The 3.0L in the GS300 is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the 3.0L in the Camry and the 3.3L in the Lexus RX and ES, and Toyota Highlander, Sienna, Solara, and Camry.
The new 3.0L in the GS300 is a part of a new family of Toyota V6s that include 2.5L, 3.0L, 3.5L, and 4.0L variants. The 2.5L is used in the 2006 Lexus IS, the 3.0L is used in the 2006 Lexus GS, the 3.5L is used in the new Avalon and 2006 Lexus IS, and the 4.0L is used in the Tacoma, Tundra, and 4Runner.
None of the above is related in any way to any Camry engine.
Toyota does have a 3.0L Inline 6 that was used from the old Supra, to the GS sedan. Not related to the 3.0L V6 in Camry, Highlander, Es300, and other vehicles.
But moving back to the Fusion/Milan before the topic police gets ya
Hey ANT, do you have any idea what the HP range is for the Duratec35? From the "simply unfooled around with" version to the Hi-Po version? No blowers please.
I listed some preliminary figures long time ago, in the 500 or possibly Freestyle forum.
Your looking at around 250HP on regular, up to 270HP for the "Fusion ST270" and there will be more powerful versions topping higher than that. Don't be surprised if the engine is underated as well. IN case you haven't noticed, the 300HP Mustang is really putting out 310-320HP, you might see this again.
Main consideration is regular fuel. Which vehicle shopper would appreciate it, and which vehicles they are satisfied with premium.
The Duratec35 can also grow to a larger size if need be, while the Duratec30 is capped at the capcity it's currently in.
Thanks ANT. 250 to start is better than I thought. I was expecting it to start closer to 230 HP.
FWIW premium fuel is why I turned down buying a 5-door '04 Focus SVT last January and leased a Mazda6 instead. Could have had the Focus for about $17,500 too. No regrets on my choice.
Not only did the Focus require premium fuel but it's fuel mileage was worse than the Mazda6 V6 mileage. I'm usually not one to care about such things as fuel economy but when it's paired with the expensive go juice I have to think twice.
I am wondering how the Fusion is going to drive, is the engine going to be as responsive as it is in the Taurus's, or is it going to be slower like in the Five Hundred. I know the weight difference is large so will it be quicker than the Taurus's or will the 6speed tranny slowit down
ANT, any chance of the 4cyl./5spd manual combo being available on the upper crust or mid-level versions of the Fusion/Milan? I noticed the Ford site allowed me to build a top-level Fusion with a manual...
Also, any word on the release date for the wagon version? And will the Milan be available in wagon guise too?
Now if I could only get a 5spd manual in the wagon, it would truly shangri-la. You never know, that could be a hot seller if gas prices spike over $3.
Option packages are still being worked out. If demand warrants (according to how many fill out that build survey) then I do see a possibility of it. There is a strong number of people who are willing to have a fully loaded 4, with the possibility of a manual in it.
Wagons are still a bit off, you might see something a bit "different" offered. Mazda is debuting the Mazda5 which is a wagonized-mini-minivan version built on the C1 architecture which might attract some into it.
Put me in for a manual tranny wagon as well. Not interested in the Mazda 5 though as it only seats 4 (unless you use the tiny back seat which puts peoples heads inches from the rear window.) and is a guzzler for a 4-cyl manual tranny.
post about the Titan removed. If it's not specifically about the Fusion/Milan, you can bet it'll be zapped.
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 don't know if anyone covered this but as far as ABS goes, when I'm selling a car to someone who wants ABS on like a Focus and non of the Focui on the lot have ABS, go directly to this article and let them read it.
Go right to question 4.
Like someone said, standard equipment isn't free and I think we should remember that in this country, people are free to choose whether or not they have to pay extra for a car to get a safety item of unproven value.
Usually the people I show this article to drop the "I need ABS" garbage. After all, they are looking at a car in the under 20k price range to begin with.
Keep in mind that the Focus and the Fusion will be small relatively light autos. Contrast this to SUVs and the Ford Five Hundred which comes in at nearly 2 tons and up.
is what I am waiting patiently for. What I have read and seen this car is going to be a great value, have great styling and performance. I presenly own an 01 Escape and its been a great vehicle. I feel I am ready to return to a car. Anyone have any links to pictures?
Well you are right here at Edmunds Inside Line. Click on future vehicles, then sedans, then Ford Fusion, then Photographs and you will see quite a few.
Fusion has made the rounds of the Auto shows, so it is not a corporate secret at this point.
ABS should be standard because Stability control should be standard and you can't have stability control without ABS. Stability control works, IIHS study concluded that ESC reduced fatal single-vehicle crash risk by 56 percent and the risk of all single-vehicle crashes (fatal and non-fatal) by 41 percent. NHTSA released its own study that concluded ESC reduced single-vehicle crashes in passenger cars by 35 percent, and also reduced, by 67 percent, single-vehicle crashes in SUVs.
Also has anyone noticed that on the Build a Fusion section on the Ford website they have a Future options section, with prices. What is interesting is every couple days the prices keep changing for everything.
Well, I agree that stability should be standard or at least be offered as a stand alone option. VW is doing that and their invoice cost is only $250 in the cases where it is optional.
Whe I did the build a fusion thing, I submitted a comment indicating that I would have liked to have been able to add stability.
Since CR included that piece on ESC in this year's Auto Issue, it seems like every board here has been inundated with folks who believe they're simply going to die if they hop into a car not equipped with ESC. Please. Where were these folks a year ago when no one was writing about ESC? People read an article or two and suddenly they're savants.
