Print 68 comment(s) - last by priusone.. on Jan 14 at 1:08 PM

2013 Ford Fusion EcoBoost 2.0
Ford assaults the midsize sedan market with the 2013 Fusion

The next generation Ford Fusion has been a highly anticipated vehicle in the auto industry. The midsize sedan market has been heating up and Ford needed to bring its A-Game in order to stay competitive. Well we can safely say that Ford did indeed bring its A-Game, and may end up sending its competitors back to the drawing board early in the powertrain department.
The new Fusion lineup which now consists solely of four-cylinder engines:
  • 2.5-liter naturally aspirated (170hp/170 lb-ft)
  • 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
  • 2.0-liter EcoBoost (237hp/250 lb-ft)
  • 2.0-liter naturally aspirated (Atkinson-cycle) hybrid
  • 2.0-liter naturally aspirated (Atkinson-cycle) plug-in hybrid 
The 1.6-liter EcoBoost will deliver 26mpg in the city and 37mpg on the highway, topping all non-hybrid competitors.

2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid
Likewise, the new Fusion Hybrid with the normally aspirated 2.0-liter engine will now deliver 47mpg in the city and 44mpg on the highway. The increased fuel economy (from 41/36) comes from the downsized engine (the old Fusion Hybrid used an Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine) and a new lithium-ion battery pack. Thanks to the more powerful battery, the Fusion Hybrid can now travel at up to 62mph on battery power alone.
For comparison (city/highway):

2013 Ford Fusion Energi

As for the Fusion Energi Plug-in Hybrid, Ford will only say that it will be rated for 100 MPGe, which makes it more efficient than a Chevrolet Volt.
The 2.0-liter EcoBoost will take the place of the previous V6 engine. Although fuel economy numbers haven't yet been released for this model, there's no doubt that the 2.0-liter EcoBoost will offer similar performance while sipping less fuel. The 2.0-liter EcoBoost will also be available in FWD and AWD variants.
And we can't forget the dramatic new styling direction with the Fusion. Gone is the Gillette-esque grille that has been replaced with a nose that wouldn't seem out of place on an Aston Martin. There's no doubt the 2013 Ford Fusion will be the most dramatically styled mainstream sedan on the market, and consumers won't have to drive "design-challenged" vehicles like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight to get incredible fuel economy across the board.

2013 Ford Fusion interior 

When it comes to technology, the Fusion Hybrid will be available with SYNC, the much-maligned MyFord Touch infotainment system, lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control, active park assist, and blind spot monitoring.

The 2013 Ford Fusion will be in U.S. showrooms in the latter half of 2012.

Source: Ford

Comments     Threshold

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

By Paj on 1/9/2012 7:00:48 AM , Rating: 5
Very impressive. Now that you're seeing some real competition from Ford, the numbers will get better, and the prices will drop. Iteration will occur.

RE: Cool
By tng on 1/9/2012 8:37:06 AM , Rating: 1
Very impressive. Now that you're seeing some real competition from Ford...
So, what do you think this will do to sales of the Volt next year?

From a aesthetic viewpoint, clearly this is the better car. In my experience with rental vehicles GM is horrible on quality, Ford is better but still had some work ahead.

The real difference is that Ford has not built this car up like GM did with the Volt. More like business as usual for Ford.

RE: Cool
By rudolphna on 1/9/2012 9:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are going into the rental cars wanting GM to be horrible, so you think it is. When we purchased our 3 new GM cars back in July (2 Cruzes and an Equinox) they were the best interiors in the class, especially in terms of how well they were put together.

RE: Cool
By tng on 1/9/2012 10:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are going into the rental cars wanting GM to be horrible, so you think it is.
No, not really. Nobody really wants to be stranded by their rental car, or have to put parts back on them after they fall off because you shut the door to hard (brand new, less than 100 miles). Even had a door fall off a Chevy in San Diego once (looked like a poor weld), that was a fun ride back the airport. Ended up having a CHP officer follow me all the way back and laughed his butt off when I showed him the door in the back seat.

Trust me when I say I want my rentals to be good, reliable cars and I do expect that. After spending a minimum of 70% of my time on the road in various places in the country and around the world for the last 15 years, the only brand that has stranded me is GM, not once, but several times. This is out of hundreds of rentals of everything from BMWs, Fords, Skoda, Nissans, Toyotas, Chryslers, Opels, from Finland to Sydney.

The quality of GM vehicles may have gotten better, but in my case the damage is done, I wouldn't buy one.

