You are here: Forums Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0

Midsize Sedans 2.0

13221 messages,  Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 6:41 AM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Saturn Aura, Car Comparisons, Sedan

#3425 of 13221 Re: DT3.5 [benderofbows] by lilengineerboy Jul 16, 2007 (7:16 am)
Replying to: benderofbows (Jul 16, 2007 6:42 am) Did those changes make a big difference over non-SE Contours?   For '95-97 they did. The '96 SE had a lower, more aggressive suspension than the '98 SVT. For the '98 model year, the great decontenting had begun and it was on its way to rental car-land. I was actually very impressed with the increase in handling and feel of the '96 SE over the LX and base, even the LX V6. I also think the package included 15" alloys instead of 14" in a more performance oriented size.
#3426 of 13221 Fusion update take 3 by targettuning Jul 16, 2007 (7:19 am)
We have been using a 2007 Fusion "S" rental for two weeks tomorrow. It is a 4 cylinder 5 speed automatic. After a driving it a little over 1K miles this past 2 weeks I believe I will update my observations and since the transmission repair on our 95 Stratus should be finished today or tomorrow it will likely be my last. 1. My initial observation of a noisy (induction noise) engine remains. we have become "used" to it but it there...constantly. 2. The initial dislike of a high trunk and rear package shelf has become more intense. I cannot see adequately out the back when reversing into a parking stall and any car or obstacle behind is hard to see/judge the distance to. 3. The ride and handling remains one of my favorite parts of this vehicle. The ride is taunt (on the firm but not harsh side) and handling is good with the Continental tires supplied. I did not push it beyond high normal type cornering however. 4. The interior space is fairly large and the seats (the driver seat anyhow)is comfortable or was for me during a 300 mile drive on Saturday. 5. The amount of standard features are sparse as compared to both a lower end 2006.5 Kia Optima and a 2006 Hyundai Sonata I recently rented. 6. Engine performance is OK (adequate) and again comparing it to the Kia and Sonata (both 4 cylinders) feels slower with both Korean cars fairly jumping off the line and reving freely to the upper RPM ranges. Maybe it is the engine noise that makes the engine feel more strained than it is? 7. Fuel economy: I used this car as work car driving it back and forth to work which is a 12 mile one way drive for me. I have two traffic lights..#1 (almost always red coming from a secondary road onto US Rt. 30) and another on the military facility where I work. I have a total of two stop signs with usually NO or minimum wait for any amount of time at either. All roads traveled are 2 lane rural with the exception of a short (2 mile stretch of Rt 30). Speeds probably average 45-50 mph. All in all a much more free of "hassles" commute than most. So in addition to that we used it to putter around our small city (town really) after work. Typical stop and go with little or no gridlock...mostly "no". Drive to Wal Mart..drive to Circuit City..drive to a local resturant and eat supper kind of thing. we probably drove it a total of 35 to 40 mile a day including my 24 mile round trip to work. After a week and a bit over 1/2 of gas of that type of use I added 9.573 gallons and traveled 242.6 miles yielding 25.35 mpg. This past Saturday we drove it on a 300 mile road trip. I used the Pa Turnpike...I-81 and some "secondary" or rural 4 lane limited access highways. I kept the speed on the first part of the trip ( mostly because I had my 85 year old mother in the car)to less than 70 mph..about 68. Once we dropped her off at relatives the return trip was a bit faster 72-73 mph. All in all I was "good" with no abrupt increases of speed (A.K.A. road rage)no mountains this time and no luggage on the return. There were 3 of us on the first part and 2 on the return trip. I think that unless you slowed to 60 or 65 the car couldn't be expected to get better mileage...in other words it was optimal for fuel economy. I refilled it with between 1/4 and 1/2 tank remaining used 10.003 gallons and drove 306.4 miles for an average of 30.64 mpg Summary: I probably wouldn't buy one because of the above perceived (by me) faults. Handling and ride was good. Standard features were slim. Fuel economy was good/average for the size/engine. I guess here is where the Accord folks will say low because they get 34..whatever. It had no squeaks or rattles and quality was good from what I could see (paint seems good and fit and finish also good). Interior plastics were of the rubbery type in many places and I liked that. Ergonomics were less than good with the headlight switch low and to the far left on the dash and the radio was a "park first to adjust" type. Even after two weeks I still didn't trust myself to adjust it while driving and always asked my wife to find a station etc. Steering wheel audio controls appreciated. I appreciated having a car these two weeks but in the end it was just that...a car. P.S. almost forgot safety (and that is important to me). If you are one who considers ABS, traction control, and ESC safety pluses this car doesn't have them...any of them. One CAN get ABS as an option on all models and traction control as an option on V-6 models but not ESC. Not available yet on any model. Replies to this message: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 8:16 am) baggs32 (Jul 16, 2007 8:35 am) urnews (Jul 16, 2007 8:47 am) akirby (Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am) captain2 (Jul 16, 2007 1:17 pm) akirby (Jul 16, 2007 2:03 pm)
#3427 of 13221 Re: Fusion update take 3 [targettuning] by akirby Jul 16, 2007 (8:16 am)
Replying to: targettuning (Jul 16, 2007 7:19 am) Nice review. Regarding the rear visibility - it took me about 6 weeks to get used to it. After that it's not a problem. But it was a little disconcerting at first. Lack of some features is understandable since it's a base S model. Lack of ESC and only average fuel economy are fair complaints. Replies to this message: baggs32 (Jul 16, 2007 8:35 am) urnews (Jul 16, 2007 8:47 am) akirby (Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am)
#3428 of 13221 Re: Fusion update take 3 [akirby] by baggs32 Jul 16, 2007 (8:35 am)
Replying to: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 8:16 am) A reverse sensing system is an option for 2008 Fusions in case you never get used to that high rear deck.
#3429 of 13221 Re: Fusion update take 3 [akirby] by urnews Jul 16, 2007 (8:47 am)
Replying to: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 8:16 am) Lack of ESC and only average fuel economy are fair complaints.   Like you Allen, I own one, a 2007 SEL AWD V6, and agree with your observation. Replies to this message: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am)
#3430 of 13221 Re: Fusion update take 3 [urnews] by akirby Jul 16, 2007 (8:48 am)
Replying to: urnews (Jul 16, 2007 8:47 am) Except you'd be HAPPY with AVERAGE fuel economy. Right, Boz?
#3431 of 13221 slalom (video) by joe97 Jul 16, 2007 (12:27 pm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBhiB_qH1KY
#3432 of 13221 Re: Fusion update take 3 [targettuning] by captain2 Jul 16, 2007 (1:17 pm)
Replying to: targettuning (Jul 16, 2007 7:19 am) ESC safety pluses this car doesn't have them...any of them. there is a reason for this - lack of a sophisticated enough braking system in the first place. Shooting juice (brake fluid) to individual brakes (as ESC will do) requires not only a yaw sensor to make a determination of when your car needs 'help', the computer to make that decision for you (and administer the 'fix'), but also an extra circuit in the brake system itself - neither of which the Fusion has even available.  Given that the government is forcing these systems on us anyway, expect that Ford will have to 'upgrade' their braking systems in the next model year or two. It is not that they can't do it, ESC is available on other models - it may be more a function of not having the money to do it for the Fusion right now. Replies to this message: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 2:03 pm)
#3433 of 13221 Re: Fusion update take 3 [captain2] by akirby Jul 16, 2007 (2:03 pm)
Replying to: captain2 (Jul 16, 2007 1:17 pm) The rumor is they made a conscious marketing decision to go with AWD instead of ESC early on (when the competition wasn't yet offering ESC) and couldn't change it at the last minute. It should be fixed with the 09 refresh.
#3434 of 13221 Re: Aura owners? [akirby] by goodegg Jul 16, 2007 (3:21 pm)
Replying to: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 5:30 am) Why do you have to question other people's subjective preferences for a specific vehicle just because you don't share that opinion?   Because I wonder what makes the Aura "head and shoulders above" the competition in their eyes.   That's what I already posted.   I liked the Aura when I sat in it at the dealer but didn't get the same superior vibe. Their opinion is backed by zero reasons why its better.   Let's hear why. Replies to this message: akirby (Jul 16, 2007 5:48 pm)

You are here: Forums Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0