Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Quite a while ago I posted this in the Five Hundred discussion, comparing the Duratech in my Taurus with the variable valve timing version in the Mazda 6:
"Just for kicks I went back and looked at CR's acceleration data for the 3.0 Duratec in Taurus vs 3.0 Duratec modified and with 5 speed automatic in Mazda 6.
Taurus 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. 45-65 in 4.9 seconds. 1/4 mile in 16.4 seconds. Curb weight 3325 lbs. CR mileage test: 15 city, 31 highway, 22 overall
Mazda 6: 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. 45-65 in 5.3 seconds. 1/4 mile in 16.5 seconds. Curb weight 3355 lbs. Cr mileage test: 14 city, 30 highway, 20 overall.
Seems all that tweaking Mazda did with variable valve timing and a 5 speed automatic did nearly nothing but allow Mazda to publish a 10% higher horsepower rating, but with worse mileage, and in only one acceleration test did it beat the Taurus."
Variable valve timing with the 3.0 Duratech does not seem to buy you much, at least the Mazda version.
The Mazda version, which I drive every day, has more HP but less torque than the version in the Taurus. I test drove the 6 with ATX and was fairly unimpressed just as you were above. I leased mine with an MTX and there is a big difference in performance. MT clocked the 6 with MTX to 60 in about 6.8 seconds. Unfortunately the Fusion will not be offered with a V6 and MTX combo.
FWIW, Mazda is using a 6-speed ATX on V6 models this year. I haven't seen any performance numbers on it yet. The fusion is using the 6-speed too right?
I argued all of this in an earlier post. The Fusion is getting a ~210 HP version of the Duratec30 but it still has ~200 ft-lbs of torque to move the car off the line. If you factor in that the 6 has less torque but more HP and weighs about the same the performance numbers between the two shouldn't be that far off.
I assure all of you, if all of this is true, and the Fusion is equal to the 6 in handling too, it is going to be one nice ride and well worth a look or two when shopping around. I can't say enough good things about the Mazda6 and I would expect the same to be true of the Fusion.
To make it short, the Taurus' Duratec has a higher torque curve at lower RPM"s, over the Mazda unit The Mazda unit is designed to breathe at higher HP, with a loss of torque at the higher range.
I'd expect/hope that the 6 speed auto in the Mazda 6 V6 trims acceleration times a bit...
~alpha
I also will wait to drive the car before I come to an opinion about Fusion. A car which, by the way, was more under Nasser's tutelage than William's.
i guess you had a "special" impala that no one else got. the accord is rated at 21/30 mpg and consistently gets 0-60 times of 7 sec. HA! HA!
GM's 3.8L is better suited for farm machinery. it's time for GM to have its excellent 3.6L OHC more available. or at least "tinker" with the 3.8L to make it smoother like they did with the 3.5L OHV.
Majority of the midsize vehicles are sold with a 4 cylinder.
Majority of the high output V6's available in the competition, requires premium fuel as well.
The 6 speed automatic transmission (what the competition doesn't have) will make the vehicle quicker, HP is just half the equation. Ford has already demonstrated the 203HP 3.0L Duratec in the 500 can out accelerate the Chrysler 300s 250HP 3.5L V6.
A 3.5L V6 will be added a year later, along with AWD (something rare in the segment).
The 4.6L DOHC in the Aviator (kinship to the Mustang Cobras) will die in July. The one in the Explorer is a SOHC version. It's being replaced with a 4.6L with a 3V, more efficient, lower emmissions, more thrust at lower RPM's. The DOHC unit also requires premium gas. That hurts for a vehicle that already posts low fuel efficiency. Yes, Nissan and Toyota's 4.0L in their trucks are powerful, but with premium gas. Hurts, when it's on a work truck.
The 4.6L 3V will be available in the newly remodeled Explorer/Mountaineer that will debut later this summer with 292HP, and will trickle into other vehicles currently using the 4.6L 2V version.
The Ranger isn't getting remodeled for awhile. That market is dwindling in sales since you can buy an F-150, for a bit more money if your really serious about a truck. Chevy's mistake was to revamp the Colorado, and not the Silverado which is their money maker. You always redesign your higher profit vehicles first.
Most drivers I see are so sedate in their acceleration it is annoying to me, but this has nothing to do with the available power. They apparently do not like to actually press the gas pedal down too much and like to take about 1/2 mile to get up to 60 mph.
Apparently in the real world the hybrids do not achieve anywhere near the claimed mileage. The hybrid Civic got 36 mpg in CR test, while EPA numbers are 48/47 mpg.
The hybrids also make no economic sense. The Accord Hybrid costs $30,000+ and EPA mileage numbers are 29/37 mpg. This cost is $3000 more than comparable non-hybrid V-6 and $7,000 more than comparable 4 cylinder model (which gets 24/34 mpg).
It'll take nearly 200,000 miles to break even on the $3000 investment in the hybrid vs. the normal V-6. And this assumes it actually achieves the EPA mileage numbers (I used average of city and hwy for both vehicles).
the altima is at 250 HP with regular, and the accord is at 240 with regular. ive had both before.
i would point out that it's not honda claiming the 48/47 numbers but the EPA (not implying you were saying otherwise). a different methodology needs to be devised for hybrids by the EPA.
it's even worse for the hybrid accord then you suggest. while hybrid accords sell at sticker, the regular accord V6 sells closer to invoice price. i haven't done the math but the difference is a lot more than $3000.
if you want the increased performance from the hybrid accord then you can just get a TL. the actual purchase price of these cars are not too far off.
you continue to say "entry level", but talk about optional vehicles with V6 engines. entry level for the fusion will be the 2.3L I-4 that has 160 HP and about the same amount of torque. this is the same as the accord 2.4L and the camry 2.4L. the EPA ratings for a 6-speed auto or CVT with a 4-cyl. are not available yet, but i can almost assure you that it will be similar to the honda/toyota/nissan 4-bangers.
I have 2 friend with the Altima V6, the manual specifically says Premium. Another friend has a G35, which also states it requires premium. The Honda 3.5L in a friends Pilot, requires midgrade. New Toyota Avalon 3.5L, states premium fuel as well.
"Correction, Ford has not proven that the v6 500 out accelerates the chrysler 300 3.5 liter"
Yes it did, the test was done by AMCI, which showed 0-60 in 7.3 secs against the Chrysler 300's 3.5L which took over 8 seconds.
"#1 spot with the F-150, it is continuely dissed by every critic including its owners that the new 300hp"
Flashback on some history, the F-50 has never been the most powerful truck in it's segment, yet, it's been the #1 selling vehicle for over 20 years, with this difficiency. The Camry is the #1 selling midsize sedan, yet around 80% of them are I-4s and counts on other positive items for it to sell, SPEED isn't one of them.
"So are you saying the explorer/f-150 should not recieve the "cobra" 4.6 because Ford has decided to kill it? And that would be a good argument because...??"
I clearly stated the reason as to why the 4.6L DOHC engine cannot be used. Just to point it out ONE more time.
1) Uses premium fuel- for a truck...Not good.
2) Higher emmissions than the 4.6L 2V and 3V.
3> The 3V version (now being used in the Mustang) can attain better low RPM torque, using regular fuel.
4) Easier to build, less complexity, costs less to produce
I ask you, WHY should the DOHC version be used then? Since it has nothing positive over the new 3V version.
": 1)Nissan/Honda/Toyota are producing more reliable, equally attractive, superior interior, more effiecient, and now even more powerful vehicles than Ford"
Equally attractive? Styling is subjective.
Superior interior and Nissan, doesn't equate- try touching the interior of a Titan, altima, Pathfinder, Armada. Nissan is gaining reputation for the "GM-like interior, of the foreign brands".
Toyota uses the cheesiest headliner's, looks like sprayed on mousefur.
More efficient? Check some of the emissions and lower gas mileage the Tundra is posting. And the audacity to use premium fuel in some of it's trucks.
As I stated before, the 3.5L will be available soon after, and an ST version with 270HP will be introduced as well if someone needs that much power. Anything more, get a Mustang.
Everyone brand has their pros/cons, not everything is greener on the other side of the ponds.
wrong. read more carefully. the altima V6 RECOMMENDS premium for maximum performance, but does not require it. with regular, the HP is at 245 instead of 250, and actually gets 1 MPG better.
it is a choice to be made by the owner. personally, i cant see spending $0.20/gal more for only a 5 HP boost. useless.
also, you obviously havent seen the 2005 altima interior. get up-to-date with your product knowledge, and we'll talk more.
