Fusion POWER!

lethaljay · Sep 15, 2005

WOW! Check out this link:

http://fusionunleashed.com/2005/articles/engines.stronger13sept.htm

The New Ford Fusion will create more horsepower then the Mustang! The Duratec 3.0L V6 will create a whopping 221 hp! I found that quite impressive considering the V6 Mustang's 4.0L produces 11 less horsepower with 1L extra displacement. It says it gets good gas mileage, but I'm wondering how "good" it is. I bet it would be better then the Mustang since it's suppose to go up against the riceburner's great gas mileage. Hmmm more power, less displacement, and better gas mileage then the stang. Haha looks like the only thing the stang beats the fusion in is looks.

Pliskin · Sep 15, 2005

lethaljay said:
WOW! Check out this link:

http://fusionunleashed.com/2005/articles/engines.stronger13sept.htm

The New Ford Fusion will create more horsepower then the Mustang! The Duratec 3.0L V6 will create a whopping 221 hp! I found that quite impressive considering the V6 Mustang's 4.0L produces 11 less horsepower with 1L extra displacement. It says it gets good gas mileage, but I'm wondering how "good" it is. I bet it would be better then the Mustang since it's suppose to go up against the riceburner's great gas mileage. Hmmm more power, less displacement, and better gas mileage then the stang. Haha looks like the only thing the stang beats the fusion in is looks.

I don't know about that. The Fusion looks pretty neat. But its no Mustang.

Fourth Horseman · Sep 15, 2005

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd guess that the 4.0 liter in the Mustang would produce more torque than the 3.0 liter in the Fusion. At least, I'd hope so.

lethaljay · Sep 15, 2005

The Fusion's 3.0L Duratec will produce 205 ft/lbs of torque

351CJ · Sep 15, 2005

lethaljay said:
The Fusion's 3.0L Duratec will produce 205 ft/lbs of torque

To complete your sentance....

The Fusion's 3.0L Duratec will produce 205 ft/lbs of torque @ 4750 RPM while the 4.0L Mustang engine has 240 lb ft of TQ @ only 3500 RPM.

Similarly the Duratec 3.0L's 221 HP comes at 6250 RPM while the 4.0L makes its 210 HP at 5300 RPM.

On the other hand, the Fusion with its lighter weight and 6 speed ATX might beat a Mustang V6 in 0-60.

Fourth Horseman · Sep 16, 2005

351CJ said:
On the other hand, the Fusion with its lighter weight and 6 speed ATX might beat a Mustang V6 in 0-60.

Possibly, but I'll put my money on the V-6 'Stang with its more torque at a lower RPM beating the Fusion to 60. Let's not forget gear ratios, as well. Again, I don't have the specifics handy, but I'll wager the RAR on the Mustang is more aggressive than the gearing in the Fusion.

Hamburglar · Sep 20, 2005

1989 SHO
3.0 DOHC V6
220hp...
took them awhile to get back to that....

tjredgt2000 · Sep 20, 2005

The SHO was a great motor. I had two of 'em and loved them both. The one advantage of the newer motor in the Fusion is that it will run on 87 octane versus 91 in the SHO.

In the Fusion vs. V6 Mustang comparison it is worth noting that the Fusion will have a 6-speed auto vs. the 5 speed in the Mustang. Still, in 0-60 I would bet on the Mustang - torque.

Mickey21 · Sep 20, 2005

What are the weight differences? Not that it matters, I would take the looks of the Mustang any day, but props for them trying to compete... That's what it is all about...

tjredgt2000 · Sep 20, 2005

The Fusion is estimated at 3300 lbs. The Fusion is not meant to compete with the Mustang but with the Camry, Accord and Altima.

slp352 · Sep 20, 2005

Well the thing I can't understand is why a manual transmission is not offered. Underneath the fusion is supposed to be a mazda 6, and well yes the mazda 6 is available with the manual tranny, so I would seem real easy to drop it in the ford.

tjredgt2000 · Sep 20, 2005

The 4-banger comes with a stick. I don't know why the 6 doesn't, maybe they think the zoom zoom folks will go to Mazda.

D.Hearne · Sep 20, 2005

Why would anyone want a Ford that looks more like a Cadillac?

Fourth Horseman · Sep 20, 2005

D.Hearne said:
Why would anyone want a Ford that looks more like a Cadillac?

To each their own. I personally quite like the styling on the Fusion. I'm just not into front drive v6s. But in terms of how it looks, I think it's pretty nice looking.

kevins05v-6 · Sep 20, 2005

i agree i like the way the Fusion looks, lets hope for Fords sake it sells as well as the Taurus and Stang does.

Pliskin · Sep 20, 2005

Taurus is dead and so is the Excursion. You can only order a Taurus now before its officially cut off. And instead of the Excursion there is a longer Expedition or something.

And whats the deal with the Explorer having 300hp?! Its the GT engine in an SUV. Thats not right....

kevins05v-6 · Sep 20, 2005

Pliskin said:
Taurus is dead and so is the Excursion. You can only order a Taurus now before its officially cut off. And instead of the Excursion there is a longer Expedition or something.

And whats the deal with the Explorer having 300hp?! Its the GT engine in an SUV. Thats not right....

ah yes wasnt the Ford Five Hundred supposed to replace the Taurus...
oh and the Explorer having a GT engine in it, they gave the Fusion V-6 duel exhaust and the V-6 stang a lame sounding one!Thats not right!!

351CJ · Sep 21, 2005

kevins05v-6 said:
ah yes wasnt the Ford Five Hundred supposed to replace the Taurus...
oh and the Explorer having a GT engine in it, they gave the Fusion V-6 duel exhaust and the V-6 stang a lame sounding one!Thats not right!!

The Fusion is more of a Taurus replacement than the 500, but between both the Fusion and the 500 there is no longer much need for the Taurus.

The Fusion V6 has "fake" dual exhuast. It is a single exhaust system that splits in 2 to create the dual outlets.

kevins05v-6 · Sep 21, 2005

351CJ said:
The Fusion V6 has "fake" dual exhuast. It is a single exhaust system that splits in 2 to create the dual outlets.

oh ok thanks, I dont want that either i saw at the dealer they were selling a v-6 with the razzi-body kit and they did the same thing to the exhaust, splitting it after the axle, EVEN the salesman said it sounded like crap!!

D.Hearne · Sep 22, 2005

If it's done properly, that so called "fake" dual system shouldn't be any worse than a dual system with an equalizer such as an "X" or other such chamber that merges the pulses together before splitting back to duals. A V6 system that's dual into single ( with a correspondingly larger single pipe) back into dual is just as effective as true duals.

Fusion POWER!

lethaljay

New Member

Pliskin

New Member

Fourth Horseman

New Member

lethaljay

New Member

351CJ

New Member

Fourth Horseman

New Member

Hamburglar

New Member

tjredgt2000

Mickey21

New Member

tjredgt2000

slp352

Member

tjredgt2000

D.Hearne

New Member

Fourth Horseman

New Member

kevins05v-6

New Member

Pliskin

New Member

kevins05v-6

New Member

351CJ

New Member

kevins05v-6

New Member

D.Hearne

New Member

Similar threads

Fusion POWER!

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency