http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...fusion-se.html

2007 Ford Fusion SE - Short Take Road Tests 1 | 2

The handsome four-cylinder, five-speed manual Fusion targets the
import champions, but does it stack up?
BY JARED GALL, January 2007


In our February issue, we ran a comparison test of mid-size sedans
from which the Fusion was absent. All those cars were new-for-2007
models from our 10Best hoopla, where the Accord beat them all to take
the trophy (again). We put together the comparo to see where the also-
rans would filter in below the Honda, and if the Accord would remain
on top when all the cars were sampled with four-cylinder engines and
automatics (the most-sold combination). Since a V-6 Fusion had already
lost to the Accord in a previous comparo, it stayed home for this one
as well. But the comparo was a timely reason to get our hands on a
four-cylinder Fusion, so we took it.



You can't talk Fusions without talking style: This is the best looking
Ford sedan in years. A rakish, high beltline with simple, clean sides
and subtle fender flares is topped by an angular greenhouse. Edges in
the sheetmetal are creased, but softer than a Cadillac. The outer
corners of the headlights creep up into the hood, as though being
pulled back by the wind rushing over them, and the oversized taillamps
get clear lenses that wrap around into the car's flanks. The look is
clean and understated, with bright detail work to bring out the luxury
look, like the sparse jewelry of a tuxedo. We like it.

Inside, the SE we tested was more Lee Dungarees and Jerzees t-shirt.
Nothing wrong with that in a $20,525 car. For $395, our Fusion was
upgraded with the Appearance Package, which includes 17-inch wheels
and spices up the plain black cloth seats with inserts dappled with
sporty-looking red stitching. It looks sporty and feels comfortable.
The dash, center stack, and steering wheel audio and cruise controls
are intuitively laid out, but unremarkable in their appearance.

The same could be said of the Fusion driving experience. Everything is
just fine, but unremarkable. The steering wheel asks reasonable effort
and provides decent feedback, but is a little too light and a touch
numb. The clutch pedal is smooth, but also a tad uncommunicative and
travel is as long as some of our commutes. The shifter isn't bad, but
it isn't good enough to elevate it above what can be found in any
competing car; and whoever decided it should be topped with a softball-
sized knob must be a recent transfer from Ford's commercial truck
division.


Although the performance figures we recorded-0-to-60-mph in 8.1
seconds, the quarter-mile in 16.4 at 85 mph-would have put the Fusion
solidly mid-pack in the comparo, but those cars were all saddled with
automatics and were thus a little bit off race pace; and the Ford's
160-hp 2.3-liter adds little joy to acceleration. On the skidpad, the
Fusion managed a comparo-besting 0.83 g, but it gives up a lot of the
refinement found in the Camry to achieve it.

Ford's Fusion is a strong contender in the steady mid-size segment. It
looks great from the outside, good on the inside, and its performance
is on par with the competition. Ford loyalists will be happy with this
car. But aside from its looks, the Fusion offers no standout qualities
that will bring Camry and Accord drivers into Ford showrooms.

That persons opinion aside, the Fusion will standout greatly, however, when
one asks the preverbal question, "How much is my monthly payment?"
Particularly when the buyer chooses the V6 with the six speed tranny.

Camry and Accord may sell more fours and standard shift cars, but Fusion
buyers are choosing the V6 six speed in higher percentages, over their far
more expensive V6s Eight out of ten Camrys sold in the US are only fours,
the reverse is more likely true of the Fusion. The fact remains one can
drive home a V6 Fusion for less than a four cylinder Camry, as CR pointed
out


mike


<iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 (AT) mailcity (DOT) com> wrote

In January and Februry, more than 50,000 Camries and Accords (each) were
sold, compared to about 24,000 Fusions. What a stand-out.

Perhaps but Toyota sold only around 10,000 V6 Camrys and Ford sold nearly
twice as many V6 Fusions. Why would a smart buyer settle for an underpowered
four, in a mid size car, when one can drive home a V6 for less?

mike


"Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote

On Mar 5, 1:10 pm, "Jeff" <n... (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote:
If you look at it from Ford's standpoint, Fusion sales were up 24%
year to year. You probably also ought to include Milan sales for a
true picture. According to Ford, total year to date sales for Fusion +
Milan is 29,446 (23,888 Fusions and 5,558 Milans). Interestingly,
Toyota reports a far higher number for Camry sales than Wards does.
Toyota claims 2007 year to date Camry sales as 63,609. Wards claims
57,476. I don't know why Toyota reports a number far larger volume
than Wards (11% larger). My guess would be that Toyota is including
Solara sales in the "Camry" number and Wards isn't.

