Print 109 comment(s) - last by vulcanproject.. on Jan 2 at 5:38 PM

Ford lives up to the hype with the Fusion Hybrid

DailyTech has talked about the Ford Fusion Hybrid on two previous occasions. With each article, the car has grown even more impressive.

When DailyTech first visited the Fusion Hybrid, Ford boldly predicted that the vehicle would top the Toyota Camry Hybrid in the city by 5 MPG. A month later, we reported that auto journalists were able to extract 43 MPG from the Fusion Hybrid in city testing while a Ford engineer managed an even more impressive 46 MPG.

For once, it appears that an auto manufacturer is actually living up to the hype. The EPA has officially released mileage figures for the Fusion Hybrid and the vehicle does better than even Ford's initial projections of 38 MPG. In fact, the vehicle is rated at 41 MPG in the city and 36 MPG on the highway -- 8 MPG and 2 MPG better respectively than the Camry Hybrid.

The Fusion Hybrid is able to achieve high ratings in the city thanks to its fuel efficient 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, CVT transmission, second generation hybrid system, and a lighter and more powerful battery pack.

"It's not just one thing, but thousands... We've optimized the heck out of that vehicle, it's individual components," said Fusion Hybrid program leader Praveen Cherian.

Ford's Fusion Hybrid can travel up to 47 MPH on battery power alone and will start at $27,270.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By felang on 12/23/2008 10:46:46 AM , Rating: 1
BMW 530d 6.8 second 0-62mph and 44.1mpg on the combined Eropean cycle. 230 hp and 370 lb ft torque

The 535d is even more impressive...

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Gideonic on 12/23/2008 10:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. My brother owns a 2004 530D and it is indeed economical if driven right, though if you drive like a "usual" BMW driver the MPG rating won't be nearly as impressive (same holds true for the Ford most likely).

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By afkrotch on 12/23/2008 1:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. My brother owns a 2004 530D and it is indeed economical if driven right, though if you drive like a "usual" BMW driver the MPG rating won't be nearly as impressive (same holds true for the Ford most likely).

huh? The "usual" BMW driver is some old fart that goes about 15-40 kph below the speed limit. Even when I was in the states, this was the same. Youngsters who drive crazy can't afford BMWs, so they buy cheaper imports and over time increase their performance.

Time and time again I've wanted to just shoot the BMW/Benz/Volvo/Audi driver in front of me, for going so damn slow. If those cars only came with a 120 hp 4 cyclinder, I doubt the drivers would even notice.

By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 1:35:34 PM , Rating: 4
Where did you live?

Here in Minnesota, I have yet to encounter a Bimmer on the road that didn't want to race or didn't have something to prove. This behavior spans all ages as far as I can tell. There are lots of young M3 owners especially.

By lco45 on 12/23/2008 9:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think the BMW buyer demographic is different in the US to Europe.
In Europe BMWs are seen as a fairly sensible, almost mainstream car. A 318i is practically a taxi, in fact in Germany you see mainly Mercs used as taxis.
Here in Australia, and I assume US as well, European cars are disproportionately expensive compared to Asian- or Australian-made cars, so it's usually motoring enthusiasts who buy them.


By The0ne on 12/23/2008 7:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's different in SoCal San Diego. There are you older drivers like myself but there are those youngsters that always want to prove something with their BMW's, Audi's, etc.

By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
The 535d is $60,000 - assuming you could import it to America for that cheap. Not quite the same thing as a Ford Fusion... ;-)

By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 11:00:28 AM , Rating: 3
More comparable would be a Jetta TDI @ $22,000.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By UNHchabo on 12/23/2008 11:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
A Jetta is much more comparable in size to a 3-series than a 5-series. To compare with a 5-series, you'd need to go to a Passat, at least.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Jimbo1234 on 12/23/2008 1:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
Lat time I checked the Passat was the same size as an Audi A4, making it compete in size with a 3 series, not 5. The Jetta is more of a 1 series or A3.

Several years ago the A4 and Passat shared the same platform.

By UNHchabo on 12/23/2008 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, even though I was factually wrong, that proves my point even more. A Jetta is WAY smaller than a 5-series. ;)

I guess I don't know VWs well.

By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 1:40:58 PM , Rating: 5
A Jetta is much more comparable in size to a 3-series than a 5-series

Read my comment again - I was talking about the Jetta being comparable to the Fusion, not the 5-series.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
europe. ford's latest diesel engine for 2009, to be fitted in the mondeo and S-MAX, galaxy people carriers. 2.2L 4cyl 175bhp, 295lb/ft torque @ 1750RPM. particulate filtered, between 165 and 180g/km CO2 for these vehicles. 12000 mile service intervals.
you can guarantee at least 50MPG from it in the mondeo. this is the face of modern european vehicles. why is america still ignoring diesel....

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By SandmanWN on 12/23/2008 12:23:33 PM , Rating: 5
20-25% change in mileage after conversion.
75% more expensive fuel.

complete waste of time, money, and energy to replace one oil based product with another oil based product.

Emissions. Noise.

The list goes on and on.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 12:39:25 PM , Rating: 1
there are overheads but the cost of fuel to produce diesel is actually less than that of petrol. total cost lies in the hands of the government in reality. as for emissions and noise, a typical american misconception is that diesel based vehicles are noisier and dirtier than petrol units. yes, if you live in 1985. i live in 2008, and diesel is now incredibly quiet and sophisticated, particulate filtering and increased injection cycles etc all contribute. the problem is americans dont see this and have zero experience with the technology, thus ignorant comments abound.

im not saying diesel should replace petrol, it should be offered as an alternative, just as it is in europe and let the consumer see the decades of refinement european popularity has afforded diesel

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By SandmanWN on 12/23/2008 1:10:53 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry but they are noisy and they do smell. They do make diesels here, although not as many, but the comparison is the same no matter what insult you use.

