Yes, I know. You’re reading yet another article on TTAC about the Ford Fusion. You’ll have to read yet another sentence about the Aston Martin-style front grille, a paragraph about the EcoBoost engine, a passage about what the interior space is like, another sentence about the Aston martin-style front grille, and a remark on how the good SYNC voice activation is. But this review isn’t going to be the usual road test you read in your local newspaper, auto magazines, and the usual automotive blogs.
It’s about another kind of Ford Fusion. It’s not going to be about the Hybrid version, or the Energi, or one with the powerful 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine. It doesn’t have the wheels that thieves will steal from the car in your own driveway. It’s about your run-of-the-mill 1.6-liter EcoBoost Ford Fusion SE. Which has over 45,000 miles and is still serving as a rental car, meaning this truly is another kind of Ford Fusion.
Let’s start with the interior, as most reviewers tend to begin with the outside. The interior is a pleasant place (even after the tremendous amount of use), with black leather seats and some wood and silver-painted trim. All the touch points still felt fine. The power-adjustable driver’s seat had front and back lumbar support; though you couldn’t move the lumbar support up and down. Additionally, sitting in the back was comfortable and there was more than enough legroom, a welcome surprise coming from a Focus. As for the infotainment system, I don’t like the small LCD screen in the dashboard. It must be small to remind me my car doesn’t have the navigation option, but I’d rather have had the extra buttons and the digital screen. Even though I didn’t like the appearance of the infotainment system, the system was very intuitive and it was easy to tune the radio or change the audio settings.
Storage space wasn’t an issue. It’s a good car for four people going on a weekend road trip. There was plenty of space underneath the front armrest and to put things in the center console. The trunk could fit three full-size suitcases with room for a backpack. As for the spare tire beneath, it’s a space-saver wheel, so be prepared to drive in the right lane slowly in the event of a flat tire.
The powertrain was the now-discontinued 1.6-liter EcoBoost that makes 182 horsepower. (Now it’s the 1.5-liter Ecoboost.) While I had the car, the check engine light was illuminated and the transmission seemed to lazily drop a gear whenever I pressed harder on the accelerator. If the transmission wasn’t shifted into S, I would describe the cars highway performance “lazy.” The handling and steering feel was very good for a front-drive car of the size and weight of the Fusion, even with the smaller 17-inch alloy wheels. This car also had a normal 6-speed automatic, so you don’t hear the sound of clutches attempting to engage like you would in an “automatic” Focus.
Furthermore, the rental company activated the MyKey system, presumably to prevent me from driving 100 mph without my seatbelt fastened and with the radio turned to full-blast. However, unfortunately for those who wish to know the top speed my rental company set, I have no idea, since my driving was mainly local and there was traffic on the highway. That and I wanted to avoid a potentially awkward conversation at the rental counter if did found out I really did drive 100 mph without my seatbelt on with the radio turned to 11.
I have to include a paragraph about fuel economy, since it happens to be a major selling point of the car. It didn’t help that while I was watching an episode of New Girl on Netflix (on which Ford has an official product placement deal), one of the characters spent a good minute discussing how he cared about furl economy in his new Ford Fusion. The car computer told me it had received a little bit over 27 mpg overall over the life of the car. However, Ford advertised the fuel economy numbers as 23 mpg city and 37 mpg highway, which I found disappointing, but not surprising considering the acceleration habits of rental car drivers, which likely contributed to that low figure.
On the highway, this car was fairly comfortable and it absorbed some fairly nasty bumps, no doubt thanks to those 17-inch wheels. However, mine had a large problem with wind noise (it felt like one of the windows was slightly open, though everything was closed), and I couldn’t isolate where the wind noise was coming from. To ensure I wouldn’t hear that wind noise, I turned up the stereo louder than usual, which would’ve been fine if the speaker system was good, but it wasn’t. Visibility was very good, though it wish it would’ve been possible to sit up higher.
My rental car company put the Fusion in the “full-size” class, which I thought was for cars like the Taurus and Impala, and I was really looking forward to either of those two. However, when I was getting the rental, I had a choice between the Fusion and the Kia Optima. I chose the Fusion since I wanted to see how one held up to abuse and hit the jackpot when the odometer showed at least 46,000 miles. As I’ve noted before, numerous publications have tested new Ford Fusions, but it’s nice to know how they hold up over time.
It wouldn’t be a complete review of the Fusion without a discussion about the styling and a mention of the Aston Martin-style grille. I didn’t want to like it, but somehow, after looking at the photos, I don’t think the styling’s become dated, like what happened to the 2010 Hyundai Sonata after one model year. Despite the lower-end 17-inch wheels, I think it manages to look good. In ten years’ time, I think the Fusion’s looks still will be considered relatively modern.
Unlike the Focus, when I ran the VIN of this particular rental car, I didn’t come across any juicy tidbits of information, and the representative checking out the car to me didn’t volunteer anything either. So this car will probably come to rest on the lot of my local rental car company dealership in at least 5,000 miles’ time. The only somewhat intriguing thing I managed to come across was a document which indicated the Fusion might have been part of a “rent-to-own” program for rental cars. Meanwhile, I’m sure running the Carfax or Autocheck wouldn’t have turned up much, similar to my Focus experience.
Ultimately, this is a great family car and I like it. I can’t envision the design of the Fusion going out of style very soon, and the steering feel is very good. The performance is fine, as long as you stick to the posted speed limit, but put your foot down any further and the fuel economy doesn’t get anywhere near the number you envisioned. After 45,000 miles as a rental car, this Fusion held up better and was more comfortable than expected, though you should still get an inspection if acquiring a Fusion with 45,000 miles, as the EcoBoost engine might not be cheap to fix if it hasn’t been properly maintained.
