10th Feb 2007, 10:53
You claim you don't buy Fords because they aren't the "lowest bid" but then go on stating you bought them because they were the lowest bid.
Please explain.
10th Feb 2007, 18:44
We use Rangers because they are as reliable and less expensive to maintain than Tacomas, as well as costing $3000+ less per vehicle. Why on Earth would it make any sense to put $3000+ more per truck into a fleet of 20 or so vehicles that will be used for roughly 6 years. Why would any SANE business person pay out over $60,000 more for a NAME??? The cost of operating the Rangers is the same or less for that period of time. Throwing $3000 per truck away is very bad business. It's apparent that you are not a business person or company owner.
10th Feb 2007, 21:49
I'm not sure which is the most ludicrous argument I see on these sites. The argument that in a collision between a Honda Civic and a Hummer the Civic will suffer less damage, or the argument that a company should pay $4000 MORE for an equal quality truck because it has a little "T" on it.
11th Feb 2007, 09:39
Please provide links to independent research that states the Hummer is safer than the Honda Civic in REAL WORLD driving. This figure must be expressed in injuries/deaths per 100,000 miles.
Thank you in advance.
11th Feb 2007, 10:33
Wow, what a disappointment! I came to Carsurvey because I used to see helpful comments from owners about the cars that they drive. Instead of finding any information about a Ford Fusion, all I see is page after page of commentary about the financial state of the automotive industry, opinions on how much "Ford sucks", and pointless discussions on how some Toyota compact is so much safer than some pickup truck. Why are all these comments that are totally unrelated to the Ford Fusion permitted to remain here? I guess at some point this stopped being a car review site and turned into some sort of vitriolic, car-bashing discussion board. Oh well, all good things must come to an end.
11th Feb 2007, 12:54
You must live in a fantasy world if you think Ford has even half the quality that Toyota Vehicle does.
11th Feb 2007, 15:42
Would you care to back that statement up with some real facts or data? All you do is say how much better Toyota's are, but domestic owners give a lot more proof to back up their claims. I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would pay thousands more for a car, just because it's a Toyota! And since the Ford Fusion has been pronounced to be more reliable than the new Camry, and for LESS money, how can you possibly say that the Toyota has twice the quality? NOW who's living in the fantasy land?
11th Feb 2007, 19:21
I can't believe there are any sane, rational adults who would argue, as comment 09:39 does, that if a Hummer hits a CIVIC, the CIVIC will have LESS DAMAGE... GIMME A BREAK!!!
12th Feb 2007, 07:31
The Fusion has only been out for 1 year that does not mean anything when it comes to quality. 10 years ago the magazines said that the Ford Contour was a very reliable vehicle a few months after it was released and that it would be a "Toyota" killer and that car was a piece of crap that would break down at about 70K miles.
In short 2005 Fusion = 1995 Contour.
12th Feb 2007, 09:02
I can't believe posters can't even read posts correctly.
If a Hummer hits a Civic dead on the Hummer wins.
BUT in the REAL WORLD, where head on collisions are rare, the Civic is a MUCH safer vehicle than the high center of gravity, off road tired, poorly safety equipped Hummer.
Or, using your logic, Hummer is awful because it would lose a head on with a tractor trailer.
12th Feb 2007, 09:52
I have a 1999ford contour with over 290,000 miles. The only things that have gone wrong with the car is water pump, camshaft sensor, oil leaks, and catalytic converter. I love the car.
14th Feb 2007, 13:09
No Fusion yet built has suffered NEARLY AS MANY recalls, defects, safety problems and mechanical flaws as the recent group of Toyota cars and trucks. MOST of Toyota's defects involve life-threatening safety and control issues, not just minor mechanical flaws (they have PLENTY of those too). Until I see some PROOF that Toyota vehicles are safer and more reliable than the Fusion, I'm sticking with Ford. Fusion's main competitor from Toyota (the Camry) is rated as 50% more likely to kill its driver and occupants than the average domestic car. That's pretty scary.
16th Feb 2007, 15:18
Excellent, you finally admit your agenda. Not that we had any doubt. Thus, all of your previous comments are dismissed as mere propaganda. Thanks to Steven for this "off topic" idea. Now, biased, slanted comments like your endless string can be relegated back to where they belong, out of sight on the fringes, without cluttering the real reviews. I drive every vehicle you hate: old American cars from the 1970's, full-size 4x4's, and even the Ford Explorer. Too bad there's nothing you can do about it, including attacking the regular reviews.
18th Feb 2007, 18:31
I think the world WOULD be better without SUV's, but to say that cars are safer than a truck-based SUV is just plain INSANE. Twist test results and skew statistics all you want to, but the laws of physics are not about to be broken by Honda or Toyota. I recently tried to talk my wife into getting rid of her big SUV and getting a more fuel efficient car. Her instant reply was "NO WAY, not as long as OTHER PEOPLE are driving them. I don't want to get killed." She does have a good point. She and her sister are in the medical profession and see first hand what happens when a big, heavy SUV hits a small, poorly built import (or domestic either for that matter). We've never yet seen a driver or occupant of a small car come out better in a collision than the driver or occupant of a large SUV, and WE AREN'T GOING TO. Until someone (uhh...like maybe Toyota or Honda??) discovers a way to repeal the laws of physics, big, heavy things will ALWAYS win against little, flimsy things. Things just work that way (regardless of what the Honda salesman tells you!!).
19th Feb 2007, 08:03
Your wife and her sister obviously have not done their research.
Please ask them to explain why US deaths on the highways went down once safety features were added to cars and only went UP when SUVs became popular.
After all, if your "logic" is that bigger is better and safety devices are irrelevant, how do you explain this? Oh, and those deaths mainly consist of the SUV drivers and their occupants, not the vehicles they hit.
Oh, and please ask your wife and her sister to study physics again, mainly the part about gravity and how a high center of it doesn't bode well for stability.
9th Feb 2007, 18:13
My family's 2 companies DO NOT use Fords because they are "the lowest bid". We use them because 1) Their reliability rating is EXACTLY the SAME as Toyota, 2) They are LESS EXPENSIVE to service and maintain, and 3) the $3000 to $4000 savings in purchase price per vehicle benefits the overall company profits. Why on Earth would it make ANY sense for a company to pay $4000 more for a truck that will not return ONE CENT of that $4000 over a projected 6-year period of use??? With a fleet of 20 vehicles that comes to a whopping $80,000 of extra cost that comes out of the profits of the company. That is TERRIBLE business sense!!