The price is more expensive and will only get worse if you start playing with the supply/demand curve. Maybe one day in the distant future the minuscule price difference in manufacturing might be seen at the pump by the consumer but by that time oil based fuel would be a relic of the past.

Lastly, why are Europeans so preoccupied about the US fuel system? Our prices are cheaper than yours for both gas and diesel and the taxes imposed on top of that by both the State and Federal level. You are hardly the folks to give us lessons on what fuel to use and a cost breakdown.

Say what you will but its not an alternative.

The best course of action for the US is to keep the supply/demand curve the same and enjoy the low prices we currently have until a TRUE ALTERNATIVE can be found. We can then invest wisely in a new fuel system instead of pissing away cash on diesel changeover.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Jimbo1234 on 12/23/2008 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
What was the quietest LMP1 car? The one you did not hear coming until it passed you? That's right, the Audi R10 TDI. Diesels are not noisy.

By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 1:38:03 PM , Rating: 1
What was the quietest LMP1 car? The one you did not hear coming until it passed you? That's right, the Audi R10 TDI. Diesels are not noisy.

very true. the same was said of concorde, as a solely political move to prevent this non american technological masterpiece from operating in the country. when concorde was eventually tested, the FACTS showed that the bluster was nothing more than hyperbole levied by beaurocrats.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By SandmanWN on 12/23/2008 1:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
all that blah blah and who made the number one car in Europe last year? A GM brand!

Who was it last year? Ford!

Yep diesels can be clean if you dump a load of filters on them and add to the maintenance. And yes they can be powerful if you drop 1-2 turbos in them and again add to the maintenance debacle.

But what do I know, I can only point to real world examples. You can only scream idiot and a bunch of other crap.

European car industry isn't much better off. All those British icons went bankrupt a decade ago and sold off. Bought up mostly by US manufacturers weren't they? The rest are currently being purchased from car manufacturers in India. All those supposedly ahead of the curve European car companies are what has been the largest drag on Ford for a number of years. Funny the US manufacturers are trying to pawn off all those European, ahead of the curve, icons you speak of.

Top cars in Europe = US and Japanese with a smattering of German. lol

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 9:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
diesels can be clean, and they are clean, and the maintenace 'debacle' you speak of is non existant. you point to real world examples? what like diesel engines that go 12000 miles on an oil change service and nothing else inbetween as i highlighted elsewhere? ahh. you mean you use false opinions formed by long term exposure to anti diesel propaganda. not hands on experience. the european car industry on a whole is in relatively decent condition. since when was any heavy industry right now in a rock solid position? i admit that, but for the most part its far less precarious than american brands.

i dont quite see the relevance to this topic about british car industries. but as you commented.......many are/were owned by american manufacturers and now are being sold off, but several that have been touted around are often the only profitable brands of the entire american parent company. land rover, aston martin, even longtime deadweight jaguar began to turn a profit before they were sold off as desperate measures to stay afloat. after all, these brands are pretty much the only saleable assets ford had! so meh :-)

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By hashish2020 on 12/24/2008 11:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. Aston Martin and Jaguar were STILL bleeding money when they were sold...they cost Ford money EVERY YEAR they were under them, and Land Rover WAS making money...until the oil price jump

The only reason the European car industry is doing OK is because the governments of Europe have supported them. Fiat for one, hell, isn't VW owned partially by some German provincial government? And it's subsidiaries (like SEAT) get constant government handouts...

How about Fiat? That company has been bleeding money for god knows how long...hell, GM lost 2 billion dollars getting out of being forced to buy it.

Let's not even get into Saab.

By vulcanproject on 1/2/2009 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
ford's deadweight is the american market

landrover, aston martin profitable for several years:

finally jaguar were turning things around - tata expect jaguar to become consistantly profitable very soon. their sales, revenue was way up. so no. you are wrong. ford sold these brands as saleable assets. land rover in particular had been strong for a long time now. keep up old chap!

it is true that european car industry isnt in perfect health, i never said it was! i merely said its not in the same kind of ruin american industry is, and clearly the british brands that were highlighted were sold off as viable businesses, because ford were horribly desperate

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 2:03:48 PM , Rating: 4
american car industry has always been waaaaaay behind the curve for engine technology, and now its falling apart because it chose to be ignorant to any alternative for years. what goes around comes around.
An insult countered with an insult. That's the BEST way to get people to see your point!! The American auto industry has been falling apart for the last two decades, and would've ended up in their current situation regardless of fuel prices and engine choices. Given their management and labor issues, where they are today is no surprise to anyone in the US.

1. US emissions are stricter than European one's so no diesel proliferation. American diesel fuel until just recently was a different formulation than the Europe. This hampered diesels being able to pass emissions standards.

2. The last time there were diesels in America, they WERE smelled and were noisy. Most diesels that Americans are familiar with are trucks and they were until a couple of years ago, smelly and noisy.

3. Diesel fuel and cars are more expensive than their gas counterparts. As evidenced with US gas prices a few months ago, Americans do NOT want to pay European gas prices.

4. Import automakers are fully aware of the above three and CHOOSE not to market or sell many diesels in the US. If hardly anyone is willing to buy them, it would be stupid to try and sell them. Even with the big push from enthusiasts and auto journalists to bring more diesels here, there's only trickle of cars coming to the US.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Lord 666 on 12/23/2008 2:39:39 PM , Rating: 3
So I guess thats why Honda is bringing the TSX and Accord diesel to US?

Guess enthusiasts and auto journalists don't know what they are talking about. Ayn Rand wrote the book "Anthem," in it was one of the topics that if everyone didn't know something, then no one could know it. Why is America like that. There will always be a more intelligent MINORITY than majority. I'm American that is frustrated by dumbing down of society.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 4
So I guess thats why Honda is bringing the TSX and Accord diesel to US?
Both cars are delayed indefinitely. Apparently, the auto tranny TSX did not pass emissions standards.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Lord 666 on 12/23/2008 4:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Source please...

