Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Honestly, for me, the NHSTA tests mean little. 4 or 5 stars is very good in the frontal, and most cars if not all manage this now adays. However, the IIHS 40 MPH offset is more telling, as stated, of a vehicles structural integrity, and at least to me, a much more tangible crash. Its much easier to imagine a crash in which a vehicle crosses over the centerline and strikes an oncoming car offset on a two lane road than it is to imagine a full frontal impact, IMO. (In fact, the first collision ever in which both vehicles had frontal airbag deployment was in the mid/late 80s on a two lane road in non-full frontal manner...two Chrysler LeBarons coupes).
I'm guessing the Fusion will ace the IIHS frontal offset, but I have no hope for the non-SAC model in the side crash, and would definitely opt for this package. (No sedan lacking SAC has ever gotten better than a Poor, due to SUV-sedan height incongruence). I just hope the Fusions side structure is more like the Five Hundred's than the Freestars, both recently tested by the IIHS- the Freestars structure was the WORST of all the minivans tested, poor enough in fact that EVEN WITH optional side impact airbags it could only earn the same overall rating as the Sienna without (although all Siennas now come with side airbags standard).
~alpha
Actually there has been. And it is exactly that stiffening that caused NHTSA to scrap plans this year for a frontal offset test.
"September 05, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Regulators are scrapping plans to add a high-speed offset crash test to the government's vehicle safety standards anytime soon. Adrian Lund, COO of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, calls that decision "a step backward." Automakers generally lobbied against the test, claiming its adoption could lead to greater damage in some crashes.
Those could occur if automakers stiffen vehicles to do well in offset testing while making them more lethal to other vehicles in a collision. "
Per NHTSA "To perform well in some of these offset tests, vehicle designers may choose to limit intrusion by stiffening the front structure of a vehicle. The concern is that in making their vehicles less prone to leg injuries, the automakers may make their vehicle stiffer and more agressive"
As for Minvans, the Sienna minivan actually failed the IIHS frontal offset test because of a "major fuel leak".
The Freestar on the other hand happened to get the highest IIHS rating "Best Pick" and the gas tank did not even have a major leak like the Toyota's.
The Freestar, in addition to the highest Best Pick IIHS rating, also received 5 stars on the NHTSA test to the 4 stars of the Sienna. Head and Chest injury numbers were significantly higher in the Sienna than the Freestar.
The Sienna also received the lowest rating for rear impact, a rating of POOR.
The Freestar happened to receive the highest rating in rear impact, the same test the Sienna got a Poor rating in.
The fact is you can buy a Freestar with the optional side airbags and get:
Best Pick in IIHS Frontal Offset,
5 Stars in NHTSA frontal,
Top rating in IIHS Rear Impact,
5/4 Stars in NHTSA side impact,
Acceptable in IIHS side impact.
With the Sienna, you have a vehicle that has a POOR rating for rear impact and a questionable fuel system that had a "major fuel leak" in frontal IIHS frontal offset testing, and 4 stars in NHTSA front testing. So take your pick, which is worse, a vehicle with POOR rear impact or one that received 5/4 Stars and Acceptable ratings in side impact.
'Per NHTSA "To perform well in some of these offset tests, vehicle designers may choose to limit intrusion by stiffening the front structure of a vehicle. The concern is that in making their vehicles less prone to leg injuries, the automakers may make their vehicle stiffer and more agressive"'
What evidence is there of that? Almost all cars nowadays pass the IIHS frontal offset with flying colors AND ace the NHTSA full frontal collision. Note the use of the wording "may choose". So which automakers have actually chosen that route? Is the trend toward stiffening frontal structures if that has not happened yet? No.
As an aside, its funny that governments around the world have adopted the offset as their standard vehicle testing, and cars in Europe and Austrailia havent become "more aggressive" menaces to society.
