Mustang and Focus lone Ford car survivors

[Gunslinger]

Sorry to see Ford drop the Fusion. My wife drives a 2015 Fusion Energi Plug-In Hybrid and it gets over 66 mpge with her driving habits. That's a combined electric/gasoline average. It's rated at a combined 95 mpge possible if you confine your driving to just local but my wife's commute is roughly sixty miles per day. On gasoline only the Fusion gets about 45 mpg. That's with my wife's driving...I don't get as good a mileage (heavy foot).

My 2016 Explorer gets about 24 mpg on the open highway but most of my driving is around town so I average about 18 mpg. An Escape would do me well for most of my needs but I wanted something that can tow some weight and can carry a 4'x8' sheet of plywood or similar.

[BobPalma]

I was under the impression that then "new" Escapes (and many other much touted 4 cyls.) were not delivering mpg as promised.
Was I mistaken, or have they improved.
Is that 30 mpg overall, more city or highway or half & half?
Not doubting, just asking.

Bill and Gary: The 30 mpg overall is with the smaller eco-boost engine; the one that comes standard in the SE model.

Most of her driving is ideal for gas mileage: Start the car and leave town via two stop signs and four stop lights with little traffic. Then get on the interstate and drive 36 miles between 55-60 mph to our daughter's house to babysit. Once off the interstate at the other end, she sees only one stop light and two stop signs before arriving; still light traffic.

On long trips it has ticked over 31 mpg and as low as 28 in pure "city" traffic, but I'd say 30 overall is a good approximation. No complaints, except the oil filter is the biggest PITA imaginable to change. Ridiculous, actually...and inexcusable. BP

[Hallabutt]

Bob,

The name is Bill, but your exception noted. There is always someone willing to politicize almost anything. I knew that by including the narrative about the GM "bailout" I was risking the ire of some, but I thought that it was important to note the different paths that the two companies took, to get to where they are today. I was not lauding the govt's efforts at saving GM. I was just pointing out that Ford took an unattainable path, that help lead it into the situation that it finds itself today. The political discussion regarding the process the two companies took, can go on endlessly, but what can't be argued, is the historical facts, and the position the the two companies are in today.-Bill

By the way, I drive a Ford every day, and it's not a Ford truck. My 1995 Thunderbird suits me just fine, but I'm a car guy and it's not the only daily driver that I own. A truck is a tool that I roll out when I need it. I'm not a marque snob, either, if something else suited me better, I would change in a heartbeat. Since I'm 74yrs old and never bought a new car, a company's advertising is wasted on me.

[BobPalma]

Bob,

The name is Bill, but your exception noted.

OOPS, Bill. Duly noted and corrected in my original post. My apologies. (I'm still trying to figure out where "Mike" came from! )

Although GM's current President Mary Barra had nothing to do with the bailout process, Automotive News' Daily Blog reported a couple days ago that she was paid $22,000,000 last year, as in ONE year.

There's an awful lot of decent, innocent investors in the "old" Generous Motors who would probably just as soon the "new" Generous Motors made some overture toward compensating them for their loss at the hand of the professional shuck-and-jivers inside the beltway who emasculated their formerly blue chip stock for what was certainly political gain....and paying the President 22 large in one year doesn't seem to hint of anything in that direction, for sure.

(Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter, you understand....) BP

[53k]

Bill and Gary: The 30 mpg overall is with the smaller eco-boost engine; the one that comes standard in the SE model.

Most of her driving is ideal for gas mileage: Start the car and leave town via two stop signs and four stop lights with little traffic. Then get on the interstate and drive 36 miles between 55-60 mph to our daughter's house to babysit. Once off the interstate at the other end, she sees only one stop light and two stop signs before arriving; still light traffic.

