Hm.... have you tried using the "recent msgs" link? Sometimes that clears all messages when other methods don't. You can also subscribe to this discussion, then go to your message center and hit the "catch up" button to clear all new messages.
If neither of those fixes the problem, please post in the Forums Software! Your Questions Answered... discussion. I have no way to fix the problem myself, but if it persists someone who's in charge of the tech stuff might be able to help.
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 have read your comments in this discussion board and you seem oh so knowledgeable about murcury's!! my question is about my '00 mountaineer. i just bought a motorhome and want to tow my mountaineer behind. i love my mountaineer but is there a way i can tow it? i am a woman traveling alone at times and don't know much about cars/transmissions. i am wanting to tow it with a tow bar (4 wheels down) as i am told that is the easiest to handle. but i guess if i had to i might could use a tow dolly, though they are much more expensive and harder to use, plus no place to store at some campsites. i would really appreciate your insight on this. thanks so much, janis
Janis - your owner's manual should tell you exactly how to and how not to tow your mountaineer. It should be in the glove box or they're available online.
The manual should give you the best info on how to tow it, depends also if it has 4x4, which in that case, best is a flat-bed since it causes less wear/tear on the 4x4 system. I'm apprehensive of any vehicle being towed in other way because of the possible wear/tear on suspension/transmission components, that aren't really being "used", yet are neutrally being affected.
Your manual should indicate the proper way to tow your Mountaineer. If it has a transfer case the has a neutral option, you should be able to tow it w/o a problem. If it's AWD you'll probably need to put it on a trailer. If it's not in your manual, check with Ford/Mecury.
to stay on topic, a fwd milan on a dolly would work. you might be better off for towing advice on an 'rv enthusiast' site. it's just that this might not be the best forum to ask that kind of question.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
At least the Zephry is being built on a solid, modern vehicle (Fusion/Milan). The Cimarron was based on the Cavalier which, even in 1982 at its introduction, was obsolete, hideously underpowered and lagging behind the competition in most every way.
Glad to hear you like your new Fusion. I saw one at the LA car show and was impressed with it. I might get one myself. Is there any little things about the car you don't like?
If you don't mind my asking, what did you pay for the car out the door?
The new Zephyr should be very good. I can't help but chuckle when it was announced the Zephyr was coming back. The orginal Zephyr back around late 70's 80's was a piece of crap.
There are some misconceptions about ABS systems. First, not all ABS systems are equal. Some are 3 channel and some are 4 channel. The 3 channel system shares a circuit between both back wheels.
Second there is also a super cheap ABS that uses vacuum power from the engine instead of micro-processors. GM used this system in the 90s to but ABS on otherwise cheap cars like the Caviler. This system was garbage.
Finally every insurance or government study concerning ABS concluded that ABS does not reduce the number of accidents or fatalities by any significant amount.
This is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS): 4. Do car antilocks reduce crashes? Although car antilocks perform well on the test track, there's no evidence they have made significant reductions in the number of on-the-road crashes. A 1994 Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) study1 and a subsequent 1995 study2 compared insurance claims for groups of otherwise identical cars with and without antilocks, finding no differences in the overall frequency or cost of crashes for which insurance claims for vehicle damage are filed. Because antilocks should make the most difference on wet and slippery roads, researchers also studied insurance claims experience in 29 northern states during winter months. Even here they found no difference in the frequency of insurance claims for vehicles with and without antilock brakes. A 1997 Institute study3 and a 2001 update4 reported no difference in the overall fatal crash involvement of cars with and without antilocks.
Federal studies of car antilocks are consistent with Institute and HLDI findings. According to one federal report, "the overall, net effect of antilock brakes" on both police-reported crashes and fatal crashes "was close to zero."5 The federal studies of effects of antilocks on passenger vehicle crashes found positive effects on wet roads and negative effects for run-off-road crashes. These results cancel each other. Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.6 Again, the net result was little effect on overall crash risk. In a study conducted for auto manufacturers, Failure Analysis Associates reported a net beneficial effect of antilocks on nonfatal crashes but no effect on fatal crashes.7
Why should people be forced to pay for a feature that has no value or benefit?
