At today’s LA Auto Show, Ford revealed its refreshed Fusion. In large part, the midsize sedan’s in synch with one of TTAC’s core philosophies: evolution before revolution. Manufacturers should continue to improve existing decent products rather than swing for the fences– especially when it’s the bottom of the seventh. That said, plenty of pistonheads reckon the Fusion isn’t a patch (or is) on the Euro-Mondeo. In Fantasyland, that’s the Blue Oval mid-sizer on dealer lots. And if there’s still a Ford America in 2013, we’ll have our Mondeo and drive it too. In the meantime, good is good enough. Or is it?
The Fusion we’ve got now is a decent car. It’s not perfect. The turning circle is poor. The quality of interior plastics ranges from impressive to horrendous, especially in the cheaper models. The existing engines trail Japanese competitors a bit in horsepower and fuel economy. The back seat is missing headrests. Little things, that add up to a car that wasn’t totally there.
So what has Ford done here? They redid most of the dashboard, installing a better center stack of controls and display. It’s still not an Audi, and you’d be hard pressed to call it inspired design. From the photos, it looks like a significant improvement. Cost? Probably fairly low. Ford’s also dishing-up some low-cost, high profit options for the interior. SYNC is the best audio and/or nav interface on the market, in terms of ease of use, and a Sony-branded stereo means added profits merely because Ford is using a system from an established name brand.
As for the engine upgrades, well, much respect. The 2.3-liter 4-cylinder is bounced for a 2.5-liter 4, and it’ll still offer a manual transmission– now up to six gears. The automatic is also a six-speed. Incremental improvements; way to go, Ford.
Ford’s PR sheets claim mileage will be up a few MPGs, but honestly, even if it’s better than the Camry’s, that’s not Ford’s image. The 3.0-liter 6 is up to 240 horsepower, which is less than the V6 engines from Honda and Toyota, but so what? It’s a great amount of power for the Fusion and for a front wheel-drive vehicle. The top engine– only offered in the Fusion Sport– is Ford’s 3.5-liter V6. It has the more class-competitive horsepower rating of 263. I’ve never warmed up to this engine in the Edge, Flex, and Taurus; perhaps it’s the transmission tuning, but it always feels lazy and dumpy.
The Fusion hybrid is a separate debate– and the topic of Robert’s other post– but hey, at least Ford is in the game.
The biggest issue for these cars, aside from some moderate flaws, is that Ford has zero image right now. Other than seeing one on the street and saying “I like the look of that,” I don’t know why someone would be attracted to the Fusion instead of the dozen other competitors.
Ford’s marketing to journalists tends to argue that they have the best “thought out” vehicles. This usually means creature comforts, as well as some ergonomic improvements. For instance: SYNC, capless fuel fillers (cleaner hands), clever doors on the Flex (cleaner pant legs), power moving pedals (saves from short people sitting on top of the airbag). But so what? Can you really sell cars on nebulously defined “technology?” Well, no. That’s what Acura has been trying to do for years, and it doesn’t work for them.
Ford probably doesn’t have the money or resources to develop a clear brand image. So they’ll do what Toyota does: incrementally improve cars that are pretty good. It’s a good long-term strategy, but not a great one. And tough to do when you’re playing against the clock. We’ll bring you a review of the upgraded Fusion as soon as possible.
I definitely like this overall as opposed to the first generation. The headlamp treatment here is much more svelt, and far more classy. I’m not sure about those foglamp surrounds though.. they seem out of place somehow. The rear looks a little over-worked as well, but at least its not blah like the current fusion. I think this one will grow on me, whereas the original never did.
If a loaded Fusion Sport comes in ANY higher than $28K…Ford missed the mark (again). For that kind of cash…one would be MUCH better getting a G8.
But it is nice to see a gauge cluster that does not suck…too bad the Lincoln Taurus has to suffer with the Focus cluster, but the Fusion gets a fancy one.
I don’t know…I kinda like the Fusion sport. By far the best looking of all the CD3 cars…but really is not saying much. Ford really needs to dump this “bling” grille. It is just as crass as the ugly F-150 or Superduty.
I also find it interesting that with the Fusion re-skin, they were able to magically make the 3.5/6-speed appear as a powertrain option…but not in the Mustang.
The 2010 Fusion looks shockingly more like a Mazda than it does a Ford product.
That’s probably a good thing.
I like the new interior and the new centerstack. I am certain the Mercury Milan will have an interior just as good.
I just saw the Lincoln MKZ on Car&Driver and I loved what I saw considering it looks more like the upscale MKS.
One question…why isn’t the new Ford hidden keyless entry in the B pillar on this car? All the new Ford cars should have it.
