theDuff Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think I'm in love <3 In my opinion, this is the most stunning sedan to wear a blue oval since I've been alive. Count me as one a little disappointed by the lack of 3.5/3.7. Not as a mechanic, mind you, as a consumer. I just prefer the smoothness of a v6. I admit, my mileage is awful. I drive it around town 90% of the time and have only accumulated 10k miles in 19 months. I like that I don't have to rev i past 3k in around town driving. Now, the EB 4's might be able to. I don't have any seat time with them. Even if I did, it might be different in the much lighter Fusion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Official site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's possible that the EB 2.0L will outperform the 3.5L Fusion Sport in 0-60 and possibly even the quarter mile. I expect that it will handily outperform the outgoing model in every other performance metric. I think so too. The new Fusion Titanium will probably handle much better due to lower weight and more modern chassis. The horsepower envy contingent here is missing the point. Hyundai Sonata turbo with 274 hp doesn't perform like a sports sedan. It's not that great of a car to drive. And it is definitely NOT fast. Camry V6 is fast but doesn't handle at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Count me as one a little disappointed by the lack of 3.5/3.7. Not as a mechanic, mind you, as a consumer. I just prefer the smoothness of a v6. I admit, my mileage is awful. I drive it around town 90% of the time and have only accumulated 10k miles in 19 months. I like that I don't have to rev i past 3k in around town driving. Now, the EB 4's might be able to. I don't have any seat time with them. Even if I did, it might be different in the much lighter Fusion. Eh, most of the 2.0 EB reviews out so far that I've seen have lauded it for the smoothness of its power delivery, so I don't think the lack of a V6 (especially the sometimes not-so-smooth 3.0) will be a killer in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueOval5.0 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Eh, most of the 2.0 EB reviews out so far that I've seen have lauded it for the smoothness of its power delivery, so I don't think the lack of a V6 (especially the sometimes not-so-smooth 3.0) will be a killer in that regard. Not sure what you are alluding to. My 3.0 is smooth as silk. Hope the 2.0L EB is as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Look. If ~6.4 seconds 0-60* ain't doing it for you (2.0LEB, based on 7.5 sec. 0-60 on 4,000lb Edge), you don't just need a vehicle with a more powerful engine. You need a vehicle that has been tuned for performance. Ford has, ever since SVO, avoided the 'insert bigger engine, add stiffer shocks' recipe for performance models. Every performance model since the SVO has been tuned thoroughly for performance. You want "bigger engine, same crappy everything else" go buy a Neon SRT4. *Math: Assume identical tune, identical transmission, therefore only meaningful difference 0-60 is vehicle mass; Fusion roughly 17% lighter than Edge--700lbs. Multiply Edge 0-60 time by .83 for 6.225. Add 10% of the decrease (.1275 seconds) to the estimated 0-60 time to account for 'whatever', and get 6.3525 seconds 0-60, or ~6.4 No need for rash responses. No fusion will be on my radar but a "big engine, crappy everything" SHO is, my point is why do you have to buy a performance model for a bit more performance no need to throw names to make someone agree. If the EB.2.0 can pull up to 270-80. HP competitors then that's great, I hope its true, then there's no need for a 260 HP boosted 4 or v6 to hit that when in reality the 2.0 is making that much power. Edited January 9, 2012 by Fgts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think this HP war got a little out of hand. Every car can now go 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds and even the Camry can do it in the 5 sec range. There is no reason to get a Mustang if in 2 years a Fiesta will be able to blow your doors off. At this rate, in 5 years, a Lamborghini will loose a race to a Nissan Altima! It reminds me of the movie, "The Incredibles" when Syndrome wanted to give the whole world superpowers because as he said, "If everybody is super, then no one is." Kudos to Ford if they find a new way to distinguish themselves in the car market. With 99% of Fusion buyers wanting fuel mileage,comfort, and features foremost, I don't know that Ford has to be chasing the 5,000 Ford buyers that want a 25mpg rocket sled Fusion. They can easily go buy a Hemi Charger and be happy as long as there is not a lot of snow on ground and don't mind heading to gas station much more often. The Fusion is a high volume mid sized dailly driver that happens to be a good handler as well. I doubt even if Ford is in a huge hurry to get out the Focus and Fiesta ST for that matter since the sales will probably be like the Focus SVT was. Bragging rights and little else. I personally would rather see a hatch or wagon Fusion before an ST model. But that's just me and not worth a cup of coffee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) In your face This face is going to look real good in the rear-view mirror. Damn fine job Ford did on this car. It would be nice to see an optional honeycombe grille insert, for those wanting that "road-eater" effect. Edited January 9, 2012 by MKII 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 In your face This face is going to look real good in the rear-view mirror. Damn fine job Ford did on this car. That would look better in my driveway! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Thanks MKII! Give us more! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) All I can see in that picture are the A pillars. they look gigantic. Edited January 9, 2012 by Gnostic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) What's with the ass responses?, No fusion will be on my radar but a "big engine, crappy everything" SHO is, my point is why do you have to buy a performance model for a bit more performance no need to throw names to make someone agree. If the EB.2.0 can pull up to 270-80. HP competitors then that's great, I hope its true, then there's no need for a 260 HP boosted 4 or v6 to hit that when in reality the 2.0 is making that much power. If my manner of presenting information offends, I'm sorry. However, I have trouble with statements like "have to buy a performance model for a bit more performance": No matter how much performance is available (in this case, I'd expect sub 6.5 second 0-60, possibly close to 6.0, factoring in better tires and suspension, etc.), you can always say, "I want more", and then insist that the additional performance should not be in the form of a performance model. Do you see what I'm saying? You are saying that you *want* something, but trying to phrase it as though it's a logically defensible assertion. If you want it to be defensible, you can't just say you want "more". -- Furthermore, the Taurus SHO isn't just an EB 3.5 dropped in a Taurus anymore than the original SHO was just a Yamaha V6 dropped in a conventional Taurus. It showed up about a year-year and a half after production and featured upgrades to almost every bit of the car that connects it to the road. Edited January 9, 2012 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Not sure what you are alluding to. My 3.0 is smooth as silk. Hope the 2.0L EB is as well. I never had complaints about the 3.0 in my Mazda6 either, but the press always took it to task for being thrashy. :shrug: Comparatively speaking though, the 3.7 in my Edge is worlds more refined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Man that Deep Impact Blue looks great...giving me pause of instead of automatically checking off Ruby Red on mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Eh, most of the 2.0 EB reviews out so far that I've seen have lauded it for the smoothness of its power delivery, so I don't think the lack of a V6 (especially the sometimes not-so-smooth 3.0) will be a killer in that regard. I really think and hope that Ford understands the mid sized car market and its Fusion customers, and along with more stringent CAFE laws coming before next Fusion redesign, is acting accordingly. I was pleasantly surprised by the Fusion Energi and new fuel mileage figures on hybrid. I figure that if I'm finally to replace my Taurus, it should be for something very special and class leading. The new Fusion Hybrid with fold down rear seats really catches my eye along with that eye opening fuel mileage figures. It's like who cares about fuel prices anymore with that in your garage. Kudos to Ford. They understand the market, where fuel prices are going, and most of all new CAFE figures and what they mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 All I can see in that picture are the A pillars. they look gigantic. If it's similar to some of the other recent Fords, they are wide from some angles and narrower (most importantly from the driver's perspective) from others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The live shot gives a much nicer impression of the grille detailing than the press photos do in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Was there this much complaining about the first-announced top engine when the original Fusion debuted with a ten-year-old D30 making less HP and MUCH less torque than the one-year-old 2.0EB does now? :unsure: (I'm not editing that run-on sentence either) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Classy car Great that the N.A Fusion has the LED tail lamps now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Was there this much complaining about the first-announced top engine when the original Fusion debuted with a ten-year-old D30 making less HP and MUCH less torque than the one-year-old 2.0EB does now? :unsure: (I'm not editing that run-on sentence either) People would complain if it made 500 HP....so whats your point? At that time we where happy to have an update mid-sizer sedan LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Was there this much complaining about the first-announced top engine when the original Fusion debuted with a ten-year-old D30 making less HP and MUCH less torque than the one-year-old 2.0EB does now? :unsure: (I'm not editing that run-on sentence either) Mmm. I don't think that's a run on sentence, just a lot of dependent clauses used as modifiers.... Hey, here's a thought. Let's take over another thread with an abstruse discussion of structural linguistics that nobody else understands (and which you understand better than I do). Edited January 9, 2012 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Mmm. I don't think that's a run on sentence, just a lot of dependent clauses used as modifiers.... Hey, here's a thought. Let's take over another thread with an abstruse discussion of structural linguistics that nobody else understands (and which you understand better than I do). I'm always concerned when I write long sentences with no commas. :lol: And I'd save the linguistics for later. This thread's still rolling along nicely. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Some shots from the show thanks to Sarah at fordfusionclub.com 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Nice angle Edited January 9, 2012 by MKII 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordowner Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Great looking car 2 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.