By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently the emissions failure was incorrect but anywho:

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 5:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
it is true that the united states produces 22 percent of the worlds CO2 emissions for about 4 percent of its total population. european union produces 15 percent for about 7 percent of the worlds population. thats what your stringent emissions have contributed to the world.

the strongest opposition to diesel technology in america is probably from the least educated, or from those with most to lose. as i said, its not about replacing existing infrastructure right now, its about supplementing it surely.

this is what hybrids are trying to do, and failing, mainly because they simply arent efficient to build in comparison to the small gain in economy they might supply. its a sadly misguided action from well meaning intentions, but the prius for example has its toxic materials shipped and processed all around the world. then built in the east and shipped to the west. how on earth is that overall more economical to this planet than a locally built vehicle sourced from national resources?? sadly the people who buy them seem to think they are saving the planet!!

as for the person mentioning the extra maintenance for diesel powered vehicles, did you miss the comment i had posted about the new gen PSA group/ford diesel that gives service intervals of 12000 miles? it does nothing but help to focus exactly how out of touch some americans are with modern european diesel technology. diesel is nothing like the way YOU think it is- or more importantly nothing like it WAS. noisy? no. smelly? no. short service intervals? what else you gonna come up with? stop living in the past

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:30:37 PM , Rating: 3
thats what your stringent emissions have contributed to the world.
Sources please!!! Also, we're talking about vehicle emissions not total emissions here. Stick to the topic.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sources please!!! Also, we're talking about vehicle emissions not total emissions here. Stick to the topic.

well the source is CDIAC for the U.N. i admit it isnt narrowly relevant to vehicle emissions, but then it still illustrates on the whole that the regulations must be flawed somewhere, or that overall america couldnt actually care less about total emissions and therefore arguing about diesel emissions is somewhat amusing when there is bigger fish to fry clearly!

the prius fad is just another point. it probably doesnt use more energy in its life from build to scrap than a hummer from recent studies, but it still isnt anything like the big gain you would expect. you may as well build a small efficient petrol or diesel. the actual environmental impact of something like a prius is still far more than it should be to make it truly guilt free motoring.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 7:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
illustrates on the whole that the regulations must be flawed somewhere, or that overall america couldnt actually care less about total emissions and therefore arguing about diesel emissions is somewhat amusing when there is bigger fish to fry clearly!
So where's the proof that our supposed disparity in CO2 emissions is because we simply don't care? BTW, I find arguing amusing.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 8:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
So where's the proof that our supposed disparity in CO2 emissions is because we simply don't care? BTW, I find arguing amusing.

wheres the proof that it isnt? you tell me. the united states is a developed country with a terrible history of complete disregard for controlling CO2 emissions namely the kyoto protocol. i scratch my chin when american citizens apoparently living in a democracy here claim to voice concerns over diesel vehicle emissions, all the while the protocol remains unratified and the overall contribution to world pollution is off the scale per head especially for the 'first world'.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By hashish2020 on 12/24/2008 11:29:54 PM , Rating: 1
Are you honestly going to spit that crap out.

America didn't SIGN the Kyoto Treaty...but EVERY country who signed it came NOWHERE CLOSE to the goals outlined in it so who gives a fuck

Let's use some basic scientific observation

Two VERY similar countries, the US and Canada

Now, the US never ratified, Canada did

From 1990-2004, Canada's CO2 emissions rose 27%
America's? Only 16%

Not to mention, population growth in the US is FAR HIGHER than European countries or Canada, both from immigration and natural growth

By vulcanproject on 1/2/2009 5:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
america signed, but didnt ratify. i cant be bothered commenting on other points in your topic, if you cant get that right. :-/

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Alexvrb on 12/23/2008 10:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
With regard to maintenence costs, these modern diesels can be expensive. Long service intervals mean little if the service required is very costly. I don't know if the emissions systems required to make some of these diesels legal here would require extra maintenence. However I can tell you that these new diesels require costly 5w40 fully synthetic diesel-formulated oil, and they typically have larger sumps than a comparable gas engine. The filters are also more expensive, sometimes MUCH more expensive.

By vulcanproject on 1/2/2009 5:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
so you run an american diesel vehicle?

typical service costs here (uk) of a diesel vehicle versus a petrol vehicle is roughly the same. insignificant differences. and i deal with maybe 20 service bills a week in the garage i work. happy?

you could factor all sorts in too which isnt mentioned here, like how diesel vehicles usually cost more to buy (fair point), but typically depreciate less. depreciation is the largest cost of running a vehicle, if you wasnt aware

By dubyadubya on 12/23/2008 10:55:10 PM , Rating: 1
Yup Yup Yup. But you can only get so many gallons of diesel fuel out or a barrel of crude. I can't remember the exact amount per barrel but it is much less than the amount of gasoline. So what are we supposed to do, buy more crude oil so we can increase production of diesel fuel then resell the gasoline to make up the difference? makes no sense the me.

By the time you factor in the added expense for the diesel powertrain, the premium price you have to pay for diesel fuel its just not worth it unless you need a truck. Diesels in cold climates need different fuel blends or at least additives. In general diesel engines have way more starting problems in cold climates than gasoline engines do. Sure you can plug them in but its just one more thing to deal with.

One last thing unrelated to your comment but related to others.
Many are bashing the Big Three for no fucking reason!!!
The trouble is Dumb Ass Americans that wanted to drive a 1 ton truck to work and back. What were the big Three to do, you guessed it build big ass vehicles. You must build products the public will buy! Many people say they should of thought ahead. Look it takes close to 2 years to change production over from 1 ton trucks to scooters. How the hell could the big Three know when to switch, a fucking crystal ball? Plus you can't pre engineer vehicles for production for when your crystal ball tells switch over.

