric vehicles (i.e. Toyota Prius), plug-in hybrids (i.e. Chevrolet Volt) or electric car (i.e Nissan Leaf) to confirm the style and typical content of articles about green cars. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ford Fusion Hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much California

[edit]

The California HOV stuff can be deleted. It's the worldwide web, not the californiawode web, people.--71.178.217.251 (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ford Fusion Hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Fusion Energi

[edit]

Should the Ford Fusion Energi (plug-in hybrid) have it's own page? The Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid does. The Hyundai_Sonata#Sonata_Plug-in_Hybrid does not. 313-matt (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC) 313-Matt[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ford Fusion Hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Generation

[edit]

Article doesn't state (except perhaps indirectly by implication) a major change from the first generation, namely, that the gasoline engine and electric motor can operate alone or together unlike the first generation where only one operates at a time. At least I assume that was a change with the introduction of second generation. I own both a 2010 and 2017 and that is a significant difference between them. Hebbgd (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Generation - vs First Generation

[edit]

To build on the prevous comment, the article should have a Second & First Generation "Design and Technology" sections.
There have been several major changes, for example, the switch for nickel-metal hydride to lithum-ion batteries.
dond (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ford Fusion Hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Ford Fusion (North America) with Ford Fusion Hybrid

[edit]
No consensus. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Just a hybrid version Qwv (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge a redirect? Jalen Folf (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some reason it had a issue I meant to say that this be merged with the ford fusion american model article (not sure what the name of it is since i also know there was a unrelated european model) Qwv (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal appears to be to merge Ford Fusion Hybrid into Ford Fusion (Americas), which may have been previously called Ford Fusion (North America), then moved with redirect. --Vossanova o< 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; with 114 references, the hybrid variants seems independently notable, and any merge would unbalance the target. Readers are best served by having this extent of discussion separately. Hybrid cars during this period were of sufficient importance that independent discussion seems warranted. Klbrain (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support (for the second generation; don't really mind the first generation). We could move the normal model, Fusion Hybrid, and Fusion Energi models into Ford Fusion (second generation), which could make for a well-sized long page. 750h+ (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Fusion_Hybrid&oldid=1219055592"