15th Nov 2010, 16:54

People should stop calling the Fusion a 'domestic' car. It's built in Mexico. Furthermore, it's based on and shares a platform with a Mazda product, which is the only reason it's any good at all.

17th Nov 2010, 08:32

"Resale values on the Fusion are already skyrocketing, and have easily surpassed the import competition."

First of all NOTHING is skyrocketing in value in this economy, let alone any car. The Fusion is on par with the resale value of most other cars in its class, and not some incredible standout like you'd have people believe. The Camry has had recall issues, so yes in the short term they are only on par with the competition instead of the usual above. KBB can confirm this easily for you.

As far as buying Fusions for more than you paid for yours years ago... well I don't know where you live. Around here, used Fusions are pretty much the same value wise as everything else, and have lost about the same value. You may just live in an area that warrants overpricing on these cars, because people are willing to pay it?

17th Nov 2010, 10:53

"Resale values on the Fusion are already skyrocketing, and have easily surpassed the import competition."

It's all in the timing. The best time to buy a car is when the CEOs of the big 3 fly to Washington to beg for bail out money. Roughly a year and a half later everything is back to normal.

2nd Dec 2010, 19:11

"Who is projecting that the Fusion will hold value?"

Obviously the American car buyer. Camry sales DROPPED by 25% last month while Ford sales INCREASED by 24.3%. A 50% higher demand for ANY car causes its resale value to climb. Ford dealers here can't keep enough Fusions in stock to meet demand, while Camry sits on dealer's lot longer than any other car made. Many of our friends have traded their Toyotas for Fords and are raving about the much higher quality. One drive is really all it takes. People who maintain that Toyotas or Hondas are built better have obviously not driven a Ford since the 60's.

3rd Dec 2010, 12:46

Just one flaw in that statement my Ford friend. Fords, as with most cars, were built better in the sixties.

3rd Dec 2010, 14:52

You are both wrong. Cars overall are designed and built better than they were in the 60's, and imports are better than domestics in general.

3rd Dec 2010, 19:45

You obviously are kidding (I hope). NO car built in the 60's was better than ANY car built today. In the 60's cars had ridiculous 12-month, 12,000 mile warranties, had virtually no safety features and were not remotely sophisticated. The automatic choke was considered a major innovation then.

I love older cars, and have owned a few classics. My family members currently own a 1967 Dodge Charger R/T, a 1970 Dodge Challenger, and a 1955 Chevrolet. Not only are both of our newer Fords light years ahead of any of those cars in every respect, but even our V-6 Ford will do 0-60 faster than all three of the classics (including the 440 Challenger).

4th Dec 2010, 07:05

You use to have points; now you can go 100k on a tune up and same plugs. Suspensions are better. More technological advances; air bags etc. However you could work on the old ones at home with simple tools. My engine in my 70 is more advanced after its rebuild however.

4th Dec 2010, 12:52

No, I'm not kidding. It's a shame that I missed that decade to be able to see those beauties everywhere. Was born in '89, and now I have to watch this junk everywhere. But I do have a vehicle that's built pretty much the same way, and that is a '98 Crown Victoria, which I dearly love. One day I hope to have a 1959-60 Bel Air or Impala 4-door with a 348 in metallic sea foam green. Wish they wouldn't have used the weaker x-frame though. Ford frames of that era were much, much stronger.

4th Dec 2010, 22:23

I also own old and new. It's true about new cars not needing a major tune-up for 100,000 miles compared to changing plugs, cap, and rotor every 18,000 miles on an early '70s V-8. Without a doubt, the average new 4-cylinder is quicker than my old 318 automatic, and it's true that new cars handle better than old cars, although I would not agree that new cars are always more comfortable than old cars. A small car is still a small car, and can never quite simulate the smooth, floaty ride of the big Chrysler New Yorker and friends. It's also true that old cars were easier to work on if something did go wrong.

All of this sophistication comes with a price. I also find that I feel the road better with my '71 Plymouth, like I'm more in control of the car, whereas a new car strives to insulate you from the road --- you're not supposed to feel when the tires are on the verge of slipping, or when the brakes are on the verge of locking up, or how much to oversteer because a computer makes all of those decisions for you. Pressing the brake pedal or moving the gear shift selector is merely sending a suggestion to the computer, but the computer decides when to implement that suggestion, so it makes you a mere machine operator rather than a driver.

I don't really care about air bags and crumple zones, although the 4-wheel anti-lock disc brakes are sure nicer than the old hydraulic drum brakes, though I don't find them to be significantly better than the old front disc power brakes available in the early '70s, although that's due to driving style.

Oddly enough, for all the sophistication, gas mileage isn't that much better than it was.

I do think that saying a V-6 is faster than a 440 Challenger is misleading, though. That is definitely not the average 3.0 Liter Vulcan V-6 or the standard 4.0 Liter V-6 in an Explorer. I would believe that a turbo Dodge Caliber SRT-4 or turbo V-6 Ford SHO could be faster than the 440 Challenger off the line and even 0-60, but those are hardly your average Ford Fusion or Taurus V-6's.

So I would agree that from a purely technical standpoint, new cars are "better" in most measurable ways than old cars, but considering intangibles, that may not be the case.