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

11314161819544

Comments

  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Another small but important error on your part...the Dura Tech 3.0 first appeared in 1996 Taurus/Sable vehicles which makes it an 11 year old design. Correction: a smaller 2.5 liter? version appeared around the same time on the Contour and this MAY have been 1995. Either way it is isn't 15 years old.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    For Ford to have to compete with the Hyundais of the world is a losing proposition, because right now that Korean V6 is clearly superior to that 'old tech' DT.

    Whhaaaaaaaaaaat? The Hyundai motor dates back to Mitsubishi designs from the 80s. They added variable valve timing, just like Ford did in the Jag with the DT (although why they didn't do it in the Fusion/Mazda6 I don't know)

    The 4 cylinder is all new, but its a GEMA motor, so its in Hyyndai, Mitsubishi, DCX, and others.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Hmmm, and it looks like the 3.0 in the Accord goes back to 1997...a whole year after Ford's.

    I still think Captain does not know the difference between the Ford Vulcan 3.0 and the Duratec 3.0.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Ford added VCT to the DT3.0 in the 2003 LS (different design than the Jag version). And the current DT3.0 in the Fusion does have VCT.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Make a 300HP VVT I-6 engine. Stuff it in every car that you can.

    If even BMW can't make a naturally aspirated 300HP I6 then I really don't have much confidence in every other manufactures.

    That's including Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM and of course, Ford.

    A V6 might not be as "refine" as the I6 but probably has more potential of making 300+ HP. Rumor has it that the Toyota 3.5L 2GR-FSE has the potential of making 350HP and Nissan already demonstrated that their 3.7L VQ can make 330HP.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    That is incorrect. The 2.4L I4, 3.3L V6, and 3.8L V6 used in the Sonata and Azera are new designs, and do not date from a Mitsubishi design from the '80s.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Another small (or maybe not that small) but important error. The 3.3 liter (Sonata and Santa FE) the 3.8 liter (Azera,Entourage van and Vera Cruz) V-6's AND the 2.4 liter 4 (Sonata) cylinder motors are totally new designed and manufactured by Hyundai. Further, Mitsubishi has not had a hand in any engine design (with the exception of the GEMA engine)since the late 80's as you correctly noted. Once Hyundai got going on car manufacturing they no longer needed help in engine design. The still used 2.7 liter V-6 is of unknown design...unknown by me that is, maybe Mitsu had some part in that one because it started life as a 2.5 liter earlier in the 90's. Small wonder then that many still discount Hyundai as a "real car" manufacturer. Many have facts stuck in the 80's and believe them to still be true.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    A new lease on life for a very dependable, durable mill
    Precisely what Ford SHOULDN'T do if it ever expects to sell competitive cars again.
    As the proud owner of a 2007 SEL AWD 3.0-liter V6, 6-speed automatic transmission Fusion ($27,105 MSRP) I find the car to be very competitive. All Ford vehicles may not be at the top of the heap, Captain2, but some certainly are. I see nothing wrong, or disadvantageous, with refining a good product to make it better. Besides, the 3.5 Duratec V6 has already been proclaimed by Wards Automotive to be one of the best 10 engines in the world. It just that FoMoCo can't produce enough of them to satisfy the need. :)
    Boz
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    As many here know (but not all as you speculate)the OHV Vulcan 3.0 liter made its debut in the original Taurus/Sable in 1986 and carried on for years..no decades tweaked but basically unchanged. A pretty good engine at that if not that powerful @140-153 hp or so in its final form.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    oh yeah, quite a bit of difference, the pushrod 'Vulcan' a really difficult engine to love - the DT was a competitive engine when it first appeared in the 90s - the problem as I see it, is that it was not a solid enough design that it could improved (from a smoothness/refinement point of view) in the same way that Honda certainly has done with their SOHC VVTi or the Nissan VQ (which is older yet). Or maybe it's because that Ford simply couln't afford to do it. Ford's valve control system is incidentally very rudimentary compared to most of these modern engines (the 'i') and this may be one of the reasons why the Ford V6 doesn't feel or sound anything like those other engines - I don't know why, but can only judge the result. This all has very little to with HP and everything to do with the overall driving experience 'pushing' let's say a Fusion V6 vs. let's say a Camcordima V6. The old 200 hp 3 liter in the previous Camry also a pleasure to drive despite the power shortage only because it wasn't lacking in those refinement issues. The new 268hp 2GR is in a class by itself at least until Honda gets to work on the 08 Accord. The VQ, of course, redefined what these engines should be 5 years ago, predates the DT, and remains the standard by which these things should be judged, but IMO, slightly coarser and more strained than certainly the 2GR and maybe even that old Honda V6. The Sonata 3.3 surprised me in how refined (and powerful) it was, especially compared to the old 2.7 and not a whole lot different than the 3.5VQ in my wife's 03 Altima.
    Understand that this is a 'value' judgement kind of thing meaning that I happen to put a lot of importance on how an engine feels and sounds at high (4500+) rpm. I can understand those that might be perfectly happy driving anything with a DT in it, but, I simply don't believe thst those folks drive the way I do ;)
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Those folks that buy the Camcord I4s getting a better smoother and less bothersome engine and a whole lot better FE.
    But you said that Ford needed a more powerful V6 to be competitive. I say they offer the V6 at I4 prices to do that and improving that motor in every way helps that cause. In doing that they can potentially pull people away from an Accord or Camry I4 purchase because the Fusion will offer much better performance for a very minimal FE and refinement hit. Forget about competing with the V6 models. That market is very small.