And please, if you do purchase a Fusion, please don’t say the name of that British automaker that the grille reminds you of. We’ve all heard enough.
Satish Kondapavulur is a writer for Clunkerture, where about a fifth of the articles are about old cars and where his one-time LeMons racing dreams came to an end, once he realized it was impossible to run a Ferrari Mondial. He’s now scared of what the Ford MyKey system will reveal about his driving habits.
It’s funny how much nicer the interior of the prole spec Fusion looks and how much easier it is to actually use than the “upscale” Titanium. Direct buttons for radio presets check. Large, easy to use knobs and buttons for climate check. Twin attractive analog gauges in the proper places check.
Spend a lot more money on your Fusion, and you get a radio that’s much harder to use, stupid tiny touch buttons for climate, and a cheesy center speedo with twin annoying LCDs flanking either side, and a tiny, essentially useless digital tach.
Some of the issues will be fixed in the refresh. Look at the new Edge dash for what the Fusion will be working with. The LCDs aren’t going away though. I actually like using the steering wheel buttons to go through my presets. If you drive the car for more than a day or so, you get used to it.
I was in a Fusion Titanium last week. Ugh, what were they thinking with that center stack? Capacitive – touch everything. Don’t turn a knob to reduce volume, just hit the button over and over again. Reminds me of the terrible stereos in Fords from the 90s, but at least those buttons were tactile.
Yeah, good thing it’ll be gone. Ford overdid the capacitive buttons and so forth. If you think the Fusion is bad, try the 2011 Edge and Explorer with MFT. The hazard button was an untla sensitive capacitive touch button right below the touch screen and was right rear where my hand would rest while using MFT. I would end up putting the hazards on ALL. THE. TIME.
WTF are you talking about TMA!? I have a 2013 Titanium Fusion. To adjust the volume, you turn the giant round dial. No pushing required.
I think only the Edge and Explorer lacked a volume “knob”. However, both had a volume button on the steering wheel of MFT equipped vehicles.
Whatever those buttons along the bottom of the console are. All I could actually see in the light were the + and – buttons. The Fords I’m used to, those are + and – mean volume.
Actually there is a huge volume knob in the center. It is a Sony unit. I still prefer paddle on the steering wheel. Yes climate system is difficult to use, touch buttons get touched accidentally and it is difficult to hit the LCD when car is moving. But I like look – it looks clean.
You probably can’t make any fuel economy conclusions when you’ve got a check engine light on. Maybe it’s nothing, or maybe that crazy no-fuel-cap system isn’t sealed and is allowing all the fuel to evaporate. Who knows. A private owner is probably going to take care of that.
The infotainment stack looks awful. Glad to hear it works well enough. My issue right now with Ford is that they announced that the MyFordTouch system is so bad that they are dumping it – at the end of this year. And the new one isn’t just software, it’s new hardware too. So anyone that buys a Ford in 2015 gets stuck with the old system.
I’d even go as far as that 27mpg is utterly meaningless, except a vague confirmation that the fuel economy numbers aren’t entirely out to lunch. Past that, we’ve got absolutely no idea where or how it was driven.
I don’t think anyone at the rental company would’ve cared if it were reset.
You can always reset fuel economy indicator and get one related your driving style.
Private owner take care of a CEL? Take a look around you in bumper to bumper traffic, you can usually spot some “yellow” lights around you along with the occasional red ones.
A co-worker has a 14 Base Fusion, I believe there is a specific message for the cap less system, it just doesn’t trigger a generic engine light. I’ll have to ask him when he drives in again. Which his CEL light was on as well, and I noted the crappy shifting 6 speed as well, except his was on up shift….it would jerk into 2nd.
I love how so many automakers are designing their dashboards for giant touch screens, then develop really crappy looking base radios just to be a daily reminder of your cheapness.
I realize this is a minority opinion, but I thought the previous version was better looking than the “Aston” version. Although, the chrome Gillette grill looked awful, too. The car is too tall and narrow to convincingly pull of the Aston look. Compare the renderings Ford likes to distribute to the press and online to pictures of the actual car: the renderings look much better because they’re distorted making the cars look lower and wider than they actually are.
I realize all manufacturers do this, but it really jumps out at me with Ford’s current styling. Not that I was terribly interested in anything they offer anyway, but their current styling isn’t attracting me to any of their products.
I’m in that minority with you. I like the look of the current Fusion, but it’s a bit slab sided and the last one was a proper 3-box sedan with some sharp angles and good proportions. They had some very sharp and unique alloys wheels as well.
It had a ridiculous steering wheel lifted straight out of an F150, though.
Ya..well I have greater issues than all of you as I am the ONLY fella that liked the FiveHundred!
If it were not for the dead 3.0 followed by the 3.5, I think it would have been a better car to upgrade and improve upon.
IF they had introduced the MKS and left the Taurus as the FiveHundred or even the Fivehunded body…the MKS would have separated itself better.
Once they intro-ed the BIG Taurus, the MKS became just another Taurus with better stuff.
Again, not the only one. The Five Hundred/Taurus was the proper way to do a large sedan. Big airy greenhouse, low beltline, open cabin, unapologetic exterior styling that is stately because it isn’t trying to be a swoopy four door coupe. Didn’t hear much good about the 3.0/CVT pairing, but wasn’t the 3.5/6spd that replaced it far better?
yes…the 3.5 was perfect for my neighbors.
Just not for me. I need power.
I am an idiot that way.
I don’t drive really fast…I simply hate a slog off the line. The constant stopping and going begins to become a nightmare foe me if I don’t feel an eagerness or easy pushing in my back.
Like I say below…my ecoboosted MKS gets an average that is pretty high so am am easy on the gas…just want that feeling.
I perferred the last gen Fusion with the body color front grille. It was called the monochrome appearance package. I don’t think it was a factory option, but I like a black grille replacement for the chrome grille on the 10s-12s as well.
