Fusion 4 vs 6 any comments

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:

V-6 I-4 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

Ed

Those 4 cylinder numbers are as good as my '63 Falcon w/260V8 and Ford-O-Matic 2 speed. It wasn't that bad for it's time.

Lugnut

I have a Ford Contour with an engine that puts out only slightly more power and torque than the I4. There is plenty of power.

But go to the Ford dealer and try one out.

Jeff

I drove the fusion with the V6 and auto. I would say it had too much power than necessary. They should really put a 2.5 litre in it like the Altima. So, with the offering they have, I would go with the 4 and manual if I had a choice. Fred

Hide quoted text -

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 better.

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 comparison.

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 Camry.

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.