Ford Fusion

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Ford Fusion

Whats the deal with the fusion, its supposed to replace the taurus, isn't it? Anybody know what they're like?????????

posted by  LeDrew145

I saw one at the International Auto Show here in Tampa and they are very nice looking, but the interior still looks a little bland and something for them elders :wink2:

posted by  99integra

It is replacing the Taurus but Ford decided for this year to keep the Taurus in it's lineup for people who just want an old car for a good price. Really the Fusion is just a rebadged Mazda 6 with different body cladding, nothing new, nothing innovate. Still doesn't top the class leading Accord :mrgreen:

posted by  thunderbird1100

the Fusion is a litle smaller than the Taurus and a little larger than teh Contour. it's part of the replacement for teh taurus, as it covers teh Accord/Camry market, while teh Five Hundred is a replacemetn that is slightly larger than th taurus, and covering the taurus/Avalon market.

The Fusion will be sold as a version from Mercury (the Milan) as well as the newest Lincoln, the Zephyr. There is also supposed to be an SVT version of the car in the near future.

The Fusion is based on a stretched and widened Mazda 6 platform (which itself was based on the European Mondeo).

posted by  ChrisV

I don't think it's too bad of a car...just something about it that I can't put my finger on that I dislike :doh:...

posted by  chris_knows

I can, duratec V6! First on my list.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Duratec > you.

Id rather have the Mazda 6 though..

posted by  PontiacFan27

I don't like the headlights or the lower grill. But other than that it looks like any other Ford car.

posted by  x1/9-rally


The tired old Duratec can't make the power! Don't know why you'd back up an engine like that.

I agree, the MAzda 6 looks MUCH better IMO. But then again, you STILL get the junky Duratec V6... :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Is it RWD?

posted by  jedimario

No, it won't be. If anything it will be AWD (ala Mazdaspeed 6).

Would be neat to see it get the turbocharged 2.3L from the MAzdaspeed 6.

posted by  thunderbird1100

220 hp 205 ft-lbs. God that Duratec sucks! Much worse than the amazing 24 more hp the Accord's V6 makes.

posted by  PontiacFan27

I thought it was meant to be fuel effiecient...

posted by  chris_knows

Actually the Duratec is ranked on the OLD SAE system while the Accord is ranked on the NEW SAE system. Which means if you compare the two hack the Duratecs numbers down by about 4%-5% (or add 4-5% to the Accord's 244hp 211tq).

Which means it makes an ungodly 210hp and 195tq. For a DOHC 3.0L 24v V6 this isnt anything great, nor that good today.

Honda makes 244hp (34hp more) and 211tq (16tq more) with the same displacement V6 but with ONLY SOHC 24v heads, not DOHC 24v heads like Duratec. Let me also state this Honda engine has remained mostly physcially unchanged since it came out in 1997 at nearly the same power figures as the NEW 210hp DOHC Duratec of today (10 less hp ,same tq).

They have the SAME Honda J series V6 in the Accord, in the Acura RL making 300hp and 260tq still with the same SOHC 24v heads and only with .5L more displacement (3.5L).

Schooled. :banghead:

posted by  thunderbird1100

I dont think fuel efficency will be the #1 priority in making the SVT version of the Fusion. Remember, the MAzda 6 is basically the same vehicle.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yeah, I just figured it would be RWD, and the SVT would just be built on that...Guess I learned something new today :smoke:

posted by  chris_knows

The platform isn't easily converted into RWD, but AWD fit it quite well (Mazda 6/Fusion/Zephr/Milano). That's why it would be AWD mor ethan anything.

posted by  thunderbird1100

o YEAH....:doh::doh::doh::doh:

hey it's monday..

posted by  jedimario

Actually, the point is the Duratech is very undertuned. The SVT owners ahve already been getting 250-270 hp from N/A 2.5 liter versions, and over 300 from 3 liter versions. Kenne Bell already did a turbo version and with a single turbo and stock heads/crank/rods, and just a drop in compression and custom cams, pulled 450 hp. the block is EXTREMELY durable and well built, and hasn't even been stretched to 3.5 liters yet.

And while the Fusion is built from a stretched and widened Mazda 6 platform, with all new suspension, even the Mazda 6 was derived from the current Mondeo. So in essense, the Fusion is derived from the current Mondeo.

You need to get off this "if it isn't a Honda (or a select few other Japanese cars) it sucks" crap.

Funny thing, even my old 200 hp 2.5 liter SVT Contour was a better driver's car than any factory Accord has ever been, and the Fusion is faster and handles better...

posted by  ChrisV

Okay, I already made a long post (15 minutes) but IE freezed when I clicked submit so this might be a shortened version... :banghead:

A. I'm not even going to argue with you, you always try and use this against me and it has never worked, and it wont. I dont take that mantality, I was JUST pointing one thing out, I could of used another enigne if I had wanted to, but in this segment, THAT engine is the benchmark. Not saying the Duratec is absolute junk, just not up to par with other engines such as the Honda's. I just happen to know more about Hondas more than any other brand so I use that more often, simple as that. And if I think the Accord is the best family sedan, then so be it, you dont have to, you can think the Fusion is, but it is, my OPINION.

B. Obviously you have never driven an HFP Accord 6spd Coupe or an A-Spec TSX. Both of those are some of the best handling FWD's I've ever had the chance to drive, and they aren't light at all being 3200-3300lbs (but BOTH are factory Accords, with factory options, backed by factory warrentys, but ARE dealer installed). Dont forget the Accord SiR/Type-R (Although not sold in the US ever, sold elsewhere, but for the sake of the argument we'll stick to USDM). Both of those cars hold .9g+ on a 300ft skidpad on pretty skinny 215/225 tires, not to mention slalom numbers that are excellent for any FWD. Plus, the driving feedback you get from the tuned suspension and great steering is wonderful. But anyone can say most any performance oriented car has more driver feedback than an Accord. Look Chris, I'll even say it. My 300ZXTT has more driving feedback than USDM factory Accord ever.

C. A Fusion is faster than a more powerful less weight Accord, AND handles better? (Unless you meant faster/handles better than a SVT Contour, which i dont thin kthat either) Don't think so. Every place I've looked the performance numbers for the Accord topped the Fusion in nearly EVERY way (not to mention they all were the slower, worse handling 5AT version of the Accord; the 6MT version handles better and is faster, by a margin, magazines even got 14.5 out of the 6MT coupe Accord, and now Honda offers the 6MT in sedan form too). Since I just happen to have some numbers to the right of me I'll show you how you are so wrong in the performance area with that statement: C & D; December 2005

2006 Accord EX-V6 5AT Sedan vs. 2006 Fusion SEL-V6 6AT Sedan
0-60(mph) = 6.6 vs. 7.4 (sec)
0-100(mph) = 16.6 vs. 19.7 (sec)
0-110(mph) = 20.6 vs. 25.8 (sec)
5-60(mph) = 7.1 vs. 7.8 (sec)
1/4 Mile = 15.1 vs. 15.7 (sec)
Top gear tests:
30-50 = 3.5 vs. 3.9 (sec)
50-70 = 4.9 vs. 5.8 (sec)
70-0(mph) = 187 vs. 194 (ft)
300-ft skidpad = .79g vs. 83g
Lane Change = 60.7 vs. 58.5 (mph)

Looks like the ONLY thing the Fusion did better was the skidpad (go figure it has bigger tires). But the Accord stomped all over it in the lane change, and in other tests kills it in the slalom. Now we know slalom/lanechange and skidpad dont equate to strictly how a car handles. But even i nthis comparison they said the best handling car was the Accord (subjectively obviously). They even listed one of the Accord's highs as "Muscular Handling" and they didn't mention handling as a high for the Fusion. The lows for each car were this: Accord "Suspension muscles tell you about all the bumps, back-seat s[ace was the tightest in the group (4)"; Fusion "HVAC controls located down around your ankles, door pockets so small that stuff falls out, and, Has that hood come unlatched (referring to the poor fit and finish of the Fusion in comparison to the group)?" They even said in the article also, the Accord's 5AT was smoother and could find gears easier than any other in the group. They also said the Fusion's 6AT seemed unrefined in that it had a "jerky snatch into first gear" and "a few drivers reported some hunting between 5th and 6th gears at highway speeds".

So anyways, that's it :mrgreen:

posted by  thunderbird1100

I can't believe you guys are comparing 0-60 times and what not between these cars! The potential buyers can't possible care how well their family sedan does on a skidpad. "Muscular Handling" bwhahaha

That aside, i really do like how the front end looks. Definitely fresh from the old taurus. Any stats on the future SVT model?

posted by  importluva

HE said the Fusion performed better, I rebuttled with statistics. Simple as that.

You'd be suprised about some buyers that buy Accords. Afterall they wouldn't offer a 6spd Manual on the coupe and sedan (Along with a tuned suspension and front tower brace with it) if people didnt want a little performance in mind. Not to mention the HFP package offered on the Accord (stiffer suspension, lower stance, bigger wheels/tires...). The definate buying masses want the no frills Automatic version, but Honda does sell 6spd equipped model (About 5% or so). They dont leave the enthusist behind, just like Ford is not going to leave them behind either with the SVT Fusion.

"Muscular handling" was obviously in COMPARISON to the group it was tested against, the Fusion, 2006 Sonata and 2006 Camry. It wasn't saying it has muscular handling like a Lotus Elise... Sorry you failed to see the connection.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I said the Fusion performs better than the SVT Contour. Your reading comprehension skills suck.

posted by  ChrisV

I acknowleged that you MIGHT of said that... did you not read my post, you jumbled everything up in the same sentence, so it was kind of hard to comprehend which you really meant.

Anyone could of taken that as you meant the Fusion is faster and handles better than the Accord. Not to mention by inference skills, you could of really meant the Fusion was a better driver's car than the Accord, since you MEANT it was better than the SVT Contour which you previously said was better than the Accord! Ah-ha! That took a lot of deducting, but it makes sense.

But anyways, this is what I wrote since you seemed to ignore it and tried an insult gut-check that missed...

Now do you see?

posted by  thunderbird1100

i DID say that, and so your rambling post was pretty much showing that you wanted the argument more than you wanted to understand something.

Sorry, thought it was pretty clear what it was discussing. And to be honest, even re-reading your post it was hard to make out where you were "admitting" I might have said that (buried in a parenthetical comment in the middle of a huge rant)

posted by  ChrisV

I never miscomprehended anything, just to make sure what you typed could be misleading, I had that statement checked by my college English professor, and she even said it could go either way, that it needed to be more precise. And reguardless if you think it was "Buried" (just as big as anything else, but in parenthesis, wait is this buried too?), it was there, just in case you DID mean otherwise, but I took out the time to rebuttal anywho, didnt hurt a thing.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I mean no offense here, but does a measly argument over a goddamn sentance mean that much that you have to get it checked out by an english professor, its just sad plan old sad.

posted by  LeDrew145

Oh, but nitpicking is just too much fun!

posted by  hondaman

I've come to see that while reading posts, but its nice to see that most of yas can get into pretty heated arguments then not bring it over into another post :thumbs:

posted by  LeDrew145

You and this SAE system crap. Its funny how every time you mention a Honda it goes up, but any other company it goes down, without showing any proof. Why dont you get your head out of hondas ass once in a while?

posted by  PontiacFan27

It was valid enough for the argument at hand. I knew it was confusing, just got it checked out by someone over our head in the English world. Not like it's out of the way or anything...

posted by  thunderbird1100

Hmm, wonder why horsepower goes UP when I compare a Honda/Toyota OR down with most any other company, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. The reason why is simply this, Honda/Toyota are the ONLY major manufacturers (I tihnk Porsche did too) to FULLY rate their entire lineups on the new SAE system which cuts down on hp by about 4-5%. Ford doesnt implement it, GM has done it on a few vehicles, Daimler Chrysler is a no show, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Nissan, all no shows for the new optonal standard.

It all depends on what is being compared, if you compare a new 2006 "244hp" Accord (Which is on the new SAE setup) with a 2006 "250hp" Altima (on the previous SAE setup) you either hack DOWN the Altima's horsepower by 4-5% (to put it o nthe newer SAE standard) OR put UP the Accord numbers by 4-5% to put it on the OLD SAE standard to ocmpare the two. It's simply not fair to compare one car that's horsepower was measured differently to another car. It's the same in the sense that you cant compare the 300hp a car made 40 years ago to a 300hp car today. Each car was measured DIFFERENTLY to attain horsepower.

Glad to educate you.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The bottom line is "Muscular Handling" is a laughable way to describe how any family sedan drives. Sorry you started assuming.

posted by  importluva

It's all relative to what it competes against, so it can be valid. I can see it being pointless to say, it had "muscular handling" and was in a comparison against the Corvette and Viper... So I guess you might laugh at a comparison between the Viper and Corvette and them say "the Corvette has twice as much trunk space as the Viper". It's all have to understand that. I assumed you just cant see the connection between classes of cars, and I just proved that.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Actually, when the new SAE measures were used Hondas numbers went down, and the Fusion's numbers went up.

Before you try to educate others, educate yourself.

posted by  FusionMyFord

sounds like he got you there t-bird1100

posted by  carlos

Yet when you put the Hondas (any of them on) on a dynojet or dynapack, they all make MORE than rated power (New or Old), interesting. So much for SAE!


Civic Si - "rated" at 197hp by the new SAE standard, yet it DYNOS at 204 hub horsepower not even broken in (that's about 220-225 CRANK horsepower). Just for shits and giggles they tested a couple thousand miles broken in Si and it hit 209 hub horsepower!

Another example...

The 2005 RSX-S, it WAS rated at 210hp, then the new SAE people said "oh no, only makes 201hp", so for the 2006 model year Honda said the RSX-S makes 201hp (unchanged from '05 on the enigne physically). Let's see, in that same article you'll find an RSX-S of those years putting down between 185-190hub horsepower, wow, when converted into crank figures, that's above both old and new SAE, go figure.

This goes true (from what I've seen) across most of Honda's lineup, they underrate their cars, have been for years.

The 2006 Accord I4 and V6 both gained power (6hp and 4hp) going to the new SAE standard, but that was due to slight engine upgrades I'm sure.

I don't know where you got information the Fusion Duratec V6 gained power by going on the new SAE. Because the Fusion sports the same 160hp and 221hp I4 and V6 the Mazda 6 has had for years (At those same power levels).

Also, I dont believe Ford even has adopted the new SAE on a lot of their vehicles, I think they did it on the GT...nothing else comes to mind. Just glancing at some of the number son 2006 Ford vehicles, they remained unchanged from last year, like the Mustang (the same 210hp and 300hp), Focus numbers remain unchanged, Five-Hundred number remains unchanged, Crown Vic numbers unchanged, Freestar unmbers unchanged, F-150 numbers unchanged, Ranger numbers unchanged, most of the SUV's unchanged (unless new engines added). So yeah, looks like Ford is doing a great job of avoiding the new SAE setup :laughing:

And I laugh at Ford's again feeble attempt to try and eat away at Accord and Camry sales with the Fusion, I thought they could do better than stealing (or using, whichever your choice of words) a 3 year old car from Mazda (the Mazda 6), putting some new sheetmetal on it, and thinking it will magically compete better than the Mazda 6 did against the Accord and Camry. What a bunch of goofs over there at Ford :orglaugh:

I'll just sit back, relax, and watch Accord sales continue to rise, and set record numbers.

posted by  thunderbird1100


PWNT :orglaugh: :orglaugh: :orglaugh:

posted by  chris_knows

I disagree .... this was from the article

That's where he got the info from.

posted by  windsonian


posted by  chris_knows

Yet it's the same engine from the Mazda 6 that made 221hp for 3 years...

Sounds like car politics to me. Good try, Ford. Trying to benefit from the current course of action, or is it, inaction? Don't believe everything you hear wind, especially car politics, it can get nasty on twisting things. Plus in that article they "projected" it to have 210hp, never did it say TESTED at that. They are just saying that to make it seem like it actually gained power from the ratings, when in fact all Ford did was take the same 221hp Duratec V6 the Mazda 6 has been using for years and used that. Have to think beyond what is said.