The Big Three got hosed from all sides. The UAW is sucking them dry. The US government has done nothing to help create a level playing field. The economy is in the dumps and the dumb ass public that wanted a 1 ton trucks now wants a high MPG vehicle but has no money to buy one. Go figure

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By hashish2020 on 12/24/2008 11:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 is not the only emission. The reason diesels were regulated more stringently was NOX and particulate emissions. Look it up

By vulcanproject on 1/2/2009 5:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
DPF....been fitted to european diesel vehicles since 1996. NOx traps, a state of the art technology european diesel manufacturers are adopting. look it up. LOL :-)

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 7:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your points. Those nowadays (youngsters mainly) that claim diesel to be foul smelling and noisy are really referring the the 70's, 80's. These from trucks, as you've mentioned and also from buses :)

There was a time when diesel wasn't that expensive compared to your premium 92 gasoline price. A 0.20 to 0.30 cents difference from 89.

And I guess some readers missed your comment
...there's only trickle of cars coming to the US

Meaning there are/might be a few diesel vehicles.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 7:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
There was a time when diesel wasn't that expensive compared to your premium 92 gasoline price.
Currently, the price difference isn't that great. it's about a 30 cent difference where I live.

Meaning there are/might be a few diesel vehicles.
The Jetta is the cheapest although I just read that there will be a Rabbit TDI (aka Golf...why they changed the name again I have NO idea).

By The0ne on 12/26/2008 11:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
The market for Rabbit were mainly by girls, especially the convertible ones. From history itself I would think they're banking on it again :) much like the beetle did to older generations :D

By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 7:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
i am a mechanic. seeing the evolution of small diesel engines from the smoking, terrible starting, clattering commercial derivatives that hit the market in the 1970's to working on state of the art german/french/japanese/european units today has been an eyeopening experience.

my old man was incredulous when he first visited america in the navy, driving a diesel landie belonging to the ark royal 4 onto american soil and upon visiting the nearest off base filling station, proceeding to pump diesel oblivious to the stir in the kiosk. the attendant flew out, waving his arms maniacally. thinking the old man was pumping diesel into a petrol powered vehicle! lol. he was amazed to see such a small vehicle with diesel power, it just didnt exist in north america.

the landies were aliens, and this was decades ago. since then diesel power has become insanely sophisticated but just as alien to north america. im not suggesting americans should immediately switch to diesel, im just saying many need to see exactly what a truly modern diesel vehicle CAN be like. because like that attendant, i bet they would be absolutely knocked sideways, but by the refinement achieved, in contrast to all the things they have ever heard about the characteristics 20 years ago.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Lord 666 on 12/23/2008 2:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
What modern diesels have you smelled recently? Not long ago, I rammed my entire face/nose into the tail pipe of a ML320 CDI Blu and could not smell anything.

Even my own 2006 Jetta TDI only lets off a very faint smell, but it doesn't smell like diesel. More like dirty socks, but its very faint and with my nose right in the tail pipe.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Black69ta on 12/23/2008 4:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
So you smell the tailpipes of cars, by sticking your nose in it?
See some of us can learn from our canine friends.

By Lord 666 on 12/23/2008 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Some smart-ass uninformed family member read an article about how diesels from the 90's were linked to children's asthma and questioned our decision to drive our 2006 TDI.

Challenged the idiot to breathe the tail-pipe of my car while running as proof the literature read is outdated. Stepped it up a notch and included the MB while running to compare against mine. Since then, converted two other people to the diesel side with another shopping. Would I do this with a 1983 MB diesel... Hell no!

Speaking of canine's, my brother and I taste tested our dog's food several times including doggie treats. My kid got a kick out of it after seeing me bitting an end off a dog bone and then handing it to our dog as a reward for going nuts when a stranger came to the door.

By otispunkmeyer on 12/23/2008 4:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
absolutely true....we even have diesel hot hatches over here. VW, Renault, even Skoda have hot diesel versions of their cars. the golf and megane are both looking at 170-180bhp and a mountain of torque that, thanks to variable vane turbos, is available across a good chunk of the rev range... none of that all the power coming in at once malarky.

my dads car is a lexus IS220D.... from the outside the engine is not loud, sure its not petrol quiet, but its not a clattery tractor engine either, its got a muted strum to it.

inside, well.... if you had no idea about the engine you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a petrol. honestly its that quiet and on the motorway even the well controlled tyre roar and slight wind noise are louder than the engine.

rumour has it that honda, with the new civic (which for the first time has a diesel engine honda designed and built themselves) the 2.2CDTi under the "hood" has actually been reigned in because it was quite concievable that the car would be even more potent than the Type R version.

By rudy on 12/28/2008 1:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
The US does have diesel cars anyone can buy one if they choose and some do, I recently had the choice and opted not to the main concern was that everything was more expensive on them. More expensive to buy, more expensive to fix, and depending on the price of fuel more expensive to run. They say the engines last longer but when the price is that much more to fix it does not matter. And companies like Mercedes only offer the same lame warranty on their diesel engines meaning that what every they say about them lasting longer they are not willing to back up. And that tells you everything you need to know about how long they last. So basically what you wish is true in the US we have diesel cars and gas stations people do have a choice they choose not to use it.

Diesel is like Apple computers everything about it is more expensive but they have their fanatics that are dead set on imposing their ideals on everyone else.

By Lord 666 on 12/23/2008 1:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
The price is closer to 24,000, but with a $1,300 credit at tax time.

I own a 2006 TDI Jetta and it consistently gets over the 36/42 EPA numbers and at this point the best car I've owned (previously owning Porsche/VW/Honda/Subaru). Same thing for the new 2009's; they owners have been getting much higher than the low-balled 29/40 with the DSG.

By blowfish on 12/23/2008 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
though that probably refers to Imperial gallons, which of course are 25% greater than U.S. gallons. Still, I would agree the figures are impressive.

I'd be more impressed by a BMW series hybrid using a small diesel as the generator though.

By RandomUsername3463 on 12/23/2008 11:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a few fun facts for you.

Diesel, of course, does have about 12% more energy per volume (liter / gallon) versus gasoline. This would account for a substantial fraction of a diesel engine's increased MPG over gasoline.

The 2009 BMW 335d is EPA rated 23/36 for city/highway.

