Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,675
    That's true.

    I did buy the extended 8 year 100k Honda Care bumper to bumper warranty from Honda for c.$1100 just in case. And so my faith isn't absolute. Time will tell, as you say, but I'm guessing right now that it'll work out.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    The Fusion is a pretty heavy car for it's class.
    That just pretty much seems to be the American way of designing things.
    It is also a quiet car.
    The Accord is lighter, but perceived quiet is obtained using active noise cancellation.
    A different philosophy.
    The biggest complainers about Ecoboost are those who don't own one.
    My FWD Fusion with the 2.0 Ecoboost feels very light on it's feet power wise and returns excellent fuel mileage.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    CVTs have been around for a long, long time, but were mostly used in Europe until the last 10 years or so. Now, they are being refined for even better mileage and power, and to better meet American tastes. Along with that they are durable and reliable.

    No company can afford to consistently put out products that fail at 50K miles. That is product suicide in more ways than one.

    There soon will be no old tech transmissions left. Whether you are talking a 9 speed automatic, a DSG, a CVT or whatever, they are all very complex, and nothing like the three and four speed automatics that used to dominate. Like it or not, everything is becoming more complex. At the same time, thankfully, this complexity is becoming much more reliable than even the old simplicity. DI turbo engines, clean diesel and electrics are the way now. Maybe hydrogen soon. People and cars continue to multiply. New ideas are mandatory if we are going to supply this worldwide population explosion with what their forebears have come to expect. None of that is easy to do well, but do well is what is required.

    Ford for example is at the cutting edge with its truly small Ecoboosts. Claims may somewhat exceed real world results. But that is a temporary thing as development continues. That a serviceable turbo 1.6 would be in a mainstream car as large as the current Fusion was almost unimaginable a even a couple years ago. If it is a bit slower and not any more frugal than a larger Accord engine belies the point that it exists at all, and does as well as it does, even after a couple initial kinks. Regular people are now driving it, finding it satisfactory, and are not even incredulous that a 1.6 or 1.5 liter (recently seen as a mini-compact engine at best) powers their family car.

    We are living in the most interesting times. Technology is doing completely magical things every day, and it is not possible for most of us to keep up.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    In other words... most vehicles on the road in CA are unable to safely pass an LLC or slow merger, due to having less than ~200 hp? :surprise:

    It's only in the past few years that the typical mid-sized car had that much power. Actually, many still don't. Then you have all those compacts and sub-compacts with far less than 200 hp.

    There's a difference between NEEDING more than 200 hp in a mid-sized family car, and WANTING more than 200 hp. For those who WANT more power, there's options like the Sonata/Optima turbos and the Accord, Altima, Camry, and Passat V6s.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,177
    A wise choice. My bumper-to-bumper peace of mind is also assured for 100k.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,177
    Just read the first review of these soon to be released models. C/D chose the Fusion over the Accord. I was impressed with how both companies kept the weight down considering the relatively large batteries, traction motor, and all of the under-hood transformers, cooling system (s) and cabling that make it all work. That means good 0 to 60 times. Accord with 7.7 and Fusion with 8.6, but C/D preferred the way the power was delivered in the Fusion.

    Long day, so I am going to omit the details for another time.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    In other words... most vehicles on the road in CA are unable to safely pass an LLC or slow merger, due to having less than ~200 hp

    Could be.... or at least it'll be a less safe pass than if they had 700 HP.

    Also, they may be able to pass, but then hold up other traffic behind them from doing the same.

    Sure, more HP is a WANT, not a NEED....You can always just go 55 MPH as well in the right lane. You'll still get to point B eventually from point A.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,662
    Man...I would be so safe with 700HP; it's bordering on a NEED...
  • So how much time do one really "save" by driving that fast? The beauty of GPS is it predicts quite accurately your arrival time. See how much time you "gain" by driving fast. Or simply do the math. Is the 5 minutes worth the added stress, higher risks and possible tickets...oh and added gas costs? Not for me and I drive for work.
    Of course one could simply watch less TV and reclaim.....hours? ;)
  • Ecoboost engines are direct injected too, so it's a size queen's preference, bigger just makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, it's six of one and half a dozen of another.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,675
    edited July 2013
    The difference is this: the Accord gets to 60 in about 7.7 seconds with the 2.4 and the CVT, while the Fusion 1.6 ecoboost gets to 60 in about 8.3 seconds. For many of us, half a second means something when you are getting on to the expressway and merging in a hurry. It's not huge, but it's significant. The Accord gets a combined EPA mpg rating of 30, while the Fusion gets a rating of 28. That's not a big deal either, but it's something.

    In that steady state highway mpg test (not that anyone drives that way) done by Consumer Reports, the difference in mpg was even more significant. If you do a lot of highway driving that could make a real difference:

    Accord CVT 65 mph=42 mpg
    Fusion 1.6 65 mph=36 mpg

    The Ecoboost engines have great power and great durability--no doubt about it. Ford has done a wonderful job with them. But right now they seem to be slightly slower and slightly less economical than some of the Fusion's competitors, like the Altima, Accord, Mazda6, etc.

