[Bamm1]

The Sport in the Lasco Ford overview video appears to be clad with Continental ContiProContact tires. Those fall into the Grand Touring All-Season category and seem like an extremely odd choice for the "Sport" model.

The red Fusion Sport that was making the Autoshow rounds had Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric Ultra High Performance All Season tires. That makes more sense for a "Sport" family sedan.

Even the Edge Sport uses Hankook Ventus S1 noble2 Ultra High Performance All-Season tires.

I was wondering if anyone who has taken delivery or done a test drive can comment on what OEM tires were fitted to the vehicle?

Also, did anyone tick the summer tire option box? If so what OEM summer tires is Ford using on the Sport?

 

[DuFFman]

Definitely Conti's on the Sport I test drove this week. That's in Canada, not sure if it makes a difference.

 

[Kevin74]

The Sport in the Lasco Ford overview video appears to be clad with Continental ContiProContact tires. Those fall into the Grand Touring All-Season category and seem like an extremely odd choice for the "Sport" model.

The red Fusion Sport that was making the Autoshow rounds had Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric Ultra High Performance All Season tires. That makes more sense for a "Sport" family sedan.

Even the Edge Sport uses Hankook Ventus S1 noble2 Ultra High Performance All-Season tires.

I was wondering if anyone who has taken delivery or done a test drive can comment on what OEM tires were fitted to the vehicle?

Also, did anyone tick the summer tire option box? If so what OEM summer tires is Ford using on the Sport?

Correct see pics

 

[Fuze]

I think those should last a decent amount of time... I'll be waiting to switch over to some NT05s though or something along those lines

 

[OX1]

I bought another set of stock rims on my 15 for a higher perf tire. Even though it is AWD, most of the perf tires are like bricks when it is below 40
and are horrible in snow .

 

[NukeFusion]

The stock tires should be fine for 3 out of 4 seasons but I'd get a separate set for Canada winters so that those can take the brunt of the salt damage and so I can get a set of dedicated winter tires for it.

 

[Bamm1]

I am still very curious about what OEM tires will be fitted for the summer tire upgrade package.

Going with standard Grand Touring All Season Tires like the ContiProContact is going to hurt the all out performance numbers we see in the magazine tests. It would probably be in Ford's best interest to provide a test vehicle shod with summer tires.

Case in point:

2014 Lincoln MKZ 2.0 Ecoboost AWD fitted with standard Grand Touring All Season tires
vs.
2013 Lincoln MKZ 2.0 Ecoboost AWD fitted with Michelin Pilot Super Sport Max Performance Summer tires.

• 0-60: 7.2 seconds vs. 6.6 seconds
• 1/4 mile: 15.5 seconds at 89.4 mph vs. 15.0 seconds at 91.2 mph
• figure-eight: 27.3 seconds at 0.63 g vs. 26.5 seconds at 0.63 g
• skidpad: 0.85 g vs. 0.91 g
• braking 60-0: 115 feet vs. 106 feet

The PSS's provided a signification increase in performance.

 

[nlaak]

You need to be careful about making comparisons like that unless they were tested properly. The road/weather conditions and the driver can make a huge difference in various driving performance metrics and the model year can affect that as well (usually in a much lesser way, unless there was a major change between the two years).

 

[Bamm1]

You need to be careful about making comparisons like that unless they were tested properly. The road/weather conditions and the driver can make a huge difference in various driving performance metrics and the model year can affect that as well (usually in a much lesser way, unless there was a major change between the two years).

The 2013 and 2014 are essentially the same car. They were tested by the same car magazine using the same test method.

If your assertion was true then I would not be able to compare the performance of a Mustang vs. a Camaro using data published by the same car magazine. That is simply not the case.

 

[nlaak]

Ok, first off I don't see anything saying it was the same magazine in your original comment - or even what magazine it is, but even so, the magazine has little to do with it, unless it's the same driver and the same conditions. This is a turbo charged car and air temperature makes a huge difference (hence the reason for an intercooler). How many runs the car has made/how hot the engine is makes a huge difference. Altitude makes a huge difference (air density). ****, the weight of the driver can make a difference. A scrawny 120 pound guy vs a 250 pound giant. 130 pound difference in the car weight will make a very noticeable difference in metrics. Road temperature, surface type (concrete, asphalt, composite), surface age and additional surface material (say rubber laid down at a drag strip, vs plain surface). Tire temperature, tire age - how many miles on them and what other wear. In addition to all of that you have driver variability to consider. Brake torque? Manual shifts (ie Sport mode) or full Auto? Fuel type (87 or 93 octane) - we know that makes a difference in the EB engines (though much less in the 2.0L vs the 2.7L).