BTW, the issue would be global warming and/or running out of oil not the "ozone layer". If the goal is less gas use then the 4 cylinder will give you that and adequate performance and save you about $9000.
And yes it is worse, the TMV for hybrid accord is $5000 higher than the V-6. So you have to go 300,000 miles to break even at today's gas prices. So even if the price of gas doubled, you would have to go 150,000 miles.
I have seen it, I drove one a full day last week testing it out. I wasn't impressed by the interior. Although much better than the previous interior. BTW here's a tip I learned on the test drive, if an Altima cuts you off, hit the left rear corner and accelerate a bit, and watch it flip.
styling is crucial??? the fusion is decent enough but nothing outstanding or so different. can't get much more bland than the five hundred and i have a hunch that sedan will do well.
it's kind of a flippant statement to suggest the fusion will be better than the competition on all fields.
and has it dawn on anybody that this car has its roots in a japanese designed sedan?
Personally, performance matters a lot more to me than net horsepower. I've driven Chrysler's 3.5 in a few different applications including the Pacifica and 300. Neither felt "quick" to me. Now, my degree wasn't in Physics... but I'm thinking curb weight could be the culprit. Not to mention, the portly Pacifica only has 4 cogs for its slushbox. Is a car with 250hp a better performer than one with just 200?
Is a 160lb. person fat? It kind of depends, doesn't it?
Nobody here, with the *possible* exception of ANT, has ever driven a 2006 Fusion or Milan. We won't know any PERFORMANCE figures until they're published in the big auto periodicals - because performance isn't solely a function of horsepower. And if you're going to discuss the acceleration aspect of performance, you'd be remiss not to factor in weight and transmission gearing. If you're going to chastise Ford for coming to the plate with "only" 210 horses, why not criticize T and H for only playing with 5 forward gears?
Personally, I think the Camry and Accord are good vehicles, but I'm blatantly anti-automatic. So which V6 automatic in the group packs more horsepower punch means about as much to me as missing an episode of ER.
I think the 4cyl. w/manual version of every car discussed here (they're all within a few ponies of 160hp) is plenty for my needs - so long as I can get to sixty in under 8.5 seconds, I'm content. Perhaps if I was planning to tow a Boston Whaler up to Crater Lake I'd be singing a different tune. But I'm not.
In the same vein, my world is not going to come crashing down if the car I'm driving takes 1 second longer than that of the guy one lane over to hit 60 at full-open throttle. If I was track bound, I'd be shopping for something other than a midsize family sedan anyway.
I do, however, desire something that's fuel efficient and enjoyable to drive. The last time I went car shopping, the Altima was quickly thrown out of contention because I found the gearbox to be rather vague (not to mention that here in the Twin Cities, I've only seen chicks driving 'em). Likewise, I didn't much care for the extra-springy clutch release on the Accord. I figured it would be quite annoying in heavy stop-and-go.
Steering feel is very important to me too (and why I'm not a big Toyota fan), much more so than straightline acceleration times. A supercharged Regal is faster than the whole lot here, but one can hardly call it a "fun" car. Overboosted and/or lifeless steering is not my idea of a good time.
Lastly, styling is the linchpin in my purchase decision (this is obviously subjective, but the Honda Accord IMO is supremely unhip in the Looks Dept.). As they say, you are what you drive. And if you're driving a wallflower, well...
The Milan/Fusion interest me because they look like they just might be the whole enchilada - stylish, affordable, fun-to-drive and efficient. Hopefully I'm right but time will tell. Needless to say, I can hardly wait for a test-drive.
the TSX may not be one of those affordable cars but its resale value is excellent.
in addition to the lifeless steering of the supercharged regal, the engine itself contributes to the un-fun factor. it comes across as a "lazy" powerful powerplant.
since the demographic's of the accord are of highly educated, high income empty nesters or recent empty nesters i don't mind being seen in the accord. i don't like how they're so common though.
if the 6 speed automatic doesn't shift any better than that of the ford five hundred then it would be hard to criticize H and T for their smoother more responsive 5 speed automatics.
Midsize Suvs:
Ford Exlplorer (5a) Reg 4.0L 210/254 14/20
Honda Pilot (5a) Reg 3.5L 255/250 17/22
Mitts. Endeavor (4a) Pre 3.8L 225/250 17/22
Nissan Pathfind (5a) Reg 4.0L 270/291 15/21
Toyota (5a) Reg 4.0L 245/282 17/21
Midsize sedans
Honda accord (5a) Reg 3.0L 240/212 21/30
Mitts. Galant (4a) Prem 3.8L 230/250 19/27
Nissan Alt (5a) Prem 3.5L 250/249 20/30
Toyota Cam (5a) Reg 3.3L 225/240 21/29
Ford 500 (6a) Reg 3.0 203/207 21/29
(Ford 500 is actually a little large for this comparo..so why is it the one with the least hp?)
Minivans
Ford Freestar (4a) Reg 3.9L 193/240 18/23
Honda Ody. (5a) Reg 3.5L 255/250 20/28
Nissa Quest (5a) Reg 3.5L 240/242 18/25
Toyota (5a) Reg 3.3L 230/242 18/24
Compact Trucks:
Please, same deal
Fullsize trucks:
Ford does a little better here, but Nissan does it better with same mpg
If your arguing that the best engine does not mean best car..ur right. If your arguing that most cars that are bought are 4s..your right. If you are arguing that you have to take many things into consideration when purchasing a vehicle..ur right. If your are saying that most vehicles with better performance than Ford use prem gas..ur wrong. If you are saying that Ford builds better engines than the competition, ur smokin something. If your a Ford fan (like me) but this does not bother u the least little bit..why not? If your saying that the grass is not greener on the other side..then Ask Ford how they feel about being #3 in Auto industry now while Toyota is #2. I guess they don't care. 4 bangers sell because they are cheaper to buy and cheap on gas. 4 bangers, however, don't necessarily move people into the showrooms. I say Ford has to beat the competition on every level (not entry level). Granted their best efforts might be in looks, and improvements are on the rise (interiors, hopefully reliability) Chassis could see some improvement and YES, their engines suck compared to the competition!!
P.S. Edmunds.com states that the 500's engine performance is "mediocre" 7.3 0-60 is not mediocre. I'd be willing to bet that the 3.5L 300 will outrun the ford 500.
I agree though, the stripper model Mazda 6 looks fantastic - very clean and European.
My hope is that the Milan/Fusion will have similar handling traits (why not, they're all based on the same platform?) but will be available with my requisite sunroof-cloth seats-manual tranny combo (the Mazda 6 isn't).
The TSX would have much more appeal to me if leather weren't a standard feature. Why Americans have this love affair with leather car interiors and automatic transmissions, I'll never know. My *guess* is that it's a drive-through thing (people like to eat and drink while they're driving - leather cleans up easier after a Slurpie spill), but I prefer not to use my car as a mobile cafe.
As to the primary Accord demographic being "highly educated, high income empty nesters or recent empty nesters", I would love to know if you have any numbers to back up that statement. I don't work in the auto industry so my judgement is purely observational, but here in Minneapolis, Japanese nameplates with the exception of Lexus, Acura and Infiniti are not viewed as premium brands. I commute from the western 'burbs and the highly educated, high income empty nesters around here all seem to be driving German and Swedish imports (Audis and Volvos in particular). Accords are more popular in middle-class (and younger) neighborhoods closer in.
A few other rags (which you like to quote from, for your analysis) also have posted better acceleration numbers over a 300 3.5L.
I think you should concentrate more over transmission and gear ratios, which make a difference. HP/TQ are just half of the story as you will read in the 500 Forum.
There's more to a car that 0-60 acceleration as the new Avalon shows us. Great engine, but uninspiring vehicle dynamics. Or torquey 3.8L in a Galant, but with gobs of torque steer which is annoying. Everything has a trade-off, not everyone is interested in 0-60 performance.
from USA Today (accord): "Slightly younger, richer, better-educated than typical Accord V-6 buyers; hybrid target is college-educated married man, 50, with $100,000-plus annual household income"
(G6) "Fortysomethings with $65,000-$75,000 annual household incomes, as likely to be women as men, probably not college grads"
the medium age for accord buyers is getting up there. i'm starting to feel old now. i'll let you determine what is meant by "slightly" for regular accords. i should of been more clear by what i meant by high income. i was talking more about within the pond of midsize sedan consumers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-09-23-accord-hybrid_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-10-07-g6_x.htm
regardless of the transmission or gear ratios, the bottom line is that the ford hundred isn't a hot rod.
as with the ford five hundred, the avalon's driving dynamics are superb for its target audience.