    If they ever feel they need a souped up V6 to compete with the V6 CamCords then they can always offer some sort of sport model with a turbo or the 3.5L. I don't see that happening though.

    Ford is only 'selling' (given the rate at which they are losing money maybe 'selling' and 'giving away' are interchangeable terms in Fordspeak) all the Fusions they can make right now because they are intentionally limiting production down there in Mexico.

    Hermosillo can only produce about 300k vehicles per year at full tilt and they are at full tilt producing all three variants. They'd need another line to produce more and I don't even know if that's possible given all the plant closings right now. Production isn't limited in the way I think you were implying.

    I assure that if the engines in the Fusion was even close to those others I mentioned, not only would the Fusion production and sales be up, but also that the price differential would be a whole lot less - apples to apples. If Ford truly wants to sell 'a better idea' they need to start with truly better drivetrains - in the process of producing a car that can justify a premium price.

    So given Ford's current financial situation you think they can sell more cars by raising the price? Even if they improve the car they still have to keep the price down right now and attract as many people as they can to their lots IMO. That's certainly not the way old Henry did it.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Understand that this is a 'value' judgement kind of thing meaning that I happen to put a lot of importance on how an engine feels and sounds at high (4500+) rpm. I can understand those that might be perfectly happy driving anything with a DT in it, but, I simply don't believe thst those folks drive the way I do

    I can't say I've ever driven a Camry or Accord V6 but I have owned a Mazda6 V6 and never had a problem with it's refinement. Our Escape Duratec30 was a bit coarse at high RPM but we rarely pushed it there because the low end was enough to get us around the local hills and valleys.

    The Mazda version was much quieter and free revving than the Ford version IMO. The Mazda also had an exhaust tuned to sound throaty which I think might leave the impression of a noisy engine on some people when it really isn't.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    The 3.3 liter (Sonata and Santa FE) the 3.8 liter (Azera,Entourage van and Vera Cruz) V-6's AND the 2.4 liter 4 (Sonata) cylinder motors are totally new designed and manufactured by Hyundai.
    Further, Mitsubishi has not had a hand in any engine design (with the exception of the GEMA engine)since the late 80's as you correctly noted.


    I was under the impression the 2.4 IS the GEMA engine :confuse:

    Small wonder then that many still discount Hyundai as a "real car" manufacturer. Many have facts stuck in the 80's and believe them to still be true.

