Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

Registered
Joined
1,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Registered
Joined
1,600 Posts
1/4 mile of a tuned FS for 70 grand??


and serious battery pack issues

Looks like it basically loses all its oomph after about 60 mph. Most electrics struggle mightily by about 60-80mph, which sucks, especially for something considered a "performance" SUV. Maybe on North American highways with our insanely low speed limits it doesn't matter as much to some people.

I'll stick with my FFS. Probably handles better anyway, and I don't have any problems keeping up with traffic. 馃檪
 

Registered
2017 Ford Fusion Sport
Joined
281 Posts
I'll stick with my FFS. Probably handles better anyway, and I don't have any problems keeping up with traffic. 馃檪
I agree. And our FFS's look a whole lot better as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Engineer

Registered
Joined
971 Posts
What's funny is when you talk to a Ford engineer, and they say Ford is nuts for dropping sedans and going to only trucks and SUV's. They know it's gonna come back to haunt them, also don't be surprised if the F 150 Lightening goes bye bye.
 

Registered
Joined
34 Posts
What's funny is when you talk to a Ford engineer, and they say Ford is nuts for dropping sedans and going to only trucks and SUV's. They know it's gonna come back to haunt them, also don't be surprised if the F 150 Lightening goes bye bye.
Ford sells far more new trucks/suv's than sedans/coupes/hatchbacks. The only people buying Fusions were rental companies at the end. It was purely a financial decision.

As far as electrics go, the technology is still in it's infant stage. I like the concept of electric, the performance is very much there, but it's baby steps. Imagine the difference beween a 1910 era car and a 1960 era car, then the difference between a 1960 era car and a 2010 era car. Once we get past the extremely long charge times, get more infrastructure and a fully standardized charging system, it will help remove range anxiety. Add to it that once battery technology develops to allow for less hazardous, less heavy, and more easily replaceable batteries, it'll come a long way. It's really a stop gap though.

For final performance, adding something as simple as a two speed transmission to an electric vs the direct drive we have now would help. Put something small enough that you can have one at each wheel, and you can keep that push going over much higher speeds. Could theoretically get more range as the engine will be running at a lower RPM which would consume less power.

The technology isn't ready for prime time yet.
 

Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
427 Posts
What's funny is when you talk to a Ford engineer, and they say Ford is nuts for dropping sedans and going to only trucks and SUV's. They know it's gonna come back to haunt them, also don't be surprised if the F 150 Lightening goes bye bye.
If you're genuinely hoping Ford fails on a product like the Lightning for reasons as petty as they didn't make more sedans, you need to do some introspection. Sedans simply aren't profitable, and the guys selling them right now are either losing money in an attempt to buy market share (as I strongly suspect Hyundai and Kia are doing currently) or selling crazy volumes to make up for low margins (like Honda and Toyota).

Regardless of that, the Lightning is already a strong success in terms of pre-orders at least. As long as its claims hold up (300 miles of range at 1500lbs average payload) it will be a success.

Finally, part of building an electric car is losing a transmission, which means you must gear each motor to what powerband is most appropriate. In this case, the Mach E GT is a 5000-pound luxury SUV doing 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. That is bananas and was only possible by gearing the motors low. Even the Model Y Performance (this car's competitor) has these same issues after passing 60-80 mph, although to a smaller degree since it is well above Ford in terms of battery and motor technology (10-year head start).

The Mach E GT was never designed to be a super-serious track performer humiliating GT350s all day long. It was meant to be a sporty, mass-market electric SUV with the GT topping the product line with better handling and performance. That's all. You can whine and complain all day long that Ford "ruined" the Mustang name by putting on a product not deserving of it, but by that argument the original Mustang would be absolutley humilated by the Mach E today (the Mach E even has lower ground clearance) and we don't see people clambering to strip away its badge.

Ultimately, the Mach E isn't meant to appeal to people like us, serious enthusiasts looking for affordable power and performance. It is meant to make Ford money by being a good mass-market electric vehicle, and hopefully impressing people with its performance with the Mustang badge. In terms of comparison with our Fusions, it destroys a stock Sport in the 0-60 while being nearly 1000 pounds heavier. That is no small feat. Make no mistake, the Mach E is seriously fast and fast where you want it in my opinion, blasting off the stoplights and making Charger owners soil themselves. Sure it loses steam at 80-100 mph, but even in Utah (a very generous state) that is felony level speed and not really something most are interested in.

I also forget to mention that is electric, and because of that will be really cheap to maintain and drive. Here in Utah, it costs me over $50 to fill my Fusion with 91 octane gasoline. As opposed to the Mach E with its highest capacity battery (91 kWh) costing $10 to "fill up" at $0.08 per kWh, assuming a 20% efficiency loss (very high) and getting similar mileage to my Fusion.
 

