14th Apr 2007, 13:17
To the guy who said that the Fusions 0-60 time is 9.2. According to Edmunds it is about 8 seconds in the V-6, and in the Camry around 7.5.
14th Apr 2007, 17:12
12:32 is posting actual 0-60 times for a FOUR CYLINDER Fusion. He sort of neglected to point out that minor discrepancy.
The 2007 Camry does do 0-60 faster than the nearly 10 seconds required by the 2006 V-6 Camrys, but no source I've read on it gives it a less than 7 second 0-60 time. The V-6 Fusion actually does 0-60 in just a tad over 7 seconds, so it's very close.
In any case, the long haul is just as important, and every reputable source now rates the Fusion as more likely to hold up for a longer period than the Camry. If you REALLY want to see how good the Camry is, all you have to do is read the 2006 Camry reviews. The whole sad story of Camry's massive decline is clearly obvious there. Read the 2006 Camry reviews, THEN come back and tell us all what a GREAT car Camry is!!
14th Apr 2007, 18:26
8:31...If its like my household there are children still living at home with new vehicles both import and domestics at the same time in the driveway. I have owned the reverse mostly imports with my children currently driving domestics. I am usually the resident mechanic by the way. My older imports were much better and I may have all domestics as well if the trend continues.
15th Apr 2007, 06:37
To 12:32, the Fusion V-6 Actually goes 0-60 in 8 seconds or so. Quit comparing the 4 cylinder specs to a V-6 Camry. The V-6 Camry has a 0-60 time in about 7.5. That is according to Edmunds.
15th Apr 2007, 09:10
So when the poster said MY Honda, he was referring to his children's cars?
You people have a strange way of posting.
15th Apr 2007, 11:07
Other than your family's blog which "sources" are you talking about? I subscribe to a ton of car magazines and have NEVER read such a thing. Writers may like the Fusion, but I have never heard them say "yeah, this car will stand the test of time". It's a FORD, built in Mexico, which means it is built to the lowest possible standards of quality. The Focus is a clear example of that.
Just look at the history of Saturn. When the cars came out people were writing reviews similar to what you are saying. Then in a few years they realized that the cars couldn't stand the test of time and required endless repairs to keep going.
Maybe Ford has turned a corner with the Fusion, but I doubt it.
15th Apr 2007, 16:19
16:17 you act as if all Fords have only low end models. My father has owned new Lincolns as far back as the early 60's that easily have attained very high mileages put on with comfort and ease. And yes the Ford F Series are no exception perhaps telling the reasoning why they have been the number one vehicle sold in America for over 20 years. I have had new Crown Vics as company vehicles still running perfectly with over 100,000 miles on each one of them. Our company purchases late models vs. leased because of excessive mileage issues.
16th Apr 2007, 11:55
Lincolns are not really considered high end models. Their best vehicle is based off the Fusion, and best SUV is based off an Expedition. I think Cadillac is much better than Lincoln. I can get a 2006 Town Car Signature in my area for 19k; it might even be a 2007 model for that price.
16th Apr 2007, 13:57
Lincoln as a brand has fallen out of favor with Americans and, other than limo drivers, no one really wants them. But Lincolns are considered high end models in the domestic range, but certainly can't compete with the likes of BMW, Lexus, and even Audi.
Recent concept vehicles from Lincoln may save the brand (and Mercury), but given Ford's financial troubles both may go the way of Oldsmobile, especially since Ford still refuses to sell Jaguar even though it hasn't made a profit since bought in 1989. Resources may be devoted to Jaguar (which has also been showing "saving" concepts that will alter the brand) since it has much higher profit margins than either Lincoln or Mercury. Plus, Lincoln and Mercury have no real presence outside of North America, so essentially have no export future the way Cadillac is starting to have.
17th Apr 2007, 07:03
I'll tell my dad his Lincoln Navigator is an entry level model. He seems pretty knowledgable however. I sure enjoy driving it whenever possible.
17th Apr 2007, 13:41
The Navigator is a low entry compared to the Cadillac Escalade. The Navigator could not hold the Escalade's jockstrap.
And if the Zephyr or MKZ or whatever its called now is Lincoln's best car then they are in deeper trouble then they think.
17th Apr 2007, 14:33
<<The Navigator could not hold the Escalade's jockstrap.>.
Kind of like comparing the lesser of two evils. Both vehicles have zero relevance in today's world and are built to the cheapest standards possible. And they depreciate like mad. Every week our local dealers are offering huge discounts on both models.
17th Apr 2007, 17:22
The Lincoln Navigator may be slightly less nice than the Escalde; but it is in no way 'entry-level'. It has a THX certified audio system, an awesome entertainment system and a really nice interior. The main reason I think the Escalade is better is because it has 103 more horsepower. The people at Lincoln seriously need to add more power to the Navigator if they want it to be on equal ground w/the Escalade.
17th Apr 2007, 19:15
It amazes me that a Camry owner (import) criticizes a Navigator against a Cadillac. Fine sell your Camry and buy one and join the domestic owners. I can understand you are preferring a new Cadillac.
17th Apr 2007, 21:07
The American Consumers Union rated Fusion ahead of Camry AND Accord in reliability over a year ago.
As for Saturn, I'm at a loss to find any of these "problem prone", "unreliable" Saturns. Everyone I know who has owned one (including my God son) has had incredibly GOOD service from them. I test drove an SC-2 last year that had 186,000 miles on it. It drove better than the BRAND NEW Scion I test drove!!
18th Apr 2007, 06:33
Who could possibly want a Mustang GT Convertible to drive this summer? I cannot see the thrill in an automatic Camry.
18th Apr 2007, 11:40
Another poster has misused the facts. The Fusion was never rated above the Honda Accord 4 cylinder in reliability. It has only nicked it for first year reliability and I can see it going down hill from there judging by other Fords. Maybe Carpet collectors weekly or Postage Stamp monthly has rated the Fusion better, but does anyone care?
18th Apr 2007, 12:54
Well, if you're talking pure driving pleasure the Mustang wins. But if you're talking insurance, gas mileage, reliability, and so on the Camry is clearly superior.
18th Apr 2007, 15:39
Considering that the Mustang convertible costs LESS than an automatic Camry, is FASTER (by FAR) than an automatic Camry and will last LONGER than an automatic Camry, I can't fathom driving a boring, slow transportation appliance AND paying more for it.