On long trips it has ticked over 31 mpg and as low as 28 in pure "city" traffic, but I'd say 30 overall is a good approximation. No complaints, except the oil filter is the biggest PITA imaginable to change. Ridiculous, actually...and inexcusable. BP

FWIW, Ford numbers for 2108 Escapes: 2.5 FWD, 21 city mpg, 29 highway, EcoBoost 1.5, AWD, 22 city, 28 Highway, 24 combined, EcoBoost 2.0 AWD, 20 city, 27 highway, 23 combined.
I'm not belittling the Escapes. I was interested in switching to one and gasoline economy isn't the only consideration. However, for gas mileage comparisons, a Subaru Forester is rated at 32 mpg highway and several others are in the 30, 31 mpg range.

[WinM1895]

I was under the impression that then "new" Escapes (and many other much touted 4 cyls.) were not delivering mpg as promised.
Was I mistaken, or have they improved.
Is that 30 mpg overall, more city or highway or half & half?
Not doubting, just asking.

When the C-Max got less MPG than advertised, FoMoCo gave 500 bucks to owners to compensate them.

The onboard computers MPG figure for all FoMoCo vehicles is a bit ambitious to say the least.

2017 Fusion with about 2000 miles on the clock, set the trip odometer to zero, then drove to San Diego: Hwy MPG 38.7.

When I returned, MPG had dropped to 33.5, due to heavy traffic on the I-5 in LA LA Land. Current overall MPG with 3,500 miles on the clock: 25.9

[Packard53]

OOPS, Bill. Duly noted and corrected in my original post. My apologies. (I'm still trying to figure out where "Mike" came from! )

Although GM's current President Mary Barra had nothing to do with the bailout process, Automotive News' Daily Blog reported a couple days ago that she was paid $22,000,000 last year, as in ONE year.

There's an awful lot of decent, innocent investors in the "old" Generous Motors who would probably just as soon the "new" Generous Motors made some overture toward compensating them for their loss at the hand of the professional shuck-and-jivers inside the beltway who emasculated their formerly blue chip stock for what was certainly political gain....and paying the President 22 large in one year doesn't seem to hint of anything in that direction, for sure.

(Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter, you understand....) BP

BoB: you have been harping about the GM bail out in this forum for years. GM, FCA, and Yes Ford all received $23 billion in bail out money and guaranteed loans from the Federal Government. The Feds admit the bail out of GM cost the tax payers $11.4 billion. In 2008 the Treasury Department gave the banking institutions over $700 billion dollars in what amounted to Bail Out money. Wells Fargo received $25 billion from the Treasury Department in 2008 more money than the so called big three got. Yet today Wells Fargo continues dishonest practices taking advantage of their customers. Do you hold the same contempt for the banks that got what amounts to bail out money from the Treasury Department iin 2008?

John S.

[Packard53]

Bob Palma: To make things very simple about the bail out of the so called big three. Through the process of the bail out GM received $51 billion, GMAC received 17.2 billion and FCA $12.5 billion. The US government received $70.3 in repayment from the selling of GM stock and selling GMAC and payments from FCA. So if you do the sssimple math the whole bail out cost the tax payers $10.2 billion dollars. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $20 Trillion debt we have now. Fighting two wars in the last 15 years and paying that with what amounts to a credit card has added about $4 Trillion to the national debt. As stated before the banks received in 2008 $700 billion in bail out money from the Treasury Department. You keep harping about the auto bail out and GM. While typing this I just sit here shaking my head at your obsession with the GM bail out. I would rather see government money going for a bail out that saves jobs. rather than seeing trillions of dollars being spent fighting a 15 year war in which many fine you service persons have coming back dead and wounded scared for life. Seen enough of that from when I served in a police action called Vietnam. I am reminded of that every time I visit my local VA hospital seeing fellow Vietnam Vets suffering from affects of Agent Orange.

John S.

[WinM1895]

GM, FCA, and Yes Ford all received $23 billion in bail out money and guaranteed loans from the Federal Government.

Ford did not receive so much as a penny of 'bail-out' bucks.

