Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Have no doubt that this coul be true - and this would be the reason to favor the bail out, although maybe we should attach some strings that would require that the recipients of the money to use it to keep real Americans employed (meaning keeping those US plants open) and not do what Ford has recently done with the money they borrowed.
The real point (or rant as some would call it) is that IF keeping money in this country (and a contribution to the the continued economic health of this country) is a buyer's motivation then the Fusion is going to be near the bottom of the list in this group, and things like the Malibu/G6/Sebring/Aura are going to be closer to the top.
Et cetera, et cetera. Can we PLEASE talk about "Midsize Sedans?"
Sure grad. Just get that full-size sedan out of your post and we'll talk. :P
Hint: It's the white one.
HINT: It has a sunroof!
Has anyone seen a full test of the new Fusion NON-HYBRID model?
Hey, where's the 6?
Haven't seen any tests of the non-Hybrid Fusion yet, but did see a Hybrid (as well as the Sport) at the Auto Expo here a couple weeks ago. The '10 Sport just went to the top of my list of cars to test-drive when I replace my 6 in about 18 months. The interior is leagues above the current Fusion, and the 3.5L will do very well in a car like this, no matter how "unrefined" some people think it is.
I've heard that the 6-speed SelectShift that Ford is planning to use with the 3.5L automatically blips the throttle when manually downshifted. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Confirmed.
Confirmed.
Allen,
Just exactly what does "blips the throttle" mean?
Boz
if your 'wink' is supposed to mean something - yes I caught it - the only problem
being that I am certainly not the only one that thinks so - try CR for example - they see the problem in all three DTs something I've been harping on for years (primatily on the 3.0) and they mention in the 09 Auto issue.. Apparently - they need a 'wink' as well, don't you think?
That said I happen to agree with you, the 3.5 in the Fusion or even better the 3.7 in the 6 should at least put them midpack at the drag races. With those kind of horses it should rarely be necessary for anyone to push the engines hard enough that it becomes bothersome. It is entirely possible to drive cars with this kind of power literally a lifetime and never see anything over 5000 rpm - it is rare you find any engine that is happy (and pleasant) over 6
Nothing, of course, unless you want to admit that somebody like CR knows more about cars, and compares more cars than either you or I..I also seem to remember the same comments about the 3.5 in the Edge (yes it is a heavier vehicle) in an enthusiast mag. but then they would know nothing as well, I guess.
http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/ford/edge/2008_ford_edge/2008_ford_edge- _limited_awd_comparison_test+type-reviews_by_make+mode-collection+id-265.html
Yes, I guess there are a bunch of us that have a different set of standards
That's fine and is exactly what I said in #11654. Just don't tell me that somehow I'm the only one in the universe that still thinks that the Fusion's engines have been and apparently remain lacking - there are plenty of other idiots just like me.
You'd have to drive the Toyota 2GR (even in the too soft Camry) and drive it hard to fully appreciate the difference. It is turbine-like sewing machine. The Nissan VQ or the Honda V6 almost as refined.
VERY cool! Now lets hope Mazda uses it for the 6 as well.
And yeah, I'd much rather drive a stick and do it myself, but since both Ford and Mazda has lost the cajones to include the option of three pedals with the V6 anymore...
Clear as mud!
Ask and you shall receive. :shades:
Fusion Sport Review
I'm not a big fan of the red interior trim the Sport comes with. Fortunately it does come in blue or black too.
Don't you find it interesting that the Autoblog article above takes the time to knock the switches and steering wheel but only has raves for the engine and transmission? I guess they're just blind and deaf like the rest of us.
good analogy - BUT if you can wear that Rolex for the same cost (or less) as it would to wear the Timex, why not then the Rolex:
These numbers from Edmunds own 5 year TCO (True Cost to Own) statistics:
1. Honda Accord EX V6, $25k cash price - $39728 TCO.
2. Camry LE V6, $25k cash price - $42023.00 TCO
3 Mazda6 Touring V6, cash price $24k - $42445 TCO.
3. Sonata SE V6, $22k cash price - $42855.00 TCO
4. Altima 3.5SE, $28k cash price $43051.00 TCO
5. Fusion SE V6 $21k cash price $44164.00 TCO
These numbers are for 2008 models, and do include the expected finance savings for the less expensive cars, as well as recognition of the difference in initial purchase price. Actually surprises me how much the Honda runs away with this and FTM how much more expensive the Fusion is despite the lowest initial cost
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController
I ask again then, why not the Rolex - the least expensive cars tend to be the most expensive over assumming a 5 year ownership period.
reran the numbers simply because some of them didn't seen to make sense and voila - the $44k number for the Fusion is for the AWD version, properly we should be comparing the FWD SE model - TCO for this model is $42295 which would actually place the Fusion 3rd in this comparison just ahead of the Mazda 6. :sick:
Then they are pretty much useless. Edmunds should run those numbers again using rebates, incentives and current financing on all of those models.You'd probably see a reversal in ranking.
