Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1334335337339340544

Comments

  • puppybone69puppybone69 Member Posts: 24
    I'm glad I ordered my new Fusion with the 2.0 EcoBoost engine!
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Member Posts: 12
    Oh my god!!! All of you that said I was over reacting to the stoppage of vehicles i certainly hope you are now eating dead rotting crow. Not only was there one hidden but now two known Recalls including one where they recommend you do not drive the vehicle and they will pay to have the car towed (yes towed not driven) to the nearest dealership but can offer no time frame of when the vehicle will be repaired. This means no repair parts have been shipped to dealers as my Oasis report 24 hours prior showed nothing about this latest screw up. 96,000 plus the 28,0000 equals Ford being complete idiots at launch t">ime!!!

    Management needs to be replaced!!!
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The problem with both recalls were European parts and/or labor (headlamps and improperly installed and/or defective freeze plugs).

    Ford put a lot of trust in Europe with their new platforms and it's coming back to bite them.

    These are all temporary problems that won't reoccur once they're fixed but it's certainly giving Ford a black eye lately.
  • serenity185serenity185 Member Posts: 22
    It's a shame that Ford has had so many issues with their recent launches. The new Focuses, Escapes, and Fusions sound like very nice vehicles, but I'm leery of purchasing any new Fords after hearing about some of the problems they've had. A few years ago Ford seemed to have really good reliability, but these recalls remind me of the Ford of 2001/2002.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Moving to European platforms is saving a lot of money but is causing a lot of teething problems getting those platforms into North American factories. These aren't long term reliability problems - these are bad parts or bad assembly or both. Once fixed they won't reoccur but this has to be killing Mulally. Won't stop me from buying a new Fusion but I might wait an extra month or two.
  • puppybone69puppybone69 Member Posts: 24
    1: I want to buy a new car from an American manufacturer
    2: I only have $30,000 to spend on it
    3: In my opinion it's the only midsize sedan worth having that meets the above criteria
    4: I love the styling of the new model
    5: I want to be among the first to own one
    6: I've never owned a Job 1 car before and I think it'll be cool to own one
    7: I've never special ordered a new car before and I wanted to do so at least once in my lifetime
    8: I'm aware that production problems and delays are common for first year redesign cars
    9: I have no control over how long the waiting period for manufacture and delivery is
    10: I need a new car but I'm not in a big hurry to get one
  • dwjhattondwjhatton Member Posts: 1
    I just bought car off of the lot. Ruby Red, Titanium, 2.0 liter. Navi, Driver Assist and Sunroof. I didn't really have to have sunroof but I didn't want to wait for the order and nothing else in the area available.

    Very happy with the car, drives great. Feels really good. Great acceleration compared to 2007 Civic. Had to have headlamps fixed prior to release from dealer. Got about 1500 off from MSRP, was happy with the deal.
  • Cool! Good for you! :shades: Congrats on your new car.

    I wanted a new car too. I needed to stop my '99 Grand Cherokee V8 from bleeding me dry with repair bills. I researched mid size sedans for 6 months before my selection.

    Every day I look at it and am damn proud and happy about it. If I had to do it again I would have bought one with a power passenger seat, and heated seats. I miss that feature from my Grand Cherokee.

    Please let us know everything about your Fusion as you get to know it! Stuff like handling, engine, features, looks, color, and hey...post a picture or two!
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    But most power passenger seats (not counting very high-end autos) have only 4 way or sometimes 6 way adjustability.. and the key adjustments missing are the two most important opnes in terms of operator ease, are the cushion tilt front and rear (with both being the 8 way).
    And the power fore and aft is a real waste on front passenger seats in most cars. If a child seat is installed it is usually behind the passenger seat and basically all cars will accommodate one when seat is in furthest rear position, and even if you do have to move it, fore and aft is one of the easiest moves there is..unless you are extremely large-sized or have age related or other type disabilities.

    I hear Ford has (also) been caught with 20% optimistic fuel economy results on their hybrid Fusions and Escapes. 20% is a huge number!
    That said, the owner here on this forum who recently has been informing us of his experiences with his new hybrid, seems to get quite acceptable fuel economy IMO, as I interpret his driving style and locale.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Ford hasn't been "caught" by anybody. CR was disappointed in the results of their tests which doesn't prove anything. Ethanol, winter blend fuel, cold weather and optional tires will reduce hybrid mileage on any vehicle.