I believe the 2009 335d starts around $43,000.

RE: modern Diesels are even more impressive IMO
By Jimbo1234 on 12/23/2008 1:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
And a diesel's compression combustion is more efficient than spark ignition. However look into HCCI engines that are currently being developed. You can make gasoline ignite without a spark also.

By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 9:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
check out crower six stroke. there are obstacles, several are material but many have obvious engineering solutions. possible emission question marks. but the actual application is ideally suited to diesel engines. it certainly makes interesing reading

By Jiggz on 12/23/2008 10:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
At more than twice the price of the Fusion, I doubt there is even a comparison. Sure diesel engine gets more mileage to the gallon so it should be compared to another diesel engine like the one from the VW TDI or Benz diesels.

Ford can really make some money from this hybrid Fusion by including a plug in system for overnight charging of the batteries and pricing it competitively against the Camry and Prius.

By TOAOCyrus on 12/24/2008 4:21:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well diesel millage isn't really equivalent to gasoline, its more expensive and denser so it uses more petroleum per gallon.

Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By ghandithesecond on 12/23/2008 10:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
This is a great step forward for Ford, and I applaud them for not taking any bailout money.
I'm really excited for the Fiesta, however. The European version looks incredibly sleek, and Top Gear absolutely loves the car. The ECOnetic version, which isn't even a hybrid, gets 73.5MPG on the highway with a 0-60 time of 12 seconds (faster than a Prius).
It's really too bad that the EPA hardly allows any diesel cars into the US with their pathetic emissions controls. I don't see why a 10 MPG hummer is "more environmentally friendly" than a 75 MPG VW Polo diesel.
The EPA needs a drastic reform, and GM needs to get their act up and start making good diesel cars that get far better mileage than hybrids (not to mention far longer-lasting).

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By Fireshade on 12/23/2008 11:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
Get your facts straight: the EPA is not involved with "allowing products into the US" at all. The EPA only rates products on energy efficiency. Go visit

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By technohermit on 12/23/2008 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2

The EPA does indeed stop these vehicles from coming in because they don't meet the "emissions standards."

And I don't understand the rules either. Naturally a diesel commercial vehicle cannot be expected to achieve 40 mpg, but an H2, hell and H1 Hummer is hardly a 53' semi. If it is for personal transportation, they should all be held to the same standard. If they cannot do it, don't allow production.

By RandomUsername3463 on 12/23/2008 12:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Historically, the US has regulated particulate emissions much more heavily than European countries. (These particulates are carcinogenic, by the way!) This has excluded many diesels from the US. On the other hand, European countries have regulated C02 emissions more heavily than the US, favoring diesels.

European countries also typically set vehicle taxes by engine displacement. Diesels provide more torque (better acceleration) for a given displacement than a gasoline engine. The added cost of the diesel is offset by the taxes, so diesels are more affordable in Europe.

By Cheesew1z69 on 12/23/2008 1:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
EPA = Enviromental Protection Agency

Keyword 1 = Environmental
Keyword 2 - Protection

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By marvdmartian on 12/23/2008 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not 100% sure, but isn't the problem with imported diesel engines due more to the fact that they're not designed for the ultra low sulfur (<15ppm) fuel that's sold in the USA now?
Pretty sure that's why it's difficult (and expensive) to import them, if they're only designed to burn low sulfur (up to 500ppm) diesel, since re-engineering the engines would increase costs.

Anyone have any more input on this?

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 11:47:17 AM , Rating: 1
Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel has been around in europe for some time now. its part of the modern euro IV standard. euro V is even stricter, probably around >10ppm as of next year for european diesel cars. modern european diesels with their particulate emission filtering technology and easy 50MPG plus economy are far more sophisticated than pretty much every petrol powered vehicle on america's roads. its incredible how much disdain is afforded diesel in north america for light vehicles, especially when hybrids like this fall a long way short of your average run of the mill modern european diesel saloon for economy

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 7:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
our VP of Engineering commented that he had a old car (forgot name) that he had 15 years ago that ran 60mpg..on diesel. Yes, I think UK/Europe has a good advantage on MPG. MPG mind you.

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By Pneumothorax on 12/23/2008 11:48:32 AM , Rating: 1
Nope it's all due to emmision standards. Low sulfur fuel has made it EASIER to import euro deisels. The problem is our bone-headed EPA/(Especially CARB) demands that diesels have to make the same emission standards as gasoline motors when it comes to NOx/particulates, while euro standards are more lax on diesels. More than 50% of BMW's sold in europe are diesels.

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By otispunkmeyer on 12/23/2008 12:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
the boys over at Ricardos (well known automotive engineers here in the Uk...responsible for creating the veyrons DSG style gearbox) are almost onto a winner with the NOx issue.

their current prototype engine which uses what the are calling...Highly pre-mixed cool combustion (this utilises sequential turbo charging with the hi pressure stage before an EGR system and a low pressure one after the EGR system),

they do it like this so that they end up with a lot of highly mixed EGR in the to improve air-fuel mixing.

the engine is fed with a standard common-rail injection system and the system doesnt hamper performance. their off the shelf 2 liter diesel engine (which they modified obviously) still delivered around 160 bhp and 400Nm of torque

By otispunkmeyer on 12/23/2008 12:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
forgot to add

this engine already meets Euro 6 standards due in 2014 (80mg NOx level) and as it only produces 30mg it also meets the US' Tier 2 BIN 2... which is just above the ZERO emission group

ricardos believes that with additional work and appropriate exhaust after treatment, they could be looking at zero NOx at the tail pipe

By whirabomber on 12/23/2008 11:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
I am not at 100% on this but I do think chrysler offered a Liberty with a CDi diesel engine on a trial basis last year (or year before). Very limited run and was only 10-20% more MPG than the standard v6. Not 100% (more 75%) on the type of vehicle and years.

On topic of imported diesel engines and cars, Ford has stated that the only factories set up to produce (at least one) type of diesel car that can do 60mgp+ is in the UK. Ford also stated that $30k US is an acceptable price for a compact diesel in the UK but not in the US.

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By Penti on 12/23/2008 8:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Hum, the Swedish diesel are even more stringent and we have had <10 ppm since 1991, but is typical somewhere between 2 - 5 ppm sulfur.

Now days some 35% of the new cars sold are diesels here.

Diesel is more expensive to make / buy though. But we have faired well even though the diesel consumption has essentially doubled in 15 years. The taxes are lower on diesel so for the most time it was cheaper at the pump.

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By Dribble on 12/23/2008 12:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree a hybrid fiesta might work well - diesels seem a much better motor to build hybrids with - they are more efficient to start with, and have much more low down torque to shift the extra weight those batteries add.

That said I can see why ford don't bother - if your car is dirt cheap to buy and already returning > 70 mpg then the cost of an expensive hybrid system just isn't worth it.

RE: Great, but wait for the Fiesta
By UNHchabo on 12/23/2008 12:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Top Gear absolutely loves the car. The ECOnetic version...

From the review you mention:
"I wouldn't bother with that particular model though, cause it'll almost certainly be sh-"

By Wierdo on 12/23/2008 11:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, I swore that I'd never buy a Ford car ever again after a really bad experience with an BroncoII 80s model, but this car looks pretty tempting I must say.

I'll probably get it in a few years after feedback from early adopters come in... out of the three manufacturers at least Ford's seems to be doing something right in terms of future plans.

RE: Nice
By UNHchabo on 12/23/2008 12:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
I've never driven a crappy American car made after 2000. The terribleness of the 80s and 90s is almost completely gone.

The TCO is almost certainly less than European cars nowadays. American cars still may break slightly more than European cars, but the cheaper purchase price makes up for it.

I've owned a 2000 Taurus for 3 years, and I've never broken down on the side of the road. I've had stuff break, but nothing that required a tow.

RE: Nice
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 1
I've owned a 2000 Taurus for 3 years, and I've never broken down on the side of the road. I've had stuff break, but nothing that required a tow.

I am truly amazed, cause those were seriously one of the junkiest piles of crap Ford made.

RE: Nice
By UNHchabo on 12/23/2008 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
The car's gone through 8 years of harsh New England winters, so the body is starting to rust, but you'd get that from any car in those conditions. The engine (Vulcan V6, one tough engine), the transmission, and everything else mechanical are all doing just fine.

I've had a leak in a rear strut, I had to replace both rear springs, I've replaced the coolant tank, and a few of the environmental sensors. That's it, other than regular fluid changes.

RE: Nice
By afkrotch on 12/23/2008 1:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
European....American. They're the fcking same. All those companies seem to be in bed together one way or another.

I'm currently driving a 96 Opel Tigra. Worst mistake I've made. Oh...if you didn't know. Opel = GM.

I'll keep buying my Japanese cars and never have to even contemplate about "is this a good car or not." My old 96 Impreza back in the states is still purring like a kitten and I've beaten it up a hell of a lot more than this Tigra.

RE: Nice
By UNHchabo on 12/23/2008 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, you're driving an American car made before 2000. I don't doubt that's it's crap. Try an American car made in the past 8 years before continuing to spout hate.

RE: Nice
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 2:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Been there, they are still junk compared to Japanese vehicles.

RE: Nice
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 7:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Certain US vehicles are poor just as certain Japanese vehicles are poor. You statement is from a lack of experience in the industry. Just because you keep reading praises of Japanese automakers doesn't mean all of them nor all of their vehicle line-up enjoys the same quality treatment.

RE: Nice
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 8:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
Certain US vehicles are poor just as certain Japanese vehicles are poor. You statement is from a lack of experience in the industry. Just because you keep reading praises of Japanese automakers doesn't mean all of them nor all of their vehicle line-up enjoys the same quality treatment.

That would be true if I wasn't an ASE master ex-mechanic. On top of that I currently work in an underwriting department for an extended warranty company which allows me to run losses on vehicles by make model or any other mix. I can tell you there is a reason we charge considerably more for American cars than Japanese and we charge considerably more for most European cars than either excluding VW. But you're right, you clearly are the one with all the information here.

RE: Nice
By whirabomber on 12/24/2008 8:27:58 AM , Rating: 1
On average don't Japanese cars come with longer manufacturer warranties (5 years vs 3 for American cars)? If so, I can see why the extended warranties would be cheaper for Japanese cars. I had one on my Dodge Ram 2500 that was written in a way that the extended warranty took over after 3 years despite the Ram at that time having a 70k power train warranty.

My assumption was that if I had been able to keep (lost job, got a lower paying one, gas prices jumped $0.75/gal) past the initial 3 years that if anything went wrong engine/transmission wise the extended warranty company would just say that is covered under the 70k power train warranty and have the dealer fix it. So essentially with the longer Japanese warranties and funny extended warranty "coverage" wording, I can see how Japanese cars cause less of a loss for such companies.

I never had an American car I didn't like. I had 2 Japanese cars I didn't: 2k1 Honda Civic which had a factory bug that wasn't going to be fixed - the gas gauge would randomly peg past empty and past full, and a rear window that kept fogging up and required acid washing to remove via a reluctant dealer. The second car was a 90's Nissan Sentra that belonged to my ex. She got what she paid for - tin foil thin body panels, an engine a tad larger than my dad's riding lawn mower (I had to turn the AC off to make speed on exit ramps), and tires that claimed a 60k life but had to be replaced at 25k because they wouldn't stick in the rain (slid sideways down an exit ramp when I hit it going an exceptionally fast 15mph and it was just a spring misting).

Of course Japanese cars aren't without their defects and when chronic defects emerge the press gets oddly quiet. For instance the not overly publicized issues with the 2003 Lexus RX330 AWD (not 100% on the year and model) electrical systems requiring several factory recalls, my 2k1 Civic EX "Honda known issue" fuel gauge issue, etc. The media is pretty quite when the Japanese car companies screw up.

