atvman Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Has Ford put out official numbers for the wheelbase etc? I haven't seen them...yet... I forget where I saw it, but it was 112.2, the same as the Mondeo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Only thing with a beige interior is it gets very dirty easily Our Flex with the light interior still looks near-new after 3+ years and 46k miles. And this is with 3 kids. Of course, we are neat freaks, so that helps too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Good grief. You quoted my post and you didn't read any of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Has Ford put out official numbers for the wheelbase etc? I haven't seen them...yet... Ford's media site; they're PDFs. http://media.ford.com/mini_sites/10031/NAIAS12/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 With a new Fusion in showroom, then there won't be huge rebates on them and should help Focus and Fiesta sales in the fall. No overlapping prices! Finally we get the new Mondeo and get over no V6, it's not the 90's with $1 a gallon gas and the "mine is bigger" fan boys can grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I rather like this interior. That is tiniest driver's front floormat I've ever seen! I wonder if they are circumventing any issues with consumers multi-stacking them (note it does not extend under the pedal area). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Hmm. I don't see any track +/- buttons on the steering wheel controls. Maybe I'm just missing them. Hope they didn't do away with that. I use those probably more than any other buttons in my Edge. I see the volume ones next to the Sync button, but not the track ones. EDIT: Nevermind. I see they combined them with the phone answer/disconnect buttons. Edited January 9, 2012 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The 3.5 in the camry has higher hp but of course, as with the 3.5 vs. 2.0eb in the Explorer, the difference is where the torque comes in. Camry will lose in mileage, and how it feels to drive it around town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Ford's media site; they're PDFs. http://media.ford.co.../10031/NAIAS12/ Thanks...this is weird.....the AWD Fusion has a gas tank that has another gallon added to it? WTF? Other info: Wheelbase 112.2 Length 191.7 Width 72.9 excluding mirrors/83.5 including mirrors Height 58.1 Track, front/rear 62.7/62.4 So the new Fusion is roughly the same size as my Mustang...outstanding! Longer Wheelbase, but only 4 inches overall longer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You got it. Back in my younger days, I tooled around in a Mustang GT and a Taurus SHO (and fondly remember the muscle-car 1960s'). Today I'm totally comfortable driving around in my 2012 Focus and getting between 40 - 41 MPG when I travel 60mph. People need to remember that Ford has vowed to be the fuel economy champ in every segment they're in. Nowhere have they said that they'll be the horsepower/performance champ. Uh, depends what segment you're talking about. For sedans that certainly is true but when you look at trucks and Mustangs they are doing both. You can buy a V6 Stang that gets 31 mpg or you can buy a GT500 with 650 hp. Take your pick. :shades: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 So, let me see if I understand this right. You can't understand how people could be underwhelmed by LESS power and no sport option worthy of the name? Richard, if you're not geeking on hybrid stuff, all you're looking at is less power, possibly with more complexity. Golly goshykins, that's just riveting! Don't be an ass when you know full well what I was saying. So, let me see if I understand this right. Some of you are not happy that Ford is basically launching FOUR new powertrains with this vehicle, and wish they were launching FIVE? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 That is tiniest driver's front floormat I've ever seen! I wonder if they are circumventing any issues with consumers multi-stacking them (note it does not extend under the pedal area). You're right, I didn't even catch that. I'd have to order some Weathertech floormats, those won't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Thanks...this is weird.....the AWD Fusion has a gas tank that has another gallon added to it? WTF? Welcome to the Ford 'cookbook'. As Austin has mentioned (and you'll see the odd reference to it elsewhere on the net), Ford has a set of minimum specs that vehicles need to meet (e.g. minimum rear head room, etc.) Colloquially, it's called the 'cookbook'. Undoubtedly cruising range was specified for this program, and since the 2.0L EB/AWD will have the lowest fuel economy of the group, it's probably carrying that extra gallon to meet the target range. It wouldn't surprise me if Ford's research has suggested that driving range impacts perceived fuel efficiency. If you had a car that got 40MPG city, but needed to be filled up twice a week, it'd probably dampen your enthusiasm somewhat (to use an extreme example to illustrate an idea) Edited January 9, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) You can't understand how people could be underwhelmed by LESS power and no sport option worthy of the name? No. I can't understand how you can leap to the conclusion that Ford has abandoned the performance segment based on the absence of a Job 1 performance model. I understand your preferences, but can't figure out your thought process. Edited January 9, 2012 by RichardJensen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You're being more of an ass, and you normally aren't like this. It's not an improvement. Again, LESS UNDERWHELMS. I'm not a hybrid fan, I'm not a gidget and gizmo addict, I don't even really like nav systems because I haven't lost the ability to read and fold maps...unlike, apparently, most of the free world. Finding out that the top engine option trails the pack considerably IS UNDERWHELMING. Some of us like performance, and I pointed out competitors that offer engine options in that direction that the new Fusion can't (currently) match...by a wide margin. The interior looks very nice, the styling...well, I guess "inflate a Focus sedan to 2000 psi" is a styling direction, along with a gaping maw that's hard to call "new" when it's been essentially seen in other recent Fords. I expect I'll like it in person, as I like the Fiesta/Focus...but I'm looking at a car with styling I'm already familiar with and just found out it's losing 40 hp at the top engine option...at least, for now. Richard, you're being "that guy"...which is to say, an ass. I'm a Ford guy through and through, but what kind of goon pretends to be impressed lackluster engine performance when compared to most of the competition? Who the meaningless intensifier gives a meaningless intensifier what Ford does or does not announce some months ahead of production? You want to bellyache because Ford isn't simultaneously announcing the ST model, you need to step outside and grab a big dose of perspective. You seriously want to be *that guy*? You know, the guy who went to the first performance of Beethoven's 9th and, at the end of it, said, "C'mon! Beethoven's like six measures behind the orchestra!" 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yes that is exactly what I and others are saying. There is no performance option. The gasoline EB engines slot somewhere right below and right above the current D30. Torque curve or not there is no replacement for the D35. I don't feel the EB 2.0 is a D35 replacement. It is a D30 replacement. They should have an engine option in the higher 200's or closer to 300 HP like the competition does. how about 365-400?............ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's called "reading the given information, then comparing to class rivals". Not new, not shocking, and there is NO current information to improve my outlook. Do I expect that to change? Yes...but, again, I'm reacting to THE CONFIRMED INFORMATION...and, gosh, losing 40 hp is underwhelming. I prefer MPH to MPG, like a great many car guys. So, yeah...I'm underwhelmed, the numbers explain it easily, and your reaction to understandable criticism of said engine options is somewhere between dumb and bizarre. Even if you'd just pointed out the "assumed ST", fine...but you acted like we were somehow churlish in not liking LESS power. You were being an ass. quote name='RichardJensen' timestamp='1326131241' post='755429'] No. I can't understand how you can leap to the conclusion that Ford has abandoned the performance segment based on the absence of a Job 1 performance model. I understand your preferences, but can't figure out your thought process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You're being more of an ass, and you normally aren't like this. It's not an improvement. Again, LESS UNDERWHELMS. I'm not a hybrid fan, I'm not a gidget and gizmo addict, I don't even really like nav systems because I haven't lost the ability to read and fold maps...unlike, apparently, most of the free world. Finding out that the top engine option trails the pack considerably IS UNDERWHELMING. Some of us like performance, and I pointed out competitors that offer engine options in that direction that the new Fusion can't (currently) match...by a wide margin. The interior looks very nice, the styling...well, I guess "inflate a Focus sedan to 2000 psi" is a styling direction, along with a gaping maw that's hard to call "new" when it's been essentially seen in other recent Fords. I expect I'll like it in person, as I like the Fiesta/Focus...but I'm looking at a car with styling I'm already familiar with and just found out it's losing 40 hp at the top engine option...at least, for now. Richard, you're being "that guy"...which is to say, an ass. I'm a Ford guy through and through, but what kind of goon pretends to be impressed lackluster engine performance when compared to most of the competition? How many times does it have to be stated that A FUSION ST IS COMING before it sinks in? With a Focus ST coming later this year with as much HP as Fusion EB 2.0, you know Ford will be doing high performance version of Fusion. Patience is a virtue, even in this immediate gratification society we live in where no one is happy with anything anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I will continue to pepper this off-track forum with beauty shots of the Fusion. I really like this view of the car. it looks so much like the old Mondeo, much like the Focus moved from bland to WOW, using the same basic bones, the fusion is a Spicier version of the Mondeo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 As I stated above, and you apparently declined to read... I'M DEALING WITH AVAILABLE INFORMATION, AND COMPARISONS WITH CURRENT COMPETITION. Is that really so complicated? I'm THRILLED a Fusion