akirby, If people would get out on the net and read other Forums they will see the Fusion/Milan are a rock solid sedan.
Wait, wouldn't that be a perception at its best, also? Just because it agrees with you, scape, its still a perception.
The host has already asked several times to leave the media to the news and views department, yet you never fail to bring it up, do ya? You'd think I'd be doing it, as a broadcast journalism major, but I don't.
You miss my point. We're only talking about WOT noise and the VAST majority of midsize sedan buyers won't even go there during a test drive. They will, however, notice the engine sounds at idle and during normal driving.
I'm not saying they should be proud of it but I just don't see it as a big deal IN THIS SEGMENT. Certainly not something that will affect sales.
and besides that, who ever said that a 'midsize sedan' couldn't or shouldn't be fun. Many of these cars run 6+ second 0-60s, 90-100 mph quarters - something that we haven't seen in affordable cars in almost 40 years - the 'musclecars' of the middle 60s to early 70s. And not only will that Accord V6, Mazdaspeed6, Altima 3.5, Camry SE V6, Sonata V6 all run with them, they corner and brake better - not to mention using a whole lot less gas doing it. Cars can be fun again and I don't believe you have to be an 'enthusiast' to enjoy it!
Certainly not something that will affect sales actually yes, I think the average car buyer regardless of how conservative he/she might be, looks first at the EPA ratings and then at the HP, drives the car and then, makes a decision based on some priority between FE and power. BUT, if I bite into your argument, then you tell me why Ford is having difficulties selling the Fusion/500? They are both intelligently designed and competitive in about all aspects IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SEGMENTS - once you shut the hood...
the decibel scale is logarithmic, meaning that small differences in dB translate into large differences in real noise
Not quite, the sense of hearing is also logarithmic. Small dB differences translate into large differences in enery, not percieved loudness. You can listen to 3 dB differences for yourself at: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html
don't need to - all I have to do is floor the accelerator on my wife's Altima, for example and then drop by and drive that Fusion - hope I remember my earplugs
My 2 cents - I agree with akirby. The response Fusion is getting is not about DT 3.0 engine.
IMO, Ford needs to rethink what it is doing. Mustang sells well. Fusion doesn't (without big rebates and fleet sales). A great looking V8 coupe with RWD for about $25000 - there's absolutely nothing in this market that beats the awesome package offered by Mustang. Mustang is a winner. Ford needs to build eye-popping head-turning winners, and not just a modest me-too car like Fusion.
the new Mustang is a winner because 1) it currently has a market niche all to itself and 2) it is the first really good Mustang (solid rear axle and all) that's ever been built. Yep, if a 2 person drag racer is what you want, the GT is a helluva deal. A V8 RWD 4 door, well we do have the 300c and it does sell well at $30-35K, but not without costing you dearly at the gas pump - which is where I think the problem is. But, you are right, if there ever was anything that Ford/GM/Chrysler has done well it has been RWD V8s.
as noted in the WSJ and several other publications Ford is closing plants (14 at last count) and limiting production in such a way to avoid the kind of problems that DC has - overproduction. The bean counters currently in control over at Ford making some logical decisions and minimizing losses. The bottom line, you only make enough cars that you can reasonably expect to sell and then you don't have to worry about too much inventory. Simple, isn't it? and you surely don't want to compare Fusion sales with those of Camrys, Accords, Nissans - especially net of those fleet/rental lot giveaways. Heck, you don't even need to do that, simply count the number of Fusions you see on the way home tonight, vs. any of the other 3. The American public has not received the Fusion as well as perhaps it should be - and there must be a reason?
Fine - point out another unbiased source of residual values.
A much more reliable source of real life residual can be found at the regular banks, where making money (both in terms of turning a profit and making the deal before your turn to a competing bank) not moving cars is the priority.
The 500 desperately needs the 3.5. Its lumbering slow compared to any other V6 mid-size sedan out there. The front end plows through turns. But otherwise it looks like a damn good value to me.
I test drove one after oogling over the interior room and nice design. Driving one soured me tho. The 3.5 should make this car much more competitve.
But why can't Ford come outta the gate with a winner instead of taking a model year or 2 to figure out their weaknesses? Seems kinda sloppy.
i'm sure things are not as simple a seems on the surface, but i could be wrong. in central ct, i don't see a whole lot of new fusions or camrys. accords, it is hard to tell. new sonata's are the ones that are the most obvious.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
The Fusions I do see are saddled with a green "e" sticker around here. Lots of new Camries not on rental lots (though they should still have plenty from the 2006 rental model run)
Haha, I guess I used the plural rules for the word 'candy' on the Camry. I do the same with Honda Odyssey and multiple Odysseys/Odyssies?
