Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From the 2018 Fusion ESourceBook:

Torque Vectoring Control

Torque Vectoring Control continually balances the distribution of engine
torque to the front wheels based on driving conditions and available
traction. Balancing the torque delivery helps the vehicle track on the path
intended by the driver, especially on wet or slippery surfaces.

Helps reduce torque steer during acceleration

Uses the vehicle braking system to deliver the effect of a limited-slip
differential without the complexity and weight of that system

In cornering situations, the system automatically applies the brake on
the inside front wheel to deliver more torque to the outside wheel

The outside front wheel has more available traction than the inside
front wheel

NOTE: Remember that even advanced technology cannot overcome the laws of
physics. It’s always possible to lose control of a vehicle due to inappropriate
driver input for the conditions.

NOTE: For availability of product features, please see Availability by Model and/or the Dealer Ordering Guide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Uses the vehicle braking system to deliver the effect of a limited-slip
differential without the complexity and weight of that system
Yes, Ford, I'm so concerned with the weight of my 4100lbs sedan that I want an interior system for what, 50lbs of weight savings (on a good day)? What a laughable excuse; they could've just said that that's not how their Intelligent AWD works and left it at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
Yes, Ford, I'm so concerned with the weight of my 4100lbs sedan that I want an interior system for what, 50lbs of weight savings (on a good day)? What a laughable excuse; they could've just said that that's not how their Intelligent AWD works and left it at that.
I know not everyone wants to hear this, but honestly if Ford had put limited-slip in instead we'd all be complaining about how the FFS cost too much, how we could get something else for the same money, how expensive it was to replace the clutch plates all the time, on and on and on. I wouldn't even be here probably because if the car had been any more expensive I don't think my wife would have been on board, and I'd be driving something else. And the fact is I get no torque steer in this car whatsoever.

Also, speaking as someone who really felt a lot of torque steer on his old non-sport Fusion, while I appreciate that there were some tradeoffs here (increased brake pad wear for instance), I don't know that it was a bad call on Ford's part. These cars are driven hard. I'm sure part of the design was an assumption they'd be driven harder than, for instance, an MKZ, on average, even though the MKZ 3.0 will absolutely go if you want it to. But I bet the majority of FFSes get driven harder than the majority of MKSes. All that hard driving in turns is going to wear down a clutch plate, and I'd rather replace brake pads than differential clutch plates.

I'm just saying while I see your point, I don't know that it's really that straightforward. They had a lot of things to balance here. I do wish the car had been lightened up, but it's tough when you're talking about a larger midsize AWD sedan, fully loaded with an options package that's fairly competitive with pretty much anything out there under 70k or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Two things can be true at once here.

On one hand, our AWD system simply isn't very good by performance sedan standards. It doesn't have the capability of the Audi S/RS cars, or the Evo, or the GTR, or Nissan/Infiniti's ATTESA, or even Subaru! We have a FWD-based system, much like the Haldex ones in the Audi A3 and the Golf R. For any sort of racing, this simply isn't a good AWD setup.

On the other hand, the vast majority of drivers don't care about any of the above - most of us here don't either, frankly. No one interested in the Fusion Sport expected a nimble sports car for track use, obviously. What we (or at least I) wanted an AWD car for was a) being able to put power down without torque steer or loss of traction, and b) getting around in foul weather (in my case, I have a very steep driveway so I actually need AWD/4WD) - our cars achieve those goals. In a nutshell, 99.9% of the time 99.9% of buyers don't care what AWD system they have and they wouldn't benefit from having one of the superior ones listed above anyways. On similar tires, I would expect a typical crossover to get around in the snow just as well as my Jeep. I do find it both amusing and frustrating that most crossover buyers don't bother to get snow tires in the winter because they think that AWD is magic, but that's another topic altogether.

Bottom line here is that our AWD system isn't very good but it's fine enough for how we use these cars - I don't have any complaints about how my car behaves on my drive to work. I just don't like / agree with Ford's excuse for not giving us real differentials, even though I'm okay with the fact that they didn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Bottom line here is that our AWD system isn't very good but it's fine enough for how we use these cars - I don't have any complaints about how my car behaves on my drive to work. I just don't like / agree with Ford's excuse for not giving us real differentials, even though I'm okay with the fact that they didn't.
I think we're on pretty much the same page, although "isn't very good" could mean a lot of things. To the rally racer, as you say, it's not great (although I've got a friend with a Golf R and he's much more into the racing scene than I am, and seems quite happy with his "inferior" AWD). But for its intended purpose, as a family sedan with serious punch, I think it gets the job done well. So if it's meeting its intended purpose, and not costing a fortune, and not presenting high maintenance expenses (in the form of replacing diff clutches, for example), it's hard for me to argue that it's "inferior" because it's doing its designed job quite well. But just looking at what would objectively be the better system, were money no object and we could all have whatever we wanted, yeah I agree it's not the best theoretical system there is. Of course, cars like the GT-Rs you mention are hardly in the same class as ours. :cool: I know for a fact if I tried to buy one of those, I wouldn't be able to first of all, but even if I were able to, I don't think it would get past my wife. There's no way she'd go for that. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
I agree.
My experience is our AWD with dedicated winter tires has taken me through Appalachian Mountain winters to every hell-hole scrapyard in PA, WV, and eastern Ohio. Even one unintentional off-road excursion in the U.P. of Michigan. I have to drive for my job and 107k later I’m absolutely satisfied with the AWD system for day-to-day utility and all-weather safety.
I also cannot complain about it for drag racing. It launches out of the hole door-to-door with any drag-pack equipped RWD muscle car.