    The Fusion is a very good car, and clearly a top choice in the mid size field. But perhaps a few people are now wondering whether turbo engines are necessarily in the future for every midsize car. Hard to say at this point, since I'm sure the next generation of Ecoboost engines will be even better, and even Honda is apparently considering a turbo for the next Accord, which isn't due out until 2017.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,426
    The difference is even more according to CR tests. they get the Accord at 7.7 to 60 and the Fusion 1.6 at 8.9. They do not do anything fancy at the start, they do real world - just give it gas, no neutral drop etc.

    MPG diff is greater as well. They get the Accord at 30 mpg overall and the Fusion 1.6 at 25 mpg overall.

    I would say much slower and much less economical - especially when the 1.6 liter ecoboost gets worse mpg than the V-6 Accord (26 mpg overall), and the fastest 2.0 Fusion is barely faster than the slowest I4 CVT Accord, and slower than a 6MT I4 Accord.

    I hope Honda stays away from turbos - they only seem to impress the EPA.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    edited July 2013
    How many miles were on these cars?
    From my experience it takes about 10k for a Ford drive train to break in.
    Honda has also started using 0 weight oil.
    The best mileage car I ever had was a 2004 Focus 2.3 with a stick, averaged 30 mpg with it.
    I learned a lot about efficient driving for that car, but I'm no hyper miler.
    The only long trip I took with it in 4 years, 1800 miles, I averaged over 38 mpg.
    Highway rating was 33, same as my new Fusion.
    My new Fusion, 2.0 and 19 inch wheels, is getting over 28 mpg, rated at 26 mpg average, and hasn't hit 5k miles yet.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,177
    edited July 2013
    I like the idea of turbocharging. I am just afraid of repair costs down the road on them, even though the technology is proven and modern metallurgy means the whole works won't melt down in two years. If anyone has ever seen a turbo running full tilt on a fully plumbed engine (outside of the vehicle for demo purposes), they might be alarmed at all the red-hot metal plumbing 10 inches from their person.
    The long and short of why I didn't get one was peace of mind. I want this engine to last a long time, with few service worries. Lets face it, I still don't fully trust Hyundai-Kia, and I know that the corporate bottom line on many automotive components is "will it last the warranty period".
    The modern DI engine already has a very high pressure fuel injection system (and thus the chattering sounds from these engines when cold), and lastly my engine already has 200 HP and 186 lb ft, on a 3200 pound car. It moves from rest to 60 in 7.5 seconds, and that is all I need here 13 miles from the Pentagon. There aren't even many fun twisty roads in Fairfax County any more. They have all been turned into parkways and boulevards due to high volume. My average speed on my trip computer never gets over 26 mph. To tell you the very truth, I know know why there are droves of Prius Hybrids. They make a lot of sense in this dense stop and go world this car guy has begun to dread. That's enough out of me! :shades:
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,675
    edited July 2013
    cski: yeah, I think I feel the same way you do about not wanting the added complexity of a turbo. But probably our fears are overblown.

    Have you seen Ford's durability tests for the Ecoboost in their trucks? They truly torture the engine under the most awful conditions for about 6 months with logging, desert racing with sand, etc., etc., giving it the equivalent of at least 150,000 miles iirc. And then they take it apart, examine things, and do a compression test, and it still appears that the engine has a lot of life left to it. Ford's engineers really made more durable a lot of the components in the engine to make sure Ecoboost wouldn't have reliability problems. Only time will tell, but right now it's looking pretty good as far as I know.

    But if with all that high tech high pressure stuff you don't actually go faster with less gas than, say, a Mazda6, Nissan Altima, or Honda Accord, is there a point to it? The base Fusion has a thrashy old-tech engine that's rather unpleasant from my rental car experiences. You have to move up in trim (c. $2000) and then still get the optional Ecoboost engine iirc. At this point a Fusion costs significantly more than a comparable KIA, Honda, etc. once you factor in the upgraded engine.

    Honda actually did something similar on the previous generation Accord. If you got an LX, you got a lower power, less sophisticated, and slightly noisier VTEC engine. Moving up the EX and above you got a VTEC that was closer to being an Acura engine. But starting with the 2013, you get a better and more advanced engine on the LX than you got even on the previous year's EX (And yet it doesn't seem to have clatter. Haven't figured out if they added sound insulation somewhere or if they solved the clatter issue with a tech fix of some kind.)

    It's pretty clear that part of the credit for Honda stepping up their game with the 2013 Accord goes to KIA and Hyundai. They piled so much standard stuff (including that powerful engine you talked about) into even the base model, that it was more luxe and had more features than the base models of all of their competitors. For years Honda was stingy with the extra features, making you really buy a high end model to get some things, but I guess they got tired of KIA and Hyundai stealing their customers, and so now they've put lots of stuff on their base model too.