On the bright side for Domestic producers, the Chevy Impala is not so
far behind the Camry and Accord (2007 ytd sales of 52200). If you lump
in the Monte Carlo (really just a 2 Door Impala), the Impala + Monte
Carlo sales are 55,128 so far in 2007. This would put it within a few
hundred units of the second place Accord (which includes 2 and 4 door
models). Three years ago Imapla sales were a non factor. So, I think
this indicates that with the proper product and good marketing you can
compete with the Japanese in the mid-sized market. The Fusion is a
good product, Ford just needs to market it better.

Ed

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 (AT) mailcity (DOT) com> wrote

What is the difference in performance between the Toyota 4-cyl and Ford
Fusion, like acceleration? Fuel economy?

The specs I saw has my 10-year old Contour (0 - 60 in 7.1 sec) faster than
the Ford Fusion (7.5 sec) even though my engine only makes about 170 HP and
170 lb-ft of torque, while the Fusion is over 200 in both. It seems that the
Fusion's performance is not all that great, considering the amount of power.

The reviews that I read said that the Toyota has adequate power.

I guess people will take a little less acceleration when they get better gas
milage and car they think is a better value.

BTW, the top speed on highways is about 75 or 80 mph. Both cars will get
there fast enough. I guess the difference is that the Camry is better able
to use its power, saving the owner fuel.

Jeff

"Ed White" <ce.white3 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

The other thing is that it takes a while for sales to build up.

The Fusion, Camry, Impala and Accord are all good cars, though.

Jeff

In article <kv%Gh.1745$3i.1006@trnddc01>, news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com says...
The Contour weighed around 3000-3100 lbs. The Fusion is 3300-3500 lbs.
Not to mention gearing and HP/Torque curves all play into acceleration,
too.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply (AT) no_junk (DOT) comcast.net> wrote

Correct. The Contour V6 was actually about 2900 lbs. However, there is also
a 35 lb-ft difference in torque and over 50 HP difference. You would expect
the Fusion to be fast with higher power-to-weight and torque-to-weight
ratios.

I guess the point is that the Ford Fusion acceleration is not all that
great, or the powertrain is not optimized for maximum accleration.

Apparently, Toyota did a better job of letting the power get to wheels, so
that they get better performance.

Jeff

On Mar 5, 4:51 pm, Andrew Rossmann
<andysnewsreply (AT) no_junk (DOT) comcast.net> wrote:
Consumer Reports measured the 0-60 for a Fusion SEL AWD 3.0L V-6 as
8.0 sec. The 4 cylinder manual FWD was 9.5 sec. Interestingly Car and
Driver did a 8.1 sec 0-60 in a four cylinder Fusion and did a 7.4 sec
0-60 with a V-6 FWD Fusion. The V-6 FWD Camry tested by CR did a 7.1
sec 0-60. C&D's V-6 Camry did a 7.5 sec 0-60. The 4 cylinder Camry
tested by CR managed a 9.6 sec 0-60. So if the 4 cylinder Camry is
good, I suppose any Fusion is good too. As far as fuel economy, here
are the CR averages -

vehicle / overall / city / highway / 150 mile trip
Camry 4 / 24 / 16 / 36 / 29
Camry V6 / 23 / 16 / 36 / 29 (seems unbelievable compared to the 4)
Fusion 4 / 23 / 15 / 32 / 27
Fusion V-6 AWD / 20 / 14 / 29 / 25

The AWD Fusion suffers in both fuel economy and performace relative to
the 2WD version, but then again, I like the idea of AWD - which is why
I bought one. I am doing considerably better than 20 around town, but
not nearly 29 on the highway (but then my only highway trip was down
I-95 with speeds over 75 mph). Overall I am averaging about 23 mph.

I think about the best you can say is that the FWD Fusion has
equivalent to slightly better performance than the Camry, and
equivalent to slightly worse fuel economy. If you get an AWD Fusion,
you are porbably going to suffer with slightly worse performance and
fuel economy than the FWD version.

BTW, you can buy an equivalent Camry (no AWD available), but even with
the AWD I figure I would have paid at least $4000 more for an
equivalent Camry. That will buy a lot of gas.

Ed