Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

190919395961065

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    I don't believe the Fusion is a superior car and I'm certainly not envious of anything. I've owned 2 Hondas and 1 Acura and if the Fusion wasn't available I probably would have bought an Accord.

    I understand the Fusion's limitations - it's basically a clean sheet first effort for Ford after ignoring the segment for many years. The Camry and Accord are still the benchmarks in this segment but that does not mean they do everything well or that other vehicles aren't competitive.

    I'm simply tired of people making negative statements without any basis in fact just because they don't like Ford.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    The envious tones in your posts are so clear. But the Accord is a tough act to follow, and will be even tougher when the 2008 appears on dealer lots.

    I don't know. appearence wise, I like the 2007 better. Honda seems unwilling to do anything darring with its accord design. And being as the accord does most everything else very well (safty, reliabilty, finish) there's not a whole lot of room for improvement.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I would glad to recommend anyone who wants a "relatively" inexpensive midsizer with good quality and performance. However, that still doesn't reduce that fact that Fusion DOES have one of the weakest V6 in this segment.

    If inexpensive is what is wanted, they should be looking at the 4 cylinder models, anyway. :)
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    If inexpensive is what is wanted, they should be looking at the 4 cylinder models, anyway.

    Okay, let me rephrase...

    I would glad to recommend anyone who wants a "relatively" inexpensive V6 midsizer with good quality and performance. However, that still doesn't reduce that fact that Fusion DOES have one of the weakest V6 in this segment.

    You a**...

    :P
  • bv050506bv050506 Posts: 97
    I owned a 2007 Camry, quickest and nicest interior, very good on mileage, handled like a tank. I own a 2007 Altima, still very quick, handles very well, interior more sporty but cheaper feeling. I've driven the Fusion and it's a nice car that handles well, looks nice, doesn't have the huspa the others have and feels smaller. The Accord is all around great, but still not as qucik as Camry or Altima. These are all nice cars and will each find buyers. If they were all the same, we wouldn't have choices. What ever your driving and what ever you like, be passionate about it and enjoy your ride! Consumers Reports rates Fusion/Milan down the line from the others, and the Altima is "virtually" tied now with the Accord.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    it's basically a clean sheet first effort for Ford after ignoring the segment for many years
    OK, since you are so consistent about reprimanding all of us about 'the facts' then I'd like you to explain to me how the Fusion is a 'clean sheet' anything - a slightly softened chassis and chassis design borrowed from Mazda, a 4 banger of Mazda origin, a V6 engine dating from the Taurus of the mid 90s, a 4WD system borrowed from Volvo etc. etc. What exactly is 'clean sheet' the razor blade grille and clear lens tailights? Please, please provide me with this 'basis in fact' you mention, I've been wrong before - just ask my wife ;).
    I wouldn't even claim that the new Camry, Altima or Aura is 'clean sheet', and would be willing to bet that even the new Accord won't borrow heavily on previous on its predecessors.
    I agree with you about one thing, though, the Fusion is a credible effort to get Ford back into the car business after many years of neglect.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    would be interested on your comments on the CVT, the car you drive is tops on my wife's shopping list?
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    I don't know. appearence wise, I like the 2007 better. Honda seems unwilling to do anything darring with its accord design.

    I'm with you, Egg. Appearance-wise I find the 2007 to be more attractive than the spy photos that I've seen of the '08s so far. To be sure, Honda is not very daring when it comes to the style of their cars. Maybe they don't have to be. At least the Accord looks better than the Camry, IMHO.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,426
    I will throw this out.

    I am totally in agreement with those who claim the superiority of the Honda Toyota et al engines. However, this is because of the their greater fuel efficiency, not because of their power. In regards to power I agree with the Ford camp that says 220 is plenty. 220 is more than enough. I had a Taurus with the 140hp Vulcan, and not once did I think it needed to be faster - many times I wished it got better gas mileage though.

    What if Toyota put the technology in their 3.5 liter engine into their 3.0. So what if it was down a few hp. It would still be plenty fast and would get even better mpg.

    We are sending far too many dollars to OPEC countries. Fuel economy is not just about dollars saved.

    To be totally honest, a v-6 is superfluous in the vast majority of situations. Fun...yes, but so is the I4 with a stick.

    Besides if you want fun just buy an old Miata - to bomb around in on the weekends. Most daily commutes generally do not offer very many oppertunities to have "fun" with the engine. The gas saved and the purchase money saved will easily pay for the Miata.

    Why cruise around with all that power only to use it a small percentage of the time? As it is I rarely get a chance to put the spurs to my I4. Though I do consider buying an overly powerfull engine to be wasefull, I would certainly not put it in the same category of wastefullness as commuting to work in a Suburban by oneself.

    Understand, that I am speaking in general terms. I know some people with V-6 engines that get better mpg than those with the 4-cyl (mostly due to driving style and transmission choice).