    Until the EPA runs their own tests it's nothing but speculation and publicity seeking by CR.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I think the problem CR had was that they test cars the same and they had never had such a huge discrempancy from the EPA rating compared to their results on any cars they have ever tested. I think they were short about 20% on both the Fusion and the C-max. I do believe all the "qualifiers" you mentioned would affect all vehicles tested and not just Fords.

    And Ford issuing their "estimates" is not publicity seeking prior to the EPA testing? Good for the gander etc.
  • All I really want is a passenger height adjustment on my Optima. My kids can barely see out the window, and yes they are old enough and tall enough to ride up front.

    I only said power seat because I had it on my Jeep and liked it. The kids miss the Jeep because, and I quote "this car makes me feel like I am looking out of a tank dad". "I cant see anything".

    Rotten kids!!! LOL.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It's reason enough to take a closer look. But as far as seeking publicity - Ford is required by law to execute the EPA tests and report the results on the window sticker. This is not their own test - it's somebody else's test and it's required. So they have to put it on the sticker and the purpose of the test is to allow consumers to compare different vehicles. So of course Ford and every other mfr is going to use that number in their advertising.

    CR, on the other hand, takes the results of 2 vehicles that are barely broken in and runs them on their own private test which they refuse to provide details for and proclaims there is a problem.

    It's not what they're reporting - it's how they're reporting it.

    I would like to see Ford take those exact vehicles and run them through the actual EPA test cycle and report the results.

    Hybrids are much more sensitive to cold weather than non hybrids since the ICE has to run for heat. And I still believe the optional tires are costing 2-3 mpg right off the bat because they're wider and not LRR. The EPA tests are done with the standard wheels and tires by rule.
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Member Posts: 218
    edited December 2012
    I think the best cure for Ford desire is to already own one. Had I not purchased a new Focus two years ago, I'd be very interested in bringing home a new Fusion - an SE in Ginger Ale metallic with a manual transmission. But this idea of Ford quality being comparable to that of Honda or Toyota - forget about it.

    I loved my Focus when I first took it home, but the honeymoon was a short one. Not more than a couple months later, the problems began to mount. It's been in the service dept. 7 times now for a suspension issue that, after the replacement of numerous suspension and steering-related parts, they still haven't been able to figure out. That's right - suspension issues (on a car that isn't even 3 years old). What am I driving - a 35 year old Duster with a rusted out frame?

    The new Fusion may be one of the sharpest looking and handling mid-sizers out there, but at what price do you value your spare time? Before you sign on the dotted line, you need to ask yourself how much you enjoy running back and forth to the service department because getting "those little new car bugs" worked out of your Ford could become your avocation for the next few years.

    Headlight problems, engine fires, electrical system failures - does anyone really believe that something magical occurs after one design problem is fixed that will prevent other reliability and safety issues from popping up a year or two down the road? How about 5? How much of your time and money are you willing to wager?

    I wish Ford was building consistent, quality vehicles today, but it's just not the case. Look at the facts - it's not just bugs and useability issues with their infotainment systems that have landed them at the bottom of the heap in the latest reliability surveys.

    While the 2013 Accord may not have the style or swagger of the new Ford, at least if the Honda proves troublesome, a forced trade in won't present you with a giant financial black eye. Try trading in one of these 2013 Fords two years from now and you'll get a painful lesson (one I'm currently feeling) in resale values.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Ford is required by law to execute the EPA tests and report the results on the window sticker. This is not their own test - it's somebody else's test and it's required.

    Well, duh. Most everyone knows this. I thought you said the EPA tests were not completed yet and the numbers that CR was looking at were just Fords preliminary numbers. Which is it? Are the numbers CR was using for comparison the actual EPA numbers or not?

    Again, you choose to downplay the CR tests as being suspect. They test cars all year long in the same exact manner in. Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda, etc etc. They have never had such a large discrepancy before. Do the CR test cars from Ford have the optional tires? I didn't read that anywhere.

