Midsize Sedans 2.0

thegraduate

If everyone drove them, that uniqueness that some people pride themselves on would be lost! What to do then? Call it a Taurus?

A little Ford humor. *Slaps own wrist*

elroy5

Why do people strive to own BMW or Mercedes when these vehicles don't have that great of reliability?

Because more is better. They have more performance, more luxury, more style and sophistication. People who are willing to spend that much money on a car, are not worried about reliability issues, and the associated costs. They will probably buy a new one before the warranty runs out anyway.

akirby

Only cars with higher compression ratios need premium. But, all cars engine's are computer controlled, and the sensors more or less know what type of fuel you're putting in. If the sensors in a high compression engine detect low octane fuel, the computer will just compensate for it by advancing the timing and tweaking a couple other things in the engine.

as it was explained to me.

It was explained to you incorrectly. The engine doesn't sense the octane level of the fuel. The engine has a knock sensor. Higher compression engines need higher octane fuel that's less likely to pre-ignite or detonate (knock). Using lower octane fuel in an engine designed for higher octane fuel can result in knocking which the engine computer detects and compensates by retarding (not advancing) the timing. Retarding the timing reduces both power and fuel economy. If the engine can't compensate enough by retarding the timing then damage can occur.

plekto

But that's just not true. The amount it reduces the power is significantly less than the difference in energy contained in non-premium fuel versus the premium(regular has more energy in it)

If you look at the EPA site, there are a couple of cars that are tested with 91 and 87 - and in every case, the 91 results in 1-2mpg *less*, as expected.

E85 is 30-40% less!

There is no free lunch - it all is really about the amount of energy in the fuel itself and the mass it has to move.

jeffyscott

If you look at the EPA site, there are a couple of cars that are tested with 91 and 87 - and in every case, the 91 results in 1-2mpg *less*, as expected.

Interesting, can you indicate some specific vehicles. Don't take that wrong, not disputing your information...I am honestly curious about this. I'd have assumed (if anything) marginally better mileage with higher octane.

kdshapiro

"If you look at the EPA site, there are a couple of cars that are tested with 91 and 87 - and in every case, the 91 results in 1-2mpg *less*, as expected."

Here are some links. The consensus is:

1. running premium in a car car designed for regular probably has no benefit and may decrease gas mileage,
2. running regular in a car designed for premium, won't hurt the engine, but performance and possibly mileage will suffer, since the engine cannot operate as efficiently as designed.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041008.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=3604&page_number=1
http://ideas.4brad.com/node/277

I'm assuming you are referring to situation #1, not situation #2 in your post.

akirby

Everything I posted is correct. It's not about the fuel itself - it's about how the engine is tuned and the effect that the octane rating has on the combustion process.

Forcing the computer to retard the timing to prevent knock will reduce both power and fuel economy. By the same token advancing the timing will increase power and fuel economy because it makes the engine more efficient. That's why reflashing or chipping a car improves power but often requires premium fuel.

dsirias

That's where my factory ordered Mazda6 will be built. I was told they also build the Ford Mustang there. Have there been any recent problems wiht the Mustang? Press is very positive as to the 6.

elroy5

Adjustments will no doubt have to be made by the workers when switching from a Mustang to a 6. Can they do it without too many problems, is the question.

plekto

From a Govt Site:

E85 is then a blend of denatured ethanol and gasoline, therefore:

Denatured Ethanol @ 77,815 btu/gal x 85%=66,143
Gasoline @114,132 btu/gal x 15%=17,120
E85=83,263 btu/gal

114,132-83,263=30,869 difference.
27% less energy.

But since the typical driver drives the same speed as they are used to, they press harder on the pedal to compensate instead of loafing along at 73% of the HP.

Since it takes more gas to make up the energy difference AND the fuel itself has less energy per unit(ie - the injectors don't spray 27% more fuel) - this results in a small factor of magnification of the effect.

So the real loss is closer to 35-40% mpg!

Too bad E85 doesn't cost 60% what Gasoline does. That's the real rub - it's a hidden way for the oil compnaies to make more money.

****
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/oxy-fuel/enrgycon.shtml
This covers oxygenated gas. Why is this important? It's a dirty trick most companies use today. They mix in MBTE because it increases the octane rating. The net effect is that they make 83-85 octane gas and blend in enough EBTE and additives to get it to 87, 91, or 93 octane.

So the higher the octane with oxygenated gas, the worse your mileage is!

With non-oxygentated gas, it should be the same, but then again, running premioum in a non-premium engine, as the previous poster pointed out above - can also result in lower mileage as most 87 rated engines don't have computers to adjust for better fuel(as opposed to premium engines which always are made to compensate for lower quality fuel)

*edit - from the second link above:
"But, noted Schiller, only a few vehicles calibrated for regular fuel can advance timing beyond their nominal ideal setting when burning premium. "
***

P.S. Oxygenated E85 would yield 30% less energy - a double hit!

bhmr59

Good analysis. But I draw a different conclusion of who is making the money. It's not Big Oil...it's Big Government, at state and national levels. National gov't takes $.184 per gallon, my state takes $.25 per gallon plus 6.3% of the wholesale price. Whenever the price goes up the state grabs more money without raising the tax RATE.

Add in all the different blends/formulations the government requires across the country and factor that into their cost of doing business.

Then take all of the corn which will be used to make E85 out of food chain, whether for people or animals, and you'll see nonpetroleum prices increase. How much? I don't recall, but I've read $1 a pound or more for a steak is likely.

Here in the great liberal north east we've had MBTE and oxygenated gasoline blends mandated by our governments forced upon us for years.

I believe the *$#&@ governments make more per gallon than the oil companies and certainly more that the gas station owner. And the government doesn't do dink, except sit back with their hands out to collect the money from the people who explore, drill, transport, refine, transport again and then run a retail operation to make the product readily available.

jd10013

Its not big government thats making money through ethanol, its the farmers. the government gets a fixed amount per gallon. but with more and more of the countries corn crop being diverted to ethanol production, the price of corn has doubled. brace yourself for a big spike in the price of beef and dairy products (cows are fed primarily corn). And we're not going to see the worst of it. A lot of poor countries depend on corn from the US. And less of it will be available for export, and at a much higher price. and to make things even worse, oil companies are now shelving plans to expand refinery capacity, because the government (especially bush) is telling everyone they're going to cut gasoline consumption by 20%. The oil companies figure no point in spending 10's of billions of dollars to expand production when washington is promising decreased consumption.

elroy5

Are we really using that much ethanol? I haven't seen a station that sells it yet around here (Louisiana). Maybe that's because I'm not looking for it though. :confuse:

jd10013

its being blended into the gas. you can have up to 15% ethenol blend in a normal gasoline engine.

bhmr59

All excellent points, except I still believe the governments be huge beneficiaries as we will be using more gallons of fuel for the same driving. Gov't taxes per gallon & my sorry state has that "gross earnings" tax on 6.3% , going to 7% on July 1.

Bush may be part of the problem but he's not the primary cause. In the last 30 years, every attempt to build a new refinery has been shot down. Then, there's ANWR, an area about the size on North Carolina...they want to drill in an area less than the size of my small town and think they're talking about something like 2 square miles. The left just doesn't want any new drilling in any area they can control (within US borders)...and they block new refineries.

You're right on about corn to other countries and the price of beef and dairy.

jd10013

Your preaching to the choir, I agree with you on most of that. The reason no new refineries have been built is primarily because its more cost effective to expand existing ones, which the oil companies do. But, as recently as the early 90's (remember the recession and .69 gas) the oil companies had a lot of extra refining capacity. the growth in the economy, and boom in trucks/suv's has eatin up that excess capacity.

Where bush is at fault is, he goes on tv pushing ethenol and prommising to reduce use of gasoline in the US by 20%. this makes it impossible for the oil companies to spend the billions of dollars necessary to expand capacity. It doesn't make business sense to increace refining capacity when the government (headed by, and including Bush) is saying we will actually need less refining capacity in the future by lowering demand.

bhmr59

You're right, Bush caved in to the wacko left on this, as he has done in other matters...but I dont want to start a political discussion.

Let's just say the all the people in D.C. are trying to tinker in a market where they don't belong (screwing up free markets and screwing consumers & then having the hutzpah to blame the oil companies).

[I am not in an oil related business and don't own any oil stock, except for what is in the S&P 500 index.] But, these politicians, primarily on the left, make me crazy with their outlandish statements.

jd10013

just chalk it up to the law of unintended consequences

lilengineerboy

I thought this was a great thread. It helps to understand motivation in purchase decisions.
A. Values
1. Safety
B. Driving Feel
2. Handling (very tied to safety, IMHO)
3. Fun to drive (very tied to handling, IMHO)
3a. Aftermarket support for modifications and increasing the fun to drive quotient.
4. Visibility - both with respect to ease of parking and lane changes, etc
5. Comfort - supportive seats that will keep me in place during "spirited" driving and be comfortable on long drives
6. Power/time-to-speed performance
C. Ownership Costs
7. Ease of maintenance/repair cost - I seem to have cars forever and do a lot of maintenance myself. Wear items should be easy to replace.
8. Insurance cost
9. Purchase cost
10. Style/Looks/Brand name

Most cars in this class seemed like they were close enough in interior space (back seat holds a couple of baby seats) and fuel economy (the difference between mid-20s and mid-30s will take me half a lifetime to notice)

elroy5

I don't see "smooth ride" anywhere on your list. Interesting, and different from most. We seem to think alike on fuel economy and Style (as long as it can get into the mid 20s in everyday driving, it's good enough) and looks take a back seat to driving feel.

urnews

If everyone drove them, that uniqueness that some people pride themselves on would be lost! What to do then? Call it a Taurus?

A little Ford humor. *Slaps own wrist*

Good humor, thegraduate. Gave me a chuckle. As the owners of a 2007 SEL AWD Fusion ($27,105 MSRP) my wife and I do take pride in the fact that we own a car that is more distinctive than the plain Jane Asian models that proliferate the highways.

Sometimes it is good to be a little bit different and the Fusion is a fine example of that. We thoroughly enjoy our car. Then again, I once owned a Studebaker (my first car) that I really liked, too.

We have generally had good experiences with Ford products and currently own a 1997 3.8-liter V6 Thunderbird (85,000 miles) and a 2000 2.0-liter I4 Ford Focus station wagon (92,000 miles) which have served us well, without any major repairs or difficulties. Knock on wood.

I'm sure there are legions of satisfied Camry, Accord and Altima owners out there, too, as this board indicates, but the Fusion was/is our first choice.

Boz

benderofbows

My list:

1. Reliability/Durability
2. Safety
3. Quality
4. Comfort/Ergonomics
5. Driving Experience (Performance/Handling, Ride)
6. Style
7. Value (Purchase Price)
8. Operating Costs (MPG)
9. Ease of maintenance (oil changes, etc)
10. Brand Name

I place higher importance on comfort/ergonomics than most. I'm a runner and will sometimes drive a couple of hours to run in a race. I really appreciate comfort and ergonomics on the drive home! Also, there are some cars I just can't ever seem to get comfortable in (my wife's 2004 Mustang being one example- the new style is much, much improved in this area).

elroy5

As the owners of a 2007 SEL AWD Fusion ($27,105 MSRP) my wife and I do take pride in the fact that we own a car that is more distinctive than the plain Jane Asian models that proliferate the highways.
We have generally had good experiences with Ford products

So would this put "distinctive style" and "brand name" at the top of your top 10? Over things like MPG.

urnews

That's a very good list, Bender. It mirrors my own priorities though I might find room for a category named gadgets/special features. LOL.
Boz

thegraduate

Good humor, thegraduate. Gave me a chuckle. As the owners of a 2007 SEL AWD Fusion ($27,105 MSRP) my wife and I do take pride in the fact that we own a car that is more distinctive than the plain Jane Asian models that proliferate the highways.

Sometimes it is good to be a little bit different and the Fusion is a fine example of that. We thoroughly enjoy our car. Then again, I once owned a Studebaker (my first car) that I really liked, too.

We have generally had good experiences with Ford products and currently own a 1997 3.8-liter V6 Thunderbird (85,000 miles) and a 2000 2.0-liter I4 Ford Focus station wagon (92,000 miles) which have served us well, without any major repairs or difficulties. Knock on wood.

I can certainly understand choosing a more rare car than going with the flow, especially when the differences in them get more and more slim with each passing model-change.

You mention your Focus wagon... I always admired those little cars. Great utility without the SUV mileage penalty. I sure wish Honda had more hatchbacks than just the Fit, that weren't SUVs (although the CR-V certainly blurs the line between car and SUV). A Honda Accord Sport Wagon to compete with the Mazda 6 Wagon would be AWESOME to me, since I take a lot of road trips and am young enough that I really don't need a soccer-mom Tahoe or Explorer, and never have a need for AWD (last snow in Birmingham, Alabama was in 2000!).

baggs32

That's where my factory ordered Mazda6 will be built. I was told they also build the Ford Mustang there. Have there been any recent problems wiht the Mustang? Press is very positive as to the 6.

I owned a 2004 Mazda6 S that was built there and traded it for an '06 Mustang GT that was built there. The 6 needed a new intake manifold which was a fairly common problem wiht the first and second year models and was covered under warranty. I had it changed out during a routine oil change and it took them about an extra 15 minutes. A new one should not have the same problem.

As for the Mustang, no common problems with that one. Some people have had minor problems here and there as you'll see with every vehicle, but nothing major.

Flat Rock is a very good and modern plant. You should have no worries.

lilengineerboy

Doh and I left off a big one - it must be a manual transmission with a foot operated clutch pedal. I don't know if that is a "top 10" priority as much as a barrier to admission, if its not a stick, I am not even going to look.

urnews

I can certainly understand choosing a more rare car than going with the flow, especially when the differences in them get more and more slim with each passing model-change.

Well stated. Very diplomatic. It was our gut feeling that there really were not a lot of differences in the mid-size sedan category, but that the Fusion had an edge in "sportiness." Plus we are fortunate to have a really exceptional Ford, Lincoln, Mercury dealer in our berg and have had generally good experiences with FoMoCo products as a rule of thumb.

You mention your Focus wagon... I always admired those little cars. Great utility without the SUV mileage penalty. I sure wish Honda had more hatchbacks than just the Fit, that weren't SUVs (although the CR-V certainly blurs the line between car and SUV).

The Focus wagon has been a great little utility vehicle, a mini SUV as it were. Unfortunately, Ford is doing away with all of its Focus hatchbacks and station wagons in 2008. The new Foci will only be available as a four-door or two-door sedan. If I were going to replace the Focus I'd probably go with the Honda Fit. That's about the closest thing to it, especially in the price range. The only other option would be a bare bones utility pickup, like a Ford Ranger or Mazda, which is a see-same deal.

The AWD option is not something I would have ordered. That's how the car was equipped on the lot. It only snows once or twice a year in our section of Maryland. There is also a rather serious gas mileage penalty associated with AWD. Our V6 only manages 14.8 mpg in all-city driving after 3,200 miles, but will deliver 24-26 on road trips.

Talk about ironies, we traded a 2000 Mazda Miata convertible in on the Fusion. The Miata, purchased new by my then 80-year-old Mother, only had 7,500 original miles on it. Mom only drove it to church on Sundays, to the grocery store, to the bank and to the beauty parlor.

The Miata is definitely a true sports car, a ton of fun but not a very practical vehicle. We inherited it when Mom had an accident in it and I took away her driver's license.

I really had my heart set on a new Accord. The wife wanted a Mustang. We compromised on the Fusion, which is absolutely one of Ford's better ideas in the last few years. The Fusion's styling is definitely bold, out of the mainstream. That suits us but it might not be everyone's cup of tea. To be sure, the Camry and Accord sit atop of the mid-size market segment, with good reason, I'm sure.

benderofbows

+1

I forgot as well... maybe it fits under "Driving Experience"

thegraduate

We compromised on the Fusion, which is absolutely one of Ford's better ideas in the last few years. The Fusion's styling is definitely bold, out of the mainstream. That suits us but it might not be everyone's cup of tea. To be sure, the Camry and Accord sit atop of the mid-size market segment, with good reason, I'm sure.

Sounds like a good compromise. Great handling with a practical/reliable side to it too. I know a few people in this forum who would argue that the Accord and Camry float by on name alone, but as the driver I've one, I'd disagree with them and agree with you; they sit atop the segment for a good reason: they appeal to the most people (which in itself is a detriment to people not wanting to drive what the Jones' have down the street). I wasn't as concerned with the nameplate I was buying as I was the driving experience, and with our rough roads, the Accord has the best compromise of sport and comfort for my driving style. I'd assume it is a big selling point to a lot of people, just as the Camry gets a lot of praise for its velvety ride.

zzzoom6

which model/options did you order? and do you have to wait long to get yours? regardless, congrats and hope you like your mazda6 as much as I have been enjoying mine!

zzzoom6

That's a very good list, Bender. It mirrors my own priorities though I might find room for a category named gadgets/special features.
Part of my considerations were how many gadgets and accessories I could buy with the money I saved if I had bought one of the other cars I was considering. That's not to say I "settled." There were three cars I was willing to buy and it came down to which one I could get the best deal on. Each had their virtues and each had their negatives. , But when I realized my decision to buy the mazda6 for the price that was offered, I could also buy a plasma tv, DSLR, window tint, short shifter, and other miscellaneous items and still have money left over compared to the other choices, the decision became very easy.

jd10013

Sounds like a good compromise. Great handling with a practical/reliable side to it too. I know a few people in this forum who would argue that the Accord and Camry float by on name alone

I doubt it too. Nameplate may get someone into the dealership for a test drive, but I doubt many people will spend 20-30k just bassed on name.

mz6greyghost

Adjustments will no doubt have to be made by the workers when switching from a Mustang to a 6. Can they do it without too many problems, is the question.

I think you may have misunderstood his statement. The 6 is built side-by-side with the Mustang at the Flat Rock plant, and all 6 models sold in NA (excluding the MazdaSpeed6) are built there, since the 6 was introduced in '03.

Having said that, my '04 has close to 50K miles, and has had no major issues or problems (besides a couple TSBs and a faulty gas cap).

kdshapiro

"But when I realized my decision to buy the mazda6 for the price that was offered, I could also buy a plasma tv, DSLR, window tint, short shifter, and other miscellaneous items and still have money left over compared to the other choices, the decision became very easy."

You could also buy an Accent and put a down payment on a vacation home.

Most people don't budget $30K for a car, spend $20K and then take $10K and just spend it. While I'm glad you like the Mazda, it would not be my choice. I would gladly spend more to have the car I want and feel I got more in the process.

captain2

you do have to wonder when Ford's relationship with the UAW as well as the other financial considerations will make it better for them to close Flat Rock and make the 6 along side the Fusion - in Mexico. Many parts/assemblies of the Mustang are made in Mexico as well. They have closed 14 plants in the last year or so and likely lead the pack in the category of large cos. putting Americans out of work!

baggs32

Hermasillo does not have the capacity to build the three Fusion variants as well as the three 6 variants and the Mustang.

AAI (Flat Rock) was just overhauled not too long ago and is a fully flexible manufacturing plant. I can't imagine they will close it any time soon. If the Lincoln MKR ever gets the green light it would make sense to build it at AAI given it's Mustang roots too.

akirby

If the Lincoln MKR ever gets the green light it would make sense to build it at AAI given it's Mustang roots too.

According to a Ford engineer the "mustang" part of the MKR and the Interceptor was all smoke and mirrors. Sounds like it will either use a D3 (Taurus) converted to RWD or share a new Aussie RWD platform.

thenebean

I didn't think you'd all really LISTEN to me when I said "back to your regularly scheduled honda vs. ford thread"

i should have said "everyone send me $100 to the following address..."

