ANTAUS Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I posted in a similar thread on C&G that this makes the Malibu Turbo's 0-60 faster than the Regal GS... despite being down on power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wonder how the Fusions will stack up,...suddenly 240HP isn't looking too hot... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wonder how the Fusions will stack up,...suddenly 240HP isn't looking too hot... We shall see. If the fuel economy is better, being a tick or two slower 0-60 isn't going to lose them any customers. Of course, without any instrumented testing, we don't even know that it's going to be slower either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I think the torque curve is better on the Fusion 2.0L but I guess we'll have to wait and see. I agree that fuel economy is more important than a few hp or tenths of a second in a mainstream midsized sedan. If it's slower and doesn't get better fuel economy then that will be disappointing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Fusion looks to be lighter than Malibu too. At least based on some estimates I've seen. Edited March 9, 2012 by papilgee4evaeva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Wonder how the Fusions will stack up,...suddenly 240HP isn't looking too hot... It looks like theat 269 hp has been revised down to 259 horsepower... Dueling turbos at 50 feet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Maybe Ford is doing the same thing they did with the 6.7 diesel when it came out. Draw GM out with under inflated hp and torque numbers to see what the competition has in store. They fell for it once and GM is pretty stupid so why not twice? Even if hp and torque are not as good, the Fusion is no doubt the better looking of the two cars. I think it looks fantastic. I've been looking to dump my Buick for something and I think the new Fusion could be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 GM's past behavior is certainly cause to believe they'd do the same dumb thing twice in a row. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 GM's past behavior is certainly cause to believe they'd do the same dumb thing twice in a row. Can you be a bit more specific, GM has done so many dumb things twice or more in a row, that I've lost count... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Maybe Ford is doing the same thing they did with the 6.7 diesel when it came out. Draw GM out with under inflated hp and torque numbers to see what the competition has in store. They fell for it once and GM is pretty stupid so why not twice? Even if hp and torque are not as good, the Fusion is no doubt the better looking of the two cars. I think it looks fantastic. I've been looking to dump my Buick for something and I think the new Fusion could be it. I don't think Ford was trying to be crafty with the 6.7L... otherwise the first production trucks would have shipped with the 400/800 tune. Something just seems off about the 2.0 EB. Lower compression and lower HP/liter than the other EB motors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I don't think Ford was trying to be crafty with the 6.7L... otherwise the first production trucks would have shipped with the 400/800 tune. Something just seems off about the 2.0 EB. Lower compression and lower HP/liter than the other EB motors. So you don't think they had the 400/800 tune ready (or close to it) when the original numbers were released? You don't just bump the numbers up by 10 HP and 65 ft-lbs without a lot of testing. I'm guessing the 2.0 EB is turned for better fuel economy and the 3.5 EB is tuned to show that you can truly replace a V8 with a V6 while still getting better fuel economy, especially in the F150. Ford HAD to keep the numbers up to win over truck buyers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) It will be interesting to see how a 2.7 V6 Ecoboost stacks up, 320 hp and around 360 lb ft is going to have broad appeal. V6 AWD Fusion/Taurus could be the next SHO especially if the weight is down around 3700 lbs... I can see sales of Fusion and Malibu increasing as Ford and GM go after market share, and IMO, this is the pick of car segment to be in and Taurus/Impala will be extensions of it. Edited March 16, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Malibu weight a few hundred pounds more than the Fusion. GM has this thing for fat cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Wondering why GM decided not to offer this engine in the 2014 Impala? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I think it's possible the priority will be the Regal and Malibu. As Ford has prioritized their EB output. 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.