I don't think putting the fusion in L would cause any problems. I'm sure the trans was designed so that one can put it in L at any speed and not break it.
Please check the owners manual on this 6 sp. transmission to see what it states to do for downshifting, speed ranges of gears and such. Maybe L is the lower two gears. Or lower three gears... Strange. Never heard of just D and L, with no second. Would be nice to have select shift. -Loren
All it says is L provides more engine braking when you lift off the accelerator. It doesn't say anything about speed limitations. But it definitely won't shift into any gear that is unsafe - the PCM won't do that.
What doesn't add up with that equation is that there would be no safe way to go down a really steep hill. If it will not hold to the lowest gears, it would just pick up speed like a snow ball rolling down the hill -- oh no, a crash!!! There should be L or 1 as the low to hold below 25MPH, then 2nd gear or a 2nd + 3rd gear choice for under 60 MPH. With a 5 sp. the 4th can go all the way to say 80 MPH, but you have a little compression and higher engine revs going on. I would think the 6 sp has 2 higher, as in overdrive gears.
Wait a minute. Maybe the car has intelligent hill sensing? They make transmissions now that know if they are going up or downhill, to hold to certain gears longer. That may be it.
My word, too much new stuff to comprehend. Does it have the throttle-by-wire and electric assist steering too???
Maybe the car that will last the longest is the 2004 fox body Mustang, with old technology dating back to the Fairmont --1979 chassis workings None of this fancy stuff. Speaking of chassis, I guess the Mazda6 was a good starting point for the Fusion. Mazda6 is a bit more sporty than let's say the Taurus -Loren
You are simply not listening. There are people on here that have been engine breaking down sharp hills for years. The manumatic isn't a new invention. There are plenty of cars with a lot of mileage on them that are just fine and people have been engine breaking since they bought them. Take a look at some Mazda6 owners. It does not do unneccesary wear on the drivetrain. This has been said also by GM engineers. I use it all the time with my manu-matic Mazda6. I looked into it for the exact reason of knowing that it would not destroy the drivetrain.
btw i have been specifically taught not to use engine brakes when descending hills by a driving school when driving modern cars. it must be valid technique if schools are teaching it. modern brakes do not burn out, and it is much cheaper to replace brakes. sometimes when you are descending steep hills, you still want to accelerate above 100 kph when there is a long straight line, and downshifting whenever there is a curve is going to strain the drivetrain. braking allows much more control, accelerate during straight line, brake during curves, especially if you are short on time and you need to get to your destination fast
My understanding that low gear is anything under the top gear. My kids car has overdrive, 3rd and low. I know for a fact that low is 2nd and not first. My guess is that on the Fusion low just keeps it out of 6th and would not be an issue to be in low at 55 MPH
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
btw i have been specifically taught not to use engine brakes when descending hills by a driving school when driving modern cars.
Two things, first just because a school teaches it doesn't mean its right or the only right way to do it. Secondly my youngest was recently taught about engine braking in an advanced driving course he took a year or so ago.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
nr9 - if you want to believe that and drive that way, fine. Just stop telling everyone else that it's ok because it's not and it's dangerous. And please tell us the driving school that told you it's better to use brakes so we can stay away from it.
As said before, just because ONE driving school recommends it, doesn't mean it's set in stone. I've been to a different driving school that says the polar opposite of that, and many other driving professionals, schools, and even high school driver education courses teach it differently than your school does. I suggest you try out a few different schools yourself.
And please let me add that we've understood your viewpoint in your first post, and you've been saying the EXACT SAME thing in the posts that followed (I've lost count how many that is). Since you haven't added any more explanations to your posts, you're simply repeating yourself.
nr9 - you've been saying the same thing for the last three pages. At some point it becomes pointless because no one is going to agree. People here for the large part believe engine breaking is fine. You aer going to tell me what you think I am going to tell you what GM engineers basically know. THey are engineers, they work on it everyday, and have degrees in it. The manushift tranny in must applications puts no more stress on the engine than a normal automatic, period. Look how widespread they are used in the industry. Almost everyone uses them save for maybe Suzuki and a couple others. Just agree to disagree and call it done.