-thene

btw - nissan is still the best! :P

captain2

think it may be the bean counters that might have their hearts/pocketboooks set on closing ALL US plants, understand that there currently is limited capacity down in Mexico, although they are also limiting production to some level closer to how many Fusions they can actually sell. It has got to be a helluva lot cheaper for Ford to build anything down there and easier in the respect that the 'Indians aren't dictating to the Chiefs'. Maybe enough to justify spending a part of that last $23 billion they borrowed to expand Mexican operations?
I rag on Ford and the other 'US' mfgrs. all the time about the damage they are doing by moving out - but the fact is that they are likely doing what they have to - to survive, although you have to wonder how those 'Japanese' cos., for example, can make a fortune building what they do here.

akirby

The Japanese plants here are much newer and therefore more efficient, plus they get tax breaks from the local governments in exchange for the new jobs they create. Throw in the legacy costs and UAW overhead (jobs bank, e.g.) and it's pretty clear that something needs to change in Detroit just to level the playing ground.

pat

backy

The Mazda6 is due for a redux this fall, yet there has been no formal unveiling of a new car. Does that mean there will be no new Mazda6 for the 2008 MY??

I actually wouldn't mind if the new 6 were delayed until the fall of 2008. That is when I'll be buying my next new car, and I can just imagine the great deals that could be had on a '08 Mazda6 then, given what kind of deals are available today.

mz6greyghost

The Mazda6 is due for a redux this fall, yet there has been no formal unveiling of a new car. Does that mean there will be no new Mazda6 for the 2008 MY??

The latest I heard from a different forum is that the redesigned 6 will be unveiled at the Frankfurt show, which is in late August. My opinion is that it'll be an early '09, instead of '08.

Other rumors:
- The 2.3L 4-cyl will be bumped to 2.5L with a small power increase and better gas mileage.
- The 3.0 Duratec will be replaced by a 3.7L version of the revised (3.5L) Duratec, modified by Mazda, of course.
- Both engines are expected to have a 6-speed manual and 6-speed auto
- AWD is still being rumored, although no specifics as to which engine or transmission

Of course, this can all change 5 minutes before introduction, so I guess we'll have to wait and see...

backy

Thanks! Although if it is intro'd in Frankfurt, it could still show up in the U.S. before the end of 2007. Still, '09 MY seems more likely.

captain2

The 3.0 Duratec will be replaced by a 3.7L version of the revised (3.5L) Duratec, modified by Mazda, of course.
a unique perspective. TMK, even dating back into the 80s the V6s were always 100% Ford whereas the 4 bangers were of Mazda design. At least that is the way it was with a Probe I once owned. 3.5 production is already lagging as the new new Taurus is behind schedule.
I think there are a lot of things that Ford announces plans to do and then runs out of money (and time) before they can do it. I would guess the 08 6 will still be plagued by the existing 3.0 DT and wait until Ford has a chance to 'improve' it circa 09/10. I agree - wait and see.

lilengineerboy

- Both engines are expected to have a 6-speed manual and 6-speed auto

mmm 6 speed stick...sounds delightful woot woot :P

akirby

The new Taurus is not behind schedule. Where do you guys get all this misinformation?

dsirias

In response to ZZzoom6's question, I ordered the Grand Touring 6i 5 door in early May. Dealer said it would take 6 weeks. I kind of doubted that but went ahead and ordered anyway. My instincts were right, as Mazda USA told me over the phone that the build date would not be until early July and and delivery mid to late August. She said it has to go to San Diego first and then to the Dealer here in northern california. (I don't know what they do to it in San Diego.) There is one Grant Touring 6i 5 door in California right now, but it's automatic. I wanted a manual. Hence the order....... Anyway I chose black leather, violet gray, satin fuel door, and wind deflector. So its loaded. BTW there are only a few "touring" 6i 5 door hatchbacks in California. Most are base models. I don't get it. Such a nice car with decent mileage. There are a few more v6's , but in my book well equipped 4cl's are the future, given prices of gas to come. I think Hyundai's strategy is smart--supposedly shipping lots 08 4cl Sonata's with premium trim.

urnews

So would this put "distinctive style" and "brand name" at the top of your top 10? Over things like MPG.

I wouldn't say at the top of the list, but pretty high up. The revised EPA estimate for our V6 AWD Fusion is only 17 mpg city, 24 mpg highway, which is not good, but something we have to accept. Obviously, "distinctive style" is a bit higher on our list than MPG, as is the Ford brand name.