It would be Camry's with an apostrophe, because the Camry isn't possesive.
I don't know the right way to do it! lol...
I believe it's quite regional, as you say. I live in Birmingham, and here, we have a lot more Sonata rentals (the Sonata is built a mere 100 miles away, just south of Montgomery, AL).
But why can't Ford come outta the gate with a winner instead of taking a model year or 2 to figure out their weaknesses?
In this case the 3.5L was 2 years later than expected. It was supposed to be there when the 500 launched. That's Ford's biggest problem of late - doing the right thing 2 years too late. I think they're being overly cautious to protect quality but I think being this late to market is worse than having a *few* problems.
A much more reliable source of real life residual can be found at the regular banks, where making money (both in terms of turning a profit and making the deal before your turn to a competing bank) not moving cars is the priority.
Exactly. And what do you think the banks use as their source for residual values? Wouldn't most of them use ALG? Or is there another industry standard source for residual values?
I have a 2003 Camry that is going to have 60000 miles service. I thought mine needs a new spark plugs, but they told me Iridium spark plugs could last 120000 miles, so it isn't necessary. I want to ask if Toyota is the only one has this kind of spark plugs standard or other car companies are using that too? Because I know for Camry before 2002, they used platinum spark plugs which only last 60000 miles thank you
I thought mine needs a new spark plugs, but they told me Iridium spark plugs could last 120000 miles, so it isn't necessary.
Most of the cars sold today have spark plugs that will last 100,000 miles. And many car makers advertise that the car can go 100,000 miles before needing a tune-up. So the Camry is not alone in this area.
California passed a law that said any emissions related component must last 100k miles. My last car had a o2 sensor replaced at 60k and plugs at 80k because of this warranty. The 100,000 tune up is kind of a misnomer because it only applies to changing the spark plugs. Fluids, belts, and hoses must still be changed at shorter intervals.
spot on - Ford too little too late. But, I'll disagree as to why - a function of not having the money (profits) for R&D and product development. Toyota, for example, armed with the $10 billion of profits and in 2005 a line of solid but dynamically challenged (HP) V6s can spend several hundred million developing and producing a new engine for the Avalon, that is strong enough and economical enough to become the powerplant of choice throughout the Toyota/Lexus lines. And they are saving hundreds of millions every year now just in production costs. Not a new concept, Nissan has been doing it for years with the VQ. Meanwhile Ford, with a little help from Volvo and Mazda have some really pretty good designs, but can not do anything with them except saddle them all with versions of a 14 year old engine. Remember that it is those 'bean counters' that may yet 'save' Ford. The new 3.5 (also to be called a Duratech) is testing relatively well in the new Lincolns, and is a big improvement - an engine with about the same level of sophistication as the Hyundai 3.3 and 3.8, but still short of Toyota/Honda/Nissan offerings. Expect also some teething problems with the new drivetrain, one thing that can said for the 3.0, it is pretty darn reliable.
The new 3.5 (also to be called a Duratech) is testing relatively well in the new Lincolns, and is a big improvement - an engine with about the same level of sophistication as the Hyundai 3.3 and 3.8, but still short of Toyota/Honda/Nissan offerings.
But of course it is. Why, because it's a FORD?
Gimme a break, the engine is barely out and they're ALREADY getting slammed? I don't think so...
I'd change them at 60K. If you wait til 100K (much less 120K) they can be almost impossible to get out without damaging the head. Or at least remove them and reinstall them.
no haven't driven one yet - source for this is 'first drive' of the Lincoln MK in C&D, and their comments. And yes, while the Toyota engine, for example, has continuously variable valve timings on both the intake and exhaust sides, the 3.5 DT does not, the source for this being Ford's own website on the engine, the reason for the sophistication comment http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm which makes it similar to the Hyundai engines - but go ahead and take things out of context if you will, the 3.5 is a big improvement for Ford, something I said that you conveniently ignore.
I didn't ignore that comment, I just found it disconcerting to hear the 3.5 L being put down already.
Also remember that it is indeed a new engine, and I'm sure that VVT will be added in the future. IIRC, the Toyota engine didn't start of with full VVT itself (I could be wrong about this one, go ahead and call me on it if I am). Again, it may be late to the game, but I'd rather they get the R&D and testing done right, instead of rushed to market and failing after 39K miles. That would be MUCH WORSE for Ford.
actually it did - the 2GR engine a completely new engine in 05 - additionally the engine in the FSE versions is equipped with an extra set of direct gas injectors, allowing for 300hp+ in things like the IS350 and something like 350hp in a soon to be available Supra. Toyota, however, invent or pioneer this - leave that to the Germans!
Do you really think it is MUCH WORSE for Ford to have cars for sale with inferior (but proven) drivetrains than it would be to have the same car available with something a lot more competitive but unproven? It sure stopped me from buying the 500!
