MKS will debut in LA, on sale by Summer

[silvrsvt]

cool...hopefully nothing to do with navistar...LOL! so turboed will basically be the standard base engine for the 4 cylinder fusion...or will it be a sports version upgrade?

 

 

I think the line up will be this:

 

2.5 I4 for about 180 HP

3L PIP V6 240ish HP

2.5 GDITT I4 worth about 260 HP

[Deanh]

I think the line up will be this:

 

2.5 I4 for about 180 HP

3L PIP V6 240ish HP

2.5 GDITT I4 worth about 260 HP

liking it...sounds like the turbo will be a sports model.....with AWD could be a ringer....AND better looking than the Subies and Missing Bitzies of the world.....regular size exhaust pipes please....

[Ralph Greene]

Where did this idea come from that the 3.5 gets better fuel economy than the 3.0? Ford originally just said the 3.5 was more fuel efficient than the 3.0. which is not the same thing as getting better fuel economy.

 

Everything being equal (similar gearing and car weight), and as long as the 3.0 is not overburdened (and it isn't in any of it's appilications), I would expect the 3.0 to get about 10% better fuel economy than the 3.5. And comparing our 3.0 Montego to the new 3.5 models that seems to be the case. And I am aware of the newer method of computing fuel economy. Our Montego will get about 29-30 at steady 70 MPH (measured) and gets in the low to mid 20's for my wife morning shopping trips. The 3.5 doesn't do that.

 

So sure....improve the 3.0 some more, and give me that engine over the 3.5 for our passenger car use. Actually I would just as soon have the 4 cyclinder in Milan and Fusion. If I want power, I can always just buy a Mustang, and if that's not enough, put a blower on it, which I have done before. But these HP wars in people mover vehicles has got to stop. I suspect I am in the majority on this. I don't think the vocal minority on here reflects the general publics view. It's good to save money on fuel.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Ralph Greene

[Deanh]

Where did this idea come from that the 3.5 gets better fuel economy than the 3.0? Ford originally just said the 3.5 was more fuel efficient than the 3.0. which is not the same thing as getting better fuel economy.

 

Everything being equal, and as long as the 3.0 is not overburdened (and it isn't in any of it's appilications), I would expect the 3.0 to get about 10% better fuel economy. And comparing our 3.0 Montego to the new 3.5 models that seems to be the case. And I am aware of the newer method of computing fuel economy. Our Montego will get about 29-30 at steady 70 MPH (measured) and gets in the low to mid 20's for my wife morning shopping trips. The 3.5 doesn't do that.

 

So sure....improve the 3.0 some more, and give me that engine over the 3.5 for our passenger car use. Actually I would just as soon have the 4 cyclinder in Milan and Fusion. If I want power, I can always just buy a Mustang, and if that's not enough, put a blower on it, which I have done before. But these HP wars in people mover vehicles has got to stop. I suspect I am in the majority on this. I don't think the vocal minority on here reflects the general publics view. It's good to save money on fuel.

thus my take on smaller more efficient engines...I think we will see a swing to smaller vehicles anyway, the public is going to get tired of their wallets being manipulated at the fuel pumps.....horsepower is a desire...not a necessity.............LOL, edit was due to my typing prowess..almost spelt the word WHORESPOWER....HAHAHAHA!

Edited August 22, 2007 by Deanh

[TomServo92]

I just learned something very interesting. In 2005, the Avalon received the all new 3.5L engine making 280HP (268HP in 2006 due to tighter HP testing methodology). Meanwhile, the Camry soldiered on with the lowly 3.0L (making 210HP in 2005 and 190HP in 2006) for two years before getting the upgrade to the 3.5L in 2007.

 

Doesn't that sound familiar?

 

I can hear the responses already: "bububububu It's a Camry, it didn't need the big HP to sell". That may well be but perhaps the real reason is that big HP numbers aren't a priority for most shoppers in this segment, especially in light of the fact that 4 cylinders vastly outsell their V6 brethren. The Accord had more HP but still didn't outsell the "uncompetitive" (at least by the standards of some on BON) Camry.

 

I don't deny that Ford is behind the curve in their V6 program but at least they're doing something that Toyota didn't: they're improving the holdover V6 until 3.5L production is high enough to retire the 3.0L. With Toyota, you had to make do with the same old unchanged V6 for two years.

[ehaase]

sigh....This is the goddamn performance model that everyone is bitching about...you'll still be able to get a V6 if thats what you want....

 

Or it will be the I4 that gives you 4 cyc MPG with V6 power....

 

Some people are never happy :rolleyes:

Not sure if its twin or single...

You don't need to curse at me. My comment was about the general marketplace. The 3.0L V6, even with 240 hp, is not competitive with the competition. Only a small number would be interested in the turbo.

[Edstock]

And the next question is, will there be a shorter, 2-door Fusion?

[NickF1011]

Where did this idea come from that the 3.5 gets better fuel economy than the 3.0? Ford originally just said the 3.5 was more fuel efficient than the 3.0. which is not the same thing as getting better fuel economy.