IIRC, that was part of the appearance package on the Fusion Sport, which was a helluva sleeper with the 263hp 3.5l V6
Ah the Fusion Sport. Still a nice car. Now Ford has a Sport version of the Explorer and Edge, but neglects the Fusion.
And yes, that was an appearance package on the Sport. The SE and SEL had different appearance packages too, but I liked the mild ground effects of the Sport with the monochromatic grille.
The only thing I didn’t like were the gaudy color-keyed interior swaths of red/blue/whatever that many of them came with. Its a Fusion, not a 17 year-old’s 17 year-old Integra.
Camry’s getting that color-keyed interior treatment now with some weird special edition. Ya-hoo.
Ugh, I remember driving one that had the blue swaths everywhere. I almost purchased one, without the colored everything, but decided to make my life miserable by purchasing another VW.
Based on used 10-12 Fusion prices, 28 Cars Later’s rule of buying an MKZ instead still applies.
@bball
Post 2007, I can’t think of a time where the Lincoln copy isn’t a buy over the Ford equivalent on the block. The CD3 Zephyr just happens to have the most advantageous disparity in resale vs its Ford counterpart.
Fourthed. If I were in the mid-size sedan market, the styling of the Fusion would just about disqualify it in my book, for the exact reason you say: the body simply can’t pull off the grill. It looks lumpy and dumpy, and having a grill usually seen only on extremely low, feline, athletic-looking cars only exaggerates the effect.
Compare to Mazda, which manages to give the new 6 the long, low profile (at least in visual effect) of a Jaguar without so obviously trying too hard; or Honda, which simply let the Accord be the Accord, and ended up with a thoroughly polished, upscale shape that doesn’t apologize for not being something else.
I’m of that minority opinion too.
I rented a 2014 and hated it. I rent a lot of cars for business and skip the Fusion everytime.
10-12 Fusion FTW.
Especially the 3.5 AWD Sport.
>>I realize this is a minority opinion, but I thought the previous version was better looking than the “Aston” version.<<
People are saying the same thing about the latest Mustang – they made it look like a Fusion coupe and that's not an improvement.
I agree also. I have a 2006 Ford Fusion SEL V6 and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more beautiful vehicle until I saw the 2010 update. Then the 2013 (?) update just kind of ruined it. I still like it but it’s not like it was.
As for the fellow who likes the 500, yeah, me too. I’ve actually never seen a Ford I didn’t like the looks of but I’m a weird Ford person.
please expound on the check engine light.
It would have been interesting to hook it up to a scanguage to see what the issue was.
I also had a 1.6EB SE rental not too long ago, and I came away with fairly favorable impressions. Very quiet going down the road and comfy seats. I found the 1.6EB and 6A setup wholly inferior to a Camry 2.5 and 6A both in NVH, power, and fuel economy. I got about 30mpg with the cruise set to 72 mph driving in cool fall weather. I was expecting something more in the 33-34 mpg range.
That is crazy bad. To compare I get about the same mileage doing 80MPH in my 2012 S80 with the 3.2 inline six.
I get 25-26 mpg going 70mph on the highway with my V70 3.2… I guess it’s more of a bigger heavy brick though.
What year is your v70? They updated the transmission programming in 2010 for improved fuel economy. From what I read on the Forums it seems to have made a difference.
Impressive for the S80.
I was surprised myself. Much better mileage then the V6 G8 I had before.
/To be absolutely clear that is the mileage I get in the summer going back and forth from Ottawa to Toronto with the cruise control on. In the winter, using winter tires, winter blend gas and doing the same trip, I get around 28 MPG.
Most of the S60/80s which I’m exposed to are the much earlier P2s with miles, the FWDs barely crack 16 in the trip computer (which I imagine is nearly exclusively city driving). Even 28mpg consistently at high speed is excellent for an I6, IMO.
“I got about 30mpg with the cruise set to 72 mph driving in cool fall weather.”
That’s typical for my 5-cylinder Jetta. Which isn’t saying good things about the Fusion.
I never got 30 MPG with my 5-cylinder Jetta. 28 was the max. I did have the 5-speed, so maybe the 6 speed auto gives you better MPG on the top end.
Mine is the five-speed as well. 28 is the lowest all-highway tank I’ve recorded and the highest is 34. My last road trip was a 350 mile interstate run at 80-85mph and to my surprise it pulled 30mpg dead-on. Any stop and go mixed in and the mileage really drops.
I don’t think I ever had a full highway tank. I don’t remember ever getting 34 MPG either. Mine was an early 2006 model, so it didn’t have the extra 20 HP (150 compared to 170).
I actually really liked that car and probably should have kept it instead of running through all of the performance MKV VWs (Wolfsburg 2.0T, GLI, GTI, R32). The only thing I didn’t like about that car was the OEM tires. I am usually a Continental fan, but the OEM Jetta tires seemed very suspetible to road hazards.
The 5 cylinder mpg really underwhelms compared to more modern engines, but I’ve consoled myself by determining it doesn’t amount to much in actual dollars.
I’d love to roll the dice on GTI ownership, but I also like to keep my cars outside the warranty period, and it sounds like your performance VWs bit you. The one reason I pulled the trigger on the Jetta was the reliability history of the 5 cylinder. If this new GTI is getting good marks after 3-4 years on the market, I’ll have to consider it, it was a joy to drive.
My GTI and GLI didn’t bite me. The Wolfsburg and R32 did. Luckily they both showed issues before warranties were up. The R32 vaporlocked, wouldn’t start, and liked to stall. The Wolfsburg felt like it was going to fall apart after 40k miles. It’s funny because I had three other cars that came from the same factories (Peubla and Wolfsburg). The GTI and R32 were a heck of a lot of fun driving through Northern Arizona on 89/89A though.
Okay the grill has a similar shape, but the Fusion looks nothing like a Aston Martin.
I agree. When the 2005 Mustang came out, they always seemed to use a fish eye lens, to suggest they didn’t stop design work before finishing the back half.
No one thinks the car looks like an Aston Martin beyond the grill. But the grill really, really does look like an Aston.
I’ve disagreed with his for years and said so here An Aston grille is not hexagonal – its two lines curving down from the top horizontal are just that – curved.
The Fusion is just straight. Heck, my car has an hexagonal grille, but nobody ever said, “hey, Aston”.
I think people suffer from a profound lack of what used to be called “spacial relations”.
+1
I see the same thing when I compare the two grilles in question. So sick of hearing people accuse Ford’s designers of ripping off Aston Martin. I guess AM must own the patent for hexagons (which btw about a dozen or so other sedans also incorporate into their grill/fascia design), or something.
Silliness is still silly.
There are hexagons, and then there are THESE hexagons:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-MnZs1aUX2DA/UHyCsjnQ80I/AAAAAAAJjyg/Z0h4x1iy0Vo/s1600-h/aston-martin_ford-2013-fusion-mondeo-2%252520-%252520Copy%25255B3%25255D.jpg
You didn’t have a chance to hand-calculate the fuel economy for your time with the car? Given the reputation of the 1.6 for not achieving EPA numbers, it would have been interesting to see another real world example.
Sorry to hear that the 6 speed automatic is still lazy and reluctant to downshift. If it wasn’t for that lump of a transmission, it’s safe to say we’d have a 2012 Fusion in our driveway instead of a 2012 Altima.
I think you meant the 2011 Sonata, which was released in early 2010. Nobody discusses the 2006-10 Sonata, which was a perfectly good car, but with very unremarkable styling. Personally, I still like the look of the 11-14 Sonata.
You can see the three major states of maturation in the more popular Hyundai-Kia cars…
1) WTF?
2) Copycat
3) Competitive
See – Sportage, Optima, Sedona, Santa Fe, Elantra, Rio.
Some aren’t quite there yet (Accent, Azera) and others barely made it to any stage (Veracruz, Borrego, Entourage).
The Sorento is one they actually got right from the get-go. Its always been a solid SUV a very much a Korean TrailBlazer in a good way.
The 2006-2010 Sonata was definitely the Copycat generation. An in-law bought one during the time I had a 1996 Camry. I drove it a few times and it was deja-vu from behind the wheel. Complete unapologetic Camry clone in ride and handling, but with dire interior plastics and slouchy unsupportive front seats.
The next generation was unremarkable from behind the wheel as well, but gained its own identity in the marketplace and had a far nicer interior. From what I’ve read the new one looks to be fully competitive on a number of levels.
I honestly think this look has aged well, except the tiny taillights. Tiny taillights make the rear look gigantic like small back pockets on a pair of jeans.
This would be a nice buy if not for the useless back seat.
What’s useless about it? My wife and I had this identical car and the rear seat was plenty comfy and roomy. Roomy enough for our 6’5″ friend to sit back there on a 4 hour road trip with zero complaints.
Good review, and I concur.
I rented a ’14 Fusion SE with the 2.6 Duratec recently. It was my wife, myself, our three-year-old, luggage in the trunk and two bikes on the back. The back seat was plenty roomy, plenty of luggage room, very comfortable ride & handling with the 18-in. wheels & tires, and comfortable with the cloth seats. The base Synch radio was pretty easy to use and I liked all the controls.
Drawbacks: the 2.5, fine on the flats, was sluggish on New England uphills. With a light foot and lots of cruise control, I never averaged better than 27 mpg on a 1,000 mile trip. The car had 6,000 miles and I rarely took it over 75mph.
Maybe Satish is right — if I’d gone 10mph slower, I’d have gotten over 30mpg. In a way, this made me nostalgic for the days of my yout. Back then Fords were smooth drivers but got worse MPG than GM and Chrysler counterparts.
Ford needs to get away from this complicated Ecoboost nonsense. Why don’t they develop a normally-aspirated 4-banger that matches Toyota, Nissan and Honda for mileage, power and smoothness? U.S. certification of a diesel would be nice too when MPG becomes a consideration again.
I think that 2.5 litre is more or less the same one Mazda used before they went all skyactive and stuff. I wonder how much of an improvement it might yield in terms of power and fuel economy if Ford updated it with direct injection and its own valve timing system (similar to what they did with the Duratec 2.0 in the Focus)?
How it is possible? I have one with 2.0 Ecoboost and commute is 20% city/80 freeway. I also get a lot of stop and go traffic, mostly on the way back home and still manage to get 27.5 mpg which I thought is not good enough since it should not turn on turbo very often.
With Altima S 2.5L I rented for a month I got 33mpg. True Altima is a lighter/cheaper car but still should expect Duratec 2.5 to manage better fuel economy that 2.0 ecoboost which is pretty powerful engine comparable with V6 and nudges to drive fast and irresponsibly.
I just bought two of these – a ’13 2.5 SE w/20k for a friend of the owner’s and a ’13 Titanium 2.0T for the owner’s kid to drive in college. Both were FoMoCo Red Carpet Lease turn-ins.
I will say the base interior’s cloth appointments don’t seem to hold up as the SE’s driver’s seat pad was already showing entry/exit wear. Also, I absolutely hate the base radio. Forget the cheapie looks – the menu drilldown is extremely aggrevating and not at all intuitive for the casual user. SYNCing up to a MFT/MLT screen is heads and shoulders a simpler task, as are configuring presets, switching frequencies, etc.
