i think ford would argue that the ford 500 will take care of the customers who are not so much into the "fun factor" of their cars. sort of like the accord and tsx.
If y'all want to discuss the Five Hundred, feel free to join us over there.
This is one Five Hundred driver who may well swing for the Fusion. Don't make assumptions that all drivers of any particular vehicle are the same, or even most of them. Those days are largely over!
I personally don't find the thrill of an Accord. I was just in one for 10 miles a few days ago, and I was amazed out how loud the vehicle is on the highway, and boring to drive at that. And a squeek I didn't want to mention so my friend wouldn't got paranoid.
There's people who are having concerns over mere number's that the Duratec30 has. Ironically, these boring cars they keep bringing up "Camry/Accord", for years had I-4 engines standard, when the domestic competition had V6's standard. It didn't stop them from selling their vehicles either.
Majority of Accord/Camry sales are I-4, a mix of over 80%. In Altimas case, I believe it's 89% who opt for the I-4.
Fusion doesn't need to enter the market with a 250HP engine to beat out anyone, it has a 6 speed automatic which will make up for it. It's one of the lighter sedans in the market as well, which will help. And unlike most of the competition, runs on REGULAR gas.
Want something with even MORE power? The Fusion ST will debut with a 270HP engine a year later. More than that, it's called Mustang.
The times that a specific model vehicle sells over 400K is dwindling. The market is fragmenting, and people rather have something a bit different than the 5 Accord/Camry's they'll find at each stop light. Hence, Milan and Zephyr.
All this can can be efficiently accomplished through flexible manufacturing. Same as with the 500/Freestyle.... Freestyle orders are short, a flip of a switch, and more Freestyle production is allocated.
the percentage of accords with the V6 is much higher that 20%.
you can go on your tirade all you want on what you perceive as boring vehicles but the bottom line is this: the accord's V6 outclasses the duratec in terms of power, fuel economy and refinement. ditto for the four cylinder comparison.
it also trails the toyota 3.3 and nissan 3.5.
the six speed automatic is nothing to brag about if it shifts like it does in the 500.
like i stated earlier, too bad the fusion is saddled with the duratec. this is one area will it won't be better than the accord.
All depends on what the buyer wants, if they want excitement, it surely won't be an Accord, and that is reflected on the average age of their buyer's, and it'creaping upwards. Straight acceleration might be Accord's trump (actually the Altimas) but what good is if it it' saddled in a vehicle that isn't fun to toss around, and that will be Fusion benefit.
The Accord V6's take rate is 18% from the information provided to me.
The Aisin transmission on the 500 it's designed/built by the same supplier as Toyota's Camry 5 speed unit, and a few other manufacturer's... Volvo included.
The only one's complaining over the Duratec, are those who weren't even in the market for such a vehicle to begin with. The Ford 500 forum, you will see those buyer's who actually have experience with the engine, find the engine to be more than enough for their needs. The average family sedan buyer isn't look for 0-60sec times, they buy a Mustang instead and when the midlife crisis hits, a Corvette.
the accord's demographics is the envy of every automaker. a lot more than 1/5 accords I see on the road are equipped with the V6, more like 2/5. i have to question your info.
the accord's trump card is the smoothness it provides in its engine performance, the high quality interior, the solid feel over the road and it's overall driving dynamics. no, it can't be tossed around like the mazda6 and most likely the ford fusion but i do appreciate the engineering that went into the accord. i find it far from boring. the engine by itself keeps it from that.
but i know the accord isn't the most exciting vehicle out there. there's the TSX 6 speed manual for that.
I myself am leaning towards the next jetta with the 2.0t.
From what I read (cant find the article right now), the mix of Camry and Accord V6s in thier most recent generations has crept up from the past generations- and is nearer to 25%. I know its not scientific at all, but I do feel that I see many more CamCord V6 models than Altima V6 models, though Nissan has introed two more V6 models for the 2005 year, so maybe that will change.
That said, I saw the Fusion in the flesh and it is one sharp looking vehicle. Far more so than the Five Hundred. If it drives like the Mazda 6, Id definitely be interested in it. BUT, I feel the issue for this new Ford is that by the time it debuts, a new Camry will be less than 10 months away, and a new Accord only 2 model years. The 4 and V6 will both be down on power compared to those. Additionally, I think the new Sonata looks to be a great vehicle, with a stronger V6 available, more standard features, just as much room, and a very sweet interior.
I didn't say the average age of Honda buyer's was horribly high a' la Buick. I stated it's creeping upwards from what it used to be.
Nor do I find the TSX (European Accord) to be exciting either. For it's pricepoint, I would expect no less than a V6. But that personal preferences.
Yes the Accord has nice materials (if you know where to find the cost cutting, it's quite evidently seen). I'm not arguing that the Accord is a good vehicle all around and it has it's merits, my point is, your shooting a vehicle down that you haven't even tested yet and going with initial figures.
I would rethick that Jetta purchase. I've seen 20 year old cars with better reliability.
No offense to anyone, but this was the car that I was by far least impressed with at the show. Perhaps I expected too much... but then again, after 6 yrs, I think consumers have the right to high expectations.
i look more closely than 99.99999% of the population when it comes to assembly quality and quality of materials and only honda and VW meet my standards in affordable cars. not quite sure what you mean by any cost cutting with the accord but it's a significant notch up from the previous generation in material quality. it finally lost those shinny back column stalks!
i do get belly laughs when i check out the domestic makes at the auto show though. most of them scream cheap! that would include the recent G6.
but i am encouraged by the ford fusion. it looks sharp and has a look of high quality. but again, it's going to be saddled with the duratec! sorry, but that's not encouraging.
i remember when the mazda6 was first coming out. all of the mazda enthusiasts insisted on how the ford V6 was being heavily revamped to a superior engine. then i test drove the 6 (with an auto tranny) which i found to handle great without sacrificing ride comfort too much. but the engine didn't accelerate like i expected and the material quality just wasn't quite there. better than the altima though (workmanship that is).
what cars do you find exciting then? doesn't sound like you put much value into a car with a great shifter mated to an engine that loves to rev that handles superbly. just want to know where you're coming from.
