10th Apr 2007, 11:00

To comment 06:55. Lots of luck with the Explorer. We owned a '98 and an '01 (both with the V-6) and both got really awful gas mileage. I think our best highway mileage was just under 20.

In 2003 we traded for a 275hp in-line 6 GMC Envoy that has really impressed us. On our summer vacation we got over 24mpg highway running 75mph with the air on. The best I've ever gotten out of my V-6 Ranger is 24 highway.

Ford builds very solid and reliable vehicles, but high fuel mileage is NOT their strong point.

GM seems to have better luck at getting good mileage out of large, heavy vehicles. My brother's Impala gets 33mpg highway, which IS better than any V-6 Toyota of that size.

As for Toyota, they might once have built a decent vehicle, but recently they are far less reliable than ANY domestic. I won't even consider one now.

10th Apr 2007, 11:02

Gas gauges DO NOT read accurately. My car registers a half tank at 210 miles, but DEFINITELY will NOT go 420 miles on a tank full.

10th Apr 2007, 15:57

There is in reality no different way that Honda calculates horsepower. The only difference is whether you're talking about the horsepower of the engine itself, or the horsepower actually put to the ground once it works it's way through the drivetrain and tires right down to the pavement. That's it. NO manufacturer could just make up horsepower ratings; or simply lie about them, because all new cars are scrutinized and tested by every magazine out there that reviews cars. If some company were to lie, they would be almost immediately recognized for it, and branded as fraudulent.

There is no conspiracy here. Honda's are tried and true, and people who know anything about cars know that Honda makes the best engines in the world.

You say I'm wrong? Fine, then explain to me exactly how Honda lies about their horsepower ratings, in detail... you can't because it's simply not true. Try and show me the calculations... they don't exist. If someone tries to explain this, they're making it up from the beginning.

It's no different from my buddy's new Harley Davidson motorcycle. When he actually put it on a dyno at a bike shop, it produced much less horsepower at the rear wheel than was advertised in the manual.

If you buy a Honda car, or any car, and you are surprised by this, then you need to learn how these things work before you buy a vehicle.

In reply to 10th Apr 2007, 15:57

11th Apr 2007, 08:47

<You say I'm wrong? Fine, then explain to me exactly how Honda lies about their horsepower ratings, in detail... >

You mean taking the word of an anonymous poster who obviously has an agenda against Honda isn't good enough? LOL.

11th Apr 2007, 21:29

Apparently Car and Driver doesn't agree with Edmund's. In a 4-car comparison with the Fusion, Accord, Hyundai Sonata and Camry, the Fusion was MUCH faster than the "granny-mobile" Camry, which came in DEAD LAST in the 4-car field. Accord, naturally, was first because of all the money Honda pours into Car and Driver, but the Fusion was second and would have ranked first in an unbiased test. Edmund's is highly biased toward anything domestic, so any figures from them is also highly suspect.

11th Apr 2007, 21:37

I'm a mechanic. I DO know how these "things" work.

Honda (and other Japanese firms) use the horsepower generated at the crankshaft (get someone to explain what a crankshaft is) whereas domestic manufacturers use the far more realistic power actually applied to the rear wheels.

It is CLEARLY misleading and inaccurate to advertise that the Honda has 240 horsepower while the competition has 210 if the methods of figuring the horsepower is different.

This is yet ANOTHER example of how Japanese car makers delude the public into thinking their cars are somehow better. They aren't. Ad hype has created a lot of myths that cost consumers dearly. For an example, try reading the 2006 Toyota Camry reviews.

12th Apr 2007, 04:55

21:37 Seems to me that's EXACTLY what I just said. It's not misleading. It's actually a more accurate description of horsepower than the domestics use. They're saying; the engine has this much horsepower: period. It's the consumer's responsibility to keep air in the tires and such so that as much hp as possible gets to the ground. It's not misleading unless you don't understand what you're talking about. Like I said, if you buy a car, and don't know something like this, then you need to do some research.

In reply to 11th Apr 2007, 21:37

12th Apr 2007, 08:26

Hate to burst your bubble, but the MAJORITY of people looking to buy a Honda really aren't that concerned with horsepower numbers. As long as the car does what it's supposed to do that's all that matters. Only a small minority of enthusiasts really care.

And the SAE ratings changed this year anyway, so every car has reduced horsepower.

In reply to 11th Apr 2007, 21:29

12th Apr 2007, 08:29

Your post makes no sense. Edmund is "highly biased towards domestics" yet you claim they are lying.

And you don't think Ford doesn't' pour money into Car and Driver? Guess all those endless Ford ads that clutter my magazine, including the expensive inside front cover ones, aren't there?

12th Apr 2007, 16:05

21:29 poster has an agenda. No matter what any car magazine or tester says the Ford Fusion comes out on top no matter what vehicle in his opinion. Seems like he is getting a little too excited in a vehicle that will not save Ford on its own. I agree the Accord is better and yes it is a five year old car by now and Ford has only built a vehicle that just nicks at it. Oh by the way--I heard that horsepower ratings were changed a few years ago with Honda so 240 is the correct horsepower rating. Remember the RL getting pushed down to 268? Well that was years past and now all Honda's are on line. BTW the Accord has 244 horsepower--not much but still more than the Rental car fleet Fusion.

12th Apr 2007, 19:40

Well, now I've heard it all!! Commenter 04:55 thinks that how much AIR IS IN THE TIRES affects HORSEPOWER!!!!

As has already been stated, if Honda uses a method of calculating horsepower that INFLATES (no pun intended) the horsepower with regard to the method used by a domestic maker to figure horsepower more honestly, then that is DECEPTIVE... PERIOD. Well, with that said, I guess I'll go pump another 20 pounds of air in my tires and up my horsepower by 40 or 50!!

13th Apr 2007, 05:14

19:40 Proper inflation does in fact affect how much horsepower gets to the ground, as well as gas mileage. No, not by 40 or 50 horses, that's just exaggeration. If your tires are below proper tire pressures, that means more resistance and more gasoline and horsepower used to get the car rolling and keep it rolling.

In reply to 3rd Apr 2007, 11:35

13th Apr 2007, 08:31

Yes, Car and Driver, the same magazine that once advertised that the Ferrari F430 had bad understeer and only pulled.95 g's on the skid pad. Then 3 issues later said it's steering was almost perfectly neutral and pulled 1.3!! g's on the skidpad. Yes, Car and Driver is an excellent source of information indeed.

14th Apr 2007, 09:33

Yeah, again, people need to compare apples and apples.

A Ferrari 599 on a dyno (and not moving) is going to have 612 horsepower, but if it's on the road with underinflated tires, how much of the horsepower translates to actually moving the vehicle is a different story. Yes, it is minimal, but the point is clear.