I personaly do not forsee myself ever buying a Fusion or its brothers because its too small for me. I’m 6’7. I own a S550 and my girlfriend has a Chrysler 300 she bought just so I could fit in it (she wanted a 3 series).
I’d be more interested in the Montego, Taurus, MKS if I wanted to get a lower priced car, but even the MKS is too small for me.
Overall I love the work Ford is doing in their cars now, but I just hope its not too late for them to turn a profit.
And where is the Twin Turbo V6?
Looks like an ’04-’08 Acura TL
Glad to see they dumped the chrome surround in the tail lights. It always looked cheap and tacked a car that’s not bad looking car.
Well I think that would be the last mediocre looking Ford as the Mazda shares all ready I believe sold.
The Fusion looks great, and apparently it’s supposed to be quieter and more fuel efficient then the 2009 Camry (but the 2010 Camry comes out with the new 2.5 4). Success? Why not?
What I see as a problem is the Lincoln counterpart, the MKZ. It looks exactly like the Sonata from behind, from the elongated tail lights to the side profile. Especially since they both have very stout profiles… and the MKZ has that little black triangle in the window like the Sonata, with the single chrome rod along the belt line. Bad design for Lincoln!
BMW325I – If I’m correctly interpreting what you attempted to write, you’re stating that the Ford/Mazda partnership is over. On the contrary, Ford still owns ~13% which is the largest interest in the company. They’ve already announced their continued partnership. Mazda needs Ford just as much as Ford needs Mazda.
Justin – I read elsewhere that the turning radius on the ’10 CD3s is improved. I don’t recall how much they claimed. Do you have any numbers to back up your “turning circle is poor” comment?
Sounds like a great entry. One good thing about Fusion is that it is more properly sized than Camry or Accord, both of which bloated out of control, reaching into the full-size category (no wonder Avalon sales have been dropping). If the new 2.5 motor will match or beat Camry MPG numbers, and the hybrid verstion isn’t insanely priced, we have a winner.
Just an example of what could be done with attention to detail and incremental changes.
A pity that (1) Ford(NA) never let Ford Australia engineer the Falcon to LHD or (2) Export the Fusion to Oz and let the local designers loose.
Fancy having two design teams building essentially the same car in two different locations duplicating all that effort.
Now we (in OZ) are going to loose the Falcon because the market is too small, leaving the large powerfull family sedan market to the Commodore and “gasp” Toyota Aurion. Pehaps the fusion will come downunder to save Ford’s large car market?
Hey, a three year old mainstream Ford just got a mid-life kicker set of tweaks and improvements. Ford is learning how to play the game as well as the Japanese. An all new version every 5-6 years with a mid-life kicker freshening in the middle. Good on them.
If I were in the market for a family sedan right now the Fusion would certainly be on the shopping list. My neighbor is so far thrilled with their ’06 Fusion at about 40k miles and counting.
They’re killin’ me with the wing on the back of the “sport” model.
These guys can’t resist infusing (pun intended) some cheese-factor into a basically good looking car.
I think the current sport has a, dare I say tasteful, but still juvenile lip spoiler. That, I can live with.
I would go for a mid-level model, simply to avoid the tack-on wing and save a few bucks on the transaction price!!!!!
What did they use to cut the interior panels, a butter knife?
Ugly interior fitments aside, Ford is doing the right thing here, and they’ve addressed a lot of the issues with the 1st gen Fusion (ugly instrumentation especially) and gave it a good kick. That’s a better sign than letting it rot and waiting for a ‘hail mary.’
I’ll be real interested to see how this stacks up against the segment in terms of real-life fuel economy, ride comfort and nvh. I think it looks pretty snappy, and I’d way rather support a company run by Mulally than one run by Wagoner & his clown crew.
I’d watch my back looking at Fords with 2.5 engines that started life as 2.3s.
Remember the 2.5 HSC Taurus engine anyone?
I do.
I disagree about selling a car on “technology.” From my point of view Acura is technology for technology’s sake. All of the things you listed about the Fusion actually sound…useful.
I’d consider cross-shopping the Fusion based on the power pedals alone. My wife loves the power pedal feature on our ’04 Camry.
It’s nice to see Ford go through its cars one by one with a checklist of deficiencies and fix them during the mid-cycle upgrades.
Hopefully going forward they will design the whole car to be top notch out of the shoot – I am talking to you 2010 Taurus!
Everything Ford has come out with in the last 3 years seems to be a checklist improvement on an existing model rather than a clean sheet design – Flex, MKS and 09 F150 excepted, and even these were launched without upcoming powertrain improvements, so they will need their own major mid-cycle upgrades.
The only thing I don’t like about the 2010 Fusion is that I can’t get the 4 cylinder stick with leather. Of course, I couldn’t get that in 09 either… I have an 08 Fusion SEL 4 cylinder stick with leather and roof and love it. Love SYNC and use it every day. Ford has 16 months to come out with something else for me.
The one thing that always bugged me about the previous Fusion model is the exclusion of a manual transmission from the V6 AWD model. I think with a nice 6-speed AWD tranny and a sport-tuned suspension (and maybe some quality leather) on the 3.5L model they’d have a nice competitor in the midsized segment vs. cars like the Legacy GT and the A4 and whatnot. I’d say it would be a good idea to offer an AWD option even on the base model 4-cyl Fusion. I bet that a lotta people cross-shopping the Fusion/Camry/Accord/Altima etc. would be willing to pay a small premium for the AWD option. It might even put Ford ahead of the competition in the economical midsize segment. It could improve the entire segment by forcing the Japanese automakers to offer the same options on their vehicles.
Imagine an AWD Fusion SHO, maybe with a turbocharged version of the 2.5L I4. I’d buy one of those.
Perhaps I’m the only one who loves how the new Fusion looks? I also really liked the styling of the last one; I understand it was a bit polarizing but I thought it was “bold” and attractive. Ford will never sell any of these not because the Fusion isn’t “great”, but because it’s not revolutionary. The only way to topple the Camry, Accord, and Altima is for the Japanese to be negatively publicized in terms of quality, or if the Fusion is absolutely revolutionary in some way. Which it’s not.
It would make for a fine electric car. That’s what the bailout money will make right? I’d buy one for certain if the price was right.
The problem with a manual is that most people would never bite. So instead of throwing another $25 mill into testing the manual and making sure they have supply and adding even *more* complexity to their manufacturing system, they just leave it out. So, they offer a manumatic to try and bridge the gap. 98% of people will be happy with that – and with their limited resources, that’s what Ford needs to do.
Couple corrections to posters above:
1) Ford NA had no role in FoA’s decision to engineer the Falcon for RHD only compatibility. The problem with Ford before Mulally is just that everything was too disjointed for Ford NA to *encourage* FoA to make it LHD compatible.
2) The 2.5 in this car evolved from the 2.3, but it wasn’t a simple bore and plop on some heads. This is nothing like the 2.5 from the Taurus from decades ago. Reaching for straws there.
The only thing I see as mediocre here is its longevity. The style is good, both in and out, and I have no doubt that the Fusion will continue to offer the same quality that earned it tons of praise from Consumer Reports. But… I don’t think this design is sleek enough to make it to 2012. It will fall about 18 months short, I think. Granted, the 4-cylinder Ecoboost is due sometime around late-2010, and it will likely make its way under the hood shortly after (1.6 – 190hp/190tq, about 30mpg or so combined) to help things out… but I just don’t see how this will remain fresh until the next-gen arrives.
Honestly, until I drive it, that’s the only thing I see.
Do u guys think that overall Ford’s vehicles are much better in value and reliability than GM’s or Chrysler’s? fusion looks and i think drives better than other US made competetors especially the ones made by chrysler. but lets see what new Malibu will be able 2 do
Why not just take the better-designed Mazda-6 sibling and just lightly re-do the nose and tail, switch out the badges and Presto!!
I’ve benchmarked a new Mazda-6 at work and it’s pretty nice-probably nicer than the ‘new’ Fusion/Milan…kind of like how the previous Mazda-6 was nicer than the Fusion/Milan siblings.
This car simply looks awesome. If it retains the handling and the low cost of the original, it’s probably the best mid size car on the market for married gearheads on low budgets. Mazda6, Accord, and Camry, have all become more bloated and mainstream (not too mention the cost). If I remember, the original Fusion with 4-cylinder engine sold for about the same price as the Civic LX. If the current model retains this pricing, it’s a steal.
RobertSD– I’ve read too many “don’t buy an automatic Chrysler– it will blow up at 10,000 miles!!!!!! LOLZ OMFG they’re SO bad ya’ll” comments to not share my experience with a hack-job Ford re-fit of a 2.3 engine.
I finally saw the rear of this thing, and all I can say is: woof. Few redeeming design traits. This thing will be remembered as fondly as the 1988.5 Tempo.
Ditto on what Robert SD said.
Look, all of us enthusiasts want turbocharged 400 horsepower diesel stick shift cars that offer as cheap options sunroofs, AWD, hatches, wagons, 7 seats, leather, cloth, manual seats, and whatever else.
The bottom line is that interesting cars are the kiss of death for manufacturers in the US. You have to build what will sell at a good volume.
Frankly I was shocked to learn that the AWD V6 Fusion will continue and that the 4-cyl/stick combo will continue. We should be grateful for that much.
Just think about all the Car-Nerd-oriented cars that have been sales duds:
–Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky
–Pontiac GTO
–Pontiac G8
–Lincoln LS stick shift
–Mazda6 hatch and wagon
–Toyota Supra
–Volvo S60R and V70R
–Volvo C30
–Ford Focus hatch and wagon
–Ford Focus SVT
–Saturn Astra
–Toyota MR2
–Lexus IS300 sedan and hatch
–Honda Civic Si hatchback
I had a Mazda sourced 2.5L in a 1998 ranger and the thing is still humming after 250,000 miles for my aunt who I sold it to. Now I don’t know if this is a similar motor or not, and they went back to the 2.3L in the Ranger in 2000 I believe, but I don’t see much to worry about quality wise here. And I do have to say this car now looks better than anything in the class save it’s partner the “6”. The Altima and Maxima are also nice if not a little on the pricy side. I just do not like the looks of the Camry, and the new Accord is almost as ugly. After riding in a co-workers new Camry the other day I can say it is as cheap and craptacular feeling as the Ford and GM offerings anymore. At least the Accord feels solid inside still. I think it is a good showing by Ford here.
This is a good-looking car. It’s not a gumdrop like most of the cars out there. But poor turning circle? Forget it.
Ford is taking the right approach with this car. It is fixing the problem areas while making it look “new” to get customers interested.
And, as someone who currently owns a 2003 Accord, and is turned off by the bigger current version, I will be giving the Fusion a serious look when it comes time for a new car. (The good ratings in Consumer Reports are also encouraging.)
Justin: Some of the cars you listed had some serious flaws. The GTO and Solstice/Sky, for example, didn’t flop only because they were too oriented towards enthusiast drivers. Ditto for the Saturn Astra.
Berkowitz is right. The gear-heads want what the vast majority of people don’t. It’s no accident that Toyota makes all of zero sports cars. Mid-sized V6 manuals are a complete sales dud and a waste of resources. It will get some props from the increasingly unread buff-books but for the buying public, no one wants them.
kericf, I agree that the Ranger is an awesome little truck.I have a ’97 with 130K miles that’s cost me an average of $30/year in unscheduled repairs over 11 years–some years nothing but wear items and routine maintenance.
This year all I’ve replaced are the battery(most people would call this a wear item) and the original thermostat(wear item or not??).
Your engine history is a little jumbled, though.
The 2.5 in your 1998 was a stroked version of the 2.3 in mine.
That engine dates back to the Pinto.
Since 2000, Ford has used the Mazda-sourced “new 2.3”.
I lament that once I’ve worn out this Ranger, there won’t be any more new ones to replace it with.
I used to drive nothing but Fords until I re-married and acquired 3 more kids.Then, I bought the first of the 3 Chrysler-built minivans I’ve owned over the past 20 years.
The Aerostar had a nicer interior and tighter body than a Voyager/Caravan, but a rental version of the one that I could afford–the RWD model– really sucked on snow and ice.
Windstar and its replacements were clearly inferior in every way to either Aerostar or the Chryslers. IMHO, the only way that Ford could move Windstars was to de-content the Aerostar and starve it of R&D money so it would die a quiet death in 1997.I’ve often wondered why Ford couldn’t figure out how to make an FWD Aerostar.
I hope Ford survives. They are the most deserving of the Detroit 3.
For some reason I find the corporate razor grille much less offensive on this version. I may even call it good-looking. This is exactly what Ford should be doing.
Man I hope this one is enough for Ford because I really want them to survive. Unfortunately they have lots of competition in the midsize FWD category. Not sure why you would pick the Fusion over the Altima or Mazda6.
26theone
i feel the same way, all american automakers have potential and experience to turn all this crap around and to get in better shape. personally i blame managment for not being more responsible with quality of there vehicles . making those gas gazzlers was a huge mistake.
The current Fusion has big red marks all over it from Consumer Reports. Makes it the best car sold by the D3 in the US.
davey49
Yes :) so does mercury milan. what do u know it turns out Ford still is able to make good cars
Isn’t it funny, we are praising this new Ford jsut one year after GM got accolades for their new malibu. It seems these halo models go so far in their help for their parent companies, but don’t hit the home run out of the park. It is a shame, because I read how Ford took a mediocre 500 and made the new taurus a much nicer car. In the Fifties and Sixties, VW made a science out of incremental improvements on the bug. They sold these improvements as substitutes for a new model every year (or ten). Can Ford, improve it’s way out of the doldrums? I hope so.