BTW, some of Ford engines have received "Wards 10 Best engine" awards, for a few years on different engines. The 5.4L Triton received it for 5 years, as the 6.0L PowerStroke Diesel, as the 3.9L DOHC V8, even the Ford Zetec 2.0L received it one year. This year it's the 4.6L SOHC V8, as well as the 1.3L Mazda Renesis.
If your expecting Ford to have the best engines on each and every segment, for every segment, every year. That's impossible, sorry to break the news to you. Competition makes good vehicles, better. But you can't have it all at one given moment.
-No, but being a critic is if they listen!!
"So if you have an issue with the engines, Don't buy one"
-I own one..haha..2004 f-150 5.4L, I purchased from Ford, so I have an interest in it. (sort of like the argument that if you voted, you should be able to complain, right?)
BTW...none of those engines were v6s, which has been the main concentration in these arguments...Are you really gonna argue with the numbers that I posted before? Just say it ANT14, Ford is behind in their main stream motors..because..well..they are. And no rebuttal to the 500-300 fight?
And finally...
"If your expecting Ford to have the best engines on each and every segment, for every segment, every year. That's impossible, sorry to break the news to you. Competition makes good vehicles, better. But you can't have it all at one given moment."
-I must have missed Ford's new advertisement.."you can't have your cake and eat it to you know." PPEEllleasse.
No seriously I know what you are saying there, but I can't find a market other than fullsize truck, that they are not extremely behind in. Even in the full size market they are not in the lead. (I'm not saying the 5.4L is a "bad" engine..its just a little outclassed by Nissan's 5.6 and possibly the hemi..although the hemi eats, sleeps, and terds gasoline)
I'm not trying to make Ford look like a butt..I've only owned four autos, two have been Fords. I pledge allegiance to my f-150 everymorning. Don't hate on me because I pointed out the obvious, just accept, ask why, and hope for improvements! (Just like GM customers have been doing with those "interiors". )
Continue to grow Volvo, allocating sufficient funds for new vehicles, new engines, new techonology respectively.
Introduce new vehicles to Aston Martin, as well as new engines (wonder where the engine development money is going?).
Introduce new vehicles for Mazda, and turn them into the black from years of posting in the red, breathe new life into their vehicles.
Raise Jaguar's reliability rating, and continue to introduce new vehicles, new technologies and new engines for them... and that's another one that needs to be rescued from the red.
Rejuvinate Land Rover, give them new vehicles, (most they have had in decades) as well as introduce new engines, even if it's Jaguar derived.... (than having to pay for BMW's 4.4L).
Introduce new vehicles for Mercury, which never in it's history will it receive as many vehicles (even if it's Ford clones) as it soon will have.
Introduce new Lincoln vehicles as well, with AWD availability.
Develop new transmissions (6A FWD/RWD&AWD) and integrate AWD technology in the majority of their vehicles. Continue to increase the safety on their vehicles so they all post the highest (or near highest) in their segments... in government crash testing. Lower the emissions on all their vehicles, (better than most competitors).
Improve the V8's, introduce new I-4's. I'm sorry that the Duratec35 is the last one to receive the attention.
If you worked in the industry, you would understand it's not as easy to think "OH let's bring out the Duratec35, 2 years ahead of time".
1) You need the technology of the AWD systems to catch up in capability to the power the 3.5L will deliver.
2) Build new transmissions that can sustain the power the new Duratec35 will deliver.
3) Build new platforms that can sustain and provide the space for the new engine.
4) Build a relationship with supplier's, to facilitate the assembly and delivery of the products necessary.
Next round of question, "Well why not bring it out 2 years ago?"
A) The Taurus would have requires intensive investment from the A-Pillar forward to allow this engine in it. As well as, beef up the transmissions. In other words...Pointless.
C) Explorer? Transmission not able to sustain it, requires some engine bay modification.
D) Lincoln LS-Tbird, dying soon, leave them as V8s solely.
E) For the CV/GM ? Nope, major engine bay modifications to allow for it. Vehicle too heavy, better suited solely for a V8.
F) Escape? Maybe, but no transmission available then to allow for it. Also requires a beefier AWD system, and some major engine bay modification to allow for it.
G) IN time for the new 500? Nope, the AWD system needs to be beefed up for it. At the time it wasn't possible. 6A auto needs to be beefed up as well, not worth paying the investment when a Ford/GM unit was under talks.
Next round of possible questions...
"Why now after the introduction of the 500/Fusion?"
A) Refer to the paragraph of putting out wildwires throughout all companies.
C) New platforms are now being introduced, that can allow for all these technologies to work together.
D) Older platforms being killed, that wouldn't have allowed such drivetrains to be fitted.
E) When your main breadwinner is the F-150 and your company produces more V8's than the competition, you tend to concentrate on it's V8's first since their emissions and C.A.F.E. will affect other vehicles in the line.
Don't pull what GM did.... They redid their Colorado/Canyon and introduced a new I-5 in a segment that's dwindling. Instead of allocating resources to their highest profit vehicles, the Silverado.
BTW the Ford Triton 5.4L isn't outclassed by the Nissan 5.6L. The F-150 has much more weight to pull around, and a 4speed automatic. Also, the 5.4L posts a higher torque curve, down low. As well as having the usual array of techonologies found in todays modern OHC engines.
The armchair critics like the Titan because of quicker in it's performance. The car rags love to boast about that, and will recommend the vehicle, yet when the vehicle sits in the shop most of the time, they turn a blind eye away. How many times haven't they creamed over a VW, and look how unreliable they are... They also have wildfires to put out as well.
Which will come out first: the AWD for the Fusion or the 3.5 for the Five Hundred? About how much time will be between the two? (I bet you can see where THIS is going!)
Will the Fusion have comparable safety levels to the Five Hundred? Would a person considering trading a Five Hundred for a Fusion be some sort of nut if safety were a MAJOR priority for him/her?
This topic has been drifting all over the place - let's stick to the Fusion/Milan, and take the general Ford conversation to News & Views.
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
not even honda, toyota, or BMW has dethroned nissan's VQ engines...how would ford?
Anyway...does anyone know what plans for has for the Fusion and hybrid options? Will there also be a diesel option in 2006-7 with the new fuel regulations?
More than that, though, this test calls attention to the necessary strong safety cage around the occupants- crumples zones upfront and in back, and a rigid cage and door structures. FWIW, most of the small cars were rated 'Marginal', including the top ranked Corolla and Cobalt (with SACs). The Ford Focus was ranked as 'Poor' for structure- Id hope that the Fusion is designed with safety in mind. The only small car that did reasonably well in that measure was the Mazda 3, earning an 'Acceptable' for structure.
Also- someone recently posted the MPGs for lots of different vehicles. Among the minivans, I wanted to point out that that post included figures for the Toyota Sienna AWD, and the FWD Sienna is rated at 19/27.
~alpha
The diesels have yet to be planned out, till the government specifically states what is exactly allowed pertaining to that. If so, your looking at 2008, but nothing on concrete just yet.
The 3.5L will enter the 500 first, but not much longer the Fusion will receive it. Hybrid engines phase-in has been moved ahead of original time.
~alpha
they also do these tests at 40+ MPH, which is a very unrealistic speed that ANY vehicle can protect the occupant. beleive it or not, the average impact speed in all 2-vehicle accidents is barely over 20 MPH.
my point is that SACs cannot stop internal head trauma, such as concussions. they cant test for this, so until they can, these types of tests are a complete waste of time, IMO.
They are possibly doing this to give it a smaller goal, then when automaker's catch up, grow the size/weight of the crash barrier to reflect a larger vehicle.
That's light for an SUV - the Explorer weighs over 4,000 lbs. The results would be worse IMHO.
According to the IIHS, they test at 31 mph w/ a 3,300 lbs simulated SUV.
In an interview I saw this AM, the Lancer had the B pillar sheared. The Beetle had great intrusion. The key in these tests is that the SUV/Pickup Truck simulator misses the lower door structure - just like in the real world.
Now the 500 may do better because it is raised a bit. The Fusion - I doubt it.
As for head/brain injuries, I'm not an expert. But if my head hit an airbag as opposed to the window/intruding vehicle, I think I was fare better.