By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Where are we going with this folks? Is someone here trying to make the Fusion/Milan out to be a death trap? or what? If so they are pushing incorrect information. Anyone educated enough and intelligent enough to read the data on the difference between 5 star and 4 star will see the Fusion/Milan are safe vehicles. In no way am I trying to give Ford a break on this issue. I have already complained online to Ford Motor Company. I know the vehicle I purchased has a lower crash safety rating than comparable vehicle. I also know the difference between a 4 star and 5 star safety rating. And the difference between "Good" and "Acceptable".. Acceptable means safe, maybe not safest, but SAFE...
Not sure what your point is there... Are you saying insurance industry earns greater profits by having safer cars on the road? I don't think that is really the case, but even if it is, why is that a problem?
No it is not a "death trap"...as I had said before, the Fusion crash test results were disappointing to me.
The issue is not only if it is acceptable or not, it is also that the competition is SAFER: Fusion is lower on basically all possible scores, whether with or without side airbags, whether government or insurance industry tests. If competition gets "good" on both front and side, five stars on both NHSTA tests (some of them do) and you get acceptable on front and poor on side, there is a sizable gap to make up for.
Four stars on NHTSA indicates that IIHS is likely to be not so great even with airbags unless they redesign the chassis. NHTSA checks just torso and lower body injuries on side impact, IIHS weighs all possible injuries, NHTSA uses male dummy, IIHS uses female (smaller), NTHSA uses smaller impact vehicle and lower bumper position than IIHS.
It is very simple to me: in its current form, Mazda6 platform, while well-handling is simply not robust enough to support crashworthiness comparable to the competition and airbags are not likely to change that. Adding them standard in '07 is great, but what they really need to do is get FAST to the drawing board and design some major strangthening of the chassis.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I am not so sure about that...
Fusion had 5 star for driver, with side air bag. For comparison the Malibu w/o side airbag got 4 star and a "safety concern" note. With side air bag it got 5 star for driver (rear passenger fell from 5 star to 4 with the side air bag :confuse: ). IIHS rating was poor w/o side air bag and good with it for the Malibu...it also had the same "acceptable" safety cage rating as the fusion.
Also note that Mazda 6 only got 3 stars in Gov't side test, so clearly Ford did do some improving there. Which also shows up in the IIHS structure rating difference.
Oh...one other note on crash tests. In Mazda 6 brochure, I recently noticed that it says the brake pedal is designed to fold away in the case of an accident to minimize leg/ankle injury. Could this be all there is to the difference in IIHS frontal rating between Fusion and Mazda 6?
My message is: Fusion is a good product to start with, but needs some fast improvement and steady R&D to stay in the game. Unfortunately Ford has a nasty habit of starving their existing models from R&D - milk it, then suck its blood, once it's dry just dump and move on with new name(Lincoln LS, Thunderbird, Taurus, entire Mercury lineup, also watch for Crown Vic in next couple of years, etc.).
Others usually try to keep the name alive, fix problems fast, come with new designs - Ford often takes a different path. I'm just afraid for Fusion taking the same route.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3712.html
You may find this interesting:
http://www.informedforlife.org/UserFiles/File/2006RiskOrder.pdf
As far as the IIHS. They are affiliated with the insurance industry. You can look at it 2 ways. The insurance industry doesn't lower preimiums based on your car being "safer" by thier standards. One way they force automakers to build safer vehicles. They cut thier losses, but don't cut your premiums..
This is a highly competitive environment compared to what they worked within in the 1960's and 70's. The World has changed. We need Bold Moves!
-Loren
By running their own tests and publicizing them, they are hoping to minimize sales of vehicles they consider not as safe. It that minimize cost thing again.
Remember, it's cheap to repair or replace a vehcile. Supporting a person with a major injury for life isn't.
If they were related (funded) to say equipment manufacturers then someone could build a case against their recommendations as biased and possibly conflicted. Or if they were funded by vehicle manufacturers themselves and suddenly or founders' products were found "Best picks".
Surely insurance industry interest is not always fully coincident with that of the customer's, as their risk assessment and particular product experience maximizing objectives are not the same (insurance wants you to buy safest vehicle period, you want to buy vehicle that represents best value and satisfies your overall needs and desires). However, in case of actually finding out which vehicles are safest (thus protecting life of consumer and pocketbooks of insurance industry), the interest is the same. What may differ is use of that information in the decision process, i.e. purchase decision vs. insurance rate determination.
