“Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. That’s the only way to become what you were meant to be.”
(Originally published September 9th, 2018) Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a lot of things: a statement on how the baby boomers failed to create a safe and stable world for their progeny; an exploration into the value of failure; a deconstruction of the hero’s journey. But above all, the film wrestles with the notion of forsaking old ideas and institutions in order to move forward. This is paramount to the relationship between a dejected Luke Skywalker and Jedi acolyte Rey, who struggle to understand each other amidst a galaxy in crisis. In the film, writer/director Rian Johnson made a clear statement about the creation of art: moving on from established norms is necessary but impossible to accomplish without borrowing elements from the past. The Last Jedi succeeds as the latest entry to the Skywalker saga and a message to Star Wars fans that the franchise will lose its relevancy if it isn’t allowed to change.
The 2006 Ford Fusion also attempted a clean break from what came before. And the story of how Ford created the car is a real world example of exactly what Rian Johnson attempted to explain throughout the film: that the past influences and surrounds us whether we’re aware of it or not.
Like the Jedi before they were wiped out by Darth Sidious, the story of Ford in the late nineties and early 2000’s was one of hubris and failure. Under the stewardship of CEO Jacques Nasser, the company engaged in numerous acquisitions that led to a bloated mess of an organization. The development and subsequent failure of the CDW27 platform (Ford Mondeo/Contour and Mercury Mystique), the DEW architecture (Jaguar S Type, Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird), and the purchase of Volvo were budget-busting boondoggles. And previous cash cows like the Ford Explorer saw its sales drop precipitously as more fuel efficient and refined competitors like the Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot arrived to do battle with the established SUV nameplates.
But it wasn’t all doom and gloom for Dearborn. The F-150 and E Series held steady. Although a bit dated by 2005, the Focus still sold in respectable numbers. And Ford continued to benefit from its relationship with Mazda. With a controlling interest in the Japanese automaker, Ford was able to use their platforms for its small cars and coupes such as the Ford Probe, and ten years later the two companies collaborated on the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute, which also spawned a Mercury variant in 2004.
Under the tutelage of several Americans, including future Ford Motor Company CEO Mark Fields, Mazda underwent a bit of a renaissance in the early 2000’s. It was during this era that the Japanese automaker created its modern sedan lineup. The compact Mazda 3 instantly received praise for its sharp styling and sophisticated road manners. Mazda also introduced the 6, their mid size successor the 626. Like the 3, the 6 immediately won over the automotive intelligentsia for exactly the same reasons as its smaller sibling: it was good looking and it possessed excellent driving dynamics.
By 2002 it was clear the Taurus, once critically acclaimed for its styling and handling just like the new Mazda sedans, needed to be replaced. While the fourth generation sedan offered lots of space for not a lot of coin, the 2002 Toyota Camry surpassed it in refinement and the 2003 Honda Accord beat it in just about every other metric.
It’s understandable why Ford saw the 6 as a valuable foundation for its future sedan. Building an entirely new vehicle architecture requires money. And Ford didn’t have any cash to spare due to its global obligations and inefficient management of its own resources. But in this specific case Ford used its assets wisely. Development costs related to the 1996 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable came in at around three billion dollars. That was a lavish expense compared to the one billion dollars Ford spent to create the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and Lincoln Zephyr. It was also a significant departure from the norm.
Traditionally, Ford’s American mid size sedan platforms were developed, engineered, and sold exclusively within the United States. And for the previous two decades that sedan was the Taurus. The pitiful descent of the bull into rental car fodder easily justified the creation of a new nameplate, but it was still somewhat of a risky move, as any change away from an established nameplate can be.
Was this process radically different from past practices? Yes and no. The Fusion would not use a vehicle architecture from Ford. That was unorthodox. A Japanese company with a steady stream of Americans at the helm was also highly irregular. That was the situation when Mark Fields was appointed CEO of Mazda in 2000. Fields was indirectly responsible for the creation of the “Zoom-Zoom” ad campaign that put the company back on track in America. And its very likely he had a hand in the development of the 6 as well, which in some ways also makes him responsible for the Fusion. Ford’s oversight of Mazda created a Mazda that would later be used as the basis for a Ford. In an extremely roundabout way it was business as usual.
The unconventional approach that characterized the Fusion’s development was a step forward for the company. Unfortunately, it also represented one step back. Throughout the 90’s and 2000’s Ford continually flirted with the idea of streamlining its expansive vehicle lineup only to do an abrupt about face. The C1 platform represented the apotheosis of Ford Motor Company’s power. Ford, Mazda, and Volvo jointly worked on the architecture, which produced vehicles like the 2003 Mazda 3, the 2004 Ford Focus, and the 2004 Volvo S40. All three vehicles retained the identities of their respective companies while raising the bar for the compact and luxury compact segments. The trio were never accused of being badge engineered.