A couple of final thoughts: ABS is just another potential repair bill. Further, if you plan to add aftermarket rims to your car, they may not work with the ABS system.
ABS is a perfect example of the type of product that is sold as a result of advertising convincing you that you need it.
Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.6 Again, the net result was little effect on overall crash risk.
If all cars had ABS, it seems likely that the increase in getting rear ended with ABS would disappear. This is saying that a car with poor brakes has greater likelyhood of rear-ending another car, but this is offset by the reduced likelyhood of getting rear-ended by another car.
If one car is tested with a 0-60 stopping distance of 160 feet and another does this in 120 feet, do you think "I'll just get the one with bad brakes so I don't get rear-ended"?
You also chose an interesting place to stop quoting IIHS, you left out:
In a study conducted for auto manufacturers, Failure Analysis Associates reported a net beneficial effect of antilocks on nonfatal crashes but no effect on fatal crashes. and
Why aren't car antilocks reducing crashes as expected? No one knows for sure why their test performance hasn't translated into a significant reduction in real-world crashes. A possible reason is that the average motorist rarely experiences total loss of vehicle control, which antilocks are designed to prevent. There's also evidence that many car owners don't know how to use antilock brakes effectively. An Institute survey of drivers with antilock-equipped cars found that more than 50 percent in North Carolina and 40 percent in Wisconsin incorrectly thought they should pump the brakes.8 Another possibility is that some motorists may drive less cautiously because they believe antilocks allow them to brake better.
The moral of the story is that people are idiots and ABS isn't going to make people better drivers.
Some of the speculation is that ABS equipped cars allow the driver to steer off the road into something more deadly than the car in front of them. Especially trees.
I would never buy an SUV or Truck without ABS.
But these safety systems cannot be expected to make up for poor design such as under sized brakes (Most Ford vehicles have the largest brakes in their class). Fusion is standard 4 wheel disc, Accord has rear drums. The Ford 500 has vented discs Front and Rear!
As for side impact airbags, The do not save you in a poorly designed vehicle. If you look at the test results on www.highwaysafety.org. You'll notice that the 2005 Hyundai Sonata and Elantra both received a POOR rating WITH side impact airbags.
The Ford 500 is the FIRST vehicle tested by NHTSA to receive 5 Stars for side impact when tested WITHOUT the optional side impact airbags!
Ford stated that they spent most of the engineering on the FUSION beyond the Mazda 6 on the side structure.
I hope this pays off for the Fusion in the side impact test.
The NHTSA test only measures torso injuries, and since head injuries are the real problem, their side impact tests tell you almost nothing - well, I'd rather get a car with 5 stars AND side curtains, but if I could'nt find one, I'd rather get even a 2 star side-rated car with side curtains than a 5 star rated car without.
As for brakes, I agree that basic stopping power needs to be considered as part of the overall ABS/non-ABS discussion. That having been said, I've also found that having good tires ESPECIALLY tires with good rain ratings, is a BIG factor in stopping power. Also the firmness of the suspension. I think the Fusion is good on both factors. Please note that while there are minor differences in dry traction among all season tires there are major differences in wet traction.
aren't those ratings only measured against 'like class' vehicles? i absolutely agree about how tires can be a major safey factor in many situations. good tires can help you maintain control even in a collision. it is anecdotal, but i believe it.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I was recently talking to a person familiar with the Fusion program and was told that the initial HP ratings on the 3.5L have been rated at 245HP("i believe its around that"). I know that the Five hundreds hp ratings are 245Hp, but if the ST version is being tuned for performance isn't it going to be recieving a 270HP version? Maybe the SAE ratings effected the new engines output? I know earlier this year(and i quote) you mentioned that there will be an ST version with 270hp and that the possibility for an SVT version was still in speculation(im sure its approved by now, and in initial development for an 08'-09' MY product). If the 245hp rating is concerned, isnt ford worried that they wont have bragging rights for the Fusion come the Camrys redesign? The camry is receiving a new large V6 engine, and it would be a real help in the marketing department if the Fusion had a higher HP, emissions, and fuel economy.
