: 2010 Ford Fusion: New face, new engines, new 6 speed automatic



Blackout
10-29-08, 05:57 PM
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/29/2010-ford-fusion-revealed-with-new-face-new-engines-and-new-six/

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-29-08, 06:06 PM
Ooh, that's quite nice! I always thought the Fusion was under appreciated compared to it's competition.

thebigjimsho
10-29-08, 09:32 PM
I like the current Fusion. The new one looks cartoonish with that ginormous grille...

eyekandyboats.inc
10-29-08, 10:10 PM
nice
it reminds me of SAAB for some reason...

Night Wolf
10-29-08, 10:35 PM
Not bad.... but not diggin the mega-blind-you grille....

The 2.5L 4cyl is producing less then 10hp/10tq more then the 2.5L I6 in my 20-year older BMW.... I don't know if that should be praised or frowned on... or.... it's at the same levels of a GM Quad4, also 20-years old now...

I'm really disgusted with modern engines.... especially when it comes to fuel mileage... it's all just a big game... gov't says new CAFE requirements are going to be 35mpg by *2020* and we aren't going to see them anywhere near that until those years.... it's all in the game, until then we will have to put up with "x% better then last years model" Well, 5% better then 20mpg is a whopping 21mpg.... pretty soon cars will be back up to the MPG ratings they had 20 years ago.... oh wait a minute...

thebigjimsho
10-29-08, 11:01 PM
Not bad.... but not diggin the mega-blind-you grille....

The 2.5L 4cyl is producing less then 10hp/10tq more then the 2.5L I6 in my 20-year older BMW.... I don't know if that should be praised or frowned on... or.... it's at the same levels of a GM Quad4, also 20-years old now...

I'm really disgusted with modern engines.... especially when it comes to fuel mileage... it's all just a big game... gov't says new CAFE requirements are going to be 35mpg by *2020* and we aren't going to see them anywhere near that until those years.... it's all in the game, until then we will have to put up with "x% better then last years model" Well, 5% better then 20mpg is a whopping 21mpg.... pretty soon cars will be back up to the MPG ratings they had 20 years ago.... oh wait a minute...Put today's engines into the cars of 20 years ago and mpg goes up. Blame safety regs...

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
10-30-08, 12:42 AM
Ugh. The current Fusion looks great, but this looks like crap. Keep in mind though that I like my cars to be a little more squarish with nice hard lines, not ones that are all roundy at the front. For some reason this makes me think of the movie Transformers. Maybe its because of the blue looking projector headlights, they look like eyes.

Cliff8928
10-30-08, 03:06 AM
Ugh. The current Fusion looks great, but this looks like crap.

Agreed! That new one looks like a big Focus.. The new Milan doesn't look so bad though...

mighty_quad4
10-30-08, 07:18 AM
Not bad.... but not diggin the mega-blind-you grille....

The 2.5L 4cyl is producing less then 10hp/10tq more then the 2.5L I6 in my 20-year older BMW.... I don't know if that should be praised or frowned on... or.... it's at the same levels of a GM Quad4, also 20-years old now...

I'm really disgusted with modern engines.... especially when it comes to fuel mileage... it's all just a big game... gov't says new CAFE requirements are going to be 35mpg by *2020* and we aren't going to see them anywhere near that until those years.... it's all in the game, until then we will have to put up with "x% better then last years model" Well, 5% better then 20mpg is a whopping 21mpg.... pretty soon cars will be back up to the MPG ratings they had 20 years ago.... oh wait a minute...


Actually, the Quad4 made slightly more hp [ W41 version made 15 more hp vs the HOs 5 ] but a little less torque because it is a smaller engine.

i agree with you. the Quad4 was getting 34-35mpg back in 1990 in 2800+lb cars with a 5 speed, making 180hp and running low 15s doing it. todays pocket rockets make.....around 180hp and run mid 15s while weighing roughly the same. wheres the progress? well, i guess they run a bit cleaner, but then again the Quad4's head was efficient enough to pass smog without a cat back in the day. granted passing was easier than it is now but still, no other engine from theday could do that to my knowledge.

mighty_quad4
10-30-08, 07:28 AM
Put today's engines into the cars of 20 years ago and mpg goes up. Blame safety regs...

i disagree. the newer cars weigh just as much as the older ones and get the same fuel mileage. a newer Cobalt SS/ Cobalt Sport Coupe [ with the 2.4 N/A engine ] weighs around 2800lbs just like my Olds Calais International Series. they both run around the same times in the qtr mile with about the same mph with the nod going to the Calais. both get roughly the same mpg.

you can only doso much with an engine and getting 180ish hp out of a 2.2-2.4l engine while getting 34mpg is quite an accomplishment. OEMs are nearing thier limit for a mass produced gasoline engine when it comes to fuel mileage.

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
10-30-08, 12:51 PM
The mileage is new cars is despicable. For the size engine they stick in some cars compared with the fuel mileage it is trash. My '95 used to get 16.5-17.5 in the city and 25-27 on the highway with AC doing about 75. I would much rather have the power and lose 5mpg for it.

thebigjimsho
10-30-08, 01:02 PM
i disagree. the newer cars weigh just as much as the older ones and get the same fuel mileage. a newer Cobalt SS/ Cobalt Sport Coupe [ with the 2.4 N/A engine ] weighs around 2800lbs just like my Olds Calais International Series. they both run around the same times in the qtr mile with about the same mph with the nod going to the Calais. both get roughly the same mpg.

you can only doso much with an engine and getting 180ish hp out of a 2.2-2.4l engine while getting 34mpg is quite an accomplishment. OEMs are nearing their limit for a mass produced gasoline engine when it comes to fuel mileage.A Cobalt weighs a hair under 3000lbs for a coupe and 3200lbs for a sedan. The Quad4 was a peaky motor and could certainly be wound up to make power but it was coarse and wasn't exactly known for longevity. Today's motors, especially 4 cylinders, tend to be tuned for more mid-range torque.

In the late 80s, early 90s, smaller, peakier power plants ran the performance cars of the day. Like your Calais, Ford had the SHO. Today, those engines are dwarfed by DI high power, bigger V6s. And by V8s. If you want a smaller "performance" car, you better get turbos to play anywhere near the big boys.

N/A 4 cylinder cars today are not expected to be anything but plebian. And yes, they are significantly heavier.

MauiV
10-30-08, 08:10 PM
When is Ford gonna bring something cool like the Falcon to the States and quit forcing these ugly shitboxes down our throats?

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ford_falcon_02.jpg

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ford-fg-falcon-f3q-s.jpg

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
10-31-08, 10:00 AM
^ Sweet.

Blackout
10-31-08, 11:07 AM
Turbo 5 cylinder > LS3

thebigjimsho
10-31-08, 12:15 PM
When is Ford gonna bring something cool like the Falcon to the States and quit forcing these ugly shitboxes down our throats?

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ford_falcon_02.jpg

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ford-fg-falcon-f3q-s.jpgThey're not as smart as GM...

thebigjimsho
10-31-08, 12:17 PM
Turbo 5 cylinder > LS3Yeah, go get your passport and you'll be all set. Otherwise, it's vaporware...around here anyway.

Blackout
10-31-08, 01:20 PM
Yeah, go get your passport and you'll be all set. Otherwise, it's vaporware...around here anyway.

I'd love to be able to move down there and get myself a Falcon. After watching this http://jalopnik.com/5060014/top-gear-australias-ratings-slump-despite-holden-vs-ford-shootout
it cemented that in my head