I like the Fusion and everything, but if it's so far and away better than the competition, why did it finish 3rd of 3 in the Car and Driver comparison, and 2nd to the Accord in the Motor Trend comparison?

 

I read the comparison in Car and Driver. I also disagree with their opinions. First, they get 4cyl engines, b/c 80% of the cars will be powered as such. Then, they get manual transmissions... which I don't think make up 80% of the transmissions. They take into account acceleration and slalom test. To me, these areas don't really need to have any clout unless there is a glaring issue with one. 0-16 in 25 seconds wouldn't be good, nor so much oversteer that you are going to put this vehicle into a wall.

They say the Fusion is ugly... which I think is absolutely wrong, but opinions are opinions. I think it was the best looking of the 3. I haven't seen the interior of them, but they gave a few bad marks on the interior of the Fusion, which was preproduction.

Finally, the Fusion had the softest ride of the 3, something most family sedans will find as a good thing. But of course, it doesn't help in the slalom test for a bunch of gear heads who would rather be driving a vette, mustang, camaro, gtr, 350z, etc etc.

It would be good for them to rate the car on how it will be used. 4cyl, auto, smoothness a big plus, highway passing, safety, functionality. Not, well if you take your 4cyl MT Fusion to the 1/4 or autocross, it is going to get spanked by a 4cyl MT Accord. Seriously, who cares.

 

Actually, the Fusion Sport won the Edmunds test............ and they say it was by a huge margin. They say if they would have tested the SEL, with the 240hp V6, it would have also won, only by a smaller margin.

They rated the Fusion Sport 1st, Mazda 6 2nd, Accord 3rd, Sonata 4th, and Malibu 5th.

Frankly, it seems like some of these tests, and testers, are almost afraid to like the Fords........... like it will get them in trouble with their import buddies. LOL

 

OK, got the article in front of me, and a week's worth of Fusion seat time. My observations next to Motor Trend's?

MT is dead on where it mentions that the new Fusion is very quiet. More quiet than Accord. Smoother riding too. What MT calls "reverberating after an impact" regarding the Accord, that translates into feeling more cheap riding, and Accord does.

MT also says " The Honda feels noticeably larger, carries more of its weight on the nose, and lacks the eagerness of its sprightlier predecessors, and yet it's marginally more neutral than the Fusion". My experience is that the Fusion handles like a sports sedan. I did a high speed accident avoidence on the Parkway East Monday when someone 3 car lengths in front of me decided to jam on their brakes (another story), and I was easily able to outstop him, and manuver around the guy despite running about 75 when he 1st did this. To say the least, I have no issues with the Fusion's handling at all.

MT's Fusion had leather seats, the Accords had cloth. Mine had cloth seats (and I use that term lightly... it was some type of soft, virturally waterproof material, but calling it cloth is a reach), and it was quite comfortable.

Motor Trend says "Audiophiles will prefer Ford's 12-speaker Sony/SYNC setup with its dizzying array of audio input options, which easily trumps the pedestrian six-speaker Honda radio and its lonely aux jack.". The stereo in the Fusion is easily one of the best stock systems I've ever seen in a regular family sedan. Ford's always made superior sound systems to anyone in the business... the only issue is they tend not to last as long as GM's.

Fusion's transmission gear choice of either "L" or "D" is annoying, as MT noted. The Fusion does get astonding real world fuel economy. It's range is over 400 miles per tankful (I never filled up the whole week until it was time to return the car!).

MT virturally praises the Fusion, and even picks out notable shortcoming of the Honda: "Clearly Ford offers a lot more content for the sticker price. The closest comparison would be a Fusion SEL like ours, minus the blind-spot detection and rearview monitors ($25,595) competing with an Accord EX-L (with leather), priced $1480 higher and still lacking the Ford's Sony/SYNC/Sirius/Bluetooth gear, dual-zone automatic climate controls, auto headlamps power passenger seat and some other goodies. Combine that with discounts currently available, and you might well make a case for the Ford."

But then... and this part answers your question, poncho.... they do a backflip and say this:

"But factoring in depreciation based on ALG residual values, and Intellichoice data on service and maintenance costs, the differential in five-year ownership costs between our most closely matched cars above tilts $1117 in Honda's favor."

After the reactionary "WTF!", MT backpedals farther:

That's an admittedly razor-thin margin, but coupled with the irksome shifter that compromises the driving dynamics and performance ratings that, while improved, would still rank midpack in that 10-car roundup, we feel compelled to nudge this statistical dead heat in the direction of Honda."

In all fairness, the Accord is quicker... but no where near enough to tip the balence in Accord's favor.

Zero to 60? 0.3 second difference.

Quarter mile? Dead heat (0.1 seconds).

From 60 mph, only 3 feet separate their stopping distances.

0.3g separates their roadholding.

They use this razor thin margins and the Fusion's D/L transmission gear choices to give it to Honda.

However, Fusion is a far better car in interior fit, finish, and materials (a fact they gloss over), Fusion has a more neutral feel (which they mention), Fusion rides better, and while Accord gets barely better numbers, it's the Fusion that feels better being thrown around corners.

Keep in mind we're talking about an American car taking on the gold standard of Japanese sedans, Honda. And a major car magazine had to skirt dangerously close to obvious bias (they completely ignore Fusion's better fuel economy...23/34 versus Accord's 21/30... roughly what a V6 Camaro gets despite packing an extra 114 horsepower and 500 extra pounds).

So I wouldn't exactly use that Motor Trend ranking as how the Fusion holds up against the Accord. Motor Trend had to split hairs and reach to depriciation (I've never seen them do that before) to let the Honda win.. while ignoring that you also get far and away more on the Fusion for the Accord's price.

Trust me.

Fusion is the far better car.

And even Motor Trend (though they don't admit it) also knows.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't say Fusion is "ugly" per se, but its styling is overrated IMHO.

 

I could understand that. But they say it is worse than the Accord and Mazda 6. I can't see it being worse than either of those 2.