Is the 3.5L going to have improved fuel economy over the 3.0L? It seems to make sense to me that it will also be very clean to go in line with Bill Fords new "innovation" campaign. Similiar to how the Explorer is as clean as the Escape Hybrid is(which is impressive if you think about it). I know the 3.5L is a very flexible engine, but to switch from a 245HP application in the five Hundred to 270hp in the ST application is quite a jump.
With all that Ford did to optimize the 3.0 V6 for the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr, I wonder if they are deliberately downplaying the real power of the new 3.5? Plus, high torque is important, especially for the heavier vehicles.
If Ford wants to overcome the hype put out by Honda, Toyota, and so forth, they should vigorously publish the horsepower and torque curves. People respond much better to visuals and understand more information faster when it is presented visually.
The frontal ratings are "like class" but the side impact, on both the NHTSA and IIHS sites, are both "across class" the size of car you get doesn't affect the rating. NHTSA uses a "midsize car" mule to crash into the side of the car, the IIHS uses a "small pickup" (I believe) mule - they think pickup/SUV crashes are the dangerous ones. Cars do worse in the IIHS test due to the extra weight and higher striking point.
Hi. I believe the name "Zephyr" they were attempting to refer to was the line of Lincolns in the '30s and '40s with V-12s, etc., not the goat rope that turned out to be the Mercury Zephyr of the '70s. Thankfully, like disco, it faded.
If the upcoming 3.5 V6 is as efficient as the present F/M/Z 3.0 V6, it will produce 258 HP and 239 Ft. Lbs. However, I suspect that it will do better than that, and think that it is highly unlikely that it will be less efficient than the 3.0 V6. However, 245 HP may be correct, but if so, the torque output will probably be something like 260 Ft. Lbs.
Again, Ford could get out of the numbers game and into the real world by using a simple graph of the HP and torque curves of its vehicles and the competition (the engine, or better yet, the rear wheel figures, which will show the advantage of the 6-speed and CVT transmissions).
Details, details. Yes, they're FWD so it would be front wheel hp or to be more generic driven wheel hp. I don't think they'll be using the CVT but will use the new 6 speed auto developed jointly with GM. I could be wrong about that or they could change their minds but I think that's the current plan.
I drive a Freestyle not a Fusion, but I had my first Fusion sighting last night while driving near the airport. It was a dark red one (I believe) and... my goodness was it nice looking. Pictures of this vehicle don't do it justice.
Oops... Yes, driven wheels, and CVT is unknown (mixing up the Five Hundred and the Fusion, since both will get the new engine).
The December copy of a popular car magazine (probably can't mention the name since I think they may also have forums) ranks the Camry XLE last place, Sonata next, Fusion 2nd place, and Accord top place. Both the Fusion and Accord are rated as too noisy. They like the Millan gauges better (I agree). They complain of large panel gaps and rough dashboard plastic in the Fusion. As a side bar, they repeat data from their test of the original Taurus. A test of the expensive new Passat is also in the same issue (fast but very rough ride). On their 300 mile test drive, all of the others achieved 20 MPG, the Fusion achieved 21. The Fusion also did best on the skid pad.
Last night I had a chance to drive both a Fusion and Milan at a local multi-line dealership. Unfortunately, they were both top of the line models with 6-spd. autos (I really wanted to test a manual - they had none), but at least I got an idea of how the car handles and rides.
Likes-
The exterior styling, IMO, is the best in the midsize class. Unfortunately, the Milan was kind of a chocolate brown color (the precise name of the hue eludes me now) and that wasn't doing it any justice.
The interiors are very sharp as well. The Ford had the shiny "Piano Black" trim though and there were already fingerprints all over the place when I jumped in. So look, but don't touch. Otherwise, you'd better carry along a soft cloth in the glovebox so you can wipe off the prints at every stop.
The handling is top notch. I took the Merc out on a deserted country road that winds around a couple lakes (my usual test-drive circuit) and really flung it around. I've driven cars with sporty pretensions that haven't clung to the pavement as well as this baby did.
The sixer has really impressive mid-range acceleration. Mash the gas at 45 and it scoots to 75 in a flash.