Your issue was that the Ford duratecs are unrefined and somehow inferior. If that's the case why didn't Autoblog mention it? You'd think something that obvious would be in every single review, yet it's not. Only in a selective few.
First you mention that Edmunds doesn't consider some criteria that are material to the analysis which IMO makes their calculations flawed and then you state in a factual manner that the Honda "runs away with this". While I find Edmunds to be a good supplier of information, my experience and common sense has found that Edmund's TCO and TMV numbers are very suspect. For my last three vehicle purchases if I would have used Edmunds TMV as my target price I would have payed at least 2-3 thousand more than I did per vehicle.
I don't know if Edmunds uses MSRP or TMV to base their calcs for TCO on but either one is flawed IMO. When you adjust for actual market prices and less sales tax paid and the cost of money over five years...I truly believe the number you cite would be a lot different.
But with all that said, I still would personally rather drive a the car which I thought was more dependable on a day to day basis and that I liked better even if it cost me a couple of thou over a 5 year period. What would that be....like a $1 per day to drive the car I like better. That's a no brainer.
I have a 2.3L Mazda6 which I guess fits into this unrefined category and to be honest I don't see it. I must caveat my statement with the confession that I am not an Indy driver or a mechanical engineer so I may not be qualified to comment. However, I am curious.
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the review. The Fusion got high marks. I don't care much for the red accents, however. Tacky.
Boz
I personally wouldn't buy any of those soulless jellybeans.
My question then becomes - that if you can accept Edmunds (and Intellichoice) TCO numbers and it is effectively not going to cost you anything more for the Rolex , why not wear one. I personally agree with the one poster here that made a comment along the line that these TCO numbers often do not reflect the heavier discounts and rebates that are more available on D3 (and Korean) products. But if this is the case, how much are they really off?
If we are going to drive cars until the wheels fall off, then obviously the cheaper the better (from a TCO perspective) but what these numbers say is that the Accord which costs 3 or 4 grand more to buy (vs something like a Fusion or Sonata) is going to cost 2 or 3 grand less to operate over 5 years - a significant number IMO
The post also had something to do with getting closer to back on topic as well
I do like the analogy between the Rolex and Timex. The Timex will tell time, run for years, cost you much, much less. Rolex, will tell time, look good to those who know what a Rolex looks like, or even care.
Prices of vehicles here at Edmunds and other car sites are always in question. I have seen EX V6 Accords advertised for as low as $23K, I have seen Sonata SE V6's for as low as $19K, Fusion SEL V6 AWD for as low as $22K. My guess is these prices here at Edmunds and other web sites are purely and average across the U.S. markets. In some markets Honda's go for cheaper. Say, Honda in California will sell for less than a Honda in Minnesota.
But to be realistic. Anyone who follows the car industry/sales knows Honda/Toyota products will cost you about $2-$4,000 more than competing models/trim levels. Financing/Incentives must also be included in the cost of the vehicle.
Not necessarily. It has more to do with the fact that there was never a Corporate wide mandate for best in class fuel economy until the last 2 years. If you don't reward people for achieving high FE then they won't go out of their way to produce it. Look at what they were able to achieve in the 2.5L I4 Fusion.
It's all about the goals you set and how you reward the workers for achieving them (or not). And you can thank Fields and Mulally for that change.
I'll mention that my wife and I both drive about 20K+ miles per year. We have a 2000 Tundra with 160K, a 2004 RAV4 with 115K, and a 2009 Camry SEV6 (I think that the sport-y suspension does work) with 19K miles.
All these vehicles have been very reliable (strictly adhering to PM schedules) and that is important to us.
the DTs have for whatever effect that has on refinement a rather rudimentary valve timing system relative to some of the others, meaning a simple non continuously variable valve system on the intake only vs. CVVTi which is continuously variable on both the intake and exhaust sides that further is computer oontrolled (the 'i') so that the engine can operate at high efficiencies pretty much all the time. The fact that valve opening timing and durations can all be controlled are what I see as the reason why the 2GR for example, will happily bounce off its rev limiter all day if you are not paying attention - it is that smooth and non-obtrusive. The DTs will start to strain at about 5000 rpm, and will not pull to that 6000+ rpm without letting you know it. The pushrod engines you mention, of course, are what they are - pushrod engines - the 4.0 in the Mustang shouldn't be in any car never mind one that is such an icon, but perhaps the worst of all IMO is the 90d (wrong angle) 3.8L V6 that GM has been using since the 60s and a real meat grinder. Rumor has it that GM is finally putting it out of its misery!`
The D3 have always been good at making big lazy V8s and not so good at 4s and V6s. With my apologies to the HF3.6 in some GM products, this hasn't really changed much.