I get how the ’13 Fusion has curb appeal – it does. I’m in the small but vocal minority that prefer the old car’s chisled traditionally-attractive appearance and the V6 option. Especially in light of the middling fuel economy returned by both the NA and turbo units, I’d much rather opt for a ’12 SEL or Sport with the more robust 3.0/3.5l V6 and deal with the 3-4MPG difference. Plus, the old car feel roomier inside and has much better visability, though I do appreciate the new Fusion’s low-cut trunk liftover.
But, but, but, turbo was supposed to give me 406mpg and save the planet? You mean an N.A. V6 actually makes more sense in some instances? What gives?
I’ve always been a proponent of a V6 in a mid-size sedan. A modern, potent 3.5L V6 or larger in an SUV or CUV would be the smallest powerplant I would choose. But pickup trucks with blow-hard squirrel engines, I’ll have to pass on.
Yes! A normally aspirated V6 still makes a lot of sense in a lot of vehicles.
“But, but, but, turbo was supposed to give me 406mpg and save the planet? You mean an N.A. V6 actually makes more sense in some instances? What gives?”
Once the news came out that the 1.5 Ecoboost was replacing the 1.6 because of China’s engine displacement taxes, I completely gave up on the notion that Ford ever went Ecoboost to provide real world fuel economy benefits. It’s tempting to think they just couldn’t hit the engineering targets with this bold & clever approach, but I believe the EPA ratings on the Monroney always WERE the engineering targets and they knew real-world fuel economy would be difficult to achieve.
May have been the right gamble from the corporate perspective; even Consumer Reports called out the 1.6 & 2.0 on being impossibly thirsty compared to the NA competitors, but the Fusion & Escape are still big sellers.
You’re probably correct about China. I’m not sure what goes on in the Chinese auto industry but I would have simply developed a turbo diesel four pot for China’s requirements and continued with the previous CD3 motors here in the US on the new CD4 platform. Forcing one market to accept the demands of the other, especially when the compliance product kinda sucks, is not a wise plan over the long haul.
The theory is a good one – miserly fuel economy when performance isn’t required, V6-esque performance when you need/want it. But it doesn’t work that way.
There comes a point of diminishing return in an American market car driven as we Americans drive wherein you put an engine so gutless that the only way its drivable is to slap a turbo on it, which merely encourages drivers to spool up the turbo not only when accelerating or overtaking, but at every possible moment, sucking down gasoline and putting more needless wear-and-tear on the motor. An over-horse’d V6 or even a big 4-cylinder would suit American drivers better.
And really, though disappointing, the fuel economy numbers aren’t what scare me – its the longevity of turbochargers. I’m speaking from the perspective of dealing with ‘seasoned’ vehicles that have accummulated 70-120k miles from multiple owners, each caring less and less about general upkeep much less preventative maintenance. I’ve seen many turbocharged CX-7s go through the lanes with ‘BAD TURBO’ announcements; I can’t wait to see how $18k-MSRP budget cars hold up to fourth-hand abuse.
Preach brother, preach.
You and I are on the same page.
Prior gen Fusion & MKZ with the V6 are better.
White House scared a shit out of automakers. V6 becoming thing of the past fast regardless of common sense. Yes government and common sense cannot be used in the same sentence. But here we are, more exotic technologies without much benefit. Funny thing that things turned on their head – American companies were always famous for flashy big cars with V8s in the world of tiny I4 engines of the rest of world. Now Japanese make bigger truly American cars while Americans making smaller cars with tiny engines (e.g. Malibu/200 vs any Japanese midsize)
But for enthusiast nothing can be sweeter than the feeling of the car taking off when turbo kicks in. Try it you will like it. But it should be a choice not be dictated by government.
Nevertheless nothing can beat electric motor – and there enters Tesla. I wish I would own a smaller version of Tesla.
I rented a Fusion in late December that also had 45,000 miles on it. I found it more than adequate for our five passengers during our Florida trip. I don’t know how the little motor would have handled mountains since the whole frickin’ place is flat.
It’s capacity for accelerating on to busy roads was fine. It may have been thirsty around town, but it seemed to do pretty well at steady highway speeds.
Other pleasant surprises included that from the driver’s seat, visibility was pretty good for a modern car. Not great, but better than most. Our rental also had a sunroof, which was reasonably quiet at highway speeds, and definitely quiet in town speeds. You’d keep it closed on the interstate though.
Frankly, the only thing I didn’t like about it was the front passenger seat. The power driver’s seat was fine and I had no problems getting comfortable in it (5’8, 180 lbs.) but the passenger seat, which was manual, was no where near as comfortable. It seemed like the rear of the seat cushion dropped away into oblivion. No amount of tilting the seat back could accommodate a comfortable setting.
So I’m guessing, just guessing, that a previous renter may have opened the sunroof and gone into “parade mode” on the passenger seat, somewhere on Daytona Beach. This may have put undue stresses on the seat that blew out some springs or something. Other than that, I was remarkably pleased at how solid and composed the car was after 45,000 miles in a rental fleet.
SUMMARY: If the family wagon were to meet it’s demise, I’d put the Fusion on the short list of cars to look for on the “used” lots. This is a decent car that has character when you’re behind the wheel, and anonymity from the exterior. Well done Ford. I like this car better than the previous Fusion, and that was a decent car too.
The biggest problem with this vehicle, as it is with any Ford/Lincoln product, is the ecoboost motor.
I catch $hit every time that I point out the FACT that not a single ecoboost motor warrants a better rating than “worse than average” based on Consumer Reports Reliability Index, and, actually, most ecoboost motors snag the dreaded “much worse than average” reliability black dot (Hyundai experienced similar reliability woes with their turbocharged 2.0 liter, whereas their N/A 4 bangers are pretty much CamCord level reliable).
And for the millionth time – to preempt the “IT’S MyFordTouch’s Fault!” shouts – no it’s not; pull out Consumer Reports Annual Vehicle Buyer’s Guide, where they break down reliability by each component system and look for yourselves (under “Engine, Major,” and “Engine, Minor”).
It makes me sad because Ford has a good V6 available. The 285ish HP version of the 3.5L would be a perfectly fine engine in this Fusion.
They should’ve just massaged the 2.5 liter N/A 4 banger ( 2.5L 4cyl 6A) like Mazda did (it was developed with Mazda, anyways) that was used in the prior gen Fusion and stuck with that.
You can still get the 2.5L. Good luck finding it on dealer lots. If you do, it will be poverty spec’d to the max.
I don’t hate the smaller ecoboost engines, I just think the are getting one size two small for each Ford product. To Ford’s credit, they are getting rid of the 2.0T Explorer and replacing it with the 2.3T. If Ford is going to continue down the forced induction path, and they will, here’s the smallest size engines I’d like per car:
Fiesta: 1.0T – I’ve driven it and liked it. Got over 45 MPG no matter what I did.
Focus: 1.5T
Fusion: 1.8T (doesn’t exist, but the 1.5T is too small)
Taurus: 2.0T
Mustang: 2.3T
Escape: 1.8T (see Fusion)
Edge: 2.0T – I’ve gotten better FE with the Edge 2.0T than the Fusion 2.0T. No idea why.
Explorer: 2.3T
Flex: only 3.5TT
I should’ve been more specific.
Ford should’ve stuck with that proven motor as the exclusive 4 cylinder option while going the route you suggested and offered the 3.5 V6 as an option.
Going the ecoboost route cost a ton of money, didn’t net anywhere near real world fuel economy Ford claimed it would, and added complexity, maintenance expense and non-reliability to Ford’s Camry & Accord fighter.
I think there is room for three gas engines on the Fusion. The 2.5L, a 1.8T, and a V6 would be just about perfect. The problem with the 2.0T and 1.5T is that one is a great engine that likes to be in the boost and reduces MPG, and the other is underpowered for the heft of the Fusion.
As I posted above, I wonder if Ford didn’t know from the beginning that real world FE would be difficult to achieve from the ecoboosts, but went that route anyway to reap advantages from engine displacement taxes in the big Chinese market and the ability to hit big numbers on the EPA test here.
The 1.0 Fiesta seems to be the big winner, with better power delivery than the base Fiesta engine and real fuel economy benefits. Too bad no one will be buying it here.
@DW
But it made the EPA thugs and enviro weenies happy, and those are the only groups who mattered.
30-mile fetch-
I agree for the most part. I like the ecoboost engines in certain applications (Focus ST, Fiesta ST, Edge 2.0T, Escape 2.0T, everything with the 3.5TT), but I think they’ve tried so hard to hit testing numbers and displacement taxes, that it makes for worse real world numbers.
Man…what are you talking about?
I suppose you have all the CR dtata to back up what you say, however I can only go by my 3.5 ecoboosted MKS.
67K and NEVER had one single issue.
In fact, MY car shows an average 23.7 MPG overall.
I do suffer lots in heavy urban areas, but I drive FULLY loaded, and I mean bumpers to the ground overloaded, and arrive with 25 or better (usually) average MPG. I actually get 26 hallway arriving in Atlanta for the nights.
So what in hell is everybody talking about?
I’ve never had that fuel economy issue with the big FoMoCo cars I’ve driven with the 3.5TT either. I think it comes down to what BBALL40DTW said – the rest of the Ford lineup has at least one EB motor that is too just small for the car.
Lincoln, FWIW, seems to at least have the right engines in the right cars because they’re USDM-exclusive and there needs to be some reason to pay a premium for a Lincoln.
Trailer,
The CR article I was referencing dealt specifically with the volume-selling 1.6 and 2.0 EB in the Fusion and Escape. Acceleration and especially fuel economy fell below those of the competitor’s 2.5 4-cylinders and 3.5 V6s.
I don’t know nuthin’ about the 3.5T other than it pulls like a rocket in a family member’s Flex. If I needed a third row, that is absolutely the vehicle and powertrain I’d be looking for.
Flybrian-
For me, that’s a big reason to select a Lincoln over a Ford. All the engines are right sized. I guess FoMoCo wants me to pay an additional premium for that.
30-mile fetch
perhaps. Dunno. Seems everybody is putting smaller boosted engines in today.
The perfect choices would have been the 3.5 in the Fusin SHO (anybody???)
I almost got the Edge with the 2.0 eco…it felt pretty good. I just could not help but wonder how it would handle loaded like my MKS and driving over the mountains.
I kind of thought it would struggle and use tons of fuel.
Perhaps the larger boost in the 2015/16 will be better.
So far the MPGs don’t look that great. To me, anyhow. But it would seem a better choice than the current 2.0.
I’m actually agreeing with DeadWeight. That 2.5 Duratec should be as good as the base motors in a CamCordima.
The Ecoboost is the weak link in this car–I’ve had no problems with mine (a 2013 SE with 18″ sport rims) but the gas mileage is disappointing. In town I get 24-25 which is not bad, but on the highway at 70-75 MPH I’m lucky to crack 30 MPG.
“..on the highway at 70-75 MPH I’m lucky to crack 30 MPG.”
For reals? I can touch that with my 2.9L Hemi V4 equipped Challenger.
over-stressed vs. under-stressed. Don’t forget that a Fusion is only about 300-400 lbs lighter than a Challenger, I believe.
The weight isn’t much of a factor on fuel economy at highway speeds, but the Fusion is far more aerodynamic with a drag coefficient of 0.27 vs. 0.36, which does make a difference. The Fusion is rated for a much higher highway figure, thus the surprise. Probably due to the conditions and driver input, but still surprising.
I just want to know what imbecile designed the climate controls. Try operating them at night. They aren’t backlit, but a little light comes on to show which setting is active. However, said little light for each setting is situated more or less inside the adjacent button, thus completely useless. You pretty much have to (1) turn on your interior light, then (2) press buttons and feel around with your hands to see where the air is coming out of the vents in order to get the setting you want. I thought this was the dumbest interior ‘feature’ ever, until I rented an otherwise excellent 200 last month and found that the dash brightness adjustment dial was disabled when vehicle was in motion.
/rant
I’ve owned a 2013 Fusion SE for over a year. It has the sport/appearance package with foglights and 18″ wheels. Overall it’s a great car–still love the styling which I think will hold up better than most other midsize cars. I deliberately got the base radio because I couldn’t stand the MyFordTouch. Once I got it set the way I like it and synced to my phone, it’s been fine and I rarely use the buttons.
My only wish is that the car had a better engine. The 1.6 Ecoboost is adequate and gets decent mileage in town. But on the highway it’s thirsty, barely getting 30 MPG at a steady 70-75 MPH. I wish they had kept the 3.0 or 3.5 V6, but the 4 cylinder is less nose heavy and has much better handling and ride quality than the 2010-12 IMHO.
OK I am confused by all this Ecoboost whining, not saying it is not warranted but i remain confused.
I am running about in Saab 2T (big T) with 210HP and a good dollup of torque. it is, essentially, a 12 year old design. Other than a terrible batch of bad intake valves, these engines have been hassle free for the entire Saab community.
So i do not understand, that some 12 or so years later we still have (if true) relibility issues with Ecoboost engines, surely these should have been ironed out in the previous decade? How are GM’s turbo motors holding up?
Also, we have a BMW X1 in the family and despite being much smaller, weighs about the same as the Saab (i know, go figure) and it to has a 2T, though 240 not 210HP. Still, despite the 8 speed gearbox the average MPG mirrors that of the Saab, how’s that even possible given they were designed 10 years apart???
I don’t get it.
From a purely market/demographic perspective, you have a SAAB. There is absolutely zero reason to buy a SAAB unless you appreciate it in some way, meaning you like cars, meaning you’ll invest at least a bit in – at minimal – cursory maintenance. Even if you bought your car for $2500 on Craigslist, you realized it was a SAAB.
Someone who buys a turbo’d Fiesta/Fusion/Sonic/Cruze etc fourth-hand in a few years is looking for a $5-6,000 car. Their maintenance regimen consists of running it through the wash at HESS when they fill up with 8 gallons and getting the oil changed at Wal Mart because they’re also getting their haircut and – f**k it – this is going to take awhile, plus I have a coupon.
At some point in time, you’re putting more advanced and maintenance-intensive componantry into the hands of the masses who are used to 170k-mile Ecotec Malibus and 4-cylinder Sonatas banging into 2nd gear and burping around on 3 cylinders with a cute fortune cookie message scotch-taped over the perpetually-illuminated CHECK ENGINE light. How is a 2014 EcoBoost Fusion going to look/drive in 2028 with its neglected turbocharger and cracked touchscreen?
My uncle told me never buy a car after 1966 all those smog controls just make it too complicated.
I don’t see many of the MY14s making it to 2028 based on what you are saying.
8 gallons! When I fill up at seedy gas stations, the previous amount is usually $5 worth *sometimes* $10. What kind of high-roller, fancy pants neighborhood do people put gas in their car by the gallon instead of by the $ and then have money for the carwash on top of it?!
Why rent a car with a CEL light?
At least it wasn’t blinking.
Enterprise attempted to rent my friend an Equinox with a flashing CEL….it barely started and the attendant looked puzzled as so why my friend and I wouldn’t accept it.
Good point. I would have raised hell and never taken it unless maybe it was the absolute single vehicle left on the lot and had no other options. Breakdown potential aside, if it’s something on the verge of a major failure, I wouldn’t put it beyond some franchisees to send me a bill after the fact for damage they claim I caused. I refuse rentals from time to time, typically because they stink of smoke. I honestly never fish for upgrades, but it’s usually the result.
This almost exactly mirrors a Fusion rental that I drove recently. Similar mileage and specs. For someone generally used to driving somewhat more ‘seasoned’ automobiles, the ride, handling, steering feel, and refinement were very impressive. Compared to a late model Altima that I drove recently, the handling and steering response of the Fusion were in a completely different league.
That said, the Altima had a much more comfortable cabin. The slope of the Fusion’s windshield along with the high beltline ruined what was otherwise a spacious and comfortable interior for me.
And frankly, compared to my 200K mile 4-speed auto Highlander, both had poor transmissions. The Altima’s CVT was insufferable, but at least it worked ‘correctly.’ The Fusion’s auto mixed indecisive shifting with what seemed to be some kind of slippage or engagement problem; kind of shocking on a 40K mile car.
“… Remark on how the good SYNC voice activation is.”
I think the voice control on uConnect blows so this one area where MFT has it beat.
I own a very similar ’14 Fusion: SE trim w/the 2.5L and sport appearance pkg. (18″ wheel, spoiler, leather steering wheel). I wanted a cheap lease, so mine is basic: no nav/MFT, ecoboost, leather, sunroof, etc.
Good:
-Suspension: this thing rides and handles beautifully. Very hefty, solid feel, not unlike an entry-level German.
-Room: at 6’2″, I can sit behind myself comfortably. Plenty of headroom front and back in my no-sunroof trim.
-Solidity: Feels solid and secure on the road, again much more like a German car than a lighter, “dartier” Japanese or Korean midsize.
-Ergonomics: Sync works pretty much flawlessly, and the combination of steering wheel controls and physical buttons just works for me.