I had a brief test drive in the new 07 Altima 2.5 SL Here are my impressions:
1) Engine – same as before – noisy, but less torque due to CVT. In order to accelerate quickly you need to floor it. I hated that, because it took some time to get this thing going. I hated the noise though, it sounded bad. 2) I don’t know what to think of this CVT, I guess that some people love it – I hate it – it provides such a huge disconnect between you and the car – think of it in terms of Manual vs. Auto – this CVT is like that. 3) The interior was much better than the 06, and I loved the Intelligent KEY system, which was cool. The gauges looked much better than the old orange ones. 4) The steering killed me. It is like driving a Chevy Malibu – same electronic steering, what the hell were you thinking Nissan? After driving Mazda 6 and 3, the steering in the Altima sucked big time. 5) The ride was ok, nothing special. 6) I hope that the 3.5L SE is much better, because I would never buy the 2.5
I’d take a Honda Accord with the 2.4L (I can’t believe I just said that :surprise: ) over the new Altima 2.5
Given Ford's history of quality problems, I think it is more important to have a mediocre but bulletproof drivetrain at first. We're not talking about Mustang GTs here - for family sedans most buyers just want adequate power. If you lose a sale due to lack of engine power, that buyer will still consider a Ford down the road if a new engine is available. If you lose a customer because of quality problems they'll never be back.
I don't see where the 3.5 can be called inferior - at worst it's comparable to the competition. Same for the 3.0L in the Fusion and Milan - perfectly adequate. The 3.0L in the D3 cars is another story - I think they need the 3.5L to be competitive and I think the sales numbers reflect that.
You can now build an o7 Altima at Nissanusa. They have the major packages linked to each other and to VDC so to get one you have to get the other, which can drive the cost of a V6 over 30000. What are they thinking. This must have been taught in marketing 102 how to make the customer mad right away, with a new product. Old Mike
I have to apologize - this was not a 2.5 SL but a 2.5S So the seats were not leather. The sticker was $23,500 - I almost vomited when I saw it. I can have a fully loaded Sonata limited with 3.3L v6 and leather and all the goodies for under 20k - what is wrong with the car market - is this going to be the same as the housing market in CA? Every time you turn around - they jack up the price a little more, and before you know it these mid size family sedans are pushing 30 grand - that is a price of a luxury car 10 years ago :sick: .
It should be noted that the Toyota GR series FIRST debuted as a truck-tuned engine in the redesigned '03 4Runner, in the 4.0L iteration. That family also, as noted, includes the splendid and increasingly ubiquitous 3.5L that ranges from 268 to 306 in HP ratings, and the now unavailable in the US 3.0L that powered the '06 Lexus GS, and the very efficient for its power/torque 2.5L 204 variant in the base Lexus IS.
Otherwise, on the Toyota engine front, a new series of Dual VVTi 4s is expected to debut with the next generation Corolla, and I'd speculate that the larger or largest version of this engine will be a MMC change swap for the Camry's current 158 horse unit - itself very smooth and efficient but could definitely benefit from another 15 horses and a coupla foot pounds.
true on the 4.0 front, less the DVVTi I believe and you bring up something else applicable in this particular group - these cars are all getting larger and heavier, now in the 3300lb category with 4 cylinder engines. Hp is Hp and Lbs. are Lbs., and most of these cars are expecting adequate performance at 20 lbs.+ per pound. IMO, not nearly enough - especially when these new V6s are only a couple of mpg shy of what these now overworked 4s do. Would contend to you that what these 4 cylinders really need is closer to a 200hp minimum, hopefully attainable without the need for turbocharging.
Given Ford's history of quality problems an unfortunate perception perhaps shared with the other US and even Korean mfgrs. - and not exactly true anymore. Ford, as has been noted, is downsizing - they can and do spend more time building a car, if for no other reason than they are almost in a position of finding work for too many employees to do. It is really Toyota that is starting to feel the 'quality' pinch, quite the opposite problem, not enough hours in the day or qualified employees, to do the same job.
I don't necessarily think that the 4s need 200-ish HP, I'd much rather a BALANCE of increased efficiency and acceleration.
For example, in terms of the Camry, as an ENGINE, I think the 2.4L is outstanding - smoothest 4 in the business in my experience, and efficient too. However, as a package, the Accord's SLIGHTLY harsher, more vibration-prone (at idle really) does a better job of moving the car. This is the best Camry 4 yet, no doubt, but it would be better with Dual VVTi - which, if historical applications yield true again - can increase both power/torque and efficiency.
I don't see a need for turbo-charging sedans in this segment, though VW's more niche-esque (and higher priced) Passat uses this feature very well.
One interesting note that you touch on is the efficiency of (Toyota's) new V6s.
Consider this: When Consumer Reports tested the 204 horse, 3510 lb. Lexus IS250, it accelerated from 0 to 60 in 7.7 seconds and offered 24 MPG overall.
When Consumer Reports tested the 158 horse, 3300 lb. Camry LE 4 cylinder, it accelerated from 0 to 60 in 9.6 seconds and offered 24 MPG overall. (Same MPG for the last 4 cylinder Accord tested, but at 9 flat to 60).
True, the Lexus offers a kick-[non-permissible content removed] 6A which no doubt helps its cause, but the point remains.... the 4 cylinders in this class allow for room to improve. And this improvement, most likely, will be in the form of the next Accord, and/or the next generation of 4s in the Camry. I haven't read of or expect any major developments re: the units now used by GM/Ford/Nissan/Hyundai or the recently introduced, powerful but not most fuel efficient 4 in the Sebring.
"The sticker was $23,500 - I almost vomited when I saw it."
I would too...
"what is wrong with the car market - is this going to be the same as the housing market in CA? Every time you turn around - they jack up the price a little more, and before you know it these mid size family sedans are pushing 30 grand - that is a price of a luxury car 10 years ago"
Well what happens is we consumers demand a lot more in vehicles in a short period of time. 10 years ago what did (even luxury cars) have in the way of safety? Broomstick stregnth door beams and kill-em 200 mph air rocks (bags)... Now it's not a contender in this class if there's no stability, abs, 8 airbags, etc... You ask, you get, you pay
larger and heavier, now in the 3300lb category with 4 cylinder engines. Hp is Hp and Lbs. are Lbs., and most of these cars are expecting adequate performance at 20 lbs.+ per pound. IMO, not nearly enough - especially when these new V6s are only a couple of mpg shy of what these now overworked 4s do.
You think the 4-cylinder engines are overworked and inadequate? Many people disagree (about 70% of Accord and Camry buyers opt for 4-cylinder models, in a recent report I read).
Consider this: ten years ago the power to weight ratio of a standard LX Accord was 130 hp/2855 lbs, or 21.96 lbs per horsepower, and offered 25/31 MPG (these are manual transmission figures). Boy have 4-cyl cars come a long way in ten years, let's look...
Today, the power to weight ratio of the same Accord LX 5MT is 166 hp/3133 lbs, or 18.87 lbs per horsepower, better than the V6 Accord of ten years ago (which offered bascially the same horsepower and weight, 170 hp and 3219 lbs, or 18.93lbs per horsepower for a 96 V6). Don't forget the speed advantage offered by a 5-speed automatic vs. 4-speeders of old.
Let's now mention that I-4 engines in these midsizers achieve better mileage than engines in some compacts that make less power (Chevy Cobalt comes to mind as having worse power AND worse economy than an Accord at 24/32 and 145 hp vs. the Accord's 24/34 and 166 hp), and much better economy than the engines of 10 years ago, that made a lot less power.
I'd say the I-4 engines of today, and even 10 years ago, are MORE than adequate. Really, do you feel the need to go faster than you did ten years ago? Because today's 4-cylinders are faster than the V6s and V8s of ten or fifteen years ago. I can't say the last time I've had to floor my I-4 Accord to merge or pass safely, and I drive an interstate where the speed limit is 70 (which means traffic is routinely 80MPH).
Edmunds editors agree, even on the old 2003 model which is down about 10 horsepower on the current 2007 model Accord I-4.
"The Accord is the first car I've driven in some time that has made me seriously reconsider my affection for bigger engines. The power is there, and the refinement is there — there isn't even a hint of that frenetic thrashing I used to associate with inline fours. If I can have good fuel economy without giving up quietness and power, count me in." — Road Test Editor Brian Moody
"I settled into the cockpit fully expecting the vehicle to feel a bit light on juice in certain situations. But this was never the case. I put the car through its paces on highways, on city streets and up and down steep mountain roads in the foothills near my apartment. The Accord proved itself up to the task in each and every circumstance that came its way." — Associate Editor Warren Clarke
"Can't ask for much more than this from a four-cylinder — plenty of pull for passing and merging, quiet at high engine speeds and very frugal. I rarely was left wishing for more power. Unless you absolutely have to have V6 power, the four-cylinder will satisfy 90 percent of the time." — Senior Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig
"The car is fast. Not fast for a four-cylinder but simply fast. I never felt like it was lacking in power, and considering the way I typically drive on my commute down Pacific Coast Highway, that's pretty amazing." — Editor in Chief Karl Brauer
"I have been away for a while and way to many posts to read them all! However, I did notice some calling the Fusion "noisy"?? Better look again.. oops, once again someone spreading bad Ford rumors...
