Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1273274276278279391

Comments

  • "I say it's a big step in the right direction, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with how the media reported on Ford previously. This plus the rash of recent Toyota recalls may finally tip the scales back the other way."

    And what do you think made the media direction change? A new found love for Ford? Or a genuinely good product?

    Could it be that the way the media reported on Ford previously would have been becasue the crap product Ford put out for years?

    Cmon admit it; put out a good product, you will get good media as well as buyers. Put out crap, you will get none.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    This plus the rash of recent Toyota recalls may finally tip the scales back the other way.

    Guess how I heard about the Toyota recalls? Through that d@$& biased media!

    Sheesh, gimme a break on the media crap. Put it in news and views, and let's keep this discussion on comparing the vehicles themselves PLEASE!!!!
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    I don't want to eat my words. This isn't 1994. Or even 1999. What WAS true back then ISN'T true anymore - how hard is that to understand?

    And I owned a 86 Integra, a 87 Civic, a 81 Accord and a 90 Accord. So I do have a basis of comparison here.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    c'mon now you don't KNOW, at this point that Fords ( and I hate talking only Fords) are any better or any worse than they were. And likewise, we don't KNOW that the new Camcords aren't absolute atrocities foisted on mankind. All we all have is something called history.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    Based on the "past history" you suggest one would assume that my Fusion would be having transmission problems and the 2007 Camry would be bulletproof. But it's exactly the opposite, isn't it?

    The Fusion is one of the top 5 most reliable vehicles for 2007 according to CR. The Camry and V6 Accord aren't. Deal with it.

    I don't have to disprove or justify anything

    That's what people say when they don't have evidence.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    So you're saying we have to wait 10 years before declaring that a Ford might be reliable? How convenient.

    I think I'll wait 10 years before I buy a Camry to see if they've fixed the transmission problems.

    Ford made a big turnaround in quality after the 2003 Focus recalls.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    So you're saying we have to wait 10 years
    of course not, and it is equally absurd to think that decades of problems are magically 'fixed' in the last couple of years.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "So you're saying we have to wait 10 years before declaring that a Ford might be reliable? How convenient."

    Bingo. Honda and Toyota have already proved that for the most part they produce reliable vehicles that go to the last mile. Were and are there bumps in the road? But I feel good buying a Toyota, even if it isn't the ultimate driving machine.

    I don't feel good buying a Ford, because there is no history of producing an overall product that is as good or better than the Japanese. You have zero evidence to support my assertions that these cars will not fall apart or no require significant $$$ in repairs in the future.

    It's very easy to declare a winner based on one model for one year. :confuse
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,748
    Who has to consider it as good or better than the Japanese? The Taurus was widely regarded as competitive with the Japanese when it came out 20 years ago. The Focus is widely regarded as one of the best compacts in the world--both the newer design available in other countries, and the more dated design available here. Ford's trucks aren't best-sellers year after year because they are not as good as Japanese competition. The Mondeo is well-regarded in Europe. The Fusion has out-pointed the Camry in multiple comparos.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Other than Volvo and Mercedes, that is.(or was - the days of bulletproof Benzes seem to be over as well)

    But back in the 90s, they also were great. GM? Nothing GM makes today is even close to a ten year old S-Class. Ford knows to not even try. Lexus - gotta give them props for trying and coming close. A GS300 is a fantastic car.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Fusion has out-pointed the Camry in multiple comparos.

    The new 2007 Camry, or the 5 or 6 year old model that debuted in 2001?

    I would hope that a new for 2006 Ford could outgun a 5 year old model by ANY company.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Who has to consider it as good or better than the Japanese
    you don't, but the fact does remain that because the 'Detroit 3' effectively gave the car business to the 'Japanese 3' back in the 80s due to inferior products both from quality and dynamic standpoints. Those Accords/Camrys have long established the baseline from which all other 'affordable' sedans are judged much like BMW has long been the standard by which not so affordable 'sports' sedans are judged.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,748
    It was a 2006 Fusion vs. a 2006 Camry.

    The 2006 Accord, a four-year-old model, was good enough to outpoint both of them.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,748
    That wasn't the question, though, was it? The question was whether there is a any history of Ford producing an overall product that is as good or better than the Japanese.

    I think there are multiple examples where Ford has done that over the years. Do they always do it? No.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    don't think you're old enough for that....
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    More to the point, the all new or significantly modified vehicles that Ford has built in the last 3 years have proven (so far) to be much more reliable than past vehicles. F150, Mustang, 500/Montego/Freestyle, Fusion/Milan/MKZ.

    I'm sure those who think Ford hasn't changed hasn't even driven a Fusion or 500.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    I don't feel good buying a Ford

    I don't buy cars to feel good.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,748
    Old enough for what? My first car was a '66 Dodge Coronet.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "I don't buy cars to feel good"

    Well I have to have a good feeling from a car. Otherwise I'd buy a Hyundai Accent for $10 grand and call it a day.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    There's nothing in a Fusion SEL that would make you feel bad about buying one.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Perhaps a better way to characterize how some of us feel is that "we aren't comfortable buying a certain kind of car."