 

Well, considering that the Taurus improved fuel economy ratings over the Five Hundred, despite (by most accounts) stricter EPA estimates for 2008 models, I would say that pretty much proves the 3.5 is more fuel efficient (or at the very least the same while making far more power) than the 3.0.

Edited August 23, 2007 by NickF1011

[NickF1011]

Camry and Accord only sell about 20% V6 models, or around 80K Camrys and 70K Accords. Fusion sells 40% V6 models and Milan is 60% which combined should be about 80K.

 

240 hp with BETTER fuel economy than the Camcord V6s would be fine.

 

Nobody buys a Camcord over a Fulan because of a few extra HP. When camry upped their V6 to 268 hp did sales increase? No. Will sales of the 2008 Accord V6 go up because of the extra 28 hp? No. People decide whether they want a Camcord or something else, then they decide whether they want the I4 or the V6.

 

AWD OTOH would sway someone to a Fulan over a Camcord.

 

Camry sales are WAY up since the new model debuted. Accord sales will likely spike substantially when this new model comes out also.

 

Have you ever thought that the take rate for V6's in the Fusion/Milan is higher simply because they are cheaper than the competition? You can pick up a V6 Fusion/Milan for the price of a moderately equipped 4 cylinder Camcord. Also likely has a lot to do with the fact that the 2.3 is simply NOT up to task in those vehicles. It basically has absolutely nothing to do with people feeling that Ford's 3.0 is competitive with the Camcord's 6 cylinder offerings.

[RichardJensen]

Camry sales are WAY up

What constitutes "way up"? 5%?

[RichardJensen]

Also, let's face it. The Fusion is a bargain hunter's car.

 

But you have to start somewhere.

 

You can't justify a higher transaction price until you've 'proven' to the market that your product is worth a lower transaction price. You gotta pay your dues.

[NickF1011]

What constitutes "way up"? 5%?

 

Considering much of the industry has gone DOWN this year, even a modest increase this year needs to be considered "way up", especially from a market share perspective. And you need to include the months from last year when the '07 Camry first appeared at dealers.

Edited August 23, 2007 by NickF1011

[RichardJensen]

Considering much of the industry has gone DOWN this year, even a modest increase this year needs to be considered "way up", especially from a market share perspective. And you need to include the months from last year when the '07 Camry first appeared at dealers.

-Snort-

 

So will we be calling a small decline an increase, if a small increase constitutes a big increase?

 

Prius numbers are way up, so are CRV numbers, and RAV4 numbers. The Camry? I'm calling that holding steady. Especially since Toyota has had to start buying market share.

[silvrsvt]

The 3.0L V6, even with 240 hp, is not competitive with the competition. Only a small number would be interested in the turbo.

 

 

How isn't it competitive? Its not giving up much in the performance dept, yet the vast majority of car buyers don't buy these types of cars for performance.

 

I bet whole bunch of people would be interested in the Turbo I4 if it put out 260HP and still put out 30+ MPG on the highway...better then V6's get...and I would be willing to bet that MPG numbers are far more important then HP numbers to the vast majority of people buying these cars.

 

Well, considering that the Taurus improved fuel economy ratings over the Five Hundred, despite (by most accounts) stricter EPA estimates for 2008 models, I would say that pretty much proves the 3.5 is more fuel efficient (or at the very least the same while making far more power) than the 3.0.

 

Ever consider the fact since the engine has more power then the older 3L engine, it doesn't have to strain as much to move it? Putting a 100HP engine in a Taurus isn't going to give you better MPG.

[Blueblood]

So Ford's performance Fusion will make less power than the competitions run of the mill cars?

 

And where is this proof that a 260 horse fusion can get 30mpg? The CX-7 uses a similar set-up and gets horrible gas mileage..

Edited August 23, 2007 by Blueblood

[Ralph Greene]

Well, considering that the Taurus improved fuel economy ratings over the Five Hundred, despite (by most accounts) stricter EPA estimates for 2008 models, I would say that pretty much proves the 3.5 is more fuel efficient (or at the very least the same while making far more power) than the 3.0.

 

Under the old method of computing, our 2005 3.0 6 speed auto Montego has EPA ratings of 21/29. And we consistently get that or better. The engine does not "strain" to get the job done. I don't believe the new Taurus/Sable will equal that in real world use. And our engine is rated 203 HP I think, but TQ numbers slightly better than the 221 HP version in Fusion and Milan. BTW I recognize the 3.5 engine is superior to the older 3.0, just don't think it's the extra displacement that makes it superior.

 

Some on here are very vocal about Ford getting their HP numbers on the 3.0 and 3.5 up to where some of the Japansese cars are now. But in many cases their HP and TQ numbers are at relatively hi RPM for an automatic trans street car, and don't do much for real world driving performance, those hi numbers mostly just good for advertising. It's TQ that mostly matters, and where on RPM scale it occurs. So compare the TQ and RPM of Ford VS Japanese engines, and you may discover Ford is more competitive for real world driving than first appears. And BMW is still sticking with their 230 HP 3.0 for base 528 car, a 7 second 0-60 family car with 6 speed auto.

 

I think most on here don't understand how much difference in performance and economy the smart 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions can make. I know in our Montego, having lower initial gears for taking off is like having 50 more HP compared to older 3.0 DOHC with 4 speed auto. And having tall top gears for cruising (2000 RPM @ 70) sure helps with fuel economy.

 

I'm not against HP in cars that need it to be part of what they are.... such as Muscle cars and sports cars, trucks, etc, but have come to believe smaller hi TQ engines with smart transmissions is the way to go for people movers.

 

Maybe only TQ numbers S/B advertised. I notice the E series Mercedes with diesel only advertises a little over 200 HP, but also advertises 388 FT Lbs TQ with 7 speed (as I recall) auto. That's the way to go I think. It's gets over 30 combined city/hiway. Imagine that kind of economy with almost 400 Ft Lbs TQ. That' where we are headed I think with smaller TT DI gas and diesel engines and such in our people movers.

 

The new MKS will be fine with the V6 for it's intended use.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Ralph Greene

[silvrsvt]

So Ford's performance Fusion will make less power than the competitions run of the mill cars?

 

And where is this proof that a 260 horse fusion can get 30mpg? The CX-7 uses a similar set-up and gets horrible gas mileage..

 

Jackass, its going to be a 2.5L TT application, not the 2.3L engine that the CX-7 has in it now. Not to mention that the 2.3L engine doesn't have enough grunt to move the CX-7 effectively also...if you do som research, you'll see that the CX-7 is only about 150 lbs lighter then the Edge, and the Edge gets better MPG then it with a more powerful V6 engine. Your not going to automatically get better MPG by putting a less powerful engine in a car if it can't move it effectively. The current non-turbo 2.3L gets about 30 MPG already in the Fusion and I haven't heard any complaints about its power in the Fusion, besides the automatic being trashy with it. As long as you don't have your foot into the boost all the time it should do fine with MPG.

 

I guess you have serious penis issues if your worrying about the fusion making 8-10 HP less then the competition with a I4 GDITT engine vs their V6's...

[Blue II]

3.5 will go in Fusion fall 08. 3.0 PIP will be a scaled back program and go away when 3.5 is in full capacity.

I-4 is FOE.

[igor]

3.5 will go in Fusion fall 08. 3.0 PIP will be a scaled back program and go away when 3.5 is in full capacity.

I-4 is FOE.

YAY !!!!

 

Igor

[wescoent]

3.5 will go in Fusion fall 08. 3.0 PIP will be a scaled back program and go away when 3.5 is in full capacity.

I-4 is FOE.

 

Makes sense. Obviously, the 3.5 is the engine of choice if capacity exists to put it in the Fusion. FOE?

[jpd80]

3.5 will go in Fusion fall 08. 3.0 PIP will be a scaled back program and go away when 3.5 is in full capacity.

I-4 is FOE.

Welcome news but isn't the 4 cylinder Fusion the majority of sales?

Or is that because the 3.0 V6 is seen as too little for the price?

[igor]

Welcome news but isn't the 4 cylinder Fusion the majority of sales?

Or is that because the 3.0 V6 is seen as too little for the price?

yes - majority of midsizes are sold as I4 - but the V6 is important for prestigs - "image" reasons .. besides - the D30 truly seems inferior to the D35 - so why offer it

 

The D35 is

- cheaper to build

- smoother

- more powerful

- more efficient

- "looks better on spec sheet"

 

Igor

[silvrsvt]

Welcome news but isn't the 4 cylinder Fusion the majority of sales?

Or is that because the 3.0 V6 is seen as too little for the price?

 

 

I think the V6 Fusion has better take rate then the Camcord duo because its a value leader..you can get a V6 Fusion for the same as a I4 Camcord...

 

I'm wondering what the FOE means for 2.5 I4 engine...

 

I guess the 3L PIP is just going to be an Escape/X-type engine now.

[Michael Reynolds]

3.5 will go in Fusion fall 08. 3.0 PIP will be a scaled back program and go away when 3.5 is in full capacity.

I-4 is FOE.

 

:party2:

[igor]

I think the V6 Fusion has better take rate then the Camcord duo because its a value leader..you can get a V6 Fusion for the same as a I4 Camcord...

 

I'm wondering what the FOE means for 2.5 I4 engine...

 

I guess the 3L PIP is just going to be an Escape/X-type engine now.

2.5l I4 was developped by FOE - not Mazda like 2.3l I4

 

The D30PIP might be the middle V6 - like the 3.5l V6 in the aura/Malibu - especially if its efficient .. the Aura gets 18/29mpg on the 3.5l push rod with a 4speed automatic .. imagine if GM was not cheap and actually matted it to a real 6 speed - we could see 20/30mpg again in a V6 mid size ..

 

Igor