Whether ESC is standard or optional, if a car is equipped with it, it adds to the cost. And it's a cost some of us aren't willing to pay when it's NOT something we need. The only time it's going to help you is if you're overdriving the conditions, and that's dumb period. Is it helpful for the hapless fool who sends his/her Suburban into a hairpin at 50? Probably. But let's be honest, those who fly around in 5500lb mastodons with lips glued to the phone shouldn't be on the road anyway. There is NO substitute for good driving - not all wheel drive, not traction control, not ABS and certainly not ESC.
I cannot help feeling that this is the next line of attack from the "fully automatic" crowd (first automatic transmissions, then automatic braking and now automatic steering). If driving is too much of a hassle, there's always public transportation. I wish more people disinterested in or inconvenienced by piloting an automobile would take advantage of it. The roads would be a safer place for EVERYONE.
Ford, if you're listening, make mine a 5spd stick - hold the ABS, TC, ESC, newspaper holder, cappuccino maker, travel pillow, macrame dash doily and rear-deck stuffed animal ensemble package please.
if you don't want stability control so be it. but you can be the most careful driver in the world and situations can still arise where stability control could be a life saver.
it's because of all these monster 5500lb SUVs that i would want stability control in the event i would need to get out of their way abruptly. i'm now a wee bit nervous in the winter time because of all these AWD SUV drivers who think their ungainly vehicles don't have to obey the laws of physics.
Of course no one was talking about it a year ago. Most did not know what it was and there had not been any studies showing that it was a significant safety improvement...or if there were studies they had not been reported in the popular media, so no one knew about them.
NHTSA reported a 35 percent reduction in single-vehicle crash risk for cars. Fatal single-vehicle crashes were reduced about 30 percent for cars.
The data I have seen from IIHS shows that single vehicle crashes account for over 1/3 of driver deaths in cars.
So if crashes that account for 1/3 of deaths are reduced by 1/3 that means a 10% reduction in the overall vehicle crash death risk. I'm willing to spend $250 for that.
"Specific make/models with ESC were compared with earlier versions of similar make/models using multi-vehicle crash involvements as a control group..."
The above statement is taken directly from that NHTSA article given in the previous post. There are a number of issues with their ESC data and conclusions, and you don't need a degree in law to notice one of the most glaring: their test didn't use identical models equipped with and without ESC. It compared the results of new ESC-equipped models with "earlier versions of similar makes/models". How much earlier? Year old models? 5 year old models? 10? Likewise, how similar? Are they talking about similar curb weights or similar prices or similar something else? Exactly what makes and models are they comparing? Believing in NHTSA's methodology is a bit like believing in UFOs. It can't be disproven, but it requires some big leaps of faith along with a dash or two of naivety.
It would surprise me if those driving late model BMWs and Benzes didn't get into significantly fewer accidents than other motorists. Think for a moment about what kind of people drive these cars and where they do most of their driving. When I putt through the windy roads in the Lake Minnetonka area (where I've never seen an accident) on my morning commute, these fancy-pants cars are everywhere, but when I get closer to downtown Minneapolis (where I see accidents on an almost-daily basis), I see very few of them. My guess is that NHTSA's study also didn't take into account any environmental differences.
I've read many "You just gotta have ESC" articles and have yet to be convinced. There simply isn't enough evidence out there yet. What I've seen so far is conjecture at best.
Lastly, you can bet that if Ford did make ESC available, it would cost more than $250. Once you tack on the cost of ABS and TC, you're talking at least $750. For that, I'd much rather have a sunroof. I know I'm getting what I paid for - sun exposure - with that option.
Sun exposure? And reduced headroom and structural rigidity.
To each his own. Options. That is what sunroofs, leather AND ESC should be. Not mandatory takes to get something else, as the imports are so good at (and sometimes the domestics, too). For years, I didn't buy a Mazda 626 as to get ABS they made you take a sunroof, too. Not for me.
I hope Ford packages the options right on these cars. It's critical.
In this IIHS study..."The comparison vehicles were restricted to earlier models that were physically identical to the ESC-equipped vehicles in all respects except for ESC."
The full article on which this news release is based concludes with:
The data also are insufficient to compare ESC effectiveness in cars versus SUVs. Although effectiveness estimates were slightly higher for SUVs than for cars, the differences were not statistically significant, and not nearly as great as those reported by Dang (2004). The comparison also is confounded by different ESC versions for the cars and SUVs in this study.
In summary, electronic stability control has been highly effective in preventing single-vehicle crashes. It does not appear to increase the risk of other types of crashes. Future studies with more data may even find a reduction in some types of multiple vehicle crashes. Overall, ESC should be a significant benefit to highway safety.
gogophers- Jefferyscott's succint post pretty much elimiates your argument re: the control of the study vehicles. thoughts?
"The comparison vehicles were restricted to earlier models that were physically identical to the ESC-equipped vehicles in all respects except for ESC."
From the identical passage: "The researchers analyzed the crash rates (all crashes, injury crashes, and fatal crashes per registered vehicle year) of cars and SUVs with ESC as standard equipment versus prior versions of these vehicles when they weren't equipped with ESC or ESC was available only as an option (very few vehicles were equipped with this option)."
