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
From personal experience...it's hard to introduce a vehicle, and the logistics ordering behind the parts, and be able to pull a successful launch. Therefore certain options, items, are left for late availability once production ramps up.
This method has allowed the successful Launch of the 500, Mustang (for example) which has allowed Ford to place tops, or 2nd in initial quality when a vehicle has been introduced. Specially for those 2 vehicles where they were totally brand new designs, built at newly renovated factories.
So as anything else, there's a pro and con. Which is why the SAB will become standard later in the year. And why a few other items will be introduced as well.
I am longtime Ford owner over the last 25 years. I would like to stay one. However, if the Fusion has poor safety record, hate to say it but.. Bye Bye Ford..
The Mustang and F150, of course.
But the 500 seems to get just so-so reviews ,and are universaly considered bland looking and underpowered. And I don't know what the sales numbers are, but I sure see precious few of them on the streets.
The Fusion seems to get better reviews for it's slick looks and all around competence, this safety rating sure isn't doing Ford any favors.
Remember, the Focus launched very well I believe. Then all the recalls started. Although they seemed to have worked out all the bugs (after a few years), most people still seem to equate the focus with those troublesome first years.
And to whoever said that Ford isn't alone, SABs are optional on the 2006 Camry... That's exactly why Ford should've stepped up. They NEED any advantage they can get over Toyota and Honda. For them to leave them off, thinking it's "good enough" isn't enough these days. Hyundai knows this, and they're growing as a result.
The Sonata does a better job with smashing CamCord in the teeth and making them buck up. Fusion is glancing blow.
The Mustang and F150, of course.
But the 500 seems to get just so-so reviews ,and are universaly considered bland looking and underpowered. And I don't know what the sales numbers are, but I sure see precious few of them on the streets."
Successful launch meaning, initial quality, which the 500 rated on the top three in it's segment under JDPowers' study. Successful as in, it's selling as expected, with less number going to fleet, therefore helping with overall depreciation which compares to the likes of the Accord/Camry.
Take rate of the higher trim models is much higher than expected, therefore the transaction prices are higher than expected...luckily the flexible factory was able to meet/switch to compensate.
Rebates have been kept to a minimum, enough to get people interested, but not majorly enough to hurt depreciation.
No manufacturing slip-ups during the ramping up. (like the '02 Explorer and the back windshield breaking, or sliced tires during the build at the factory), etc.
The only people complaining over the 500, are those expecting Corvette performance, Aston Martin styling, the flexibility of a minivan, on the budget of a Kia. In retrospect, if the vehicle is taken for what it is, whos it's targeted to, and what it offers, the reviews will admit that.
Ask a 500 driver how they like their vehicle in the forum, and you'll see it's quite a happy place overall.
marmil
When and if you start buying my cars, then and only then can you tell me to get over the crash test results. Even then, I might not be interested in a car you bought for me FREE, if I believe it to be unsafe. It's MY life, not yours. I get to decide what I buy, drive, etc., or not. That's the way it is.
The cemeteries are full of people who did not survive crashes. I don't intend to join them when I might have had a different choice.
Ford Five Hundred Hits Bull's-eye For Boomers:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/03/12/000369.html
Safety is a factor in my buying decision. The 500/Montego scored very well in safety. These vehicles are selling, I see them often on the road.
This is a huge PR fumble by Ford corporate. They should have crash tested a Fusion with all safety features installed. For now, I too am taking a wait and see approach to my next car purchase. We all need to stay up on the IIHS tests and see when the Fusion will be tested again..
IMHO, real-world facts are more important at how safe a car is. This report is from the same IIHS on insurance claims: http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/pdf/ictl_0905.pdf. The column on injury is perhaps the most important.
Of course, owner profiles affect the facts, such as Buick drivers versus Mustang owners. But if one looks at only a certain category, it becomes pretty clear which cars fare better on public roads.
It's also interesting to see some myths debunked, such as Volvo models faring worse than many other brands.
Then again, it'll be a long while until the Fusion shows up...
Consumer reports treats cars like appliances, just like they review blenders and dishwashers. In the real world a huge number of people treat and think of cars the same way.
Don't sell these cars short because of one crash test. Side air bags are available, they just didn't test one with them. Even with adding side air bags, the Fusion is one of the best values on the road for a car in its segment. And with side air bags, it will rate as one of the safest in this segment.
