dlloyd

Haven't looked into it myself but Sync 3 swaps/upgrades seem to be fairly common - there are a bunch of threads about them over at 2GFusions.net in the electronics sub-forum.

Didn't notice this thread back when it was relevant to reply, but Livernois has 2.7 Fusion tunes if you're still looking for one. https://www.livernoismotorsports.com/images/2017_Fusion_Sport.bmp (The forum won't let me link directly to a .bmp so you'll have to cut-and-paste to see the dyno chart.)

What kind of fuel are you running? If you haven't already, try a few tanks of 93 and see if MPG improves - from what I've read on some Fusion forums, the EB motors in general really like the higher octane stuff. (Does anyone know what fuel the EPA estimate is based on?)

On my 6 speed Fusion it also enables the paddle shifters and locks out 6th gear unless I manually upshift with the paddles. I usually end up driving around town in S and then switching to D at freeway cruising speeds to take advantage of the overdrive gear.

Any word on when the next-gen EB 2.0 will make its way into the Fusion? When it was announced a few months ago it sounded to me as if it was going to happen without a model year or two. http://www.autonews.com/article/20140624/OEM04/140629942/ford-to-replace-2.0-liter-ecoboost-engine-after-just-4-model-years

Of course not!

I'm not aware of any kind of gas funnel coming with the car - there was nothing with mine. The cargo net isn't standard either - it's an extra-cost option at purchase time or can be bought through Ford's little glossy catalog of add-ons. When I bought my FWD Ti this year I just told the dealer I wanted one and they put one in at no charge.

Ford & Mazda have parted ways so there's no longer any platform sharing between the two - they're different platforms, engines, etc.

I _almost_ bought one a few weeks ago. We needed a new family vehicle after our Mazda 6 got flood damaged and we were considering a small SUV for the utility of it vs. a sedan that met most of our needs and would be more fun to drive . We could have gotten pretty loaded AWD CX5 for something like $37K if I remember correctly. If we had ultimately gone the SUV route it would have been our choice among the models we test drove in our price range, mainly because it felt far more lightweight and nimble than an SUV had any right to be. The Escape we drove had a nicer interior and far more power (2.0 Ecoboost) but the CX-5 just felt better on the road. If there'd been a turbo or V6 available on the Mazda we'd have probably gone that way. Ultimately we ended up going with a Fusion, because we decided that there really weren't _that_ many instances where we would need the extra cargo space, and because when we showed up at the dealer for a (third) test drive before making our decision, they'd marked the ones on the lot down by several thousand to boost their end-of-month numbers and we ended up getting a fairly loaded Titanium model at a price we could afford.

Which type of CVT is in the current model Altima vs the Accord? I test drove both back-to-back today; the Nissan at certain speeds felt like the gearing was shifting around constantly, whereas the Honda felt much smoother. (Both cars were decent, but I'm going with the 2.0 Fusion )

"Ford engineers testing their next-gen Electronic Stability Control System admit that it still needs some tweeking."

Head just a little southward for the Delaware Auto Show next time it's in Wilmington, and you'll be singing the praises of the Philly show in comparison.

The new Camaro interior didn't need any help from the Mustang to look like shit.

I was a bit too young to take much interest in cars at the time but my mother actually had a Gran Torino until I was about 5, - it's the first vehicle I have clear memories of riding in. No idea what model it was or what engine was in it, but it was two-tone with brown on the bottom and a lighter tan faux-vynil top. It was designed so that it wouldn't start if there was a front seat passenger without a seatbelt, but we were pretty naive about saftey features at the time so we used to pull the belts out, start the car, then release them & ride without . Despite this, and frequent hundred-mile highway drives on an old van seat sitting totally unsecured in the bed of an F-150, my sister and I somehow managed to survive our childhoods...

You might want to head over to http://www.corner-carvers.com/ - I used to visit there once in a while when I was researching handling upgrades to my '95 years ago. There are lots of Mustang owners there with some real expertise on the subject (unless it's changed a lot since I was on there last).

I got as much as 33MPG on a long highway trip on my '95 V6 back before I modded it in a desperate effort to give it enough power to get out of its own way.

It's not clear if/when/how this will be available without paying the exorbitant markup for a Saleen, but the SkyVu looks damned nice.

I skimmed the article in a store (not willing to buy MT to read it in full) and noticed the reviewer slamming the Mustang's "archaic chassis". Model year 2005 is archaic?

I tend to lean toward the side that says we're causing a significant amount of the change we're seeing, mainly because most of anti-global-warming arguments seem to be criticisms of the methods or motives of those who argue we're heating up our world. (I.e. there's a big difference between "your conclusions/methods are possibly wrong" vs. "Here is specific counter-evidence against your theory", and I've seen much more of the former than the latter.) I do, however, leave open the possibility that the global warming crowd could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time data was misinterpreted on a large scale. Here's what gets lost in all the shouting about warming/cooling/media/Al Gore/sunspots/cow-farts, though. Global warming, true or false? : IT DOESN'T MATTER. If the global warming crowd is right and we actively move to develop clean, renewable energy sources, then we've saved ourselves from potential global climactic disaster. If they're wrong, then "all" we will have accomplished is to free ourselves of dependence on finite energy resources, broken away from ties to the sheiks and mullahs who conveniently look down to count their money while their countrymen are flying planes into our buildings, made the air in our cities cleaner and more breathable, and spawned new industries that have great potential for job creation. (Oh, and while we're at it, could we please find a way to stop dumping so much %&^%& mercury into my local waterways so I can catch a flounder and eat it without worrying about brain damage?) If the steps we would need to take to fight global warming are steps we should be taking anyway, why fight it? Go ahead and have the debates and discussions, but let's not disagreement over one point stop us from addressing so many others.

I know this was a sarcastic comment, but unfortunately it has a ring of truth to it. A co-worker of mine is truck shopping and is leaning heavily toward the Tundra in spite of my sending him dozens of links about all its problems. Why? "It's a Toyota." I showed him the "Truth About Trucks" thing, and he said he found it very interesting, but he was still probably going with the Tundra. "It's a Toyota." He asked around the office one day what truck others would buy if they were in the market. I was the only F-150 dissenter in a room full of "I'd go for the Tundra" answers. "It's a Toyota." Bleh.