13th May 2010, 22:17
I recently had a friend who was shopping for a new Fusion. He insisted he just "had to have" the V-6. When I asked why on Earth he wanted to pay more for a car with higher insurance and drastically lower fuel mileage, he said he "had to have the power for passing and merging". We were in my 4 cylinder SE at the time. I floored it on a two-lane blacktop and whipped around two cars very handily, going from 45 to 80 getting around two cars. Then when we got to the freeway I floored it going up the ramp. We were hitting 90 as we merged onto the freeway. He bought the 4. My 4 will downshift at 100 and peg the speedometer in 4th gear. What more do you want?? The Fusion I-4 has 20 more horses than the first Mustang GT.
14th May 2010, 22:44
I agree with comment 22:17.
I never understood people who think that because a car has a 4-cylinder, it's automatically slow. Is a V6 or V8 faster? Well, duh. But for everyday driving, a good 'ole 4 banger has MORE than enough power in most cars. Now I don't own a Fusion, but even my AE102 Corolla that only makes 105 HP has plenty of power for merging onto the highway and puttering around town. Is it fast? Not by a longshot, but I've never once felt like I wasn't going to be able to merge or make it up a hill.
15th May 2010, 15:04
Having to "floor it" to merge onto freeways and pass cars isn't really good for your engine and it will wear out much sooner than the V-6, therefore all the money for gas you saved will be inadvertently spent on a new drivetrain.
I'd rather have a powertrain that goes with the size of the car to move it adequately without punishing the engine so much. Gas mileage is not a huge difference as everyone seems to quote on here. Most V-6 engines I have had easily get into the mid 20's for mileage and on trips near 30 mpg. Flooring your 4 banger all the time won't get you that 35 mpg figure either, so you aren't saving as much gas as you think you are.
As far as the need for more power? Well, the public disagrees with you on that one as every car seems to get more powerful with every new design. Even the 4 banger Fusion got a recent bump from 160 to 175 hp. Guess more people want more power than you think huh?
At least the V-6 Mustang is FINALLY worth looking at. It has more than enough power for a pony car and still gets 30 mph. I hear it finally sounds good too which will be a nice change from the old 4.0 truck engine... I feel sorry for anyone who bought a Mustang V-6 in the past few years now that this engine is standard for basically the same price!
16th May 2010, 10:51
Personally, I think the argument that buying a bigger engine and using only a FRACTION of its potential makes little sense logically. We've owned 4's, 6's and 8's and have in virtually every case found the 4's the MOST reliable engines, while the 8's tended to have the highest number of problems. The I-4 Fusion will cruise all day at 100 mph without breathing hard (if you can avoid police) and revving an engine is actually GOOD for it, in that it keeps the injection system cleaner and the oil pressure increases with engine revs, so no excess wear is incurred. My brother belonged to the "Big engines last longer because they work less" school until he had to rebuild the huge V-8 in his car for the SECOND time. He then bought a 4-cylinder Ford Escort and it is still running strong at 214,000 miles.
16th May 2010, 17:00
To comment 15:04.
I've never had to floor my Corolla to merge. And I get 40 MPG. I'm doing just fine without a V6. By the way, I'm only defending the 4-cylinder, I'm not try to start an argument over Toyota's and Ford's.
16th May 2010, 18:48
"The Fusion I-4 has 20 more horses than the first Mustang GT."
Hmmm, the '67 Mustang GT had a bit more than 175 hp I think!
16th May 2010, 21:54
"Is a V6 or V8 faster? Well, duh"
Actually, my 4-cylinder Dodge Omni and my 4-cylinder Pontiac Grand Am were much faster than my new Mustang, because the Mustang is governed to 118mph (and I DON'T intend to disable it, though it is very easy to do). 4-cylinder cars are PLENTY fast. My 5-speed Omni would hit 90 in third gear and topped out near 135. I never had anyone follow me to clock the Grand Am (as I DID the Omni), but it kept accelerating way after it pegged at 120. Most modern 4's are capable of well over 130, and merging is a piece of pie. I constantly have to hit my brakes merging to keep from running up the tail-pipes of V-8's whose driver's always seem to dawdle along.
17th May 2010, 14:42
"Hmmm, the '67 Mustang GT had a bit more than 175 hp I think!"
The first true Mustang GT was a 1982 based on the Fox body. It had a special horizontal grill treatment and a wedge spoiler. It put out a whopping 157 horsepower. That's actually 18 less than the Fusion I-4.
17th May 2010, 19:57
I'm the person who wrote the comment you responded to. I was DEFENDING the 4 cylinder. Not putting it down.
18th May 2010, 08:55
Really? I would think Ford would know better which was a true Mustang GT. The 80's cars were a comeback of the older GT label. Even the big hood scoop on the '82 GT was reminiscent of the old Boss 429 cars. The originals were the '67 Mustang GT and the famous '68 GT 390 from Bullitt, which was 325 hp. Ford was doing much the same as they are doing today with the retro styling of the newer cars. If you grew up in the 80's then I guess the '82 GT was the original to you, but not if you are into classic Mustangs.
Anyway, comparing a car from the 80's to anything today only proves my point on increases in power across the board and the fact that consumers are looking for more power with every new car design. Remember the average sedan was around 110 hp in 1982, so the Mustang was much faster than any 4 door family sedan then too. Plus even at 157 hp the old '82 5.0 had much more torque than the current 2.3 (240 lb. ft. vs. 172 lb. ft. for the Fusion). Torque is what gets you to 60 faster, not hp. 0-60 was around 8 seconds for the '82 GT which is better than the 4 cylinder Fusion so even a 28 year difference doesn't equate to a slower Mustang.
18th May 2010, 09:09
"My 5-speed Omni would hit 90 in third gear and topped out near 135."
Yeah and the whopping 84 hp. Omni took 5 minutes to get to 135 too. By then you'd be parked and waiting for the Omni to show up with any new Mustang. Since the Mustang hits 60 in about a third the time of the Omni, you wouldn't need the top speed to beat it.
I do have to say, however, that anyone who feels the need to go 135 in an Omni has no business on public roads. 118 is way more than enough top end, which is why many of the newer cars are governed unless your goal is to be on the front page of your local paper in a horrific crash. If you're saying that top speed is the ONLY measure of performance on a car, then you are missing the point here. The newer cars will run circles around your old 4 bangers in every category, except the useless top speed of course.