Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

12324262829544

Comments

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It is easy to find the link to the C/D comparo in which the Fusion took 2nd via google, but here's the link for your convenience:

    http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10245/mid-size-comparo.html
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Second place is nice, in that comparo. Do you think it would beat out the 07 Camry though? I doubt it. I am surprised it beat out the V6 Sonata 06 Camry.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Since both the Optima and Aura beat out the 2007 Camry in C/D's latest comparo of family sedans, I think there is an excellent chance that the Fusion would beat the new Camry if C/D did that comparo. The Camry finished next to last, only ahead of the woeful Sebring, in that comparo.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    So I4s & V6s across the board. Nice!!
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I'd agree that the Fusion would probably beat the 07 Camry in a comparison test if the vehicles are I4 models, but I wouldn't be so sure of it if the Fusion V6 was compared against a Camry V6 today. I think the ratings would change a bit. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Other than subjective styling differences, lower prcing and handling, the Camry V6 (especially XLE and SE models) offer more in the way of standard equipment and safety features than the Fusion does.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Second place is nice, in that comparo. Do you think it would beat out the 07 Camry though? I doubt it. I am surprised it beat out the V6 Sonata 06 Camry.

    I don't know why. These car magazines place more emphasis on the actual "drive" than anything else, and the Fusion trounces the last gen Camry and current Sonata in that regard.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yes, if C/D compared the Camry SE V6 to the Fusion V6, the Camry might take it. The old Camry V6 was only six points (I think) behind the Fusion in the tests of '06 models. However, C/D just doesn't seem very enamored with the '07 Camry. For example, in their comparo of basic I4 models, they noted how the Optima out-Toyota'd the Camry, or words to that effect.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The Fusion must "drive" very well. And it sounds like the Camry didn't improve in that area since 06.
  • ashleydw85ashleydw85 Member Posts: 6
    yes reverse worked when I got it. I drove it for 2 days and now it won't shift into reverse. I drained the transmission fluid and it was black with a red tint so I'm wondering if the filter is clogged. Everywhere I call says I need to take it to a dealership but I don't want to pay someone else for labor. I can do it myself if some knows what I should do and can tell me how to do it.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Maybe you would have better luck posting this in a 626 problem thread. Here's the link.
    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.ee9965a/0
  • daedalus34rdaedalus34r Member Posts: 93
    This time I went to the Mazda dealer to check out the MS6. I sat inside and i was impressed. Fit and finish are really nice. I didnt take a test drive, but I plan on it.

    I heard alot of comments about how the shifter is no good, but when i was rowing through the gears the gates were very well defined and extremely easy to find w/ short throws, i dont know what will change when I actually drive it. However, the clutch is VERY stiff ... Not sure if i could live w/ that.

    One problem i do have [not with this vehicle] is finding reverse on a 6speed transmissions [either left-up or down-right]. I can get can get the forward gears easy of course, but it seems like the shifter wont move farther left[MS6 has reverse up and to left]. Do I need to have the car running and/or have my foot on the brake and ONLY THEN will reverse open up? Only manuals i have driven are when reverse is behind 5th gear [5speeds]. If someone could enlighten me, i would be extremely grateful.

    I did the rear seat check and it passed w/ flying colors, a 6'-0" individual can easily sit behind a driver of equal or less height.

    Hopefully there are no glarring errors or hidden problems w/ this car. Ive read about the computer fix that reduces the cars power or something, not sure. Hopefully it isnt major. I am also unsure of Mazda's reliability but im sure its probably solid since its an asian manufacturer. Overall its one of those cars that is under the radar. Does anyone have any real-world 0-60 or 0-100 times? As in, w/o doing a insane 4000rpm clutch dump. Those advertised times are nice, but can only be achieved when one abuses the clutch.
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    I am also unsure of Mazda's reliability

    Shoot - any turbo-ed 4 cyl. isn't gonna deliver the reliability and major miles the naturally aspirated engines will. Get the turbo for the short-term, high revving lifestyle, but I'd get the latest V6s for speed and reliability without the huge rpm atmosphere of the turbo and questionable long term performance.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I have driven this car a few times, it is my "stretch target." Alas my price range relegates me to the more mundane boring stuff but I loved the shifter, I thought it was very precise.