ST is coming...but there's nothing about that car, is there? Hmmm? Got some engine info, some stats, anything other than knowledge it's based on the just-introduced Fusion? NO? SHOCKER!!! Therefore...and try to keep up this time...myself and others are underwhelmed that the available power has stepped back quite a bit, and thus we've said so. I'll be as happy, or moreso, as anyone else here if the forthcoming ST is all it potentially can be...but I have nothing but speculation, so I'm comparing what's actually known. Is that really so hard to understand? How many times does it have to be stated that A FUSION ST IS COMING before it sinks in? With a Focus ST coming later this year with as much HP as Fusion EB 2.0, you know Ford will be doing high performance version of Fusion. Patience is a virtue, even in this immediate gratification society we live in where no one is happy with anything anymore. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) You can't understand how people could be underwhelmed by LESS power and no sport option worthy of the name? 1) The name Fusion is supposed to imply more along the lines of "jazz fusion" or "fusion cooking" than "thermonuclear reactions". 2) I can't understand how someone would let a silly thing like a HP number underwhelm them when the 0-60 times will probably be very close, thanks to the flat torque curve. Do you care about performance, or numbers? Edit: Should the article match the acronym or the word being abbreviated? 'an HP number' or 'a horsepower number'? Edited January 9, 2012 by Noah Harbinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Welcome to the Ford 'cookbook'. As Austin has mentioned (and you'll see the odd reference to it elsewhere on the net), Ford has a set of minimum specs that vehicles need to meet (e.g. minimum rear head room, etc.) Colloquially, it's called the 'cookbook'. Undoubtedly cruising range was specified for this program, and since the 2.0L EB/AWD will have the lowest fuel economy of the group, it's probably carrying that extra gallon to meet the target range. 16.5 gallons * 37 highway mpg = a lot of burst bladders That's gotta be the best range I've seen in a while... It wouldn't surprise me if Ford's research has suggested that driving range impacts perceived fuel efficiency. If you had a car that got 40MPG city, but needed to be filled up twice a week, it'd probably dampen your enthusiasm somewhat (to use an extreme example to illustrate an idea) I took the time to explain that to someone at a gas tank boasting about how he didn't need to fill up his new mid-sized car (18.5 gallons) as often as his old compact (12.5 gallons). I still don't think he quite understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 2) I can't understand how someone would let a silly thing like a HP number underwhelm them when the 0-60 times will probably be very close, thanks to the flat torque curve. Do you care about performance, or numbers? How about just driving the damn car to see how it drives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) As I stated above, and you apparently declined to read... I'M DEALING WITH AVAILABLE INFORMATION, AND COMPARISONS WITH CURRENT COMPETITION. Is that really so complicated? I'm THRILLED a Fusion ST is coming...but there's nothing about that car, is there? Hmmm? Got some engine info, some stats, anything other than knowledge it's based on the just-introduced Fusion? NO? SHOCKER!!! Therefore...and try to keep up this time...myself and others are underwhelmed that the available power has stepped back quite a bit, and thus we've said so. I'll be as happy, or moreso, as anyone else here if the forthcoming ST is all it potentially can be...but I have nothing but speculation, so I'm comparing what's actually known. Is that really so hard to understand? meh, I dont see any issues adressing the meat of the market first, besides that they are / will be SEMI adressing those with performance pretensions with a Fusion that will probably hit 60 in the mis 6's, thats by no means a slouch. As for being 40 hp down on competitors, need I remind you that the HP numbers and mileage ( under good faith no less ) come from the manufacturers, yet a lot dont seem to live up to their potential specs...Hyundai for example....classic case of say what people want to hear and bend reality only to UNDER deliver... Edited January 9, 2012 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 First of all, 3 of the first 5 definitions for "Fusion" at freedictionary.com involve physics, chemistry, and/or energy output...so I don't know what you're basing your logic on, but it appears the more energy-related definitions (also the top 2 of 3) seen to take precedence. As a musician, I'm all for the jazz/fusion thing...but never, ever remember Ford specifying your definition. As to the other...you're dealing with speculation, I'm dealing with knowns. I can't believe people are determined to just ignore 40 hp lost, and think it's odd when others of us mourn it. Gosh, car guys liking power...so odd! (cough) 1) The name Fusion is supposed to imply more along the lines of "jazz fusion" or "fusion cooking" than "thermonuclear reactions". 2) I can't understand how someone would let a silly thing like a HP number underwhelm them when the 0-60 times will probably be very close, thanks to the flat torque curve. Do you care about performance, or numbers? 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.