Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

mopowah

"I'm not sure which model you sat in, but for 2007 most G6's will have hydraulic steering which gives better road feel."

I think only the GT and above will get the hydraulic steering. Base v6 and 4cyl models are still getting the electric steering/

rparis

I believe dealers can still order 2006 vehicles so I suspect not for many months will 07 be available. I recently ordered an 06-is there any rason you want an 07?

pmerk28

ANd you feel every stinking bump. We don't need suspension so taught becuase we don't live on twisty German roads. We have lots of wide open straight/easy curved raods which demand a nice ride.

johnclineii

Speak for yourself. In the area where I live, most roads are very curvy, hilly and windy (that's with a long i). And smooth.

exalteddragon1

should be very fun on a smooth and twisty road, especially the GTP.

Body roll is a factor of weight. Granted weight is not the biggest deal, take a look at an extreme, ever see a packed van hit a bump? It goes up and down a few times after. That is a very exaggerated example, but it shows how weight affects roll.

If the car is lighter, the same spring rates will deal with less weight, thus less force pushing up and down when they hit a bump. Its that simple. Now you can fix this by adding stiffer springs, but then you will feel everything.

akirby

Actually body roll can be controlled with anti-sway bars and stiffer shocks without necessarily making the springs stiffer. And it's not so much total weight of the vehicle that matters as much as the center of gravity. A lot of weight with a low center of gravity is much less prone to body roll than less weight with a high center of gravity.

sturm_ruger

The G6 is gonna wipe the floor with the fusion unless ford does something. The new 252hp DOHC v6 with 6 speed manumatic is gonna be tough competition.

Actually, that engine has 241 horsepower, not 252, and you have to order the GTP trim level to get it. Base Price for the GTP sedan is well over 23 thou. All of a sudden the G6 doesn't look so tough...

gogophers1

Manual alone is not an option for most people in cities

I think that really depends on the manual. Some aren't very easy to drive in stop and go. Usually that's the case with sportier models that are only smooth when driven aggressively. One stick I owned WAS pure torture to drive in the city (so I know what you're intimating), but some manuals ARE easy to drive, even in heavy city traffic. You just have to shop around and find the one that fits right. My commute is 90 minutes from the sticks to downtown Minneapolis and despite the traffic, I think an auto (of which I've owned several) makes driving another mundane task rather than a part of my day I actually enjoy.

Shifting an suto like a manual is fun

You should try to avoid stating your opinion as though it is fact. To me, manually shifting an automatic is like downhill skiing in a chair. I just don't get it. But that's MY opinion.

dino001

I have sporty heavy clutch and short throw shifter (needs some real force to make the shifts) and I love every minute of it, even in traffic jams. It's not even than difficult.

I only get reminded of it when I drive something else for a bit longer and hop back to my WRX. Last time I stalled twice :surprise: , but after other three traffic starts I was good to go again :shades: .

driverdm

Have you read the recent Edmunds article on the dying of the manual?

A fact at times may best be characterized as an opinion that is commonly shared. For example, sunshine is a good thing. Many may love the cold, but the overwhelming proportion of people would agree with the statement. Most people I know that drive a manumatic, absolutely love it. That is probably because most of them, over 60% of all drivers since 1970, are used to driving sticks, but that doesn't take away from the fact that manumatics are a blast. I couldn't deal with a manual. I do too much city driving and I let other people drive my car at times. I'd hate to be in a situation where I couldn't drive and have to find the nearest manual driver. Considering they are becoming less and less, I might just be S.O.L. at that point

mopowah

when there are no fully manual transmissions. I can see the benefit of having an automatic in heavy traffic. I had a stick in my Ranger and while I never had to sit in traffic with all that often, the few times that I would be in stop-n-go traffic for more than 20 minutes or so would drive me nuts. I would go for a "manumatic" but I still think the better alternative would be a true manual transmission minus a clutch pedal. Automatic transmissions still sap power and economy (less so now than they used to, but they still do).

Also, I'm not sure where to go to even try and look this up but shiftable automatics have been around for several years now. Are there any inherent long-term reliability issues with them or have they been proven to be no worse/better than your basic auto-trans?

akirby

shiftable automatics have been around for several years now. Are there any inherent long-term reliability issues with them or have they been proven to be no worse/better than your basic auto-trans?

There's no difference because the transmission is exactly the same. Almost all automatic trannies are shifted electronically today. Adding the manual shift feature just takes the shift control away from the PCM and gives it to the driver (some more than others). The PCM still orders the shift and it will not allow any type of shift that would hurt the transmission (e.g. downshifting at a higher speed than is safe).

mschmal

2007 Altima. Bigger, industry recognized best in class V6 with 265 hp, with available 6 speed man, proven CVT, higher output 4 cylinder than Fusian with CVT it will seem even bigger.

Not to mention features that Ford probably never heard of:
Electroluminecent gauges(common on Civic but no ford),
Bluetooth compatibility,
iPod interface,
Intelligent Key system,
Dual zone climate control,
Navigation,
Rearview Monitor,

Is Ford even capable of building a car that Gen Y or Gen X would consider?

Mark

nr9

lol you still need to change lanes

nr9

i havent driven the 2007 altima, but the fusion IMO has better handling and steering than the altima, although it is slower on the straight line. Good handling and steering is much more important (and much overlooked) to safety than crash worthiness, and it is at the top of my list when i look to purchase a new car.

ford has a solid platform with the CD3, it remains to see how nissan's D platform drives, but i doubt that it would be much different from the current altima.

nr9

I test drove a G6 V6 (i think it was a 2006) at a dealer recently, and the steering is the worst in a midsize car. The handling sucks. I tested 16 cars recently and the G6 was the second worst handling car. . The G6 is very lacking. they need to change that platform. no amount of suspension tuning is going to help that weak soft platform.

driverdm

The Altima is a serious threat. I have seen it in person and it is a looker. However, there are some flaws to a comparison between it and the Fusion.

First, the 4 banger has decreased in power in the Altima to 165hp so it is on par with the Fusion. The Altima has swoopier styling and is a inch shorter in wheelbase so we'll have to see how dimensions work. The CVT isn't what everyone wants. There has been a lot of complaints about CVTs, the Nissan Murano's especially. Hopefulyl Nissan got it straight with the different modes the new Altima has but we'll have to see.

The Alitma with the top end features you mentioned will compete with Camry's in the upper end of the pricing spectrum above $25K. Currently, the Fusion doesn't go into those price ranges. Hopefully, with the two year freshening and new engine the Fusion may get these features.

FORD IF YOU'RE LISTENING, THE BASE ALTIMA COMES WITH A MANUMATIC. GET IT TOGETHER. IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET BACK IN THE GAME YOU NEED TO OFFER EVERYTHING THE COMPETITION OFFERS!

nr9

i don't understand CVT + manumatic?

why make it slower when the CVT is maximizing efficiency for you?

engine braking is also pointless as you can use your feet

johnclineii

***engine braking is also pointless as you can use your feet***

Fred Flintstone was ahead of his time! :P

akirby

engine braking is also pointless

I take it you've never driven down a mountain.

baggs32

engine braking is also pointless

I take it you've never driven down a mountain.

In snow.

nr9

heh just use your brakes. sure they are going to wear, but they are much cheaper to replace.

i doubt driving down the mountain at 50 mph in low gear for a extended period of time is going to be good for your engine and transmission

robr2

Neither is riding your brakes for 5-6 miles down a mountain road.

nr9

it will wear out your brakes, but not the engine and transmission

brakes are pretty durable and cheap these days anyways. also it is safer to use brakes, you have better control, and the brake lights go on.

akirby

It won't just wear out your brakes - it heats them up to the point where they don't work anymore (in extreme cases). At Pike's Peak they use an infrared thermometer to check your rotor temps and if they're too high you get parked for 30 minutes to let them cool off.

Using engine braking in low gear does no harm at all to the drivetrain.

mopowah

You can do a lot of brake jobs for the same price as 1 transmission rebuild.

akirby

You can do a lot of brake jobs for the same price as 1 transmission rebuild.

True, but pointless since engine braking does absolutely no harm to the transmission.

mz6greyghost

brakes are pretty durable and cheap these days anyways. also it is safer to use brakes, you have better control, and the brake lights go on.

I don't think you've even driven a manual before with a statement like that.

Brakes aren't necesarily "safer" to use, considering they can get wet, lock up, or overheat. All these instances leave you without useful braking power. if you're barreling down a hill and your brakes overheat, what else are you going to do besides downshift to slow the car? "Better control" with brakes is a myth as well, especially with non-ABS equipped cars (which still exist, BTW).

"Brake lights" won't exactly help YOU to stop in any case. And if anyone behind you solely relies on red lights ahead of them in order to make him/her hit the brakes, they don't belong on the road.

Using engine braking as well as discs/drums will yield you the best results, for instance:

When I approach a stop light, I'll downshift (usually to third gear) and match revs to slow the car, and use brakes to actually complete the stop.

Down steep slopes, engine braking is most effective, preventing the brakes from overheating and warping, and they're also ready to go (at full power) in case of emergency, instead of being hot and fatigued from overuse.

In snowy weather, engine braking is more apt to allow me to maintain control in deep snow or ice, rather than have my tires lose grip from sudden deceleration forces that brakes sometimes cause.

One more thing, using engine braking adds no more stress and strain to an engine and transmission if it's done correctly.

mschmal

This is not true of automatic transmissions. Engine breaking could cause you to overheat your torque converter.

Well maybe only on a hot day but its still possible.

Mark.

nr9

obviously, in the context of a "manumatic", we are talking about automatic transmissions here.

lol at modern brakes overheating. ive went down hills for hours using regular brakes and they work perfectly each time. i am not an engineer, but i do know that driving schools these days explictily tell people not to use engine braking, that it is old school and causes unnecessary wear to the drivetrain. especially when you are driving 55mph down a mountain.

brake lights are safer and it lets the person beside you have extra reaction time than just trying to estimate your speed, especially if he is tailgating you.

engine braking is lame and completely unnecessary if you know how to use your brakes

oh yeah, and get ABS.

baggs32

One more thing, using engine braking adds no more stress and strain to an engine and transmission if it's done correctly.

i.e. matching the engine revs. Am I missing anything else?

I use engine braking all the time. With all of the hills around here a manual transmission is very useful, especially in the winter when the side streets I use to get to and from work are covered in ice/snow/sleet. I actually hit the gas sometimes going down hill in the snow to keep up with traffic. Where they slide to a stop on the mid-hill stop signs I come to a nice controlled stop.

Yes it still sucks to have a manual shifter in bumper to bumper traffic but I wouldn't have it any other way if I have a choice.

akirby

You're confusing 2 different things. What isn't necessary is downshifting a manual through each gear when slowing down. e.g. You're in 5th approaching a stop sign and you shift to 4th, then 3rd, then 2nd and finally apply the brakes before stopping. That is unnecessary wear and tear, mainly on the clutch. You could have used the brakes and shifted from 5th to 1st.

That is not the same as engine braking while descending a hill or keeping the drivetrain hooked up while taking a corner. No driving instructor in their right mind would tell you to use your brakes when descending a long mountain road. It's dangerous.

nr9

well my driving instructor told me that on modern cars it is better to use your brakes when descending a long mountain road. go figure.

peopple usually descend mountains at around 90km/h. This is really bad for the engine at low gear.

also, engine braking has much less control over braking. if you use your brakes you can use them the exact amount you want, and release them if you want speed to increase, for example when the road is straight ahead of you.

micweb

There are long mountain roads, with normal descent grade (calling only for intermittent braking) and there are steep grades that require constant, sustained braking.

The kind or grades they have warning signs on, or signs that say trucks use low gear, or signs that say NO trailers or rv's.

Those overheat your pads, discs, and brake fluid.

I followed an Expedition down the Priest Grade coming back from Yosemite. She didn't use her low transmission gear (obvioulsly automatic, but should have been available). By the end of the grade, she could barely stop and smoke was pouring out from her breaks. Every time I take that grade I use my lowest gear (whether stick or auto) AND have to periodically hit the brakes. But my brakes never smoke and have lots of stopping power left over.

nr9

you almost never need constant sustained braking, you can brake almost to a stop and just let the car roll down the hill until you need to brake again.

snakeweasel

peopple usually descend mountains at around 90km/h. This is really bad for the engine at low gear.

I don't know about that, last time I drove down a mountain (volcano actually) I never came close to 55 MPH (90Km/H). I would guess few do get that fast and fewer still stay on the road while going that speed. Last time I was going down a mountain at those speeds it was on an interstate.

snakeweasel

Oh it was you that I was behind that one day back in Idaho. I got behind someone doing just that and it was awful. I just let the guy get far enough ahead of me and I put the car in 3rd (it was a 4 speed) and just coasted down using the engine as a brake. Hardly used me brakes and watched this idiot wear down his. It was funny I kept an almost constant speed while this guy speed up, slowed down, speed up, slowed down.

m1miata

Down shifting should work much better on RWD cars -- this seems logical. Going downhill, engine braking would have less of a tendency to push the rear out than on a FWD while engine braking. I would use more engine braking with RWD and less with FWD, but there is no reason not to do a bit of both. Four wheel disk brakes will not overheat, and you are not going to have to ride them all the way down the hill in most cases. Just use a little of both on really steep slopes. This is one thing I can see as lacking on the Fusion compared to say the Mustang - the drive wheels aren't in back. FWD uphill feels pretty darn good though, as it pulls ya on up. The downhill ride is best taken a bit slower than in a RWD and with some judicious use of both brakes and lower gearing when required.

Does the V6 have tiptronic type shifting ?

-Loren

m1miata

If you are not having fun with shifting, it would be far better buy the automatic.
-Loren

akirby

But I do enjoy shifting - as long as it's not in stop-n-go traffic every day. I had 1 car and two pickups from 1987 to 1999 and they were all manuals.

