RichardJensen Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 well ford said the Same thing about the hatchback before that canceled it too. What else could they say we cancelled the product because they didn't have the resources to updated it? Here is the order guide for the 2003 focus It says wagons made of 13% of the order mix with the forlorn 5 door hatch at 15% and the 3 door hatch at 8% of sales. well ford said the Same thing about the hatchback before that canceled it too. What else could they say we cancelled the product because they didn't have the resources to updated it? Here is the order guide for the 2003 focus It says wagons made of 13% of the order mix with the forlorn 5 door hatch at 15% and the 3 door hatch at 8% of sales. That's the suggested order percentage, not the final production numbers, and that's just for one year out of six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Let's get something straight once and for all. I'm tired of people comparing the 2.0LEB to the 3.0L duratec and not the 3.5L because you're only looking at hp not torque. 3.0 L 240 hp (179 kW), 223 lb·ft (302 N·m). torque 3.5 L 263 hp (196 kW), 249 lb·ft (338 N·m). torque 2.0 L EB - 240 hp (179 kW; 243 PS) and 270 lb·ft (370 N·m). of torque It has way more torque than even the 3.5L. The problem with the 2.0L is the first gen runs too rich hurting fuel economy under acceleration and the single turbo spools up fast but runs out of boost at higher rpm. That said it's obvious Ford needs a 2.3L EB or 2.7L EB Fusion ST at some point. But those engines just became available this year and I'm sure they're not fully ramped up yet. I don't think they're running full capacity for Fusion production at FR yet but they are close and as Richard points out they're selling just fine without it. So once again it's a matter of priority and parts availability. I would expect to see the 2.3L and/or 2.7L EB in the MCA as builtfordtough posted. I'm late to the party. I was thinking at the time of introduction the EB20 would be closer to the D35 in hp but I knew the tq would be higher. I run on 87 with a gas card for cheaper fuel. I also commute in slow traffic so my power (231 vs 240) and my mileage suffers. I do get noticably better FE running on 91. It's a little pricy for me at present. I guess I have to break out the bicycle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Trying to induce torque steer in a transverse AWD vehicle is a recipe for low MPGs. And C&D made it no secret that they were going for that. That said, Ford's F-AWD systems have been huge gas wasters for years now. Any plans to come up with a more efficient system? Sorry if we covered this: The new AWD system will have TVS for all wheels. Anything else is unknown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 It will be pretty easy to build US-spec Fusion in Spain... that's not an issue, just like Ford is now building Taiwan and Korea spec Mondeo at Flat Rock and Mexico. Emission is also not a problem... 1.5 EB and 2.0 EB are already US-certified. The whole issue with Fusion wagon boils down the Federalization costs. Ford will have to do a full crash testing program, submit a gazillion pages of documentation, and potentially have to EPA fuel economy testing if EPA won't allow it to estimate it using the sedan MPG (that's how the whole C-Max hybrid MPG debacle happened). I remember reading somewhere that the average costs is about $10 million for such a program. So it's not chump change. I don't think we'll see a Fusion wagon here, but I just figured I'd add my thought on your fuel economy comment - I think a Fusion wagon fuel economy calculation extrapolated from the Fusion sedan would be far more accurate than the Fusion hybrid/C-Max hybrid situation, given the completely different body types those two had, affecting aerodynamics, etc. A Fusion wagon, as a whole, wouldn't be all that completely different shape-wise from its sedan counterpart, whereas the C-Max is a completely different shape vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) I'm late to the party. I was thinking at the time of introduction the EB20 would be closer to the D35 in hp but I knew the tq would be higher. I run on 87 with a gas card for cheaper fuel. I also commute in slow traffic so my power (231 vs 240) and my mileage suffers. I do get noticably better FE running on 91. It's a little pricy for me at present. I guess I have to break out the bicycle. Yup, I've already beat our horse to death (my sentiments match the auto testers of averaging 20mpg and couldn't get the claimed 31 going downhill with tailwind). It's a commuter car so it only gets 87 octane. I HATE the way Ford now claims all power and mpg off 93 octane, something i can't buy even if I wanted to. I think the looks and interior of the fusion are the reasons why they are selling well, not for the awesome engines or mpg (sans hybrids). I'm just wondering if sooner or later the looks will fade and with the lowest power, speed and ACTUAL MPG will people come back? I hope so, but time will tell if Ford changes things. Seeing how it's voting day, I say give us a better engine to choose from. Edited November 5, 2014 by Hydro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 In the grand scheme of things, how much money is it going to cost you extra a year? maybe $10 bucks a month? Granted. And for the record, I'd probably buy a Fusion AWD if it were on my list, knowing full well that I'd be giving up a few MPGs for traction and no torque steer. (I drive an SUV, for crying out loud!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 all the Fusion needs needs is a 6speed,AWD with 475hp. :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I could care less if this vehicle ever has a V6 since i drive damn near close to the speed limit and ease off the line at lights. My preference would for them to update the standard engine with direct ignition and have it available in more models. I've rented about 8 Fusions/Escapes in the past 18 months and love the way these vehicle drive. Seats are super comfortable and most switch gear is excellent. Not a big fan of SYNC but it is definitely improving. I did get hammered last year in Buffalo with fuel mileage in a 1.6 eco boost-granted it was super cold (minus 10?) and the car was fairly new but I've rented a ton of mid size vehicles that are new, etc. and always achieved decent fuel mileage. For the most part the whole package is there-though this vehicle gets very expensive when you start adding items-they just need to get the mileage end fixed. If I was buyer in the mid size market today I personally would choose the Mazda 6-touring edition-then either the Fusion or the new 200. If I wanted to play it safe the Accord would be my other option (at least it wasn't a Camry!!!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Fusions sell because they are awesome looking vehicles that drive really well. Could it use more power? maybe. The ecoboost is the most misunderstood engines I have ever encountered with customers...customers somehow expect gobs of power AND 40 MPG. No other power plant has both those expectations like ECOBOOST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) The ecoboost is the most misunderstood engines I have ever encountered with customers...customers somehow expect gobs of power AND 40 MPG. No other power plant has both those expectations like ECOBOOST. Ford's marketing operations are responsible for inculcating such expectations among prospective customers. No other automaker has hyped turbocharged, direct injection gasoline engines (which predate Ecoboost) more than Ford. Edited November 5, 2014 by aneekr 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Fusions sell because they are awesome looking vehicles that drive really well. Could it use more power? maybe. The ecoboost is the most misunderstood engines I have ever encountered with customers...customers somehow expect gobs of power AND 40 MPG. No other power plant has both those expectations like ECOBOOST. isnt that the truth...and the difference between two consumers with the same engine can be hard to understand. Im happy, dash says 29.6 on the Fiesta ST...and shes not exactly babied....then again shes not thrashed either....long trips, just under 33 with the cruise at 70-75. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Ford's marketing operations are responsible for inculcating such expectations among prospective customers. No other automaker has hyped turbocharged, direct injection gasoline engines (which predate Ecoboost) more than Ford. PENALTY SHOT!....the BIGGEST variable is the driver and his/ her habits, nothing more, nothing less, it can be a difference of 10 -15 mpgs. I have close friend with eco f-150s bitching and some that get close/ bang on the published miles, same can be said of ANY of the eco'ed drivetrains. May I remind people, MPGS are ESTIMATED by the EPA, variables OTHER than teh all important driver are weight, elevation, gas, ethanol %, summer/ winter, octane, tire pressures, after market wheels tires...heck, I could go on, this I cant get my mileage crap is blown out of control. Last week I TRAINED a lady bitching about her Explorer mileage....guess what, overnight her Palms Springs trip garnered an additional 4 mpgs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Ford's marketing operations are responsible for inculcating such expectations among prospective customers. No other automaker has hyped turbocharged, direct injection gasoline engines (which predate Ecoboost) more than Ford. Name one manufacturer that turbocharged GDI engines on a high volume entry level vehicle before Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Name one manufacturer that turbocharged GDI engines on a high volume entry level vehicle before Ford. VW golf?....more specifically their 2.0...Audis etc....and im guessing, but seems the VW group puts that engine in about everything Edited November 5, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That's not a high volume entry level vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That's not a high volume entry level vehicle. well I wouldnt consider it high end...and wasnt there a 1.8 turboed GDI before that?....the Golf Jetta at least are VWs bread and butter here, in fact they ARE VWs entry level car here no?.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 VW golf?....more specifically their 2.0...Audis etc....and im guessing, but seems the VW group puts that engine in about everything Yes, and it has oil consumption problems with some, especially Audi, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That's not a high volume entry level vehicle. The Mk5 Golf? That model epitomizes "high volume entry level vehicle" globally. In the U.S. market, the A5 Jetta was actually more "high volume" than the Golf/Rabbit. VW offered its EA113 TFSI engine on that model as well starting in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Yes, and it has oil consumption problems with some, especially Audi, IIRC. and coking problems no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That's a new one to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) The Mk5 Golf? That model epitomizes "high volume entry level vehicle" And how well did that sell in the US? Because your issue is EPA mileage: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/57660-the-fusion-still-needs-a-better-optional-engine/?p=919822 Edited November 5, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 And how well did that sell in the US? Because your issue is EPA mileage: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/57660-the-fusion-still-needs-a-better-optional-engine/?p=919822 Not sure those Audi / VW's are that frugal...have read of not bad numbers on BMWs though...although I wouldnt call ANYTHING BMW entry level.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Right. The point Aneekr was making was that Ford's EB marketing implied that one could get tremendous fuel economy while simultaneously burning rubber, and that the result of this, apparently, is loss of market share, profit, and revenue. I would point out that pickup trucks have routinely advertised as having 'best in class fuel economy' and 'best in class towing', even though you can't get both items from the same truck. I would also point out that sales of EB equipped vehicles are up over non-EB models, suggesting that consumers do not appear to consider EB to be a bad option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Right. The point Aneekr was making was that Ford's EB marketing implied that one could get tremendous fuel economy while simultaneously burning rubber, and that the result of this, apparently, is loss of market share, profit, and revenue. I would point out that pickup trucks have routinely advertised as having 'best in class fuel economy' and 'best in class towing', even though you can't get both items from the same truck. I would also point out that sales of EB equipped vehicles are up over non-EB models, suggesting that consumers do not appear to consider EB to be a bad option. well, it is a little confusing...my take is you basically get the power of a larger engine ( ie Fords 3.5 eco in the F-150 vs the 6.2 ) with the economy of a smaller one, but thats only if driven in a manner that isnt foot to the floor, smile on the face WHOA! And in THAt light the claims are correct....same could be said of the 2.0 vs 3.0? ( 240hp ) 2.3 vs 3.5 ( 263hp ) I may have my examples a little mixed, but driven with a light foot the ecos get superior mileage to the bigger engines they "mimic".... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 one problem I have, and its NOT mileage condusive, is putting my foot into boost mode...its just flat out fun and intoxicating..... 1 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.