In 2005, before the credit dried up, Ford put up ALL their company assets, including the rights to the blue oval, to procure a 23.8 billion dollar loan to stave off bankruptcy.

And, FCA didn't exist at that time. Fiat purchased Chrysler Corporation after they got bail-out bucks and has since repaid all the loans given to them first by Bush and then by Obama.

[jnormanh]

I'll not spend hours researching documentation to that effect because it certainly is / was political. People who believe it is the government's business -even "job"- to "save" people and companies from their own arrogance / mismanagement / greed at future taxpayer expense by running up the national debt, most certainly for political reasons, will never be convinced otherwise, facts be damned.

Not to rain on your parade, Bob, but the simple fact is that ALL government action is, by definition, ""political". In our system of electing by majority vote all of our top officials, the Congress to make laws, and the President to carry out the laws, then they, using their Constitutional authority, will generally carry out what they perceive to be either the will of the majority, or what they believe will benefit the majority.

Often as not, their actions offend one or another minority, whether those be free-traders, balanced-budgeters, war hawks, peacenicks, pro- or anti-immigrant, right or left wing, devoutly religious or atheist, and on and on.

And of course it is the job of our elected officials to levy taxes, spend money, and, yes, to borrow as they see fit.

Our great good fortune is our democratic system which allows us to punish or reward the highest level government officials according to out own free choice.

And, of course, it is only natural that a large number of citizens, their candidates and programs having been defeated at the ballot box, will feel offended.

Such is life in a Democracy. However, all things considered, I cannot think of a better system. You and I can, at election time, work our behinds off and spend our money to promote candidates we like, or we can sit back and complain after fact.

[Milaca]

Isn't it interesting that Ford is ending production of many of its car models, while at the same time, Tesla has such high demand for it's cars that they cant build them quickly enough.
Perhaps Ford and Tesla should work together....sort of like when Ford built Willys Jeeps during the war being that Willys couldn't build them quickly enough to meet the high demand.

[WinM1895]

Isn't it interesting that Ford is ending production of many of its car models, while at the same time, Tesla has such high demand for its cars that they can't build them quickly enough.

Perhaps Ford and Tesla should work together....sort of like when Ford built Willys Jeeps during the war being that Willys couldn't build them quickly enough to meet the high demand.

Building quickly enough wasn't the problem.

Willys-Overland's plant in Toledo OH didn't have the capability to meet the demand once the US entered WWII, so FoMoCo also began to assemble Jeeps.

Henry stamped an F on every Jeep part he made, because as he put it "I'm not warranting any Willys parts."

[Packard53]

Ford did not receive so much as a penny of 'bail-out' bucks.

In 2005, before the credit dried up, Ford put up ALL their company assets, including the rights to the blue oval, to procure a 23.8 billion dollar loan to stave off bankruptcy.

And, FCA didn't exist at that time. Fiat purchased Chrysler Corporation after they got bail-out bucks and has since repaid all the loans given to them first by Bush and then by Obama.

Ford didn't receive any TARP money (Troubled Asset Program funds), However Ford on June 23, 2009 received a loan for $5.9 billion from the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing. The loan is to be paid back 2022. In my statement you quoted I would like to say I included guaranteed loans which is what Ford got from the government. According to the Treasury Department the tax payers lost $1.4 billions dollars concerning the help now given the firm know as FCA. If I am wrong please correct me.

Maybe BP can come in and clear up this matter since he suppose to be the automotive expert.

John S.

[6hk71400]

Looking back over all the posts, it is easy to see this thread went way off topic and started down a rabbit hole with side comments that I feel are totally unnecessary. Politically charged thoughts and snide comments about things really have no place on the forum. Nothing about all the facts and figures and opinions will change the original posters announcement.

Time to go out and work on the Studebaker Ladies and Gentlemen. If you don't own a Studebaker, the only reason I can see posting on a stove huggers thread is to stir up trouble. We don't need and help stirring up trouble.

Bob Miles
Different by Design
Different by Delight