Very very very few magazines go through any real effort to normalize test conditions in any meaningful way. I'm tangentially familiar with manufacturer vehicle testing (ride and handling only, not performance) via a friend that works for a car manufacturer and I work in testing of another sort so I'm very aware of common testing fallacies.

The first thing a professional tester of anything does it remove the variables from the equation to ensure the testing methodology is testing the desired characteristics.

So yes, comparing the performance of a Mustang vs a Camaro via magazine numbers is absolutely not accurate without details about the testing conditions. Now that all being said, comparing a v6 Camaro to a v8 Mustang (or the opposite) can give you a general sense of conditions, but there's still a ton of variability likely.

 

[Bamm1]

Ok, first off I don't see anything saying it was the same magazine in your original comment - or even what magazine it is, but even so, the magazine has little to do with it, unless it's the same driver and the same conditions.

My apologies for leaving that out. It was Motor Trend.

This is a turbo charged car and air temperature makes a huge difference (hence the reason for an intercooler). How many runs the car has made/how hot the engine is makes a huge difference.

I think Motor Trend is well aware of heat soak. This isn’t amateur hour. They publish the “best” time they can get.

Altitude makes a huge difference (air density). ****, the weight of the driver can make a difference. A scrawny 120 pound guy vs a 250 pound giant. 130 pound difference in the car weight will make a very noticeable difference in metrics. Road temperature, surface type (concrete, asphalt, composite), surface age and additional surface material (say rubber laid down at a drag strip, vs plain surface). Tire temperature, tire age - how many miles on them and what other wear. In addition to all of that you have driver variability to consider. Brake torque? Manual shifts (ie Sport mode) or full Auto? Fuel type (87 or 93 octane) - we know that makes a difference in the EB engines (though much less in the 2.0L vs the 2.7L).

The altitude, track conditions, etc. are covered below in what they control for during testing. They usually list what fuel they filled the car with (its usually the manufacture’s recommended fuel for best performance). They have always listed “issues” such as low tread tires, etc. and any affect they might have had on the test. They also note if the manufacturer has installed non-OEM tires, etc. to game the test. They also try all of the methods (brake torque, manual shift, full auto, different launch RPMs with a manual, etc.) and they list the best time they get. They try to do whatever they can to get the max performance out of the test vehicle.

Very very very few magazines go through any real effort to normalize test conditions in any meaningful way. I'm tangentially familiar with manufacturer vehicle testing (ride and handling only, not performance) via a friend that works for a car manufacturer and I work in testing of another sort so I'm very aware of common testing fallacies.

I actually think Motor Trend does a pretty good job in controlling variables. Enough to allow comparisons.

Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend

So yes, comparing the performance of a Mustang vs a Camaro via magazine numbers is absolutely not accurate without details about the testing conditions.

Motor Trend controls the test conditions as best they can (as listed above). So I believe it is accurate.

Now that all being said, comparing a v6 Camaro to a v8 Mustang (or the opposite) can give you a general sense of conditions, but there's still a ton of variability likely.

Not sure I understand what your point is here. V8 vs. V8 / Mustang vs Camaro absolutely not accurate but V6 vs. V8 / Mustang vs. Camaro then the comparison is valid?

What you are asking for is impossible to attain. The magazine can't do one giant test with the same driver where it runs different cars back to back to back. So having Motor Trend control for as much as it can when it performs a test does give us a good idea if one car outperforms another. Most of the car mags are almost always in the same ballpark when it comes to performance metrics so that tells me they are likely valid and enough to frame a comparison.

 

[nlaak]

The Motor Trend description is interesting and they definitely account for more than I expected out them, but unless they're not being detailed, there's a number of variables missed that I mentioned above - some of which are only really issues in certain types of comparisons. And unfortunately much of their compensation relies on each vehicle behaving the same to varying conditions and that's simply not going to be the case.

Conceptually it's a neat idea, but there's zero possibility that their temperature and humidity compensation handles the intricacies of a modern engine ECU, especially in a forced induction engine. Each engine (type) is going to behave differently to each changing condition. Thinking they car apply a correction to handle all weather variations is pretty simplistic. In addition they even mention car to car variations - which they don't/can't correct for. For all you know the slower MKZ in the test was simply a lemon or didn't have enough miles on it for the ECU to finish self tuning.


In addition the specific article that you (presumably) referenced indicates that the tires were not the only changes on the vehicles in question. On the MKZ with the Summer Tire Handling Package that car also has the CCD suspension which could weight the numbers in one direction or the other (slower with weight or faster with less weight transfer to the rear/lifting of the front). In addition the newer car has EPAS which would affect skidpad numbers to some degree and definitely has a weight differential. Unfortunately there's no information there (or in their details of testing) about weight normalization. And that makes sense, when comparing different manufacturers cars. But in trying to quantify a single characteristic you need to change just that one characteristic. Get a single car, run it, reset the car back to the same as at the start (gas, engine temp, etc) change the tires and run it again. The same car, not a different model or year or with a performance pack - unless you're trying to talk about variances with/without the performance pack.