A tangent to the brief discussion of how to drive down a hill...is how the L function works on the Fusion trans. I believe it was indicated (by Ant???) that L changes the whole shift pattern. So I think what it does is going to depend on your speed and other factors.
I just tried it this morning. I was doing 50 in D and in 6th gear. I shifted to L and it dropped down to 4th gear and up to 3500 rpm. I left it in L and as I slowed down for a turn it downshifted to 3rd, maintaining 3500 rpm. That's as far as I tested it, but it does appear to have some logic in L that maintains engine braking and higher RPM.
heh you guys have been saying the same exact thing in your following posts too. the argument goes both ways. just because you guys have heard that downshifting is recommended doesnt mean it's set in stone either. and just because you heard that riding brakes down a hill is dangerous doesn't mean it is dangerous.
i don't trust american driving schools anyways, they teach downright dangerous things, for example, shoulder checking. we people in taiwan dont have shoulder checking and we have much lower fatality rates. we taiwanese also ride brakes down hills with great results. let statistics speak for themselves
I wonder if it is similar to "sport" mode in my wife's Jetta. I am not sure how it downshifts, but when in S, her trans will not up shift at lower than 3000 rpm even under the lightest acceleration...which, under light acceleration, is quite a bit higher than where it shifts when in D.
When accelerating faster the shift points are also higher in S than in D. Also S locks out the highest gear, 6th in her case.
Many European brands try to spice up automatic transmissions with such "sport" modes. As you observed, it's just an artificiality which may sound sporty, but isn't really. No to mention stupid and totally unnecessary in a modern automatic transmission. It's nothing but a marketing gimmick.
Nearly every "luxury car" standard or option can be seen as a frivolity by many. The entire luxury car line can be seen as a marketing gimmick. That isn't the question. The question is would the Ford Motor Company gain enough additional sales to make the manumatic shift a profitable thing for them to have, either as standard or an option. Apparently, the marketers at FOMOCO think not.
it's just a matter of electronics and adding the shift gate, how much more could it really cost? And like others have said, when most of your competitors offer it, it makes you look somewhat cheap.
Ford Fusion invoice cost to add 5 speed automatic to the 4 cylinder is $718. Mazda 6 invoice cost to add 5-Speed Sport AT which includes electronically-controlled, dual mode and automatic/manually shiftable transmission with overdrive is $783.
List is $825 for the Ford and $900 for the Mazda.
For that price diffence, I'd take the manual shift option...just because I'd rather have that than just "L" or a trans that has R N D 4 3 2 1 or R N D 5 4 3 2 1.
I think the plan is to keep the new models as simple as possible so they can focus on a problem free launch, then add features later. The software to control the manual shifting is not trivial and would just represent another thing that could go wrong in addition to taking resources away from the basic vehicle operations. Just because Mazda has it doesn't mean it can be directly ported to the Ford versions.
At this point I'd say controlling initial quality is more important for Ford than having certain options, especially given the conservative sales targets. Looking at the launches of the 500, Mustang, F150 and Fusion over the last 2 years I'd say they're accomplishing their goal of trouble free launches. They don't need any more Focus recall situations.
If you look at the options for the upcoming Edge, it appears that they're starting to offer more options earlier. It will offer navigation and the vista roof among other things starting day one. So I think Ford is moving slowly but deliberately in the right direction.
I also think Fields will get them to move a little more quickly and more boldly - I just hope quality doesn't suffer.
IIRC, the entire reason why there's no manumatic for the Fusion/Milan was because initially, they were planning on using the CVT from the Five Hundred/Freestyle, but was pulled at the last minute. That's why there's only a L and D on the shifter.
That's a big part of it, but not the only reason. They did the same thing with the Tbird - not offering selectshift right away even though the LS upon which the Tbird was based already had it.
Thanks for that tidbit of info, MZ. I hadn't heard that about the CVT. Hopefully, that'll be a feature that they add in the future.
Overall I think the Fusion is one of the best cars that Ford has come out with in years and I can understand them not wanting to offer things like AWD, Nav, etc to keep costs down but it gives the car a "decontented" image when small inexpensive options aren't there.
I recently ordered a Milan as I wanted the safety package. I would have liked to have ordered a built in navigation system, remote starter, Ipod jack, spoiler etc. I understand not making many of these features standard to keep costs down, however, why aren't they offered as options?
Just because Mazda has it doesn't mean it can be directly ported to the Ford versions.
Its the same engines as the Mazda and the same platform, so can't see that there would be any problem. I assume they use the the same transmissions too...anyone know if that is correct?
The I4 maybe, but the V6 is a refined version of what was in the Taurus.
The V6 also comes from the Mazda 6, which in turn came from Jaguar (when it got single cam-phasing) which in turn came from Ford (when it gained twin cam-phasing). It's come full circle, sort of.
The Duratec 3.0 is a Ford engine that Mazda also uses. Jag's version was totally different than Lincoln's version except that they started with the same block. Jag offers variable valve timing on both the intake and exhaust while the Lincoln/Ford versions only offer it on the intake. The jag version used their own pcm - it was not shared with the LS.
Even if the Mazda6 and the Fusion share the same PCM and bus architecture (which I don't know) it's a safe bet that they each have their own software. That's why it's not a slam dunk to have the same feature as Mazda.
Thanks for that tidbit of info, MZ. I hadn't heard that about the CVT. Hopefully, that'll be a feature that they add in the future.
Actually, speculation is that the CVT is completely going away at Ford. The only plant that produces it, Batavia, Ohio (on Front Wheel Drive, no less) is slated for closure. By most accounts, the new Joint Venture GM/Ford six speed is more fuel efficient than even the CVT, AND it can handle more horsepower and torque.
There is no reason why Ford doesn't offer it, period. It is just a poor decision on their part.
For all of you saying it isn't necessary. Ford won't get my money because of it. I don't really care what you think. It is important to me. I like to have fun when I drive and regardless of what you may think, I own a manu shift and it does add to the driving experience and control of the car.
Regardless of what you may think. The competition offers it. It is SO common place right now, it is in a Hyundai Sonata, a G6, a Malibu, a Mazda6, a Saturn Aura, a Mazda3, a Mazda6, a Mazda5, on and on and on. It can't be that expensive. Come on Ford get with it.
As far as getting quality down. Okay, you've done that, so now can we have some more please. Mazda has been using the tranny, engine, and platform combination for 5 years without a major quality issue. Ford and Mazda use many of the same suppliers.
Summary: Considering the $1,384 price difference between our two test vehicles, the Fusion SEL seemed to offer so much more than the Camry LE, in terms of engine size and performance, as well as creature comforts and -- most surprising of all -- assembly quality.
That's good news for Ford. Of course, all of the domestica bashers will point out that they tested a 4 cyl Camry against a v6 Fusion. They'll ignore the fact that if the Camry were similarly equipped as the Fusion it would most likely be somewhere around $28k - $29k.
That must be mostly fleet sales, but I hope they aren't ending up in rental fleets. Renting one would certainly perpetuate many people's low opinion of American cars.
Comments
-Loren
Wait a minute. Maybe the car has intelligent hill sensing? They make transmissions now that know if they are going up or downhill, to hold to certain gears longer. That may be it.
My word, too much new stuff to comprehend. Does it have the throttle-by-wire and electric assist steering too???
Maybe the car that will last the longest is the 2004 fox body Mustang, with old technology dating back to the Fairmont --1979 chassis workings
-Loren
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Two things, first just because a school teaches it doesn't mean its right or the only right way to do it. Secondly my youngest was recently taught about engine braking in an advanced driving course he took a year or so ago.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And please let me add that we've understood your viewpoint in your first post, and you've been saying the EXACT SAME thing in the posts that followed (I've lost count how many that is). Since you haven't added any more explanations to your posts, you're simply repeating yourself.
We get it. Move on.