    To finish up, I really look forward to seeing the new crop of more efficient drivetrains in the midsized segment - especially the diesels.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    and would be willing to bet that even the new Accord won't borrow heavily on previous on its predecessors.

    I think you meant to say the opposite of what the words say, that you would be willing to bet that the new Accord WILL borrow heavily from its predecessors. To be sure the 2008 Accord will not be all new, from the ground up. Not from what I've read anyway.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yep, sorry about that...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Clean sheet for Ford - compared to the existing Taurus. The Taurus was replaced by 2 vehicles - the Fusion and the Five Hundred (now renamed Taurus). Yes, for the Fusion they started with the Mazda6 platform but they lengthened and widened it. The Five Hundred started with a Volvo D3 platform. And last time I checked Ford owned Volvo and a controlling interest in Mazda. That's like saying Acura borrows from Honda or vice versa. It's all the same company.

    Speaking of facts - the AWD system used on the Fusion is NOT the same one used by Volvo. It's an all Ford in house engineered version. The DT3.0L is not the same engine used in the Taurus. The Taurus never had VVT. THIS is the type of misleading misinformation about the Fusion that I'm talking about. Next you'll claim the Escape Hybrid's powertrain came from Toyota (which is also not true).
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    I really look forward to seeing the new crop of more efficient drivetrains in the midsized segment - especially the diesels.

    We recently bought a 3.0-liter V6 Fusion but our next car will definitely be a four-banger and hopefully a diesel four at that, simply for the superior fuel mileage. We didn't need a V6 and have buyer's remorse for getting it.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    the Fusion and the Five Hundred

    Is the new Taurus/Five Hundred also going to be considered as a mid-size sedan? I'd consider it one.

    The car I test drove looked promising as I was sitting in it but it soon disappointed me with its lack of power. Once they upsize the engine that car could be a good seller. Its a nice size ride.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Finally something I can agree on. Ford is definitely behind the curve as far as fuel mileage. But the new Taurus 3.5L actually increased mileage over the old 3.0L Five Hundred (both using the 2008 test results while adding 63 hp. A good trend. Let's hope we see the same thing or better when the 3.5L makes it to the Fusion.

    2007 Five Hundred 19 city, 26 hwy, 21 combined
    2008 Five Hundred 18 city, 28 hwy, 22 combined
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Is the new Taurus/Five Hundred also going to be considered as a mid-size sedan? I'd consider it one.

    No, it's classifed as a large car according to the EPA. The back seat has more room than a Crown Vic. But it should drive more like a smaller car.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    well then I guess we have a difference in definitions, 'clean sheet' to me means something new and/or not used before - something that only the Sonata in this group has a reasonable claim to. The Ford 'VVT' and please correct me if I'm wrong, is not the same sort of thing as the Toyota CVVTi, the GM CVVTi, the Nissan and Hyundai VVTi, or even the Honda SOHC VVTi engines - maybe a reason for the HP/efficiency/refinement differences? As far as who owns who it really makes no matter, there is little in the Fusion that hasn't been done before and it is anything but 'clean sheet'. Maybe not such a bad thing - and maybe something that has contributed to the Fusion's rather good initial and probable future reliability ratings...

    WHAT MISINFORMATION - is simply adding a rudimentary VVT system to an existing 10 year old engine make it a 'new' engine, or taking an existing chassis stretching it a couple of inches make it a new chassis?

    If it makes you feel any better, Nissan is a champion at this kind of thing, taking a single chassis design (the FM), a single engine (the VQ) and turning it into a whole product line of 'different' vehicles, all of which are anything but 'clean sheet'. Guess you will have to put me on your Nissan 'basher' list, even though I've bought 5 of their cars since '92, and if my better half has her way we will be making it six shortly. :D
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Well, looks like Toyota is following Nissan's footsteps to utilize its new 2GR-FE/FSE in most (if not all) of its new V6 models. It is definitely a good way to reduce cost and there is nothing wrong with that.

    Now, call me a Toyota basher...

    :P
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    when the 3.5L makes it to the Fusion
    someone somewhere in this forum posted an article about the 3.5 never making it into the Fusion, something about limited production capabilities along with a refit of 2 existing DT plants to produce a new 'improved' 3.0 with a whole 240hp 2 years or so from now. Misinformation I guess :confuse: ?
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    The Ford 'VVT' and please correct me if I'm wrong, is not the same sort of thing as the Toyota CVVTi, the GM CVVTi, the Nissan and Hyundai VVTi, or even the Honda SOHC VVTi

    Based on my understanding of it, you are correct. However Mazda's VVT on the Duratec30 in the Mazda6 is similar to those above yet does not offer more power or efficiency. Ford seems to have found something else that allows for the extra power but at lower RPMs. You have to rev pretty high in the Mazda6 V6 to get to the power. Or at least I thought so when I owned one.
Sign In or Register to comment.