2006 Ford Fusion

[Flybrian]

My point was this poster smacks of a problem member we had before.

[the_yellow_dart]

It does look just like the Prelude... but the Prelude is still more attractive!! :lol:

[haypops]

well, if the Malibu's v6 wasn't pushrods maybe it would be a different story........

[post="11508"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't know. I remember the screams of objection and the reports of increased warranty claims lackluster performace , etc. reported over at BON when Ford made the switch from pushrod v8 engines to the present day OHC one.

[regfootball]

I don't know.  I remember the screams of objection and the reports of increased warranty claims lackluster performace , etc. reported over at BON when Ford made the switch from pushrod v8 engines to the present day OHC one.

[post="11816"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

geez and toyota and honda etc. and the koreans have been able to build them trouble free for like 20 years...........

far be it to expect an American manufacturer to do something as simple as that. Hell, GM took years before they figured out how to keep their v6's from popping gaskets etc.

point, its not what you build its how good of a job you do building it.

FWIW i'd be curious to read about those ford OHC v8's...my 95 t bird with the 4.6 OHC mod v8 required nothing. No problems whatsoever. It never burnt any oil even. When I traded it at 75,000 miles it still ran like new.

[The O.C.]

I don't know.  I remember the screams of objection and the reports of increased warranty claims lackluster performace , etc. reported over at BON when Ford made the switch from pushrod v8 engines to the present day OHC one.

[post="11816"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Who's to say that Ford's engine problems have anything to do with valvetrain or cam configuration....?

[Robert Hall]

Who's to say that Ford's engine problems have anything to do with valvetrain or cam configuration....?

[post="11908"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Probably nothing...the rest of the world made the switch to OHC V6s for family sedans long ago...GM is just stuck in the past on some things, IMHO..I'm amazed they don't still have 3spd automatics, carburators, vinyl bench seats, AM radios, and drum brakes on their US-market family sedans... :) Edited September 9, 2005 by moltar

[haypops]

Who's to say that Ford's engine problems have anything to do with valvetrain or cam configuration....?

[post="11908"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ford engineers.

[Cory Wolfe]

Probably nothing...the rest of the world made the switch to OHC V6s for family sedans long ago...GM is just stuck in the past on some things, IMHO..I'm amazed they don't still have 3spd automatics, carburators, vinyl bench seats, AM radios, and drum brakes on their US-market family sedans... :)

[post="11914"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I am too...

[ponchoman49]

I am too...

[post="11996"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It wasn't all that long ago when this was true. When the first W-bodies rolled out in 1988 there were still Cutlass Classics with carburetors, bench seats, AM radios and drum brakes. Cutlass Cieras has 3 speed automatics, bench seats and AM radios up till 1993. The Chevy Caprice had a 4bbl carb, bench seats and a AM radio up till 1988. Ford meanwhile offered AM/FM stereos, digital clocks, fuel injection and 4 speed autos on it's 1984 T-Birds and even had port fuel injection by 1987 while GM still used the old Quadrajet and the old fashioned motor driven digit clocks. Some things never change. :rolleyes:

[regfootball]

Probably nothing...the rest of the world made the switch to OHC V6s for family sedans long ago...GM is just stuck in the past on some things, IMHO..I'm amazed they don't still have 3spd automatics, carburators, vinyl bench seats, AM radios, and drum brakes on their US-market family sedans... :)

[post="11914"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

oh they would still build them that way if they could. gm loves to fight progress at every turn, at least their beancounters do. Edited September 10, 2005 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

oh they would still build them that way if they could.  gm loves to fight progress at every turn, at least their beancounters do.

[post="12161"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, and there are people that would probably buy them that way also, as amazing as that would seem...

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

It wasn't all that long ago when this was true. When the first W-bodies rolled out in 1988 there were still Cutlass Classics with carburetors, bench seats, AM radios and drum brakes. Cutlass Cieras has 3 speed automatics, bench seats and AM radios up till 1993.  The Chevy Caprice had a 4bbl carb, bench seats and a AM radio up till 1988. Ford meanwhile offered AM/FM stereos, digital clocks, fuel injection and 4 speed autos on it's 1984 T-Birds and even had port fuel injection by 1987 while GM still used the old Quadrajet and the old fashioned motor driven digit clocks. Some things never change. :rolleyes:

[post="12096"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's true for Cutlass Ciera, but not about the AM Radio part-it had an AM-FM Stereo Radio by then, but it was still far behind. All Cutlass Ciera and Century 4-cylinder models had 3-speed automatic transmissions on 4-cylinders right through the 1996 end year, and they all had bench seats, as models with bucket seats did not sell. Just because something is 'in' (i.e bucket seats), does not mean it is going to sell on a certain vehicle. Take the 2006 Chevy Impala LS, the base model. Its a mainstream American family car. It is most likely going to be the most popular model in the line, just as the previous generation's base trim was. Nearly all base Impalas had the standard front split-bench seat, hardly anyone I've seen bothered with the front bucket seats. Make sense? GM in recent times has always seemed to lag-Ford and Mopar too for that matter. They still didn't have enough standard. For example, in most cases the uplevel models only added wider rocker panel moldings and/or bodyside moldings, and pillow-cloth seats as opposed to standard (but real-hint-Chevy Cobalt and Malibu and Pontiac G6), but not equipment such as power windows, air conditioning, cassette player, etc. Its just sad to see where a car had ABS as standard a decade ago, yet on an equivalent model today, its optional. I have no problem with front bench seats on certain cars, just as long as its split, reclines, and in these days, have optional buckets for appropriate models (in other words, not the base Impala LS). In my opinion, every car needs 4-wheel-disc brakes, and a CD player-unless its like an Aveo SVM, in which I could see a valid excuse. But in a car like a Chevy Cobalt or Malibu, there wouldn't be a valid excuse. And how about a CD/cassette player standard in the larger cars and trucks? True, cassettes are a thing of the past, but many people still have them and would like that capability. The way I see it is, conquer the imports on all counts, but do not sacrifice the features that keep your current customers coming, or else you will steer them off. I will sum it up in one word: Oldsmobile.