Again, to believe their conclusions, you have to have confidence in the validity of their methodology and the inferences they're making. To attribute the reduction of crashes to ESC, you have to first conclude that the age and mileage of the vehicles in the sample (newer models with ESC vs. earlier versions without) as well as driver and environmental factors play no roles. And let's not get into sample size.
What I'm trying to get at is that no study exists to back up this assertion that ESC greatly reduces the number of motor vehicle crashes/fatalities. At least not yet - it's still too early. As this technology trickles down into less expensive models such as the Sonata though, there's going to be a lot more evidence to back up or refute any such claims.
Do you guys remember the early studies NHTSA and IIHS had in regard to driver's side airbags? Well, if not let me refresh you. They had similar pie in the sky conclusions about what a life saver these bags were by comparing *models equipped with driver's side airbags to previous versions of similar vehicles*. Of course, intially these bags were only available in high-end cars (leaving out the early '70s Oldsmobiles that had them as optional equipment) and as the technology trickled down to Fords and Chevrolets and the sample size grew to encompass more drivers, they began finding that for belted passengers, the bags had little if any effect on reducing fatalities. True, for unbelted passengers, the difference in mortality rates for frontal crashes was night and day. What was fascinating, however, is that after a few additional years worth of data was available, they began finding that airbags themselves were actually responsible for a number of deaths. Which is why today we have airbag light. My point is that you're being led down the garden path if you believe the rosy pictures painted by these initial studies. But I guess if they help you sleep better at night, at least they're doing something worthwhile.
$250 (or even $750) isn't going to break me. It's not the cost I really have a problem with. It's the cost-benefit. If you're selling a safety feature, I'd like to know for certain that it reduces crashes/fatalities and by how much. If it's 35%, sign me up. If it's 0-5%, I'd rather spend those bucks on a new kayak.
I think for the vast majority of auto consumers, a good set of snow/ice tires (I know from firsthand experience how great these babies are having been through winters with and without them on the exact same vehicles) offers much more bang for the buck than ESC on slippery roads. Which would you rather have - more "robots" or more traction? As far as specific asinine, excess of the limit situations on dry pavement, a certain Darwinian-style thinning of the gene pool might not be such a bad thing in single car situations.
Of course, as someone previously mentioned, the real concern for the majority of us who aren't out there driving like we've got 2 weeks to live is getting clocked by someone in a 3 ton Land Cruiser who is.
No, certainly not make or break for these cars, just makes marketing's job a bit more difficult, when Hyundai can come in and tout it as standard, along with a stronger 4 cylinder, stouter V6, etc on the 2006 Sonata, for example.
Hey the 06 Fusion order guide is now out. No public link is available. but Ford is saying that no 4cylinder automatics will be produced during Job #1, the first 90 days of production, 6 cylinder cars will account for 95% of Job #1 production.
Hey the 06 Fusion order guide is now out. No public link is available. but Ford is saying that no 4cylinder automatics will be produced during Job #1, the first 90 days of production, 6 cylinder cars will account for 95% of Job #1 production.
Not sure of what the reason is for this.
They probably learned their lesson from the launch of the Mazda6 a couple of years ago. Everyone and their brothers wanted a Mazda6s MTX (V6 manual trans) with the sport package but Mazda misjudged and produced very few of them. All you could find on the lots in 2003 were Mazda6i's with the ATX or MTX. By MY04 Mazda wised up and V6 with MTX copies were much easier to find.
A lot of early buyers are enthusiasts who knew the car was coming and rushed to the dealer the day they got one in. Those folks want the best there is to offer and I'm sure Ford doesn't want to send them packing.
Let's take the talk about ESC to our discussion called Stability Control, are you ready for it? Stick to the Fusion/Milan, specifically, in this discussion. Thanks!
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
There has been an overwhelming inquiry over 6 cylinder configurations, and higher trim models. This proves my point that people are willing to pay for a better product, if you provide it...and in this case, many have inquired over the higher trim models when filling out the survey on Fords site.
While I don't disagree that the Fusion is a great car, I think it's silly to judge product mix based on a self-selecting survey. I've probably "built a Fusion" on that site six times since the site went live, and I have no intention of buying one, 6-cyl or otherwise. And, of course, I build a well-equipped model each time, just to see how the pricing came out with lots of add-ons. In reality, if I WERE buying a Fusion, I would be unlikely to actually purchase the options I selected there. And, you have to take into consideration that most of the people attracted to that site are enthusiasts, not everyday Camry drivers.
I applaud Ford for making the preliminary option info available, but I think they should be careful about reading too much into the results. By the way, with regard to the "95% 6-cyl at launch" comment...if that's true, I think it must be due to an engineering issue with the 4-cyl powertrain. The demand for the 6-cyl isn't going to be THAT high. Even the Mazda6 does not sell anywhere near 95% 6-cyl, and it's a sports car, which the Fusion (sort-of) isn't.
But those "enthusiasts" may also be more likely to be early buyers.
Of course they want to advertise "the new 200 HP V-6 Fusion..." or something like that. Mazda 6 may sell mostly 4 cylinders but I bet the advertising is all or mostly based on a 6 cylinder loaded model. That seems to be what every car maker does.
In my 2 or 3 visits I built a pretty basic model as I wanted to see what the pricing for somethng I might actually want to buy would be (assuming the more appealing, to me, Mercury is similarly optioned and priced).
Well this is just in the beginning, it'll level off thereafter.. Usually the higher trim models sell better in the beginning. The same occured with the F-150, and 500, and even still, the higher trimmed models are selling at a higher rate than anticipated.
Even the Mazda6 does not sell anywhere near 95% 6-cyl, and it's a sports car, which the Fusion (sort-of) isn't.
Not now but it was probably pretty close in the first half year or so of availability. I4 models were heavily discounted, and quite abundant on Mazda lots, the first year because the early shoppers were not interested in them. Mazda mis-judged big time on that one. But things seem to have leveled out now and everyone is happy.
Something similar is happening with the Mustang right now. GT coupes and convertibles (if you can find one) are being marked up thousands of dollars because Ford just can't produce enough of them right now. I spoke to a salesman about them back on Sunday (yes he was on the lot taking names and handing out his cards on Sunday when the place was closed) and he stated that they'll deal a good bit on V6 models but the GTs he had, both of which were verts, were marked up $6000 over sticker and they were not accepting any discount plans such as X-Plan either.
Of course the Mustang GT "shortage" is quite a bit different than the Mazda6s "shortage" in that Ford can't produce more of the V8s. IIRC it's mainly because they are being built in the same plant as F-150 motors. That too will even out eventually
To get to my point, one of the reasons I waited to buy a Mazda6 was because dealers were not honoring the S-Plan on Mazda6 copies with the V6. That hurt Mazda and it will hurt Ford too if it happens. There are too many other choices out there that are just as good.
Although, do you really think it'll hurt Ford if they lost an S-plan sale with minimal profit margin? Ford rather sell a vehicle and make a profit, than selling one at cost. Hence, what is currently occuring with the 500. Therefore, that senario will continue to happen on certain models which they do not wish to discount at that time, since another customer will surely pay full price for it.
of a fusion driving on some residential streets. all i could think of is the honda designers crying because that is what the accord should have looked like. my wife has an '04 escape limited. when she saw the five hundred, she said 'why didn't you tell me about those'? um, they weren't available? ok. when she sees the fusion, it will be deja vu(all over again). maybe i'll see if i can get a good trade in on my '04 focus zts.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Thanks, ANT14 for the link to the F150 "Truth About Trucks" link above - I surely hope that Ford produces something just like it for the Fusion/Milian, and for all of their other products when the time is right. I have always liked that kind of direct comparison advertising, especially when the advertiser is not afraid to get into technical details.
Any chance of a Fusion / Milan wagon, or will the new minivan serve that purpose?
Sure they would like to continue selling vehicles without discounts. They'd be crazy not to! What I'm saying is that most people, with and without partner discounts, will wait until the vehicles are more readily available and the price is negotiable to buy. There are people that will pay sticker because of the "gotta have it now" factor but they are a very, very small minority. Once they are satisfied the market for a specific vehicle tends to even out but I think Ford wants to avoid that with the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr by offering what everyone wants all at the same time. Which in the case of a sports sedan or coupe means producing more of the HiPo versions first. That contrasts with my Mazda6 and Mustang examples in that both of those models had initial production weighted towards the "secretary" version if you will.
I think if you were to ask a group of people who qualify for one of Ford's discounts if they would buy a vehicle without using it you would get a LOT of no's. I know I wouldn't. Same goes for my GM discount. Only I would definitely not consider any of their current products!
This might sound silly to you, but give Ford credit. They realized that the data from the old way they projected sales of models and options to be really really WRONG.
F-150 everyone wanted FX-4 supercrews. Lots full of reg cab XL work trucks on dealer lots.
Ford Mustang GT. Production total under estimated. The interior upgrade package, they thought this would be an 18% take or lower, it ended up being an over 50% take. This was really screwed up.
Ford 500. Ford totally under guessed the number of peeps who wanted to fork over the $1,800 extra for AWD. Haldex goes into overtime and dealers are forced to take FWD cars to get AWD cars.
This survey may not be perfect but where else can Ford get this data from? Sales records of Ford Taurus or the Ford Contour? NOT.
Personally I have always felt that in today's automarket, price isn't the only consideration. If it was, we would all be driving Hyundai's People buy a car they feel an emotional draw to from someone they like.
The Ford Contour was an example of Ford building a car to hit a specific price point. Problem was, price was about the only thing going for it. Complete failure was the result.
I think that the Fusion is going to connect with alot of people stylisticly in what is otherwise a very boring segment. The Dodge Stratus ICK and the Chevy Malibu Double ICK, even the Pontiac G6 is pretty much an ICK.
Fusion will be bigger than the new Jetta, and Mazda6, have more content for dollar than the Camary and Accord, and better ride and refinement than the Hyundai Sonata.
It seems to me that the Fusion and 500 seem to be part of a rebuilding of Ford's foundation. They can't do anything truly ground breaking until their meat and potatoes car and truck businesses are solid. The trucks are pretty solid right now, but the mainstream car business, before the 500, was getting killed. With the 500 and Fusion in place, that should improve and solidify their core car business quite nicely, assuming the Fusion is everything it seems to be. It's not the type of stuff that grabs big headlines, and they're not redefining the industry, but I think Ford is quietly building towards a very solid lineup. Then, assuming they can deal with the outrageous healthcare/ pension issues, they should be in a great position to offer an attempt at the "next big thing" (the original Chrysler minivans, or the original Taurus, for instance), which is what they really need to put them back on top. It would be nice if the Fusion ended up being a bona fide hit, as opposed to the 500, which seems to be doing merely "well enough." We'll see...
