Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1580581582583584586»

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    So why did Ford hire C&D to run the test? Why didn't they just run their own test? That would have been cheaper. No car magazine would ever run this type of test (with 600 regular drivers) so how is Ford supposed to get this kind of real world test without paying for it? As long as the participants aren't paid it's a perfectly valid test.
  • "So why did Ford hire C&D to run the test? Why didn't they just run their own test? That would have been cheaper. No car magazine would ever run this type of test (with 600 regular drivers) so how is Ford supposed to get this kind of real world test without paying for it? As long as the participants aren't paid it's a perfectly valid test."

    Ford hired CD to try and get some sort of credibility for the test, which in the end id did not achieve, apart from Ford fans, for whom it was not even needed. It may be valif to you, but not to people looking for honest reviews. Conflict of interest ring a bell?

    I would like to see your comments if Honda or Toyota did a similar test, where their product won. Actually, you don't even give any credibility to CD for picking the Accord time and again or MT for picking the Camry, so I guess I know the answer to that.
  • Its not a real world test when cars go around in a small set circuit. Driving a set stretch of roads that simulate various real world driving conditions is much closer to the real world. The testing methodology employed by the Fusion Challenge is flawed.
  • "And the difference in the Fusion Challenge vs. all of the other media tests? This one was decided by regular drivers and vehicle owners, not by automotive journalists trying to sell magazines."

    There you go. So to sell mags, CD or other publications are biased and pick market leaders, but Ford's paid event is unbaised, right? You are just tyring to gain some propaganda derived credibility for the event, by saying calling it a 'real world event.'
  • "I just don't understand why it is so hard to believe a Ford could actually win something.."

    Because it is an informercial, ones you see on TV late night, not a comparison test.

    Magazines/Media have given good ratings to the Fusion; including 2nd position in many comparos; and I would rate this positive feedback much, much more that the Fusion infomercial
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    if you understand that ESC can and will apply brakes, disable throttle, and/or shift tranny gears for you then perhaps you can explain to me how it improves anything relative to a car's handling capabilities - given that it must be set to activate at some level lower than the car's actual dynamic limits. In the specific condition of driving on let's say snow covered roads, there are times that you MUST be able to maintain momentum, often at the very outside edge of vehicle control, something any ESC system worth its salt would likely interefere with, and the reason I say that ESC is more likely to 'get in the way' on those kind of roads. All that said, there is no question that ESC (or whatever acronym) will save lives primarily by stepping in to prevent the driver from exceeding whatever the computer thinks is the car's limits - and ONLY IF folks that buy these things understand that these 'nannies' don't improve anything, they only protect them from themselves. I would further suggest to you that if you have been driving your VW and you haven't felt any ESC interference, then that is more of an indication of how well the VW system, in particular, is calibrated and/or your lane change was not nearly as abrupt as what you thought it was.
    ABS, incidentally, much the same type of tradeoff - you don't improve braking distances by letting off the brakes (electronically or otherwise), but you do improve control and therefore a reasonable sacrifice.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    "The new Altima with automatic tranny isnt faster than the Aura. Only the Camy V6 is faster than Aura V6 unless you count manual transmission V6 sedans in this class. "

    I think your wrong here.. Motor Trend clocked the Aura V6 at 7.2 0-60, I believe the new Altima is in the 6.8 range hanging right with the Camry V6. And I'll ad, .2 seconds faster than the Fusion ;)
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Unfortunately, I've had to remove some more inappropriate posts.

    The purpose of this discussion is and always has been to compare the features and the attributes of the subject vehicles with an eye towards helping folks make a purchase decision - after all, that's what Edmunds CarSpace is all about.

    Too many of you seem to believe that the purpose of the discussion is to stomp all over others just because their opinions, needs and values are different than yours. The chest-beating and sand-in-the-face-kicking is preventing us from having any productive comparison conversations.

    We're closing up shop, at least for now.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Interested in a kinder, gentler version of this topic? (One with a thousand points of light?? Um, never mind that part. :D)

    Check out Midsize Sedans 2.0. Come one, come all, but let's all agree to leave the weapons outside the park. ;)
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    I think "thrashiness" might be a perspective issue. the motor in my truck has been called by several reviewers thrashy, course and unrefined. I on the other hand enjoy the sound coming out of the pipes and the sound it emits when under full throttle. So much so that I have a cat back exhaust system that is less restrictive than factory.

    The motor on my Impala also emits a pleasing sound when under full throttle, at least to my ears. The other sounds it allows to intrude into the cabin however are not so pleasant, but that is another issue altoghter I suppose. So I guess what i am trying to say is what makes an engine "unrefined and thrashy" ???
This discussion has been closed.