[HarleyEarl]

MB, well said. On the subject of bench seats, I have owned them and like them. You always have room for an extra, you have a place for the laptop if necessary and frankly I like the airiness of no centre console and stack....I miss that open feeling.

[mark]

The beginning of the article mentions '.....done playing it safe'.....exactly the opposite.  This car is all about playing it safe.

[post="11296"][/post]

Well, there's a difference between taking a calculated risk and act like a retard making cars. I agree with the article; this car was done with good taste.



Edited September 10, 2005 by mark

[milleramerican]

It wasn't all that long ago when this was true. When the first W-bodies rolled out in 1988 there were still Cutlass Classics with carburetors, bench seats, AM radios and drum brakes. Cutlass Cieras has 3 speed automatics, bench seats and AM radios up till 1993.  The Chevy Caprice had a 4bbl carb, bench seats and a AM radio up till 1988. Ford meanwhile offered AM/FM stereos, digital clocks, fuel injection and 4 speed autos on it's 1984 T-Birds and even had port fuel injection by 1987 while GM still used the old Quadrajet and the old fashioned motor driven digit clocks. Some things never change. :rolleyes:

[post="12096"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

GM had port fuel injection in 1985, or maybe even 1983, I believe, on the Vettes.

[milleramerican]

Well, there's a difference between taking a calculated risk and act like a retard making cars.  I agree with the article; this car was done with good taste.

[post="12362"][/post]

I think this car looks good in those pics, it looks looong too.

[Robert Hall]

I like it...on paper, it definitely sounds like it has the hardware to be competitive... now if Ford can execute successfully and market it and if it drives as good as it looks, they may have a winner....

[BrewSwillis]

geez and toyota and honda etc. and the koreans have been able to build them trouble free for like 20 years...........

[post="11905"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Would hardly call this trouble free:

My biggest question is do I qualify? Here are the guidelines Toyota is using to establish the engines that are prone to having the sludge (gel) condition:

Camry 4 cyl. Produced 8/96 - 7/01

Camry 6 cyl. Produced 8/96 - 7/01

Solara 4 cyl. Produced 6/98 - 5/01

Solara 6 cyl. Produced 6/98 - 5/01

Sienna 6 cyl. Produced 7/97 - 5/01

Avalon 6 cyl. Produced 7/96 - 5/01

Celica 4 cyl. Produced 8/96 - 4/99

Highlander 6 cyl. Produced 11/00 - 7/01

[regfootball]

at least with a GM v6 you could count on virtually every one of them to blow a gasket and lose dex cool. the only toys that sludged were the idiots who didnt change their oil at 3000 like you should.

[haypops]

the sludge problem occured in well maintained vehicles also. Regarding GM gasket problems; the ford 3.8 v6 makes the gm problem seem nonconsequential.

[regfootball]

the sludge problem occured in well maintained vehicles also.  Regarding GM  gasket problems; the ford 3.8 v6 makes the gm problem seem nonconsequential.

[post="13178"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

ah, so you admit ford and gm both can't build a reliable v6, even if its got dinosaur or 'proven' (HAHAHAHAHAHA) technology. Edited September 13, 2005 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

ah, so you admit ford and gm both can't build a reliable v6, even if its got dinosaur or 'proven' (HAHAHAHAHAHA) technology.

[post="13340"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Much like you admiting Toyota engines will sludge.
There isn't a company on the planet that makes an engine that never breaks.

Given the number of installations of the 3800 in sheer numbers, I think they're doing ok.

[Satty]

Reg is an unpleasable tool. He wants to be like all the other douchebag tools who bash GM, but doesn't want to be like them in humping Toyota, so he humps Mitsubishi. A nonconformist tool, if you will. Bashing GM includes bashing the proven and reliable OHV engines which, in my experience, are only less refined than any DOHC V6 when they are pushed hard, which most car buyers dont do. Frankly, I think he wants to write for Car and Driver but lacks the credentials, so he makes various forums suffer through his automotive "knowledge".

[pow]

Reg is an unpleasable tool.  He wants to be like all the other douchebag tools who bash GM, but doesn't want to be like them in humping Toyota, so he humps Mitsubishi.  A nonconformist tool, if you will.  Bashing GM includes bashing the proven and reliable OHV engines which, in my experience, are only less refined than any DOHC V6 when they are pushed hard, which most car buyers dont do.  Frankly, I think he wants to write for Car and Driver but lacks the credentials, so he makes various forums suffer through his automotive "knowledge".

[post="13494"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

...? :blink:

[Cory Wolfe]

:lol: