Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Management needs to be replaced!!!
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
Until the EPA runs their own tests it's nothing but speculation and publicity seeking by CR.
And Ford issuing their "estimates" is not publicity seeking prior to the EPA testing? Good for the gander etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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???
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.
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..
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.
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 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 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.
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!
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
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.
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.