    I recall to get reverse you push down on the shifter while moving up and to the left ala VW. The Contour had a collar you would pull up when shifting into reverse, but the MS6 isn't an MTX75 trans.

    Mazda has had some issues with reliability in certain models (the 626 4 cyl w/auto, early RX8, prev gen RX7 - which use rotary engines, not like the regular inline 4s) but has a pretty stellar reputation overall (Miatas last forever, etc).

    I really wouldn't be too worried about a turbo motor. Mazda, Mitsubishi, Saab, Volvo and Honda all have turbo motors that are well proven and the motors seem to have excellent longevity, especially in stock form.

    The nice thing about turbos is they offer excellent efficiency while below boost.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Shoot - any turbo-ed 4 cyl. isn't gonna deliver the reliability and major miles the naturally aspirated engines will. Get the turbo for the short-term, high revving lifestyle, but I'd get the latest V6s for speed and reliability without the huge rpm atmosphere of the turbo and questionable long term performance.

    20 years of turbo performance and history helps me feel comfortable with a boosted motor. I wouldn't want to change technologies too fast, my 8 tracks still sound great... :P
  • maximafanmaximafan Member Posts: 592
    Perna, you're making me reminisce on my '02 Maxima (RIP). That car had some great pick up.
    I got to drive a Mazda6 rental car a couple of weeks ago. I have to say I was pretty impressed with the way the car handled. It was a 4-cylinder, so not always real powerful,
    but zippy enough. When my brother would come to town when I had the Maxima, he always liked to drive it whenever we would go out on the town, and he would punch that accelerator and make our heads kind of snap back in the seat and he'd get this look of "wonder" on his face.

    Unfortunately, he tries to do the same thing with my '07 Lexus RX. You won't get the same reaction. (this makes me laugh all the time.)
    While my Rx has pretty good pick up for an SUV,
    it's still not nearly as quick as the Maxima was! ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I'm kind of surprised you don't see more Maxima's around. These are nice looking along with great performers. I wonder if they just get lost in the Acura/Lexus shadow..
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I know this is gonna sound weird, but to me, the Lucerne looks better than either the Avalon OR the Maxima (although the Maxima update helped). A 19 year old likes a Buick? Well, out of the choices, yeah.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Lucerne is growing on me also. But it's a full-sized car. One thing GM does not lack is styling prowess.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Go test drive the Lucerne CXS and you'll be even more impressed. Of course, in black. The ONLY color that it looks stunning in is black. Some cars look lame in black, but this looks perfect, like Mercedes E and S classes do.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Swirl marks and dirt = Black car.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    "reasons they've never caught on big in the states" Yes they never did catch on big but rather than maintenance/repair costs the real reason was and still is cheap gasoline. Yeah, yeah it is over $3.00 per in most of the country but nowhere near the cost of gas in Europe. Diesel fuel, while still expensive is significantly cheaper there. And lets not forget some of the other reasons. Americans have long memories and many remember the GM diesel fiasco in the 80's which unfortunately turned many against any sort of a diesel. Then there is the lack of availability for almost any diesel (other than commercial trucks and light trucks) car or SUV even though they are fabulous economy wise. Also, even those who had taken a chance (owned or drove) on a diesel 20+ years ago have no idea how technology has improved them. A modern direct injection turbo diesel is quiet..quick...economical..and long lived. It does not smoke...smell..rattle excessively at idle nor is it a slug. In short, nearly no one in this country knows just how good they really are. The fuel was only recently formulated for low sulfur content (important for emissions) and only recently have workable "traps" for particulates been introduced. Mercedes, I believe, can now pass EPA standards. So, I too would rather have a modern diesel than a hybrid that may never give "pay back" for the large up front cost premium. This isn't even taking into account the largely unknown long term reliability of battery packs etc. However, these seem fairly reliable at this point. If Honda's diesel becomes accepted (and it should) there could be a flood of diesel cars in this country, it is about time. Past time really.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    two things-
    1) the thing that the Camry has always been and what is largely responsible for its success is that they are normally 'softer', something not high on an enthusiast mags priorities but well up there with the average American carbuyer in this class, and
    2) C/Ds COTY award has as much to do with a car's 'significance' as it does with any evaluation of a particular car's dynamic capabilities. If 400 or 500,000 buyers a year doesn't make the Camry significant, I don't know what does.
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    C/D doesn't do a COTY award. Maybe you are thinking about MT? That is the one that is much about "market significance." And the 2007 Camry won that award. As you noted, 400k+ buyers is pretty significant.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    C/Ds COTY award has as much to do with a car's 'significance' as it does with any evaluation of a particular car's dynamic capabilities.

