- #12235 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [explorerx4]
by m1miata
-
Feb 17, 2007 (7:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Feb 17, 2007 6:22 pm)
I don't think so. Stability control, like on the Camry, which comes on quickly, as in error on the side of safety will slow down the test results. It can not be turned off on the Camry, so slalom test scores may be lower than other cars. It may show lower skid pad results. That said, driven normally and not on the edge control loss, you may not know that there was a stability control on the Camry. Some little, yet wide tracked cars, like the Mini Cooper, I am sure can out slalom say the Porsche (no I did not check - best guess). Doesn't mean the Porsche is not a great handling car and will not dust the little guy on the race track. Have not seen the test track Ford set up, but I would imagine the shorter wheelbase to width + lower car came out on top. If it is shorter track HP indeed will not matter. Actually a go cart may be the winner here. Anyway, the Stability Nanny is for safety and not for better test results, though some advanced, and expensive cars, like the Porsche have it and it will work well at high speed cornering. Not sure what would happen though on slower speed slalom runs. As for getting a car with AWD, I would go Subaru over getting the Ford -- personal preference.
-Loren
|
- #12236 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [m1miata]
by explorerx4
-
Feb 17, 2007 (7:13 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: m1miata (Feb 17, 2007 7:04 pm)
any post that mentions a mini cooper, porsche and a go kart, only reinforces the handling capabilites of the awd fusion vs the cam/cords.
|
- #12237 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [explorerx4]
by m1miata
-
Feb 17, 2007 (9:48 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Feb 17, 2007 7:13 pm)
|
- #12238 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [m1miata]
by pat HOST
-
Feb 18, 2007 (2:24 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: m1miata (Feb 17, 2007 7:04 pm)
Let's please stick to the midsize sedans here.
|
- #12239 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [explorerx4]
by elroy5
-
Feb 18, 2007 (3:03 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Feb 17, 2007 7:13 pm)
So the fact that the only comparison test that the Fusion won, was a very limited test, that Ford paid for, doesn't smell a little fishy to you? Smells like a Seafood restaurant's dumpster, to me.
|
- #12240 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [explorerx4]
by captain2
-
Feb 18, 2007 (4:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Feb 17, 2007 7:13 pm)
to answer your earlier question, I never said SC was useless, all I said was that it doesn't improve anything and may even inhibit performance in track conditions. m1miats's explanation is right on the mark. Nobody ever said Ford was dumb, it is to the Fusion's advantage that an AWD vehicle without SC is compared against 2WD cars with the system.The Fusions do BTW have an intelligently designed suspensions etc. thanks to Mazda's continued expertise in that area - but both cars do continue to be infected by Ford's inability to build even a passable small engine.
|
- #12241 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [captain2]
by jml7
-
Feb 18, 2007 (7:25 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Feb 18, 2007 4:33 am)
I agree with you, especially on the engine part, as the Fusion's base I4 is the 2.3 Liter ported over from Mazda.
|
- #12242 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [jml7]
by lilengineerboy
-
Feb 18, 2007 (10:14 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: jml7 (Feb 18, 2007 7:25 am)
I agree with you, especially on the engine part, as the Fusion's base I4 is the 2.3 Liter ported over from Mazda.
I would hardly consider this to be a bad thing. That motor is a lot of fun in the Mazda3 and the highline Foci (the lower Mazda3/Focus gets the 2l).
|
- #12243 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [lilengineerboy]
by captain2
-
Feb 18, 2007 (11:27 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Feb 18, 2007 10:14 am)
for many years now the 4 cylinders were Mazda engines, and the 6s were either Vulcans or Duratecs - and the engine to have was certainly the 4 banger, even back in the 80s. Although I have a problem (as it relates to complexity and durability) with turbocharging in general, I'm sure the Speed6 is a blast to drive, and much preferable to the current 220hp Duratec and probably even a 260hp Duratec rehash.
|
- #12244 of 12297
-
Re: Ford Fusion Challenge [captain2]
by zzzoom6
-
Feb 18, 2007 (11:46 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Feb 18, 2007 11:27 am)
I test drove the 4 banger before buying the 6 cylinder mazda6 and found that even in the heavier hatchback, the four cylinder was very fun to drive. Of course driving style needed to change; although it could go into a corner a bit quicker, it was a bit more important to keep the revs up to have access to enough torque to pull out of a corner quickly. But I was impressed by how smooth the 4 cylinder was; mated to a manual transmission, this engine and the mazda6 were a good match. The v-6 has quite a bit more torque down low, so even though there's a bit more understeer mid-turn, the v-6 handles very well for a car in this class.
But in comparison to the mazdaspeed6, well that thing is a beast. I think I heard that this engine/turbo package was rated as one of the best engines in the world. Plus adding AWD helps keep all that power and torque to the road. The amazing thing is that the speed6 can be had starting in the 22k range since demand has been less than stellar. For those who would like to have a Grand Tourer type car, the Speed6 would be a great choice.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