    None of this info was being used "against" Hyundai, Ford outsources parts of engine development to Cosworth, Toyota has help from Yamaha, etc.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    No, although I'm not entirely sure off-hand the size of the GEMA engine (it may well be 2.4 liter too and I believe there is a larger version also) the 2.4 to which I am referring to is used in the 4 cyl. version of the Optima and Sonata.
    Yeah I know but many do not have a modern view of Hyundai and remember the bad old days and think they still apply...people less informed than you of course!!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    a couple of things-
    I think it is far more likely that the Camcord buyer is shopping the I4 over the V6 because of fuel economy (and price) issues and not looking at the 4 cylinder as much of a power tradeoff BECAUSE those particular engines are every bit as smooth and quiet as the Ford V6.
    I don't know for sure, but I believe that the Mexican Fusion plant is not operating at capacity and nor has it ever - a condition that is good for Ford in the sense that it keeps supply down and demand up as high as possible. Chrysler has a big problem right now with overproduction and excess inventory.
    As Honda and Toyota keep proving, it is possible to sell things relative to window sticker and not relative to some rebate under invoice. It is not generally good for any car, the car buyer, and especially the mfgr. that they have to discount heavily. The only thing that is required to avoid this - a product that either IS GOOD ENOUGH (or innovative enough), or at least, perceived as being so and presto, the educated buyer will pay the price. Ford's problem, perhaps, is that they don't have the resources financially and otherwise to do any better.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    It is not generally good for...the car buyer...that they have to discount heavily

    :confuse:

    Yeah, right...I really hated having to pay $5000 under the sticker price, when I bought the car I wanted. I feel so bad, I think I'll send a check for that amount to the dealer...or should I send it to Mazda.

    The reality is people are not currently willing to pay as much for a Fusion, even if it is as good as an Accord or Camry...mostly because they will not believe it is as good, even if it could somehow be objectively determined that it is just as good.

    Note that I am not making a claim one way or the other with regard to the Fusion compared to Accord or Camry. I am saying it does not matter what an objective comparison shows, perception remains that Accord and Camry are much better. Therefore Ford must sell for a lower price.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    "...they [Ford] offer the V6 at I4 prices... In doing that they can potentially pull people away from an Accord or Camry I4 purchase because the Fusion will offer much better performance for a very minimal FE and refinement hit."

    No, the Fusion V6 does not perform "much better" than a Honda I4. Let's look at some numbers.

    MSN Autos (citing Consumer Reports):

    2006 Accord I4 - 2.4L (166hp) 5A
    0-60 mph 7.91
    1/4 mile 16.22 @ 90.8 mph

    2007 Fusion V6 - 3.0L (221hp) 6A
    0-60 mph 7.47
    1/4 mile 15.78 @ 90.9 mph

    DIFFERENCE
    0-60 mph 0.44
    1/4 mile 0.44, 00.1 mph

    And remember, my Accord 2.4L I4 (with manual trans) will take a 3.0 DT. I have tested this in the real world, when I found myself next to another young guy in a V6 Mazda6 (automatic, just like the Fusion) at a stoplight. He wanted my lane when the light went green, but ended up merging over right *behind* me. I could hear that DT over my I4 the whole time... :)
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I don't know for sure, but I believe that the Mexican Fusion plant is not operating at capacity and nor has it ever - a condition that is good for Ford in the sense that it keeps supply down and demand up as high as possible.

    My understanding is that it is. Ford sold roughly 220,000 cars from that plant by 12/06. Capacity is 305,000 according to Ford's site so they probably are at or very near capacity to keep up with demand. Since the Zephyr changed to the MKZ and the Fusion added AWD sales have been up even more so far this year.

    Conversely, I've seen that Sonota sales are tanking. I've seen nothing official on that so I could be wrong.

    I think the price, with lower than average Ford incentives, is getting people in the showroom door right now and it's only a matter of time before word spreads. If that goes well then they may be on to something and nothing will help that more than some little tweaks to the drivetrain and content to keep things going.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    YEAH RIGHT is right and all you need to do is think about it. Your $5 grand is for the most part false savings because what that car you bought so cheap is worth a few years down the road will always be based on what they cost to buy new. Resale values have the biggest influence on what it costs most of us to actually own a car. The Accord in this group, which generally are bought within 2 grand or so of sticker, have the highest resale values and also tend to do very well in cost of operation numbers. Also the reason why heavily discounted cars tend to to very well in things like 'Initial Satisfaction Indexes' - getting that big discount up front does have a tendency to make us all feel more satisfied because we all feel at that point that we got somethin' for nothin'.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    The Fusion may prove to be the greatest discovery since Adam figured out what was under those fig leaves - we won't know for another few years. Remember that the MKZ did get the new 3.5 and therefore does not suffer from the same maladies as the Fusion/Milan/6.
    Hyundai which had been very aggressive in an attempt to get as many of us in their cars as possible - pulled back their horns a bit apparently recognizing that it does them no good to sell the Sonata too cheaply.
    This recent AWD craze is interesting to me - would think that maybe 90% of us don't drive on roads bad enough that just FWD isn't just fine, so why pay the added cost, mechanical complexities, and FE penalties for it?
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I think your numbers are off. C&D tends to do crazy things to cars for their 0-60 times while CR does not. C&D could only get low 8s out of their 2007 Accord I4 ATX. See here.

