Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0
13145 messages, Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:09 AM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jan 07, 2009 3:27 am) I've always heard "Fix Or Repair Daily" as the explanation of the FORD abbreviation. That's not been our experience though. We currently own three Ford products, a 1997 Thunderbird, a 2000 Focus station wagon and a 2007 SEL AWD Fusion and also previously owned a 1983 and a 1993 Thunderbird.
|
|
|
Replying to: urnews (Jan 07, 2009 8:08 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Jan 07, 2009 8:10 am) You are right, Allen. I have been reading everything I can about that model and it sounds great. Just what the doctor ordered. Now if I could just find some money.  
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Jan 06, 2009 5:34 pm) wrong - in that same issue CR notes that the V6 Camry had recovered from its original teething problems, was now 'better than average' and now 'recommended'. It will be interesting to see whether those Mexican products can maintain their high reliabililty ratings in consideration of finally getting some badly needed upgrades. Any manufacturer (even Toyota) will likely suffer from a reliability perspective if they are truly developing new products, something Ford, in particular, las lagged on.
|
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Jan 07, 2009 7:26 am) The Milan is fairly light at 3150lbs but it also seems to be the exception to the rule. 2002 Galant: 3031 lbs 2009 Galant: 3395 lbs 2002 Accord: 2943 lbs 2009 Accord: 3213 lbs 2002 Grand Prix: 3384 lbs 2009 Grand Prix: 3477 lbs 2002 Altima: 2983 lbs. 2009 Altima: 3145 lbs. Oh, and for fun - in the spirit of upsizing: 1996 Park Avenue: 3536 Lbs. Note - this is a huge car! And even more fun: 1959 Mercedes 220S 2976 Lbs. (first Mercedes "S class" sedan) This is a Chevy Bel Air(or current Altima) sized car with wood dash, heavy steel doors, and acres of glass. It makes you wonder exactly what in the world all that extra weight in these more modern smaller cars is for? http://www.heckflosse.nl/220sse.htm Oh - neat fact - these were the first cars built like modern vehicles. They drive like anything from the 70s or 80s. They also gave away almost all of their safety ideas, which Volvo copied. Crumple zones, safety glass, side impact reinforcement... its a large list of firsts. Drive one sometime if you can It took GM until 1987 or so to make a better car. (W body sedans)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Jan 07, 2009 8:33 am) Plekto, I think you may have missed the point I was making (or you meant to reply to another poster). The cars referenced in my post #11329 were all current designs, and all felt as though they had sufficient engine for the job. I agree with you that the MB Fintail sedans were superb vehicles, though I think you'd find they weren't quite the size of the Bel Air you mentioned: The '59 MB 220S had a 108 inch wheelbase and was 191 inches long (www.heckflosse.nl/dim4.html) and 70.6 inches wide. The current Altima is dimensionally very close to the 220S: 109.3 inch wheelbase, 189.8 inches long, 70.7 inches wide (www.nissanusa.com). But in 1959 the Chevy Bel Air had a 119 inch wheelbase and was 210.9 inches long and 79.9 inches wide (http://www.chevy59.com/data.htm). I prefer the next generation of the MB sedans (W114/115, aka the "/8" sedans introduced in 1968) because of their more sophisticated rear suspension. Back in the '80s I did a lot of driving in a gold '74 280 with very impressive space efficiency, handling, and comfort. That car really set my expectations as to what a car ought to be able to do. Only in the last few years have most midsize sedans been able to exceed those expectations.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jan 07, 2009 8:30 am) I guess it's impossible for some to realize the Ford has made tremendous strides to better their product. For years, Ford, and all domestics, have lagged behind in the passenger car market. If you have not been living under a rock for the last decade, you would know this. By Ford's own admission, they were concentrating on pick-up trucks and SUV's during this time. The Japanese (Toyota and Honda included) still do not know how to build a pick-up truck that is actually a work horse. Who lags there? Japan. The Tundra still lags behind in durability and functionality to the F-150 and Sierra. Don't get me started on the Oddesey...ahem... I mean Ridgeline....whatta joke of a pick-up. Let's get off the Ford bashing because it is obvious those who asses these cars for a living know what they are talking about. It's really getting so stupid about the same things said over and over and over that are just not true anymore. "extra, extra....read all about it....Ford builds a good car!!!" welcome to 2009....
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Jan 07, 2009 11:39 am) Give Ford credit for not waiting for a new platform to make huge changes: New IP and center stack Manumatic shifting 6 speed auto and manuals across the board upgraded 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engines with more power AND better FE new hybrid and 3.5L V6 powertrains new features - blind spot, cross traffic and rear view camera new front and rear styling capless fueling I'm sure there are a few more. And Ford did all of this just 3 years and 4 months after the Fusion first appeared in dealers. That's unheard of (but also necessary), even for Honda and Toyota. Time to give kudos where they've been earned.
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Jan 07, 2009 12:28 pm) The fact that Ford has managed to improve quality in the face of their financial problems is certainly worthy of note, even if it has cost a bunch of Americans their jobs. This is what I find hard to forgive. Ford has been doing what it has needed to be doing in the last few years and may just be the lone survivor of the 'Big 3'.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jan 07, 2009 1:17 pm) Umm, exactly WHICH automobile in the class has blind-spot detection? Capless fueling? 6 speed trannys on ALL engines? Trannys...GM did 6 speeds, Honda only has 5, Toyota maxes at 5 speeds (weren't they using a 4 speed on the 2.4 liter recently?). Blind spot stuff, NONE of them have it. Ford has SURPASSED the competition in several areas, get over it. You hate Ford, that's fine, but try and at least be objective. I hate GM but I'm not going to deny the fact that THEY were in fact the first ones in the class to put 6 speed auto trannies on ALL engines in the Malibu except for the "hybrid" one.
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Hyundai Sonata
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Honda Accord
2010 Nissan Altima
2010 Volkswagen Passat
2010 Mazda MAZDA6
2010 Ford Fusion
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2009 Saturn Aura
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