Now, I didnt attack the Freestar in anyway, I simply stated that I hope the Fusions structure is more like the Five Hundreds performance, than the Freestar's (which allowed major intrusion). So, it was impressive that you cite the Sienna fuel system issue, one that resolved immediately, and the vehicle was subsequently retested and a 'Best Pick'. A leak has also never occured in any other crash test, either by NHTSA or IIHS. But then.... Ford has an outstanding history of putting the customer first and developing vehicles with strong fuel systems in the event of crashes, so I can understand your contention
IMO, a 'Poor' rear impact is not nearly as significant as a Poor structural performance in a crash. With one, you have a higher likelihood of whiplash, with the other, just some internal bleeding. Note the Sienna's IIHS ranking in relation to the Freestar's. Its lower.
~alpha
The Fusions side B-pillar is designed to transmit forces to the opposite side of the vehicle, such as the 500's. It should do very well overall.
And a correction to my post- the Sienna's ranking in relation to the Freestar's on the IIHS page... despite the "Poor" for rear crash.... is HIGHER.
~alpha
But I don't think this board is about minivans, more likely people here are interested in mid size cars. I expect from the discussion above that the Camry is not a vehicle that would be recommended due to its safety ratings.
The 2006 Camry received a Poor Overall Evaluation in IIHS Side Impact and a Poor Overall Evaluation in IIHS Rear Impact Protection. You can add optional side air bags to the Camry for a cost of $650, but the basic design of the vehicle seems to be lacking, (especially since the Camry got as low as 3 stars in the NHTSA side impact test when other cars without airbags have received 5 Stars.)
Nothing much one can do about the Poor Overall Evaluation of the Camry's Rear Impact Protection performance though.
Fusion’s new two-row air curtains also feature "roll-fold" technology—a Ford exclusive in the mid-size segment. If an occupant is resting his or her head against a window, the air bag is designed to slide between the glass and occupant as it fills.
Ford’s roll-fold keeps the air curtain against the glass, even when the occupant is out of position.
The press is reporting that Ford is adding a third shift for Fusion production.
Actually, no, for awhile CR was going to eliminate from its Recommended list any vehicle that performed poorly in the IIHS Offset Frontal or IIHS Side Impact, the rear impact was never part of that decision. Go do some research. (Even now, some cars that score poorly in the rear impact nonetheless receive CR's top marking- the check within a circle indicating that the vehicle performed well in testing, did well in NHSTA and IIHS frontal and side impacts, and is at least average in expected reliability.)
The Camry received an Acceptable for its structural rating, so that doesnt indicate to me that the design is lacking. A rating of Poor for structural integrity indicates a design is lacking. Question: Is the Ford Five Hundred's design lacking, as it also received a rating of 'Acceptable' for structure? I dont think so.
Interesting that you point to the Camry's Poor Overall Evaluation for Rear Impact Protection. Tell me, exactly how many rear adjustable head restraints does the Fusion offer? Whats that? NONE? The head restraints in the rear seat of the Fusion are built into the seatback design and won't afford anyone over 5-4 any real protection. What will the Fusion receive for rear impact safety? Maybe you shouldnt cast stones without first knowing how the Fusion will do.
We can agree to disagree. I'll take the whiplash and you take the internal injuries associated with major occupant compartment intrusion, and we'll see who walks out of the hospital sooner.
~alpha
As for Rear Impact protection, and the Poor rating of many Toyotas, I personally wouldn't accept Poor performance in any crash scenario, but thats just me.
Our family currently owns a 2005 Ford Freestyle and a 2000 Audi A4 Avant. Unfortunately our Freestyle has some build quality issues - that our local dealer is fixing - but otherwise I enjoy the car. Owning an Audi, I have become very discriminating on interior quality (as I think Audi has simply the nicest interior around). The Audi is mechanically unreliable though, so I would not buy another one.
My question is why can Ford not strive for better interior quality? The Freestyle and Fusion is nice but it is a long way still from a VW/Audi.
That said, I will be looking to replace the Audi in about a year's time. Top of my current shopping list is a Subaru Legacy GT, but a Fusion with the 3.5 and AWD would warrant serious consideration!
Can you allude to what the other toys may be?
The things I think are missing from the Fusion that would help make it a killer buy with the current internet generation are:
POD (Portable Audio Device) aware audio options, ie iPOD connectivity option and a front AUX in (for non iPODs). Also upgrade the audio system. Our Freestyle has the Audiophile system and it is very disappointing compared to the Audi's audio, or even my old Mitsubishi's Infinity system. If a Mazda 3 can have a Bose system, why can't a loaded Fusion?