    I agree, the Aura didn't win a comparison with the 07 Camry, it was just more significant (being a brand new model, and not a redesign of an existing car).

    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    I agree with this also. But, I think the Fusion's interior would also put it a step down from these cars.
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    There are many days I wish I still had my diesel golf. But I agree with you 100%, I'd take a diesel over a hybrid any day of the week. I have no interest in a small subcompact car with a 1.3 liter engine. And your probably right about seeing more of them. Nissan will also be putting out a diesel maxima in 2 years, I think.

    I had to laugh when you mentioned the gm diesel's. What a joke they were. If I remember correctly, they tried converting a gasoline engine instead of designing a true diesel engine.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    You, and I, are certainly entitled to our own options. IMHO, the 3.0-liter Ford V6 is definitely competitive though not at the top of the mountain.

    The "not in the same league" comment seems off base, unless you have something on which to back up that opinion.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    You, and I, are certainly entitled to our own options. IMHO, the 3.0-liter Ford V6 is definitely competitive though not at the top of the mountain.

    In the "Camry/Altima/Aura XR/AccordV6" league you are talking about, it is actually bottom of the mountain for output/acceleration performance. I can't think of a car in the segment that offers less horsepower in top - V6 form, making it, the unfortunately-worded "loser" in that race (horsepower is only one aspect).

    Same league, yyyyeah, I guess they ought to be prounounced that. They are 3.0L - 3.5L V6s, all in 3,200-3,600 lb sedans. They aren't the best incarnation/tuning of their respective engines (all but the Fusion make more horsepower in other variations).

    Beats 'em in handling though.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Beats 'em in handling though.

    Not exactly grad. The V6 Accord out handled the V6 Fusion. The Fusion just had a more "sporty feel", whatever that means.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    To me the Fusion felt more nimble than the Accord. The Accord is very easy to drive fast, but the Fusion felt like it had less lean and higher limits.

    Now lets get a wagon version of the Fusion and get the I4 mpg up to Accord level and things are good. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Not exactly grad. The V6 Accord out handled the V6 Fusion.

    Curiousity got me...according to whom/what? I sort of felt the Fusion handled better but rode harder than the Accord. Everything I've read sort of said that too.
  • victrolajazzvictrolajazz Member Posts: 75
    "Also, even those who had taken a chance (owned or drove) on a diesel 20+ years ago have no idea how technology has improved them. A modern direct injection turbo diesel is quiet..quick...economical..and long lived. It does not smoke...smell..rattle excessively at idle nor is it a slug. In short, nearly no one in this country knows just how good they really are."

    It's what I traded in on my '07 Altima 3.5 SE. I bought an '04 NB 5 Spd GL TDI brand new in May, '04, when I was still making a 28 mile round trip up and down the North Dallas Tollway everyday. It broke in perfectly, only used 1/2 litre of the expensive 505.01 Castrol oil in the first 5,000 miles. Never got below 40 MPG in town even when new, and always averaged 45-47 over a tankfull. All its power was at the top of the pedal--going along at 65 in 5th, just had to think about it and I was around the next car. It did have an EGR cooler recall at 15,000 miles, then warranty replaced my tandem pump assembly at 16,000 miles. Within six months of purchase, the traditionally less-expensive than all other grades of gas diesel fuel completely traded places, remaining at or above the most expensive premium. In mid-05, I moved back to Waco and retired at end of '05--driving much less. Reading about some of the diesel's characteristics on another website made me kind of nervous, especially in regards to the turbo going to pieces and such--also the only VW dealership being 30 miles away. When I read of the newly designed Altima with the CVT, I had to drive one and was instantly sold on it--also was getting tired of having to shift all the time. Got 80% of what I paid for the VW three years earlier after putting 18,500 miles on it. Got the Altima on 12/21/06, has 2,600 miles on it now. Within a short time, ALL gasoline grades had once again reverted back to being higher than any diesel, but I'm not sorry. One nice side-effect was, I discovered that I'd been hoodwinked into buying an extended warranty on the VW--told it was only $106, which seemed reasonable. Got a check for $806 two months after cancelling the VW warranty--had two amounts on the Advice of Remittance attachment, one for $106.01, then another for $699.99. They got me into it with the low price, then wrapped the remainder into my balance without me ever knowing it--that'll help pay for some of the lower mileage on the Altima...
  • victrolajazzvictrolajazz Member Posts: 75
    "Americans have long memories and many remember the GM diesel fiasco in the 80's which unfortunately turned many against any sort of a diesel."

    I actually ordered a brand new '80 Olds Cutlass with a diesel engine in January of 1980--I'd sold a '69 Hurst Olds with 36,000 miles on it for $4,000 and was using it as a downpayment on the $8,000 total price. In the meantime, I bought a '67 GTO convertible with 57,000 miles on it from the original owner which I'd been trying to buy since 1976. This happened two weeks before the Cutlass was supposed to arrive--told the dealer and he said no problem, even gave me back my $100 deposit when I said he could keep it--they could sell all the diesels they could build then. Used the $4,000 for the all original GTO--kept it almost 10 years and sold it for $12,500. Bought an all original '53 Cadillac which I still have--turned out to be the best thing I never did do!
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Grad, this is the entire paragraph from Edmunds own V6 comparison test (Fusion 4th place).

    "All who drove the Fusion remarked that it felt the most "European" of the four. With its taut chassis, confident steering and predictable handling, the Fusion exhibited a sophisticated-sporty nature that even the best handler of the group, the Honda Accord, lacked. In this regard, the Fusion excels in our group, but like a BMW, the trade-off is that this attribute takes it further away from what some might call a luxurious ride. Not many carmakers are ever successful in achieving both sporty and luxurious, but Ford has found a reasonable compromise in the Fusion. We doubt anybody would say the Fusion rides too harshly."
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    I took the Mazdaspeed6 for a test drive about a month ago and I thought it was great. Although my v-6 version is pretty fast and a touch lighter than the MS6, the higher torque and AWD was great coming out of corners. All the versions of the Mazda6 corner much flatter than all the cars I've driven in this class, so if you like twisties, this would be easily the best car in this class.

    I did like the steering character of the Legacy...more so than the Accord. It just felt more immediate and more connected. And like my previous Legacy, I found the AWD was great in cornering and managing quick starts without wheel spin. But the brakes on both the accord and legacy were wanting compared to the 6. I think most tests have both of these cars stopping 10-15 feet longer than the mazda6 and I think the mazdaspeed has better brakes than the v-6 too.

    The things the Accord has going for it, IMO, is the quality of the interior and their best-in-class manual tranny. The Mazda clutch is a bit stiff and engages quickly, but nothing you can't get used to once you start to get the timing right.

    So would you ever consider a coupe? The 08 Accord coupe looks pretty good (much better than the sedan both current and future) and from what I've heard should be a bit more sporty than the current version. Problem will be the premium you'd have to pay if you were to buy within the first 6 months of release. And after having a coupe before (an accord) and dealing with the inconveniences, I would have a hard time going back to one unless it was a second car.

    From a value perspective, the current mazda6 is hard to beat either in v-6 form or direct injected turbo4 if you value handling. And if you want/need extra hauling capacity, the v-6 has a hatchback and wagon option.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    You, and I, are certainly entitled to our own options. IMHO, the 3.0-liter Ford V6 is definitely competitive though not at the top of the mountain.


    Having owned the 3.0 Duratec for over a year now, I'm finding that I really like this engine. It is quick revving and responsive. At lower rpms, it's quiet and very smooth while at higher rpms it has a nice linear surge of power to make things fun. I love the sound of it at higher rpms also...it has a nice growl to it.