Think also that any vehicle these days ought to be good for at least 150k with minimal probelms if its properly maintained, one of the reasons that I don't put too much values in these 100k warranties.
PS - bet you love your 2GR - best engine that Toyota has ever made IMO - my current rides are a 03 Altima 3.5 and an 05 Avalon (that has the same engine )
Now I understand what is wrong with Detroit - they obviously can't do anything right unless they have a 'mandate'. Think about how ridiculous that sounds. How about even my 75 year old Mom and my 5 year old grandkid know that FE sells especially in a class like this. And I don't think either of them are privy to some sort of life directing mandate. But I will go home this weekend, and wait for the proper 'mandate' - before I starve to death.
Not necessarily. It has more to do with the fact that there was never a Corporate wide mandate for best in class fuel economy until the last 2 years. If you don't reward people for achieving high FE then they won't go out of their way to produce it. Look at what they were able to achieve in the 2.5L I4 Fusion.
It's all about the goals you set and how you reward the workers for achieving them (or not). And you can thank Fields and Mulally for that change.
I think the Fiesta will really show the effect of weight reduction techniques, but that has to balance out the Edge, which is a chubby, chubby bunny by any account, 4100 lbs compared to the Venza's 3750 curb weight. I think the Fusion was the first push on weight reduction and mpg. I think they are just getting started. It seems odd that at the same time Ford downsized, they have more new products and more stuff in the pipeline than ever before. I think a lot of the chopping was in the middle so things move faster now.
So many comments, so much need for restraint :P
the big spike in gas prices caught just about every vehicle manufacturer off guard.
even toyota decided to ditch their bloated barges, like the avalon. :P
Time is a factor too, for us to get 150K would mean about 20 years at our current rate. While a car may be kept going for that long, it will cost a lot more for me to get 150K on it than it would for someone doing it at a rate of 30 or 40K mi per year.
On the cost, I think edmunds figures are a reaonalbe starting point, I've found my personally adjusted "true cost to own" to be about the same for any of these models...within the likely margin of error and/or not enough of a difference where it would be a significant factor in choosing one car over another. So I would and did simply choose the one I liked best and then worked to get a good deal on it.
Even without adjusting, looking at the 4 cylinder versions, they are all within about 6% of each other. I think that a 6% difference is likely within the margin of error for these estimates.
The imports do exactly the same thing - it's just that fuel economy has been a corporate goal for years because that's how they got their foot in the door back in the 70's and that was a decided advantage for them over the years, even more the last 2 years.
Bill Ford's directive was low emissions - unfortunately the buying public didn't care you could get a Ford Explorer with emissions lower than most econoboxes. That is what changed with Mulally. They're just doing what the competition has always done, and it shows in the products.
I feel we are going to see a whole lot of consolidation in the coming years. Not only from Ford/GM but from all automakers.
My feelings are Ford needs to drop Mercury and send this money into Lincoln. Make Lincoln a real luxo brand to fight BMW/Caddy/Mercedes/Acura/Lexus.
GM needs to let either Buick or Pontiac go and GMC. Lots of extra cash there to put into Chevy brands. Still too many vehicle overlaps in my opinion. Toyota right now is headed in the wrong direction. Toyota is also starting to have too many like vehicles.
According to the EPA numbers, there is one Large Sedan that gets slightly better fuel economy numbers than the Avalon--19/29 vs. 19/28. Without looking, you'd probably never guess what it is. :surprise:
Also, the top non-hybrid Family Sedan (EPA's closest thing to mid-sized sedan) in EPA fuel economy for 2009 MY might be a surprise to some.
They have basically dropped Mercury already. No new Sable. No new Mountaineer when the Explorer gets redone. The Milan will probably be the last Mercury rebadge. There is room for Mercury as long as it gets unique vehicles and not rebadges. It doesn't have to be high volume because Lincoln is getting the investments and new vehicles right now.
Lincoln did have a plan for a new global RWD platform but that had to be put on the back burner due to the poor economy and high fuel prices. If Ford can get back in the black and get the new small cars out the door then they'll be able to resurrect it.