It's been left on the grill way too long.
heh you guys have been saying the same exact thing in your following posts too. the argument goes both ways. just because you guys have heard that downshifting is recommended doesnt mean it's set in stone either. and just because you heard that riding brakes down a hill is dangerous doesn't mean it is dangerous.
i don't trust american driving schools anyways, they teach downright dangerous things, for example, shoulder checking. we people in taiwan dont have shoulder checking and we have much lower fatality rates. we taiwanese also ride brakes down hills with great results.
let statistics speak for themselves
Thanks.
Discuss
Mark
When accelerating faster the shift points are also higher in S than in D. Also S locks out the highest gear, 6th in her case.
List is $825 for the Ford and $900 for the Mazda.
For that price diffence, I'd take the manual shift option...just because I'd rather have that than just "L" or a trans that has R N D 4 3 2 1 or R N D 5 4 3 2 1.
At this point I'd say controlling initial quality is more important for Ford than having certain options, especially given the conservative sales targets. Looking at the launches of the 500, Mustang, F150 and Fusion over the last 2 years I'd say they're accomplishing their goal of trouble free launches. They don't need any more Focus recall situations.
If you look at the options for the upcoming Edge, it appears that they're starting to offer more options earlier. It will offer navigation and the vista roof among other things starting day one. So I think Ford is moving slowly but deliberately in the right direction.
I also think Fields will get them to move a little more quickly and more boldly - I just hope quality doesn't suffer.
Overall I think the Fusion is one of the best cars that Ford has come out with in years and I can understand them not wanting to offer things like AWD, Nav, etc to keep costs down but it gives the car a "decontented" image when small inexpensive options aren't there.
Not trying to start an argument, I'm just saying...
what new standard features besides the red interior, purple exterior, side air bags, and AWD will be added for the 2007 M.Y.
I understand not making many of these features standard to keep costs down, however, why aren't they offered as options?
Its the same engines as the Mazda and the same platform, so can't see that there would be any problem. I assume they use the the same transmissions too...anyone know if that is correct?
The V6 also comes from the Mazda 6, which in turn came from Jaguar (when it got single cam-phasing) which in turn came from Ford (when it gained twin cam-phasing). It's come full circle, sort of.
which was an optional engine in Taurus (yes, Taurus had a 200 hp Duratec 3.0). :P
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Even if the Mazda6 and the Fusion share the same PCM and bus architecture (which I don't know) it's a safe bet that they each have their own software. That's why it's not a slam dunk to have the same feature as Mazda.
Actually, speculation is that the CVT is completely going away at Ford. The only plant that produces it, Batavia, Ohio (on Front Wheel Drive, no less) is slated for closure. By most accounts, the new Joint Venture GM/Ford six speed is more fuel efficient than even the CVT, AND it can handle more horsepower and torque.
For all of you saying it isn't necessary. Ford won't get my money because of it. I don't really care what you think. It is important to me. I like to have fun when I drive and regardless of what you may think, I own a manu shift and it does add to the driving experience and control of the car.
Regardless of what you may think. The competition offers it. It is SO common place right now, it is in a Hyundai Sonata, a G6, a Malibu, a Mazda6, a Saturn Aura, a Mazda3, a Mazda6, a Mazda5, on and on and on. It can't be that expensive. Come on Ford get with it.
As far as getting quality down. Okay, you've done that, so now can we have some more please. Mazda has been using the tranny, engine, and platform combination for 5 years without a major quality issue. Ford and Mazda use many of the same suppliers.
Summary: Considering the $1,384 price difference between our two test vehicles, the Fusion SEL seemed to offer so much more than the Camry LE, in terms of engine size and performance, as well as creature comforts and -- most surprising of all -- assembly quality.
Overall Winner: Ford Fusion
For the full article Click Here!
Let's hope Ford uses this endorsement to their advantage.
My only concern is long term reliability which is an unknown. It was ordered with the safety package and traction control option.
Yeah, but Tokyo Tribune may have opposite opinion
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060503/BUSINESS01/60503001/101- 4
That must be mostly fleet sales, but I hope they aren't ending up in rental fleets. Renting one would certainly perpetuate many people's low opinion of American cars.