Registered
Joined
1,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Ford sells far more new trucks/suv's than sedans/coupes/hatchbacks. The only people buying Fusions were rental companies at the end. It was purely a financial decision.

As far as electrics go, the technology is still in it's infant stage. I like the concept of electric, the performance is very much there, but it's baby steps. Imagine the difference beween a 1910 era car and a 1960 era car, then the difference between a 1960 era car and a 2010 era car. Once we get past the extremely long charge times, get more infrastructure and a fully standardized charging system, it will help remove range anxiety. Add to it that once battery technology develops to allow for less hazardous, less heavy, and more easily replaceable batteries, it'll come a long way. It's really a stop gap though.

For final performance, adding something as simple as a two speed transmission to an electric vs the direct drive we have now would help. Put something small enough that you can have one at each wheel, and you can keep that push going over much higher speeds. Could theoretically get more range as the engine will be running at a lower RPM which would consume less power.

The technology isn't ready for prime time yet.
It was a conscious decision to not redesign one of their best selling sedans for close to 10 years. Of course the general public stopped buying it.
Every younger kid on my block has a foreign CAR. It's not even a cost thing as several of them are BMW's. I'm sure they will magically switch to Fords
once they get older and get families (NOT!!!). Ford gave up on the gateway vehicles, except for tiny POS SUV's that no one wants, when you can get the next class
up chassis in a car for the same money. If cars are such money losers, why would ANYONE make them now?

Nice pie in the sky answer for electrics. Thing is, those problems you mentioned don't have set in stone dates to be solved, but the gov't
has set in stone dates to eliminate (or try their hardest to make them unattainable) the current technology (everything from the fuels through the actual powerplants).

It was not worth ruining the Mustang name for something that costs as much as new base GT500, but is as slow as a 10 year old mustang GT.
Even though EV technology is in it's infancy (so you say), it appears Ford is 10 years behind the curve, when all they had to do was copy the latest top EV's.
 

Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
427 Posts
It was a conscious decision to not redesign one of their best selling sedans for close to 10 years. Of course the general public stopped buying it.
Every younger kid on my block has a foreign CAR. It's not even a cost thing as several of them are BMW's. I'm sure they will magically switch to Fords
once they get older and get families (NOT!!!). Ford gave up on the gateway vehicles, except for tiny POS SUV's that no one wants, when you can get the next class
up chassis in a car for the same money. If cars are such money losers, why would ANYONE make them now?

Nice pie in the sky answer for electrics. Thing is, those problems you mentioned don't have set in stone dates to be solved, but the gov't
has set in stone dates to eliminate (or try their hardest to make them unattainable) the current technology (everything from the fuels through the actual powerplants).

It was not worth ruining the Mustang name for something that costs as much as new base GT500, but is as slow as a 10 year old mustang GT.
Even though EV technology is in it's infancy (so you say), it appears Ford is 10 years behind the curve, when all they had to do was copy the latest top EV's.
I don't think you understand technology at all. Ford can't just "copy" anyone. If you look into cell chemistry and motor output Ford is at parity with every other manufacturer except Tesla, which has a decade of R&D behind it.

Ultimately I don't really see the point of complaining about a car you clearly aren't interested in and don't like, except for other people to know how much you hate it.

Upset with Ford? Don't buy another one. Simple as.
 

Registered
Joined
971 Posts
The point here is simple no matter how much the government would love to see the ICE go away and everyone fall in love with electric up the wazoo, it will never happen. There are just to many things that will not work, on top of the fact. They can do everything in their power to reduce our " green house gases " , but in the end it will make no difference. The planet is doing what it does , we may not help things, but we are not doing that much damage. At least not what the government is trying to ram down your throat.
 

Registered
Joined
1,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
In terms of comparison with our Fusions, it destroys a stock Sport in the 0-60 while being nearly 1000 pounds heavier.
Not for anywhere near the same amount of money. The slowest Mach-E is right at the same 0-60 time 1/4 mile of the FS, but trap speed is WAY down, as even the GT barely traps what a $25K FS does. I'm sure a $60-70K fusion sport would have been a mid 11 second car stock.
 

Registered
Joined
1,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I don't think you understand technology at all. Ford can't just "copy" anyone. If you look into cell chemistry and motor output Ford is at parity with every other manufacturer except Tesla, which has a decade of R&D behind it.

Ultimately I don't really see the point of complaining about a car you clearly aren't interested in and don't like, except for other people to know how much you hate it.

Upset with Ford? Don't buy another one. Simple as.
The article about the deficiencies of Mach-E's battery pack for a supposed top performance vehicle were pretty specific. If ford (and maybe the industry outside of Tesla) wasn't ready for prime time, maybe it shouldn't have hyped the vehicle so hard before hand (and maybe the gov't shouldn't be pushing so hard, since all the other manufacturers have 10 years to even catch Tesla, according to you).

No one forced you to read or reply to this thread, can leave/ignore at any time.
Millions of gripes about Ford from those who've never owned a ford to those like me, that currently own 10 fords (59 Bird 430, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT W/ Roush TVS, 17 Fusion Sport, 17 Escape, 2.0). Welcome to the internet.
 

Registered
Joined
1,600 Posts
I would also argue that almost anyone who really loves driving would prefer a (luxury or not) sport sedan over an SUV. You can make an SUV go fast if you give it a beefy enough motor and the right gearing, but you'll never have the same driving experience as a sport sedan. I'm reminded of this every time I'm behind one and they have to almost stop to go around a turn. People can complain about the handling on the Fusion all day long but in Sport mode I don't have any problem taking a corner at any reasonable speed. The whole driving experience is better in the FFS than in any SUV I've ever experienced.
 

Registered
Joined
1,600 Posts
I also very strongly agree with whoever said in one of the posts above that if electric was so great, they wouldn't have to shove it down our throats. Seriously. If it was so terrific, people would be lining up to trade in their ICE cars and get expensive electrics. But they're not. Instead we get mandates forcing us to go that direction whether we like it or not. That tells me they're not worth it. Will they be in 50 years? Maybe. But right now they're not. For anywhere near the same level of car as an ICE version you have to spend a fortune.
 

Registered
Joined
1,600 Posts
I guess what I'm also saying is I don't care if you want an electric car. If you want one, go for it. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But don't tell me I can't own what I want to own.
 

Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
427 Posts
This whole post has gone off the rails a bit, and I understand what you folks are saying, but I think a huge issue here is that EVs have become intrinsically tied to political objectives unfairly. I look at EVs like I look at guns, or any other tool for that matter. Government mandates supporting or hurting them either way are wrong, but EVs do have use cases where they blow conventional gas vehicles out of the water, and they are in their infancy currently.

I started following EVs not because of politics or green concerns, but because I believe they represent a next generation of personal transport. Fast, quiet, with low cost of maintenance and the ability to have your energy ecosystem entirely controlled by yourself through solar power and batteries on your home.

For all the political posturing surrounding them, ICE vehicles will not be replaced for a very long time and at the very least will continue to have an enthusiast following for a long time.

However, for the vast majority of drivers EVs are best for them and assuming our grid can keep up it will become the dominant form of transport within the century.

All I'm saying is try to untie the politics of EVs and refuse to be ignorant of their many benefits just because they have been coopted by a certain party.
 

Registered
Joined
37 Posts
The Mustang Mach-E is a problematic poster child for Ford, the ordering process, the markup from local dealer, and the geninue shortage of chips. Idk, Ford stock price has gone way up since its low last year and largely due to the fact they have this car available. However, telling me my car needs juice every night and can only run 150 miles before it is hungry again is almost a joke. Needless to say, the price tag does not do good to average Ford consumers.
 

Registered
Joined
971 Posts
That's my biggest issue, price. People go out and buy a KIA because they are cheap, my not last long, but they don,t care. Your not gonna go out and buy a cheap EV, it's just not gonna happen. At least not in our life time. There are other issues, I had horses for twenty years. Rode all over in Michigan and Ohio, the horse go in the trailer and I had a 2003 Super Duty 7.3 diesel that pulled it. The truck was not stock, it was not built to race, or roll coal. It was built to pull heavy trailers and it did it effortlessly. I use to pull a seven horse trailer 65 MPH with no problem loaded, I don't care what kind of EV you buy, there is no way in hell it's gonna do that any further than the end of your driveway. :)
 

Registered
Joined
971 Posts
That truck is all business! Nice orange on that, I kind of like it.
Funny part is, it started out the same color as the Sport Oxford White. To do the color you see, it was close to 6 grand, and that didn't include the bed, that was another 1800.00. Another 2500 in tires n rims, and about 750 in the 3 inch lift. At this point I no longer towed with it, so I only had it a few years after I did the repaint. Bought the 2013 SEL 2.0 I had before the Sport, it pretty much sat in the driveway for a year other than running for stuff I needed to haul. So in that year I only put 400 miles on it, cleaned it up, put it out front and three days later sold it to a stripper that was all of 4 foot 5 tall, lol. Seen it roll past the shop a bunch of times then it disapeared. Guy I know said he seen it on the market page, then another guy I know said he was pretty sure he seen it on the other side of town, on a roll back. Looked like it caught fire under the hood and got inside under the dash. Never seen it again or heard of any sightings after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Engineer
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top