RE: Cool
By Indianapolis on 1/9/2012 9:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think you went into the rental wanting the door to fall off...

RE: Cool
By alcalde on 1/9/2012 10:45:08 PM , Rating: 3
I think he needed William Shatner riding in the back seat to spot the gremlin that must have caused his door to fall off.

RE: Cool
By tng on 1/9/2012 10:43:56 AM , Rating: 2
we purchased our 3 new GM cars back in July
Also on this, give your cars at least a year or two before you brag about how reliable they are. Long term is where a vehicle shows how well it is made.

RE: Cool
By Spuke on 1/9/2012 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 3
Long term is where a vehicle shows how well it is made.
I have a Pontiac with 96k miles on it. Daily driver. Most reliable car I've ever owned. Only had two problems:

1. Recall on rear diff seal
2. Thermostat

This is my first American car. I owned nothing but Japanese before this and with the exception of my old Infiniti, they all had problems minor and major. I was so impressed with this car that I bought a used Ford pickup. That's been trouble free too (expensive to maintain though cause it's a diesel).

RE: Cool
By Denigrate on 1/9/2012 12:08:19 PM , Rating: 4
Love my Pontiac Grand Prix,and would have definitely purchased another Pontiac had they not killed the brand. Still can't figure out why they kept GMC around when it's exactly the same as Chevy, but killed Pontiac.

RE: Cool
By Flunk on 1/9/2012 1:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Some of GM's cars (especially the older ones) are much better than others. My Father's 6-year old Impala is holding up pretty well but my buddies 5-year old Cobalt looks like a rusty old beater and has had a lot of work on it (both cars are under 100,000km).

RE: Cool
By BillyBatson on 1/10/2012 2:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry buddy but GM is by far the cheapest build quality in their interiors, even all new KIA models are coming out wayyy better together.
I went from a 2008 BMW to a 2010 ford edge.. Huge difference in quality the BMW is obvioay far better but my edge is great! And far better quality than the equinox.

RE: Cool
By Reclaimer77 on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Cool
By adiposity on 1/9/2012 6:37:06 PM , Rating: 5
This really frames nicely everything wrong about GM, and everything right with Ford. It's amazing what you can design when it's engineers, not politicians, making the decisions.

Wasn't the Volt designed before the bailout?

RE: Cool
By priusone on 1/14/2012 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't using logic in an argument against the rules?

RE: Cool
By Agent 5 on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Cool
By Paj on 1/12/2012 7:29:07 AM , Rating: 1
I am a designer.

By Mitch101 on 1/9/2012 12:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
I own a Ford Fusion and this blows it away in every way. My only complaint is I hope they improved the headroom its a tight car for someone whos 6'-1" I cant imagine anyone taller owning one.

By Spuke on 1/9/2012 12:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
Wow is right!!! Ford is serious! Was planning to buy used but not so sure now... The increase in price just might be offset by the fuel economy gain. It seems there's a HP AND a MPG war. Who's next?!

By Samus on 1/9/2012 1:40:00 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, first the Taurus, then the Fiesta, then the Focus, and now this. They just keep looking better and better.

By drycrust3 on 1/11/2012 1:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
They just keep looking better and better.

I think the average recent Ford car has a better aerodynamic shape than most other brands.

By Keeir on 1/9/2012 4:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's some styling... I just wish an automaker would step up and make these cars (4 door coupe shapes) into some lift backs with folding flat rear seats (like on the Jetta SportWagen. This car + 40+ cubic feet of car space = why buy an CUV?

By Heidfirst on 1/9/2012 5:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
they do - at least here in Europe.
This is the next update of the Mondeo & we get saloon, hatchback & estate (station wagon) versions.
With seats down you get ~1750 litres of loadspace in the estate.
With the new Fiesta, Focus & now Mondeo (sorry, Fusion) Ford are Europeanising their NA range.

By Keeir on 1/9/2012 5:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, NA isn't slated to get even the liftback. Which is a shame. It looks just like a sedan, but can carry 30-50% more.

(I know in Europe it's referred to as a Hatchback, but in NA, that means more like a shorted estate rather than a door on the back of a saloon)

By alcalde on 1/9/2012 10:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
We've got the Nissan Juke.. we've got the Cadillac CTS Wagon (and the 556HP CTS-V Wagon!!!). We don't need anything else.

By Samus on 1/10/2012 5:56:01 AM , Rating: 3
I hope you're juking?

Gotta be honest...
By letmepicyou on 1/9/2012 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have to be honest, after looking at the engine line up, I'm saddened that the V-6 is gone. The AWD V-6 Fusion was pretty sporty. HOPEFULLY with this bad a** styling they've done, someone at SVT will put out a sport tuner version...anyone have Carol Shelby's number?

RE: Gotta be honest...
By Brandon Hill on 1/9/2012 2:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think that removing the V6 engines was also a way to distance the Fusion from the Taurus.

RE: Gotta be honest...
By Keeir on 1/9/2012 4:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Thank future CAFE rules.

Unfortunately, too many people were choosing the V-6 option for the Fusion. Removing the V-6 option (and selling less) will likely ensure this new fusion meets the CAFE requirements.

RE: Gotta be honest...
By Brandon Hill on 1/9/2012 4:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Too many people were choosing it?

The V6 take rate for midsize sedans (which offer a four-cylinder engine as well) is less than 15% industry wide.

RE: Gotta be honest...
By Spuke on 1/9/2012 6:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
The V6 take rate for midsize sedans (which offer a four-cylinder engine as well) is less than 15% industry wide.
Yeah, V6 take rate has never been very high. As long as the power is there hardly anyone will notice anyways.

RE: Gotta be honest...
By Keeir on 1/9/2012 7:09:55 PM , Rating: 2

The Fusion had an unusually high take rate for the V6 option. (Maybe because the AWD was tied to it?)

Reading between the lines about Hybrids and the MKZ, V6 take rate for the Fusion was above 20%, potentially as high as 30%.

RE: Gotta be honest...
By alcalde on 1/9/2012 10:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I love people who embrace truth over truthiness. You, Sir, are one of those people.

I want!
By GruntboyX on 1/9/2012 9:27:05 AM , Rating: 4
Damn.... if this doesnt kill the Accord and Camry. The styling is hot.

RE: I want!
By Kurz on 1/9/2012 9:34:00 AM , Rating: 3
Don't like the front grill. Other than that its hot.

RE: I want!
By drlumen on 1/9/2012 10:53:20 AM , Rating: 3
I kinda like the front end. It reminds me of the recent Astin Martins.

RE: I want!
By ClownPuncher on 1/9/2012 2:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I'm actually considering getting one of these. Not bad at all, Ford.

By soloburrito on 1/9/2012 12:25:48 AM , Rating: 3
Thanks to the more powerful battery, the Fusion Hybrid can now travel at up to 47mpg on battery power alone.

According to the source:
The Fusion Hybrid – 2010 North American Car of the Year – continues to innovate and evolve with all-new lithium-ion batteries that save weight and generate more power than previous nickel-metal hydride batteries, while raising maximum speed under electric-only power from 47 mph to 62 mph.

Impressive engineering. I'm curious as to how the improvements will be reflected in the price. The current Fusion Hybrid starts at $28,700.

RE: #Correction
By Brandon Hill on 1/9/2012 12:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, being up for nearly 24 hours will do that to you ;)

By kipper2kk on 1/10/2012 2:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get too excited about the fuel consumption stats. Mileage rates are good to start but when the batteries start to die and they need to be replaced all the money you saved on petrol will then be spent on replacing the batteries.

Toyota made changes to their Hybrids computer to compensate for the batteries dying and obviously affecting performance. Check out the cost of replacement batteries before you buy the car and you will be shocked.

Also remember the manufacturing process involved making these batteries so are they actually beneficial to the environment ?

Did they cut off the front end of an Aston?
By stm1185 on 1/9/2012 1:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
That looks great. Would not be ashamed to be caught in one those.

RE: Did they cut off the front end of an Aston?
By spread on 1/9/2012 2:23:10 AM , Rating: 1
It looks like a lucury car. Look at the cuts in the body and the chrome trim in all the right places.

Ford is bringing their A game. Their design team is top notch.

Let's see how hard these vehicles are to repair and reliability which Ford doesn't have the best track record.

RE: Did they cut off the front end of an Aston?
By MonkeyPaw on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
An interesting mix of design
By KIAman on 1/10/2012 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
Aston Martin front with a Hyundai Sonata rear. LOL!

Impressive... but...
By wordsworm on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive... but...
By Beenthere on 1/9/2012 8:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
Ford does not have a bad reputation at all and I've never owned one.

The styling on the new fusion is just as horrible as the Focus. Ford must have gotten a deal on a guillotine for their design studio????

RE: Impressive... but...
By Dorkyman on 1/9/2012 10:44:38 AM , Rating: 3
Who, Ford? Are you serious?

I am unaware of any studies showing Ford cars to be deficient when compared to other makers. Personally, we've owned a Mustang, some Taurus company cars, and currently a '97 Mountaineer that just keeps running with two repairs, a cracked exhaust manifold and a balky heater door.

And we will NOT buy from ObamaMotors as a matter of principle. They can go to Hades.

RE: Impressive... but...
By Iaiken on 1/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Impressive... but...
By FredEx on 1/9/2012 2:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
Very well said, thanks for showing the FACTS!

RE: Impressive... but...
By Dr of crap on 1/9/2012 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry - have to disagree with the repay the loan part.

Remember when they SAID they repaid the loan, only to have it come out that the used other loan/govt funds to pay the first govt funds.

So they haven't repaid us yet, but everyone thinks they did.

RE: Impressive... but...
By Iaiken on 1/9/2012 5:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Remember when they SAID they repaid the loan, only to have it come out that the used other loan/govt funds to pay the first govt funds.

I guess that depends entirely on how you want to spin it...

Of a $7.1 billion loan. $400 million was paid immediately from sales of assets. Of the remaining $6.7 billion, another $2 billion was serviced as part of regular operations on the original schedule to be repaid by July 2015. The remaining balance of $4.7 billion was then made due on June 30, 2010. GM then repaid that amount from an investment escrow account held by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. This was money that GM was using to finance loans and leases for cars to customers or for a rainy day.

If you want to see this as something sinister, then by all means do so, but they didn't borrow from Peter to pay Paul as you seem to put it. In actuality, GM borrowed too much from Paul in the first place and repaid him out of that when he came knocking.

1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By Putradude on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By retrospooty on 1/9/2012 7:11:38 AM , Rating: 4
"2000 Mazda 1.6L 105 hp and for me it's powerful enough"

This is a mid size sedan, not a wee size econo-box. The #'s are amazing.

RE: 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By Putradude on 1/9/2012 7:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
like I said not for everyone, the Mazda curb weight is above 2600lbs, the fusion 2012 is under 3200lbs. Keep the same ration hp/weight and you'll be under 130 hp.

I just ask the smaller model to be more Atom Processor minded. The question is not to be the more powerful but to be powerful enough for what you do. If it's not for you just buy upper model.

By retrospooty on 1/9/2012 9:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
Point taken... I bet Ford applies the same improvements to the Focus next and you get your wish.

By gvaley on 1/9/2012 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever driven a down-sized turbo engine? You get the benefits of both worlds--you can save fuel by driving it with ease, as if it was the naturally aspired engine in your Mazda, or you can push it hard to get the full power, as if you had a 2,5 litter engine under the hood.

By Keeir on 1/9/2012 6:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy numbers are based on the EPA Testing Cycle, which uses set speeds over set intervals. Having a more or less powerful engine does not affect the actual cycle itself. (Though in the real world it would likely affect things)

Having an engine capable of producing more HP does not immediately change the fuel economy numbers. The question is more about how the automaker went about producing more HP. In the case of NA engines, the engine designer essentially plays with displacement and stroke length to add a higher upper end power. Typically higher displacement engines require more fuel during idle/low load situations than lower displacement engines, and thus score worse of the EPA cycle. This can be somewhat countered by cylinder de-activation. Higher displacement engines also tend to mass significantly more, leading to lower fuel economy numbers as well. In the case of Turbo, Super Chargers, etc, the engine designer creates a situation where more air is forced into the same displacement area allowing more fuel and thus more power. In this situation, the effects of producing higher theoretical hp may not have a significant effect on EPA cycle results. In practice, fuel injectors typically need to be upsized, which leads to less tolerance, which leads to higher idle consumption and the turbo parts do have mass. Its unlikely that a 1.6 engine producing 130 hp or so would be more than 5% more economical that the ecoboost they are choosing for the Fusion. Potentially you'd be looking at maybe a 1 MPG combined difference. Faced across from that might be a result that is not good for the US market. For example, 0-60 times slower than 10 seconds is usually a significant problem for marketing.

By alcalde on 1/9/2012 11:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
I had a 1996 Ford Escort for two years. A little under 2400 pounds, 88HP engine. People riding with me would complain about my driving as I'd sit forever waiting to merge into traffic. I'd have to explain that if I could SEE another car coming, it was too late to merge onto the highway.

My routine way of driving the car was essentially to push the gas pedal all the way down when traffic lights turned green. As I used to say, "Some cars go 0-60 in 7 seconds. This car goes 0-7 in 60 seconds." My next car was a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am with a 175HP V-6 (amazing they can get more HP from V-4s these days). I was at a red light almost immediately after driving it off the lot. Not thinking about it, I pressed the pedal down all the way when the light turned green. When I looked in the rear view mirror and noticed all of the other cars behind me hadn't even begun moving yet, I realized I was going to have to adapt my driving style to a car with something better than a lawn mower engine! :-)

I never, ever want to go back to those days of sitting two minutes with cars honking behind me as I refused to merge onto the highway because of the patently unsafe lack of acceleration of a sub-100HP engine on anything larger than a motorcycle. Maybe that's why my dream car is the 556HP Cadillac CTS-V! :-)

Oh, the escort is listed as getting 31/38 MPG on carsdirect, so the Fusion is both more fuel efficient AND more powerful (as well as being more attractive both inside and out).

Purtadude, please don't petition for the return of the American Yugo. :-) I don't think we need more cars that attain 0-60 in 14 seconds and are light enough to actually get blown off of bridges.
I remember a comedian telling a joke about driving a Yugo and getting stuck and needing to call a tow truck. The tow trucker went to hitch the car and told him, "Well, here's your problem right here. You drove over some chewing gum." :-)

By GruntboyX on 1/9/2012 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
problem is people dont buy cars on fuel economy alone. Some heavily weight the feel of the test drive. Even though it gets great gas mileage, people do not want to feel like they have sacrificed power. I give you the wieght/hp ratio. However they probably needed the extra hp because of the effect on torque.

Additionally, they needed the hp numbers because of the influence of the auto press on the buyer. If Car and Driver suddenly rates the car as ok, but is a dog compared to xyz. Then it would effect sales.

RE: 1.6-liter EcoBoost (179hp/172 lb-ft)
By werfu on 1/9/2012 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 1
You can't have this kind of car with a lower class engine. It's not that it couldn't be done, it's because the hybrid trim isn't part of the lower end. Even if you'd strip it of all the luxury stuff they add to it, it'd still be too expensive. And not to mention that car makers have an higher margin on higher trims. Hybrids are pricier to build, and I guess makers maybe reduce their margins to keep them somewhat affordable.

By Colin1497 on 1/9/2012 6:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much that they reduce their margins, it's that the government heavily subsidizes hybrids, both directly and indirectly. Directly they subsidize with tax credits ($7500 for a plug-in hybrid, I believe) and indirectly they give manufacturers bonuses on their CAFE fleet mpg ratings, so a notional hybrid vehicle sale that is at 50mpg counts as, I believe, a 100mpg vehicle when averaged into their fleet for CAFE purposes. This allows people within the administration to say that they're forcing new higher mpg requirements even when they're not achievable and nobody thinks they're realistic. At the same time, it allows car manufacturers to pay not pay the penalties for not meeting said new, unrealistic targets.

The US taxpayer carries a pretty heavy burden on hybrid sales and they turn the already comical CAFE system into a worse joke.

I'll bet Ford gets sued...
By Beenthere on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: I'll bet Ford gets sued...
By Kurz on 1/9/2012 9:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
You mean the faulty battery packs in the Honda?

I easily beat the EPA estimates, maybe if more people drive steady state they'll see the same MPGs or better. Except people constantly Accelerate and Decelerate by hitting their brakes, then they wonder why they get piss poor mileage.

RE: I'll bet Ford gets sued...
By Beenthere on 1/9/2012 11:32:36 AM , Rating: 1
No the battery packs have nothing to do with EPA milegage figures. The cars are being tuned to give unrealistic EPA results not typical of everyday use.

RE: I'll bet Ford gets sued...
By twhittet on 1/9/2012 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
No, the battery packs have EVERYTHING to do with the EPA figures for Honda getting sued. The battery packs are losing their integrity, which means less MPG and/or less HP.

If the cars stand up to the EPA tests time after time, they should sue the EPA, not the car manufacturer.

RE: I'll bet Ford gets sued...
By JediJeb on 1/9/2012 5:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed on the lawsuit that complaint comes from the same model vehicle being rated lower and lower mileage on the sticker each model year and after several years settled down to what is more realistic. The owner who is filing the suit contends that Honda overestimated the mileage for the first few years just to market the vehicles. If they can prove that then Honda is at fault. If it is proven somehow that the EPA estimates changed over the years because of changes to the protocol or something like that then I guess Honda will win.

By Agent 5 on 1/9/12, Rating: -1
"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

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