I'll only be driving the mustang on weekends and nice days, or just for fun. Shifting won't be a problem and will actually be preferred.

nr9

i drive on mountains in taiwan, and some grades are really steep there. people do go around 90km/h. It is much easier to use your brakes because you need to slow down near tight corners, and speed up where it is straight.

engine braking offers much less control of speed, you wont want to worry if you are going too fast shifting to a lower gear

when i went to driving school in taiwan, they said not to use engine braking as it is bad for the engine and transmission. they say modern car's brakes are good enough.

m1miata

Well part of the fun is the downshifting. I like to downshift to the stop sign. Well not so much with my PT, but when I had the Miata it was fun. Even the PT is fun to shift. You are right the sticks are fun to own. When I had two cars, one was an automatic. That is still best for around town.

The Fusion looks kinda cool. Not sure I want to buy another FWD car, but so many are, they are the main lot to choose amongst. I take it from comments here, they do not have the tiptronic type shift. If I buy another sedan, I will test this one against the Altima, Honda, Camry and Sonata. Currently, the Sonata V6 is $19,500 and dang tempting. If the economy crashes, I suppose buying an American car would help the blow a bit, so Ford and GM are still something I will consider. Well a used GM maybe.
If I go with a coupe, it is between the Stang and the Tiburon.

As sedans go, the Fusion is pretty stylish and sporty looking. In that respect it has more eye candy than does the leaders Accord and Camry. Living in California, the RWD of the Mustang seems right. I am thinking of getting an automatic this time, but would prefer a shiftable one.
Perhaps a stick for a Stang or an automatic for a sedan is the best way, since the sedan is FWD.
I just don't like sticks as much with FWD cars.

-Loren

drewba

The AT in my Acura TSX will actually downshift on its own to provide engine braking if I'm driving down a sustained grade using the brakes continuously. I doubt that Honda would program that logic into the transmission if its bad for the drivetrain.

snakeweasel

As other people have said if done right engine braking doesn't hurt the engine or transmission and with todays 6 speed tranny shifting into a lower gear (read 4th or 5th) at 55MPH (90km/h) is not a great strain on an engine. FWIW my daily drive keeping it in 3rd gear (overdrive off) provides enough engine drag to keep the speed in check but not to high on the RPM's. My Caddy works well at highway speeds in 5th gear and even 4th.

Engine braking offers as much control of speed and saves on brake life. It can even prevent brake fading.

snakeweasel

I know what you mean, driving a stick is great. But since my daily commute is murder in a stick I prefer a auto for that. A shiftable manual might work for both but as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that. Thats why the Hyundai (my daily drive) is a auto but the Caddy (for evenings and weekends) is a stick. On an open road a stick just cant be beat.

nr9

i am talking about automatic transmissions where lower gear does not mean 4th or 5th.

also, with today's brakes, riding them for a long time does not hurt them.

snakeweasel

As I said in my daily drive going 55 in 3rd (in basically a 4 speed) doesn't give you massive RPMs that will hurt the engine. So even with automatic transmissions where 4th is the highest (I know few, if any, basic 3 speeds out there any more) putting it in a lower gear at 55-60 MPH will not hurt the drive train. And while brakes are better these days riding them will wear them out faster and you will still get brake fading.

nr9

the fusion has a six speed automatic. and it has two options D and L. I doubt putting it in L at 55 mph is a good idea.

m1miata

Wow - how weird. I don't think I like that idea at all. Sounds like a strange transmission setup. I think I would pass on that. I would get a stick, or another car. (IMHO)
-Loren

m1miata

Well of course you will not want to be in 2nd or 1st gear down a hill, unless very steep and say a block or two distance. By lower gear for higher speeds, people mean 3rd or 4th. Maybe going down to 2nd if slowing, as in tight slow turns. Anyway,it is all common sense. What you want is a little resistance when you let off the brakes, and not have it in the free wheeling mode of travel. On the tight turns, a bit of a higher RPM so you can add to the power as exit the apex of the turn. Just keep the RPM level up. When going on the straight, or sweepers on longer straights, sure the 4th or even 5th may be just fine. Disk brakes are slow to heat, though if your ride them a lot, and are hard on the brakes, they too will heat up. I see no reason to do this. Perhaps you are in too high a gear if you are riding a brake all the way down a long hill.

Heck, the car I had back in 1960's was a Plymouth Satellite with an automatic. Going down the grade here near town, he always told the students to use the lower gear, as in not going down in overdrive. Not that it slowed the car all that much. I think the car had front disks, but I will never know for sure.

-Loren