You should continue doing research on the VW. Honda and VW are in opposite directions when it comes to reliability. Or as I mentioned before in other forums, VW is a great illusionist. Great interior materials, attention to detail, but you'll be on a first named basis with the service techs at the dealership.
From the numerous friends/acquaintences I've met, only ONE swore he hasn't had any issues (YET) and only because he has a hidden agenda not to admit if he did. But overall, the most unreliable vehicles next to Kia currently made.
What I find exciting? As I stated, there's no perfect vehicle out there. Each brings out a little something, and very few have "most" of the pieces together to fit my needs.
I only do V8 and RWD, so all the aforementioned vehicles do not come into play upon my buying decision radar. Although I would recommend specific vehicles, to specific people depending upon their specific needs.
I can't vouche for what's going on with GM. I have visited all the important auto shows and while GM publically states they wish to reach younger consumer with their new LaCrosse, I keep seeing only those models with bench seats, being displayed. Lutz also stated GM didn't need a competitor to the Mustang, because the Cobalt SS is the direct competitor. And he had a near canniption with the media when negative comments were thrown over the HHR (PT Cruiser competitor). Personally, I just think he's a media monkey to give the corporation a "face" or identity to speak to. But that's just my opinion.
Before the topic patrol chimes in....
The Fusion (as evidenced by the link above) has gained quite a bit of attention, and in the next coming months, the website will gather information of how many interested buyer's are visiting it. So far in the autoshows, it's done much better than expected.
Chicago show is this week, I won't be posting much during that time.
I'd agree with you %100 on the VW reliability. I have driven a lot of Fords and am used to the "ford sucks, blah blah - I may even make fun of them myself. But REALLY I can't complain about my Fords and I'll most likely get a Fusion in the future. I drive a VW company car and I've been to the shop more for it it the first 10,000 miles than my last three Fords. It's not just me because my company bought a lot (600+) and it's the ongoing joke of who has what wrong now. I really think that the Fusion will be a successful car for Ford, it seems to have a lot going for it, I love power, but I need the whole package to sell me.
I would like to see some more pictures of the car in other colors, and more than the one or two inside shots would be nice also. (hint)
a lot more than 1/5 accords I see on the road are equipped with the V6, more like 2/5. i have to question your info.
Now there's some scientific evidence for you!!!
Seriously though, at least 90% of the Accords I see are of the I4 variety around here. Even most of the coupes I see have I4s. It all depends on where you live if you want to use info like that.
Well, looking at the really big picture, what chance does the Fusion have? Let me list the ways it does not have said good chance.
-weak V-6
-competition in-house from 3 other sedans.
-Ford's .....er.... not so great track record (at least with me, my Ford's engine fell out on the Pennsylvania Turnpike)
-Camry and Accord more reliable, and you can bet on it.
-inconveniant release schedule compared to Camry, Accord, Sonata
-Will not be as well known
-Silly name
There's a clincher But that's not really my point. The Fusion may sell well, and it may be thoroghly enjoyable, but I am never buying a Ford again! The 500, after being hyped as a 300 killer with the room of a Rolls, turned out to be a tank with a moped engine. (Wife took me along for a test-drive. Not fun) So forgive me if I'm a little soured by Ford, but they've made so many mistakes in the past couple of years, that I am in no way convinced that this will not be one of them. Hooray for double negatives.
my previous two cars were VW jettas. and yes, the 1.8t model that i had had its ignition coils replaced. i don't plan on getting a jetta until the new one has been on the market for 10 months or so. i should get some inclination if VW's claim about making quality control priority one is hype or not.
as for the ford fusion. i'm guilty of ridiculing domestic cars but i TRULY am hoping to be very impressed with the fusion. i'm in a market for a smallish high quality agile 4 door sedan car with some grit.
i agree it's very difficult to find the perfect car that meets all of someone's needs. i find myself wishing car A had car B's engine and so on.
I love the looks of the Fusion. The Milan expressive? Please. From the rear, the thing looks like virtually every Japanese midsize car. From the front...well that grille on that car just does NOT look right.
If I were to go for that size car, it would be the Fusion long before the Milan.
And I normally don't have much to say about styling. Still, the Milan leaves me....COLD.
All this crap about the Duratec not being enough for the Fusion is in my mind ridiculous.
My 2000 Taurus SES with the 200 Hp Duratech is entirely all the engine that is required in a four door sedan weighing in at about 3000 lbs, which I am guessing the Fusion will be. Never have I felt the need for more power for dead stop acceleration or high speed acceleration in passing situations, and all this is with only a four speed automatic. Highway only mileage is at 28-30 MPG as well, and this is cruising at about 70-75.
The horsepower race is 99% marketing hype and not at all in line with how the vast majority of people drive their four door family sedans.
If you review to the Emunds Accord discussions, you will read continuing issues a lot of postings complaining that a significant portion of current generation Accords have numerous squeaks and rattles in doors, windshield area, side windows, rear shelf, A pillars, airbag covers, headliner and dashboard, not to mention many warped brake issues.
My Taurus, now at 45K and 4 years of ownership driving over quite crappy winter ravaged potholed roads in the upper Midwest is still tight and solid with not a hint of a rattle or squeek, and with the original brakes and rotors still stops smooth and true.
The structure/platform of the Taurus is built at a higher frequency than that of the Accord. Which is why your less likely to hear squeaks, rattles, than an Accord.