North America never received Europe’s second generation Ford Focus. When CEO William Clay Ford Jr. asked why, Jim Padilla told him the product cycles just didn’t match up. He never pushed back. Beyond that, the Ford Jr. era seemed to only intensify the petty factionalism within Ford. That is probably why the third generation Mondeo was never considered for the American market. This is all covered in American Icon: The Fight To Save Ford Motor Company, where there is also an anecdote about Ford of Europe engineering vehicles in a way that would make them unable to be certified for sale in the United States.
It’s a shame we never got the 2007 Mondeo, as its style perfectly bridged the gap between the fourth generation Taurus and the 2013 Fusion.
Then again, the Fusion offered a clean break from the Taurus, which had retained a lot of the ovoid design principles that made the 1996 model so controversial. The exterior designers who worked on the Fusion were clearly inspired by several models: the 2003 Cadillac CTS, Honda’s 2001 Prelude, and products within the Ford stable like the 427 concept and the first generation Ford Focus (which Ford considered calling the Fusion right before its official reveal in 1998).
The overall design was bold, yet simple and well proportioned. And it set itself apart from its competition, including the Mazda 6.
As for the underlying platform, Ford was able to talk to the Mazda engineers who designed the car. This resulted in 60 percent of the chassis being brand new. The Fusion also gained a 2.1 inch longer wheelbase and grew in total length by 3.4 inches in order to increase rear legroom and trunk space. Ford also softened up its ride and handling to increase overall comfort.
While the folks at Dearborn geared the Fusion more towards a 40 year old parent of two instead of a 25 year old just entering the workforce, the car didn’t really give up any of its handling prowess to the Mazda 6, or any of its competitors. Here’s a choice quote from Motorweek’s John Davis:
“Ride and handling delivered a near perfect balance between sport sedan and family cruiser, with hydraulic engine mounts keeping NVH low. Fusion is far more entertaining to drive than Camry or Accord. The six speed automatic’s reaction was very competent, shifting right in sync with constantly shifting inclines. The four’s five speed manual allowed quick, positive shifts. It felt a lot like the MX-5.”
Motor Trend also praised the Fusion for its nimbleness:
“The big difference between the Fusion and the Accord is that the Fusion behaves as though it enjoys this; to egg its driver on to miscreant behavior. The Accord may perform equally well (probably better in a straight line, thanks to an extra 19 horsepower), but it always seems to go about such tasks with dogged resignation. Its muzzled motor mutters, “Where’s the fire?” while the Fusion’s engine eagerly snarls for more, without shouting down the occupants (it’s tuned quieter than in the Mazda6).”
Ford seemed to understand that the Fusion was going to be well received upon its debut, and planned their ad campaign accordingly. I love how Ford touts the “class exclusive six-speed automatic” in this commercial with an immediate disclaimer that the Mazda 6 was arbitrarily excluded.
Then there’s this ad. Since Mercury had Jill Wagner to extol the virtues of the more conservative Milan, Ford could presumably appeal to a younger demographic with advertising that allowed them to be a lot less subtle. It’s worth exploring exactly what happens here.
A 2006 Ford Fusion owner pulls up to a drive-thru dry cleaners, which apparently is a thing that exists. A late model Mustang GT pulls in behind said Fusion.
Attractive Fusion Owner looks into her rear view mirror…
…and sees Attractive Mustang Owner.
Attractive Fusion Owner feels a stirring in her genitals. She hatches a plan.
Attractive Fusion Owner reveals her plan to the dry cleaner’s employee in two steps:
Step 1: pay for SOME of Attractive Mustang Owner’s bill, which is desperate, but not too desperate.
Step 2: politely ask dry cleaning lady to give her card to Attractive Mustang Owner.
Attractive Dry Cleaning Lady is briefly confused by the request…
…until she sees Attractive Mustang Owner, who now looks exactly like the type of guy who loses control of his Mustang while leaving a car show.
Attractive Dry Cleaning Lady feels a stirring in her genitals, as she would also like to bang Attractive Mustang Owner.
Attractive Fusion Owner, in a seat that is a lot warmer and substantially more lubricated than before, departs the drive-thru dry cleaners while fantasizing about her future encounter with Attractive Mustang Owner.
And that’s it. I’m actually a little surprised Ford didn’t put a disclaimer at the end of this ad denying legal culpability for in-vehicle sexual experiences so explosive they show up on the Carfax. Then again, I’m not a lawyer.
Ford’s ad agency was confident enough to also run some sassy print ads.
And it seems like they really liked the leather seats.