Hey wassup everybody. I just saw the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr at the ATL International auto-show, and I have to say that I'm very impressed. I think that both the cars are going to be a pair of big time home runs for Ford/Mercury and a solid double for Lincoln.
Well first, off I have to I'd like to apologize to the Lincoln Zephyr fans. I wrote a thread on here that was pretty nasty about the Zephyr about people have basically told Ford that they think it Sucks. like a couple of people have eluded to on other threads about the car. You really have to see this car in person. It's really really nice. The one complaint about the Zephyr are those HUGE truck like tail lights on the trunk. In person at least to me, They didn't even look that bad they just looked disproportionate to the car. The car is very sleek and nicely designed then BAM !!!!! those tail lights. The Interior looks a lot better in person than it does on the pics that are floating around the Internet. Those must have been taken with a Polaroid camera.
Second, I'd have to say the Milan just absolutely kills the Fusion as far as appearance from front to back to me. I mean it's NICE I must have taken about 6 pics of the Milan. They had it in a wine red (that's what I call it) and that front end just got me. The only thing I didn't like is the Mercury Logo on the front grill. It must be "10 around. I mean it's a big as the Blue Oval on the F-150 rear gate but instead it's about the same size Mercury logo on the front grill. IT'S HUGE !!!!!!!!!!! Both the Milan/Fusion had very nice interiors that look nice and inviting like something you'd actually want to drive. The Fusion's overall package is nice as well. I just like the Milan over all of the other 2.
I would put some pics on the Website from the Pic's that I took from my phone but I don't know how to display pics that I have saved on my computer on the Edmunds Forum pages Sorry
Well I think the Milan is going to be the surprise of 05 because it's a Mercury and people really don't know and care about Mercury. Oh that's about to change. The Fusion is going to be a big time Homerun becuase well it's a Ford. The Zephyr is going to be a ground rule double for Lincoln I just don't think the Zephyr delivers what people in America are looking for from Lincoln. :shades:
:confuse: Was my auto-show recap that bad. I mean before I posted my opinion of the auto-show people were talking down. All of a sudden BAM, did I scare everybody away :confuse: I don't think I said anything that bad did I ???
" Fusion will be bigger than the new Jetta, and Mazda6, have more content for dollar than the Camary and Accord, and better ride and refinement than the Hyundai Sonata. "
I hope you are speaking of the old Sonata and not the new NF Sonata to be on sale in May. Comparing 2 unreleased cars (Fusion vs. Sonata) seems quite silly. Pick on Toyota and Honda all you want, but they build modern engines with good mileage.
Considering the best engine available for the Fusion will still be the old screaming weasel V6 and not a modern DOHC V V T engine, style seems to be the only admirable attribute for the Fusion. Yes I know, come 2007 it will have a "Killer" engine. Just not this year or next year, but some day over the rainbow.
Add to that, the new Sonata built in USA will keep Americans employed, while the Fusion sends jobs to Mexico.
Exactly why do you want to buy a first year Ford built in Mexico with a old engine design? Because it is pretty? You have got to be kidding.
-----------
" I mean it's NICE..." "I mean before I posted my opinion ..."
I mean, you know, it's like, I mean, what could I possibly say without hurting your feelings?
If you are talking about the 3.0 DOHC Duratech, I do not consider it a bad engine at all, having driven one of these for 46K now in my 2000 Taurus. If the Fusion ends up slightly lighter than my Taurus, the 3.0 Duratech, non VVTor enhanced with VVT will be fine, especially if it comes in at a price point in the high teens.
Comments
The 3.0L in the GS300 is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the 3.0L in the Camry and the 3.3L in the Lexus RX and ES, and Toyota Highlander, Sienna, Solara, and Camry.
The new 3.0L in the GS300 is a part of a new family of Toyota V6s that include 2.5L, 3.0L, 3.5L, and 4.0L variants. The 2.5L is used in the 2006 Lexus IS, the 3.0L is used in the 2006 Lexus GS, the 3.5L is used in the new Avalon and 2006 Lexus IS, and the 4.0L is used in the Tacoma, Tundra, and 4Runner.
None of the above is related in any way to any Camry engine.
~alpha
But moving back to the Fusion/Milan before the topic police gets ya
Just curious that's all.
Your looking at around 250HP on regular, up to 270HP for the "Fusion ST270" and there will be more powerful versions topping higher than that. Don't be surprised if the engine is underated as well. IN case you haven't noticed, the 300HP Mustang is really putting out 310-320HP, you might see this again.
Main consideration is regular fuel. Which vehicle shopper would appreciate it, and which vehicles they are satisfied with premium.
The Duratec35 can also grow to a larger size if need be, while the Duratec30 is capped at the capcity it's currently in.
FWIW premium fuel is why I turned down buying a 5-door '04 Focus SVT last January and leased a Mazda6 instead. Could have had the Focus for about $17,500 too. No regrets on my choice.
Not only did the Focus require premium fuel but it's fuel mileage was worse than the Mazda6 V6 mileage. I'm usually not one to care about such things as fuel economy but when it's paired with the expensive go juice I have to think twice.
Also, any word on the release date for the wagon version? And will the Milan be available in wagon guise too?
Now if I could only get a 5spd manual in the wagon, it would truly shangri-la. You never know, that could be a hot seller if gas prices spike over $3.
Wagons are still a bit off, you might see something a bit "different" offered. Mazda is debuting the Mazda5 which is a wagonized-mini-minivan version built on the C1 architecture which might attract some into it.
