Supposedly, Ford has made a huge step forward in quality and reliability with the new Fusion and Mercury Milan. The same is claimed for GM's new Malibu. The impediment (says the media) to buyers flocking to Ford and GM showrooms to buy these automobiles is the distrust of things domestic built up over years of disappointment. While, the Fusion and others may be competitive when new, the question I have is what the car will like after 10 years of ownership -- still comparable to an Accord of similar age and mileage.
I guess I don't see the Fusion in the same light as I see my Accord, frankly. But, I may be wrong. Any imput out there.
I agree with you as far as long-term reliability is concerned. If the media is talking about initial quality, the argument holds no water; any car can do well at that. The last 2 incarnations of Malibu, from what I read, had below average reliability, even despite the last version getting an initial quality award from JD Power! And the fact that Fusion/Milan is made in Mexico is cause for concern there.
Isn't the Fusion basically a Mazda with a Ford badge? There's your quality and reliability.
Not sure about 10 years down the road, but I've had my '00 Accord for 7 1/2 years and about 93,000 miles and it still feels and drives like a new car in almost every respect. I doubt I could say that about any Ford at that age, even my '66 Mustang.
It is really strange that Ford didn't provide for a cabin air filter on the Fusion. I've come to expect just about any modern car to have one. The Mazda 6 offers it and that is the base design from which the Fusion was built.
Well, not necessarily. My '96 VW Jetta was built in Mexico and was an excellent car quality-wise. No issues at all, other than problems with the door bump strips, easily rectified with double-sided tape. And that was when the car had 90k miles on it. The German-made GTI's had the same issue.
I like the design of the Fusion, too bad you can't get the V6 with a manual trans. It's a lot less bland than the previous-generation Accord. And less ugly than the new generation.
But the point about buyer wariness is right on - after decades of building shit for vehicles, Detroit can't just win everyone back immediately. They need to establish a positive track record. I have to say, from a styling perspective, the new Detroit cars are much better. The Fusion, Malibu, Charger, CTS - they are all very cool-looking cars. OTOH, they still make clunkers like the Sebring, Avenger and Focus.
Speaking of the Mustang, I had a Sunbeam Tiger -- a 65 which had the 260 Ford V8. The Tiger -- for those who are familiar with it -- was a Shelby inspired Sunbeam Alpine. Mine was slightly modified with a Shelby cam and 4 bbl Holley. Went like blazes. Should have kept it.
I have seen the media hype about how the domestics have caught up with the Japanese before. The first time I can remember was back in the early 1980s with the Chevy Citation, a car that later became the poster child for crappy American cars.
Maybe Ford and GM have caught up with Honda and Toyota, but how would we know for at least six or seven years? The problem is that they are using the same old media hype and no one is going to believe them. It took years for Honda and Toyota to overcome the public perception that anything from Japan must be crappy. If GM and Ford have truly caught up, they should just shut up and let the 7 - 10 year reliability records do the talking. Of course, they may be out of business by then.
Styling seems to be a very much North America vs the rest of the world. Cars 'styled' for the North American market are generally considered hideous elsewhere.
I have a 1982 F250 that has seen some hard use (not abuse) and I did rebuild the 300 I6 at 145k or thereabouts but other than that just the normal wear items like brakes belts, etc. It will fire right up even after sitting out thru an Alaskan night without benefit of any heaters (as long as it doesnt get down below -30. My Honda Civic would not do that....
Havent had my Fusion long enuf to make any good comparisons yet. However, I did notice that the appointments, trim fit, etc., will compare with any Toyoater, Honda, etc. Perhaps Ford took a page from Jaguar's book.
And this is a bad thing? I hate locking gas caps. The inside latch is just an unessesary pain in the ass. Ford used to inflict that ticky tack stuff on me, but they finally got wise and dropped it. I have not once missed having to go back to the inside of the car to trip the stupid gas door. And I sure as heck don't want a key on the gas door or cap.
Two of my last three Fords did have cabin filters. My current Nissan Frontier has one. I haven't detected any advantage to the cabin filters. If they were optional, I wouldn't order them. The replacement cabin filters are more expensive than the engine air filters - makes no sense to me. The cabin filter in the Nissan is totally worthless. I spend a lot of time on dirt roads and in fields, and the Nissan filter doesn't appear to stop anything. The inside of the truck is coated with dust. And there is a group of trees I regularly pass with some sort of nasty pollen that the filters never stop.
I own a 2007 Fusion. My Sister has a 1997 Civic. My son has a 2005 Accord. None have required any major repairs. The Fusion is 1 year old and has over
18,000 miles. I prefer the Fusion to the other two vehicles, but it is a personal thing. My family has owned Fords for man years. My old 1992 F150 was still going strong after 14 years when I traded it on a 2006 Nissan Frontier.The F150 was in much better condition when I traded it than my sisters 10 year old Civic. Her Civic runs fine, but it is a sad looking thing - faded paint, paint off the bumpers in spots, interior faded, plastic parts very brittle, engine uses oil, engine compartment is coated with oil, etc. - but it still runs. She is happy. In the 11 years she has owned it, it has needed two mufflers and one set of plug wires. That is all. Of course I think the clutch is due to fail any day now. I consider Fords and Hondas to be on a par as far as reliability. If you are going to abuse the vehcile, I'd give the edge to a Ford. If you are going to take good care of the vehicle, the Honda will hold it's resale value better. I generally find the drivers layout better in Fords, but I am a tall/big guy. Just my opinion.
Not really. It is definitely based on the Mazda 6 design, but it has a longer wheelbase, a completely different body structure, and a completely different interior. The V6 is a Ford design built in a Ford plant (also used in US built Mazdas). The automatic used with the V6 is a Aisin-Warner 6 speed from the same family as the Camry 6 speed. The four cylinder engine is a Mazda design, but built by Ford in a Ford plant. The manual transmission is a Mazda item. The 4 cylinder automatic is a Ford design. Of course since Ford controls Mazda, it is a Ford design either way.
When did you last own a Ford? How reliable do you think a 1966 Honda was? All cars are much better now, than even 10 years ago. Over the years I have owned Fords, Mazdas, Audis, Plymouths, Toyotas, and an assortment of British cars. Family members have owned Hondas (3), VWs (2), Mazdas, etc. Currently my SO has a Toyota RAV4, her Daughter a VW Jetta, and her son has a Honda Civic. My older Sister has a Civic. My younger Sister has an Escape. One of my Sons has an Accord. The other Son has a Mustang. My Mother has a Freestyle and a Ranger. I have a Fusion and a Nissan Frontier. None of these vehicles is especially unreliable. In general everyone seems happy with what they have (well except for my SO's daughter, she wants to ditch the VW). I've never had an especially unreliable Ford. Can't say the same about Toyotas or Audis or Plymouths. My Sister has had good luck with the two Hondas she owned, if you don't count the rust, and weak doors of her 1980 Accord. Personally I'll consider almost any vehicle that isn't built by Land Rover, VW/Audi, or BMW. I wouldn't put one of the Korean models high on the list, but I would consider them.
Chevrolet has finally belted out a home run with the new Malibu. Most reviews are ecstatic, and suggest that the Malibu clearly outshines its competitors in many areas. Before anyone rips the Malibu (or domestic cars in general) I suggest you have a look at this new Chevy first. It just might change your perception. On the other hand, the new Accord's reviews have been lukewarm at best. I don't see the new Accord as a major hit in any respect, compared to the Malibu. EZ
no, what you're seeing is that the Accord was already so good, improvements are by definition incremental. And the Chevy was so bad, even moderate improvements are earth-shatteringly large.
I think it has the standard EcoTech engine which has been described as thrashy and not smooth like Honda's I4. Other vehicles like the Soltice were greeted with the same estatic reviews and have now been graded as Not Recomended by CU. I think this will have to be "wait and see" proposition given GMs previous failures. I hope it is a "home run" for GMs sake, but initial reviews mean nothing until the car has been out there for while.
Hmmm, I've read a bunch of reviews of both and it didn't come across that way at all. I would bet that four years from now the Accord will have much higher resale value as well.
"C. E. White" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
What's your address so I can come over and dump some shit in your gas tank.
The Honda ones work very well. $15 or so every three years for a filter is not that expensive and that's the dealer part. Of course, the dealer will try to charge you $100 to install it when it takes like 1 minute.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.