fusion gets 3.5l

[jpd80]

Why all the Flex talk in the Fusion thread? :boring:

I tried to restart the thread and you just F**ked it again.

 

I'll try again,

 

I wonder why Ford isn't matching Mazda and putting the 3.7 in the Fusion?

That would make it a brilliant package, especially with AWD.

Edited October 25, 2008 by jpd80

[rmc523]

EVERY SINGLE ONE I have driven has been a model of smoothness and comfortable ride.....maybe the dealer had 20 inch tires inflated to 50 psi....cannot explain the discrepency between your individual and mine ( Multiple units ) ride quality

 

Come to think of it, I drove a Flex with 22's and it still drove extremely smooth and comfortable, even over bumps.

 

-------

 

Back to the topic, and sort of an answer to jpd80's question:

 

Well, the 3.7 is supposed to be a Lincoln exclusive engine, so thus no Ford usage.

[silvrsvt]

I wonder why Ford isn't matching Mazda and putting the 3.7 in the Fusion?

That would make it a brilliant package, especially with AWD.

 

Is there really a reason too? There isn't a huge difference between the 2 to justify it.

 

I wonder at Mazda's ideas...they only offer the 2.3L in the 3 and it will grow to 2.5L in the next gen. The 3.7l is a bit overkill for the 6 IMO...I'd think they offer something smaller to improve upon their MPG

[Alex D.]

Is there really a reason too? There isn't a huge difference between the 2 to justify it.

 

I wonder at Mazda's ideas...they only offer the 2.3L in the 3 and it will grow to 2.5L in the next gen. The 3.7l is a bit overkill for the 6 IMO...I'd think they offer something smaller to improve upon their MPG

 

I've wondered about that as well, but it would seem that fuel mileage isn't a prioriy at Mazda, especially considering they are among the worst-in-class as far as fuel mileage is concerned for many of their models.

[Alex D.]

But to stay on topic, I am glad that the Fusion finally gets the 3.5! And I don't know if you've all seen the 2010 order guide over in the Fusion forum, but there is an impressive list of standard and optional features now! The "new Ford" is quite encouraging indeed.

[Noah Harbinger]

I'm surprised nobody cross-posted it here! (The downside to all these topics is that by far the most activity is in this one, and anything posted elsewhere gets few eyeballs).

 

Definitely lots of good news in that order guide. :-D

[chiefstang]

I'm surprised nobody cross-posted it here! (The downside to all these topics is that by far the most activity is in this one, and anything posted elsewhere gets few eyeballs).

 

Definitely lots of good news in that order guide. :-D

If you go under the "My assistant" bar, you can still click on a "find new posts" button. Keeps me from missing any new information. It's still kind of a pain in the ass not having the search feature running.

 

This is a pretty small forum, though. They probibly can't afford a search engine. They went with the base 4 cyl instead!

Edited October 25, 2008 by chiefstang

[jpd80]

Is there really a reason too? There isn't a huge difference between the 2 to justify it.

 

I wonder at Mazda's ideas...they only offer the 2.3L in the 3 and it will grow to 2.5L in the next gen. The 3.7l is a bit overkill for the 6 IMO...I'd think they offer something smaller to improve upon their MPG

There really

Taurus 3.5 Vs Fusion 3.0 showed there's no real fuel economy gain in the 3.0/3.5/3.7 engine range,

the extra torque from the 3.7 makes all th difference.

[papilgee4evaeva]

There really

Taurus 3.5 Vs Fusion 3.0 showed there's no real fuel economy gain in the 3.0/3.5/3.7 engine range,

the extra torque from the 3.7 makes all th difference.

 

Keep in mind that the D30 is a much older engine than the D35/37, which would explain how the bigger engine can pretty much make the same FE while being much more powerful.

[RichardJensen]

They probibly can't afford a search engine.

Kind of: Search engine was causing the GSODs.

[jpd80]

Keep in mind that the D30 is a much older engine than the D35/37, which would explain how the bigger engine can pretty much make the same FE while being much more powerful.

3.0 is a no man's land engine, it pleases neither V6 nor I-4 customers.

Edited October 25, 2008 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

There really

Taurus 3.5 Vs Fusion 3.0 showed there's no real fuel economy gain in the 3.0/3.5/3.7 engine range,

the extra torque from the 3.7 makes all th difference.

Huh?

 

Taurus 3.5 does as well as the 3.0 in a heavier vehicle--but I think a substantial part of that is tuning.

 

I don't think it's so much that the 3.0L is -older- as it is that the software and (to a certain extent) the heads on the 3.0 are older. I've heard the Aisin 6 isn't the best on gas either.

 

--

 

The real issue with the 3.0L is that the block is displacement limited at 3.0L.

 

I mean one of the reasons why Ford had such a dog's breakfast of V6s was the displacement limit on the 3.0L

 

---

 

Early on in development, IIRC, the Cyclone was intended to provide a 3.0L variant; however, I think the EcoBoost killed that project, as the 3.0L 6 is going to be replaced by an EB 2.5L 4.

Edited October 25, 2008 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Huh?

 

Taurus 3.5 does as well as the 3.0 in a heavier vehicle--but I think a substantial part of that is tuning.

 

I don't think it's so much that the 3.0L is -older- as it is that the software and (to a certain extent) the heads on the 3.0 are older. I've heard the Aisin 6 isn't the best on gas either.

3.0 is like walking down a barbed wire fence with a leg in each paddock.

Better off with a 3.5/3.7 V6 or go 2.5 for good fuel economy.

Edited October 25, 2008 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

3.0 is like walking down a barbed wire fence with a leg in each paddock.

Better off with a 3.5/3.7 V6 or go 2.5 for good fuel economy.

Yeah..... Nice combo of American innovation (barbed wire) and British usage (paddock). You must be from someplace that's like Britain---but with lots of wide open spaces.

 

 

Sort of what the Old West would've been like if the Revolution would've petered out..... :P

 

But seriously, the Escape shows what better heads, tuning, and transmission can do for 3.0L gas mileage.

 

The problem is just that danged displacement cap.

 

In short--the old D30 (06 Fusion) was hampered in economy, but the new D30 does quite well (09 Escape).

 

Yeah, the D35 doesn't make a huge improvement in economy over the D30--but the better illustration of that, IMO, is the new Escape, not the old Fusion....

[RichardJensen]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car2tab...=2&id=25490

 

Crazy, eh?

[jpd80]

I wonder how much is jiggering tuning/gearing to get the desired outcome on a test cycle.

Look how many For vehicles now get 16/24mpg city highway fuel economy figures.

 

I agree heads maketh the engine and in fairness to the little 3.0 it does much better now.

The 3.0 is just a stop gap until the EB I-4s arrive.

Edited October 25, 2008 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I wonder how much is jiggering tuning/gearing to get the desired outcome on a test cycle.

Look how many For vehicles now get 16/24mpg city highway fuel economy figures.

 

I agree heads maketh the engine and in fairness to the little 3.0 it does much better now.

The 3.0 is just a stop gap until the EB I-4s arrive.

I have heard reports that Toyota does this, and that they shorten the rear cushion in their vehicles to bump up rear leg room.

 

But I don't put a great deal of stock in them. It seems a bit much to believe.

 

---

 

And I haven't heard any report that any other company does this. I mean you'd basically have to program the duty cycle into the PCM, and if you did that and word got out, the EPA would probably find some way to fine you for it.

[jpd80]

I have heard reports that Toyota does this ( Re; fuel economy), and that they shorten the rear cushion in their vehicles to bump up rear leg room.

 

But I don't put a great deal of stock in them. It seems a bit much to believe.

100% true on your first point, down here combined testing gives Camry 2.4 and Aurion (V6 Camry)

the same combined fuel consumption figure.

 

Governments and fleets are now using this information to preference Toyota - absolutely disgraceful!!!

 

The rear seat leg room issue is a complex one, they feel strange to sit in - that's all I'll say!!!

Toyota has worked out the magic number seems to be around 38", look at Camry and Prius.

 

More economic sense to make a common length frame/ standard doors and just vary in width?

Perhaps future C/D/E cars will all have similar 38" rear leg room but differeing width/shoulder/hip room.

If the rear leg room is constant then the difference in hip/shoulder width becomes a maximum of 4".

Ford could simply follow a formula like that, changing noses and tails as well of course.

Edited October 26, 2008 by jpd80

[igor]

in testing the VVT 3.0l V6 got 1 mpg better than the D35. I would expect this to show in the 2010 Fusion MPG ratings.

 

and while the are benefits to torque curve, audible quality and to a degree smoothness with D35, the new D30 is a very nice engine - 240hp from a 3.0l (i have heard it might actually be 244 in the Fusion) is nothing to sneeze at - especially if it meets 30mp HWY. I would expect D35 in the Fusion at 29mpg.

 

That said - the KEY to this segment is an I4 and the Fusion HAS TO meet 32 or 33 mpg HWY with the auto = that is where the competition is and Fusion HAS TO MATCH IT THERE!

 

Igor

[jpd80]

Future Ecoboost engines beyond product unification?

- a 1.6 Ecoboost with 160 hp replacing the 2.5 I-4 (offers Focus like fuel economy)

- a 2.3 Ecoboost with 230 hp replacing the 3.0 V6. (offers D35 like power with 2.5 economy)

[Noah Harbinger]

Future Ecoboost engines beyond product unification?

- a 1.6 Ecoboost with 160 hp replacing the 2.5 I-4 (offers Focus like fuel economy)

- a 2.3 Ecoboost with 230 hp replacing the 3.0 V6. (offers D35 like power with 2.5 economy)

 

Heh... I still remember how excited I was when Igor posted that article on AutoSavant predicting an updated Fusion with 2 ecoboost engines, including a 40MPG I4, at the 2007 LA autoshow... and how disappointed I was when it turned out that the update would be a year later, with no ecoboosts. *sigh*

[jpd80]

Back in 2006, when gas was at $2.50/gal there was certainly no urgency for fuel efficiency and when

CAFE laws were proposed, Ford obviously felt EB V6 development was more important than the I-4s.

The recent high gas prices have underscored the need for both engines but has Ford left their run late?

In hindsight, yes but if gas prices come back under $3.00/gallon, I think the urgency will pass as buyers

settle for 6 speed auto transmissions and better electronics, maybe even direct injection.

[RichardJensen]

Well kind of. I think we will see a pronounced shift to smaller cars over the next few years. Just as in the early-mid 80s when compacts and subcompacts were the best selling cars.

[jpd80]

I just sense the dire urgency of fuel economy may have passed,

hoping SUV owners stop acting crazy and throwing their vehicles away.

 

Fuel economy yes but - crazy stampede that costs thousands just to have the next fad?

I sure hope not.

Edited October 26, 2008 by jpd80

[igor]

Heh... I still remember how excited I was when Igor posted that article on AutoSavant predicting an updated Fusion with 2 ecoboost engines, including a 40MPG I4, at the 2007 LA autoshow... and how disappointed I was when it turned out that the update would be a year later, with no ecoboosts. *sigh*

yeah that article was all sorts of premature .. oh well ..

 

BUT - by all info available, the Hybrid will kick camry's ass and chace down Prius (current) on mileage. It will not match prius, but beat camry and Civic hands down.

 

the I4 EB's are late - the work o nthem is progressing only very very slowly.

 

Igor