    CR doesn't use the EPA test cycle but it does use the same test for all the cars they test and it's more of real world type of test. Most cars test a little lower than EPA from what I've seen but they are usually close. I guess all the other hybrids they have tested over the years did not have some kind of optional tires and were done on perfect weather days using neither A/C or heaters. Only Ford had the dumb luck of being tested with fat tires and cold weather. What are the chances? Problem is, I remember a first drive or something like that and I think it was Edmunds, where the C-max results were equally as poor as CR's and I believe that was done earlier this fall. Don't know about fat tires though. Maybe a huge headwind in their test. I'm sure there is some crazy reason though.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I never said anything about the EPA tests not being completed (not recently at least). I was only addressing the statement that Ford was advertising the 47 mpg rating and should therefore be held more accountable for it for some reason.

    All hybrids get worse fuel mileage in winter and Fords engines do need a few thousand miles break-in. They do offer optional tires that are not low rolling resistance. Winter blend fuel and ethanol will yield lower mpg than the EPA ratings.

    Does the CR test indicate that a closer look is needed? Yes. Does it mean that the vehicles in question can't hit 47 mpg on the EPA test? Absolutely not. And the only way to find out is to retest one using the EPA test, not some marginally controlled super secret test by CR.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I seem to have read that CR drove each car for 2,000 miles. I don't see a publicity stunt here. Just because you do not agree with their findings, does not negate their results. Running E10 in winter does not account for 14mpg off the EPA estimate and I have no doubt the EPA has not tested either car themselves.

    My in-laws have a 2013 Escape 1.6L Turbo AWD and get 19-20 mpg combined and have 1,600 miles on it. If they were to post or write about their results, would that be considered a publicity stunt too?

    Unfortunately, there is an abundance of negative news around Ford's newer technology stemming from the EcoBoost F-150's, Escape's and some Fusions. Now add to the mix the C-Max and Fusion Hybrid.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying it's too early to raise a red flag the way CR raised a red flag.

    I hope Ford and the EPA retest these vehicles quickly and either confirm the EPA results or confirm there is a problem and fix it.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited December 2012
    not some marginally controlled super secret test by CR.

    If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have said the above. CR has explained exactly how they test for MPG. I've read it and it is very controlled and in two directions to account for any wind resistance. It's far from secret as they spell it out in their annual auto issue.

    So I take it from your reply that you really don't know if the cars CR tested had the optional tires or not. Only that Ford offers them. So does Toyota with the Prious BTW. So now it's that Fords engines need so much more break-in, much more than the other brand new cars from other manufactures that CR tests. Heck, even the Hyundai Hybrid wasn't as far off and they have admitted they screwed up. I don't know if CR uses uses winter blend fuel or if they keep a supply of summer blend on hand for testing but even if they don't, wouldn't other makes be subject to the same winter blend and ethanol if applicable? Wouldn't all the reasons you have given affected all tested cars the same? Are Fords that different?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2012
    I hate to break it to you guys, but I just read that more Fusions have been recalled for a headlight lens hazing problem. It is caused by it's bulb's heat.

    Not a biggie by itself, but considering all the other recalls, Ford has to stop the bleeding due to delay after delay resulting in zero sales. I know Ford will end up on top of things, but can you imagine the pressure the production supervisors are under to get these cars right? Wow.

    A bit of levity at Ford's expense is all they need , but I just read that last March Ford sent out 300,000 memory stick's. They were sent to Ford owners to fix the My-Ford-Touch system. Download time? 1 hour. During the 1/2 of installation time you can't change anything in the car such as A/C and stereo.

    Ford suggested in a U tube video to install it "on a long trip when you will not need to use the stereo or climate controls". Ford went on to suggest "doing a crossword puzzle, read a book, or whatever you feel like doing".

    Perhaps smashing the dash with a sledgehammer?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Get a car and rerun the EPA test and see if they get 47 mpg. Any other testing or speculation is irrelevant. Too many variables.

    Yes, Ford engines require around 5K miles to yield maximum mpg. Winter blend fuel lowers mpg compared to the EPA test. Optional tires lower mpg if they are not LRR. Winter heat requirements lower mpg in hybrids.

    All those COULD explain CRs lower mileage. Maybe something changed with the driver or the course.