Seat comfort was excellent - both front and rear.
There was virtually no buffeting with the sunroof open all the way up to highway speed. This might be the first car I've driven that doesn't need an aftermarket deflector for open-air operation at anything above parking ramp speeds.
Dislikes-
There is no glovebox light (on either the Milan or the Fusion). This really disappointed me as I was driving the top-line models. The way I see it, if my Hyundai Elantra (for which I paid just over $12K a few years back) has a light in the glovebox, these $24K+ models should too. I mean, it's not like a glovebox light is a premo feature...
Also, another illumination-based complaint I have is that there are no lights in the footwells either. This was really irritating in the Ford (it had a black interior) as the sunroof deleted out the extra overhead lighting present in the back seat of the sans sunroof Merc. And two front-seat reading lamps are NOT sufficient for complete interior lighting. My advice: avoid the black interior unless you have really excellent night vision, regularly wear night-vision goggles while driving or keep a krypton flashlight handy at all times. I had to pull under a street light just to read the labeling on the switchgear to the left of the steering column. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to find anything left in the rear footwell at night in a sunroof equipped model - best wait 'til dawn before even attempting that task.
The headlights, though stylish, aren't bright enough - on either car. The range is decent, but on the low-beam setting, they don't throw a very wide path of light and they're rather dim. The fog lamps are excellent, however, and do a good job making up for the inadequacies of the regular lighting. That said, you have to get the top model for those fogs and that means sitting on cow hide every day (which is not something I'm willing to do).
So, speaking in a preliminary fashion (I don't get excited about automatics anyway), I thought it a decent ride but had several hang-ups in the lighting dept. For most folks, this probably doesn't matter, but I do more than half my driving at night. And I don't have x-ray vision.
"...there are no lights in the footwells either. This was really irritating in the Ford (it had a black interior) as the sunroof deleted out the extra overhead lighting present in the back seat of the sans sunroof Merc."
Overall, a good review. I have a black, fully loaded, SEL with the charcoal interior and this is my ONLY complaint/annoyance, so far after about 1,500 miles.
The only ad I has seen so far is a fashion shoot in America's next top model which willl be on tonight at 8:00pm on UPN. This should be good, hot chicks and even hotter car...
You could buy parts at a dealer, auto parts store, or junkyard to add more interior lights, but if Ford felt they just had to delete them to save money, then why don't they include them in an option group which can be ordered (along with other things such as satellite radio)? Don't they want more money?
Ford wasn't affected over the SAE ratings since for years they performed under their guidelines, so don't expect a surprise there. Depending upon the vehicle, the 3.5L will be tuned at different power ratins. The Fusion ST270, will have a higher performance version of that engine, while other vehicles receive lower HP. The numbers aren't set in stone, but they will fall within 235-255HP for the most part.
While some other engines might have more power in competitive vehicles, the 3.5L is tuned (in some vehicles) to run on regular, and the emmissions will be better than competitors. As it is, the new Explorer has lower emmissions than a Hybrid Accord. And many of Fords vehicles have met and exceeded emission ratings, compared to their competitors.
Transmissions are another story. A competitor might have more HP, but the Fords will have 6 speeds over there 5 speeds, and that makes up for it as well.
John,
"And CVT? Do we even know if the AWD versions, when they arrive, will offer CVTs?" Nope, the CVT can't handle the torque of the new 3.5L. Although the 6 Speed will
FSM,
The vehicle used in the C&D was a pre-production model, which explains the panel gaps. Although ironically, many years ago C&D did a comparo with the Contour, where they loved the drivability of the Contour, yet gave it 2nd place because the rear seat wasn't comfortable. Ironically, now in '06 the rear seat isn't a concern for them anymore. The dislike the Accords rear seat, yet gave them 1st place even if they disliked it. I'm so glad they finally got over their backseat-phobia....
BTW, here's a teaser pic of the next Lincoln Aviator....
based on the lead times for the magazine testing, they always test preprod models for the initial reviews, since the magazines were coming out before they were on the lot, and the tesing was done before normal production was started.
did anyone else catch the show as well as the first fusion ad? The more I see of this car the more I want it. My 99 Contour Se has served me well but it's time to upgrade my style link title
After getting flamed about rear legroom I went back to a dealer today. Adjusted the front seat to my comfort I went to the back seat It has adequate rear seat room.