Speaking of the interior, while those seats were no doubt higher quality than the plastic thrones in the 2006 Taurus, the Fusion’s cabin was a bit of a mixed bag, and the sedan’s greatest weakness. The steering wheel, the dash, the door inserts, and other buttons were good quality that were probably on par with the Accord and Camry.
Unfortunately, the gauges paled in comparison to the premium looking backlit setup in the 2003 Accord.
And the Fusion, along with the Milan, suffered from the scourge of green back lighting in general, a practice that was just starting to fade before the debut of the CD3 trio. Ford’s ubiquitous double DIN audio unit didn’t help things either.
The Ford also arrived a bit half baked. A navigation system didn’t arrive until the 2007 model year, along with Sirius Satellite Radio. ABS and full side curtain airbags were late additions to the standard equipment list as well. You could also criticize the first generation Fusion for its “Altezza” style tail lights, but that fad (and pretty much all the cars they were attached to) died out years ago, which ultimately contributes to the Fusion still looking good over ten years after its debut, at least in my opinion.
For all its faults, the Fusion more than made up for them with its brazen design and athletic character. Although it was a minor miracle the 2006 Fusion and its siblings turned out the way they did. After the success of the original Taurus, Ford kept looking at what their mid size could be instead of understanding what it was at that particular moment in time. A certain green colored alien has an explanation for all of this in his conversation with Luke in The Last Jedi:
“Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose.”
“Heeded my words not, did you? Pass on what you have learned. Strength. Mastery. But weakness, folly, failure also. Yes, failure most of all. The greatest teacher, failure is. Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters.”
What is the true burden of all automakers? Progressively making each successive generation of a vehicle a bit better than before without screwing it all up (probably). When redesigning the Taurus for the 1996 model year, Ford looked to the stars, and the end result was failure. Ten years later the company correctly ascertained what they needed and wanted from a mid size sedan without getting over indulgent. And their reasonable approach produced an extremely competent car.
The Fusion truly was a combination of the old and new Ford. Ford’s immense empire finally got a bit more rationalized when the company decided to use its assets from Mazda and Volvo to create the vehicles it needed. Its legacy is slightly diminished by the Blue Oval’s inability to completely integrate all of its mid size sedans onto one single platform, an issue that was solved with Alan Mulally and the One Ford initiative some years later.
More specifically, Ford’s Fusion was a mix between the good and the bad that typically came out of Dearborn. With its fresh styling and European inspired driving dynamics, the Fusion picked up the torch lit by the 1986 Taurus. And it also followed in the path of its storied predecessor with all the baggage related to the Mercury Milan and Lincoln MKZ. Those vehicles likely stole development resources away from the Ford, a result that left the car with an interior that was less than ideal.
With significant critical praise, the Fusion revived Ford’s reputation in the mid size segment. But like The Last Jedi, it was never going be as game changing as the 1986 Taurus. Luke Skywalker didn’t take down all the bad guys himself like so many misguided fans wanted him to. And Star Wars might never recapture the magic that made the original trilogy so incredible. Completely vanquishing the Japanese was impossible in such a mature segment. And thats okay. On the merits, they’re both great products. Nostalgia can only go so far. Sometimes old things need to die. Rian Johnson and Ford did just that, while preserving the best of what we’re familiar with, be it a car or space fantasy.
Related Reading:
COAL: 2006 Ford Fusion SE – My Stainless Steel Maytag by Magnum SRT8 Brian
Future Curbside Classic: 2010 Mercury Milan – “I’m Not Stupid, I Speak Italian.” by Brendan Saur
In case some of you don’t know, there’s also a European Fusion and it looks like this:
https://parkers-images.bauersecure.com/pagefiles/197048/cut-out/600×400/fusion.jpg
Yes, I friend of mine here in the UK has had one of those for quite a few years now. A very useful ‘box-on-wheels’; Fiesta based, I believe.
IIRC Ford intended to call the car discussed in the main article the Futura, but pressed the Fusion nameplate into service in North America at the last minute when they discovered their trademark had lapsed and Pep Boys held it for a line of private-label tires.
You are absolutely correct on that. Was to be called the Futura. I remember reading that in several articles when the car came out.
Yes, Fiesta-based. It should be right up Paul’s alley.
These always looked like impressive cars, though I never got the chance to drive one. Nice, clean styling.
As for that commercial, I like to believe the Mustang driver is thinking: “I wish that young lady would stop networking and finish up; my husband and I are making homemade pizza and watching the game tonight. Like the Fusion, though.”
My brother, at my father’s gentle insistence, was driving lightly used Malibus in the early 2000s when he wrecked his second one, a 2004 model. Wanting to break away from my father’s influence, my brother scanned the classifieds until he found what was probably THE car he needed: a Fusion SEL V6 AWD, though unlike the cars pictured his was white.