    Anyone read the review edmunds did of the Noble M400 which uses the 3.0 Duratec? Sounds like an awesome car with an engine/package that outclasses a 911 or lotus. Maybe the Duratec 3.0 is in a different league... a higher one :surprise: :blush: Also, note the video clip with audio if you want to hear the engine.

    here's the link: link title
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    How about this 3.0 liter engine?
    http://racing.honda.com/about/engine.aspx
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I did like the steering character of the Legacy...more so than the Accord. It just felt more immediate and more connected. And like my previous Legacy, I found the AWD was great in cornering and managing quick starts without wheel spin.

    If you are cooking, the Legacy (wagon) rotates very well on corner entry, occasionally too well, but the car feels alive in corners. Heavy throttle in snow will bring the back end around also. All in all, pretty fun for something that holds car seats and a stroller.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    MT, of course
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    With its taut chassis, confident steering and predictable handling, the Fusion exhibited a sophisticated-sporty nature that even the best handler of the group, the Honda Accord, lacked.

    I am confused...what is it that makes the Accord the best handler? Is it the 64.6 vs. 64.2 mph in the slolom??? To me handling is as much about feel as it is about a teeny tiny difference like that in performance. To me, the Accord steering is was just too light, because of this it lacks the right feel (for me).
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the 3.0-liter Ford V6 is definitely competitive though not at the top of the mountain.

    certainly an opinion but something also substantiated by 'full throttle' noise levels (dbs) which is higher (by a significant amount) in the DT (77 or 78db, if I recall correctly) than anything else in this class. And before you look up another V6 that tests out at say 75 and you think 'competitive though not at the top of the mountain' do some research on the decibel scale. And then, once you get past the noise levels then you can compare the whole concept of a smooth vibration-free engine at higher rpms - something I've never seen an objective measure for, but also something easily experienced in a test drive or two.

    There is a lot more to an engine than simply HP figures even though the DT is deficient in that dept. as well. Not at the top of the mountain, positively - not even on an upslope probably.

    IMO the Toyota 2GR is easily the most refined and advanced engine in this group, although those entrants from Nissan, Honda, GM, and even Hyundai (probably in that order) come much closer. To many of us, what's 'under the hood' makes or breaks a car - and given that bias, any car with the DT V6 is broken. Haven't had a chance to interview the 3.5 yet and it sounds like the 'new and improved' DT 3.0 is still a coupla years away. The inability of that particular mfgr to produce a truly competitive smaller engine may yet be the death of them. :cry:
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    I am confused...what is it that makes the Accord the best handler? Is it the 64.6 vs. 64.2 mph in the slolom??? To me handling is as much about feel as it is about a teeny tiny difference like that in performance. To me, the Accord steering is was just too light, because of this it lacks the right feel (for me).

    Quoted for agreement. Numbers are only a part of how a car handles to me. The only way I can fairly judge handling is getting some time behind the wheel and putting it through it's paces myself, and NOT by what some editor at a car magazine says.

    Having said that, is the Accord the better handler IMO? No. Not compared to the Mazda6 and Fusion. The 6/Fusion felt more stable in the twisties, and didn't lean nearly as much as the Accord (as well as the Legacy) did.

    Again, this is all MHO. :) Does it make the 6 and Fusion the best handlers out there? To me, yes. To anyone else, I hope not!
  • thenebeanthenebean Member Posts: 1,124
    i agree as well. a lot of these things are subjective, and everyone has a different opinion of what good handling is. to say that honda is the better handler just because edmunds says so is just plain silly. for all we know, someone else could have said that the fusion was the better handler over the accord. what makes one magazine review more believable than the other? nothing. its all in what each individual finds to suit their needs.

    to sit here and say one car is better because of one review in one magazine is just plain ludicrous!

    my two cents at least...

    -thene :)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The 6/Fusion felt more stable in the twisties, and didn't lean nearly as much as the Accord (as well as the Legacy) did.

    That is another good point...a higher speed through the slolom, but with more body leaning/rolling, does not a better handler make (IMO).
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I don't know, the bottom line is about the numbers, I think higher slalom speeds/lower lap times mean better performance. That doesn't make for a more rewarding driving experience however.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    ...substantiated by 'full throttle' noise levels (dbs) which is higher (by a significant amount) in the DT (77 or 78db, if I recall correctly) than anything else in this class. And before you look up another V6 that tests out at say 75 and you think 'competitive though not at the top of the mountain' do some research on the decibel scale.