Bad:
-The engine: dear god, this 2.5 is bad. Slow, with massive revs needed to get it from zero to freeway speeds. Stoplights become your enemy. 1.6 isn’t much better and costs more, so you’re SOL on base models. Probably the single biggest reason to pick an Accord over it.
-Mediocre assembly: while the basic pieces seem well-made, the overall tightness assembly of some trim pieces on my Hermosillo-made Fusion is just “good enough”.
-Ubiquity: after the Accord, this thing is probably the most common midsizer I see here in NorCal. Makes me yearn for a Kizashi, or at least a Mazda 6.
That jibes perfectly with my own experience. What kind of gas mileage are you getting?
The Fusion is the best looking car that Ford currently offers, but is it nice enough for me to leave my 11 Crown Vic. Nope.
Back in the 70’s, the front end of the Aston Martin V8’s looked like a Mustang.
Not yet.
Does everybody get disappointing mileage with these or can tweaks to driving style make a significant difference? What does the BSFC map look like on these? Where’s the sweet spot on the map?
My experience having driven over 100k on VW turbo diesels and Ford hybrids is that driving style has a huge impact on real world long term mileage. TDI’s and hybrids have dedicated enthusiast communities( those Prius guys are really into it) that figure out how to get the most out of their vehicles. Most can get significant improvements with small changes to driving styles, no drafting semi’s with a blocked radiator on 50psi tires or other nonsense required.
My only experience with a Ford eco boost is a test drive of an Escape 1.6. I ultimately bought a CRV, but the Escape actually had a much more usable low end than the CRV. It was kind of like a TDI – keep the RPM’s low and let the torque pull you up to the desired speed – a little slow perhaps, but not a problem with a little patience.
The biggest mileage killer for all vehicles is the brake pedal.
One of these decades, Ford will design a new 4 cylinder not based on the Mazda MZR or L series. Those were the engines prior to Skyactiv and not exactly known as economy champs.
Even so, 30 mpg is pretty awful at 70 to 75 mpg for a family sedan with “Eco” in its engine name.
That’s exactly what I get in my 8.2:1 CR 2008 Legacy GT turbo. Time after time on trips to my old home town. Hills? What hills?
hey wmba, honest question. What engines are we talking about? Here in Brazil, after the CHT engines they had the Zetecs and Sigmas. Now the Eco, plus the all new 3 cylinder. I know for a fact the Zetecs caused quite a stir at the time. And I also know many studied those engines through and through (assembling and disssambling them over and over with specialized people)trying to catch some of the know how. No, the Zetecs were not fuel champs, but so very strong for the time, the small penalty was against the fuel misers of the time (not against anything on offer here). It also got a reputation for being notoriously difficult to rebuild when the time came.
Hi Marcelo. The Mazda L engines are 1.8 – 2.5L 4 cylinder engines sold under Duratec and EcoBoost branding at Ford (2001- current). I think some Zeta/Zetec (Ford design) 1.8/2.0L engines were also rebranded as Duratec and remained up to 2004, though.
Would get this car based on looks alone, but not only. The past Fusion, I liked the styling, but the turn radius was ridiculous and the space for driver tight. This one has better steering and handling, plus seems a bit more spacious.
I do agree though, that for a car this large, the 1.6 is bit of a stretch. Maybe Ford should try for a 1.8 with turbo and keep the 1.6 for the Fiesta and Focus.
I even like the back of this car. And it looks much, much better than anything else in its class. I know you guys like your Accords, but the present Accord just looks so frumpy in comparison.
I had a 2012 Fusion in Vegas as a rental. I do hope there have been some inroads into the feel of the car when driving.
The Fusion is on par with a Camry, except the build (interior) was substandard. It could of easily been better.
I drove it up the mountains towards Mount Charleston and stopped to have dinner at a nice restaurant on the treeline.
It actually did perform adequately at altitude, but not as good as the Super Duty diesel I had.
The Fusion would make a nice if uninspiring family car.
As for the EcoBoosts. I do believe the 2 litre will give it more than enough power. But, like all the EcoBoost family, they can be thirsty little critters when you ask for anything more than “normal” sedate driving.
I considered a Fusion, bet ended up with a Malibu 2LT with the N/A 2.5 – the Fusion required getting the EB for any trim above “poverty” level.
I just can’t see anything under a 2.0T in a car over 3300 lbs; you’re just whipping the poor little thing mercilessly (especially in hilly terrain). Expect longevity issues.
I kinda like the Fusion. I agree it’s not really a full-size car. Back in the day, full size meant a barge like a Buick LeSabre or Chevy Caprice. Mid-size was a Malibu or Plymouth Satellite that seated 5-6.
I have to think these FULL-size cars of today have been run through the wash on “hot” and then through the dry-cycle to further shrink them.
As to the grille, Ford probably decided to keep the only thing an Aston really had that was really good. So many other cars are better and more profitable than the Brit auto.
As per usual Ford policy these days they deliberately hold back or dumb down the base engine to try and make the little Ecoboost engines look better. Well in the Fusion’s case that has backfired, especially with the now smaller 1.5 engine which has less torque than the 1.6 did. Chevy is getting 196 horses out of there 2.5. Mazda has the same basic 2.5 as the Fusion but modernized to 185 HP and up to 40 MPG highway. The Ford 2.5 in contrast is held back to 170 hp and 22/34 mileage ratings to try and make the 1.5 “look” better. They did the same thing with the new Mustang. The 3.7 was dialed back to 300 HP and the 2.3 EB is rated for 310 HP on premium gas of course otherwise it’s about 30 less which Ford never mentioned.
IMO the Fusion should have the improved 185 HP 2.5 from the Mazda as std fare with a more powerful 2.0 liter Ecoboost engine as an across the board option expect on base S models. Then there should be a Sport version with a 305 Hp 3.7 from the MKZ just as they did with the previous gen car.