there is no doubt that the 4s far outsell the V6s, given the price difference and the(now shrinking) FE difference. But, I do think that given the choice FE or power the consumer is starting to want both - and now they can have it - regardless of what current power/wght. ratios were 10 years ago. Of that 70%, I would be willing to bet you that at least 80% of those are auto trannies which will suffer more from a power perspective than the MT. The new Camry is suffering from this right now, not enough power to hold high gear with the cruise control on anything other than really flat terrain. Do I need to go faster? of course not, if anything I drive slower than I used to. But, I do feel safer with what amounts to be excessive power while still getting 27mpg overall on a 3600lb. Avalon
I feel perfectly safe, still have excessive power, and get 37-39 MPG on trips (31 MPG mixed)at 75 MPH in my 3,200 lb Accord on trips. I'm not faulting you for liking V6s, lots of people demand them or they wouldn't be offered. My only point was that the I-4s of today aren't even close to inadequate or overworked for what they are designed to do. Most will make it over 130 MPH without if not governed, and will make a 0-60 run in the 8 second range if manual equipped (Car and Driver quoted the 5MT I-4 Accord EX at 7.5 seconds to 60 back before the 2006 horsepower bump). The automatic Accord (8.5 sec per Motor Trend, 2003)is faster than the Buick Lucerne V-6 (8.8 sec per Motor Trend), along with hanging in with the Mercury Montego (8.4 sec per Motor Trend)...two cars that offer V6s that cost more than many other V6 models.
I have never found a venue where I could use all 166 horsepower and not be reckless, living in Suburban Birmingham. Maybe in Montana I could have more driving fun with 100 more horses, but here, 166 is already more than I can use.
the Lucerne a bigger and heavier car also saddled with a low tech vintage V6 - that Accord 4 should blow it off the road. Same thing applies to the Montego/500.
THIS JUST IN! Another preview of the new accord has been announced.
It looks like the Honda Sports4 concept but more civilized. I LIKE IT! It kinda has a civic facia in the front too. The rims gotta go though. I like how they complement yet dis vehicles all at the same time... Sad thing is that i see a pentagonal grille... That might be a clue that that is the acura version (See Acura TSX or Euro Accord)...
It's got an Acura front end, but the Chrysler/BMW-esque headlights have got to go. And if they carry over the base-of-the-windshield-over-the-engine look, the 20-acre, two-layered dash, and the thick A-pillars of the Civic, then it'll be more disproportionate than the Civic.
And seriously, does it need to be even LARGER? Geez, slap a Chrysler badge on it and call it a New Yorker.
Comments
Wait, wouldn't that be a perception at its best, also? Just because it agrees with you, scape, its still a perception.
The host has already asked several times to leave the media to the news and views department, yet you never fail to bring it up, do ya? You'd think I'd be doing it, as a broadcast journalism major, but I don't.
I'm not saying they should be proud of it but I just don't see it as a big deal IN THIS SEGMENT. Certainly not something that will affect sales.
actually yes, I think the average car buyer regardless of how conservative he/she might be, looks first at the EPA ratings and then at the HP, drives the car and then, makes a decision based on some priority between FE and power.
BUT, if I bite into your argument, then you tell me why Ford is having difficulties selling the Fusion/500? They are both intelligently designed and competitive in about all aspects IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SEGMENTS - once you shut the hood...
Not quite, the sense of hearing is also logarithmic. Small dB differences translate into large differences in enery, not percieved loudness. You can listen to 3 dB differences for yourself at: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html
IMO, Ford needs to rethink what it is doing. Mustang sells well. Fusion doesn't (without big rebates and fleet sales). A great looking V8 coupe with RWD for about $25000 - there's absolutely nothing in this market that beats the awesome package offered by Mustang. Mustang is a winner. Ford needs to build eye-popping head-turning winners, and not just a modest me-too car like Fusion.
Fusions are selling in 30 days - half of the industry average. Where did you get the idea that they were having trouble selling them?
A V8 RWD 4 door, well we do have the 300c and it does sell well at $30-35K, but not without costing you dearly at the gas pump - which is where I think the problem is. But, you are right, if there ever was anything that Ford/GM/Chrysler has done well it has been RWD V8s.
and you surely don't want to compare Fusion sales with those of Camrys, Accords, Nissans - especially net of those fleet/rental lot giveaways. Heck, you don't even need to do that, simply count the number of Fusions you see on the way home tonight, vs. any of the other 3. The American public has not received the Fusion as well as perhaps it should be - and there must be a reason?
A much more reliable source of real life residual can be found at the regular banks, where making money (both in terms of turning a profit and making the deal before your turn to a competing bank) not moving cars is the priority.