Hey, thanks for the Aviator shot. It looks really nice and fits in well with it's competitors. The current Aviator looks nice, (after all it does resemble the Navigator), but it looks out of place with the RX330, B9 Tribeca, X5, FX45, Murano etc.
If even that old grouch liked it, should be a winner!
Haven't heard of any quality issues from the launch yet, so that is a good sign. I need to swing by the dealer again to see how the supply is ramping up. Still have a 4 cyl 5 speed on my ever changing short list.
Media journalists usually (90% of the time) receive pre-production models. Also, they test them sometimes months before they can publically comment on it. It's called "media embargo" that manufacturer's hold over specific products. So in the case of the Fusion, it was probably tested May, June, July, but the manufacturer gives a specific date where the embargo is lifted, then suddenly you see every news source report on it.
You notice this specially when it's daily publications (such as Detroit News, Autoweek, Wards Auto, Just-Auto) where at midnight, they publish the next days news, then you see them all flood the headlines over a specific vehicle, which lets people know the embargo was lifted.
Information over a particular vehicle (prior to it's official media embargo is lifted) is shared, it must (to some degree) be approved by the manufacturer, or the publication passes it off as a rumor, or "talk". Although many manufacturer's do not follow-up with "gossip" (no matter how incorrect it might be) mainly because if it's incorrect, it makes that publication unreliable. You should see some major doozey's I've spotted on C&D, MotorTrend.
But, Ant, you will be pleased to note that Healey test drove a PRODUCTION model, and thus could have said anything he chose....and yes, he usually is a grouch. This is a VERY good review from someone who usually finds tons not to like about darn near everything.
Motor Trend's December issue compared the Fusion SEL V6, Honda Accord EX V6, Hyundai Sonata GLS V6 and Toyota Camry LE V6.
The Accord won the comparison, as I expect it would, but the Fusion was applauded for its handlin and several other features. It did beat out the Camry and Sonata and won second place. Acceleration also surprised me, 0-60 in 7.2 seconds. Plenty fast enough for any driver!
They didn't like the interior, though. Too bad they didn't try the SEL with black interior and the piano black trim instead of the woodgrain. They think Ford has a generic interior design and said they couldn't tell if they were in an F-150 or Fusion. Like I said, the black interior is far better than the tan/beige in their test car. The Accord's black interior was praised extensively.
Based on the photos in this test, I really don't like the Sonata interior. It look incredibly cheap to me. Having test driven a Fusion, I can personally say that the interior (at least in black) is much better than they'd have you believe. I also think the 2.3L/5-speed manual has plenty of power if you prefer a manual tranny like me.
I am very pleased that Ford offers black interior with EVERY exterior color. I'm also glad the SEL doesn't come with standard leather and V6. The SEL 2.3L/5-speed with cloth is the perfect Fusion, IMO.
Comments
If neither of those fixes the problem, please post in the Forums Software! Your Questions Answered... discussion. I have no way to fix the problem myself, but if it persists someone who's in charge of the tech stuff might be able to help.
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
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
i would really appreciate your insight on this. thanks so much, janis
show and was impressed with it. I might get one myself.
Is there any little things about the car you don't like?
If you don't mind my asking, what did you pay for the car
out the door?
when it was announced the Zephyr was coming back.
The orginal Zephyr back around late 70's 80's was a piece of crap.
Second there is also a super cheap ABS that uses vacuum power from the engine instead of micro-processors. GM used this system in the 90s to but ABS on otherwise cheap cars like the Caviler. This system was garbage.
Finally every insurance or government study concerning ABS concluded that ABS does not reduce the number of accidents or fatalities by any significant amount.
This is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS):
4. Do car antilocks reduce crashes? Although car antilocks perform well on the test track, there's no evidence they have made significant reductions in the number of on-the-road crashes. A 1994 Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) study1 and a subsequent 1995 study2 compared insurance claims for groups of otherwise identical cars with and without antilocks, finding no differences in the overall frequency or cost of crashes for which insurance claims for vehicle damage are filed. Because antilocks should make the most difference on wet and slippery roads, researchers also studied insurance claims experience in 29 northern states during winter months. Even here they found no difference in the frequency of insurance claims for vehicles with and without antilock brakes. A 1997 Institute study3 and a 2001 update4 reported no difference in the overall fatal crash involvement of cars with and without antilocks.
Federal studies of car antilocks are consistent with Institute and HLDI findings. According to one federal report, "the overall, net effect of antilock brakes" on both police-reported crashes and fatal crashes "was close to zero."5 The federal studies of effects of antilocks on passenger vehicle crashes found positive effects on wet roads and negative effects for run-off-road crashes. These results cancel each other. Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.6 Again, the net result was little effect on overall crash risk. In a study conducted for auto manufacturers, Failure Analysis Associates reported a net beneficial effect of antilocks on nonfatal crashes but no effect on fatal crashes.7
http://www.highwaysafety.org/research/qanda/antilock.html
Why should people be forced to pay for a feature that has no value or benefit?
A couple of final thoughts: ABS is just another potential repair bill. Further, if you plan to add aftermarket rims to your car, they may not work with the ABS system.
ABS is a perfect example of the type of product that is sold as a result of advertising convincing you that you need it.
Mark
https://www.fleet.ford.com/maintenance/owners_manuals/default.asp
Mark
And a fine car it was, too....
If all cars had ABS, it seems likely that the increase in getting rear ended with ABS would disappear. This is saying that a car with poor brakes has greater likelyhood of rear-ending another car, but this is offset by the reduced likelyhood of getting rear-ended by another car.
If one car is tested with a 0-60 stopping distance of 160 feet and another does this in 120 feet, do you think "I'll just get the one with bad brakes so I don't get rear-ended"?
You also chose an interesting place to stop quoting IIHS, you left out:
In a study conducted for auto manufacturers, Failure Analysis Associates reported a net beneficial effect of antilocks on nonfatal crashes but no effect on fatal crashes. and
Why aren't car antilocks reducing crashes as expected? No one knows for sure why their test performance hasn't translated into a significant reduction in real-world crashes. A possible reason is that the average motorist rarely experiences total loss of vehicle control, which antilocks are designed to prevent. There's also evidence that many car owners don't know how to use antilock brakes effectively. An Institute survey of drivers with antilock-equipped cars found that more than 50 percent in North Carolina and 40 percent in Wisconsin incorrectly thought they should pump the brakes.8 Another possibility is that some motorists may drive less cautiously because they believe antilocks allow them to brake better.
Some of the speculation is that ABS equipped cars allow the driver to steer off the road into something more deadly than the car in front of them. Especially trees.
I would never buy an SUV or Truck without ABS.
But these safety systems cannot be expected to make up for poor design such as under sized brakes (Most Ford vehicles have the largest brakes in their class). Fusion is standard 4 wheel disc, Accord has rear drums. The Ford 500 has vented discs Front and Rear!
As for side impact airbags, The do not save you in a poorly designed vehicle. If you look at the test results on www.highwaysafety.org. You'll notice that the 2005 Hyundai Sonata and Elantra both received a POOR rating WITH side impact airbags.
The Ford 500 is the FIRST vehicle tested by NHTSA to receive 5 Stars for side impact when tested WITHOUT the optional side impact airbags!
Ford stated that they spent most of the engineering on the FUSION beyond the Mazda 6 on the side structure.
I hope this pays off for the Fusion in the side impact test.
Mark
As for brakes, I agree that basic stopping power needs to be considered as part of the overall ABS/non-ABS discussion. That having been said, I've also found that having good tires ESPECIALLY tires with good rain ratings, is a BIG factor in stopping power. Also the firmness of the suspension. I think the Fusion is good on both factors. Please note that while there are minor differences in dry traction among all season tires there are major differences in wet traction.
I was recently talking to a person familiar with the Fusion program and was told that the initial HP ratings on the 3.5L have been rated at 245HP("i believe its around that"). I know that the Five hundreds hp ratings are 245Hp, but if the ST version is being tuned for performance isn't it going to be recieving a 270HP version? Maybe the SAE ratings effected the new engines output? I know earlier this year(and i quote) you mentioned that there will be an ST version with 270hp and that the possibility for an SVT version was still in speculation(im sure its approved by now, and in initial development for an 08'-09' MY product). If the 245hp rating is concerned, isnt ford worried that they wont have bragging rights for the Fusion come the Camrys redesign? The camry is receiving a new large V6 engine, and it would be a real help in the marketing department if the Fusion had a higher HP, emissions, and fuel economy.
Is the 3.5L going to have improved fuel economy over the 3.0L? It seems to make sense to me that it will also be very clean to go in line with Bill Fords new "innovation" campaign. Similiar to how the Explorer is as clean as the Escape Hybrid is(which is impressive if you think about it). I know the 3.5L is a very flexible engine, but to switch from a 245HP application in the five Hundred to 270hp in the ST application is quite a jump.
If Ford wants to overcome the hype put out by Honda, Toyota, and so forth, they should vigorously publish the horsepower and torque curves. People respond much better to visuals and understand more information faster when it is presented visually.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Again, Ford could get out of the numbers game and into the real world by using a simple graph of the HP and torque curves of its vehicles and the competition (the engine, or better yet, the rear wheel figures, which will show the advantage of the 6-speed and CVT transmissions).
And CVT? Do we even know if the AWD versions, when they arrive, will offer CVTs?
The December copy of a popular car magazine (probably can't mention the name since I think they may also have forums) ranks the Camry XLE last place, Sonata next, Fusion 2nd place, and Accord top place. Both the Fusion and Accord are rated as too noisy. They like the Millan gauges better (I agree). They complain of large panel gaps and rough dashboard plastic in the Fusion. As a side bar, they repeat data from their test of the original Taurus. A test of the expensive new Passat is also in the same issue (fast but very rough ride). On their 300 mile test drive, all of the others achieved 20 MPG, the Fusion achieved 21. The Fusion also did best on the skid pad.
Likes-
The exterior styling, IMO, is the best in the midsize class. Unfortunately, the Milan was kind of a chocolate brown color (the precise name of the hue eludes me now) and that wasn't doing it any justice.
The interiors are very sharp as well. The Ford had the shiny "Piano Black" trim though and there were already fingerprints all over the place when I jumped in. So look, but don't touch. Otherwise, you'd better carry along a soft cloth in the glovebox so you can wipe off the prints at every stop.
The handling is top notch. I took the Merc out on a deserted country road that winds around a couple lakes (my usual test-drive circuit) and really flung it around. I've driven cars with sporty pretensions that haven't clung to the pavement as well as this baby did.
The sixer has really impressive mid-range acceleration. Mash the gas at 45 and it scoots to 75 in a flash.
Seat comfort was excellent - both front and rear.
There was virtually no buffeting with the sunroof open all the way up to highway speed. This might be the first car I've driven that doesn't need an aftermarket deflector for open-air operation at anything above parking ramp speeds.
Dislikes-
There is no glovebox light (on either the Milan or the Fusion). This really disappointed me as I was driving the top-line models. The way I see it, if my Hyundai Elantra (for which I paid just over $12K a few years back) has a light in the glovebox, these $24K+ models should too. I mean, it's not like a glovebox light is a premo feature...
Also, another illumination-based complaint I have is that there are no lights in the footwells either. This was really irritating in the Ford (it had a black interior) as the sunroof deleted out the extra overhead lighting present in the back seat of the sans sunroof Merc. And two front-seat reading lamps are NOT sufficient for complete interior lighting. My advice: avoid the black interior unless you have really excellent night vision, regularly wear night-vision goggles while driving or keep a krypton flashlight handy at all times. I had to pull under a street light just to read the labeling on the switchgear to the left of the steering column. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to find anything left in the rear footwell at night in a sunroof equipped model - best wait 'til dawn before even attempting that task.
The headlights, though stylish, aren't bright enough - on either car. The range is decent, but on the low-beam setting, they don't throw a very wide path of light and they're rather dim. The fog lamps are excellent, however, and do a good job making up for the inadequacies of the regular lighting. That said, you have to get the top model for those fogs and that means sitting on cow hide every day (which is not something I'm willing to do).
So, speaking in a preliminary fashion (I don't get excited about automatics anyway), I thought it a decent ride but had several hang-ups in the lighting dept. For most folks, this probably doesn't matter, but I do more than half my driving at night. And I don't have x-ray vision.
Overall, a good review. I have a black, fully loaded, SEL with the charcoal interior and this is my ONLY complaint/annoyance, so far after about 1,500 miles.
Leather is optional on every model, so you can get the SEL with fog lights and cloth, at least on the Fusion. Not sure about Milan.
Ford wasn't affected over the SAE ratings since for years they performed under their guidelines, so don't expect a surprise there. Depending upon the vehicle, the 3.5L will be tuned at different power ratins. The Fusion ST270, will have a higher performance version of that engine, while other vehicles receive lower HP. The numbers aren't set in stone, but they will fall within 235-255HP for the most part.
While some other engines might have more power in competitive vehicles, the 3.5L is tuned (in some vehicles) to run on regular, and the emmissions will be better than competitors. As it is, the new Explorer has lower emmissions than a Hybrid Accord. And many of Fords vehicles have met and exceeded emission ratings, compared to their competitors.
Transmissions are another story. A competitor might have more HP, but the Fords will have 6 speeds over there 5 speeds, and that makes up for it as well.
John,
"And CVT? Do we even know if the AWD versions, when they arrive, will offer CVTs?"
Nope, the CVT can't handle the torque of the new 3.5L. Although the 6 Speed will
FSM,
The vehicle used in the C&D was a pre-production model, which explains the panel gaps. Although ironically, many years ago C&D did a comparo with the Contour, where they loved the drivability of the Contour, yet gave it 2nd place because the rear seat wasn't comfortable. Ironically, now in '06 the rear seat isn't a concern for them anymore. The dislike the Accords rear seat, yet gave them 1st place even if they disliked it. I'm so glad they finally got over their backseat-phobia....
BTW, here's a teaser pic of the next Lincoln Aviator....
Link
And Edmunds just tested the Zephyr, they seem to love it...
Link
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
link title
Isn't progress wonderful?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Adjusted the front seat to my comfort I went to the back seat
It has adequate rear seat room.
Looking forward to a debut.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2005-10-27-fusion_x.htm
Haven't heard of any quality issues from the launch yet, so that is a good sign. I need to swing by the dealer again to see how the supply is ramping up. Still have a 4 cyl 5 speed on my ever changing short list.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
You notice this specially when it's daily publications (such as Detroit News, Autoweek, Wards Auto, Just-Auto) where at midnight, they publish the next days news, then you see them all flood the headlines over a specific vehicle, which lets people know the embargo was lifted.
Information over a particular vehicle (prior to it's official media embargo is lifted) is shared, it must (to some degree) be approved by the manufacturer, or the publication passes it off as a rumor, or "talk". Although many manufacturer's do not follow-up with "gossip" (no matter how incorrect it might be) mainly because if it's incorrect, it makes that publication unreliable. You should see some major doozey's I've spotted on C&D, MotorTrend.
The Accord won the comparison, as I expect it would, but the Fusion was applauded for its handlin and several other features. It did beat out the Camry and Sonata and won second place. Acceleration also surprised me, 0-60 in 7.2 seconds. Plenty fast enough for any driver!
They didn't like the interior, though. Too bad they didn't try the SEL with black interior and the piano black trim instead of the woodgrain. They think Ford has a generic interior design and said they couldn't tell if they were in an F-150 or Fusion. Like I said, the black interior is far better than the tan/beige in their test car. The Accord's black interior was praised extensively.
Based on the photos in this test, I really don't like the Sonata interior. It look incredibly cheap to me. Having test driven a Fusion, I can personally say that the interior (at least in black) is much better than they'd have you believe. I also think the 2.3L/5-speed manual has plenty of power if you prefer a manual tranny like me.