Thw downside is, while the platform is built at higher tolerances, and steel is thicker in numerous places, it doesn't make as good use of the interior, considering it's exterior size. Therefore, there's a trade-off.
the accord has a tighter structure than the taurus - i can't believe this is even debatable, but i guess i need to consider where i'm at. when it goes over bumps on the road it doesn't flex like the taurus. the squeaks that some accords exhibit has nothing to do with body flexing but with the interior trim - namely the center console.
when you have the same number of people posting about their tauruses as you do with the accord then come back with the number of problems a car is having. the accord is more trouble free than the taurus according to JD Powers and CR. but i guess that's just bias crap. can't stand up to those anecdotal observations.
for the horsepower race, the taurus is not competitive with the competition. it's certainly more than adequate, but you do feel the difference in power, it comes down to more than marketing hype.
i've driven the taurus and it's far from appealing.
Don't want to burst your bubble, but considering this is my field, engineering wise, the Taurus structure is built at a higher frequency than that of the Accord. I understand it might be unconceiveable for you, but I'm stating engineering facts.
And this was mainly done, because of the Continental being built upon that same platform with minimal changes. Platforms are designed to withstand certain power forces, without deteriorating the structure itself.
Place a V8 on that Accord platform, and watch the creaks and rattles come into play.
Just as the Mustangs platform, can withstand let's say, an engine that can max around 900-1000HP. Might not happen, but if need be, it's available.
The Accords platform would max out at around 350HP on a good day, because of the hertz frequency it's built upon. Anything more, and major modifications would need to be implemented.
Yes, the beloved Accord....
I'm not stating the Accord is unreliable. As in this case, the Taurus has a good platform, but it's the rest of the items upon it, that might make it unreliable. And surprise, the Lincoln LS has a strounger platform than a Lexus GS, GASP... The world is ending. IN fact, the last generation Tbird/Cougar/Mark8 up to 98', had a stronger platform than BMW's of that time. Sky isn't falling.
And while we are at it, the F-150's platform is also built at much higher frequency than that of the Titan or Tacoma. Or is that hard to believe as well?
To the F-150. IN it, it describes aspcts of what makes a frame/chassis/platform/structure what it is, and what makes it better than it's competitors. Seeing that, might give you a better understand when I'm talking about PLATFORM (not vehicle directly).
NO, the Taurus is not built on a BOF as a truck, nor even share this platform. BUT it shows (under the skin) what makes a platform. I wish they had one of these movies on the Taurus, but it's pointless to do so since it's going to rental car duty soon enough.
Squeaks can come from many sources, however a rigid structure makes it much easier to design a car to eliminate squeeks and rattles, since less flexing of the structure translates into less relative motion in all those plastic bits and pieces that make up your dash and other interior parts that are prone to making noises when they follow the flexure of the unibody. Rigid platforms, particulary high torsional rigidity which is the hardest to design into a typical automobile configuration) can also allow for design of better handling/suspension characteristics.
Don't downplay the ability of Ford to design rigid platforms that (gasp) might actually be more rigid than Honda's or Toyota's. The Taurus platform throughout it's history has been a class leader as having one of the most rigid, state of the art structural designs in it's class. My 1990 Taurus gave me ten years and never developed an interior squeak or rattle either. I would suspect that with the added expertise of Volvo in the mix, particularly in safety aspects such as energy aborption from front side and rear impacts, things will even getter better in this area across all the Ford owned brands.
Example, there's different methods of designing a vehicle.
One example you can combat squeeks/rattles, NVH on the platform. A) Either build a very strong platform, then skimp on the insulation (since the platform more than makes up for it-as in the case of the Taurus). Which explains when the Continental was designed, it require MUCH less insulation over a comparably built sedan of that time. Or Use an older structure with minimal improvements, and pile on insulation to make up for it (As seen in some of Buick's latest sedans).
It's all a fine science, all depends where your development money will allow for, and what areas your willing to compensate for.
An error Ford made in the past was taking overly engineered and sophisticated platforms (Mark8, S-type, S80) and dilute them into more standard vehicles (Tbird/Cougar, LS/Tbird, 500). Not a bad thing for the consumer, but profit wise not very wise.
Instead (as the competition does), take a very well designed basic platform (take euro Focus C-1 platform as the example) and build them up into Mazda3, S40 and command a premium price. This way you have a good solid basic structure, requiring minimal improvements to maximize it's profit potential.
Hence, Mazda6= Fusion, Zephyr, Milan, Next Aviator, Minivan, midsize SUV.
Dbauer,
It's the overall rigidity of the actual material and process of the machines which makes up the platform. Sort of, how much portland cement your adding into the mix, to attain the strongest hold.
i'm not buying it. You don't have any FACTS, engineering or otherwise, to back your assertions. You come to your conclusion because the Continental is based upon the same platform as the taurus - that's it!
what you're stating makes sense but this doesn't back your conclusions. manufacturers also develop solid structures for providing a solid ride.
i do know when a taurus goes over a pothole it flexes or feels so with a unpleasant clunk (clatter). when an accord goes over the pothole it does so with a solid thump that doesn't upset the car. and the TSX (european accord)which has a similar platform as the accord goes down the road with a solid ignot feel that matches the best of the german cars.
The TL (Accord based structure) may not have a V8 but a lot of power is going through those front wheels.
my understanding is that other future ford sedans will be based upon the fusion/mazda6 platform. to bad i guess - it's not based on some aging platform housing a V8.
"An error Ford made in the past was taking overly engineered and sophisticated platforms (Mark8, S-type, S80) and dilute them into more standard vehicles (Tbird/Cougar, LS/Tbird, 500)"
the DEW-98 platform was designed specifically for the LS in conjunction with the S-type and the S80. the t-bird didnt go on it till 2 years later. however, they will MORE THAN make up for any losses since they used this platform for the new mustang.
the 500 is on an extended version of the S60 platform, along with the V70, and freestyle. this is the platform they are rumored to be using for the next iteration of the LS and lincoln's flagship, although the town car name will go away to be replaced by the continental.
the next LS will be an AWD vehicle with a RWD bias for performance, and the continental will be a FWD version with a 300HP 4.6L 3V v8.
I wish I could scan and post such information for you, but I'm not risking a lawsuit to prove something your dead against in understanding anyways.
Dbauer,
The V8's destined for the next LS, Continental have yet to be finalized just yet, but the goal is around 320HP. Both the 4.6L and Volvos 4.4L are being studied, as well as the AWD system, which yes, will have a RWD bias. Although they have till the end of the year to finalize that plan.
I'm talking about the spine, I'm not talking about overall skeleton of the body. The Taurus has a better spine (thicker bones), but the skeleton isn't as reinforced as it could be. The Accord has a weaker spine, but it's skeleton is equal in quality as to the spine. Hence, the rigidity of the skeleton along with the body are tighter than the Taurus..
Osteoporosis can be determined upon cutting the spin up, or upon certain accidents where certain bones break up quicker, than the one of the other body.
Talk about analogies....
Car and Driver isn't the most reliable source of future information. In fact, only twice have they gotten a future product (from 2 years prior) on point.
you are talking about spines and bodies like they are body-on-frame cars, which (we all know) they arent. they are unibody constructed cars, so the "spine" and the "body" are one and the same.
One area Accord beats Taurus is in side impact protection. This is a shame since taurus was originally a leader in safety. I have no idea how well Fusion will perform but I do know that Accord beats Mazda 6 in side impact protection as well. I know Ford made some improvements to the Fusion side protection over the Mazda 6, but it did not appear from the description that they were significant. Of course only testing will tell. The Gov't test typically only tests a car equipped with a safety option if they project that more than 50% of the cars sold will be equipped with that option. For Accord it is a no brainer since side curtains are standard on all Accords. The Fusion, like the 500 makes them optional, and that is why the gov't test of the 500 did not use one equipped with side curtains. The 500 could get away with that because it has the volvo cross bars and performs outstanding, but the Fusion will not have such a sophisticated system, at least from what I read.
Its not the government side impact that matters to most informed consumers, IMO. That test is antiquated, using a barrier shaped like a vehicle from 1978. Additionally, the Star Rating is not inclusive of the HIC number that the dummies record, which is, to me, a misrepresentation of the facts, and one that is inexplicable. (From what I understand about anatomy, the organs of the head are just as vital as those in the thorax).
A more difficult test is the IIHS side impact, in which a deformable SUV-replica is used as the battering apparatus, and HIC plays a part in the vehicles rating. Vehicles without inflatable side impact protection typically fall short, and Volvo structure or not, I believe the Five Hundred will too.
Thats why the cheap head curtain option is a must have.
"unibody constructed cars, so the "spine" and the "body" are one and the same."
Not exactly, the floor plan keeps the majority of it's core upon lengthning and widening of the whole platform. The structure, composed of everything from the engine bay sub-structure, to the A, B, C-pillars varies.
Example, the Continental used a stretched spine. Because doing so, the pillars are modified. Some areas were tailored to be thicker (from sub frame assembly to withstand more weight) over the Taurus variation. That's the case with many vehicles built upon the same floorplan now... SUV's, Minivans, built off a modified platform. The Keyword is "modified" which means the other attributes (Pillars, headrail, engine sub frame, etc) are quite different, while the platform itself is the least modified unit.
How does this all come together... The Fusion is built on a modified Mazda6 platform. Therefore, it drives very much like the Mazda6 because the platform carries the majority of attributes that give it it's great handling. The structure itself is modified. Certain areas are strengthened, altered (specially since it's a lengthed and widened modification).
And most importantly, the 'structure' is also reinforced for side impacts. Concentration of the B-pillar, and platform cross-members tranfer impact energy towards the opposite B-pillar using the underside of the platform. (same that was done with the 500).
I think that the Milan looks allot better than the Fusion. The Milan is a very sharp, classy looking car. The rear taillights of the Fusion screams TUNER!!!!
To me the Fusion/Milan Look a heck of a lot better than the CamCord.
People seem to be making a big deal about the fact that the Fusion/Milan have only 200-210 HP compared to the Camcord.
Point taken!!!
But think of it like this, if that was the case, The 05 Mustang should never sell compared to the Pontiac GTO. The GTO has a 60-100 HP advantage over the 05. Now, I'm not comparing the Fusion/Milan to the Mustang and the CamCord to the GTO, just hear me out. The 2 big differences between the 05 and GTO is STYLE !!!!! The 05 Looks allot better than the GTO and is an overall better performance package than the GTO. I think appearance is the biggest sellers in today's market. Nobody wants to drive an UGLY car. Even if the UGLY car offered best in class everything, it wouldn't sell as well as a better-looking car with competitive numbers. GM is finding out the hard way that HP doesn't make a great car.
In that respect it's the same kind of thing between the Fusion/Milan compared to the CamCord. Like I said the Fusion/Milan look a Heck of a lot better than the CamCord, which look just plain Dull (which is why I can't understand why people hate the 500/Montego so much). Also, from what I've been reading the Fusion/Milan are going to be using the same kind of suspension setup as the Mercedes C-class and should offer best in class handling.
If you add it up compared to what's going on currently in the market the Fusion/Milan should be a pair of big time Home runs for Ford.
1. They look the best
2. Should offer best in class Handling
3. They are going to be competitively priced.
When it comes to HP, I'm the kind of person that believes in Handling over HP.
1. I've never heard of a car that handles to Good.
I have to admit, in the past I have engaged in more than my fair share of Taurus bashing.
Then I drove one.
The work car I drive daily is a 2000 Taurus with the Vulcan V6. Is it exciting? No. Is it comfortable for 60 mile round trips? Yes. Is it solid and well put together? Yes, even at 72XXX fleet type miles. Would I buy one for myself? Yes, even moreso with the Duratech motor.
I am an engineer and a car enthusiast. The purpose of the Taurus is good, solid, safe transportation. It acheives this quite well. Sure, the 96-99s were plug ugly, but the 2000-present models are quite good looking. It is not a Mustang, nor is it intended to be. I'd say Ford hit the target with this car.
I can't wait for the Fusion to get a few years depreciation under their belt so I can look to pick up a used one. Bash it all you want for "low" hp. It'll only bring the used car prices lower for me.
Sorry for the mess in here today, folks. Since we have a habit all over the Forums of combining the Ford/Mercury twin vehicles, we've done the same here. Rather than lose all of the posts about the Milan, we tossed them in here, so posts may appear out of order for the past 15-20.
Hope it's not too messy, and thanks for your patience.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
You've pegged Taurus correctly. Taurus is a good solid performer. Put a Duratech in it and it provides great acceleration performance as well. Mainly lacks "bling".
I am also an engineer(mechanical, at that) and learned quite a bit in the trade journals (not the car magazines) about Ford's engineering attention to body rigidity, both when the initial Taurus was introduced in the 80's, and again when the major redesign occured for the 96 model year.
I agree, 96-99's were too over the top styling wise. The 2000 freshening hit the sweet spot on exterior styling but was too conservative in the interior, however it is very functional all around.
Ford's main downfall with Taurus in recent years was missteps in styling and a gross lack of marketing, no doubt enforced by the market's huge shift to trucks and SUV's which is where most of Ford's effort went until recently.
Venus, your experience with clunks in the Taurus suspension was highly likely due to you driving a sample that had bad sway bar links, which is a common, but minor Taurus issue and is easily repaired.
All this doesn't matter too much as Taurus is on the way out, replaced by 500 and Fusion, which are/will be, no doubt much improved in most respects(except for price of course, which continually slowly ratchets upward). Five or six years from now I will have quite a few different cars to choose from, and both Fusion and 500 will have shown us years of real world results by then, and will both likely be into their first or second redesign or freshening.
ANT - Can you get this feedback to the PR people to please take "contrasting" photo's of the new cars, especially the Zephyr and Milan. The current batch of pictures of silver/tan cars on sand-colored background does NOTHING to make the cars look good.
The worst photo is the backend shot of the tan Zephyr on the sand background with those big ugly taillights... just aweful!
On the other hand, the black Fusion with the Red background looks great because it has contrast!
I agree, I had a canniption when I found out Zephyr press photos were in beige. It's not late 90's anymore. The Fusion in silver, is quelling the "I dont like the tail-light treatment" people. While black and midnight blue are quelling the "I dont like the rear lights on the Zephyr" group.
I can sum it up that SOME like the chrome/satin treatments, while other's done. And the only connection I can see is the color combination they are viewing, might make them like/dislike one vehicle over another.
Most importantly to note, each vehicle is appealing to different people. As in, very hard to find a person that truely LOVES ALL versions. Rather, it's positive that they like at least ONE version of the 3, and you hit more of your market that way. Each vehicle has a certain aura of energy, that will appeal to someone, moreso than another version.
Go to fordvehicles.com and click "Build and Price". They have a sample setup for the Fusion. I guess they are trying out different pricing schemes and option combinations to see how people react. There is a survey thing at the end where you can tell them how you like the option choices. Of course, everything there is non-final, but it's fun to play with and see what equipment they are planning to offer.
Comments
This is one Five Hundred driver who may well swing for the Fusion. Don't make assumptions that all drivers of any particular vehicle are the same, or even most of them. Those days are largely over!
There's people who are having concerns over mere number's that the Duratec30 has. Ironically, these boring cars they keep bringing up "Camry/Accord", for years had I-4 engines standard, when the domestic competition had V6's standard. It didn't stop them from selling their vehicles either.
Majority of Accord/Camry sales are I-4, a mix of over 80%. In Altimas case, I believe it's 89% who opt for the I-4.
Fusion doesn't need to enter the market with a 250HP engine to beat out anyone, it has a 6 speed automatic which will make up for it. It's one of the lighter sedans in the market as well, which will help. And unlike most of the competition, runs on REGULAR gas.
Want something with even MORE power? The Fusion ST will debut with a 270HP engine a year later. More than that, it's called Mustang.
The times that a specific model vehicle sells over 400K is dwindling. The market is fragmenting, and people rather have something a bit different than the 5 Accord/Camry's they'll find at each stop light. Hence, Milan and Zephyr.
All this can can be efficiently accomplished through flexible manufacturing. Same as with the 500/Freestyle.... Freestyle orders are short, a flip of a switch, and more Freestyle production is allocated.
you can go on your tirade all you want on what you perceive as boring vehicles but the bottom line is this: the accord's V6 outclasses the duratec in terms of power, fuel economy and refinement. ditto for the four cylinder comparison.
it also trails the toyota 3.3 and nissan 3.5.
the six speed automatic is nothing to brag about if it shifts like it does in the 500.
like i stated earlier, too bad the fusion is saddled with the duratec. this is one area will it won't be better than the accord.
The Accord V6's take rate is 18% from the information provided to me.
The Aisin transmission on the 500 it's designed/built by the same supplier as Toyota's Camry 5 speed unit, and a few other manufacturer's... Volvo included.
The only one's complaining over the Duratec, are those who weren't even in the market for such a vehicle to begin with. The Ford 500 forum, you will see those buyer's who actually have experience with the engine, find the engine to be more than enough for their needs. The average family sedan buyer isn't look for 0-60sec times, they buy a Mustang instead and when the midlife crisis hits, a Corvette.
the accord's trump card is the smoothness it provides in its engine performance, the high quality interior, the solid feel over the road and it's overall driving dynamics. no, it can't be tossed around like the mazda6 and most likely the ford fusion but i do appreciate the engineering that went into the accord. i find it far from boring. the engine by itself keeps it from that.
but i know the accord isn't the most exciting vehicle out there. there's the TSX 6 speed manual for that.
