fordtech1 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) The power rating for 2011 fusion sport 263hp 249 ft lb. 2014 2.0. 240hp 270 ft lb. Granted the 23 HP deficit could be felt. But the. 21ft lb should help narrow the gap. According to what I see online the 0-60 times are 7.2 for 3.5 fwd and 7.3 for awd 2.0. Edited November 8, 2014 by fordtech1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 If he'd pay a premium to get the MKZs 3.7L then what's stopping him? I don't understand the lethargic comment. I can chirp the tires from a dead stop with my 2.0L EB Fusion. It does run out of steam at higher rpm, but I also had an Edge with the 3.5L V6 and the 2.0L EB feels just as strong to me. The new Fusion does feel heavier than the old one (didn't check the numbers) so maybe that's also a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Apples != Oranges. The 260hp 3.5L in the old Sport was only .2s faster than the 2.0L turbo and slower from a street start (5-60mph). Since the new Fusion has a better, more composed ride than the old Fusion, the sensation of speed is lost in their turbo vs N/A motors. That the Fusion needs a more powerful motor is overstated now. The Chrysler 200 with its class-leading 295hp is barely a blip on the mid-sized sedan radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 If he'd pay a premium to get the MKZs 3.7L then what's stopping him? I don't understand the lethargic comment. I can chirp the tires from a dead stop with my 2.0L EB Fusion. It does run out of steam at higher rpm, but I also had an Edge with the 3.5L V6 and the 2.0L EB feels just as strong to me. The new Fusion does feel heavier than the old one (didn't check the numbers) so maybe that's also a factor. Could be, I'm not sure. I haven't driven a 2.0-liter EcoBoost Fusion myself personally but once, and it was a coworker's car, so I definitely wasn't about to flog it. It very well may be a perception thing with him, perhaps he thought as you mentioned, that it ran out of juice at the top? :shrug: I do know my father's Sport is decently quick, have had some fun with that car. (He's even taken it to the local dragstrip to run when he takes his 'Stang, just for the helluva it). The answer to your first question? It's a Lincoln. He positively hates their styling direction. Anything they offer is not even an option with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Apples != Oranges. The 260hp 3.5L in the old Sport was only .2s faster than the 2.0L turbo and slower from a street start (5-60mph). Since the new Fusion has a better, more composed ride than the old Fusion, the sensation of speed is lost in their turbo vs N/A motors. That the Fusion needs a more powerful motor is overstated now. The Chrysler 200 with its class-leading 295hp is barely a blip on the mid-sized sedan radar. I don't really know that that's an "Apples-to-Oranges" comparison, as he simply compared what was the top engine option available then to the top one now. If the Fusion still offered the 3.5 or now the 3.7 and he drove the 2.0-liter Eco anyways, then yea, that would've been the type of comparison you cite. And quoting some magazine's 0-60 and 5-60 times doesn't mean anything when we can get different times from different sources. The thing to do if it really mattered (which it doesn't, as he knows how it felt to him) is to see if all instrumented tests have similar data. The important thing to me is that hopefully Ford has something in the pipeline. I've told Dad that he has no chance of getting what he wants in this cycle, but hang in there just a bit more to see what the MCE brings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Obviously his butt-o-meter felt that the 2.0 was sluggish by comparison. The 3.5 fusion was jumpy off the line.. I do hope they come up with a performance fusion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Did you guys miss the comment that a 2.7L EB was coming with the MCA? Since they just put it in the Edge Sport that would make a lot of sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Did you guys miss the comment that a 2.7L EB was coming with the MCA? Since they just put it in the Edge Sport that would make a lot of sense. Really!? GOOD!!!! Yea I haven't had a chance to bounce around everywhere in here yet, so I admit I missed that. The 2.7 seems to be an absolute beast in the F150, with torque levels the same as (but a much flatter plateau than) the 5.4 Triton V8, at half the displacement. Definitely going to share that with the old man. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I always defer to the "how come only a few use em and a majority do not...that to me signifies a serious weakness, because lets face it, if it WAS superior, then EVERYONE would go the same route....Tesla anyone?.... the same argument could be used to justify not offering a Manual transmission or the Power-shift or V8 engine, etc..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 The CVT was grossly expensive for Ford and to repair. Plus it was heavy. The internal parts were massive but the bearings are what failed and internal seals to leak pressure. Plus the mechatronics unit was crazy high when it failed. The CVT you either got a good one and got over 100k+ out of it or it started causing issues at 60k. The 60k service was important but the cost was high. Really no plus side to the CVT behind the weak 3.0. A replacement complete CTV costs in excess of $6k. If you can get one. Don't think ford ever got a supplier. That was waht 10 years ago, don't you think things may have changed a bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 That was waht 10 years ago, don't you think things may have changed a bit? Considering how Nissan is still cleaning up its mess, and also considering how even Honda owners -- yes, drivers of that new Accord CVT that you've been championing -- are reporting shuddering from their transmissions... ... no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) Considering how Nissan is still cleaning up its mess, and also considering how even Honda owners -- yes, drivers of that new Accord CVT that you've been championing -- are reporting shuddering from their transmissions... ... no. Sounds alot like the complaints about the powershift and Ecoboost, and MyFord touch. the majority of buyers Are fine with the product but "some" only focus on those who are not happy. this goes back to the Topic of this thread. "The Fusion Still Needs a Better Optional Engine" and notice how the thread drifts back to the traditional V6's attached to conventional Automatics, that are not competitive with the efficiency of those CVTs and DCTs on the market. People tend to not like Change and Ford's decision to go I4 only with the fusion is a major change. yet the sales of the fusion has never been better, same for the Accord and Altima with their CVTs. the majority of buyers adjust to the compromises automakers have made to meet their needs for performance and Fuel Economy, some will never get used to GTDI or CVTs, or DCTs. as people here have stated we can't expect ford to make a product just for you, they make products for the majority of customers. in closing, the Accord CVT is much better performer than the CVT in the 2005 Ford 500. Edited November 8, 2014 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I remember all the work, and PR behind the CVT back to the 500, and when someone has to try THAT hard to convince people of a "better" technology, it will somehow bite them in the butt. Same goes with all the raving Ford did with the Focus DCT, and hows that working out for them. They could save themselves some hassle and just lighten up the vehicles a bit, might be cheaper in the long run than a DCT here and there, and a CVT here and there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) Sounds alot like the complaints about the powershift and Ecoboost, and MyFord touch. the majority of buyers Are fine with the product but "some" only focus on those who are not happy. this goes back to the Topic of this thread. "The Fusion Still Needs a Better Optional Engine" and notice how the thread drifts back to the traditional V6's attached to conventional Automatics, that are not competitive with the efficiency of those CVTs and DCTs on the market. People tend to not like Change and Ford's decision to go I4 only with the fusion is a major change. yet the sales of the fusion has never been better, same for the Accord and Altima with their CVTs. the majority of buyers adjust to the compromises automakers have made to meet their needs for performance and Fuel Economy, some will never get used to GTDI or CVTs, or DCTs. as people here have stated we can't expect ford to make a product just for you, they make products for the majority of customers. in closing, the Accord CVT is much better performer than the CVT in the 2005 Ford 500. I personally don't have an issue with gtdi or 4cyl line up. Hell I don't even mind DCT. I do have issues with CVT. I don't mind a different feel. However, when manufacturers are making fake shifts points in CVT vehicles that tells me most drivers don't like that constant whine under accel. Since its a chain or belt riding on varaiators its always will feel like its cheap drive train to me. It will always be like my go karts as a kid. Ford has not had any problems getting customers to buy GTDI. Look at the F150. Eco boost sells in huge amounts. Its the understanding that more boost takes more fuel people don't seem to get and complain of fuel mileage. I rented a Nissan for a week with a CVT. It was OK but merging with Vegas traffic you could always feel the CVT. It reminded me of the 80s turbo cars with the long lag compared to new smaller faster spooling turbos. People do have a hard time with change but some things people can't seem to accept Edited November 8, 2014 by fordtech1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I don't really know that that's an "Apples-to-Oranges" comparison, as he simply compared what was the top engine option available then to the top one now. If the Fusion still offered the 3.5 or now the 3.7 and he drove the 2.0-liter Eco anyways, then yea, that would've been the type of comparison you cite. And quoting some magazine's 0-60 and 5-60 times doesn't mean anything when we can get different times from different sources. The thing to do if it really mattered (which it doesn't, as he knows how it felt to him) is to see if all instrumented tests have similar data. The important thing to me is that hopefully Ford has something in the pipeline. I've told Dad that he has no chance of getting what he wants in this cycle, but hang in there just a bit more to see what the MCE brings. It's 'apples to oranges' because you're comparing a car with sporting pretensions to one with luxury... From the link in the OP, Car and Driver clearly states that the Fusion punches above it's weight in ride quality, technology,and luxury appointments. Quoting some stranger's subjective experience is not any better. It's not about different times from different sources but the margin of the old v. new at any given source, and the numbers tell me the new Fusion is more drivable thanks to the 270lb-ft of torque. As I said, maybe the sensation of speed is lost in the more luxurious car. Wait for the ST. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 *** You'll only get that 240/270 on 93 octane. I can't even get that if i wanted. 231hp and assumed 260lb-ft with 87 octane which is what a family sedan should be rated on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Really!? GOOD!!!! Yea I haven't had a chance to bounce around everywhere in here yet, so I admit I missed that. The 2.7 seems to be an absolute beast in the F150, with torque levels the same as (but a much flatter plateau than) the 5.4 Triton V8, at half the displacement. Definitely going to share that with the old man. Thanks! Think about that for a second. The Fusion is getting a V8 (equivalent) with the MCA. Should be a blast to drive! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 *** You'll only get that 240/270 on 93 octane. I can't even get that if i wanted. 231hp and assumed 260lb-ft with 87 octane which is what a family sedan should be rated on. http://www.ford.ca/cars/fusion/specifications/engine/ 240/270 on 91 Octane 231/270 on 87 Octane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 *** You'll only get that 240/270 on 93 octane. I can't even get that if i wanted. 231hp and assumed 260lb-ft with 87 octane which is what a family sedan should be rated on. http://www.ford.ca/cars/fusion/specifications/engine/ 240/270 on 91 Octane 231/270 on 87 Octane I heard recently that there's a new 2.0 engine that's more than a new version of the current one which imho supports my impression that the 2.0EB that's been in production is an underachiever/problemchild like it seems the 1.6 was hope the 2.0EB gen2 is capable of 280-300hp in production tune 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 The new 2.0 has better head cooling and other improvements over the first gen 1.6 and 2.0. Don't expect big power gains but fuel economy should be better. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Whats MCA? And the Fusion is getting the 2.7L? I doubt it as the 2.3L already makes 310hp(or 350 in the RS) which would put it in entry level luxury class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Mid Cycle Action Also known as a: Mid Cycle Enhancement It's the budgeted, programmed upgrade of various bits on a car that is done halfway through the product's programmed life cycle. Think "New Edge" Mustang, or the 2010 Fusion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 In the previous model Fusion, the V6 option was barely 20% of sales back then. Ford has made the right choice with 1.5 EB and 2.0 EB as its main engines, even hybrid and in particular, energi hybrid hybrid sales are growing significantly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) Whats MCA? And the Fusion is getting the 2.7L? I doubt it as the 2.3L already makes 310hp(or 350 in the RS) which would put it in entry level luxury class. The Edge which is built on a modified Fusion platform is already getting the 2.7L EB for its brand new sport model in just a few months, so it would make sense that it would also be available on the Fusion with its MCA. Also noted that the Edge 2.7L EB will be available in FWD and AWD configurations. It will be interesting to see how they handle the torque for FWD. Edited November 10, 2014 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Whats MCA? That's what Lynyrd Skynyrd was workin' for. 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.