    To some, it is worth hundreds or thousands of dollars to have that feeling of full confidence in a vehicle.

    For example, if I bought a Chrysler Sebring for $20k vs a comparble Honda for $22k, I'd always have the memory in the back of my mind about how poorly our last two Chrysler products were made, and how they left us stranded.

    To me, it would be worth $2,000 not to have that feeling every time I wanted to take my car some considerable distance.

    Let it be said though, that I do not have this feeling towards Ford; my point being that some do, and this is how they probably feel. I didn't like the Fusion simply because of the interior; reliability (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with my option.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    then we are in in the same ballpark - age wise. Remember that my father was always a 'Buick' man, and I drove his '68 Skylark (350 V8), he was an engineer by trade and became a heretic with the purchase of a '72 Corona. I remember it to be, even back then, a car built much better than the Buick (and a lot more fun to drive (it had a stick). The problem with it I do recall, it rusted out big time.
    The first new car I bought, the then new '76 Accord that had a non-catalyst CVCC 4 banger, a tradition that Honda carries to this day - superior small engines. Paid a whole $4700.00 for it. I did have problems keeping an alternator in that one but otherwise a wonderful car. By the time the 80s rolled around GM was pushing the 'X' cars, Chrysler the Ks, and Ford had the Fairmont - all of which were already so far behind what 'Japan' was offering that they didn't even warrant consideration. Even got worse in the 90s with the possible exception of the 200hp Taurus (93 or so) and, of course, the Yamaha engined SHO. I did get scared away from that one because of a friend that couldn't afford to keep his older 88 model (Vulcan V6) running and literally had to give a 5 year old car away.
    IMO, of course, the 'problem' with those Detroit brands today has less to do with assembly quality or even reliability anymore - it has to do with what is under the hoods! Unless it is a V8, 'Detroit' doesn't know how to do it - and never really has.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    There's nothing in a Fusion SEL that would make you feel bad about buying one.

    There was to me, before I even left the lot on a test drive... the interior. I felt like I was in a brand new 10 year old car. That's just my opinion, and styling is DEFINITELY open to debate (one that will never settle), but the interior lacked sparkle/innovation to me.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,748
    Consider the latest engines from Detroit--GM's new 3.5L unit used in the Aura et. al. and their supercharged I4 that puts the engine in the GTI to shame, Ford's new 3.5L engine going into the Fusion, Five Hundred et. al., Chrysler's new line of engines including the new I4s co-engineered with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. Detroit doesn't know how to do it?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    a 2007 6 - dealer c'mon quite obviously '20 available at this price'. Kind of sad

    Really, where is the dealer? Do they show the actual sale price?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    consider the new 3.5s from GM/Ford/Chrysler still a generation behind what Toyota/Honda/Nissan has already been doing for 5 years or more - and turbo/supercharging, to me anyway, is not really anything better than a way to blow up an engine before its time, it is not technology. That new 'world engine' you are talking about does, however, intrigue me, don't know much about it or that it really could even be considered a 'Detroit' development.
    You point to new engines that are improvements from previous offerings that are so new that they have no track record. And likely too little too late. But, in any case, I point to 35 years worth of crappy 'US' engines, and you want to talk about a couple of V6s that either aren't available yet, and/or have no history?
    Historically, I challenge you to name anything 'Detroit' made engine-wise past about 1974 that was even close to competitive that didn't have 8 cylinders. And I think you can logically defend only that OHC Duratech of 93' or so - an engine that could have been so much more if only Ford knew how (or had the money) to do it ...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    I completely understand that people have individual preferences and dislikes for a number of reasons. I have no problem with someone saying that they would not buy a certain vehicle because of past experiences either with the dealer or the vehicle or the mfr.

    What I have a problem with is someone making objective statements about Fords or Fusions or any other make without any objective data to back it up.

    I don't like Toyota's in general and I don't like Camry's in particular. It's a styling issue for me. I'd never buy one. But I don't try to tell everyone that they're crap or that they shouldn't buy one.

    With the exception of the very least reliable cars, I don't think there is enough difference in cars today to make that a big factor in a purchasing decision. Styling, performance, ride quality, features and price are much more important than whether one car scored 10 points higher than the other in a quality survey.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,748
    Historically, I challenge you to name anything 'Detroit' made engine-wise past about 1974 that was even close to competitive that didn't have 8 cylinders.

    What's wrong with the Ecotec? Or the Ford and GM V6s I mentioned? Aren't those "competitive"?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,723
    The Japanese have done more R&D on small engines for the same reason that Detroit has done more R&D on V8s. Convenient that you disqualified V8s from your comparison. Otherwise you'd have to explain the Corvette V8.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I think I answered the question on the V6s - better but at least a generation behind. The Ecotec? You've got to be kidding - a meat grinder in comparison to even the Hyundai 4 banger, never mind those offerings from Toyota/Honda and Nissan.
This discussion has been closed.