    The only 0-60 time I could find on the Fusion with ATX from C&D was an estimate of 7.5 seconds so that one looks to be about right. IIRC MT did 7.2 seconds in a Fusion V6.

    I realize all these times we've posted were not done by the same drivers, on the same track, and under the same conditions but it's all we have right now as far as an apples to apples comparison goes.

    Do you have the link to that 0-60 time for the Accord I4? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that sounds more like the manual tranny time.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    No, the Fusion V6 does not perform "much better" than a Honda I4.
    thanks for looking up the numbers, kind of fortifies my point. Going a step further, which car do you suppose feels and sounds better doing it. Not to mention the 4 or 5 mpg difference in FE, which to many buyers in this class is more important to them than even that? Not my personal cup of tea, but you surely can't fault anybody for buying something capable of 30mpg overall, in what not too long ago was a full sized car!
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    The Fusion may prove to be the greatest discovery since Adam figured out what was under those fig leaves - we won't know for another few years.

    Let's not get too carried away now! ;) I even wouldn't buy one for lack of a V6 and manual tranny combo. But that's not common.

    Remember that the MKZ did get the new 3.5 and therefore does not suffer from the same maladies as the Fusion/Milan/6.


    I don't know that I'd call them maladies but if for lack of a better word. My dad has a Zephyr, I've driven it, and it has plenty of power for the large hills around here which is all I ask. The 3.5L is up my alley too, as more power always is for said hills, but it is completely unnecessary for the average Joe IMO. It surely helps sales though.

    This recent AWD craze is interesting to me - would think that maybe 90% of us don't drive on roads bad enough that just FWD isn't just fine, so why pay the added cost, mechanical complexities, and FE penalties for it?

    Living in the NE I do want it. However I also drive a RWD sports coupe through the same snow without problems so I see your point. Maybe with all this power being sent to the front wheels now people are beginning to notice torque steer and wheel spin and don't like it? AWD corrects both of those problems and gives some people something to one-up the Joneses with. :P
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    See post 795. I don't think his numbers were right for the Accord.

    If C&Ds time is more accurate then my point with the new Fusion motor makes even more sense. You get performance that falls between the V6 and I4 versions of the competition for the price of the latter. If they can get the FE close or the same as the I4s then what's not to like?

    No it's not everyone's cup of tea as you said previously but it could be a very smart move. Smarter than just giving in to pressure and dumping the 3.5L in the Fusion's engine bay.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    /ot but....The naturally aspirated 3.2L in the M3 produced 333 hp.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Ah - you beat me to it. :)

    300HP with a direct injection design and VVT should be doable out of a 3.0L inline engine. Compression might be a bit high, but well within reasonable limits.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Actually, the 2.4L engine in the Sonata and Optima is not the GEMA engine (known as the World Engine by DCX), and the factory in which it is produced is not part of GEMA. It's the Theta engine, which shares its basic block and cylinder head design with the GEMA engine, but there are major differences between the Theta and the World Engine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Theta_engine

    The 3.3L V6 in the Sonata (and the 3.8L in the Azera) is known as the Lambda. It is not a GEMA engine, but it is a new design from Hyundai, not a warmed-over Mitsubishi design.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Lambda_engine
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Your $5 grand is for the most part false savings because what that car you bought so cheap is worth a few years down the road will always be based on what they cost to buy new.

    No, it's not false savings, it's real money in my pocket. Dollars that I got to keep while buying the car that I wanted to buy. If you look at depreciation in actual dollars, rather than percentages, there is not much difference between Accord, Mazda6, or Fusion.

    If you paid $20K and you car is worth $12K in 5 years that not better than paying $16K and having my car be worth $8K. Not that I care much, in any case, as I buy cars to keep them.

    My $5000 is also earning about $200 per year interest, after taxes. In five years that is another $1000 "saved".
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    If C&Ds time is more accurate
    Car and Driver seems to be the kings of car abuse and will regulary report acceleration times (especially 0-60) that is substantially better than any of us would want to even try to achieve - probably because we paid good money for that car? CR, I think, does things more like what you and I might infrequently try and therefore those differences more realistic.
    May be giving into pressure as you suggest, but a 260hp Fusion with a higher degree of engine refinement would sell like hotcakes and you are right, these better V6s do not necessarily cost much more at the pumps. The FE that is possible out of the Toyota 2GR a good example of that.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Nah, C&D just holds it in 2nd gear until it hits the rev limiter. Makes for nice 0-60 times, considering most automatics have mile high gearing.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    think about it on whatever basis you wish then, and pretend that the average that most of us keep cars is not between 3 and 4 years. Of course, if you keep your Mazda to the point that the paint is peeling off and the wheels are falling off, then you probably will save all that money that you think you did. Most of us don't do that, however, and do have to deal with those crooked used car depts. at trade-in time, and mysteriously that Accord buyer is getting at least a good portion of his $5k purchase premium back, a little kbb.com research as well as Edmunds/Intellichoice cost to own numbers all confirm this.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    We'll never agree on the 0-60 acceleration numbers. However, I can say that from personal experience actually driving the cars and from participating in a few "stoplight showdowns," that the Accord I4 5M is every bit as fast as the Fusion V6 6A and the automatic Accord isn't too far behind. Certainly, you can't state that the DT30 is "much faster" than the Accord or Altima inline 4's.

    I like the Fusion, it was on my "short list" at purchase time and I heavily evaluated it. It is a competitive car which keeps looking better as Ford adds standard features, and the reliability reports are looking good. Resale value remains to be seen.

    However, the Fusion will absolutely require very substantial powertrain updates to remain competitive, especially with the new Accord just around the corner. I really hope Ford doesn't ignore it as long as they have ignored the Focus. That is a perfect example of a car that could have been a serious contender if it had been continuously developed and refined through the years instead of remaining basically the same. I don't think the Duratec is going to cut it.
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    and the Fusion added AWD sales have been up even more so far this year.

    fusion sales are still at the bottom of the barrel, and by a big margin. Its not that impressive to have a 205 sales increase when you only sold 45,000 the year before. Here's some numbers for you: rounded and year to date

    toyota camry: 144,000
    honda accord: 121,000
    chevy impala: 108,000
    nissan altima: 90,000
    ford fusion: 51,000
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    Thanks for posting about comparing real dollars rather the per cent ages, which can be quite misleading.

    I just checked Edmund's True Cost to Own stats and saw that it lists the TMV price for a 2007 Sonata SE w/XM @ $20,706. We bought one on 2/24/07 at a purchase price of $16,651. (Both figures need to have dealer fees + TTL added; our dealer fees were $189.)

    Knock $4,055 off that TCO estimate and you'll see quite a difference. The financing, insurance and tax info. are also off the mark. If you finance $5,000 and I finance $10,000, my finance charges will obviously be more than double your finance charges. In CT, owners (or lesees) pay a property tax every year on their cars. The tax rate varies from town to town. My town's current tax rate is $21.65 for every $1,000 of the cars value. One town next door has a tax rate of (about) $62 for every $1,000 of value. Another bordering town has a tax rate of $17.89 for each $1,000 of value. (This also means that a car which has a lower "value" pays less property tax each year.)

    Insurance: forget what TCO says. How old are you, married or single, your driving record, what town do you live in, how do you use your car (not driven to work, driven to work how many miles?, business use), do you own or rent, do you have other insurance with the same company, have you been continuously insured for the last six months, FICO scores, etc.

    TCO and other similar estimates need to start off their comparison with real street prices, not an inflated number. But, your point about the $20K car being worth $12K in 5 yrs vs a $16K car being worth $8K in 5 yrs is valid. I don't pay my bills based upon per cent ages. The mortgage company, utilities, insurance company, etc. want REAL dollars, not per cent ages.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,256
    the fusion is somewhat limited by manufacturing capacity. i think it shares the line with milan and mkz.
    i drive by a chevy dealership every day. those impalas are starting to appeal to me. :)
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Car and Driver seems to be the kings of car abuse and will regulary report acceleration times (especially 0-60) that is substantially better than any of us would want to even try to achieve - probably because we paid good money for that car? CR, I think, does things more like what you and I might infrequently try and therefore those differences more realistic.

    That's what I said. But yet someone posted a much better 0-60 time for an Accord I4 with auto tranny. Doesn't make sense at all.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    However, I can say that from personal experience actually driving the cars and from participating in a few "stoplight showdowns," that the Accord I4 5M is every bit as fast as the Fusion V6 6A and the automatic Accord isn't too far behind. Certainly, you can't state that the DT30 is "much faster" than the Accord or Altima inline 4's.


    Your personal experience with the 5M in the Accord doesn't really matter when we're comparing auto trannies. What you posted in #791 is directly below:

    2006 Accord I4 - 2.4L (166hp) 5A
    0-60 mph 7.91
    1/4 mile 16.22 90.8 mph

    2007 Fusion V6 - 3.0L (221hp) 6A
    0-60 mph 7.47
    1/4 mile 15.78 90.9 mph

    DIFFERENCE
    0-60 mph 0.44
    1/4 mile 0.44, 00.1 mph


    That 0-60 time you posted is not right according to C&D whom we all can agree tends to really push a car to get times you and I would never dream of trying to get. Since they did publish a time, as I linked you to, of low 8s we have to assume that the Accord I4 5A is "much" slower than the V6 Fusion 6A. If you don't agree then don't ever think of saying the V6 Accord is "much" faster than the V6 Fusion because the difference in number of seconds off the pace for each comparo is negligible. ;)

    I don't think the Duratec is going to cut it.

    I agree. Not for the long term it won't anyway. I think I did point out that the next gen Fusion will get the Duratec35 somewhere near 2010 for 2011 IIRC. Updating the Fusion, whether it be content or powertrain, each year is a good thing that I hope we can all agree on. That seems to be the trend so far.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    mysteriously that Accord buyer is getting at least a good portion of his $5k purchase premium back says captain

    funny you admit that you won't get all of that $5k back. And it stands to reason that you won't; a used car is still a used car and when it a buyer is comparing to new car prices used cars will always depreciate a lot. So if you want to pretend you're getting a car that's worth 5k more because you don't like the engine note of a car when I bet 99% of the time you're listening to the stereo and not the sound of the engine, more power to you.

    In the end, I think in the Mazda 6, the duratec sounds great. It has a nice growl to it that confirms that your intentions are being matched by the car. As automotive.com wrote about the Mazda 6 v6, "The 3.0-liter V6 in the 6s greatly increases the fun. Like the four-cylinder, it has continuously variable valve timing (VVT) for its intake camshaft; but on the V6, this feature seems to be used more effectively, providing better low-down torque along with a willingness to rev, with good gas mileage and a nice set of sounds from the air intake and the dual exhausts. The Mazda V6 doesn't feel like it has as much low-rpm torque as the Toyota and Honda V6 engines, but it loves to rev and it's a lot of fun to drive."

    Of course I would have been willing to pay extra for a car that braked 15 feet shorter in 60-0, or a car that had less body lean when cornering, or even for a car that was less generically styled. Thing is, though, I didn't have to pay more and in fact spent thousands less. And during the time I have this car, I will enjoy every curve, make thanks for great brakes everytime someone pulls out of a driveway in my path, and I will walk up to my car with pride instead of wondering which of 10 other simialar cars in the parking lot is mine as I load a big screen into my car while the other sedan owners make a second trip or pay for delivery.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    fusion sales are still at the bottom of the barrel, and by a big margin. Its not that impressive to have a 205 sales increase when you only sold 45,000 the year before. Here's some numbers for you: rounded and year to date

    I don't recall ever saying Fusion sales were at or near the top. Did I?

    I know the sales numbers and already told you that the Fusion and it's sisters only sell about 220k units per year which is about half of the number of CamCords (each) sold each year.

    My point was that Fusion sales keep climbing and that is true. Fusion sales are actually at 52,000 units this YTD as of 4/30/2007. That's a 22.4% increase over the previous year.

