Great Job Ford!!!!

[brianl703]

The V6 engine in the Fusion is a Ford engine. Even the V6 in the Mazda 6 is a Ford block with Mazda specific heads.

Pretty much any V6 in any current production Mazda/Ford vehicle is a Ford engine. I can't think of any exceptions to that.

The I4s are pretty much all Mazda engines. I also can't think of any exceptions to that (except maybe whatever I4 is currently used in the Ranger).

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:
And by the way, there is a LARGE difference between 33 MPG and 29 MPG.. or 24 MPG and 21 MPG over the ownership term of the vehicle.

---

About 2-cents per mile, give or take. Not enough to matter.

---

every 50 miles, there is a dollar... Given my old driving profile, it was about $1.40 per commute.

If I started charging you an extra $1.40 toll on your commute each day, you'd be unhappy, right?

thos edifferences are big if youre looking at the difference between a semi-economical car and something that is ho-hum.

JMH

 

[Racerjk]

I'm not a Ford person at all, but it's amazing how people defend the Japanese car industry.

 

[brianl703]

It's amazing how someone could state that Ford hasn't made a decent 6 cylinder in years when at least two of them made the Wards 10 best list in recent history.

 

[LouDawg]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vad:
Have you seen them side by side?
The Fusion's gril is really nice, but the rest of the car is very generic, worse than the platform donor Mazda Six. The rear is pure garbage.
The Camry looks like a more upscale car, without cheap pretentions.

---

Yes, I've seen the Fusion up close, and I could not disagree more. As I've said, it's a matter of taste, and I think it looks great, and so do a lot of other people. We can't hope to impose our tastes on others, can we? I can't "make" my son like broccoli just because I happen to think it tastes great, can I?

 

[ekpolk]

Lou:

I'm getting a sense from postings here and on other boards that there's roughly as much distaste for the look of the Fusion's oddly "bordered" tail lights as there is for the new Camry's strange "fat lip" look. But yeah, a lot of what you see in threads like this is really no more sensible than folks arguing about whether chocolate ice cream is "better" than strawberry or pistachio -- pure matters of personal taste.

 

[LouDawg]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
More on Ford Styling Here.

---

I laughed at this rag editorial. That's all it was...a guy who admits he knows nothing about running a car company hurling suggestions and opinions around like anyone should care. He completely undermines his own credibility in the first sentence, then makes stupid comments about the blandness of their vehicles (again, totally subjective) then tells them how they should run their marketing, branding, engineering, and dealer network. I don't necessarily think the "Bold Moves" campaign is all that compelling, but they'll learn that soon enough. Thanks, Mr. Farago, but I don't think many people care what you think. Hey, you have a right to your opinion and editorial: this is mine!

 

[LouDawg]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Lou:

I'm getting a sense from postings here and on other boards that there's roughly as much distaste for the look of the Fusion's oddly "bordered" tail lights as there is for the new Camry's strange "fat lip" look. But yeah, a lot of what you see in threads like this is really no more sensible than folks arguing about whether chocolate ice cream is "better" than strawberry or pistachio -- pure matters of personal taste.

---

Here, here...couldn't have said it better!

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LouDawg:
Thanks, Mr. Farago, but I don't think many people care what you think. Hey, you have a right to your opinion and editorial: this is mine!

---

Mr. Farago has published over 70 articles in the GM Death Watch Series.
So far he came pretty close to being right on the money.
How about yourself?

 

[LouDawg]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LouDawg:
Thanks, Mr. Farago, but I don't think many people care what you think. Hey, you have a right to your opinion and editorial: this is mine!

---

Mr. Farago has published over 70 articles in the GM Death Watch Series.
So far he came pretty close to being right on the money.
How about yourself?

---

Nope, I haven't published over 70 articles on anything. I still think he's full of puckey. I know lots of people who've published lots of articles - that doesn't make them right or smart, just published. I didn't realize that being published was a prerequisite to having an opinion.

 

[Thorn]

The thing that really makes me wonder is that it seems that the domestics are constantly playing catch-up, but they have rarely set the benchmark lately.

For example, the Fusion has side and curtain airbags as an option. The Camry, Accord, and even the Hyundai Sonata have all of this equipment standard. In fact, I believe every vehicle now sold by Honda at any trim level is equipped with side and curtain airbags (I'm not sure about Toyota's or Hyundai's lineup). Safety is one of my greatest concerns, especially since my wife had an accident. I would not own a car without this stuff.

As another example, why is the Ford being made with a V6 with "only" 221 horsepower? The Camry now has 268hp, the Accord has had 240+hp since 2003 and the new Sonata has 235hp. I know hp may not be a deal-breaker to many people, but why does Ford design an important brand-new vehicle that is out-classed in many ways before it even hits the showroom?

The same happened with the new Freestar van and even, to some extent, with the F150. The Freestar has a corse 200 hp V6, while the Odyssey and Sienna have a more refined and powerful drivetrain. No sooner did the new F150 come out with a 300 hp V8, and the Nissan Titan hits the market with a brand-new 305hp V8. The new 5.7L V8 Toyota Tundra will blow both of them away. I believe the "new" Chevy Cobalt is rated at something like 34 mpg highway, but the new Honda Civic is rated at 39 or 40 mpg.

If I was appointed king-for-a-day at one of the domestic automakers, I would make certain that my next all-new important model would be a class leader, not an also-ran by the time it hit the showroom floor.

 

[akuska]

The Fusion is one of the few cars now that doesn't get a "Good" rating from the IIHS in the frontal crash test. It also does very poorly in the side-impact crash without the optional side airbags. Those airbags do become standard next year (although the car's yet to be tested with them), but traction control remains optional, and stability control isn't even available. Those to me are non-starters. I'd take a Camry, Sonata, Jetta, or other car that has all those features standard for about the same price.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thorn:
(...snip...)
For example, the Fusion has side and curtain airbags as an option. The Camry, Accord, and even the Hyundai Sonata have all of this equipment standard. In fact, I believe every vehicle now sold by Honda at any trim level is equipped with side and curtain airbags (I'm not sure about Toyota's or Hyundai's lineup). Safety is one of my greatest concerns, especially since my wife had an accident. I would not own a car without this stuff.
(...snip...)

---

This is huge, and I'm wondering myself why the domestic makers appear to remain asleep at the switch.

Were it not for the side curtains in my late, great Camry, I'm 99.99% certain I'd be dead today.

I will not consider purchasing any car today that is not so equipped. I have a growing body of friends and acquaintences who feel the same way. Every Ford and GM car that rolls out without them is a 100% non-contender from the git-go. As I've said in the parallel GM thread, I'm favorably impressed with the rental Grand Prix I'm driving until tomorrow, but it does not have the optional side curtains, so I'd never get this car (it's sister Buick LaCrosse has them standard, so kudos there).

GM and Ford need to board this bandwagon right now!!!

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

As another example, why is the Ford being made with a V6 with "only" 221 horsepower? The Camry now has 268hp, the Accord has had 240+hp since 2003 and the new Sonata has 235hp. I know hp may not be a deal-breaker to many people, but why does Ford design an important brand-new vehicle that is out-classed in many ways before it even hits the showroom?

---

Back to my earlier comments. This goes directly to why the Detroit News probably deliberately paired the V6 Fusion against an I-4 Camry. They knew that the Fusion would get stuffed when stacked up against a DOHC V-6 Camry packing almost 270hp. Hey, who said they had to fight fair. . .

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thorn:
I know hp may not be a deal-breaker to many people, but why does Ford design an important brand-new vehicle that is out-classed in many ways before it even hits the showroom?

---

A totally new engine design is a multi-billion investment.
The penny pinchers at Ford and GM can not justify such wasteful expenditure when they can just keep reusing the old and proven technology with some moderate upgrades.
That's a big part of their corporate culture.
It's simply not their prerogative.
That's why they're constantly playing catch-up while loosing their market shares.

[ May 13, 2006, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: vad ]

 

[Thorn]

I checked out the IIHS crash tests for the 2006 Fusion and 2006 Camry. Both cars received a "Good" (highest) rating in side impact tests with optional side and curtain airbags, but both vehicles received a "Poor" (lowest) grade in the same exact test without side/curtain airbags.

Beginning with the 2007 model year (assuming Toyota's 2007 crash test results will not get worse than the '06 model), every Camry owner will be driving a car with the highest crash test rating, while perhaps half (just a guess) of Fusion owners will be driving a car with the highest rating, and the other half will be driving a car with the lowest rating.

Without side airbags, I am sure my wife would've fared much worse than she did in her accident.

 

[TheTanSedan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:
And by the way, there is a LARGE difference between 33 MPG and 29 MPG.. or 24 MPG and 21 MPG over the ownership term of the vehicle.

---

About 2-cents per mile, give or take. Not enough to matter.

---

every 50 miles, there is a dollar... Given my old driving profile, it was about $1.40 per commute.

If I started charging you an extra $1.40 toll on your commute each day, you'd be unhappy, right?

thos edifferences are big if youre looking at the difference between a semi-economical car and something that is ho-hum.

JMH

---

EDMUNDS estimated cost of either car (in v6 form) is around $40-42,000 at 5-years/60,000 for car, financing, taxes, depreciation, fuel, repairs and maintenance.

They indicate the difference in fuel cost over the same period to be $400.

No, fuel cost isn't relevant as a difference between the two cars. It is about 1%.

It would be far cheaper to buy and operate a 2003 Crown Vic (not to mention the reduced likelihood of serious injury/death). EDMUNDS postulates a savings of over $8,000 over the Camry or Fusion.

 

[JHZR2]

$400 is the difference between my fiancee and I going out to dinner 10-20 times, or not... to me in my eternal cheapness, it IS a difference.. but to each their own.

And you apparently were comparing two v-6 models, whereas we were talking about a camry I4 vs. fusion v6... the test was apples to oranges, so our discussion needs to be too...

I dont buy any of that total cost of ownership crap from edmunds or elsewhere... What is the biggest cost? depreciation?

If I consider extracted utility instead of resale price, as I keep my cars until they have hundreds of thousands of miles on them... then all of those numbers are irrelevant. Heck, their number for insurance cost makes no difference ot me being a young male living in NJ... When I dont think of depreciation, and look at insurance costs... the whole thing can be 50-100% off!

to each their own though

JMH

 

[Thorn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vad:

---

A totally new engine design is a multi-billion investment.
The penny pinchers at Ford and GM can not justify such a "wastefull" investment when they can just keep reusing the old and proven technology with some moderate upgrades.
That's a big part of their corporate culture.
It's simply not their prerogative.
That's why they're constantly playing catch-up while loosing their market shares. [/QUOTE]

Agreed. However, they can learn a few tricks from the imports. For example, Toyota designed the new 4.0L V6 1GR-FE that is now used in the 4Runner, Tundra, Tacoma, FJ Cruiser and other models around the globe. The 2GR-FE, which is a 3.5L version of the 1GR-FE is now being used in the Avalon, Camry, Rav4, Lexus RX350, Lexus 350 sedan something-or-other (IS350?), and probably will replace the 3.3L in the upcoming Highlander.

Then look at GM. They develop a brand-new 270 hp 4.2L I6 for the new Trailblazer/Envoy somewhere around 2002. Good for them. Then a year or so later, they come out with a new pickup (Colorado) that uses a weak, severely out-classed five cylinder. ***? Then they stick that weak five cylinder in the new Hummer H3. Why couldn't they have designed all three vehicles to use the 270hp I6? I thought that was a pretty dumb move. As far as I know, the Trailblazer/Envoy is the only GM vehicle that is using the 4.2L I6, but I could be wrong.

 

[JHZR2]

yeah, id have thought that the I6... one of the ten best engines... would have been put into more... maybe even a long awaited I6 re-intro into some fullsize work trucks???

GM is putting out more I6s... there are two new cars... the optra and the epica or similar, I linked to them earlier... and one has a 2.5L I6 I believe... less powerful than same from BMW, but then again, you get a smooth I6 at a chevy price. Both cars are in the fuel economy guide, so ought to start showing up in the US.

Is the big I4 and I5 in the canyon and whatnot an I6 with cylinders chopped off?

Youd think GM could have one upped the competition by having an I-5 as the base engine, and then that nice I6 as a class leader big engine... the I4 and I5 miht be decent engines with superior real world economy and servicability, I cant say... but to the idiot buying public, 4
JMH