Mysteriously it's rated the same as Mazda6 has been for the past 3 years? Coincidence, I think not.

posted by  thunderbird1100

ahhh, i understand. when an article says that the ford fusion is "faring better under the new testing procedures", that really means that it's fairing... worse because they're still cheating somehow? :ticking:

and ofcourse you saying so MAKES that fact, and we should all concede to that truth?

is it not possible that ford changed the engine a little? is there some unwritten law that says that they have to keep it exactly the same?

take a look at the volkswagen GTI 1.8t and the audi TT 1.8t. same engine. i promise... look at power figures of ANY year. obviously audi is lieing because it's the same engine as in the GTI which is claiming less power...

posted by  pik_d

You have to look past what Ford PR person tells you. Just think for a minute here, why IS the rating the SAME as the Mazda 6 has been for the past 3 years? Same exact engine perhaps? Naw... :wink2:

posted by  thunderbird1100

i edited my post while you were replying. go take a look.

posted by  pik_d

sounds like an assumption to me.

looking past what someone tells you doesn't mean assume some hidden meaning.

You tell us to look past what the Ford person is quoted as saying (in a non-Ford article), but expect us to treat as fact something from

Ever think that maybe they projected it to poll lower in the new testing system (as you projected for many cars....), but then it didn't?

posted by  windsonian

You're missing the point and used an unrelated point not pertinent to the topic.

I'm claiming the engine IS THE SAME IN EVERY ASPECT as the Mazda 6's, and not tuned differently like the audi vs. vw 1.8T. The 2.4 in the TSX is the same as in the Accord but makes abot 40 more horsepwer, why, because it's TUNED differently, like the audi 1.8t to the vw 1.8t.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I never said something is always hidden, but you should always question car politics, as with any politics.

What have I presented from that isnt a fact (you mean those "non factual" dyno pulls right? :wink2: ) when i said it was?

I almost never trust PR people, they almost always tend to bend things.

As for the last thing you said that's entirely possible, but what was mentioned earlier was said "IT BENEFITTED" from the new rating, which it in fact did not, as it's the same exact engine as the Mazda 6 has been using with the same exact power (horsepower and torque) it has had in the past 3 years. It never was "tested" at 210hp, it was projected at that (Which it does say in the article), but as we now found out, it's the same engine the Mazda 6 has been using for three years and apparently it didn't benefit at all from the new rating as the power remained exactly the same.

Hope that clears things up.

posted by  thunderbird1100

and are you backing up your claims? with a simple "oh, it has the same horsepower as the old mazda6's"... take a look at the torque. you'll see it's not rated the same in both aspects. they must be doing something different... right?

also, from motor trend

they DID change the engine. your whole argument that it is the same exact engine is void.

i'd also like to know how how you can justify how in your last post, you claimed they had the same horsepower and torque? i doubt you can find any reliable source claiming such.

posted by  pik_d

I just looked up the specs of both and noticed they DO have different bore/strokes BUT both the I4 and V6 in the Mazda6 and Fusion share the exact same compression ratio, DOHC 4v/cylinder design. the displacement is a tiny bit different. I think what this comes down to is the Duratec's in the new Fusion are slightly reworked versions of the Duratec's from Mazda. So yes, they are different. But still doesn't prove how it "benefitted" from the new SAE standard, which is what was said in the beginning.

posted by  thunderbird1100

where do you get your information? pm if you dont want to "advertise"

posted by  pik_d

Compared on Ford's webpage and Mazda's webpage the engine specs.

Oh, and the whole "Advertising" thing on here is ludacris, I've probably posted 250 links to other webpages selling items but it was almost ALWAYS because I was helping them out because they asked for help. I think it's easy to point out when someone is advertising (As they go and post the same link in 4 different boards) as opposed to helping someone.

posted by  thunderbird1100

so now that you realize that the 3L V6's in the two cars are different, will you admit that you were wrong in your assumptions that the 221hp/205tq figures were inflated, and that the Ford PR was telling the truth?

posted by  pik_d

So, your site should go as unquestioned fact, but the Ford guy must be questioned ..... something doesn't add up. Just because it's published and not just quoted, doesn't make it any more true. Someone invented the words somewhere along the way.

So, now that we know that the engines are not identical, is it so wrong for the Ford guys to make a prediction on the power that is different to previously documented Mazda stats? Do you still think they did it just so they could say "hey we exceeded expectations"? It's possible, but you're still assuming without proof.

posted by  windsonian

The Fusion uses a tweaked version of the Ford Duratech engine in the Mazda 6. No news, even though TBird wants to think there's something nefarious going on.

And the Fusion is yes, based on the Mazda 6, which was a Ford developed chassis from the Euro Ford Mondeo to START with (like the new mazda 3 is based, like the Volvo S40, on the new European Focus platform). In the Fusion, Ford made it longer and wider, so it is NOT THE SAME CAR AS THE MAZDA !!!!!!! And since Ford designed the chassis ORIGINALLY, they get to do whatever the f*ck they want to with it, and it isn't "sly moves" or other insulting bullshit!

Sorry, Tbird, but you're being a complete f*cking tool about this and are wrong in motivation and basic assumptions. PERIOD!

posted by  ChrisV

do you honestly think calling him a "complete f*cking tool" is going to help anything at all? sure, you proved him wrong, but where does that give you the right to namecall? for the last page or so, we've been having what resembled a civil conversation. maybe misguided in his part, but still civil.

posted by  pik_d

Well if you look back to all of his posts for the most part he likes to find everything wrong with Ford's and bash them. Every car company has made mistakes. Somethings are in fact right and others he infact is wrong about and just would more so like them to be wrong. The right to namecall? Prolly comes from all the posts before that I just mentioned. It's just being biased but we all are in someway.

No offense to T-bird but thats just the way I see it.

posted by  Pythias

Because this is an ongoing issue between him and I, not just this thread. And sorry, but the constant bashing without actually learning anything AFTER it's been pointed out nicely earns him my wrath. I call him that because he's BEING that. You want some of it, too? :ticking:

posted by  ChrisV

if you think i've done enough to earn it, and that it's your place to do so, then go right ahead.

i wont contest the fact that he's earned it, because he's been pretty biased in his views, looking to a honda specific site for his facts. i just dont see it as your, or my place to dish it out to him.

if you call him names, i doubt he'll even try to learn from your posts.

i got him to agree that they were different engines. how? by namecalling? no. by displaying facts? yes. so obviously he CAN learn.

posted by  pik_d

Like it was said, they are both Duratec's, but are slightly different (slightly different in displacement, slightly different in power, same compression ratios, same DOHC 4v head designs). So, I'll give it that.

I was just thinking off the top of my head about the Mazda power figures, could of sworn it was 221hp, turns out it was only rated at 220hp. So I was off by a horsepower :laughing: I'll be honest enough to say I didn't bother looking up the stuff because this past week has been finals week here at LSU, and when I have to keep information in for Calc II and Programming classes (And i mean a ton of info, even while posting on here I was studying back and forth, might not of been the best idea :orglaugh: ) I tend to slack off in caring about other things. Sorry if I was stubborn, but that's just so you know why. I dont know where I said 221hp was an inflated must of got that from somewhere else. I was just saying the engine didn't "benefit" from the new SAE standard. Which it didn't, obviously. They projected it being LOWER, but never was it mentioned that it was actually tested on the old SAE standard. So in effect, it was only tested on the new SAE standard, therefore it didnt benefit nor not benefit from the new rating (which was originally said by Fusion my Ford).

On a side note what I found interesting was the Ford V6 Duratec in the Mazda6 actually got slashed in power by 5 hp on the new testing method (220hp before, 215hp now).

The Ford PR might of been right in saying they projected 210hp but got 221hp. But I dont know what they REALLY projected, or were just saying that to make it look better. So who knows?

posted by  thunderbird1100

Maybe you didn't comprehend what I said...

I said; what have I presented from on here recently, that I claimed is factual and is in fact not (what have I posted recently, the DYNO RESULTS of certain vehicles and RACE RESULTS from thunderhill, yup no way those are facts :orglaugh: )? I didn't say you should trust everything from that webpage, matter fact almost EVERY article on that page has a "credibility rating". So, you are trying to put words in my mouth about that.

Either way you can ASSUME the Ford PR guy said that to make the engine look better, or you can ASSUME he really predicted that way beforehand in a truthful manner. Either way it's an assumption, but dealing with a few PR guys from certain companies I've met, most of these guys are the Car Brand Political Leaders...No doubt

posted by  thunderbird1100

i suppose that's as good as i'm gonna get...

but i dont see how you "know" that "in effect, it was only tested on the new SAE standard". why wouldnt they have tested it before the standard was updated? just because they dont tell us exactly what happened durring the time when they were still designing the car doesnt mean it didnt happen.

oh, and it was finals week for me too (had my last exam today!), so that's no excuse to not backup your statements. :mrgreen:

posted by  pik_d

Again, we can play the ASSUME game. I'm going by what's in that article, all it says is it was "projected" to get 210hp, we dont even know if they said that BEFORE or AFTER they tested it on the new SAE setup, as it's not even mentioned in the article. We dont know if they actually tested the engine on the old SAE standard or not, as again it's not mentioned in the article.

What college do you go to and what finals did you have?

I had to read a 300 page textbook, memorize 125 terms and go over 84 pages of the past week or less. Oh yeah, that was for one class too :thumbs:

I had four finals, well had 3, one more to go, but it's my easiest class, no studying needed...

posted by  thunderbird1100

i'm a freshman at UNC charlotte. intro to engineering, english (well... just had to hand in a final paper), calculus I, chemistry, and visual arts.

since you so nicely pointed out the assuming thing, why did you assume that they were the same engine? and why did you assume that the 221hp was inflated (you pointed out in post #14 that it was ranked on the old SAE system)?

yes, finals, i know. but that's no excuse to cite "facts" that arent.

posted by  pik_d

What standard were they using on the dyno tests? You're basically saying that the Ford guy is putting a spin on things that will help him, but weren't.

I'm not saying the Ford guy did or didn't, because I've got no idea, but if you're going to trust one source, trust both .... or neither.

Of course it's an assumption either way, but I just try to be consistent where I can with assumptions. But we've already had the assumption argument.... remember the whole amplifier power cable thing?

posted by  windsonian

I'd like to see where I said what I was saying was factual, like I said, I was assuming the Mazda6 motor was 221hp all along, off by damn horsepower when I looked it up, woopie.

I can tell you my exams were probably slightly more difficult...I'm a Freshman, going for Business Management major (possibily subfield of Entrepreneurship, LSU has the #1 program in the nation for that, pretty good business school, hardest college to get into here).

I assumed they were the same engine because I thought the Mazda6 was 221hp all along, there's your explanation. I said it in another earlier post. I still would like to see when I said 221hp was an inflated figure. I was under the pre-tense THEN (posting to pontiacfan) that it was under the old SAE setup. But found out later it isn't. So maybe that's the confusion there.

I'd rather pay more attention to grades than care at the same time about looking up stuff on the computer to check something I said. Guess my priorities are screwed up :orglaugh:

posted by  thunderbird1100


posted by  windsonian

What does what was said in that article have anything to do with the dyno results I posted about the RSX-S and Si recently form Oh, yeah, none. So I dont know why you just attempted to make a connection there.

You're telling me I should trust what a PR guy siad about horsepower as an assumption if I trust what an ACTUAL DYNO RESULT says? You must be out of your mind. You make no sense! You're saying we should trust a what a PR "projected" the power to be the same as an ACTUAL Dyno test? Get REAL! Look at what you just'll see the stupidity in it.

I can't believe you even brought up the power amplifer cable...This has nothing to do with that! Seriously though, I still hold that thread against you, you were just being stupid, really.

posted by  thunderbird1100

.....Taking harder classes, is that what you're looking for?

posted by  thunderbird1100

What you didn't take exams in Austrailia? :laughing:

posted by  99integra

looking back to this:

basicly in saying the word "is", you're claiming to be factual.

i am unimpressed...

in that case dont post, finish your exams, then catch up on your posting after they're done. :wink2: either argue and check all your facts, or dont argue at all.

posted by  pik_d

Just something about people who have to try to convince other people that they're better because "I do something harder than you".... I dunno.

On the power cable thing ... sure I was being pedantic that day (different to stupid), but the whole point I was making that day is that an assumption, no matter how likely, is still an assumption - which seems to be the same point you just made a couple of posts back. Does that make you stupid too?

I'm not saying you should trust the PR dude implicitly. What I'm saying is - if he's lying, why isn't You're treating that website as more credible than the PR guy. I didn't try to connect the two articles, but you were using them both as sources in the same argument, therefore they both must come into question, not just one.

I know what you're trying to say - that one was measured, and the other was only predicted, and thus could be made up more readily, but that doesn't mean that one is trustworthy and the other isn't .... we're still assuming, no matter which way we look at it..... unless we say "I don't know".

Which, let's face it, we don't.

posted by  windsonian

Your Message