NickF1011 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 and about the other point - giving you GF reasons why to buy a Ford .. really .. PRICE .. they are cheaper with the same features .. The Fusion has less horses, but it is lighter, and thus the 0-60 is comparable. Is 1 extra MPG really worth $4k for a Camry? (assuming she is in the market for a midsize) Well, she's looking for a small utility/wagon/hatchback. She's a massage therapist (lucky me eh? hehe) and needs something that's easy to load her table in and out of on a regular basis. Ford really doesn't offer much in that area right now except the Focus (ew) and the Escape, which I couldn't justify paying so much for. I'm at least going to get her to drive a Mazda3 5-door and see how that goes over. I've also pondered selling her my Mazda6 5-door and getting something new for myself instead. We shall see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 The 500 isn't "anemic" as it sounds. It does 7.61 0-60, quarter in 15.9@ 90 from the Googling I could find. I couldn't find as much on the Avalon. I found results as low as 6 and as high as 8.4. I think the issue is it's not geared to have fast acceleration??? (Not sure) Fusion definitely was geared to have fast acceleration, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Even BMW is changing its game now. While still 3 liters, they are now offering it with twin turbos in the 335i. Then there is the upcoming V8 M3. Nick...you have COMPLETELY missed the point....going along your lines...we also make a 5.4 V8 blown.....we could also make a 50 k twin turbo..fact is BMW has and still will sell the be-jesus out of 3.0 6 cylinders....AND get plaudits about it from the scribes....BMW's 6 sans turbos will continue tiill the cows come home.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Nick...you have COMPLETELY missed the point....going along your lines...we also make a 5.4 V8 blown.....we could also make a 50 k twin turbo..fact is BMW has and still will sell the be-jesus out of 3.0 6 cylinders....AND get plaudits about it from the scribes....BMW's 6 sans turbos will continue tiill the cows come home.... Just as most Camrys sold are 4 cylinder, most 3-series sold are those with base engines also. It only seems logical for an entry level luxury car. However, BMW is admitting, by the use of turbos and a V8, that there are buyers in that segment who are demanding they offer more. At least BMW is answering the call instead of just ignoring them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Just as most Camrys sold are 4 cylinder, most 3-series sold are those with base engines also. It only seems logical for an entry level luxury car. However, BMW is admitting, by the use of turbos and a V8, that there are buyers in that segment who are demanding they offer more. At least BMW is answering the call instead of just ignoring them. yes but seemingly they have had the 3.0 FOREVER, and constantly refined it to benchmark status, seems like we just ditch engines and build newer bigger ones.... Edited March 21, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swenson88 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 yes but seemingly they have had the 3.0 FOREVER, and constantly refined it to benchmark status, seems like we just ditch engines and build newer bigger ones.... I don't know if that's necessarily true. Look at the modulars that replaced the old 5.0 and 5.8 liter engines as well as the 460 (7.5L). Now we have a 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8. For also used to love the crappy 3.8L V6, basically replaced by the 2.5L, 3.0L, and now 3.5L. The 7.3L PowerStroke was replaced by a 6.0 and now 6.4L. If anything Ford tried to downsize their engines for awhile only to watch the competition kick their tail with bigger and better engines again. Also, I wouldn't do too many comparisons between a BMW and and Ford-branded engines, it's simply apples to oranges. BMW's I6's are legendary, Ford has nothing in any of their vehicles with that sort of history behind it. Comparing the 3.0 Duratec to the Beemer I6 would probably be considered heresy in most automotive circles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I don't know if that's necessarily true. Look at the modulars that replaced the old 5.0 and 5.8 liter engines as well as the 460 (7.5L). Now we have a 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8. For also used to love the crappy 3.8L V6, basically replaced by the 2.5L, 3.0L, and now 3.5L. The 7.3L PowerStroke was replaced by a 6.0 and now 6.4L. If anything Ford tried to downsize their engines for awhile only to watch the competition kick their tail with bigger and better engines again. Also, I wouldn't do too many comparisons between a BMW and and Ford-branded engines, it's simply apples to oranges. BMW's I6's are legendary, Ford has nothing in any of their vehicles with that sort of history behind it. Comparing the 3.0 Duratec to the Beemer I6 would probably be considered heresy in most automotive circles. My point is , if you have the correct groundwork you DON'T have to constantly change, you just develop, are our engineers substandard???? Seems Nissan has a venerable 6 cylinder as well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I think they should just give up and bring back the 7.3, fwiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I think they should just give up and bring back the 7.3, fwiw. Don't think it would fit in the Fusion............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 With BMW, you are talking about a dedicated Luxury Sports Sedan. They are marketed as such, and have been known to be such, forever. To use BMW as an arguement against the Fusion......................... why on Gods dear earth would anyone use BMW as an arguement against the Fusion. You know, Fords midsize, yet fun to drive, entry. Personally, I don't ever remember it being marketed as a Luxury Sports Sedan. Anyone who would ever call the Camry a sports sedan needs to be shot. I don't care how much hp it has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconman13 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Well, she's looking for a small utility/wagon/hatchback Nick Take a look at the Mazda 5, My wife bought one and after she got over the Mini-Mini-Van look, she really likes it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 With BMW, you are talking about a dedicated Luxury Sports Sedan. They are marketed as such, and have been known to be such, forever. To use BMW as an arguement against the Fusion......................... why on Gods dear earth would anyone use BMW as an arguement against the Fusion. You know, Fords midsize, yet fun to drive, entry. Personally, I don't ever remember it being marketed as a Luxury Sports Sedan. Anyone who would ever call the Camry a sports sedan needs to be shot. I don't care how much hp it has. you too have mis-construed what was said..I was comparing engine displacements and how BMW has made do with the same old six cylinder seemingly forever...they have just constantly refined/ tweeked and modernized the plant...kind of like NISSAN and theirs ( which underlines I am NOT comparing just BMW to Ford )...why can't we???? are our engineers inferior? We just seem to ditch em and bring out new ones with their initial teething problems .....AND they ( Nissan/ BMW )get the HP figures etc out of 3.0 litre engines that requires us to go for the easy out...displacement or force feeding..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) you too have mis-construed what was said..I was comparing engine displacements and how BMW has made do with the same old six cylinder seemingly forever...they have just constantly refined/ tweeked and modernized the plant...kind of like NISSAN and theirs ( which underlines I am NOT comparing just BMW to Ford )...why can't we???? are our engineers inferior? We just seem to ditch em and bring out new ones with their initial teething problems .....AND they ( Nissan/ BMW )get the HP figures etc out of 3.0 litre engines that requires us to go for the easy out...displacement or force feeding..... Nissan's V6, if you didn't notice, already has the displacement advantage on the old Duratec 30, so it's not really a valid comparison. What 3.0 is Nissan still using? Aren't all the VQ's at least 3.5 liters now? BMW's I6, while remaining in production and continuously being tweaked, simply is NOT a very strong motor. Refined? Yes. Sophisticated? Sure. Powerful? The thing only makes 230 HP. BMW can get away with that BECAUSE they are BMW. Ford can't. Edited March 21, 2007 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Nissan's V6, if you didn't notice, already has the displacement advantage on the old Duratec 30, so it's not really a valid comparison. What 3.0 is Nissan still using? Aren't all the VQ's at least 3.5 liters now? BMW's I6, while remaining in production and continuously being tweaked, simply is NOT a very strong motor. Refined? Yes. Sophisticated? Sure. Powerful? The thing only makes 230 HP. BMW can get away with that BECAUSE they are BMW. Ford can't. Isn't Nissans just their venerable 3.0? could be wrong....and as for Bimmers engines...they are seemingly ALWAYS in the mix in comparos when it comes to specs like mpg/ acelleration....and all this from an engine that is based on a design HOW old????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Isn't Nissans just their venerable 3.0? could be wrong....and as for Bimmers engines...they are seemingly ALWAYS in the mix in comparos when it comes to specs like mpg/ acelleration....and all this from an engine that is based on a design HOW old????? Look at what the 328 is usually compared to in those tests. Lexus IS250, Mercedes C320, Acura TL....none of those have particularly large or powerful engines. What's expected powerwise from an entry level, base engine luxury car apparently isn't on par with what people are expecting from the optional engines in mainstream midsize sedans. Hence why this comparison is ridiculous. As for Nissan, the only V6 available in their cars (Altima, Maxima, 350Z) is the VQ35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Look at what the 328 is usually compared to in those tests. Lexus IS250, Mercedes C320, Acura TL....none of those have particularly large or powerful engines. What's expected powerwise from an entry level, base engine luxury car apparently isn't on par with what people are expecting from the optional engines in mainstream midsize sedans. Hence why this comparison is ridiculous. As for Nissan, the only V6 available in their cars (Altima, Maxima, 350Z) is the VQ35. Guess in a nutshell all I am saying is how they can remain competive with basically the same engine for a LONG time...why can't we? And why is the comparison here ridiculous? seems a few here aren't happy unless the Fusion has a 300hp world beater that out specs said BMW's let alone camrys...champagne tastes..beer budgets????? Edited March 21, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Guess in a nutshell all I am saying is how they can remain competive with basically the same engine for a LONG time...why can't we? And why is the comparison here ridiculous? seems a few here aren't happy unless the Fusion has a 300hp world beater that out specs said BMW's let alone camrys...champagne tastes..beer budgets????? Ford DID get by with the same engine for a long time. Over a decade in fact. But the rest of Ford's competitors (of whom BMW is not directly included) have moved on to larger engines, or soon will be. The comparison is ridiculous because every midsize sedan I can think of (EXCEPT the Fusion - go figure) has an engine more powerful than the BMW 328i. Ford needs to be competing with THOSE cars, not the power levels offered up by entry level luxury car shoppers. Nobody cross-shops a 328i and a Fusion, so benchmarking a BMW for the Fusion is ludicrous. The main issue I have with Ford and the Fusion's V6 is that there is simply no logical reason for them to stick with the 3.0 when the 3.5 is READY TO USE. The MKZ proves that it's a direct swap. Convert the 3.0 lines to build 3.5's and the problem is solved across the board. They don't need to be 300+ HP (though having the option would be a nice treat), but Ford can no longer afford to be bottom-of-the-barrel on ANYTHING. Edited March 21, 2007 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Ford DID get by with the same engine for a long time. Over a decade in fact. But the rest of Ford's competitors (of whom BMW is not directly included) have moved on to larger engines, or soon will be. The comparison is ridiculous because every midsize sedan I can think of (EXCEPT the Fusion - go figure) has an engine more powerful than the BMW 328i. Ford needs to be competing with THOSE cars, not the power levels offered up by entry level luxury car shoppers. Nobody cross-shops a 328i and a Fusion, so benchmarking a BMW for the Fusion is ludicrous. The main issue I have with Ford and the Fusion's V6 is that there is simply no logical reason for them to stick with the 3.0 when the 3.5 is READY TO USE. The MKZ proves that it's a direct swap. Convert the 3.0 lines to build 3.5's and the problem is solved across the board. They don't need to be 300+ HP (though having the option would be a nice treat), but Ford can no longer afford to be bottom-of-the-barrel on ANYTHING. what I am saying is constant refinements etc can pretty much acheive the same...personally think our engineers are slacking....NO reason an exceptionally well developed 3.0 can't be competitive.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Uh, why can't they offer both? If gasoline climbs, a 3.0 option might be a good thing to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Uh, why can't they offer both? If gasoline climbs, a 3.0 option might be a good thing to have. Problem is the D30 doesn't offer up any signifigant fuel economy improvements when compared to the D35: FWD Fusion 20/city 28/hwy 23/comb FWD MKZ 19/city 27/hwy 22/comb Edited March 21, 2007 by Michael Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Problem is the D30 doesn't offer up any signifigant fuel economy improvements when compared to the D35: FWD Fusion 20/city 28/hwy 23/comb FWD MKZ 19/city 27/hwy 22/comb probably because they gave up on developing the damn thing....hell variable valves, more efficient heads, manifolds exhaust...they haven't done crap to that engine for donkeys years...OR the trans! Seems Ford gives up too early...I think they have ADD.... Edited March 21, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 First off, if you're going to compare the D30 to the BMW 3.0L I-6, compare the d30 that most closely matches the purpose of the BMW 3.0L, the D30 in Jaguar S-type trim. In that form, the D30 is within a few percent of the BMW I6 in published specs. The reality of the situation is that, when driveline losses are figured in, the BMWs consistently get more power to the rear wheels (relative to starting crank power) than most other makes and tend to perform better given the published engine specs as well. It could be that BMW sandbags a bit when they rate their engines, but, I don't have enough information to speak to that as being the case. What we do know is that BMW uses some fairly exotic intake and throttle setups for their I-6 to gets its power ratings. The Jag d30 doesn't have anything anywhere near as exotic on the top end of that motor to make similar power figures. I know that the latest version of the BMW I6, with its exotic alloy construction, and dual Vanos intake with a throttle body for each cylinder makes in excess of 240 hp, which, to be fair, is statistically significantly more than the Jag d30, but, it is quite expensive for them to wring that kind of power out of that engine. But, for use in the Fusion, the PIP d30 would be fine for most people. If they want to have a turbo 4 banger that belts out a few more ponies and a lot more torque, then, more power to them. Can't wait to see what they do with it. They will be asking for similar power figures from their 4 banger as the EVO and WRX-STI were pulling out of theirs a few years ago. So, those power numbers are not out of spec for what is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 First off, if you're going to compare the D30 to the BMW 3.0L I-6, compare the d30 that most closely matches the purpose of the BMW 3.0L, the D30 in Jaguar S-type trim. In that form, the D30 is within a few percent of the BMW I6 in published specs. The reality of the situation is that, when driveline losses are figured in, the BMWs consistently get more power to the rear wheels (relative to starting crank power) than most other makes and tend to perform better given the published engine specs as well. It could be that BMW sandbags a bit when they rate their engines, but, I don't have enough information to speak to that as being the case. What we do know is that BMW uses some fairly exotic intake and throttle setups for their I-6 to gets its power ratings. The Jag d30 doesn't have anything anywhere near as exotic on the top end of that motor to make similar power figures. I know that the latest version of the BMW I6, with its exotic alloy construction, and dual Vanos intake with a throttle body for each cylinder makes in excess of 240 hp, which, to be fair, is statistically significantly more than the Jag d30, but, it is quite expensive for them to wring that kind of power out of that engine. But, for use in the Fusion, the PIP d30 would be fine for most people. If they want to have a turbo 4 banger that belts out a few more ponies and a lot more torque, then, more power to them. Can't wait to see what they do with it. They will be asking for similar power figures from their 4 banger as the EVO and WRX-STI were pulling out of theirs a few years ago. So, those power numbers are not out of spec for what is possible. so rather than spend MILLIONS on developing a new TT engine, why not just shoehorn in the Jag D30 and give it a dose of the equivilent high tech...THAT must be more cost effective than a complete new engine for sure......and Bimmers use synthetic oil....maybe that has a little to do with frictional losses....and 10k service intervals...BUT $160 oil changes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 so rather than spend MILLIONS on developing a new TT engine can get far better MPG with Direct Injection and I guess turbos...plus remember what I said before...the Twin Force is getting over 20 MPG in a F-150..thats insane! And an awesome selling point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravestar Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 can get far better MPG with Direct Injection and I guess turbos...plus remember what I said before...the Twin Force is getting over 20 MPG in a F-150..thats insane! And an awesome selling point Ford is releasing a F-150 STX with a 5.4 V-8 this spring that gets 20 MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.