I myself am leaning towards the next jetta with the 2.0t.
That said, I saw the Fusion in the flesh and it is one sharp looking vehicle. Far more so than the Five Hundred. If it drives like the Mazda 6, Id definitely be interested in it. BUT, I feel the issue for this new Ford is that by the time it debuts, a new Camry will be less than 10 months away, and a new Accord only 2 model years. The 4 and V6 will both be down on power compared to those. Additionally, I think the new Sonata looks to be a great vehicle, with a stronger V6 available, more standard features, just as much room, and a very sweet interior.
Should be very interesting.
~alpha
Nor do I find the TSX (European Accord) to be exciting either. For it's pricepoint, I would expect no less than a V6. But that personal preferences.
Yes the Accord has nice materials (if you know where to find the cost cutting, it's quite evidently seen). I'm not arguing that the Accord is a good vehicle all around and it has it's merits, my point is, your shooting a vehicle down that you haven't even tested yet and going with initial figures.
I would rethick that Jetta purchase. I've seen 20 year old cars with better reliability.
~alpha
i do get belly laughs when i check out the domestic makes at the auto show though. most of them scream cheap! that would include the recent G6.
but i am encouraged by the ford fusion. it looks sharp and has a look of high quality. but again, it's going to be saddled with the duratec! sorry, but that's not encouraging.
i remember when the mazda6 was first coming out. all of the mazda enthusiasts insisted on how the ford V6 was being heavily revamped to a superior engine. then i test drove the 6 (with an auto tranny) which i found to handle great without sacrificing ride comfort too much. but the engine didn't accelerate like i expected and the material quality just wasn't quite there. better than the altima though (workmanship that is).
what cars do you find exciting then? doesn't sound like you put much value into a car with a great shifter mated to an engine that loves to rev that handles superbly. just want to know where you're coming from.
From the numerous friends/acquaintences I've met, only ONE swore he hasn't had any issues (YET) and only because he has a hidden agenda not to admit if he did. But overall, the most unreliable vehicles next to Kia currently made.
What I find exciting? As I stated, there's no perfect vehicle out there. Each brings out a little something, and very few have "most" of the pieces together to fit my needs.
I only do V8 and RWD, so all the aforementioned vehicles do not come into play upon my buying decision radar. Although I would recommend specific vehicles, to specific people depending upon their specific needs.
I can't vouche for what's going on with GM. I have visited all the important auto shows and while GM publically states they wish to reach younger consumer with their new LaCrosse, I keep seeing only those models with bench seats, being displayed. Lutz also stated GM didn't need a competitor to the Mustang, because the Cobalt SS is the direct competitor. And he had a near canniption with the media when negative comments were thrown over the HHR (PT Cruiser competitor). Personally, I just think he's a media monkey to give the corporation a "face" or identity to speak to. But that's just my opinion.
Before the topic patrol chimes in....
The Fusion (as evidenced by the link above) has gained quite a bit of attention, and in the next coming months, the website will gather information of how many interested buyer's are visiting it. So far in the autoshows, it's done much better than expected.
Chicago show is this week, I won't be posting much during that time.
I would like to see some more pictures of the car in other colors, and more than the one or two inside shots would be nice also. (hint)
Now there's some scientific evidence for you!!!
Seriously though, at least 90% of the Accords I see are of the I4 variety around here. Even most of the coupes I see have I4s. It all depends on where you live if you want to use info like that.
-weak V-6
-competition in-house from 3 other sedans.
-Ford's .....er.... not so great track record (at least with me, my Ford's engine fell out on the Pennsylvania Turnpike)
-Camry and Accord more reliable, and you can bet on it.
-inconveniant release schedule compared to Camry, Accord, Sonata
-Will not be as well known
-Silly name
There's a clincher
-Chris
Anyway, the solution is simple. Don't want a Ford? Don't buy one.
And the Five Hundred is not a tank with a moped engine. I should know. I have over 12,000 very happy miles on mine already.
For goodness sakes, find a car you like and drive it. Life's too short to endure things you don't like!
as for the ford fusion. i'm guilty of ridiculing domestic cars but i TRULY am hoping to be very impressed with the fusion. i'm in a market for a smallish high quality agile 4 door sedan car with some grit.
i agree it's very difficult to find the perfect car that meets all of someone's needs. i find myself wishing car A had car B's engine and so on.
i'll be at the chicago auto show too.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=20165
If I were to go for that size car, it would be the Fusion long before the Milan.
And I normally don't have much to say about styling. Still, the Milan leaves me....COLD.
My 2000 Taurus SES with the 200 Hp Duratech is entirely all the engine that is required in a four door sedan weighing in at about 3000 lbs, which I am guessing the Fusion will be. Never have I felt the need for more power for dead stop acceleration or high speed acceleration in passing situations, and all this is with only a four speed automatic. Highway only mileage is at 28-30 MPG as well, and this is cruising at about 70-75.
The horsepower race is 99% marketing hype and not at all in line with how the vast majority of people drive their four door family sedans.
If you review to the Emunds Accord discussions, you will read continuing issues a lot of postings complaining that a significant portion of current generation Accords have numerous squeaks and rattles in doors, windshield area, side windows, rear shelf, A pillars, airbag covers, headliner and dashboard, not to mention many warped brake issues.
My Taurus, now at 45K and 4 years of ownership driving over quite crappy winter ravaged potholed roads in the upper Midwest is still tight and solid with not a hint of a rattle or squeek, and with the original brakes and rotors still stops smooth and true.
Thw downside is, while the platform is built at higher tolerances, and steel is thicker in numerous places, it doesn't make as good use of the interior, considering it's exterior size. Therefore, there's a trade-off.
the accord has a tighter structure than the taurus - i can't believe this is even debatable, but i guess i need to consider where i'm at. when it goes over bumps on the road it doesn't flex like the taurus. the squeaks that some accords exhibit has nothing to do with body flexing but with the interior trim - namely the center console.
when you have the same number of people posting about their tauruses as you do with the accord then come back with the number of problems a car is having. the accord is more trouble free than the taurus according to JD Powers and CR. but i guess that's just bias crap. can't stand up to those anecdotal observations.
for the horsepower race, the taurus is not competitive with the competition. it's certainly more than adequate, but you do feel the difference in power, it comes down to more than marketing hype.
i've driven the taurus and it's far from appealing.
And this was mainly done, because of the Continental being built upon that same platform with minimal changes. Platforms are designed to withstand certain power forces, without deteriorating the structure itself.
Place a V8 on that Accord platform, and watch the creaks and rattles come into play.
Just as the Mustangs platform, can withstand let's say, an engine that can max around 900-1000HP. Might not happen, but if need be, it's available.
The Accords platform would max out at around 350HP on a good day, because of the hertz frequency it's built upon. Anything more, and major modifications would need to be implemented.
Yes, the beloved Accord....
I'm not stating the Accord is unreliable. As in this case, the Taurus has a good platform, but it's the rest of the items upon it, that might make it unreliable. And surprise, the Lincoln LS has a strounger platform than a Lexus GS, GASP... The world is ending. IN fact, the last generation Tbird/Cougar/Mark8 up to 98', had a stronger platform than BMW's of that time. Sky isn't falling.
And while we are at it, the F-150's platform is also built at much higher frequency than that of the Titan or Tacoma. Or is that hard to believe as well?
http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/truth/
To the F-150. IN it, it describes aspcts of what makes a frame/chassis/platform/structure what it is, and what makes it better than it's competitors. Seeing that, might give you a better understand when I'm talking about PLATFORM (not vehicle directly).
NO, the Taurus is not built on a BOF as a truck, nor even share this platform. BUT it shows (under the skin) what makes a platform. I wish they had one of these movies on the Taurus, but it's pointless to do so since it's going to rental car duty soon enough.
Don't downplay the ability of Ford to design rigid platforms that (gasp) might actually be more rigid than Honda's or Toyota's. The Taurus platform throughout it's history has been a class leader as having one of the most rigid, state of the art structural designs in it's class. My 1990 Taurus gave me ten years and never developed an interior squeak or rattle either. I would suspect that with the added expertise of Volvo in the mix, particularly in safety aspects such as energy aborption from front side and rear impacts, things will even getter better in this area across all the Ford owned brands.
~alpha
One example you can combat squeeks/rattles, NVH on the platform. A) Either build a very strong platform, then skimp on the insulation (since the platform more than makes up for it-as in the case of the Taurus). Which explains when the Continental was designed, it require MUCH less insulation over a comparably built sedan of that time. Or
It's all a fine science, all depends where your development money will allow for, and what areas your willing to compensate for.
An error Ford made in the past was taking overly engineered and sophisticated platforms (Mark8, S-type, S80) and dilute them into more standard vehicles (Tbird/Cougar, LS/Tbird, 500). Not a bad thing for the consumer, but profit wise not very wise.
Instead (as the competition does), take a very well designed basic platform (take euro Focus C-1 platform as the example) and build them up into Mazda3, S40 and command a premium price. This way you have a good solid basic structure, requiring minimal improvements to maximize it's profit potential.
Hence, Mazda6= Fusion, Zephyr, Milan, Next Aviator, Minivan, midsize SUV.
Dbauer,
It's the overall rigidity of the actual material and process of the machines which makes up the platform. Sort of, how much portland cement your adding into the mix, to attain the strongest hold.
what you're stating makes sense but this doesn't back your conclusions. manufacturers also develop solid structures for providing a solid ride.
i do know when a taurus goes over a pothole it flexes or feels so with a unpleasant clunk (clatter). when an accord goes over the pothole it does so with a solid thump that doesn't upset the car. and the TSX (european accord)which has a similar platform as the accord goes down the road with a solid ignot feel that matches the best of the german cars.
The TL (Accord based structure) may not have a V8 but a lot of power is going through those front wheels.
my understanding is that other future ford sedans will be based upon the fusion/mazda6 platform. to bad i guess - it's not based on some aging platform housing a V8.
the DEW-98 platform was designed specifically for the LS in conjunction with the S-type and the S80. the t-bird didnt go on it till 2 years later. however, they will MORE THAN make up for any losses since they used this platform for the new mustang.
the 500 is on an extended version of the S60 platform, along with the V70, and freestyle. this is the platform they are rumored to be using for the next iteration of the LS and lincoln's flagship, although the town car name will go away to be replaced by the continental.
the next LS will be an AWD vehicle with a RWD bias for performance, and the continental will be a FWD version with a 300HP 4.6L 3V v8.
I wish I could scan and post such information for you, but I'm not risking a lawsuit to prove something your dead against in understanding anyways.
Dbauer,
The V8's destined for the next LS, Continental have yet to be finalized just yet, but the goal is around 320HP. Both the 4.6L and Volvos 4.4L are being studied, as well as the AWD system, which yes, will have a RWD bias. Although they have till the end of the year to finalize that plan.
BTW...the 2003+ accord's platform is more rigid than the taurus. its the 2002 and prior that wasnt.
Osteoporosis can be determined upon cutting the spin up, or upon certain accidents where certain bones break up quicker, than the one of the other body.
Talk about analogies....
Car and Driver isn't the most reliable source of future information. In fact, only twice have they gotten a future product (from 2 years prior) on point.
A more difficult test is the IIHS side impact, in which a deformable SUV-replica is used as the battering apparatus, and HIC plays a part in the vehicles rating. Vehicles without inflatable side impact protection typically fall short, and Volvo structure or not, I believe the Five Hundred will too.
Thats why the cheap head curtain option is a must have.
~alpha
The rest looks great.
Not exactly, the floor plan keeps the majority of it's core upon lengthning and widening of the whole platform. The structure, composed of everything from the engine bay sub-structure, to the A, B, C-pillars varies.
Example, the Continental used a stretched spine. Because doing so, the pillars are modified. Some areas were tailored to be thicker (from sub frame assembly to withstand more weight) over the Taurus variation. That's the case with many vehicles built upon the same floorplan now... SUV's, Minivans, built off a modified platform. The Keyword is "modified" which means the other attributes (Pillars, headrail, engine sub frame, etc) are quite different, while the platform itself is the least modified unit.
How does this all come together... The Fusion is built on a modified Mazda6 platform. Therefore, it drives very much like the Mazda6 because the platform carries the majority of attributes that give it it's great handling. The structure itself is modified. Certain areas are strengthened, altered (specially since it's a lengthed and widened modification).
And most importantly, the 'structure' is also reinforced for side impacts. Concentration of the B-pillar, and platform cross-members tranfer impact energy towards the opposite B-pillar using the underside of the platform. (same that was done with the 500).
I think that the Milan looks allot better than the Fusion. The Milan is a very sharp, classy looking car. The rear taillights of the Fusion screams TUNER!!!!
To me the Fusion/Milan Look a heck of a lot better than the CamCord.
People seem to be making a big deal about the fact that the Fusion/Milan have only 200-210 HP compared to the Camcord.
Point taken!!!
But think of it like this, if that was the case, The 05 Mustang should never sell compared to the Pontiac GTO. The GTO has a 60-100 HP advantage over the 05. Now, I'm not comparing the Fusion/Milan to the Mustang and the CamCord to the GTO, just hear me out. The 2 big differences between the 05 and GTO is STYLE !!!!! The 05 Looks allot better than the GTO and is an overall better performance package than the GTO. I think appearance is the biggest sellers in today's market. Nobody wants to drive an UGLY car. Even if the UGLY car offered best in class everything, it wouldn't sell as well as a better-looking car with competitive numbers. GM is finding out the hard way that HP doesn't make a great car.
In that respect it's the same kind of thing between the Fusion/Milan compared to the CamCord. Like I said the Fusion/Milan look a Heck of a lot better than the CamCord, which look just plain Dull (which is why I can't understand why people hate the 500/Montego so much). Also, from what I've been reading the Fusion/Milan are going to be using the same kind of suspension setup as the Mercedes C-class and should offer best in class handling.
If you add it up compared to what's going on currently in the market the Fusion/Milan should be a pair of big time Home runs for Ford.
1. They look the best
2. Should offer best in class Handling
3. They are going to be competitively priced.
When it comes to HP, I'm the kind of person that believes in Handling over HP.
1. I've never heard of a car that handles to Good.
2. Crazy HP, Who are you racing the POLICE !?!?!?
3. Where are you going to use it !?!?!?
That's just me
Then I drove one.
The work car I drive daily is a 2000 Taurus with the Vulcan V6. Is it exciting? No. Is it comfortable for 60 mile round trips? Yes. Is it solid and well put together? Yes, even at 72XXX fleet type miles. Would I buy one for myself? Yes, even moreso with the Duratech motor.
I am an engineer and a car enthusiast. The purpose of the Taurus is good, solid, safe transportation. It acheives this quite well. Sure, the 96-99s were plug ugly, but the 2000-present models are quite good looking. It is not a Mustang, nor is it intended to be. I'd say Ford hit the target with this car.
I can't wait for the Fusion to get a few years depreciation under their belt so I can look to pick up a used one. Bash it all you want for "low" hp. It'll only bring the used car prices lower for me.
Turboshadow
Hope it's not too messy, and thanks for your patience.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
I am also an engineer(mechanical, at that) and learned quite a bit in the trade journals (not the car magazines) about Ford's engineering attention to body rigidity, both when the initial Taurus was introduced in the 80's, and again when the major redesign occured for the 96 model year.
I agree, 96-99's were too over the top styling wise. The 2000 freshening hit the sweet spot on exterior styling but was too conservative in the interior, however it is very functional all around.
Ford's main downfall with Taurus in recent years was missteps in styling and a gross lack of marketing, no doubt enforced by the market's huge shift to trucks and SUV's which is where most of Ford's effort went until recently.
Venus, your experience with clunks in the Taurus suspension was highly likely due to you driving a sample that had bad sway bar links, which is a common, but minor Taurus issue and is easily repaired.
All this doesn't matter too much as Taurus is on the way out, replaced by 500 and Fusion, which are/will be, no doubt much improved in most respects(except for price of course, which continually slowly ratchets upward). Five or six years from now I will have quite a few different cars to choose from, and both Fusion and 500 will have shown us years of real world results by then, and will both likely be into their first or second redesign or freshening.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=20165
You could get a loaded 2004 SEL, for example, with 25,000 miles for like $13,500.
~alpha
The worst photo is the backend shot of the tan Zephyr on the sand background with those big ugly taillights... just aweful!
On the other hand, the black Fusion with the Red background looks great because it has contrast!
Actually Milan looks like Lincoln Zephyr with different grill. And like Milan looks more!
So what is the point to have Zephyr ? (We can merge Zephyr discussion with Fusion/Milan)
I agree, I had a canniption when I found out Zephyr press photos were in beige. It's not late 90's anymore. The Fusion in silver, is quelling the "I dont like the tail-light treatment" people. While black and midnight blue are quelling the "I dont like the rear lights on the Zephyr" group.
I can sum it up that SOME like the chrome/satin treatments, while other's done. And the only connection I can see is the color combination they are viewing, might make them like/dislike one vehicle over another.
Most importantly to note, each vehicle is appealing to different people. As in, very hard to find a person that truely LOVES ALL versions. Rather, it's positive that they like at least ONE version of the 3, and you hit more of your market that way. Each vehicle has a certain aura of energy, that will appeal to someone, moreso than another version.
And that's a good thing...
-Andrew L