It is always very funny to watch how manufacturer's react to test results. When they get best pick or good or five stars, they put it on their commercials and brag all around, when the same manufactures get not so great results on another vehicle, suddenly those test "do not represent vehicle's overall safety" or something of that nature. Can't blame then, but why consumers/fans fall for that, it's beyond me.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Hyundia is trying very, very hard to gain market share and reputation here in the U.S. markets. The Sonata is a good vehicle now doubt. Fusion will have side air bags standard by fall on all Fusions. stability control too is on the way. More HP, why is the Fusion only tenths of a second slower 0-60? the human mind cannot comprehend tenths of a second. I doubt the everyday driver would notice. Hyundia assembles the Sonata here in the U.S. profits go to Korea. Tooling at the plant, Korean, technical support, Korean, support for tooling, Korean, assemblers, American. I know my Fusion was made in Mexico, but profits made it back to U.S. Majority of tooling U.S., technical/engineering mostly U.S.
The Fusion handles and drives better than a Sonata hands down. The styling of the Fusion makes a Sonata look very plain and frumpy. Both cars have their strengths and weaknesses.
I may give one a test drive some day. In a few months, the 2007 will be out. Fusion has a bit more style than brand X, and maybe a little better handling, not sure, but Ford better concentrate on getting the product up to knock-out class, as at least some people read car magazines, and internet reviews and so far I don't think Fusion is kicking butt, or in the top three. I may be wrong - any site URLs where it tested above the rest? Safety, content, handling, comfort, gas mileage, resale value, power... well you know, we are getting spoiled these days and want it all. Style wise the Fusion/Milan are a bit more interesting to the eye than most of the competition. But the competition is changing too - nothing static here in the auto world. Even Camry is now stylish, though one may notice a little bump on the nose - not sure why. Maybe Bill Ford punched the poor little car :shades:
-Loren
That is true, but from a marketing perspective it might as well be. If 90% of the vehicles tested earn a 5 star and ABC Motors earns 4, the consumer wonders why they didn't try harder. 5 stars is expected - anything less is failing.
Hyundia assembles the Sonata here in the U.S. profits go to Korea. Tooling at the plant, Korean, technical support, Korean, support for tooling, Korean, assemblers, American. I know my Fusion was made in Mexico, but profits made it back to U.S. Majority of tooling U.S., technical/engineering mostly U.S.
There's no guarantee the tooling/engineering/support is made in the home country. The auto industry is now so globalized that "home" country really doesn't mean anything other than where the CEO hangs out when he/she isn't on an airplane. I wouldn't be suprised to see that Ford derives more profits outside the US. Does that make it a foreign company? Is Renault/Nissan French or Japanese? At one time Honda considered moving it's world HQ to the US because it was starting to consider itself an American company.
The other important factor is the need for suppliers to co-locate near the assembly plant. That requirement drives job creation as well. Bosch, Denso, Visteon et al all locate near the assembly plant - where ever that may be.
The first sentence is true and unless you can provide some evidence of the second one being true then everyone should ignore that sentence because nothing has been released about stability control on the Fusion. It is most certainly not in the 2007 order guide.
I don't think Ford has made stability control available on any of their cars yet. Unfortunately buyers are apparently willing to pay much more than what the cost of ESC would be in order to have all-wheel drive, so that is what they are going sell.
This is true for those consumers who don't educate themseslves as to the difference between a 4 star and 5 star safety rating. Consumers who are interested in the Fusions value, style, handling, price ect and actually read what safety ratings mean I believe will buy the vehicle.
"At one time Honda considered moving it's world HQ to the US because it was starting to consider itself an American company. " Oh, boy, Honda consider itself a U.S. company?? you have got to be kidding right?? Honda is all Japanese period. Looks like thier media campaign has paid off..
Brief history on my career. I worked for a Japanese transplant, also traveled to a few here in the U.S. 90 percent of tooling/equipment and even some support comes from Japan. I know, I have been there and have seen it first hand.
The JD Powers Initial Quality numbers for Fusion are now showing on their consumer website, and look pretty good. As a whole Ford is a bit down the list though, which is not good press. If people look up this car though, they will see it is doing pretty good in the survey.
I think I like the looks. Need a test drive. Pricing will be competitive no doubt. Warranty could be longer. HP is a little less than sum, but the 6 sp. tranny seems to get ya there in time. Will research this puppy some more. Will do a side-by-side with the Milan too.
-Loren
By the way, at 430 miles, I am averaging 25.6MPG out of my Fusion. I am confident my mileage will get better as the car breaks in.
Ford has come up with an alternative to ESC systems.
The wife or mother-in-law, sits in the back seat and tells you when to slow down.
Initial acceptance however has not been good as anticipated. Bill was last seen on a phone talking to the bean counters. It is likely the new system will likely resemble the Hyundai one. To offset the cost, Firestone tires with plastic hub caps are now standard on every model.
