2010 Fusion GT: 340hp EB V6

[NickF1011]

I was waiting for someone to post that...

 

Nice bananas. :bandance:

[morgande]

As soon as I get on the throttle in the Taurus in the turn, the AWD has already shifted to the optimum split. Thus the joys of electronic AWD... it happens in an instant, versus mechanical AWD, which takes a moment.

 

Trust me... when I test drove the Fusion AWD (mine was a Milan V6 demo from a friend's dealer), I spent the entire time trying to confuse it into a less than optimal split... I couldn't do it. I took a turn exactly as I described... I approached at high speed, cut the wheel, and mashed the throttle. No understeer... it just hooked up and WENT. The poor seat bolstering almost threw me out the door, but it performed like a champ.

 

Its at an optimum split for the given throttle. But the purpose of the throttle is to get to a point where you either negotiate the turn with full grip....or throw the car into an oversteer. Either way.....the same applies:

 

A Ford Taurus is NOT a F-1 race car. So its not gonna turn a corner with grip at high speed (as some poster argued). I got 2 choices: drop my speed (brake/reduce throttle to the point where I can negotiate turn without loosing grip) Or try to get the car to oversteer around the corner.

 

Now, I was braking into the turn...100%. If I choose to try to oversteer it, I can't (no need to restate as to why). So no to option 2.

 

What about option 1? In that condition, Im gonna try to use the brake to control my cars momentum and speed, and hope that the car is going slow enough not to past the limits of my tires grip. But, the car would be better suited taking some throttle off my front, so the front tires can spend more time steering and less time moving my car around the turn. but as long as Im not accelerating, Im at 100% FWD which makes this impossible. So I have to tell my brain to go ahead and push the car around this corner, and hope that as I open the throttle the AWD will transfer power to the rear and I keep my grip and do my turn. This is exactly the opposite as to what your brain wants to do (slow down to make the turn). So whoever is performing this maneuver better know how to do it right in this car, as it performs quite different than an RWD vehicle.

 

Problem solved? Not quite! I don't have racing tires with awesome grip! Ive got street tires on. the same caliber tires that the competition has (of this class car). So I'm still limited to the negotiating a turn with at best to a street tire (even a performance streetable tire) can do. Whats so bad about this? When compared with RWD, I have the #2 option. Throw the car into an oversteer and negotiate the turn using this style (again a perfectly acceptible form of performace driving...and fun too). I bet I can get around quicker using this style as well.

 

 

Most basic "performance cars", will negoc

[Deanh]

about AWD, drifts and speed and all that noise:

 

 

AWD > RWD

 

 

Igor

THATS RALLY RACING, LOOK!..............

[morgande]

about AWD, drifts and speed and all that noise:

 

 

AWD > RWD

 

 

Igor

 

Audi R8. So not far!

[Deanh]

Audi R8. So not far!

same thing would happen with a TT, OR for that matter comparing an AWD Porsche with a regular RWD...............besides that if the porsche is a Turbo model its probably the same $ or close anyways........

[morgande]

 

Im not going to sit here and say AWD doesn't have merrit over or behind anything. EVERYTHING has pros and cons. What I am saying is that that G8 and Dodge Charger are gonna outperform the Taurus.

[jasonj80]

Which system from Nissan and Hyundai are you referring to?

 

The Sante Fe, Tucson, and Veracruz all get on average about 1 mpg worse when equipped with AWD.

 

The Rogue and Murano average about 1 mpg difference as well....

 

That's according to fueleconomy.gov....the differences are smaller, but still there.

 

Combined he Santa Fe does a little worse, but EPA Highway/City numbers are the same. This is way better than the 1mpg city and 2mpg your taking with the edge and the 1 city 4 highway you take with the Taurus.

 

 

[RichardJensen]

as long as Im not accelerating, Im at 100% FWD

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Speed and steering input will have engaged a torque transfer already.

 

Ford's AWD system is software controlled. That means that it weighs multiple inputs (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO throttle position) in determining whether to begin transferring torque.

 

BTW, why are you doing this sort of maneuver in street tires? You =like= leaving 5,000 miles worth of tire wear in a big smudge on the outside of a corner?

[NickF1011]

Combined he Santa Fe does a little worse, but EPA Highway/City numbers are the same. This is way better than the 1mpg city and 2mpg your taking with the edge and the 1 city 4 highway you take with the Taurus.

 

 

As someone else mentioned -- different final drive ratios in the AWD Edge/Taurus vs the FWD Edge/Taurus. That likely has far more impact on the fuel economy than the AWD setup does. More aggressive gearing is likely used in the AWD versions to make them accelerate as well as/better than the FWD models.

[RichardJensen]

What I am saying is that that G8 and Dodge Charger are gonna outperform the Taurus.

In what context?

[Deanh]

 

Im not going to sit here and say AWD doesn't have merrit over or behind anything. EVERYTHING has pros and cons. What I am saying is that that G8 and Dodge Charger are gonna outperform the Taurus.

were we not talking about the Fusion ( whos dynamics will presumably be superior to the Taurus )....and don't be so sure......"maybe" in a straight line ( on a dry track )......but 4 wheels biting the pavement has its advantages........

[morgande]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Speed and steering input will have engaged a torque transfer already.

 

Ford's AWD system is software controlled. That means that it weighs multiple inputs (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO throttle position) in determining whether to begin transferring torque.

 

BTW, why are you doing this sort of maneuver in street tires? You =like= leaving 5,000 miles worth of tire wear in a big smudge on the outside of a corner?

 

100% from the standpoint of driving along a track and beginning to decelerate before you reach a point where you can negotiate a turn. In the instance you begin to decelerate....and no i haven't began twisting the steering wheel sharply or anything else...Im just slowing down from whatever point I was in before....

All things considered, the car would be in its normal driving state...FWD. Not 100% guarantee that I would be at 100:0, but I would argue I would be at a ratio that favored FWD over RWD or even a full 50/50 split at this point BEFORE I been to actually negotiate a turn. What ratio I dunno, but I would argue it would be more than 50% FWD unless I was going through a double apex turn or something like that.

 

Oh, and BTW...that Audi is RWD biased!

[95ripper]

but as long as Im not accelerating, Im at 100% FWD which makes this impossible.

 

 

I have to respond to this, if you are not accelerating, it does matter where the system is putting the bias, you are no wheel drive. The bias only comes into play when you accelerate. The electronics needed to shift the bias are going to be a lot faster than the engine is going to be able to make power. There is no instant power with an engine. While it is fast, there is a delay, and in this delay, the computer will be able to look steering imputs, speed, throttle position and put the bias where the power will be able to be most used. In a drift, you are not fully using the power at hand, spinning tires=lost traction=not accelerating to your fullest potential.

[morgande]

were we not talking about the Fusion ( whos dynamics will presumably be superior to the Taurus )....and don't be so sure......"maybe" in a straight line ( on a dry track )......but 4 wheels biting the pavement has its advantages........

 

Originally yes. I was making the argument at 340hp in a FWD biased AWD system is inferior to something of similar power but in a more traditional RWD package ( think its gonna have torque steer and sell very bad...which is why Ford hasn't made a performance fusion).

 

I only went to the Taurus because it has domestic vehicles with which I can compare...and the same concept applies. There are no domestic mid-sized RWD cars out there...there all FWD. Only when you step up to full sized do you see RWD offerings that compare well with the Taurus in AWD.

[jpd80]

There are no domestic mid-sized RWD cars out there...there all FWD.

Doesn't that tell you something about how the market has changed in the USA,

If you want to relive the Detroit golden age, come to Australia where RWD is reaching its pinacle.

[Deanh]

Originally yes. I was making the argument at 340hp in a FWD biased AWD system is inferior to something of similar power but in a more traditional RWD package ( think its gonna have torque steer and sell very bad...which is why Ford hasn't made a performance fusion).

 

I only went to the Taurus because it has domestic vehicles with which I can compare...and the same concept applies. There are no domestic mid-sized RWD cars out there...there all FWD. Only when you step up to full sized do you see RWD offerings that compare well with the Taurus in AWD.

all is not in despair...apparently Aussie GRWD is on the horizon, although with the gas shakeup I think the focus may be on the smaller lineups for the time being, although saying that Eco boost shows GREAT promise...hell 340 is NOTHING to scoff at in a car the size of a Fusion is it, tack on the AWD and beleive me, it may be a winner.....talk about a GREAT size for that HP....

[suv_guy_19]

Originally yes. I was making the argument at 340hp in a FWD biased AWD system is inferior to something of similar power but in a more traditional RWD package ( think its gonna have torque steer and sell very bad...which is why Ford hasn't made a performance fusion).

 

I only went to the Taurus because it has domestic vehicles with which I can compare...and the same concept applies. There are no domestic mid-sized RWD cars out there...there all FWD. Only when you step up to full sized do you see RWD offerings that compare well with the Taurus in AWD.

 

 

It won't have torque steer. It won't have torque steer. It won't have torque steer.

 

Also:

 

The initial bias doesn't matter, because it can INSTANTLY shift ALL (or any amount less) to the other set of wheels.

[RichardJensen]

( think its gonna have torque steer and sell very bad...which is why Ford hasn't made a performance fusion)

Despite no torque steer in the AWD MKS?

 

Furthermore, consider the business case for performance vehicles:

 

Why do you make them?

 

To turn a profit.

 

Now, say you've got $1000 to invest. You can invest it in a savings account named "The extra super fantastic savings account", which is where all your friends say you should invest your money, and hey, it's got a real cool name.

 

Problem is, it only has a 2% APY.

 

Alternatively, there's the "Really boring money market", which your friends say is for old ladies, but it has a 6% APY.

 

Ford has limited capital for R&D and limited engineering staff. They also have a LOT of work to do with their car lineup (less work than 5 years ago, but still, much more work to do than Honda/Toyota).

 

Therefore, what do you spend your money on? Something cool with limited ROI, or something boring with better ROI?

 

And make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what this boils down to. You can read all the buff books and all the blogs, but when you get right down to it, none of those authors (and I refer to Robert Farago as an author only in a theoretical, or putative sense) have any sort of accountability for their opinions on what Ford should be doing.

 

Ford hasn't made a performance Fusion because THEY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON.

[Deanh]

Despite no torque steer in the AWD MKS?

 

Furthermore, consider the business case for performance vehicles:

 

Why do you make them?

 

To turn a profit.

 

Now, say you've got $1000 to invest. You can invest it in a savings account named "The extra super fantastic savings account", which is where all your friends say you should invest your money, and hey, it's got a real cool name.

 

Problem is, it only has a 2% APY.

 

Alternatively, there's the "Really boring money market", which your friends say is for old ladies, but it has a 6% APY.

 

Ford has limited capital for R&D and limited engineering staff. They also have a LOT of work to do with their car lineup (less work than 5 years ago, but still, much more work to do than Honda/Toyota).

 

Therefore, what do you spend your money on? Something cool with limited ROI, or something boring with better ROI?

 

And make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what this boils down to. You can read all the buff books and all the blogs, but when you get right down to it, none of those authors (and I refer to Robert Farago as an author only in a theoretical, or putative sense) have any sort of accountability for their opinions on what Ford should be doing.

 

Ford hasn't made a performance Fusion because THEY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON.

not just that...think trickle down aquisitions....a LOT of peoples interest was quirked by the GT500's.....and sales were made of REGULAR Gt's and the like.........Halo cars do double duty...they draw attention to the FULL lineup AND show the combined potential of chassis and drivetrains.....

[RichardJensen]

not just that...think trickle down aquisitions....a LOT of peoples interest was quirked by the GT500's.....and sales were made of REGULAR Gt's and the like.........Halo cars do double duty...they draw attention to the FULL lineup AND show the combined potential of chassis and drivetrains.....

The 'performance car as advertising' theory must be balanced against all other forms of advertising.

 

Will a performance car offer a better ROI than incentives? Than increased regional ad buys? etc.

 

Businesses advertise to TURN A PROFIT as well.

 

Any good advertising campaign will more than pay for itself.

[jpd80]

all is not in despair...apparently Aussie GRWD is on the horizon, although with the gas shakeup I think the focus may be on the smaller lineups for the time being, although saying that Eco boost shows GREAT promise...hell 340 is NOTHING to scoff at in a car the size of a Fusion is it, tack on the AWD and beleive me, it may be a winner.....talk about a GREAT size for that HP....

Heck, in Australia last month, we still sold over 3400 Falcons, 1200 Territory and 1200 Falcon Utes.

Australia is a much smaller market - about 1 million cars/year.

 

The only reason Toyota is rocketing along is because Ford and GM products other than

Falcon and Commodore sell bloody poorly to say the least.

[IMSA-XJR9]

In the Speed World Challenge GT & Touring, the Audi's were killing everybody (Vette's, Viper's, Mustang's, etc.) with their AWD, especially in the wet.

 

Heck even a Volvo won in the wet . . . :shades: (I loved this race car!)

 

 

http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?ID=409

[Ford-150]

ok maybe we should just call this "the thread to fight about AWD!"

[morgande]

Despite no torque steer in the AWD MKS?

 

Furthermore, consider the business case for performance vehicles:

 

Why do you make them?

 

To turn a profit.

 

Now, say you've got $1000 to invest. You can invest it in a savings account named "The extra super fantastic savings account", which is where all your friends say you should invest your money, and hey, it's got a real cool name.

 

Problem is, it only has a 2% APY.

 

Alternatively, there's the "Really boring money market", which your friends say is for old ladies, but it has a 6% APY.

 

Ford has limited capital for R&D and limited engineering staff. They also have a LOT of work to do with their car lineup (less work than 5 years ago, but still, much more work to do than Honda/Toyota).

 

Therefore, what do you spend your money on? Something cool with limited ROI, or something boring with better ROI?

 

And make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what this boils down to. You can read all the buff books and all the blogs, but when you get right down to it, none of those authors (and I refer to Robert Farago as an author only in a theoretical, or putative sense) have any sort of accountability for their opinions on what Ford should be doing.

 

Ford hasn't made a performance Fusion because THEY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON.

 

Balance balance balance balance balance.

 

 

Ford is about as balanced as the US budget....hopeless and anything BUT balance.

 

I'm not asking Ford to build a +2 roaders made with a tube supsension, 1000hp mid-engine with 100mpg, and cost me 15K?

 

So....Ford should only be interested in putting its dollars were it has the BEST possible impact right? Thats the same thinking that Ford in the first place! Ford doesn't have a balanced lineup. They ditch one market segment for another...half ass any attempt to compete in market that doesn't have a pop-culture following, then complain their customers aren't interested in the other offerings.

 

Ford saw the cash-cow of Truck/SUV. And let the other vehicles suffer as a result. Short term as it was short sighted. Now they are REEELING. A better approach...a balanced lineup that includes competitive vehicles across the board! Just because you can't sell 1 million performance fusions in year means you don't build any huh? Ford said the same thing with sedans as a whole...so they built trucks and SUV's, and let the mid-sized car market to the japs.

 

I'm not asking for a halo car. Im asking for a car I want...but dont have! All because FoMoCo would rather shift from one form of pop-culture (suv and truck craze) to crossovers and weenie mobiles that get great gas mileage but can't even get out there own god damn way because they so god damn underpowered.

 

Ford has better things to do than get my money...so they won't! Plain and simple. If you invest your money is what "hot", instead of spreading it around...your profolio isn't balanced. And when the market shifts...your screwed! Ford is choosing to abandon an entire market segment...and the competition isn't! I'm not asking for another GT. I didn't buy the first...not gonna buy the sequel. Do I want an M5 figher? Or a Vette killer? no!

 

I do want something that can compete with a 550 series BMW. Or a Chrysler 300C or SRT. Under 40K is not a halo car. Its not gonna move 100K units an hr, but if its built well and its a serious attempt at getting the market...it will get attention. So you anticipate demand....and you build a few. Hell, make em build to order options....I don't care. Just have something tangible and worthy of my attention....not a "put something out there" or just abandon it all together.

[suv_guy_19]

Balance balance balance balance balance.

 

 

Ford is about as balanced as the US budget....hopeless and anything BUT balance.

 

I'm not asking Ford to build a +2 roaders made with a tube supsension, 1000hp mid-engine with 100mpg, and cost me 15K?

 

So....Ford should only be interested in putting its dollars were it has the BEST possible impact right? Thats the same thinking that Ford in the first place! Ford doesn't have a balanced lineup. They ditch one market segment for another...half ass any attempt to compete in market that doesn't have a pop-culture following, then complain their customers aren't interested in the other offerings.

 

Ford saw the cash-cow of Truck/SUV. And let the other vehicles suffer as a result. Short term as it was short sighted. Now they are REEELING. A better approach...a balanced lineup that includes competitive vehicles across the board! Just because you can't sell 1 million performance fusions in year means you don't build any huh? Ford said the same thing with sedans as a whole...so they built trucks and SUV's, and let the mid-sized car market to the japs.

 

I'm not asking for a halo car. Im asking for a car I want...but dont have! All because FoMoCo would rather shift from one form of pop-culture (suv and truck craze) to crossovers and weenie mobiles that get great gas mileage but can't even get out there own god damn way because they so god damn underpowered.

 

Ford has better things to do than get my money...so they won't! Plain and simple. If you invest your money is what "hot", instead of spreading it around...your profolio isn't balanced. And when the market shifts...your screwed! Ford is choosing to abandon an entire market segment...and the competition isn't! I'm not asking for another GT. I didn't buy the first...not gonna buy the sequel. Do I want an M5 figher? Or a Vette killer? no!

 

I do want something that can compete with a 550 series BMW. Or a Chrysler 300C or SRT. Under 40K is not a halo car. Its not gonna move 100K units an hr, but if its built well and its a serious attempt at getting the market...it will get attention. So you anticipate demand....and you build a few. Hell, make em build to order options....I don't care. Just have something tangible and worthy of my attention....not a "put something out there" or just abandon it all together.

 

So, its all about you then. Interesting.