Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been reading through a bunch of online comments about the Fusion Sport, specifically the comments about the recent Car and Driver test. There seem to be a lot of people who are obsessed with the 1/4 mi trap speed, above all other considerations. I don't do any racing, but last I checked the first guy over the line wins the race, and the trap speed is kind of a secondary metric. Some people seem to actually prefer a car with a slower 1/4 time, but higher trap speed. I just figured I'd throw this out there for the more experienced racing guys to comment on. I know the trap speed can tell you interesting things about a car's performance, but I've never seen people holding it up as THE measurement of performance.

As an aside, one great comment on the Car and Driver site in response to a guy pointing out the the Accord V6 and Fusion Sport had the same 1/4 mi trap speed: "They had the same trap speed in 0-60 too." Nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
ET is generally a measurement of the cars launching and drivers ability. Trap speed is generally a measurement for the cars acceleration. Take my Cobalt SS/SC, it trapped at best 102MPH, but the ET was only 13.9. 3 tenths of a second slower in the quarter mile, but when crossing the finish line it was going 3MPH faster. Had the race been say a half time, the Cobalt would have easily over taken the Fusion. Clearly the cobalt was a faster car 0-100MPH however it loses to the Fusion at the track because the Fusion can launch like a mother ******. The higher trap speed means that technically, the cobalt was faster than the fusion in terms of raw acceleration when traction isnt an issue. So if you raced from say 35MPH to 100MPH, the Cobalt would be faster than the Fusion and beat it in a roll race. If the Cobalt could cut the 60ft times the Fusion does, it would have been somewhere around 13.2 in the quarter.

Trap is a better measurement of a cars performance, ET is a better measurement of a drivers performance. Both are equally important when it comes to a quarter mile race. A higher Trap speed generally means the car is more fun on the street, accelerates faster on on-ramps and just generally non racing driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
What Jayson stated explains it. My first few 1/4 mile runs in my mustang was low 11s but I was trapping 131. I knew then by other mustang trap speeds that it can run 10s and it needed a driver mod. Nothing a longer burnout wouldn't cure and launching at 2k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Nice explanation Jayson ... I have a '78 Mustang w/ 351W. 310rwhp, a pretty flat 350rwtq and 3240lb with me and gas. It's been to the track once and ran [email protected] ... shitty driver, no traction, 2.4sec 60ft. Against the Fusion it'd be playing catchup the whole 1/4 mile. Both numbers to me are disappointing in the Mustang, it should be able to run high 12's and should be closer to 109mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Sorry, but I would never compare a Chevy Cobalt to a Ford Fusion. Maybe a Kia Rio, but nothing more than that.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Cobalt I owned in stock form was a better performance car than the Ford Fusion. 236WHP stock, 3200lbs, Limited Slip Differential, Z rated tires, well tuned suspension, equal length half shafts, Recaro Seats, 5 speed short throw shifter. When upgraded with a 2.7 inch pulley, 60lb injectors and a tune, it would eat a Ford Fusion Sport on the street and in the twisties all day long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Cobalt SS was a very good car (as long as it was a true SS with turbo or SC). I think John Heinricy had a role in developing the suspension on that car especially as it transitioned to the turbocharged engine. The turbocharged model put up a crazy lap time at the Car and Driver Lightning Lap. Chevy has done many positive performance car things in the last few years--the new Camaro being the best example. Bringing back a true SS version of the Cobalt's successor has not been one of them.


http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/2005-chevrolet-cobalt-ss-cobalt-just-element-chevy-needs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Cobalt SS was a very good car (as long as it was a true SS with turbo or SC). I think John Heinricy had a role in developing the suspension on that car especially as it transitioned to the turbocharged engine. The turbocharged model put up a crazy lap time at the Car and Driver Lightning Lap. Chevy has done many positive performance car things in the last few years--the new Camaro being the best example. Bringing back a true SS version of the Cobalt's successor has not been one of them.


2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS: Cobalt Is Just The Element Chevy Needs | Autoweek
The engine in those cars was way under rated too. Mine which was Supercharged put down 236WHP bone stock at 1500 miles. That would translate to around 260 Crank HP, even though GM said it was only 205. Average dyno was 210-220WHP stock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I am not talking about comparing its performance, I am talking about total automotive experience. Go to Consumer Reports and look at how they match up. Total cost of ownership (including depreciation), reliability, and curb appeal, those are the things I am talking about. You may enjoy your Cobalt, that's fine, I am just not convinced that they line up in the manner that I would compare vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
I am not talking about comparing its performance, I am talking about total automotive experience. Go to Consumer Reports and look at how they match up. Total cost of ownership (including depreciation), reliability, and curb appeal, those are the things I am talking about. You may enjoy your Cobalt, that's fine, I am just not convinced that they line up in the manner that I would compare vehicles.
Im not sure if you understand the thread you are posting in then, its a thread about performance and I used the Cobalts performance numbers as an analogy to explain trap vs et with the Fusion. You directly responded saying you cant compare the two and now you are saying you didnt mean performance numbers, you meant curb appeal? Im really glad you felt the need to completely derail this thread with your intense knowledge and opinions of vehicles based on the consumer reports you have read, your ability to provide useful and insightful information that in no way shape or form is relevant to the topic at hand is a gift in itself.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top