|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 56
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 56 |
I vote for the Fusion over the Five Hundred But I would rather have a Mustang anyways... 
The ride? Don't ask
Taken? Yes
The boy? NorMich99SE
And yes, I love his car, but can't wait for my own Contour...
How about a Green SVT?!
I'll be looking come the end of 06 
Oh, the ideas!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
It will likely sell well if buyers aren't turned off by the looks.
People complain if a car looks like a mix of something else but when a fresh design comes out it sucks? Bah! I think it looks fantastic.
Just because it is fresh does not make it good. When it comes down to it, the Pontiac Aztek was a fresh design.
You're right though, I want a car that doesn't look like everything else. However, I still want it to have proportion, flow, and style. The Fusion lacks proportion and especially flow with it's very boxy appearance.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
James, I disagree, and you know I'm normally very critical of car styling. I do think the Fusion's lines flow together pretty well. Though fwiw, I do prefer the front and rear treatments on the Milan more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by Rara:
James, I disagree, and you know I'm normally very critical of car styling.
Right on. And you know I am as well. Just because I like Ford products usually more than the rest I'm not brand loyal. If I thought the Fusion looked bad I'd say so. Hey I don't have to buy anything. It still doesn't have a manual so I'll stay away.
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,709
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,709 |
Stopped at the dealer last night and saw a Fusion SEL looking fully loaded at 25K. A little disappointed at the MPG 21 and 29 for the V6??? Common thats is pathetic! Also noticed that the stick rea 25K but the dealers "Best Price" for the only on on the lot was 22K, not a bad price for what you get....
Originally posted by Chickens:
Religion can't do much for ashholes (unless you are an alterboy)
98.5 Se w/SVT mods
98 E0 SVT~ sold
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389 |
But we all know that the EPA #s are usually off (It even says it's an average). Did you know that the Contour's V-6 is also rated at 21/29? I have not met anybody that gets that low of mileage so I don't get the mileage average. I get 24-25/32 mileage and I do not always drive slowly. The Duratec is very efficient. It's a shame that Ford can't get away with bloating its figures like other car companies have done. People are short-sighted...
2000 Contour SE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Those mileage numbers are pretty realistic for the 3.0L Duratec. They're right in line with most everyone reports with the Mazda6.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389 |
That might be with the larger displacement and heavier weight but how does the 2.5 get the same #s?
2000 Contour SE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065 |
I'd rather have a g6 GTP 6 speed. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by Majisto:
That might be with the larger displacement and heavier weight but how does the 2.5 get the same #s?
You mean the same same EPA numbers or the same real numbers? Because, as you stated, most people do better than the stated numbers on the 2.5. I don't know why the EPA rates would rate them both about the same when they're not.
And, actually, before the 6-Speed with a deeper overdrive, the 5-Speed Automatic on the Mazda6 was EPA-rated for only 20/26. So the EPA did rate the 3.0L lower when it had a similar drivetrain as the 2.5L on the Contour.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
