[Bamm1]

Brand new car with no break in. Appears to just floor it in sport mode. Also not sure how the time was measured (just time lapse on the video?). I am sure the auto mags will get times that are a good bit faster (the 500+ lb more / down 10 hp & 30 ft-lb Edge Sport was seeing 60 in 5.6 seconds) with a better launch.

But the Auto GT-like claim appears to be laughable.

 

[OX1]

https://youtu.be/gmnLSh5lF5E

Brand new car with no break in. Appears to just floor it in sport mode. Also not sure how the time was measured (just time lapse on the video?). I am sure the auto mags will get times that are a good bit faster (the 500+ lb more / down 10 hp & 30 ft-lb Edge Sport was seeing 60 in 5.6 seconds) with a better launch.

But the Auto GT-like claim appears to be laughable.

Would kind of be surprising that it matches a car with equal weight, but over 100 more HP, but sometimes AWD is the great equalizer.

 

[Fuze]

AWD from the 0-60 is always helpful. Drawback up top at higher speeds but from the get-go... gotta love it !

Not too sure if its video quality but it does sound quite raspy ?

 

[Bamm1]

Would kind of be surprising that it matches a car with equal weight, but over 100 more HP, but sometimes AWD is the great equalizer.

Almost as fast up to 100 mph but slower everywhere else didn't seem that outlandish.

The official tests may prove this an outlier. Who knows......fingers crossed.

 

[[email protected]]

It looks like the driver in the video tried to launch the car at 2000rpm and got a slight rpm drop when let go of the break. The sport should get better 0-60 than the edge sport's 5.6sec even without launching(or bad launch). Can't say I am not disappointed from the video, wish there was more runs. Really like to see the 0-60 result without launching.

 

[OX1]

AWD from the 0-60 is always helpful. Drawback up top at higher speeds but from the get-go... gotta love it !

Not too sure if its video quality but it does sound quite raspy ?

Not always. 2.0 ECO's are about 1/2 second slower 0-60 with AWD than FWD. I believe in anything over 300 HP, in almost any FWD, AWD helps a lot (talking dry 0-60 runs).

 

[escape]

And this was supposedly on 93 octane fuel, according to his comment on Youtube.

 

[First]

Even stock on runflats the 2007 335i made better times than that without AWD.
On sticky tires and slightly more updates the 2011 335is (manual) can do mid 4 while being down in HP and only RWD.

I really hope the Fusion Sport is better than it seems to be right now.

 

[OX1]

Even stock on runflats the 2007 335i made better times than that without AWD.
On sticky tires and slightly more updates the 2011 335is (manual) can do mid 4 while being down in HP and only RWD.

I really hope the Fusion Sport is better than it seems to be right now.

That car was 200 lbs lighter and had an underrated engine. It was also base price of 40 grand 10 years ago.
New 340i X-drive is 50 large now. It better beat a low $30K fusion in every category.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Oh wow. A 5.6 second 0-60 run is what my 2004 Acura TL manual would do, according to the May 2004 issue of Car and Driver. My current car, a 2016 Audi S4 6MT is advertised at 4.9 seconds by Audi but the best actual time I have seen is 4.4 seconds. That's a big difference. I would have to believe that the Fusion Sport should run a sub 5 second 0-60.

One thing that could be hurting lower times is the high rear end gears. A 3.16 rear is not very conducive to rapid acceleration. Still my '04 Acura TL had a 3.29 rear, as I recall, and still managed decent times. That Car and Driver article also put the quarter mile run at 14.3 seconds at 99 MPH. And that car was rated at 270 HP and 238 lb/ft of torque in 2004 (in 2006, the rating was changed to 258 HP and 232 lb/ft). And the TL was heavier than the Fusion Sport.

I would bet when Motor Trend and a few of the other mags run tests with this car, we will see much lower 0-60 runs than 5.6 seconds, and quarter miles in the mid to lower 13-second bracket.

 

[08superduty]

Reading on the F150 forums, these Eco motors run better with some mileage on them and are getting better fuel economy also.

 

[BIG ACH]

Oh wow. A 5.6 second 0-60 run is what my 2004 Acura TL manual would do, according to the May 2004 issue of Car and Driver. My current car, a 2016 Audi S4 6MT is advertised at 4.9 seconds by Audi but the best actual time I have seen is 4.4 seconds. That's a big difference. I would have to believe that the Fusion Sport should run a sub 5 second 0-60.

One thing that could be hurting lower times is the high rear end gears. A 3.16 rear is not very conducive to rapid acceleration. Still my '04 Acura TL had a 3.29 rear, as I recall, and still managed decent times. That Car and Driver article also put the quarter mile run at 14.3 seconds at 99 MPH. And that car was rated at 270 HP and 238 lb/ft of torque in 2004 (in 2006, the rating was changed to 258 HP and 232 lb/ft). And the TL was heavier than the Fusion Sport.

I would bet when Motor Trend and a few of the other mags run tests with this car, we will see much lower 0-60 runs than 5.6 seconds, and quarter miles in the mid to lower 13-second bracket.

I believe dyno tests and other independent tests have shown the S4's true HP and TQ figures are well above 400 HP, despite what its advertised as. I mean think about 0-60 in 4.4 secs, thats Camaro SS level.

 

[First]

That car was 200 lbs lighter and had an underrated engine. It was also base price of 40 grand 10 years ago.
New 340i X-drive is 50 large now. It better beat a low $30K fusion in every category.

The AWD model is closer in weight & the engines made 280whp on the stock tune. While it's base price was 40 grand 10 years ago, you can find a 2013-2014 for less the base price of the Fusion Sport while having the option to get a CPO warranty when they are out of warranty. New cars don't just compete with new cars.

Also the Fusion Sport is a mid $3x,000 car. The Dodge Charger R/T, Chevy SS, Subaru STI, Infiniti Q50 3.0T, Focus RS (at MSRP), Cadillac ATS/CTS, (both selling for much lower than MSRP) and plenty more all compete in the Performance Sedan category. To me, it's between the Chevy SS, Fusion Sport, & Focus RS.

The Chevy SS has more power and LS3 reliability with a HUGE aftermarket. The Focus RS looks to be a factory tuner car that will perform well & hold it's value great. The Fusion Sport does put down great numbers, but if numbers defined a great car then the Genesis R-Spec Coupe would be amazing.
The Infinti's have a great lease deal, and the motor is underrated with tuning up to 400HP is easy.

I just want a reliable and sporty 4 door car that isn't a bulky Taurus SHO or a bland Charger.
The Fusion Sport has serious potential, but potential can be wasted

 

[SouthernBoy]

I believe dyno tests and other independent tests have shown the S4's true HP and TQ figures are well above 400 HP, despite what its advertised as. I mean think about 0-60 in 4.4 secs, thats Camaro SS level.

You're right. Audi uses dyno rated wheel HP and torque readings in their published figures, not what the engine produces at the flywheel. So if you factor in a parasitic loss of around 20%, which might be conservative due to the AWD, their 333HP comes out to 416HP nd their torque goes from 325 lb/ft to 406lb/ft. Also the car weighs 3869 pounds, which ain't light. The 2015 Camaro SS ran nearly identical times to that of the S4.

Where the S4 drops off, and you can feel this, is in the higher gears. Of course aftermarket tuning can erase this and turn the S4 into a mid-11 second machine. But there goes your warranty. One test I like to run is 50 to 70 in fourth gear. The best time I have managed with this car is 3.81 seconds for that run. My 1988 Mustang LX 302 with 3.55 gears and a few simple bolt-ons, would do this run in 4.1 seconds. That was with a 225HP/300lb/ft 302 CID engine (or 5.0 liter if you prefer) that was stock. And my 1966 SS396 Chevelle with 3.73's and a close ratio Muncie (M21), Hooker headers, and an R3310 Holley 780CFM dual feed would do this run in three seconds flat.

What I like about what Ford has done with the Fusion Sport is to create a sleeper. If we look at, say, the 2009 Infiniti G37 S 6MT times, the best I saw was a 0-60 at 5.0 seconds with a quarter mile of 13.5 seconds at 105.3 MPH. This was with a normally aspired 3.7 liter V6, putting out 328HP and 269 lb/ft of torque, as I recall. I think the car weighed about 100 pounds more than the new Fusion Sport. Now the HP numbers are nearly the same, but there is a big difference in torque... well over 100 lb/ft. So you would think the Fusion Sport would launch a lot harder and the added torque would stay with you into the traps.

I do want to see a lot more road tests on this car to get some kind of picture of what the car is really capable of doing.

 

[drbob1]

That sounded like the test drive I took-underwhelming. Slower than the 275 HP Mazdaspeed 6 I was hoping the Fusion Sport would be as good as. I'd also hoped the problem with the one I drove was the 87 octane gas... How long after putting in decent gas does it take for the ECU to learn it can run harder?

I'm coming out of a tuned/CAI/headers GTO, and I can tell you that the SS will pull MUCH harder than just about anything on the road with 4 doors. The only drawbacks I can see are that most of them are selling in the high 40s, almost $10k more than the Fusion Sport and no AWD for the winters. There was a sale, $10k off, that expired on Monday. Unfortunately all SS's that are still on the dealer's lots are locked down until they get a seatbelt fix so you can't even test drive them!

 

[Kevin74]

I thought about the SS,it to is a great sleeper, but had a hard time swallowing the extra 10-16 grand. MSRP starts at $46575 for 2016, plus gas guzzler tax and no chance for rebates or other discounts ala focus rs(10k off Sale, really?). And it shouldn't be raised as an issue when we're talking about pure performance(I will anyways) but as a daily driver 16/17 city 21 highway is a little rough. I will be driving my Sport every day, rain or shine, summer, MI winter(can you say AWD) Plus with a portion of the money I saved I could get my Sport to run 4.9s 0-60 like the SS(AT) . Is the SS a superior sports sedan compared to Fusion Sport, as is, yes, but I'm happy choosing the Sport, flaws and all. On a side note for those interested there are
" Rumors out of Australia point towards next year’s SS coming with a 6.2-liter LSA supercharged V8 tuned approximately like earlier Camaro ZL1 and Cadillac CTS-V models" Autoweek july 11th 2016. It would be a nice send off, albeit for a car no one even knows exists(99% of the population never heard of or seen one, and if they did they thought it was an Impala).

 

[OX1]

The AWD model is closer in weight & the engines made 280whp on the stock tune. While it's base price was 40 grand 10 years ago, you can find a 2013-2014 for less the base price of the Fusion Sport while having the option to get a CPO warranty when they are out of warranty. New cars don't just compete with new cars.

Also the Fusion Sport is a mid $3x,000 car. The Dodge Charger R/T, Chevy SS, Subaru STI, Infiniti Q50 3.0T, Focus RS (at MSRP), Cadillac ATS/CTS, (both selling for much lower than MSRP) and plenty more all compete in the Performance Sedan category. To me, it's between the Chevy SS, Fusion Sport, & Focus RS.

The Chevy SS has more power and LS3 reliability with a HUGE aftermarket. The Focus RS looks to be a factory tuner car that will perform well & hold it's value great. The Fusion Sport does put down great numbers, but if numbers defined a great car then the Genesis R-Spec Coupe would be amazing.
The Infinti's have a great lease deal, and the motor is underrated with tuning up to 400HP is easy.

I just want a reliable and sporty 4 door car that isn't a bulky Taurus SHO or a bland Charger.
The Fusion Sport has serious potential, but potential can be wasted

You originally said the 335i without AWD (and used that 0-60 time), which was 2-300 lbs lighter.

280 WHP is 322 with 15% drivetrain loss.
How Much Hp does a 335i coupe really have?

"No, not under 30000. Msrp on my Sport with 401a, cooled seats, 3m protection and floor mats was 37100. With some local rebates and a-plan I got down near 31 thousand "

http://www.fusionsportforums.com/forum/209-fusion-v6-sport-purchasing-ordering/1802-price-paid.html

Charger, no AWD unless V6
SS, no AWD at all and WAY more money.
Sub, rides like bucket of doo, no low end.
Inf, 7 grand more for like engine/AWD.
Focus, not going to get quietness/ride quality and no auto.

So no, none of them have what the Sport has or they cost way more.

If you are so convinced that a 4 year old used car with extended Warantee is just like a new car
and you think the 335 is better, why not just get one?

 

[OX1]

I will be driving my Sport every day, rain or shine, summer, MI winter(can you say AWD) Plus with a portion of the money I saved I could get my Sport to run 4.9s 0-60 like the SS(AT) .

My 14 GT has 5K miles, my 15 AWD fusion (bought less than year ago new) has almost 14K already.
Last week alone it rained 5 out of 7 days. Really no point romping around with 400 ponies and 2WD
in the rain.

Can't think of another car with this total package, that can be had for close to $31K (for base)
And the thing just came out, eventually you will see Sports going for high 20's new.

 

[Kevin74]

The Focus RS is also a bit of a unicorn. Try getting one, you may get lucky but you will pay at least msrp. And it is still a Focus inside. Now I'm not bashing the RS, I wanted one(still want if money no object). But not a good comparison. To be completely honest the RS is responsible for my Sport ownership. And that's exactly why Ford built it(the RS) . They won't need to make a penny off of the RS and it will still be responsible for Ford profits. Man sorry guys but I'm rambling a lot on here tonight.

 

[Franti]

I just went to the dealer that was selling a blue RS for 5k over MSRP. Who is paying that?