Please give the options of:
Upgraded audio system integrated into the dash (or piano black like the dash). One of the nice things about our Audi is the way the Audi system 100% matches the rest of the dash and switchgear
iPod connectivity/dock in armrest
Satelite radio
Navigation (personally I do not care about this but it seems like a must have these days)
Rear parking sensor - never realized before I had it how great these are!
Dual climate control - helps to lower the divorce rate
One touch up/down on both driver and passenger door
Electrochromatic rearview and side mirrors
2 position seat memory (like Freestyle Limited) - very useful on a "family" car
Manual shift option for the 6-speed auto, perferably with steering wheel shift controls (ala Subaru Legacy GT with has one of the nicest auto boxes I have ever tried)
kjnorman if I had Audi I would try rather Zephyr, because interior quality is higher than in Fusion. Or Milan as a less expensive and more elegant choice.
My question is why can Ford not strive for better interior quality? The Freestyle and Fusion is nice but it is a long way still from a VW/Audi."
2 points on this:
1) Ford agrees with you. About the Audi interior. Ford has identified Audi as the benchmark for interior quality. Ford is striving hard to upgrade the look, feel and quality of their interiors.
2) Audis cost a lot more than Fords. Lincolns are similar in price to Audis. Therefore if u want to see how well Ford's new interiors hold up to Audis, you need to look at the new Lincoln interiors, eg Navigator, Aviator, Zephyr and to a lesser extent, LS.
I have had many friends who purchased Audi/VW's and after numerous issues, refuse to buy anything German for a long while. I've always considered VW a great illusionist. Great interior materials/execution, but wrapped up in an unreliable package.
Luckily, Ford hired J.Mays who designed for VW/Audi, and he is also improving interiors for Fords, as he did for VW's. Obviously it'll take awhile. Granted, any interior now designed/built by Ford is a major improvment from the pervious generation, we can't deny that.
But considering the price point, and that Ford is investing 3 times (than they used to) on interiors, you can see the improvements, relative to the pricepoint of the vehicle. The F-150 (available in 5 interiors) shows us how luxurious an interior can be executed and is regarded as a benchmark in it's class. The Fusion (according to majority of journalists) is also very well regarded, although a few are nitpicking here and there, but that's normal.
The next generation of Lincoln vehicles (starting with the Aviator CUV) will push the envelope in interior materials/quality and will reminds Americans what american luxury should be....
Yes I am looking forward very much to the new Aviator, but my wife wants the next vehicle to be a sedan as we already have the FreeStyle. I myself would like another (though slightly smaller and more sporty) crossover. See how that pans out in a years time.
Granted Audi's are a class above Fords, but VWs are not. VW's interior is near Audi now, and is probably the best non-lux interior out there. On Saturday, while the Freestyle was in for its 5,000 mile service I took a look at the Fusion and I was very impressed at the new style of it. I like the new face, and wished we had that on the Freestyle (and not the fake SUV look). Interior wise, I though it was nice, but noted things like the mis-match in the audio plastics to the piano black finish made it look a little cheap. This was compounded when I walked down the road to the VW dealer next door and sat in the new Passet and Jetta. PERCEIVED interior quality was just night and day different from the Fusion. Whereas the fusion was just "nice" (which admittedly is a huge improvement from Fords of old) the VWs were like "Oh yeah! I can spend 2 hours every day commuting in this...."
Perceived quality is a powerful thing! We all know how bad VWs and Audis have been of late when it comes to mechanical quality, but when you sit in the things, emotion takes over and screams at you "I want it!".
I don't want to sound like I am bashing Ford, because I really do like the exterior look of the Fusion and prefer than any day to the new VWs or even the iconic Chrysler 300.
I just want the Fusion with the 3.5l AWD and an improved 21st century interior. Can I have it all, please??
Don't be fooled by brand names. I have a Mazda6 with the BOSE system and it's absolute crap. There's no bass to speak of and the highs lose steam when the volume is turned up.
The MACH 300 (made by Visteon) system in our Escape is much, much better than the BOSE. Crisp clear bass and highs. Unfortunately it's their older generation of high-end audio and Visteon has since changed things around for newer vehicles like the Fusion and Mustang. I haven't heard the systems in either one of those yet but reviews aren't stellar.
Then again, sound quality is subjective.
Or Audio corp merely builds and supplies audio systems built to car corps specs.
Either way, don't be foold by brand name audio systems
The Lexus Mark Levinson system and Lincoln's THX system are some of the best, as is Acura's DVD-A compatible system.
It's hard to do good audio in a car (although it's very easy to do LOUD).
Anyway, the the point I was trying to make is that the current Ford audio is not good enough; be it the head unit, speakers or both. The standard Symphony I system in my A4 (6 year old now) is leaques better than the upgraded audiophile system in our new $32,000 Freestyle.
Would I like a Lexus Mark Levinson system or Lincoln's THX system (THX is also overrated by the way..)? Hell yes! I spend 10 hours a week just commuting back and forth, that's nearly 500 hours of music listening a year. That a lot more than at home, and I am by no means the exception out there - probably quite the norm....
It just bugs me that if car manufacturers are going to put only a so-so system in their cars then they need to have the option of a significantly better audio system on the option list.
I'm not talking about THX in general but specifically the THX systems in the LS and Navigator. Each system was tuned specifically for each vehicle and got rave reviews from most reviewers.
Something else to add, the reason why in some vehicles (and you will notice this with vehicles under $30K), the Audio is one headunit which can easily be changed out if someone wants to add their own audio system. So that is factored when designing certain ideas. Chances are the kid racer with the Mustang will upgrade and replace the headunit, instead of opting for a Mach1000 stereo system.
As the vehicle pricepoint increases, you will see more of these integrated headunits, into the console/dials, keys. CHances are that at those pricepoint, your being furnished with an upgraded stereo system, that you won't be changing out.
Ask the previous generation Taurus/Escort owners with the ovoid "IP" how long they had to wait for the aftermarket to even offer some sort of plastic faceplate, for their new stereo, if at that.
How about Honda with their recent automatic transmission recall where they had to add a "field fix" external lube line to keep one set of gears from frying?
How about vaunted Toyota with their engine sludge issues and poorly shifting 5 speed front wheel drive automatics that complaints seem to be rampant on, if you read the Lexus/Camry/Avalon boards?
Taking a shot at any manufacturer is easy to do.
Ford is generally on the right track with it's products, both car and truck, and I believe will eventually begin getting credit for it's strong efforts in the last few years. They just have to stay the course and eventually will overcome the rampant negative perceptions, which take a long time to overcome.
In that case, can I have an option to delete the audio system (headunit & speakers - but leave the wiring in place) so that I do not pay for something I do not want.
Granted I see your point of view. When I was in my twenties I would not have been bothered about installing an aftermarket headunit, but now I am a family man in my mid 30s, I just can't be bothered. I do not want a head unit that looked like it was designed by some japanese 14 year old who was high at the time (which seems how most head units look these days). I want something that has a bit of class. I guess I like the integrated look these days.
Also when you are a family man, it is hard to explain to your wife that "honey I just spent $24,000 on this Fusion but now i want to throw away the audio system and spend another $1,000 upgrading it". That type of comment does not go down very well.
Oh well, I will sit back and see want comes in a year or so time....
I have a hard time with this. What I drive is one of those "dont even argue" points that family, friend, lovers have no say. Just one raised eyebrow from them, and they get my wrath.
But I can see your point though. With the Fusion, I say it's mainly the speakers that need to be changed out. It's good, but it can be much better. I wouldn't be surprised to see an upgraded Mach system in the future in this vehicle....
Contrary to popular belief, auto mfrs do not have unlimited resources so they have to decide how much time to spend on new features versus basic engineering, testing and tuning while trying to deliver the vehicle on schedule.
Better to get a good car out quickly with few problems and enhance it than to put out a car with lots of bells and whistles and 5 recalls.