Bottom line for me personally is you could put me in any of those higher end cars with incredible AWD systems and it would be totally wasted on me because I’m not a skilled enough driver to take advantage of the higher limits. I’d still wrap a pole or be in the ditch and all it would have done was cost me more money to turn it into scrap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Hi guys. Wanted to mention: I noticed that ESourceBook article Engineer quoted seems to state that the Fusion Sport Torque Vectoring system will control power/torque to the front wheels only? The Dynamic Torque Vectoring system on the MKZ routes power/torque to both front and rear wheels. And it can divert up to 100% of power to an individual rear wheel on demand.

See this video:

My understanding up until now was that the Fusion Sport Dynamic Torque Vectoring system has the same front/rear/left/right capability? Or perhaps I am mistaken and the Fusion Sport has a more basic "Torque Vectoring" system, as opposed to the "Dynamic Torque Vectoring" system of the MKZ and Continental??

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
As far as I know the FuSport has front to rear vectoring but not side to side. My info graphic shows front/rear power distribution. I also read somewhere way back that it maxes out at 20% front, 80% rear because reasons idk.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
The MKZ had an optional AWD system that was lifted from the Focus RS - it's really, really good. My guess is that this is the system you're seeing in that video and not the one in the base MKZ or Fusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
As far as I know the FuSport has front to rear vectoring but not side to side. My info graphic shows front/rear power distribution. I also read somewhere way back that it maxes out at 20% front, 80% rear because reasons idk.
Hi Shawnski. If your Fusion Sport Torque Vectoring systme is the same as the "Dynamic Torque Vectoring" system in my MKZ, you should also see the graphic change front to rear and also side to side when you accelerate at a decent clip with the steering wheel turned.

For example, the graphic for the outside rear wheel should show more power being sent to it through an accelerating turn. So if I am turning left and accelerating, the graphic will show the right rear wheel receiving more torque/power than the left rear wheel. And if turning right, the left rear wheel will show more torque/power being sent to it than the right.

Again, I am not sure if the Fusion Sport system is different, but if it is the same system as the MKZ's Dynamic system, it will adjust torque/power form front to rear and left/right.

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
The MKZ had an optional AWD system that was lifted from the Focus RS - it's really, really good. My guess is that this is the system you're seeing in that video and not the one in the base MKZ or Fusion.
Hi LeVeL. That is what I am wondering. If it is the case, it's too bad the "Dynamic Torque Vectoring System" was not at least made optional in the Fusion Sport.

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
From what I have read, both Shawnski and Level are correct. Our FFS only have front and rear vectoring with a max @ 50% of total power to the rear. The MKZ has the lateral tork vectoring included on the Focus RS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
The AWD of this car will not win any awards by a long shot but taking into consideration the size and weight of this beast it performs well, simply imagine this car with out it then what would we be discussing.😏
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Yes I can vouch that it definitely does not vector side to side. The graphic moves strictly front and rear, and in low traction situations I’ve seen it show full engagement both front and rear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Engineer

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Yes. Front biased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
So this system is more front biased correct?
Yes, like @maydk65 said a minute ago it's a front-biased system. If you've got good traction up front and you're not getting into the throttle hard, it'll stay mostly up front. But if you start to lose traction or you get into the throttle, it'll start pushing up to 50% of the power back to the rears so your power per tire is kept down, and it doesn't into your available traction so much. It does respond very quickly either way, so even though it's front-biased, the AWD will kick in the rears as needed immediately, to the degree needed for the situation.

What it doesn't give is the side-to-side (beyond the brake-based torque vectoring up front), and it also doesn't give a rear bias for if you want to break the rear loose and drift or something. But in my opinion for pretty much any reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) driving it does a perfectly fine job. I'd argue even a pretty good job, given the type of car it is, and the designed purpose of the car. But that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
My question is, if you turn off traction control, does that just turn off the added braking to control slippage or does it also reduce the vectoring?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
My question is, if you turn off traction control, does that just turn off the added braking to control slippage or does it also reduce the vectoring?
Hi @maydk65 I think the torque vectoring, if anything, would be more closely connected to Electronic Stability Control than to Traction Control. The Traction Control is more about torque management, so it's going to cut power if there's wheel slippage, but the Torque Vectoring Control involves using brakes to limit torque to a slower-turning wheel. I think those two should be independent of each other.

I also remember reading somewhere about how the Torque Vectoring Control uses a combination of torque management and braking to control the power to the wheels, but based on what I read in the document from this thread I think if that's happening, the braking action is probably limited to the fronts. But I would need to look into that more.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top