I test drove one after oogling over the interior room and nice design. Driving one soured me tho. The 3.5 should make this car much more competitve.
But why can't Ford come outta the gate with a winner instead of taking a model year or 2 to figure out their weaknesses? Seems kinda sloppy.
in central ct, i don't see a whole lot of new fusions or camrys. accords, it is hard to tell. new sonata's are the ones that are the most obvious.
when i was in the mid atlantic state about 6 weeks ago, i saw quite a few camry's. it is probably regional.
It would be Camry's with an apostrophe, because the Camry isn't possesive.
I don't know the right way to do it! lol...
I believe it's quite regional, as you say. I live in Birmingham, and here, we have a lot more Sonata rentals (the Sonata is built a mere 100 miles away, just south of Montgomery, AL).
In this case the 3.5L was 2 years later than expected. It was supposed to be there when the 500 launched. That's Ford's biggest problem of late - doing the right thing 2 years too late. I think they're being overly cautious to protect quality but I think being this late to market is worse than having a *few* problems.
Exactly. And what do you think the banks use as their source for residual values? Wouldn't most of them use ALG? Or is there another industry standard source for residual values?
thank you
Most of the cars sold today have spark plugs that will last 100,000 miles. And many car makers advertise that the car can go 100,000 miles before needing a tune-up. So the Camry is not alone in this area.
The 100,000 tune up is kind of a misnomer because it only applies to changing the spark plugs. Fluids, belts, and hoses must still be changed at shorter intervals.
Toyota, for example, armed with the $10 billion of profits and in 2005 a line of solid but dynamically challenged (HP) V6s can spend several hundred million developing and producing a new engine for the Avalon, that is strong enough and economical enough to become the powerplant of choice throughout the Toyota/Lexus lines. And they are saving hundreds of millions every year now just in production costs. Not a new concept, Nissan has been doing it for years with the VQ. Meanwhile Ford, with a little help from Volvo and Mazda have some really pretty good designs, but can not do anything with them except saddle them all with versions of a 14 year old engine.
Remember that it is those 'bean counters' that may yet 'save' Ford.
The new 3.5 (also to be called a Duratech) is testing relatively well in the new Lincolns, and is a big improvement - an engine with about the same level of sophistication as the Hyundai 3.3 and 3.8, but still short of Toyota/Honda/Nissan offerings. Expect also some teething problems with the new drivetrain, one thing that can said for the 3.0, it is pretty darn reliable.
But of course it is. Why, because it's a FORD?
Gimme a break, the engine is barely out and they're ALREADY getting slammed? I don't think so...
Where's your proof? Have you test-driven one?
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm
which makes it similar to the Hyundai engines - but go ahead and take things out of context if you will, the 3.5 is a big improvement for Ford, something I said that you conveniently ignore.
Also remember that it is indeed a new engine, and I'm sure that VVT will be added in the future. IIRC, the Toyota engine didn't start of with full VVT itself (I could be wrong about this one, go ahead and call me on it if I am). Again, it may be late to the game, but I'd rather they get the R&D and testing done right, instead of rushed to market and failing after 39K miles. That would be MUCH WORSE for Ford.
ENGINE
Type 3.5L DOHC 24-valve V-6
Manufacturing Location Lima Engine Plant, Ohio
Configuration 60-degree V-6, aluminum block and heads
Intake Manifold Composite, slit plenum
Exhaust Manifold Cast iron
Crankshaft Forged steel
Redline 6700 rpm
Throttle Body 65mm, electronic
Valvetrain DAMB, 4 valves per cylinder, intake variable camshaft timing
Valve Diameter Intake: 37mm Exhaust: 31 mm
Pistons High temperature cast aluminum alloy with low-friction coated skirts, low-tension rings
Connecting Rods Cracked-powder metal
Ignition Pencil coil
Bore x Stroke 3.6 x 3.4 in/92.5 x 86.7 mm
Displacement 213 cu in/3.496 cc
Compression Ratio 10:03:01
Horsepower 250 @ 6250 rpm (estimated)
Horsepower per Liter 71.5 (estimated)
Torque 240 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm (estimated)
Recommended Fuel 87 Octane
Fuel Capacity 20 gallons
Fuel Injection Sequential multiport fuel injection
Oil Capacity 5.5 quarts, with filter
Recommended Oil GF4, 5W-20
Do you really think it is MUCH WORSE for Ford to have cars for sale with inferior (but proven) drivetrains than it would be to have the same car available with something a lot more competitive but unproven?
It sure stopped me from buying the 500!
Here are my impressions:
1) Engine – same as before – noisy, but less torque due to CVT. In order to accelerate quickly you need to floor it. I hated that, because it took some time to get this thing going. I hated the noise though, it sounded bad.
2) I don’t know what to think of this CVT, I guess that some people love it – I hate it – it provides such a huge disconnect between you and the car – think of it in terms of Manual vs. Auto – this CVT is like that.
3) The interior was much better than the 06, and I loved the Intelligent KEY system, which was cool. The gauges looked much better than the old orange ones.
4) The steering killed me. It is like driving a Chevy Malibu – same electronic steering, what the hell were you thinking Nissan? After driving Mazda 6 and 3, the steering in the Altima sucked big time.
5) The ride was ok, nothing special.
6) I hope that the 3.5L SE is much better, because I would never buy the 2.5
I’d take a Honda Accord with the 2.4L (I can’t believe I just said that :surprise: ) over the new Altima 2.5
I don't see where the 3.5 can be called inferior - at worst it's comparable to the competition. Same for the 3.0L in the Fusion and Milan - perfectly adequate. The 3.0L in the D3 cars is another story - I think they need the 3.5L to be competitive and I think the sales numbers reflect that.
They have the major packages linked to each other and to VDC
so to get one you have to get the other, which can drive the cost of a V6 over 30000. What are they thinking.
This must have been taught in marketing 102 how to make the customer mad right away, with a new product. Old Mike
So the seats were not leather.
The sticker was $23,500 - I almost vomited when I saw it.
I can have a fully loaded Sonata limited with 3.3L v6 and leather and all the goodies for under 20k - what is wrong with the car market - is this going to be the same as the housing market in CA? Every time you turn around - they jack up the price a little more, and before you know it these mid size family sedans are pushing 30 grand - that is a price of a luxury car 10 years ago :sick: .
Otherwise, on the Toyota engine front, a new series of Dual VVTi 4s is expected to debut with the next generation Corolla, and I'd speculate that the larger or largest version of this engine will be a MMC change swap for the Camry's current 158 horse unit - itself very smooth and efficient but could definitely benefit from another 15 horses and a coupla foot pounds.
~alpha
and you bring up something else applicable in this particular group - these cars are all getting larger and heavier, now in the 3300lb category with 4 cylinder engines.
Hp is Hp and Lbs. are Lbs., and most of these cars are expecting adequate performance at 20 lbs.+ per pound.
IMO, not nearly enough - especially when these new V6s are only a couple of mpg shy of what these now overworked 4s do. Would contend to you that what these 4 cylinders really need is closer to a 200hp minimum, hopefully attainable without the need for turbocharging.
an unfortunate perception perhaps shared with the other US and even Korean mfgrs. - and not exactly true anymore. Ford, as has been noted, is downsizing - they can and do spend more time building a car, if for no other reason than they are almost in a position of finding work for too many employees to do. It is really Toyota that is starting to feel the 'quality' pinch, quite the opposite problem, not enough hours in the day or qualified employees, to do the same job.
For example, in terms of the Camry, as an ENGINE, I think the 2.4L is outstanding - smoothest 4 in the business in my experience, and efficient too. However, as a package, the Accord's SLIGHTLY harsher, more vibration-prone (at idle really) does a better job of moving the car. This is the best Camry 4 yet, no doubt, but it would be better with Dual VVTi - which, if historical applications yield true again - can increase both power/torque and efficiency.
I don't see a need for turbo-charging sedans in this segment, though VW's more niche-esque (and higher priced) Passat uses this feature very well.
One interesting note that you touch on is the efficiency of (Toyota's) new V6s.
Consider this:
When Consumer Reports tested the 204 horse, 3510 lb. Lexus IS250, it accelerated from 0 to 60 in 7.7 seconds and offered 24 MPG overall.
When Consumer Reports tested the 158 horse, 3300 lb. Camry LE 4 cylinder, it accelerated from 0 to 60 in 9.6 seconds and offered 24 MPG overall. (Same MPG for the last 4 cylinder Accord tested, but at 9 flat to 60).
True, the Lexus offers a kick-[non-permissible content removed] 6A which no doubt helps its cause, but the point remains.... the 4 cylinders in this class allow for room to improve. And this improvement, most likely, will be in the form of the next Accord, and/or the next generation of 4s in the Camry. I haven't read of or expect any major developments re: the units now used by GM/Ford/Nissan/Hyundai or the recently introduced, powerful but not most fuel efficient 4 in the Sebring.
~alpha
I would too...
"what is wrong with the car market - is this going to be the same as the housing market in CA? Every time you turn around - they jack up the price a little more, and before you know it these mid size family sedans are pushing 30 grand - that is a price of a luxury car 10 years ago"
Well what happens is we consumers demand a lot more in vehicles in a short period of time. 10 years ago what did (even luxury cars) have in the way of safety? Broomstick stregnth door beams and kill-em 200 mph air rocks (bags)... Now it's not a contender in this class if there's no stability, abs, 8 airbags, etc... You ask, you get, you pay
Hp is Hp and Lbs. are Lbs., and most of these cars are expecting adequate performance at 20 lbs.+ per pound.
IMO, not nearly enough - especially when these new V6s are only a couple of mpg shy of what these now overworked 4s do.
You think the 4-cylinder engines are overworked and inadequate? Many people disagree (about 70% of Accord and Camry buyers opt for 4-cylinder models, in a recent report I read).
Consider this: ten years ago the power to weight ratio of a standard LX Accord was 130 hp/2855 lbs, or 21.96 lbs per horsepower, and offered 25/31 MPG (these are manual transmission figures). Boy have 4-cyl cars come a long way in ten years, let's look...
Today, the power to weight ratio of the same Accord LX 5MT is 166 hp/3133 lbs, or 18.87 lbs per horsepower, better than the V6 Accord of ten years ago (which offered bascially the same horsepower and weight, 170 hp and 3219 lbs, or 18.93lbs per horsepower for a 96 V6). Don't forget the speed advantage offered by a 5-speed automatic vs. 4-speeders of old.
Let's now mention that I-4 engines in these midsizers achieve better mileage than engines in some compacts that make less power (Chevy Cobalt comes to mind as having worse power AND worse economy than an Accord at 24/32 and 145 hp vs. the Accord's 24/34 and 166 hp), and much better economy than the engines of 10 years ago, that made a lot less power.
I'd say the I-4 engines of today, and even 10 years ago, are MORE than adequate. Really, do you feel the need to go faster than you did ten years ago? Because today's 4-cylinders are faster than the V6s and V8s of ten or fifteen years ago. I can't say the last time I've had to floor my I-4 Accord to merge or pass safely, and I drive an interstate where the speed limit is 70 (which means traffic is routinely 80MPH).
Edmunds editors agree, even on the old 2003 model which is down about 10 horsepower on the current 2007 model Accord I-4.
"The Accord is the first car I've driven in some time that has made me seriously reconsider my affection for bigger engines. The power is there, and the refinement is there — there isn't even a hint of that frenetic thrashing I used to associate with inline fours. If I can have good fuel economy without giving up quietness and power, count me in." — Road Test Editor Brian Moody
"I settled into the cockpit fully expecting the vehicle to feel a bit light on juice in certain situations. But this was never the case. I put the car through its paces on highways, on city streets and up and down steep mountain roads in the foothills near my apartment. The Accord proved itself up to the task in each and every circumstance that came its way." — Associate Editor Warren Clarke
"Can't ask for much more than this from a four-cylinder — plenty of pull for passing and merging, quiet at high engine speeds and very frugal. I rarely was left wishing for more power. Unless you absolutely have to have V6 power, the four-cylinder will satisfy 90 percent of the time." — Senior Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig
"The car is fast. Not fast for a four-cylinder but simply fast. I never felt like it was lacking in power, and considering the way I typically drive on my commute down Pacific Coast Highway, that's pretty amazing." — Editor in Chief Karl Brauer
From the edmunds' comparison:
Db idle: (1) Sonata 40.0 (2) Fusion 45.0 (3-tie) Accord 46.5 (3-tie) Camry 46.5
Db full throttle: (1) Camry 73.9 (2) Sonata 74.3 (3) Accord 74.7 (4) Fusion 77.1
Db 70mph cruise: (1) Sonata 69.0 (2-tie) Accord 70.0 (2-tie) Camry (2-tie) Fusion 70.0"
You should remain idle.
Of that 70%, I would be willing to bet you that at least 80% of those are auto trannies which will suffer more from a power perspective than the MT. The new Camry is suffering from this right now, not enough power to hold high gear with the cruise control on anything other than really flat terrain.
Do I need to go faster? of course not, if anything I drive slower than I used to. But, I do feel safer with what amounts to be excessive power while still getting 27mpg overall on a 3600lb. Avalon
I have never found a venue where I could use all 166 horsepower and not be reckless, living in Suburban Birmingham. Maybe in Montana I could have more driving fun with 100 more horses, but here, 166 is already more than I can use.
THIS JUST IN!
Another preview of the new accord has been announced.
It looks like the Honda Sports4 concept but more civilized. I LIKE IT! It kinda has a civic facia in the front too. The rims gotta go though. I like how they complement yet dis vehicles all at the same time... Sad thing is that i see a pentagonal grille... That might be a clue that that is the acura version (See Acura TSX or Euro Accord)...
If you're curious about the 08 accord, you should check this out!
-Cj
And seriously, does it need to be even LARGER? Geez, slap a Chrysler badge on it and call it a New Yorker.