You're trying to pull a single piece of information (tire performance) out of a pair of tests with significant differences.


And yes, I absolutely understand that what I'm suggesting is impossibly to attain - that's the point. Trying to normalize the test results will never work to any real degree. The only reliable method of testing is straight up, with a single driver on a day without changing conditions - I suspect when they test multiple vehicles on the same day their numbers among those vehicles are pretty decent. But, if you want to test tires, I said above, get the same car and change only the tires. Look for a tire testing issue from someone - I'd guess they use the same car on the same track and with similar enough track conditions to get repeatable and coherent results. That's what manufactures (car or tire) do when they objectively test/tune tires for a particular car.


I expect to see some variation considering one tire is a summer only tire and the other is all season. I suspect you'll see a mid-year change to a different all-season and/or an option for summer only tires (or did I miss that in the ordering guide? I have no interest in that, so I might have glossed over it).

 

[Bamm1]

The Motor Trend description is interesting and they definitely account for more than I expected out them, but unless they're not being detailed, there's a number of variables missed that I mentioned above - some of which are only really issues in certain types of comparisons. And unfortunately much of their compensation relies on each vehicle behaving the same to varying conditions and that's simply not going to be the case.

Conceptually it's a neat idea, but there's zero possibility that their temperature and humidity compensation handles the intricacies of a modern engine ECU, especially in a forced induction engine. Each engine (type) is going to behave differently to each changing condition. Thinking they car apply a correction to handle all weather variations is pretty simplistic. In addition they even mention car to car variations - which they don't/can't correct for. For all you know the slower MKZ in the test was simply a lemon or didn't have enough miles on it for the ECU to finish self tuning.


In addition the specific article that you (presumably) referenced indicates that the tires were not the only changes on the vehicles in question. On the MKZ with the Summer Tire Handling Package that car also has the CCD suspension which could weight the numbers in one direction or the other (slower with weight or faster with less weight transfer to the rear/lifting of the front). In addition the newer car has EPAS which would affect skidpad numbers to some degree and definitely has a weight differential. Unfortunately there's no information there (or in their details of testing) about weight normalization. And that makes sense, when comparing different manufacturers cars. But in trying to quantify a single characteristic you need to change just that one characteristic. Get a single car, run it, reset the car back to the same as at the start (gas, engine temp, etc) change the tires and run it again. The same car, not a different model or year or with a performance pack - unless you're trying to talk about variances with/without the performance pack.


You're trying to pull a single piece of information (tire performance) out of a pair of tests with significant differences.


And yes, I absolutely understand that what I'm suggesting is impossibly to attain - that's the point. Trying to normalize the test results will never work to any real degree. The only reliable method of testing is straight up, with a single driver on a day without changing conditions - I suspect when they test multiple vehicles on the same day their numbers among those vehicles are pretty decent. But, if you want to test tires, I said above, get the same car and change only the tires. Look for a tire testing issue from someone - I'd guess they use the same car on the same track and with similar enough track conditions to get repeatable and coherent results. That's what manufactures (car or tire) do when they objectively test/tune tires for a particular car.


I expect to see some variation considering one tire is a summer only tire and the other is all season. I suspect you'll see a mid-year change to a different all-season and/or an option for summer only tires (or did I miss that in the ordering guide? I have no interest in that, so I might have glossed over it).

I am not sure we are talking about the same issue. Are you saying that summer tires have a negligible increase in performance over Grand Touring all Season tires? That is simply not the case. If it were then summer tires would cease to exist.

Summer tires increase the performance of a vehicle in every single performance metric over a car equipped with Grand Touring All Season tires when used in the temperature range they were designed for. Different makes and models of summer tires do this to a greater degree than others.

So the test results I posted where just a way to quantify my point. Even MT indicated they felt the increased performance could be attributed to the tires vs. reprogramming the CCD/EPAS and/or reducing weight.

For reference C&D also tested a 2014 Lincoln MKZ with the standard Grand Touring Tires:

It got 0-60: 7.4 sec / Standing ¼-mile: 15.8 sec @ 88 mph / Skidpad: 0.84g

Very close to what MT got for its 2014. So I don't think ECU adaptation had anything to do with the performance change.

 

[nlaak]

Nope, never said that at all. I'm saying there's insufficient information to make the claim that the tires are the only (or even major) contributing factor to the performance difference.

And if MT said that the the change could be attributed to reprogramming the CCD/EPAS and weight then they've said exactly what I said.