    But back to engines. Since KIA has a 10 year/100,000 mi warranty on all of their engines, you really didn't have to worry about the reliability. I'm convinced it would have been reliable, but if not you would have been covered.

    But as you say, with lots of traffic in the DC area do you really need that kind of power?

    I know, cski, that you're not in the market for a car, and are lukewarm about the Accord's CVT and its styling. But, if you'll bear with me, an Accord would probably actually solve two of your pet peeves with your Optima: the rear visibility and the mpg. The Accord's slender rear pillars, as I've said a few times, give it the best visibility in the class. And now the CVT and DI VTEC engine gives it great mpg too. The trade in value of your Optima would be awesome, and you can get at least $2500 off list for pretty much any Accord. Ok, I'll shut up now. I promise! (after reading your post about the ghost cars I've been kinda haunted by that. Seriously. Don't think about a Prius for that reason, bc they are just as bad if not worse for rear blind spots.)
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,662
    Heh...I don't go 90 all the time :)

    When it's 85 I go 90...when it's 70 I go 75..

    Don't watch much TV...don't even have cable (coat hanger pretty good ;) )
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,675 -review

    "2013 Ford Fusion 1.6L EcoBoost Automatic

    Movie-star looks, athletic chassis, pedestrian powertrain.

    ....Consistent with Ford’s transition to smaller engines (there is no longer a V-6 in the Fusion powertrain inventory), the 1.6 employs turbocharging to extract more power from less displacement while shooting for high marks on the government’s efficiency tests. Although this is to some extent a fool’s errand—the EPA dyno rollers bear little relationship to the operating realities of America’s streets and interstates—it’s the common response across the industry to the lofty efficiency requirements mandated by various global entities.

    Teetering on the tightrope between acceptable performance and high mpg, the 1.6 turbo delivers 178 horsepower at 5700 rpm and 184 lb-ft of torque at a reasonably low 2500 rpm. Assigned to towing a substantial mid-size sedan, these aren’t prepossessing output numbers, but if the driver keeps the turbo spooled up—the antithesis of driving for high mpg (we averaged 22 mpg)—there’s enough snort to make the Fusion a reasonably effective ally for dissecting day-to-day traffic.

    Effective, however, only applies once the car is moving. Getting the 1.6 Fusion automatic swiftly out of the starting blocks requires some skilled brake-torquing to get a chirp of wheelspin—the better to minimize engine bog—but even then the driver’s danger of acceleration blackout is nil: In this case, 0 to 60 mph in 8.2 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 16.2 seconds at 86 mph. In a recent comparison test versus the Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, and Volkswagen Passat, a Fusion 1.6 automatic was slowest of the group...."
  • Too funny Ivan, I too only have OTA TV. If not for movies I would not even own a big screen.
    Lest I sound like grandpa Tom I also ride Motorcycles, one flirting 150 H.P. which sees triple digits ....too often. I just don't comprehend commuting at a frenetic pace. Point A to point B.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,177
    edited July 2013
    You make some great points Ben. I really like the new Accord, especially the Sport, which I swear I saw in blue with dual exhaust and the 18" rims. Similarly, I also like the Mazda 6. This represents the only two mid sizer's I would consider. I do like the Accords styling very much, just "meh" about the CVT. So, I would have to either go with the stick, or move up to the V6...which would get me even less MPG than my current ride.

    I would even go back on my last post; and trade for a 2014 Optima SX (in Corsa Blue) if Kia made it worth my while. I am just still smitten with the Optima styling.
    Also, the Mazda looks so similar to the Kia that they could be brothers. Swapping for one with a 15 hp deficit doesn't make a lot of financial or psychological sense. The only reason to swap to Mazda is it's rear view camera, and it's refined sporty chassis. It's a drivers car...and I am a drivers car man...but not at the expense of losing $5000 in depreciation on the deal.

    Do you know which car currently appeals to me the most? It's the new Lexus IS 350. What a GREAT looking, and brilliantly performing Sport sedan. It has all the attributes of a comfortable Lexus with BMW performance and modern styling....with the added promise of excellent Toyota reliability

    In a recent review, it beat both the BMW 330i and the Caddy ATS 3.6.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,675
    That Lexus is a c.$50,000 car, and so is in an entirely different class. This one may be different, but past Lexus cars have done poorly on crash tests--as poorly as the Camry, in spite of their lofty price tag.

    The Mazda6 seems like a great car, but the visibility isn't as good at the Accord, plus it's a bit louder, has less rear seat space, and a smaller trunk. I thought you didn't like Mazdas? I think they are good cars, but having owned both I prefer Hondas. Of course, I haven't driven the new 6, which is earning raves and even beating the Accord in some comparisons, and so I can't really say about that one.

    Haven you gone on a test drive with Honda's new CVT in the Accord? It's quite different from the CVT in the Nissan.
Sign In or Register to comment.