Considering that the Mazda version offers most of the extras mentioned I think it's odd they didn't offer them..but I guess you have to leave a few 'new things' for next years model...
If the consumer really wants navigation, satellite and automanual they can buy the Mazda6, which is what spawned the Fusion/Milan.
I'm not saying they aren't intentionally holding back some options - they might be - but there are also other reasons for not putting in some options right away.
Americans have been yearning to buy a quality American automobile and would love the opportunity. Finally I believe that This Ford Fusion and some of the others Like GM are finally making some inroads. Namely quality products.
Jeff, you are correct when you describe the problems with some of the other manufacturers, namely Toyota and Honda with some of their models. However, these issues get addressed and are isolated. Conversely, Ford has denied that the F-150 had cruise control issues that actually caused fires. This is unbelievable! They denied the issue for years. This smacks exactly like the famous Pinto with the gas tank. Come on!!! Where is the morality and the spirit of an honest change? Thirty years later and they still have the same cultural response to a negligent product flaw.
I'm angry at Ford for not acting quicker to make changes and am still confused about the product mix. What idiots put out the Freestar? What an ugly model without a real market. This has dud written all over it.
Furthermore, I am angry at the childish response I recently read from Charles Padilla who stated that Ford couldn't produce enough Hybrids because the Japanese were hogging all of the suppliers stocks. Get real and stop complaining. Next he will blame them for forcing Ford to purchase the faulty parts that caused the F-150 fires. Clearly, the quality of old time Ford management is not impressive nor capable of moving the future toward Ford's path.
Having said all of this, I will say that I visited the dealer near my house to visit to see the Fusion and I was impressed. Very nice car, both inside and out. This car can compete with all of the competitors very nicely. But clearly Ford has to do more to regain consumer confidence and bring others into the dealers shops. Here in California, consumers only believe in Japanese cars. Whether this is justified or not I cannot answer, but I will say that Ford better build more of these quality type cars like the Fusion, hopefully without many recalls, to get the public back to their showrooms.
I am anxious to see some of your responses.
This is really an example of the news media hyping up something to get a story. The only more outragious example of this was with the Crown Vic Police Intercepter. According to NHTSA statistics, the Crown Vic has a lower than industry average of post crash fires. Yet the media hounds Ford.
Check this link out http://www.cvpi.com/pdfs/CVPI_book3cymk.pdf
Mark
It turns out in 2000, Ford decided at least one of these gaskets was defective in the 3.8L engine and replaced them for free...but only if the 3.8L engine was installed in 4 particular models (Mustang, T-bird, Cougar, and F-series).
Somehow the exact same part, in the exact same engine is not defective if that engine is put in a windstar.
The point that I wish to make is that 1. The public wishes to buy more American cars, but the manufacturers responses are to put out, until recently lame design models ex. Ford Freestyle.
2. They are doing the minimal required to get the public back into their showrooms. The car interiors are some of the best examples of poorly thought out strategies to regain market share.
3. The management still blames labor and the Japanese for their problems. Can anyone see the lunacy in this?
My prescription for Detroit's problems are the following. Put out more automobiles like the Fusion and the GM Pontiac Solstice. Then scrap models like the Freestyle (clearly ugly) and the 6 generation Corvette. Then tell the public your sorry for putting out the Freestyle and that you were forced to do so at gunpoint. Then with the Corvette, go back to the drawing board and redesign it more like the first and second generation Corvettes that captured the imagination of the world and actually harnessed the minds of some of our great car designers. Lets face it. People want a sports car that you don't have to practically lay down in. They want to get in and out of it with reasonable ease.
These are my personal feelings and I look forward to your responses. Thanks.
Rob Scherb
I don't really like the appearance of the fusion myself. Mainly its that grill that is not appealing to me. Not too thrilled with the tailights either. The Milan is better looking to me, though I'd still prefer non-chrome grill.
I don't want a car that I have to lay down in either, but a true sports car is going to be low. A sports sedan is what those that don't want that, but want the "sports" part are looking for...something like the SVT Contour would be a sports sedan, I think. I don't think it sold real well.
Based on sales, what people seem to really want are Toyotas (unfortunately).