    Noise inside the car is also affected by the amount of sound insulation, so this measurement may or may not tell you which engine is louder.

    You need to do some research on human hearing, not just the Db scale. Percieved loundness that you sense is a logarithmic function just like the Db scale...so, no 3 Db really is not much of a difference. You can find web sites that will let you hear this.

    Vibrations can be affected by things other than the engine itself as well.

    Just to clarify, I am just trying to keep thing factual. I am not on either side of the V6 engine refinement argument...I don't even own one, I have a 4 cyl.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Well, back when they tested the Mazda6, it's number was 64.9 mph in this slolom test :P ;) . And the Accord (which has not changed, right?) was an also-ran beating only the Malibu and the Sonata.

    2003-2004 Family Sedan Comparison Test
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    All this talk about "best handler" leads me to ask, is the Accord the best handler (in C/D's view) of the cars they recently compared to the Accord, or of all family sedans?

    I ask this because... what about the Mazda6? It is an exceptional handler for a family sedan. It's also IMO perhaps the best-looking of the current family sedans, even though the design is nearly five years old. And it's a terrific value right now, especially the Special Value Edition that starts at about $20k MSRP, but can be had in my town with no haggling for $16,500 (so it might be had for even less with some negotiating). It is comparable in equipment to the Sonata SE I4, with 17" alloys, ground effects, blacked-out lamps, power seat, leather wheel/shifter, CD changer, and a sport cloth interior. About the only major thing it doesn't have that the Sonata does is ESC. But you get best in class (?) handling, a nicely-styled interior with quality materials, and a sporty exterior (at least for a family car). If I were buying a car right now, it would be on my list (especially with my Ford supplier discount and a $500-off-best-offer coupon I have for a local dealer).
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    well, of course, things like better insulation and engine isolation can make a difference in loudness and vibration. Given that and from your comments, I guess your contention must be then that Ford, for some reason, does a poorer job in this and therefore the DT is really every bit as smooth and quiet as what's in some of these other cars? Horse puckey! Decibels are a measure of sound energy and increase logarithimically with value but is the only measure I've ever seen of how loud any car actually is. As I said earlier, a test drive by almost anybody will certainly confirm the whole refinement issue, or if you don't choose to believe that, about any comparison/road test of any Ford vehicle (3.0 DT equipped) will usually make the same comments.

    And lest you Ford guys think this is all about 'bashing', you shouldn't take it as such, the engine issues are a simple comment that does have some historical and current basis in fact and a commentary on that particular manufacturer's continued problems building a better car. Fix the engine and fix the car, IMO, everybody is better off (including this country's (and Mexico's) economy and the carbuyer benefits from having yet another good choice. Or put another way, put the Hyundai 3.3 liter in the Fusion and then you Fusionados/6ixers would really have something to talk about!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Given that and from your comments, I guess your contention must be then that Ford, for some reason, does a poorer job in this and therefore the DT is really every bit as smooth and quiet as what's in some of these other cars?

    No, I have no idea if that is the case or not. My contentions are exactly what I posted and nothing more:

    1. There may potentially be other factors, besides the engine itself, that can affect measured noise level inside the cabin.

    2. 3 Db is not much of a difference.

    3. Vibrations can be affected by things other than the engine itself as well.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    The fact is the Fusion at idle is every bit as quiet as a Honda or Camry in 4cyl or V6 form. Granted, put the pedal down and the 3.0 comes to life and does growl a bit more. But 3db is NOT that much more. I ride in my friends 05 Honda Accord 4cyl and I cannot believe you folks here that claim it sounds smooth???? When he trounces the pedal it makes all kinds of racket. Even with the radio going, you cannot hear the radio. Perspective, and opinion are rampant. The Duratec 3.0 is a proven, reliable and capable engine. And does compete in this class. Finishing at most .8 seconds behind other V6's in this class. I'm sure most won't notice .8 seconds.. nor care. Since they will end up paying thousands less for a comparably equipped vehicle.
Sign In or Register to comment.