    I'm not saying there isn't a problem - there could be something that changed in production or a bad part of software. But the only way to know is to rerun the EPA test the same way it was run before. Anything else is apples to oranges.
  • puppybone69puppybone69 Member Posts: 24
    Oh, joy. Is this a separate issue from the original headlight problems a couple months ago?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    In the same test (CR), they got well over 40 mpg highway on the new Altima 2.5 with CVT. Odd how a conventional and relatively powerful 4-banger can easily over-achieve the EPA ratings on CR's test, but the Ford hybrids cannot. Most cars in fact get over the EPA rating on CR's highway test. But they tend to under-achieve on the CR test compared to the EPA city rating, as CR's "city" test is pretty severe (read "more real world") from what I've read about it.
  • Most updates provided from any manufacturer, whether memory stick or CD, take that much time or longer. The data being entered are huge. Be glad that software can now be updated in this manner, improving the performance of the electronic controls, navigation and sound systems.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Yes, it is odd and that's why it needs to be investigated further. But it's premature to declare it's a problem based on ONE non scientific test. It doesn't matter how "real world" the CR test is - it's not how the EPA test is conducted and there are far more variables.

    I'm sure Ford will retest and we'll know one way or the other. Sometimes things change during production that produce unintended consequences or parts get changed by the suppliers.

    Ford is having serious issues with its "global" vehicles designed and/or sourced from Europe. They absolutely need to get that addressed before the next product launch.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    So, you are saying the only way to test fuel economy is the EPA's test? :surprise:

    The real world does have variables--sorry. And CR does document how they perform their test. It could even be considered "scientific"... but clearly not by you.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It is if you're comparing something to the EPA 47 mpg rating. CR does not document the details of the test like the EPA does. The EPA test limits variables as much as possible. The CR test - while arguably more representative of "real world" driving - does not control things like fuel mix, ambient temperature or even driving style. They use 5 different drivers in one test. So while it may be more scientific than surveying owners it is far from scientific.

    When were the other hybrid models tested? What was the ambient temperature? That alone could result in a 4-5 mpg difference.

    Re-run the EPA test and that will show if something is wrong with the vehicles or if it's just the way they're being driven.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It's not just CR that is finding the Ford hybrids aren't getting their EPA ratings in "real world" tests...

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/healey/2012/12/08/test-drive-ford-- c-max/1752359/

    In that test, 38.4 mpg (computer) vs. EPA rating of 47 mpg average.

    Ford better watch out, the class action suits will start popping out any day now. ;)
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited December 2012
    This is an old, old trick. Since the test is known, they alter the computer and transmission to get optimal results at exactly the test speeds. For instance, they make sure that the torque converter locks up at 1-2mph lower than the cruising speed. They make sure that the city portion of the test utilizes 100% electric power if it's a hybrid. And so on.

    Because rather than driving like a 90 year old person, if your car is going too slow or is underpowered, you don't deal with it. You hammer the gas and get where you want to go before you die of old age.

    A good example of this is driving behind a Prius driver who is playing "MPG-O-Matic" with the computers. And making everyone behind them want to do ugly things to them.

    In most automatics, the second you drop a gear and aren't in overdrive, you lose almost 25% of your MPG. You can try it by running a tank of fuel with overdrive locked out. It's also why manuals still get better MPG. They have a more forgiving gearing and typically can accelerate a bit in top gear without down-shifting.

    So real-world tests are more important than made-up nonsense to satisfy the EPA. Myself, I use the Euro ratings and convert to U.S. gallons.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2012
    Well, I don't know if I would feel comfortable driving my new car while doing a software update.....if there was a snag, could the car end up with error code 421? (no brakes). LOL.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2012
    Very well spoken. I can't risk being at the service department and losing money hand over fist in resale value while a tech patches up design flaws with duct tape.

    Been there and done that.

    In Asia, if you are the guy that screws up part of the car he or she was responsible for designing or installing, I think they are publicly executed at dawn. Really though, a persons honor is an incentive to produce a quality car in many nations.

    A new car is a ton of money and I expect it to be right the first time. Period.
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    The notion that mileage improves with time for the first 5-10K miles seems contrary to my experience with a 2010 Milan. From new to the present (28,000 miles) the MPG calculations have been within a 1-2 mpg of eachother with no trend except that in the winter the mpg seems to drop 2 mpg or so. I average somewhere between 30.5 and 32.5 mpg now with more than 50 tanks burned over different new england seasons) Is there any evidence that you need to "break in" a car to get best mileage? I understand the arguments which seem logical (new tires have more drag, new fitment is tight and needs to 'loosen up", etc.) but that which is logical is not always true.

    Is there a demonstrable difference between MPG in a new car and that car 5000 miles later? I doubt it based on my last two cars behavior
  • mtnman1mtnman1 Member Posts: 431
    I have found that in the many vehicles we have owned over the years that mileage does in fact improve as more miles are put on them. My 2009 Fusion SEL V6 initially got around the posted estimate of 26mpg Hwy. At about 5000 it started improving to the point that now with out fail it gets 30mpg Hwy with the cruise set at 70mph. It was the same with a 2003 Hyundai Sonata V6 for me. With that one once I got to 10,000 miles it started getting about 29 to 30 mpg Hwy. I really am convinced that cars have to have the engines thoroughly broken in before they hit their peak Mpg. I think Mpg can be helped by taking it easy in the first 1000 miles of a new car even though most manufacturers state there is really not a break in period anymore.
    2012 Highlander Limited AWD V6 and 2015 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Member Posts: 12
    That may have been true years and years ago but should not be today. There is no piston slop as in years ago where the rings finally seat ( is that the correct word) after heating and cooling. One thing, I hope someone can explain is how FORD can say you can use either 87 or 91 octane fuel??? Is this a high compression engine or not??? Being so tiny I would certainly think 91 would be a requirement but if it takes both??? if that was true wouldn't the computer have to retard the engine? Isn't that in all other manufactures engine warranty considered abuse along with a high chance for engine damage using 87 in a high comp engine? I know what the difference is between octane calcualtion and I realize as opposed to most morons out there that there is no such thing as premium
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Member Posts: 12
    So I understand there is a software fix for my daughters 2013 Fusion 1.6 along with all the Escapes. The claim is that the engine overheats because of pressure lost in the cooling system reducing coolant flow which allows boiling coolant in the top half of the engine. Like what happened on cars 30 years ago after you have your coolant changed and it needs to BURP the air trapped out.

    So... there have been no fires in any of the European Ford Escapes and Fusions (so they day)... What up with that??? Seems European engines run a different program that provides coolant flow even if the system looses presure. So why would US Ford run a different program??? One thing I have learned over the years is if you change one thing you change something else. That program is different for a reason... MPG??? Whatever, I bet in 6 months there will be some design change on the 1.6 engine no matter how small there will be a serial number break???
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It's not the compression that changes - it's the timing. Advancing the timing will yield better performance but also increases knock. Ford's ECM strategy in some vehicles (all Ecoboost vehicles I think) will advance the timing as much as possible and then back it off if the vehicle knocks. This will allow improved power on 91 octane vs. 87. This is no different than what most tuners do - they simply advance the timing requiring higher octane.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The cooling system design is different on the U.S. spec 1.6L EB engines - that's why the Euro versions aren't affected. It's a software fix to not close a valve that controls coolant flow under certain conditions.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2012
    The reason there have been no fires on British Fusion, is due to a minor coolant formulation change.

    You see, all European Ford Fusion/ Escape 1.6 Eco-boosts use Guinness Stout as its primary coolant.

    The Brits have also found that it works great as hydraulic brake fluid.

    I hear rumors that...along with sugarcane; cheap Vodka will be tested as "flex fuel".

    I went down the rows of new cars at my local Sheehy Ford I just was checking out what they had on the lot. $48,000 for an SHO???? $39,000 for a 1.6 Eco-boost Fusion? OMG. I saw quite a few good deals too...like a new Focus ST for 28 grand.

    I have been pulling for Ford for a long time.....just hoping they end up on top, but they have some Quality is Job 1 issues to improve.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    It's a software fix to not close a valve that controls coolant flow under certain conditions.

    Now I KNOW I'm getting old. I remember a time when a little mechanical device did exactly the same thing. And surprise surprise, it even worked with FI turbo charged engines. It was called a....wait for it.... thermostat! It was rarely troublesome and even when it was, was a do-it-yourself re and re and affordable to boot. And you didn't have to be in $bed$ with the manufacturer to fix it either.

    Right-to-repair..
    We are allowing this bed to be made for us and they've finally got us right where they always wanted us.. by the short and curly$.

    Global warming...."climate change". Pfffttttt...now they are talking about sending a particulate matter into the atmosphere to reflect heat from the sun, with the intent to help chill the Arctic and slow the ice melt. Crazy idiots shouldn't be messing with stuff just to ensure they have a job they created for themselves that could well cause a return of the Ice Age...that wouldn't help us much either would it?
    What does this have to do with software having control over coolant temps in a new FORD? The quest to be..according to them.. cleaner/greener of course. :totally rolling eyes here:

    Sigh.... take me back to the simpler days of a pretty good mid-size sedan I had back in the good ol' days...my 69 Falcon. With a simple thermostat...a simple solenoid bolted to the fender, a simple set of points that could be cleaned up with better half's nail file on the side of the road..and if need be..swapping out her underwear for a busted fan/water pump belt. And coincidently..that action had it's spin-off perks too sometimes..if ya know what I mean.. ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2012
    Yes, thermostats work great and are generally reliable. However, they cannot make minute and instantaneous adjustments designed to find more power, emit fewer pollutants, and use less fuel. Every situation has its drawbacks, but modern engines could not get the hp, torque and fuel savings we now enjoy without the huge computing power of modern vehicles. There is less to do under there, but less goes wrong. The reliability of even the most mediocre current vehicles greatly exceeds anything sold back in the 60s. They last much longer too, with much less maintenance required. But you are right...you generally can't fix much on the side of the road anymore.

    Also, remember, "they" is generally us. We elect people, or we buy their products, and we usually expect our culture and our governing bodies to meet our needs, even though everybody is an expert and everybody has preferences that conflict with those of others.

    I was around in the good old days, and while some things may have worked better, other things did not. Much of what we know now had not yet been conceived. Time only moves one way. On the whole, I prefer my present 3.0 liter six cylinder with 300 hp and instant on in whatever weather to the lethargic and thirsty V8 in my old Galaxie 500, or the gutless straight six that was in my 65 Mustang and 63 Falcon.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited December 2012
    Yes Greg, the Falcon was certainly no ball of fire. And I understand your post content. But I think the pendulum has swung too far though on the upstroke. We have had very impressively fuel efficient, 'green' and quick cars for a number of years already, that didn't have the..not sure how to say...dependence on the dealer/manufacturer to the degree that they seem to be in recent years.

    As for dependability, I guess I am not recalling this the same as you have. If a car is reliable and has a good rep, yes, it does seem to be the case to a greater degree than yesteryears, but if it has issues, they seem to be a lot more elusive and problematic for the guinea pigs which of course are the unfortunate owners. I could cite many many examples, but know this isn't the place for it.

    I know that in all new designs there are bound to be teething issues. But at a certain point, the degree at which we are experimented on or with (our $, time, inconvenience, stress, etc etc) is excessive. I get that they are anxious to try to get some $ back after seeing so many go out in R&D, but IMO, they spend too little test-time in their own hands before unleashing these inevitable unpleasant surprises on the consumer. These recent issues with FORD's new entries is a prime example of that. And when a new design has already been released overseas years prior, there are even fewer excuses for issues with that vehicle here.
  • I drove over the to try and make some sense of all of this.Once I drive through an acre of Foci' and Mustangs I finally entered Fusion land. One of the Fusions' had its hood partially open, so I opened to the hood to get a gander and right on the plastic engine cover it had a TSB#. (sorry had no pen). It was a 1.6

    I looked further down the line, and there were 4 more Fusi', all 1.6 models. They were locked tight....but I bet TSB tags were on them too.

    It is very hard to bring a competitive midsize sedan to market.

    I really, really enjoyed my 5 minute test drive I took in a 2.0 Ecoboost. It was quick, but after getting out the windshield feel off the track a bit, leaving a 1/2" gap to get rained in. service guy came over and but a tarp over it.

    So, this concludes my Ford shopping. For about 1 year considering all the little niggles ford has yet to excise. :sick:
  • I drove over the to try and make some sense of all of this.Once I drive through an acre of Foci' and Mustangs I finally entered Fusion land. One of the Fusions' had its hood partially open, so I opened to the hood to get a gander and right on the plastic engine cover it had a TSB#. (sorry had no pen). It was a 1.6

    I looked further down the line, and there were 4 more Fusi', all 1.6 models. They were locked tight....but I bet TSB tags were on them too.

    It is very hard to bring a competitive midsize sedan to market.

    SO, I found a salesman who took me to a white 2.0. I really, really enjoyed my 5 minute test drive. The car was quick, but while getting out, the drivers side window got stuck on its way up. It was off the track by 1" leaving a 1/2" gap to get rained in. service guy came over and put a tarp over it.

    So, this concludes my Ford shopping. For about 1 year considering all the little niggles ford has yet to excise. :sick: :confuse: :mad:

    This concluded my interest in Ford.
  • puppybone69puppybone69 Member Posts: 24
    After nearly 9 weeks of waiting for it, I finally have an estimated delivery date for my new Fusion! 12-20-2012, only one week from today! If I'm able to pick it up on 12-22-12, it will be exactly 10 weeks since I placed my order. Looks like I may actually get my new car right before Christmas! If that happens, that means I'll be spending my birthday driving around in it on New year's Eve!
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Member Posts: 12
    Ordered daughters Aug 8 got November 20th and gave back Dec 2. We will see if they really send back next week.
  • sdcal2sdcal2 Member Posts: 12
    Hope it's not a 1.6!!!
  • bhaumikbhaumik Member Posts: 5
    Hello all,

    I live in NJ and I want to buy a new 2012 Camry SE. I want to pay $23,000 out the door (including all taxes and fees) and do not have a trade in vehicle. Am I asking for to little or to much? Can somebody help me with this.

    Thanks in advance!
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    CR is doing some major backpedaling on their criticism of Ford's hybrid mpg rating and their test results.

    They're now reporting that because Ford's hybrid engines can go up to 62 mph in electric mode and the EPA test is run mostly below that speed, the vehicles do very well on the EPA test. However, CR's highway test (the one they reported) is well above that speed so the Fords are never in electric mode. In other words, if you drive like the EPA test you'll get the advertised 47 mpg. If you don't then you'll do much worse.

    Ford also showed the results of CRs City test for Prius, Prius V, Fusion and C-Max hybrids. On the city test the Fusion, Cmax, Sonata, Camry and Prius V were all between 10 and 12 mpg worse than the EPA rating. However, the Prius C was 16 mpg below EPA rating and the Prius was 19 mpg below the EPA rating.

    Why didn't CR complain about the Prius being 19 mpg worse than EPA rating on the city test?

    The answer should be obvious.

    http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/12/why-do-fords-new-c-max-fusion-hybri- ds-ace-the-epa-government-fuel-economy-tests.html?EXTKEY=I72RSC0
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,439
    same thing with the woman that sued honda because she did not get the mileage on the window sticker. Never mind that it clearly says "estimate", but it is what the government, by law, is telling them to put there! The EPA defines the test, so that is what the manufacturers do. It is not supposed to be exact real world #s.

    Hybrids though seem to be a much tougher target. Most cars seem to be reasonably close.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    The woman, a lawyer, you're referring to was fine with her hybrid until Honda discovered that it's expensive batteries were not going to hold up and they would be replacing a ton of them under warranty. They had owners bring their hybrids in and reprogrammed them to save the batteries. But by doing this the MPG was drasticallty reduced. That was the crux of the lawsuit and the lady won even against Honda's high powered lawyers. I'm sure Honda appealed or settled but I don't know about the follow up. It wasn't nearly as simple as someone just not getting EPA numbers with their new car. If it had been as simple as that the lawsuit never would have made it to trial.

    I think someone that has a law degree can figure out that the EPA estimates are just that and can be in a range depending on conditions and driving habits. However, if I was getting just fine MPG and than had a recall and repairs and when I got my car back my MPG was reduced by 25%, I would be PO'd too.

    So, you see, it is not quite the same thing.

    But I seem to recall that CR said the Fusion and C-Max tests were the furtherst off of any hybrid they had ever tested. I think that is for overall MPG, not just city MPG.
Sign In or Register to comment.