What car: reality bites edition

I drove a rental '10 Fusion for a week and the interior fit, finish and materials were leaps and bounds above the HHR I had before that. The engine has enough power to get the car out of it's own way when you thrash it and mileage was good (~30MPG) with very little highway.

My biggest complaint was the brakes. The pedal was extremely soft with no feedback. They stopped the car well enough but it felt like braking by wire.

Overall, I think it is a competent people mover but there was no joy in driving it.

Ford vs honda.
Find a 3rd better option.

This. Old enough to be cheap, a little bigger than your Jetta, tough as hell and they scored well on crash tests.

Your Fusion sounds like a good deal too.

Go with the Fusion. That engine/transmission has been used in the Focus since 2003. I have 2 friends with 2003's with that combination. Both are getting close to 200K miles on the vehicle with no major problems. Both cars do get very strict regular maintenance however.

Edit: One of those cars was also the EMRA ST3 Time Trials champion in 2007.

Hal wrote: Go with the Fusion. That engine/transmission has been used in the Focus since 2003. I have 2 friends with 2003's with that combination. Both are getting close to 200K miles on the vehicle with no major problems. Both cars do get very strict regular maintenance however. Edit: One of those cars was also the EMRA ST3 Time Trials champion in 2007.

My fear with a Ford (and I admit, I've not worked on a modern one) is that every time you work on it, you'll find places where engineers saved $.02 and made your life a living hell in the process. This was true on every 1990's American car I touched. Hondas, OTOH, seem more easily disassembleable. I mean, I'm dumping the Passat not because it's unreliable, but because it's such a berkeleying pain in the ass any time it breaks.

Unfounded fear?

Let me preface this by saying I've never even sat in a Fusion. However its a Mazda underneath and I've always found those to be logically built and easy to work on. My Protege based Escort GT was great to work on but didn't need it much even at 200k miles. If you can work on a Miata, you can work on most any other Mazda-from the same era at least.

Access on the v6 mazda6 isn't what i'd call great. It's doable, but stupid stuff like the PCV's can be a pain.

mndsm wrote: Access on the v6 mazda6 isn't what i'd call great. It's doable, but stupid stuff like the PCV's can be a pain.

For this reason I'd probably be sticking to the I4's. 160hp with a 5-speed is more fun (to me) than a slushbox 220hp anyway.

paanta wrote:

mndsm wrote: Access on the v6 mazda6 isn't what i'd call great. It's doable, but stupid stuff like the PCV's can be a pain.

For this reason I'd probably be sticking to the I4's. 160hp with a 5-speed is more fun (to me) than a slushbox 220hp anyway.

Get best of both worlds. 5sp V6 does exist.

BoxheadTim wrote: Volvo (turbo)brick? They're easy to work on, plenty of space in the engine bay and tough as old boots.

They're also about this much fun to drive (as fun as old boots), in my experience. I realize this is not a popular opinion here. But they are clunky, heavy, safe, tough...not necessarily fun. But to each his own.

Everything listed above though, is true (easy to work on, space, tough...).

Clem