Seriously, if they want to keep ESC as optional, it would not bother me at all. Perhaps the side air bags should be standard though. And some nice wheels and tires. And it seems the crash test was pretty close to a 5 star, so next time around, I bet ya they can nail it. A little extra steel in one area should do the trick -- well maybe. Would like to see orange, or orange/white/blue optional lighting of instrument cluster. The Fusion/Mazda and the FiveHundred/Volvo are pretty good efforts from Ford. Good to see they can design something new. Sure the New Stang retro was a hit, but I was around to see the originals. You know the '69 exterior, '65 interior (had one), mixed with another year or two, to forge a new car is what it is. Hope they go back in size to the '94 model year, and come up with a new car some day. The current one is perhaps a very good '69. Pretty good in that respect. What next? I think in the Ford line I am gonna test drive a Fusion with a V6. Something tells me the seating position, vision out, feel and handling may be more what I am looking for.
If I want retro, I think I would go 2004 Stang, for the last of the Fox body, or '95 for the last of the OHV 5.0. Something honest and simple about them.
-Loren
However, the crash test results were poor. Weren't the crash test results not anywhere near the best in the class even with the then optional side curtain airbags?
The only other major concern is not being able to manually downshift and hold the next lower gear on extended uphill grades due to only having D and L as gear selections. Someone posted the gear selector only has D and L because the car was supposed ot have a CVT that was pulled from production, but Ford did not bother to get a new gear selector to match the new transmission.
The odd turn signal may be another annoyance.
Also I don't think the Fusion has been crash tested yet with the side airbags--has it?
On the crash test, it is not shown with side air bags at iihs.com.
Not in the side. The Fusion did score poorly on the IIHS side test without side bags and curtains which is no different from any other car in its class without the bags/curtains. However most now have those bags and curtains standard and so will the Fusion in a couple of months as mentioned.
IIRC the driver got 4 stars in the govt test and the second highest score, "Acceptable", on the IIHS test. Cause of that? Some foot intrusion by the gas pedal, otherwise it was great and if you look at the details of the tests you'll see the same thing. Call me crazy, but I think a vast majority of people will have already moved their right foot away from the gas pedal and to the brake making that supposed intrusion a non-factor.
I don't put much weight in those tests myself unless a vehicle scores extremely poorly. I drive a Mazda6 without side bags or curtains and it scored poorly in places. However, it handles like it's on rails and stops before it hits the dime so my accident avoidence quotient is higher than most other vehicles.
Its folks like yourself that spread wrong information. The Ford Fusion DID NOT "FAIL" this test. An Acceptable is not failing. Please read the difference between an Acceptable and a Good before you go on ranting and raving about the Fusion being a death trap. Not true, Fusion is a safe vehicle. Also, educate yourself about how many vehicles that are new models, and newer models that don't get a 5 star safety rating.. And if you read the crash test, the Fusion was very close to a 5 star rating.. :mad:
As I said before - Mazda6 chassis is just not robust enough to support crash tests with the same results as the close competition. Great rideability, not so hot crashworthiness. On long run it may cost them sales, if the competition keeps coming with good/best pick ratings for all impacts.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Consider the fact that more often then not, any vehicle with side impact airbags will provide better protection then an older one without them (Unless of course the design is completly defective, which this one is not.) If the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr outperforms the Camcord in the other important driving (and even saftey areas other then impact testing) areas, then I don't think only having "acceptable" protection in the unlikely event of a side collision should be a deal breaker.
And yes, if anyone is wondering, I HAVE been in a crash or two (one in a Subaru where the airbags deployed improperly...) and even a side impact. That was in a 1989 Mazda 626 at around 80 MPH. All I had to do was change a tire and I drove it home. (Naturally there was frame damage, but that wasn't what I was worried about that night..)
Anyway, not getting perfect rating doesn't mean a car is "unsafe". It's important that customers understand that. Safety IS very important, if not THE most important thing. But there are also a lot of other features and factors under that topic. Another reason I'm excited for the 2007 Fusions with AWD!
If Camry, Accord, and say Malibu with airbags get "good" and Fusion gets only acceptable, it may potentially kill the sales. Doesn't have to, but may. Joe Smith watches another Dateline and get from it that Camry is safer than Fusion. Guess what is he going to buy.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
In the meantime let's hope a lot of the positives outweigh the negetives. Something seems to be working ok, the Fusions have been selling consistantly. And with the inclusion of AWD in 2007 and a Hybrid in development there should be a lot of good reasons to get the customers on the lot. From that point it's up to folks like me to see if it's a good fit for them!
The test results for front impact are actually worse on the Fusion than the aging Taurus!!!
Even with 5 star results from the test, you might still get killed or injured if your real word crash is more severe than the test conditions, so you should want to a least have a car that can ACE the crash test and keep your potential injuries at a minimum.
That's not to say they aren't useful but they have to be taken with a grain of salt - and for me that applies just as much to the 5 star recipients as well as the less fortunate.
I do not assume that a real word crash would be like the test at all. I specifically said a real crash may be even worse, so I would want a car that can at least do well in that one controlled test that all other cars do.
Perhaps I might still get injured in a real world crash in a car that had a 5 star test result, but I might be injured even worse in a car that cannot easily withstand even that crash in a controlled enviroment.
If the car hits a 35 MPH in the test, what if the real world car hits at 39 instead? However worse the lower rated cars did at 35 mph in the test would be magnified at a higher speed.
We're not talking about the safety cage collapsing or the engine ending up in the front seat. The test failures are very specific injuries on a very specific body part caused by one piece of the car hitting the occupant. Change the angle or speed and it's likely that won't happen.
Then there's the variability of the test itself. If they ran multiple tests on multiple cars at different angles and speeds and they all showed injuries then that would support your theory but they don't do that.
Better yet - where is the data that shows real world injuries are directly proportional to the safety ratings?
Now, granted a 5 star would have been better for media reasons. I am a little dismayed at Ford for not doing better.. BUT the Fusion is a great car. Handles fantastic, looks are killer, interior quality is top notch, fit/finish is top notch. Priced thousands less than competition. Besides sales are humming right along too... So, I guess those who try to frighten people away aren't doing so good. You also may want to take a look at all the other vehicles that don't make 5 star ratings. You may be surprised.. Now move on.. I guess since the Fusion is proving to be a reliable vehicle, some have to find something wrong..
When the tests are great, they tout them in ads.
Otherwise they say things like "The tests results are not important." "Our vehicles meet all federal safety standards, blah blah blah."
Maybe they will make changes to the 2007 or 2008 models and they will be retested with a better result. If it was really close to getting 5 stars, then it won't take any massive changes to make the difference.
The early PT Cruisers had so-so test results and after a couple years they were retested with good results.
And I say over and over: nobody here says it is a death trap. All we say it is subpar to its competition and current market expectation in this area. General market expectation is that every new vehicle that size should get "good" in frontal and side impacts. Good in rear would not hurt, either. Fusion has worse scores than over 10-year old Stratus! Competition already proved they can build better for the same money (Malibu w/airbags, G6 w/airbags, Sonata) - for someone with safety as a primary criterion, there is no compelling reason to buy Fusion.
By the way - the argument about "real life" mentioned by others is simply laughable. NHTSA and IIHS represent industry's consensus regarding how vehicle safety is measured - they are not perfect, but are agreed to be done fairly and impartially. When Taurus aced NHTSA, five stars were put on every single ad they printed, but now for Fusion "it is not a real-life scenario".
You buy Fusion because it drives well - great. I might as well. My point is, you already have one, but if Ford wants to move beyond diehard Ford fans and those who look at handling before anything else, they better get on drawing board now. There are only so many that would buy that car for its driving - others will look at those tests and may get deterred.
I'm posting here not to beat on Fusion - I'm actually concerned. Ford does notr have a best track record in product improvement. They tend to develop something and run it until it dies of hunger. I'm just hoping Fusion will have a different fate. I wish them well, but to get there they have to realize that current chassis needs quick structural improvements, not just new interior or lights at the next face lifting cycle.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
That still doesn't make sense to me. Yes a real crash can be worse, but the chances of it being similar to those of the tests are very, very slim. So why then do you care if the vehicle you buy has one more star than the other in a controlled crash? Are you also willing to bet that all parts of the higher rated vehicle are safer than those of the lower rated one?
While you think about that keep in mind that auto makers do design specific parts of their vehicles to pass those tests with flying colors and that in no way means the entire vehicle has been engineered that way. A more rigid front end can also put the person being hit at greater risk but the two testers don't tell you that. They just want more stars and "Good" ratings to show up. But at what price?
I just feel that too much is made of these tests given that they only account for a small percentage of real world scenarios. Modern autos are very complex and we can't evaluate one hugely complex system based on a controlled scenario. I know it's morbid but we'd be better off if they would study real crashes and the real injuries from them. At least then you'd get to see how it perfoms outside of the vacuum.
That's the rub.
Don't forget that safety features are just as much a marketing tool as iPod jack or Bluetooth phone etc.
Some marketing genius convinces you that you can't buy a car unless it has a certain crash test rating or certain safety features.
You are convinced of this even if you were never in a side impact or drove your last 10 years without ever activating the ABS.
Some people want leather in their car, some people want side airbags.
All I know is I have no trouble selling Fusions for $19,800 MSRP without side airbags or abs.
Mark
Yeah, they think it's necessary because everyone else is doing it. Big deal.
Haven't we beaten this topic to death only a few months ago?