The media and myself are at odds when it comes to Japanese cars anyways. Every Japanese car I've looked at have boxy boring sterile interiors that lacked any character that are made of materials that reminded me of cheap plastic silverware. Even the "high end" cars like Lexus (woo cheesy wood grain like materials add to the crappy Toyota interiors). The American cars have warm cozy interiors (96 Sunfire's reminded me of a luxury jet fighter interior, 2003 Cougar's was a work of art, and my current ride PT has just enough throw-back design to keep me from getting bored). I guess I just like interesting interiors so that I can enjoy the ride as opposed to the super linear import design (my EX had more straight interior lines than a stack of cardboard boxes).

Exterior-wise my views are pretty much the same - all Japanese cars look exactly the same. A 4 Japanese compact looks just like any other 4 door Japanese compact. I don't know how people choose which one to get. My estimate is they just buy from the dealer that has the color they want in stock (Toyota has the shade of blue I want so I'll just buy a Toyota).

If I were to commit a crime, I would get a Japanese car to do it. All I would need to do is shave off all the tags, paint it black, and no one could give the police an accurate make or model of the get-away car.

American cars I could not get away in. A Chevy looks like a Chevy. A ford looks like a ford. A Chrysler looks like a Chrysler. I couldn't blend in with as well. Each manufacturer and car has enough character to be identified (mostly as the Edge looks like a Lexus SUV clone) as an American car of a specific model. A charger looks like a charger and not like a Taurus or Impala.

I'll keep my American fanboy tag and wear it proud.

RE: Nice
By The0ne on 12/26/2008 11:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Don't get upset because you made such a stupid comment about the big 3. I don't know everything and I don't like them as much as you do but at least I have the common sense to see see that not ALL of their vehicles are poor in workmanship and quality. Your frustration and or hatred towards their vehicles probably runs too deep, in which case I would suggest meditation or attending tons of lean/six sigma seminars where the auto-industry are used as examples.

Been there, they are still junk compared to Japanese vehicles.

This plain comment you've made is why being an ASE master ex-mechinic is a joke. If this isn't an indication of fanboy or another I don't know what. Clearly, if you had more common sense you would at least had to agree that there are a few vehicles are well made and there are a few vehicles from the foreign makers that are not.

For example, Mitsubishi isn't failing because of the crisis at hand. They've been failing because of poor workmanship and quality issues over last few years. They're fortunate they haven't retreated to being only in Japan, yet.

I wouldn't be surprise if you tell me Hyundai sucks as well then I would have to explain why they aren't. But hey, whatever floats your boat in your safe place there. If common sense isn't going to change your point on view here I HIGHLY suggest you don't respond to ANY articles related to auto's. Why? Because you already "know" the big 3 vehicles sucks no matter what. There is not discussion, much like your other posts telling people to "get over it and move on", because you "don't care about anyone."

You see a tread with your responses here on Daily Tech or are you truly blind to your own comments?

RE: Nice
By hashish2020 on 12/24/2008 11:40:36 PM , Rating: 1
Personally, I'd rather have an American car where a plastic panel falls off than a Toyota with engine sludge (yea, remember when the guy who runs Toyota's consumer car division apologized for quality issues in Toyotas?) or a Honda where the five-speed auto tranny locks up at highway speeds. Not to mention, Nissan and Mitsu are in no way reliable and Mazdas and Fords are the same

You are the kind of person who will buy a Toyota Matrix for 2 grand more than a Pontiac Vibe...

RE: Nice
By hypocrisyforever on 12/23/2008 5:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm....I have a 1996 pontiac grand am, 6cyl w/ 220k miles on it. original engine and trans, I have replaced the waterpump, radiator, and belts.......that is pretty much it besides obvious things like springs/struts/tires. That being said I've never understood where american cars get unreliability reps from. I feel like people don't take care of their cars whatsoever (average tercel owner) and then cry when the high tech machinery fails. "MY ENGINE MADE OF 1000'S OF PARTS HAS FAILED, THIS CAR SUCKS", meanwhile, they don't change their oil, wash salt off the car, or do anything else that is common sense. Furthermore oil has come a super long ways in regards to viscosity. These crazy new synthetics can go 25k miles before the viscosity starts failing......that doesnt mean you should change your oil every 10k miles. Carbon builds up in the engine and scores the cylinder walls and damages 100's of other should still be changing your oil every 3k-5k miles to get rid of the particulate that builds up from the constant fire/pressure :-)

RE: Nice
By kmmatney on 12/23/2008 11:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2000 Dodge Grand caravan (all-wheel Drive) with 140K miles, and have changed the oil every 10K miles. Overall, it's been a good car - still have original engine, transmission, etc.. It has needed some work over the years, but overall it's served us well and I would buy one again if they still made the AWD model.

Battery Life, Cost, and Replacement?
By Mitch101 on 12/23/2008 10:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
Curious but have questions.

How long do the batteries last?

What do they cost to replace them? Labor to replace them?

Being its a hybrid do you need to change oil every 3,000 miles still?

By technohermit on 12/23/2008 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think oil change intervals are 3K anymore. My Honda Element is 10K standard duty/5K in the worst case scenario. Filters and Synthetic Oil are allowing much longer drive times on your oil. And IMHO, you probably don't need to change it that often. My oil still looks like vegetable oil at 10K. Probably could change the filter, add a quart of oil and drive another 10k on that without any real downside. If everyone did that, it would probably cost the oil companies too much money though.

RE: Battery Life, Cost, and Replacement?
By PAPutzback on 12/23/2008 11:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think 3000 miles always a myth created by the quick change centers. 5-7k is what I go by.

RE: Battery Life, Cost, and Replacement?
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 11:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
No, actually it was the standard back before they improved oils, fuels and tightened their engine tolerances. The problem was the independent joints really never figured out about the change or cared to move to the new standard. Any modern vehicle, even with regular oil only requires a change around 5k for most stop and go drivers, longer if you do mostly highway driving. Move to synthetics and you can easily get 10k.

