I don't know how much more you can actually expect.I call bullsh*t, they say they 'hear' the diesel PM gets 22mpg combined, but TTAC extended review got almost 25mpg combined.
That article is awful friendly to Ford at the expense of the PM.
Why would a PM diesel get 4 MPG higher than a Transit diesel?.....cut......
I think if there is real difference of 4 mpg over the Ford diesel, which the article is saying is only 1mpg.
The Ford middle roof is almost the same height as the PM tall roof; both around 100 inches tall. The PM might have a lower floor, but overall dimensions are very similar. That applies to low roof models also.3 or 4 mpg seems justifiable as the the PM is lower, lighter, less rotating mass re: driveline and rear axles, one less piston, and no torque converter.
What is the point of comparing either European or real-world ratings to an EPA rating when they are so different that they yield different results?I was pointing out that the FIAT 3.0 diesel does have euro mpg consumption figures, and was tested in the real world by TTAC. @25mpg.
Hopefully they will release the diesels here in the next two months.
The 2.2 and 2.3 liter are just adequate and as the camshafts are belt driven, are possibly not the best for the US market
Another aspect to consider is that EPA has a single standard to test vehicles with manual transmission, so the manufacturers just tune it to fare well on EPA test instead of providing their best overall efficiency.Historically manual transmissions were more efficient, but for many years now automatics normally get higher EPA fuel economy ratings than manuals when installed in same vehicle. And this fact is consistent across most brands. This is in part true because automatic vehicles can be geared taller than their otherwise-exact manual-transmission counterparts.