Jump to content

New Fiesta This Fall?


Recommended Posts

Having GDTI across the lineup is not impressive. It's just how Ford has invested. Having a set of GDTIs that, on balance, return the same mileage and acceleration as less complex GDI engines offered by other manufacturers makes no sense to me. Ford's truck applications are a great example of this. The Fusion's 2.0 liter is poor in terms of performance and economy vs Accord or Camry. The Escape's engines provide little if any advantage vs CR-V or CX-5 (of course, both the Fusion and Escape get updates for 2017, and I hope real progress has been made with the twin scroll).

 

I can add more thoughts about Ford's product strategy later. In general, they are obsessing about the right cars, but their boldness in those segments and against the growth of competition from below (Hyundai) and above (Audi) leaves a lot to be desired.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fusion's 2.0 liter is poor in terms of performance and economy vs Accord or Camry.

 

What are your metrics for this? The 2.0L FWD Fusion gets better MPG's than the Camry and is more or less on target with the Accord...the accord gets one MPG better highway and the Fusion bests it by 1 MPG city...so its a wash. It "could/should" be better if your looking at it purely as a I4. The Fusion 1.5 Ecoboost gets better MPGs then the Camry again, but is bested by the Accord, mostly due to its CVT transmission, who IMO I wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole. I haven't compared hybrid numbers, but you get my point.

 

Last time I checked, 0-60 and 1/4 mile time didn't sell midsize sedans and I expect the Fusion Sport to stomp all comers in its price range (and some above it)...so its pointless to compare that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"easy for Honda to prioritize the Fit..."?

 

Honda is pushing SUV's and ignoring the Fit these days. They are building more HR-V's and Fit is cut inventory. Cheap gas is changing market.

And look at how large the new Civic is, far from the 'toss-able' subcompact of 30 years ago. They want the truck profits too, they are not "car saints".

 

But at same time, can't expect average Americans to switch in masses to "sporty handing cars" as enthusiasts demand all the time. What kind of hurt compact car image is all the kids 10 years ago with wacky modded Civics weaving through traffic and getting in wrecks. So, buyers will shun small cars for "high seating position" driving.

HR-V and Fit are on the same platform so that's not a huge stretch.

 

The Civic and it's ilk have been called compact since the beginning. All cars have gotten bigger and the classes are different depending who you talk to (SAE for example).

 

I don't know about your image example, that's pretty subjective. For some of us who grew up with a sub-compact or compact (B or C segment) in the driveway/apartment parking lot/city street have had lots of laughs at the modder crowd but hey to each their own right?

 

Jalopnik put out an article a while back which was a guys theory was the CUV/SUV buyer was just going back to the orignal wagon style car of the 30's/40's before cars were lowered/widen in the 50's. Interesting read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Examples needed.

 

how many clean sheet engine designs has ford released in the last 5 years?

 

I can only name 1 the 2.7 the rest were based on existing engine designs some like the I4 are already approaching 15 years old.

 

What was the last clean sheet non-truck platform Ford released? EUCD in 2007.

 

You also need to consider prioritization of resources. When you have a juggernaut like F series and Transit and heritage products like Mustang and a plethora of high ATP utilities that's where you have to focus your resources.

 

Small cars and micro utilities are important in ROW but the ATPs and profit margins are small by comparison. Ford needs to address those markets and the current products seem to come up short so that's a fair criticism, but it doesn't make sense for Ford to prioritize that over other more important projects like moving F series to Al and gutting and rebuilding the factories. Also consolidating platforms took a huge chunk of resources.

 

It's easy for Honda to prioritize something like Fit because they don't have a mustang or F series or Transit or Expedition/Navigator.

 

So what you are saying is that ford is unable to support investment in it's vehicle without diverting resources from other programs. how long will it be until ford can support a consistent product cadence for ALL of its products? it seems like they are laying a game of wack-a-mole and have no plan for the future. I wonder home much of today's profits are from not investing in a full lineup.

 

 

Better yet, name a full line car company that offers GDIT engines in nearly every single product it sells?

 

Too many people mistake everything for the tech industry, where something "newer/better" comes out every 12-18 months and might be replaced in 24 months vs a durable product like an automobile that lasts 5-7 years, if not longer.

 

Then again with the tech industry...the jumps in performance aren't as big/noticable like they where in the late 1990s/early 2000s...and a 4 year old laptop can run Windows 10 just about as well as a brand new one, when it comes to every day things like office and other productivity software.

 

Honda

Lexus

GM

VW

Hyundai

Edited by Biker16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Try again...Gas Turbo Direct Injection

 

The only Ford products (in NA) not to offer GTDI engines are:

Super Duty

E-series Cutaway

 

 

 

you said " nearly every single product it sells" not who sells the most.

 

the fact is every Automaker offers GTDI technology, while GTDI was special in 2012 the world keeps spinning and it's no longer special.

Edited by Biker16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you don't really understand the analogy.

 

You like to debate things over and over while ignoring facts that others point out to you. You demand unreasonable things and then complain when you don't get it.

 

The arguments are the mud. You like it. Most of us don't. If we continue to debate things with you we both get muddy but you like getting muddy.

 

Now lighten up, Francis.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you don't really understand the analogy.

 

You like to debate things over and over while ignoring facts that others point out to you. You demand unreasonable things and then complain when you don't get it.

 

 

Having GDTI across the lineup is not impressive. It's just how Ford has invested. Having a set of GDTIs that, on balance, return the same mileage and acceleration as less complex GDI engines offered by other manufacturers makes no sense to me. Ford's truck applications are a great example of this. The Fusion's 2.0 liter is poor in terms of performance and economy vs Accord or Camry. The Escape's engines provide little if any advantage vs CR-V or CX-5 (of course, both the Fusion and Escape get updates for 2017, and I hope real progress has been made with the twin scroll).

 

I can add more thoughts about Ford's product strategy later. In general, they are obsessing about the right cars, but their boldness in those segments and against the growth of competition from below (Hyundai) and above (Audi) leaves a lot to be desired.

 

^^^^

 

I agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having GDTI across the lineup is not impressive. It's just how Ford has invested. Having a set of GDTIs that, on balance, return the same mileage and acceleration as less complex GDI engines offered by other manufacturers makes no sense to me. Ford's truck applications are a great example of this. The Fusion's 2.0 liter is poor in terms of performance and economy vs Accord or Camry. The Escape's engines provide little if any advantage vs CR-V or CX-5 (of course, both the Fusion and Escape get updates for 2017, and I hope real progress has been made with the twin scroll).

2016 Ford Fusion 2.0 EB is 231HP and 270ft/lb of torque. EPA 22/33/26

2016 Toyota Camry 3.6V6 268hp 248ft/lbs EPA 21/31/25

2016 Honda Accord V6 278hp 252 ft/lbs EPA 21/34/26

 

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I pulled these direct from each makes site. Ford is down on HP, but up on torque. Which in my opinion is the more important number to look at. And is within 1 mpg of each other on EPA testing cycles.

 

According to Edmunds 0-60 (not that these are racing cars)

Honda 6.1 sec

Ford 6.9

Toyota 6.2

So all very close.

 

As the owner of a 2.0EB Ford Escape, I can compare to my cousin's Honda CRV V6 of the same year. We get exactly the same mileage. We both live just out of town and have comparable mixed driving.

 

So the statement "poor in terms of performance and economy" is not even close to being accurate with regards to Ford's 2.0 EB. At best you can give me anecdotal evidence to the contrary and I can give you my anecdotal evidence against that. According to a somewhat neutral tester (Edmunds) and their makers, they are comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having GDTI across the lineup is not impressive. It's just how Ford has invested. Having a set of GDTIs that, on balance, return the same mileage and acceleration as less complex GDI engines offered by other manufacturers makes no sense to me. Ford's truck applications are a great example of this.

 

So, the F150's 3.5L which equals or beats the GM 6.2L in towing AND fuel economy AND performance, while having 2 less gears AND being introduced 3-4 years earlier is a good example? How so? And the DOD/MDS in the GM isn't exactly non-complex.

 

I'm pretty sure the gen 2 3.5L with the 10 speed will improve on that considerably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the owner of a 2.0EB Ford Escape, I can compare to my cousin's Honda CRV V6 of the same year. We get exactly the same mileage. We both live just out of town and have comparable mixed driving.

 

So the statement "poor in terms of performance and economy" is not even close to being accurate with regards to Ford's 2.0 EB. At best you can give me anecdotal evidence to the contrary and I can give you my anecdotal evidence against that. According to a somewhat neutral tester (Edmunds) and their makers, they are comparable.

 

I agree that it is anecdotal at best. (quick check, though, there is no CRV V6).

 

My reference point is similar to what you've pointed out:

  • EB 3.5 in an F-150 that struggles to get 18 mpg cruising at 65-70 whereas the GM 5.3 is getting 19-20 mpg. And, yes, the 3.5 is faster, but not vastly.

 

Bigger point: Ford has taken a really complicated path to reach these powertrain numbers which are, in my opinion, not that interesting.

 

For all the pomp and circumstance around their powertrains, the point is that Ford still does not have differentiation in hard numbers in that department. Given how few departments they are differentiated in, that really concerns me about the future development of Ford vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EB 3.5 in an F-150 that struggles to get 18 mpg cruising at 65-70 whereas the GM 5.3 is getting 19-20 mpg. And, yes, the 3.5 is faster, but not vastly.

 

5.3 - 355 hp (265 kW) @ 5600 RPM 383 lb·ft (519 N·m) @ 4100 RPM

 

3.5EB - 365 hp (272 kW) @ 5000rpm 420 lb·ft (570 N·m) @ 2500 rpm

2.7EB - 325 hp (242 kW) @ 5750 rpm 375 lb·ft (508 N·m) @ 3000 rpm

 

That is a significant difference in Torque because the EB torque comes on much much lower RPM. The 2.7EB is much more comparable to the 5.3 than the 3.5EB.

 

5.3 Silverado - 15/20/17

3.5EB F150 - 17/24/20

2.7EB F150 - 18/24/21

 

 

The 2.7EB beats it by 3-4 mpg with the same power. The 3.5EB matches it with a lot more power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone compare the 3.5L EB to the 5.3L? Apples and oranges, folks. It's like comparing a Mustang 5.0GT to a Camaro V6. The capabilities are completely different.

 

Because it's easier to make their point, even if it's not completely valid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5.3 - 355 hp (265 kW) @ 5600 RPM 383 lb·ft (519 N·m) @ 4100 RPM

 

3.5EB - 365 hp (272 kW) @ 5000rpm 420 lb·ft (570 N·m) @ 2500 rpm

2.7EB - 325 hp (242 kW) @ 5750 rpm 375 lb·ft (508 N·m) @ 3000 rpm

 

That is a significant difference in Torque because the EB torque comes on much much lower RPM. The 2.7EB is much more comparable to the 5.3 than the 3.5EB.

 

5.3 Silverado - 15/20/17

3.5EB F150 - 17/24/20

2.7EB F150 - 18/24/21

 

 

The 2.7EB beats it by 3-4 mpg with the same power. The 3.5EB matches it with a lot more power.

Hate to ask, what is the "in-boost" fuel-economy for the EB trucks?, the 5.3 seems to out-pace the 3.5 in fuel for real world use rather then the EPA cycle. BTW how the topic get to trucks?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way to accurately compare "real world" fuel economy because everyone drives differently.

 

Fuelly.org reports avg mpg of 19 on the 2.7LEB and 16 on the 5.3L Silverado. 16 for the 3.5LEB.

 

Same power, better mpg (2.7LEB) or more power, same MPG (3.5LEB). Take your pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling we won't see a new Fiesta this fall however, a concept for Geneva perhaps? I feel the next Fiesta will be introduced in Europe before it gets here due to past practices. Just my nickel.

 

There won't be a concept. Fiesta is getting an emergency facelift in Europe because the new one is delayed somewhat as Ford tries to figure out how to make a single Fiesta for markets that are clearly moving in opposite directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...