RE: Battery Life, Cost, and Replacement?
By clovell on 12/23/2008 12:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
I try to change a bit more often in air-cooled engines, but 5-7k is when I generally change oil. I don't use synthetics, though I may switch over with my next car.

RE: Battery Life, Cost, and Replacement?
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 12:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Air cooled, yea I would agree. The tolerances on those are a bit more loose as they have to expand a bit more from heat. Synthetic usually isn't worth it unless you beat the crap out of a vehicle or it is high performance like a viper, vette or something of that nature.

RE: Battery Life, Cost, and Replacement?
By Jimbo1234 on 12/23/2008 1:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Or if you live in cold climates. The OEM I used to work for did the tests. When the temperature drops below 20F, synthetic 5W30 still pours like a 5W oil. Standard oil, more like gear lube.

Synthetics are supior in many ways. By the way, my car uses 0W30. You will not find that in anything but synthetic.

By The0ne on 12/23/2008 7:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
I can't even find that at my local auto stores :P

By cbmeeks on 12/23/2008 2:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
I am ALL for alternative fueled vehicles and reducing our need on oil. However, I don't know why I seem to see yet another car on DT squawking their MPG.

Eight years ago I bought a 1986 Honda Accord that got 35 MPG highway and probably 31 city. Granted, 41 city is pretty good but remember this. I paid $1200 for that Accord and drove it 6 years. I put about $800 into repairs into it. So for less than $2k you can be driving a car that is almost as good as this hybrid.

I'll really be impressed when my next $12,000 car get 250 MPG. Oh yeah...that's what I want. That and a holodeck.

RE: Meh...
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
So for less than $2k you can be driving a car that is almost as good as this hybrid.
That 86 Accord did not have the same safety features, meet the same emissions standards, have the same equipment (NAV, iPod connections, etc.), carry the same amount of people and luggage in quite comfort as this 2010 (not 1986) Fusion.

If you can make that 86 Accord match everything that the 2010 Fusion has AND get the same mileage, then you need to go into business for yourself because you're a friggin genius.

RE: Meh...
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it also didn't have modern engine controls, machining tolerances, fuel injection, aerodynamics, or composites.

RE: Meh...
By twhittet on 12/23/2008 7:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well those are also bogus numbers, and a worthless comparison.

"Eight years ago I bought a 1986 Honda Accord that got 35 MPG highway and probably 31 city"

I like the "probably" part. If cbmeeks "probably" got 31-city with a 1986 Honda Accord, they would "probably" get 55 mpg-city with the Fusion. The EPA doesn't use "probably"s, and the number talked about today was an EPA number. says the 1986 Accord gets 23-city and 30-highway with the same adjusted standards the Fusion uses today. That means the Fusion kills the Accord in town, and those without a lead foot often get well over EPA estimates.

RE: Meh...
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 8:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Did you get lost with the reply button?

Popular loved Ford car? oh wait, its a Mazda
By Black69ta on 12/23/2008 4:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
I love this everyone raves about how ford finally has a winner with the Fusion. However, everyone fails to mention that it is merely a sightly stretched Mazda6. Notice that Mazda gets a new Mazda6 followed the next year by a new Fusion. if Chrysler had absorbed Mitsubishi without trying to change them maybe that would have been a better venture. The European sourced GM engines (the ECOTEC,) have been very good. But, Fords Contour and Euro Escort were failures

RE: Popular loved Ford car? oh wait, its a Mazda
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 7:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler tried this with the 3000gt, eclipse and...forgot the care name. Their models didn't sell much compared to Mits's models and reliability was was as well. They since stopped after 3000gt I believe.

By The0ne on 12/26/2008 11:21:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ah! was going to google the name but remembered it...the Starion!! anyone remember this nice car? :) Not sure what the Chrysler name was though :o

By hashish2020 on 12/25/2008 1:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
You mean FORD CONTROLS MAZDA? I mean that crap you are saying is like someone saying "That Buick V6 isn't made by Buick, but by CADILLAC!"

Chevy Cruze
By ajvitaly on 12/23/2008 10:51:03 AM , Rating: 3
Good for Ford. It's nice to hear good news for the U.S. based automakers. I've got family that works for GM and I'm personally waiting on the Chevy Cruze for my next car (crossing fingers, hoping my current car makes it). Assuming I like how it feels then I won't even shop around.

RE: Chevy Cruze
By Desslok on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Chevy Cruze
By RU482 on 12/23/2008 1:08:04 PM , Rating: 1
I'd like to get in on a wager against your opinion

RE: Chevy Cruze
By 67STANG on 12/23/2008 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be betting on the economy, not on the soundness of GM...

GM (also Ford and Chrysler) will not be the same in 5 years. I'd like to see the big three work together on new technological advances like congress is asking them to do. It will save them all a ton of money going forward-- although it may be too late for GM and Chrysler if they can't hold on to Q2 or Q3 of 2009.

Not impressed
By Spookster on 12/25/2008 4:11:09 AM , Rating: 2
I use to own a fully loaded 2003 Toyota Corolla Sport model that consistently got 35MPG city and hwy and I only paid 18k for it. And it wasn't a hybrid. So for 10k more I can gain 6MPG more at most? Give me a break.

RE: Not impressed
By donxvi on 12/25/2008 9:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
Congratulations on your earth-friendly driving style, but with the same drivers as the Fusion, your Corolla would get 28/36 with a manual (I'd assume that's what makes it a "sport"). So for your extra money you should be in line for a huge city improvement. And you'll have a bigger car. A Camry is the competitor to the Fusion, and the Fusion number is 8mpg better than the Camry hybrid in the city and 2 on the highway. You may not be impressed, but it is impressive.

By JasonMick on 12/23/2008 10:31:45 AM , Rating: 1
Looking nice AND 41/36 fuel economy... that is just awesome.

Good to see stuff like this coming from U.S. automakers!

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki