Why not go test drive one of each? Only you can decide if the 4 cylinder is
adequate. Here is the relative performances as measured by Consumer Reports:
0 to 30 mph, sec. 3.1 3.5
0 to 60 mph, sec. 8.0 9.5
45 to 65 mph, sec. 5.5 5.9
Quarter-mile, sec 16.2 17.5
Quarter-mile, mph 89.5 81.2
The '64 Sprint with the then-new C4 trans would run rings around your
'63 with the same engine. Many did "swaps" in the '60s, and many
dealers put together "kits" to sell to do the job, despite a factory
prohibition. Ditto for the original 221s in the '62 Fairlanes and
Meteors. The "Ford 2 speed" (no real model designation for that box)
was reliable, if nothing else, but a slug on performance, probably
even worse than the laconic Powerglide at Chevy.
I'll never forgot, a girl friend in high school had a '60 "Vomit"
(Comet) with the Falcon 144 and that two speed. 0-60 time was
measured in minutes, but it would turn in 25 MPG every time! Going up
the slightest grade required slowing down and downshifting, making the
car seem a slug even compared to a Nash Metro. Run forever, though.
My '70 Maverick, with the 200 and C4, felt like a Cobra Jet in
Back to the Fusion, the 4 banger is NOT bad at all...smooth and quiet,
and turns in good economy numbers, around 30 on the road. The V6
isn't all that much better and will penalize you about 5 MPG overall.
I have heard...never confirmed...that you can special order a Fusion
L4 with a CVT...that could be interesting, as the CVTs in the Five
Hundreds (probably the most underrated car in US automotive history)
gave better performance AND about 3 more MPG.
The reason the Five Hundred bombed? It looks like a Focus. Screw
that...it's a damned fine platform, and the Fusion's no slouch,
either. Everyone I've talked to with either car are happy with them,
making some new Ford fans. Ford needs all the help they can get right
now, and these two car lines (Five Hundreds got a Fusion grille and is
now the "Taurus" again) might do the job for them.
Ford vs. Chevy? It's Ford, hands down. The new Taurus is a much
better design than the new Malibu, although the latter isn't as bad as
most of GM's disasters over the last 25 years...in fact, it's pretty
good. The Japanese are going to have to start watching out
soon...finally. The new Camry shows that they're off their game quite
a bit. What's going to kill them? Toyota reliability, long hyped by
CU and others, is slipping below that of Ford and even GM. Look at
the repair records for the Five Hundred...stellar, better than the
Ford no longer offers the CVT in the new Taurus/Sable. I doubt Ford
would make it available in a vehicle that never had it to begin with.
Not all CVT's are that much more efficient. It takes alot of power to
generate the high pressures needed internally.
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
I drove the fusion with the V6 and auto. I would say it had too much power
necessary. They should really put a 2.5 litre in it like the Altima. So,
offering they have, I would go with the 4 and manual if I had a choice.
I will try both and decide. - I've been driving 4's for sometime
now, recently got a 2003 olds with a 6 - powers' kinda nice. Car
has some balls to get on the highway. but fuel economy could be
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.