You're reading too much into the numbers of you look at them and blindly say the tires provided the difference. Are summer tires better? Yes they are. The problem is that you can't make determinations about how good the summer tires they tested are or how bad the all season tires they tested are. All I've been trying to do all along is to get you to understand that quoting the numbers the way you did implied very strongly that the only difference between the two test cars is the tires. You even said as much later on:

>> The 2013 and 2014 are essentially the same car. They were tested by the same car magazine using the same test method.

You yourself have now demonstrably proven that to be false, thereby proving my point which has always been that you can't look at the results given and infer too much. Putting those exact same tires on my '14 Fusion Titanium is not going to result in the same improvements. There will be some improvements, and it might even be 95% of the stated MKZ improvements, but we can't know due to the other changes in the car. Which as we've now both said will affect the numbers to some degree. For all we know from the test the summer tires tested are the worst ones ever put on a car and the improvements are solely due to other factors. That's pretty **** unlikely, but you can't know.

Let me reiterate here, the only valid way test tire performance is by ensuring that the only change between the two tests is the tires. It's standard testing methodoloy. They did not do that.

 

[Bamm1]

Nope, never said that at all. I'm saying there's insufficient information to make the claim that the tires are the only (or even major) contributing factor to the performance difference.

And if MT said that the the change could be attributed to reprogramming the CCD/EPAS and weight then they've said exactly what I said.

You're reading too much into the numbers of you look at them and blindly say the tires provided the difference. Are summer tires better? Yes they are. The problem is that you can't make determinations about how good the summer tires they tested are or how bad the all season tires they tested are. All I've been trying to do all along is to get you to understand that quoting the numbers the way you did implied very strongly that the only difference between the two test cars is the tires. You even said as much later on:

>> The 2013 and 2014 are essentially the same car. They were tested by the same car magazine using the same test method.

You yourself have now demonstrably proven that to be false, thereby proving my point which has always been that you can't look at the results given and infer too much. Putting those exact same tires on my '14 Fusion Titanium is not going to result in the same improvements. There will be some improvements, and it might even be 95% of the stated MKZ improvements, but we can't know due to the other changes in the car. Which as we've now both said will affect the numbers to some degree. For all we know from the test the summer tires tested are the worst ones ever put on a car and the improvements are solely due to other factors. That's pretty **** unlikely, but you can't know.

Let me reiterate here, the only valid way test tire performance is by ensuring that the only change between the two tests is the tires. It's standard testing methodoloy. They did not do that.

I have tracked (both road course and drag strip) the same car with lots of different types, makes and models of tires. In my personal experience the results of this test make sense when comparing Grand Touring Tires to Max Performance Summer tires. So I had no reason to question them.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I have no proof that any of the things you listed as “not being controlled for” have altered the outcome of any test performed by Motor Trend. It is just speculation. Motor Trend tests cars for a living. They stated the change was attributed to the tires. I am going to take their word for it as they have much more experience testing cars than I do. I will stop “blindly” trusting them when someone shows that any of the test results they report are completely inaccurate with multiple other sources getting wildly different numbers.

I also never insinuated that I thought the Fusion Sport would gain exactly 0.6 sec in the 0-60 time if threw on some Max Performance Summer tires instead of the Grand Touring All Seasons. It was to show that you are going to get much better test results if you lose the Grand Touring Tires. What performance increase you see is obviously going to be vary from car to car and tire to tire. But you will get a performance increase with max performance summer tires and it will likely not be insubstantial.

 

[dubie7006]

Anyone gotten locking lugs for these yet? I want to get a pair and I know the thread size is M14x1.5 but I'm not sure what the lug length should be. I've seen a few different options for that. Anyone know which to go with since I'm at work right now and can't measure?

 

[escape]

Chat with a TireRack rep online. They'll be able to recommend a matching product.

 

[dubie7006]

Chat with a TireRack rep online. They'll be able to recommend a matching product.

I'll try that, but I won't get my hopes up. I called my Ford dealer's parts department and even they didn't know the length. Weird.

 

[Kevin74]

I thought they were m12, but Idk(they were on the 2016 fusions I think). I've been trying to figure this out too. Nobody seems to have the 2017 fusions in there system yet, and are the Sports the same? I've been too lazy to actually take a lug off and investigate more earnestly. I seen one on a dealer lot and it totally looked like the wrong size.

 

[dubie7006]

I thought they were m12, but Idk(they were on the 2016 fusions I think). I've been trying to figure this out too. Nobody seems to have the 2017 fusions in there system yet, and are the Sports the same? I've been too lazy to actually take a lug off and investigate more earnestly. I seen one on a dealer lot and it totally looked like the wrong size.

I took a look at the owner's manual after work today and the manual says M14x1.5. No length though. So that portion is still unknown.