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
Go right to question 4.
Like someone said, standard equipment isn't free and I think we should remember that in this country, people are free to choose whether or not they have to pay extra for a car to get a safety item of unproven value.
Usually the people I show this article to drop the "I need ABS" garbage. After all, they are looking at a car in the under 20k price range to begin with.
Keep in mind that the Focus and the Fusion will be small relatively light autos. Contrast this to SUVs and the Ford Five Hundred which comes in at nearly 2 tons and up.
Mark
Fusion has made the rounds of the Auto shows, so it is not a corporate secret at this point.
Also has anyone noticed that on the Build a Fusion section on the Ford website they have a Future options section, with prices. What is interesting is every couple days the prices keep changing for everything.
Whe I did the build a fusion thing, I submitted a comment indicating that I would have liked to have been able to add stability.
Whether ESC is standard or optional, if a car is equipped with it, it adds to the cost. And it's a cost some of us aren't willing to pay when it's NOT something we need. The only time it's going to help you is if you're overdriving the conditions, and that's dumb period. Is it helpful for the hapless fool who sends his/her Suburban into a hairpin at 50? Probably. But let's be honest, those who fly around in 5500lb mastodons with lips glued to the phone shouldn't be on the road anyway. There is NO substitute for good driving - not all wheel drive, not traction control, not ABS and certainly not ESC.
I cannot help feeling that this is the next line of attack from the "fully automatic" crowd (first automatic transmissions, then automatic braking and now automatic steering). If driving is too much of a hassle, there's always public transportation. I wish more people disinterested in or inconvenienced by piloting an automobile would take advantage of it. The roads would be a safer place for EVERYONE.
Ford, if you're listening, make mine a 5spd stick - hold the ABS, TC, ESC, newspaper holder, cappuccino maker, travel pillow, macrame dash doily and rear-deck stuffed animal ensemble package please.
it's because of all these monster 5500lb SUVs that i would want stability control in the event i would need to get out of their way abruptly. i'm now a wee bit nervous in the winter time because of all these AWD SUV drivers who think their ungainly vehicles don't have to obey the laws of physics.
Have you read the data such as this:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790.html
NHTSA reported a 35 percent reduction in single-vehicle crash risk for cars. Fatal single-vehicle crashes were reduced about 30 percent for cars.
The data I have seen from IIHS shows that single vehicle crashes account for over 1/3 of driver deaths in cars.
So if crashes that account for 1/3 of deaths are reduced by 1/3 that means a 10% reduction in the overall vehicle crash death risk. I'm willing to spend $250 for that.
The above statement is taken directly from that NHTSA article given in the previous post. There are a number of issues with their ESC data and conclusions, and you don't need a degree in law to notice one of the most glaring: their test didn't use identical models equipped with and without ESC. It compared the results of new ESC-equipped models with "earlier versions of similar makes/models". How much earlier? Year old models? 5 year old models? 10? Likewise, how similar? Are they talking about similar curb weights or similar prices or similar something else? Exactly what makes and models are they comparing? Believing in NHTSA's methodology is a bit like believing in UFOs. It can't be disproven, but it requires some big leaps of faith along with a dash or two of naivety.
It would surprise me if those driving late model BMWs and Benzes didn't get into significantly fewer accidents than other motorists. Think for a moment about what kind of people drive these cars and where they do most of their driving. When I putt through the windy roads in the Lake Minnetonka area (where I've never seen an accident) on my morning commute, these fancy-pants cars are everywhere, but when I get closer to downtown Minneapolis (where I see accidents on an almost-daily basis), I see very few of them. My guess is that NHTSA's study also didn't take into account any environmental differences.
I've read many "You just gotta have ESC" articles and have yet to be convinced. There simply isn't enough evidence out there yet. What I've seen so far is conjecture at best.
Lastly, you can bet that if Ford did make ESC available, it would cost more than $250. Once you tack on the cost of ABS and TC, you're talking at least $750. For that, I'd much rather have a sunroof. I know I'm getting what I paid for - sun exposure - with that option.
To each his own. Options. That is what sunroofs, leather AND ESC should be. Not mandatory takes to get something else, as the imports are so good at (and sometimes the domestics, too). For years, I didn't buy a Mazda 626 as to get ABS they made you take a sunroof, too. Not for me.
I hope Ford packages the options right on these cars. It's critical.
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr102804.htm
In this IIHS study..."The comparison vehicles were restricted to earlier models that were physically identical to the ESC-equipped vehicles in all respects except for ESC."
The full article on which this news release is based concludes with:
The data also are insufficient to compare ESC effectiveness
in cars versus SUVs. Although effectiveness estimates were
slightly higher for SUVs than for cars, the differences were not
statistically significant, and not nearly as great as those reported
by Dang (2004). The comparison also is confounded by different
ESC versions for the cars and SUVs in this study.
In summary, electronic stability control has been highly effective
in preventing single-vehicle crashes. It does not appear
to increase the risk of other types of crashes. Future studies with
more data may even find a reduction in some types of multiple vehicle
crashes. Overall, ESC should be a significant benefit to
highway safety.
"The comparison vehicles were restricted to earlier models that were physically identical to the ESC-equipped vehicles in all respects except for ESC."
~alpha
Study by Iowa
http://www.esceducation.org/downloads/University_of_Iowa_ESC_Study.pdf
"The researchers analyzed the crash rates (all crashes, injury crashes, and fatal crashes per registered vehicle year) of cars and SUVs with ESC as standard equipment versus prior versions of these vehicles when they weren't equipped with ESC or ESC was available only as an option (very few vehicles were equipped with this option)."
Again, to believe their conclusions, you have to have confidence in the validity of their methodology and the inferences they're making. To attribute the reduction of crashes to ESC, you have to first conclude that the age and mileage of the vehicles in the sample (newer models with ESC vs. earlier versions without) as well as driver and environmental factors play no roles. And let's not get into sample size.
What I'm trying to get at is that no study exists to back up this assertion that ESC greatly reduces the number of motor vehicle crashes/fatalities. At least not yet - it's still too early. As this technology trickles down into less expensive models such as the Sonata though, there's going to be a lot more evidence to back up or refute any such claims.
Do you guys remember the early studies NHTSA and IIHS had in regard to driver's side airbags? Well, if not let me refresh you. They had similar pie in the sky conclusions about what a life saver these bags were by comparing *models equipped with driver's side airbags to previous versions of similar vehicles*. Of course, intially these bags were only available in high-end cars (leaving out the early '70s Oldsmobiles that had them as optional equipment) and as the technology trickled down to Fords and Chevrolets and the sample size grew to encompass more drivers, they began finding that for belted passengers, the bags had little if any effect on reducing fatalities. True, for unbelted passengers, the difference in mortality rates for frontal crashes was night and day. What was fascinating, however, is that after a few additional years worth of data was available, they began finding that airbags themselves were actually responsible for a number of deaths. Which is why today we have airbag light. My point is that you're being led down the garden path if you believe the rosy pictures painted by these initial studies. But I guess if they help you sleep better at night, at least they're doing something worthwhile.
$250 (or even $750) isn't going to break me. It's not the cost I really have a problem with. It's the cost-benefit. If you're selling a safety feature, I'd like to know for certain that it reduces crashes/fatalities and by how much. If it's 35%, sign me up. If it's 0-5%, I'd rather spend those bucks on a new kayak.
I think for the vast majority of auto consumers, a good set of snow/ice tires (I know from firsthand experience how great these babies are having been through winters with and without them on the exact same vehicles) offers much more bang for the buck than ESC on slippery roads. Which would you rather have - more "robots" or more traction? As far as specific asinine, excess of the limit situations on dry pavement, a certain Darwinian-style thinning of the gene pool might not be such a bad thing in single car situations.
Of course, as someone previously mentioned, the real concern for the majority of us who aren't out there driving like we've got 2 weeks to live is getting clocked by someone in a 3 ton Land Cruiser who is.
Does anyone here seriously think that the presence or absence of ESC on these cars is going to make or break them in the marketplace? I sure don't.
~alpha
Not sure of what the reason is for this.
Mark
Not sure of what the reason is for this.
They probably learned their lesson from the launch of the Mazda6 a couple of years ago. Everyone and their brothers wanted a Mazda6s MTX (V6 manual trans) with the sport package but Mazda misjudged and produced very few of them. All you could find on the lots in 2003 were Mazda6i's with the ATX or MTX. By MY04 Mazda wised up and V6 with MTX copies were much easier to find.
A lot of early buyers are enthusiasts who knew the car was coming and rushed to the dealer the day they got one in. Those folks want the best there is to offer and I'm sure Ford doesn't want to send them packing.
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
Also, is the manual tranny option going to be available in the mid-level model or just the low-end versions?
While I don't disagree that the Fusion is a great car, I think it's silly to judge product mix based on a self-selecting survey. I've probably "built a Fusion" on that site six times since the site went live, and I have no intention of buying one, 6-cyl or otherwise. And, of course, I build a well-equipped model each time, just to see how the pricing came out with lots of add-ons. In reality, if I WERE buying a Fusion, I would be unlikely to actually purchase the options I selected there. And, you have to take into consideration that most of the people attracted to that site are enthusiasts, not everyday Camry drivers.
I applaud Ford for making the preliminary option info available, but I think they should be careful about reading too much into the results. By the way, with regard to the "95% 6-cyl at launch" comment...if that's true, I think it must be due to an engineering issue with the 4-cyl powertrain. The demand for the 6-cyl isn't going to be THAT high. Even the Mazda6 does not sell anywhere near 95% 6-cyl, and it's a sports car, which the Fusion (sort-of) isn't.
-Andrew L
Of course they want to advertise "the new 200 HP V-6 Fusion..." or something like that. Mazda 6 may sell mostly 4 cylinders but I bet the advertising is all or mostly based on a 6 cylinder loaded model. That seems to be what every car maker does.
In my 2 or 3 visits I built a pretty basic model as I wanted to see what the pricing for somethng I might actually want to buy would be (assuming the more appealing, to me, Mercury is similarly optioned and priced).
Not now but it was probably pretty close in the first half year or so of availability. I4 models were heavily discounted, and quite abundant on Mazda lots, the first year because the early shoppers were not interested in them. Mazda mis-judged big time on that one. But things seem to have leveled out now and everyone is happy.
Something similar is happening with the Mustang right now. GT coupes and convertibles (if you can find one) are being marked up thousands of dollars because Ford just can't produce enough of them right now. I spoke to a salesman about them back on Sunday (yes he was on the lot taking names and handing out his cards on Sunday when the place was closed) and he stated that they'll deal a good bit on V6 models but the GTs he had, both of which were verts, were marked up $6000 over sticker and they were not accepting any discount plans such as X-Plan either.
Of course the Mustang GT "shortage" is quite a bit different than the Mazda6s "shortage" in that Ford can't produce more of the V8s. IIRC it's mainly because they are being built in the same plant as F-150 motors. That too will even out eventually
To get to my point, one of the reasons I waited to buy a Mazda6 was because dealers were not honoring the S-Plan on Mazda6 copies with the V6. That hurt Mazda and it will hurt Ford too if it happens. There are too many other choices out there that are just as good.
my wife has an '04 escape limited. when she saw the five hundred, she said 'why didn't you tell me about those'? um, they weren't available? ok. when she sees the fusion, it will be deja vu(all over again).
maybe i'll see if i can get a good trade in on my '04 focus zts.
Any chance of a Fusion / Milan wagon, or will the new minivan serve that purpose?
I think if you were to ask a group of people who qualify for one of Ford's discounts if they would buy a vehicle without using it you would get a LOT of no's. I know I wouldn't. Same goes for my GM discount. Only I would definitely not consider any of their current products!
F-150 everyone wanted FX-4 supercrews. Lots full of reg cab XL work trucks on dealer lots.
Ford Mustang GT. Production total under estimated. The interior upgrade package, they thought this would be an 18% take or lower, it ended up being an over 50% take. This was really screwed up.
Ford 500. Ford totally under guessed the number of peeps who wanted to fork over the $1,800 extra for AWD. Haldex goes into overtime and dealers are forced to take FWD cars to get AWD cars.
This survey may not be perfect but where else can Ford get this data from? Sales records of Ford Taurus or the Ford Contour? NOT.
Personally I have always felt that in today's automarket, price isn't the only consideration. If it was, we would all be driving Hyundai's People buy a car they feel an emotional draw to from someone they like.
The Ford Contour was an example of Ford building a car to hit a specific price point. Problem was, price was about the only thing going for it. Complete failure was the result.
I think that the Fusion is going to connect with alot of people stylisticly in what is otherwise a very boring segment. The Dodge Stratus ICK and the Chevy Malibu Double ICK, even the Pontiac G6 is pretty much an ICK.
Fusion will be bigger than the new Jetta, and Mazda6, have more content for dollar than the Camary and Accord, and better ride and refinement than the Hyundai Sonata.
This seems to me to be the makings of a HIT!
Mark
Well first, off I have to I'd like to apologize to the Lincoln Zephyr fans. I wrote a thread on here that was pretty nasty about the Zephyr about people have basically told Ford that they think it Sucks. like a couple of people have eluded to on other threads about the car. You really have to see this car in person. It's really really nice. The one complaint about the Zephyr are those HUGE truck like tail lights on the trunk. In person at least to me, They didn't even look that bad they just looked disproportionate to the car. The car is very sleek and nicely designed then BAM !!!!! those tail lights. The Interior looks a lot better in person than it does on the pics that are floating around the Internet. Those must have been taken with a Polaroid camera.
Second, I'd have to say the Milan just absolutely kills the Fusion as far as appearance from front to back to me. I mean it's NICE I must have taken about 6 pics of the Milan. They had it in a wine red (that's what I call it) and that front end just got me. The only thing I didn't like is the Mercury Logo on the front grill. It must be "10 around. I mean it's a big as the Blue Oval on the F-150 rear gate but instead it's about the same size Mercury logo on the front grill. IT'S HUGE !!!!!!!!!!! Both the Milan/Fusion had very nice interiors that look nice and inviting like something you'd actually want to drive. The Fusion's overall package is nice as well. I just like the Milan over all of the other 2.
I would put some pics on the Website from the Pic's that I took from my phone but I don't know how to display pics that I have saved on my computer on the Edmunds Forum pages Sorry
Well I think the Milan is going to be the surprise of 05 because it's a Mercury and people really don't know and care about Mercury. Oh that's about to change. The Fusion is going to be a big time Homerun becuase well it's a Ford. The Zephyr is going to be a ground rule double for Lincoln I just don't think the Zephyr delivers what people in America are looking for from Lincoln.
:shades:
Enjoy
Ford Fusion Videos
:shades:
LOL
Well enjoy the Fusion video that I posted
I hope you are speaking of the old Sonata and not the new NF Sonata to be on sale in May. Comparing 2 unreleased cars (Fusion vs. Sonata) seems quite silly. Pick on Toyota and Honda all you want, but they build modern engines with good mileage.
Considering the best engine available for the Fusion will still be the old screaming weasel V6 and not a modern DOHC V V T engine, style seems to be the only admirable attribute for the Fusion. Yes I know, come 2007 it will have a "Killer" engine. Just not this year or next year, but some day over the rainbow.
Add to that, the new Sonata built in USA will keep Americans employed, while the Fusion sends jobs to Mexico.
Exactly why do you want to buy a first year Ford built in Mexico with a old engine design? Because it is pretty? You have got to be kidding.
-----------
" I mean it's NICE..."
"I mean before I posted my opinion ..."
I mean, you know, it's like, I mean, what could I possibly say without hurting your feelings?
If you are talking about the 3.0 DOHC Duratech, I do not consider it a bad engine at all, having driven one of these for 46K now in my 2000 Taurus. If the Fusion ends up slightly lighter than my Taurus, the 3.0 Duratech, non VVTor enhanced with VVT will be fine, especially if it comes in at a price point in the high teens.
It will 3.0L DOHC i-VVT engine with six-speed AT.