Talk:Ford Fusion (Americas)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.



Contents

[edit] Futura not in use

The Futura is in use, but not in America. I've seen it being sold in Australia.

[edit] Fusion, Pontiac G6 and Galant

I dont see any similarities with this car at all, but I agree with earlier article that Fusion resemblance with Ford Mondeo. Look closely the body shape and the door frames are almost identical and heck even the rear end. The only thing is different between Fusion and Mondeo is the fender arches and Fusion looks somewhat "fatter".

[edit] 3.5L Duratec for 2007?

The Ford Order guide for the 07 Fusion doesn't show a 3.5L for Job 1.

The Ford Fleet website (which allows you to view the upcoming year's vehicles earlier than the rest of their site), shows it isn't an option for the 2008 Fusion either. Reference https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/2008fleetshowroom/2008-fusion.asp Bsharkey 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

My point with the grille was not that it was invisible, but that the three silver bars are significant, and in the thumbnail of the auto show image it looks like any gray mass. IFCAR 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well IMO, you can place that image in another place in the article as a special way to note the three bar grille. Or better, you can get a full head on shot to illustrate it. I just don't like the idea of that being the head image, as I think teh current one is too nice to be replaced by our average parking lot show. I know of a Fusion parked in a place across the street from my school, I can get a head on shot tomorrow if so desired. Karrmann 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The images are there to illustrate the automobile. One picture that illustrates the vehicle is better than a gallery of images, and a picture that doesn't give a good view of what the car looks like isn't a good image for an encyclopedia article no matter how pretty it is.
We'll see if anyone else weighs in, though. IFCAR 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

The edits made by 24.68.159.177 on April 17, 2007 kind of look like vandalism to me. Suggest appropriate action be taken. --67.175.147.74 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel Economy

Where did these numbers come from? They don't seem to be correct... wagsbags (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 / 2010 model year ambiguity

Just a heads-up and some clarification for editors: The "press" and other sources have been covering the anticipated refreshening of the Fusion (and stablemates Milan and MkZ) since some spy photographs started to surface on various websites last year, along with guesses and speculation on the model year (either 2009 or 2010, depending on the source). Ford Company Officials have also been ambiguous in "official" press interviews at car shows, press interviews, and elsewhere, calling it "for 2009" or "for 2010", depending on who was talking and where. Mark Fields mentioned (11 May 2008 in USA Today) that "We are going to be making a major change to it by the end of this year", which gives a time frame for possible production startup, but not necessarily when it will go on sale at dealerships. If it goes on sale to consumers "by the end of this year" (2008) then it will be a 2009 "by law", since car companies are not allowed to sell cars as 2010 model year before January 2009. If it goes on sale after January 1 2009, then it will most likely be called a 2010, since presumably Ford will have been building 2009 model year Fusions between ca. August and November-December or whenever the "current" version ceases production and the "refreshed" version starts production. Until an official company anouncement (sans ambiguity) is released, my recommendation is to leave it as 2009/2010, since Wikipedia should address the issue, but should not claim it to be one or the other based on synthesis or something. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)