Mondeo underpins new Fusion

[rmc523]

how about a more flattering photo then one taken by a 6 inch tall Gohper?

 

The one you posted makes it look abnormally small, IMO, almost like an RC car.

[LSFan00]

I'm sure the Lincoln/SVT-type model will want a 3.7 option.

[LSFan00]

I do think there will be a lot of mixing and matching. Front suspension probably struts; too bad we'll have to give up on SLA, but struts are cheaper. Rear suspension probably control blade which also would be cheaper than the present Mazda-designed rear. The front and rear suspension hopefully will be pretty much carryover from Mondeo to save cost, but there will have to be modifications in the rear for AWD. But the body structure might be quite unique. Front has to package V engines and accommodate Ford's common engine mounting scheme. Rear has to package batteries for both hybrid and maybe plug-in. Seems to me there could be quite a bit of "all new" on the body structure, but I'm not in the know.

 

And as I mentioned, engineering has transferred to the US according to what I understand.

 

Here we go; the handling of the US version will suck once the engineering is done here to build in the necessary AWD silliness. Amazing to think that Norwegian/Swedish/German/Swiss Mondeo customers don't need AWD, but all of NA will pay the handling penalty of having Buffalo NY/Ypsilanti MI customers dictate the drive train requirements.

 

Unbelievable.

[rkisler]

Here we go; the handling of the US version will suck once the engineering is done here to build in the necessary AWD silliness. Amazing to think that Norwegian/Swedish/German/Swiss Mondeo customers don't need AWD, but all of NA will pay the handling penalty of having Buffalo NY/Ypsilanti MI customers dictate the drive train requirements.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Ohhhhhh. I feel sooooo inferior to those oh-so-smart and all-wonderful European drivers.

 

Not sure what your issue is. AWD is not that big a deal, and the ability to have AWD as an option does not affect the base vehicle dynamics. You just have to provide for the capability from the get-go. Of course, AWD when added as an option does add weight and lower fuel economy. And, unless you want to adopt a dual tunnel strategy, it does add a bit more intrusion in the rear seat area.

 

AWD, far from being "silliness", offers a competitive advantage to Ford vs. the Japanese competition. It's very useful in a country that has been wedded to SUV's to provide some of the advantages those SUV's had (like AWD) when customers gravitate to cars. And, in higher horsepower applications, it allows a bigger tire patch.

 

When Ford engineers the AWD system and body structure for the next-gen Fusion/Mondeo, then it can be backcast to Europe if there is a need. Admittedly, the X-type isn't much loved, but the floorpan for the X-type came from the Mondeo (two generations ago) which at one time had AWD. So, for instance, if FoE wanted to do a limited production performance Mondeo AWD for the European market, the NA floorpan, tunnel and other bits (like rear knuckles) could be shipped to Europe for assembly. And the 3.5 for that matter if required. That would enable a performance Mondeo to be created for a lower investment than the RS Focus for instance; it just might make the difference between doing it or not doing it. If FoE wanted to do higher volume AWD, then the parts likely would be produced in Europe, but the design would already have been completed and proven out.

 

You might not be able to see it now, but this is a case where FoE might be glad that NA forced the AWD issue because they would not have been able to justify it by themselves. Seems to me that's what creating common platforms across regions is all about.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Austin

[battyr]

the I6/I5 would be the first to go.

 

Ford's engine strategy with EB is very flexible, and perfect for it's needs.

 

there are no gaps in the portfolio IMO.

 

next year we will add diesel and Small Displacement I4 capacity in North America, along with small MTX production here as well. This greatly reduces the costs of going small, provides flexibility in responding to market demands for performance and economy.

 

So what EcoBoost Engine would you suggest for the Fusion/Taurus/Flex for an economy minded custormer?

 

2.0L EB too small. 3.5L EB too expensive and too powerfull. 2.5L EB does not exist.

[silvrsvt]

Here we go; the handling of the US version will suck once the engineering is done here to build in the necessary AWD silliness. Amazing to think that Norwegian/Swedish/German/Swiss Mondeo customers don't need AWD, but all of NA will pay the handling penalty of having Buffalo NY/Ypsilanti MI customers dictate the drive train requirements.

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

WTF are you talking about? From all accounts the AWD Fusion handles better then FWD model

 

Plus its an option that none else in the class offers and adds value/profit to the car

[rkisler]

So what EcoBoost Engine would you suggest for the Fusion/Taurus/Flex for an economy minded custormer?

 

2.0L EB too small. 3.5L EB too expensive and too powerfull. 2.5L EB does not exist.

 

We're going to have to wait and see.

 

But...Derek K. said at the auto show that Ford would have EB 4 cylinders in every car and crossover.

 

Also, the Explorer America showcar last year was shown with a 2.0 EB.

 

Maybe Wizard knows.

[92merc]

Personally, I think a 2.0 EB would be fine for the Fusion. Shoot, a NA 2.5 works now. So a 2.0 EB would probably have more power than that. Matter of fact, when the next gen Fusion comes out, I'll be interested in it instead of a Taurus if it has a 2.0 EB.

[battyr]

Personally, I think a 2.0 EB would be fine for the Fusion. Shoot, a NA 2.5 works now. So a 2.0 EB would probably have more power than that. Matter of fact, when the next gen Fusion comes out, I'll be interested in it instead of a Taurus if it has a 2.0 EB.

 

I would buy a 2.0L EB in a Fusion. I think it might work in the bigger vehicles too. Many buyer won't even look at it, just because 1. It sounds too small. 2. There is a perception that a V-6 is better (more reliable, powerful and smoother).

 

When Mazda was selling their Miller Cycle engine, it work perfectly, but people would not pay for such a small V-6.

[silvrsvt]

I would buy a 2.0L EB in a Fusion. I think it might work in the bigger vehicles too. Many buyer won't even look at it, just because 1. It sounds too small. 2. There is a perception that a V-6 is better (more reliable, powerful and smoother).

 

if Gas is over 3-4 bucks a gallon, they'll buy it!

[TomServo92]

if Gas is over 3-4 bucks a gallon, they'll buy it!

 

+1. I'd love to have a 2.0 EB Fusion.