27th Feb 2007, 16:05

Well, it's interesting that this "crappy" Fusion is rated HIGHER in reliability than Camry or Accord. I guess that makes them "crappier"??

28th Feb 2007, 07:16

Wow!!! It must be better then since it is only rated for 1 YEAR. Wait until they do the overall reliability in 5 or 10 years, 1 year means absolutely nothing, as Ford vehicles seem to fail after the warranty most of the time.

28th Feb 2007, 16:33

This is the first year for the new Tundra too. Does that mean it will be as crappy as the last one?

19th Mar 2007, 15:02

The only place I have seen the Fusion better than an Accord was on Ford's website, but in the real world the Accord that is five years old outshines it by far. Kind of weird it is only a Ford commercial that says that isn't it?

20th Mar 2007, 16:01

Well, Ford is likely on it's way out anyhow, so what's the harm in advertising a complete lie? Maybe they'll only lose 11 billion dollars next year if a few people out there are confused enough to think that the Fusion is better at anything than an Accord, and they buy one. Honda and Ford are two companies going in completely different directions, and guess which one is going the right way? (hint: last year's sales figures). Ford has to try and attack Honda, but at this point they're just shooting rubber bands at the moon.

20th Mar 2007, 19:54

You're forgetting that it was a test performed by Road and Track magazine, where they brought in 600 people to test drive all 3 vehicles, and the Ford came out with the highest rating. And of course it's only in a Ford commercial. Do you really expect to see Toyota or Honda praising a Ford in their commercials?

21st Mar 2007, 08:39

You're forgetting the magazine was Car and Driver, not Road and Track.

21st Mar 2007, 17:36

Yeah, just because Ford has made some of the worst, most unreliable, and unsafe cars over the past century is no indication that the Fusion is in any way a crappy car.

21st Mar 2007, 17:50

600 people who do not know anything about cars!! You can get someone in a car who does not know anything about cars and if it drives that is all that matters. In fact I know a lot of people who think my '94 Honda is brand new--shows you what they know. I know for a fact that the Accord is faster than a Fusion and some how the Fusion was rated better by a bunch of people to be faster. Could have all these drivers been owners of Ford Contours, Taurses; Chevy Malibu's, Corsica's; Dodge Stratus and Intrepid? I remember as a kid reading manuals from Chevrolet in '97 when the Malibu came out. They supposedely had Camry and Accord owners in it raving that the '97 Malibu was better than the Camry/ Accord by far. DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT? or Fords new campaign for the Fusion? I do not. We have no idea what backrounds these testers came from. Did Ford compare a Fusion top line against an Accord DX? seems so to me.

22nd Mar 2007, 05:25

Don't worry about what Ford says about Honda cars, they're losing the battle badly. Think of Ford as the 35th place runner in a race. He always has the leader in his sights and on his mind, but can't catch him. Meanwhile, the winner (Honda) doesn't care what the losers are doing, they're just busy winning.

22nd Mar 2007, 08:17

"Did Ford compare a Fusion top line against an Accord DX? seems so to me."

I would not be surprised if Ford did that. The ONLY way someone would ever pick a Fusion over an Accord is if you give them the top of the line fusion over the low-end version of the Accord and even then most (People who know about cars) would still take the Accord, besides Ford probably chose people who have a bias against imports, its the only logical explanation.

22nd Mar 2007, 17:12

Having test driven the Camry and Fusion, I can assure you there is no way the Camry can compete. The Fusion bests it in EVERY category. As for Accord, I haven't driven one because our horrible experience with Honda has persuaded us not to even LOOK at another one.

22nd Mar 2007, 20:11

Who on earth are these people fawning over the Accord, Camry, Tercel, and Corolla???

Come on, people, these are little utilitarian, no-option, cheaply made tin cans! What in the world is there to get excited about?!? These things are the dumpiest, most boring, plainest looking pieces of crap on the road. I swear, every time I see one, I just absolutely don't understand how people on this site go on and on about them.

Maybe they're fine for a college kid, or for somebody who just got a job and can finally buy their first new car, or for somebody who can't afford anything better, but other than that I can't imagine who would want one. Honestly!

People go on and on about how they go for 400,000 miles, and all I can ask is who in the h*ll would subject themselves to being stuck in one of those things for that long!?!

At work I always see a new Pontiac Bonneville parked next to a similarly new Toyota Corolla. The Bonneville makes that Corolla look like the saddest piece of crap on the planet! Seriously, in the lot I see beautiful cars like the Monte Carlo SS, the Pontiac Bonneville, the Chevy Impala, and then this dumpy Accord and Corolla that just look so out of place.

Maybe I just don't get it because I've moved beyond the market for utilitarian subcompact commuter sedans, and just expect more in a vehicle.

23rd Mar 2007, 20:09

20:11 You expect more from a vehicle? More problems, more gas usage, and more trips to the service shop? Because that's what you'll get with the list of junk Chevy's and Pontiac's that you listed. Any import is better than that crap; especially the Corolla, Camry, and Accord. They're the best, and that's why they sell the most. Nobody wants a Pontiac or a Chevy when these Toyota's and Honda's are available.

24th Mar 2007, 05:03

Why buy a car with only 36,000 mile standard warranty when you can have a new GM with 100,000 mile standard mechanical warranty? I went from a new Acura right to new full size GM's and have only had oil changes and a seat belt retractor replaced in my first 28,000 miles. Better than paying $4000 for a new transmission in under 40,000 miles on what I thought was a better quality import. I bought almost all my vehicles as imports until recently.

24th Mar 2007, 07:58

Well, it's the difference between needing a warranty and having one. And good luck getting GM to honor the warranty when they are trying to cut costs right and left. Just read the stories about Kia and their warranty.

24th Mar 2007, 08:16

05:03 A 100,000 warranty is a promise that GM can't keep. They might not be around to honor it. And when they don't, what are you going to do about it? A class action suit that takes years to settle, and meanwhile the company that sold it to you has gone under? Think about it enough and you'll realize that it's a last ditch effort to sell cheap cars that aren't moving. That warranty is a just to lure people into buying their junk. Don't be fooled by this. They might as well have said a million mile warranty; the credibility would be no less.