    Why didn't you include the Sonata? It's sales are down 31% from last year at this time. See a trend? Also, Fusion sales to fleets are pretty low according to Ford and Hyundai just made some news about selling in high volumes to fleets IIRC.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Of course I would have been willing to pay extra for a car that braked 15 feet shorter in 60-0

    That was one thing I really loved about that car when I had it. The brakes were nothing short of phenomenal.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    The Hermi plant is running at capacity. Don't forget they also make the Milan/MKZ there too. And yes, Ford is selling Fusions/Milans/MKZ's at a nice pace. I would much rather have Ford not try to make 500,000 Fusions and keep the quality up on these vehicles. So far the Fusion/Milan/MKZ are proving to be very reliabile and well built vehicles.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Of course you take the numbers that best suit your needs. I too have done "real world" testing with my Fusion V6 and your dreaming my friend. I easily outran both a auto 4cyl Accord and a Manual Accord on I-205. This guy had a brand new Accord and he was ticked when I started to actually play with him. I would let him catch up to me, get about even with me then WAMMO.. I was gone! There are reviews showing the Fusion does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds by the way out on the internet.. take a look around... :shades:
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I'm right with you man. I did price an Accord with the Same options as my Fusion and it was easily $3,000+ more. Not to include the 4.9% interest I would be paying over the lifetime of the loan! I pay 0% on the Fusion. I came out way, way ahead with my Fusion. Trying to convince people Accords are either cheaper or within $1,000 of either a Fusion or Sonata is not going to work. Anyone who shops knows the Accord/Camry are pricey vehicles. This is what the Fusion/Milan offer, value at the right price. Remember when Honda/Toyota did that? :surprise:
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "The FE that is possible out of the Toyota 2GR a good example of that."

    Are you so sure about that? Get out on the net people are complaining about the MPG of the V6 Camry. I also posted a link to a site that did independant studies of MPG on the Camry back in this forum. And the actual mileage they were getting was about 4MPG LESS for the Camry.. ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I guess since McDonalds sells more hamburgers than Wendys that they must be the best too.. ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Ford is going in the right direction. They are building a solid, quality car for less than their competitors. It will take time and miles and word of mouth before the general public figure this one out. I like the Duratec 3.0 with VVT. Mine revs freely and I like the growling sound myself. At idle I can't even tell its running. And in everyday driving its just as quiet as the Accord/Camry. Someone posted actual DB ratings way back in this forum. Granted when you put the pedal down, the Fusion is a bit louder than the Camry/Accord. But in everyday driving it is just as quiet.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It's actually the other way around on the Sonata... HMA is selling fewer of them to fleets than last year, which accounts for at least some of the downturn in sales.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Also, Fusion sales to fleets are pretty low according to Ford and Hyundai just made some news about selling in high volumes to fleets IIRC.

    Wrong on both counts. Fusion fleets are actually going up as we speak, while Hyundai's Sonata fleet initiative ended Q4 last year (a program lasted almost a year from early 06). Sonata sales will be down for the rest of this year because the majority of 06 included additional fleet units, which otherwise would not have skewed the YOY comparison.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Whhaaaaaaaaaaat? The Hyundai motor dates back to Mitsubishi designs from the 80s. They added variable valve timing, just like Ford did in the Jag with the DT (although why they didn't do it in the Fusion/Mazda6 I don't know)

    The 4 cylinder is all new, but its a GEMA motor, so its in Hyyndai, Mitsubishi, DCX, and others.


    Time to get better informed here. :)

    Just to summarize from other posts and add some add'l info:

    Hyundai's new Lambda V6s (3.3L & 3.8L) currently can be found in various Hyundai and Kia applications, including the Sonata. Competent engines and flexible, as the Lambdas can be tuned to as high as 300hp (which is a likely candidate on the base engine of the upcoming luxury RWD sedan next year).

    The Theta I4s also can be found in many Hyundai and Kia applications, including the Sonata. Don't be confused, these are not the same as the GEMA engines. Hyundai is, however, receiving royalties for these I4s.

    Bottom line, both the I4s and the V6s are designed in-house by Hyundai.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    I think it was Nov.,'06 that Hyundai drastically cut its fleet sales. That probably accounted for most of the Sonata sales reduction, if not 100% of it, during a time of declining auto sales for the industry.
Sign In or Register to comment.