Beginning in September, side air bags are standard.
That is inaccurate. It was Ford that decided to allow the IIHS to test only the non-side-bag-equipped Fusion, rather than providing a side-bag-equipped car as did other manufacturers such as GM. The test was totally consistent with IIHS' published procedures; it was not arbitrary.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
These statements really cleared this up for me. Didn't know you had "inside information".
Does anyone have "real" facts?
Check this article out:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr030506.html
Basically, it says that Ford initially denied doing a retest with the side airbags, but now have changed their mind, and a model with the side airbags will be tested by IIHS.
KNOWN FACTS:
1. As a policy IIHS does test in "base configuration" for free.
2. IIHS provides opportunity for testing optional safety equipment for a fee.
3. Ford did not submit an optional car for a test (if they had, it would have been tested).
CONCLUSION:
Ford did not see a need of submitting a vehicle with optional safety equipment (again, if they had, they would have). The may now, but at the time of tests, they did not.
SPECULATION:
Ford did not see a need for optionally equipped vehicle test either because they thought it was not important for their brand image (STUPID) or they thought it was not cost-effective for their image (STUPID AND STINGY).
If you can't follow this logic, I can't help you anymore. Lets move on.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Huh? A home run? Maybe in the little leagues. It still in the minor leagues compared to CamCords, or even the Sonata.
IMO I think its a blip on the screen in this class, and being a former multiple Ford owner, I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by Fusion when it first appeared. Nobody around here is buying them. I know I'm not.
With Ford's great dealerships, all they need is s good diesel. Not a 0 to 60 thing but one that has great torque and mileage. You know diesel.
IMHO, these variations are due to opinions of changing editorial staffs. But I highlight that their articles are nothing but the author's opinions based little on facts. Which is not unexpected, considering that they don't have to put their money where their mouths are. We, consumers, do.
But indeed, CR is the worst reference when evaluating a car from its overall worthiness.
Ford did, the Focus, designed in Germany. My 4-cylinder Focus has a mileage similar to my V6 sedans, each over 1000lbs heavier: 25MPG vs. 23MPG.
And it's not alone. When I drove a 1.6 Toyota Avensis for about 1000mls in Europe, mostly highways, it got just 23MPG, manual transmission and all. My V6 sedans delivered up to 32MPG on the highway.
BTW, diesel engines fare well in Europe because it's the only way to get any torque. For the alternative is a decently sized engine, as common in the US, but made prohibitive by stupid taxation, often considering the engine displacement or HP. Not to mention the pillaging taxes on gas...
And more importantly - they're making money on them. What more do you think they should be doing to declare it a "home run"?
I am a CR subscriber why would I be biased in their surveys? J.D Power has come under criticism recently and are said to be not quite the gold standard they once were. That aside the Lincoln Town car is based on on what? A 20 year old platform (at least). It has proven mechanics as it should after so long in production. It also has an old very loyal customer base who are very satisfied with owning and repeat buying the Town Car.
The Town Car skews Lincoln as a whole in my eyes. The idea that they are a competitive thriving company is silly. They need to produce some new exciting advanced cars. I have nothing against the Town Car ( unlike most of the automotive press). There is clearly a market that is very satisfied with it and Lincoln should continue to please loyal customers. However, they also need to find loyal customers under the age of 69.
Old people drive Mercedes,BMW, and Lexus too, lot's of em. But so do 30 year olds.
That's because gas is a little pricier in Europe, in some cases as much as 3 times more than US prices. That's why mileage is more important in Europe, and also the reason why the "micro" cars are more popular there as well.
Automotive tastes couldn't be more different than they are between Europe and the US. Europe prefers the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, while the US is still (unfortunately) hooked on SUVs and larger, more powerful cars.
Having said that, gas mileage is indeed becoming more important here in the US, and automakers are beginning to reflect this with new products that are more powerful, and more fuel-efficient, than their predecessors.
With Ford's great dealerships, all they need is s good diesel. Not a 0 to 60 thing but one that has great torque and mileage. You know diesel.
They do. It's installed in the Heavy Duty truck lines, which gives pickups great torque to pull trailers with ease, with minimal penalty in fuel economy. While I think that diesels would be a good idea across the line, emission standards are getting tougher for diesels in the US. Plus, convincing the public that diesels aren't the loud, black-smoke-spewing disasters they were in the past is no easy feat. They might catch on, but it'll take a while.
That's because newer and better cars are being released every year. More powerful, with better features and handling, and better quality is a bar that's continually being raised. The car mags are giving testing results and opinions about what's out there RIGHT NOW. How are they supposed to know the quality and reliability of these cars down the road? They don't, and that's not their goal.
Buying ANY car is a risk, and what's reliable to one person is a lemon to the next.
But I highlight that their articles are nothing but the author's opinions based little on facts. Which is not unexpected, considering that they don't have to put their money where their mouths are. We, consumers, do.
There are plenty of facts in their articles. Measurements, specs, and test results are pretty solid numbers that can be repeated. You don't have to agree with their opinions, that's fine, but that's why you get as much information from ALL resources available, and make your decision from there.
Hey, dino001. Doesn't look like Ford was "too stupid" or "too stingy". Apparently, they couldn't submit a Fusion with optional side air bags first, according to the article. They will be testing one next go-round.
Next time, back up your opinions with something substantial. Also, using phrases like "too stupid" and "too stingy" when referring to corporate management, doesn't add much validity to your comments.
~alpha
Somehow GM figured out how to get a car with optional side airbags included in the IIHS tests. Stupid? That is a little harsh. Lack of foresight? Maybe.
This car [G6] is rated acceptable for side impact protection, but only when equipped with optional side curtain airbags designed to protect occupants' heads. All injury measures recorded on the driver dummy were low, but forces recorded on the rear passenger dummy indicated the possibility of rib fractures or internal organ injuries. Without side airbags, the G6 is rated poor in the side test.
[Emphasis added to quote above]
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr030506.html
Other vehicles, not just the Fusion, have scored poorly on side impact tests without side air bags. backy mentioned that GM was able to get their vehicles tested with optional side air bags where Ford didn't. I don't think it's because Ford wanted to score poorly. They, like all manufacturers crash test their vehicles hundreds of times before they are released to the public.
Do you know if this was the G6's first test, or a retest? If it was a retest, then it follows the IIHS policy of first test doesn't include optional equipment. It almost sounds like a retest if they make the statement, "Without side air bags, the G6 is rated poor in the side test." Or, maybe they tested two vehicles, one with and one without.
Wow; It's too new to have a record therefore, therefore it has no problems, therefore it's great.
How objective.
I'm not drinking the same kool-aid as some here, but it's obvious from the way the IIHS selects it's vehicles, they are intending to embarrass those companies who make safety optional.
That is their intention.
They are not trying to be objective- They are working for their clients- insurance companies.
They want the airbag packages to be standard.
They sure made Ford look bad didn't they?--Just as intended.
I may have to agree with you on your assessment of the IIHS. Not that long ago, the IIHS crash tested full-size pick up trucks. The Toyota Tundra came out on top and the F-150, the best-selling truck, came out on the bottom. When the NHTSA crash tested the same trucks, the F-150 came out on top and the Tundra was at the bottom. Go figure.
The Highway Loss Data Institute's mission is to compute and publish insurance loss results by make and model. Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers."
Obviously, no one is against safety, but the IIHS is not a neutral, unbiased organization.
They are paid ,and exist, to produce the data their clients want.
Their goal is to make all the safety stuff available as standard, not optional, equipment.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I do agree that side airbags should be standard equipment. I just don't agree with the IIHS testing policy that tries to force the issue by doling out bad publicity to the mfrs who don't make them standard.
It's a moot point now since the 2007 Fusion, Accord, Camry and Sonata will all have them standard.
And the job the IIHS is paid to do is to point that out.
Well, side impact airbags had been sold in small percentage of mainstream midsize sedans until just a year/two ago. So there is mass produced and ther is MASS produced.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Yes, that is correct. Had Ford chosen to provide a car equipped with side bags to the IIHS, they would have reported the results without side bags and with side bags, at the same time, like they did for the G6.
If that's the case if definitely falls into the aforementioned stupid/stingy category.
But, I believe the plan of the IIHS is to first test the "unsafe" base models to further their cause, and will do a second test to give the appearance of objectivity