For a daily commute over winding 2 lane roads that in the winter were many times snow covered, that Fusion performed flawlessly. Unfortunately, my brother can be quite hard on a car so it is now in need of replacement and it will probably be replaced with an Escape to get the AWD needed for winter driving in rural Pennsylvania.
I came close a few times to purchasing a Fusion or Milan, leaning more towards the Mercury, but could never quite convince myself that I needed/wanted that big of a car. I felt a Focus, particularly a hatchback model, was closer to what I was looking for.
BTW, for those that might be interested: Europe’s version of the Fusion is available with a turbo diesel engine AND a manual transmission as well as the station wagon body style. And yes, you can combine all 3 in one car.
When this car came out, I thought that it was good and competent, but its sparse trim and Altezza taillights just made it seem a little unfinished. I liked the Zephyr/MKZ quite a lot, though it’s more Versailles than ’61 Continental. I also soon realized that (Mustang and GT excluded) Ford was getting all of its new US passenger vehicle platforms from Mazda or Volvo, and I felt like that was a desperate sign. While they didn’t declare bankruptcy like GM and Chrysler did, Ford was deep in the doo doo pile. 12 years later, they’re basically leaving cars behind entirely, but farming out mainstream platforms is like they were doing that already.
I was impressed by a rental Fusion I had in California, compared to the Taurii(?) I had owned. Therefore I traded in my ? and bought a 2012-IIRC- Fusion 4 banger. Yes it was uhh…”competent”, but being my everyday car; well I just was not really satisfied.
After a several months I “ate my lunch”, traded it for a new 2013 Accord LX, the base line Accord. That car I was satisfied with. Of course, when the new 2018 Accord came out, a “Sport” version with 1.5L turbo was purchased: much better yet!! 🙂
Fusion…what Fusion? Although, at least it was a optional red metallic, not the BORING Silver of my Accord. 🙁 DFO
Great write-up! These cars were and still are so ubiquitous, I think that I often forget they exist. I don’t have much personal experience with the Fusion, but I know plenty of people who’ve had or have them, and they’ve generally been good experiences.
While they had their weaknesses, which you’ve outlined (mainly some aspects of their interiors), the Fusion was a big leap forward from North American Ford sedans that preceded it. I’d arguably call it the most competitive midsize sedan effort from the Big Three during the 2000s, with the ’08 Malibu and ’06 Saturn Aura close behind.
I had one of these. Loaded AWD. Great car, eerily excellent in snow. Punched above it’s weight. Traded it for a E-class. Biggest automotive mistake I’ve made. Shoulda kept the Fusion!
What a great write up! Great job!
It made me think that Ford is not giving up selling sedans in the North American market as much as it is discontinuing selling other companies platforms in the North American Market. If the sedans are all based on architecture developed or co-developed by Mazda and Volvo, then they are not, in the heart of the board and CEO, really Ford products. Since they are not selling well, and there are not billions on hand to develop new ones, why bother? They do sell sedans in Europe, so develop and build them over there. If North America needs them, they can import them (or the tooling) and sell here, should the market dictate.
Maybe, just maybe, they are killing their past to move forward.Or maybe they are just committing suicide. Only time will tell.
I enjoyed your article very much. I came very close to buying a new Fusion in 2007. But in my price range it would have been a 4 cylinder. The one I test drove was black and sharp looking. Looked like money. But it had ill-fitting turbine-style hubcaps and I was surprised at how peppy it was not. Buzzy engine and always hunting for the right gear. Seats were hard too. I ended up buying a 2 year old Taurus with almost no miles on it for about half the money. It was just more car all around and even with the vulcan it was much torquier. I’m sure the higher-end Fusions were better but the entry-level was blah.
It was amazing how gutless the 2.3/5A in the first-gen Fusion felt, compared to the not-much-more-powerful 3.0/6A in the same car. It was night and day. I hated driving the 4-cyl. Never in the right gear. Second-worst paired drivetrain I have experienced, behind the 2.4/automatic in the 2nd-gen Saturn Vue. I think it was a 5 or 6 speed.
The refreshed 2010+ 2.5 automatic Fusion was plenty powerful and was a huge improvement.
These cars are generally super reliable, with a handful being total junk, in my experience. We had a few (yes, several) ’08-10ish Fords toast trasmissions at sub-5k miles when I worked in rental cars. It ran the gamut: Fusions, Milans, Escapes, Taurus Xs, Sables, and Taurus sedans. Since I have worked in auto service (5 yrs now), it seems the Fusion/Milan/MKZephyrs left are incredibly reliable, aside from some subframe rust issues and the Lincoln and Mercury LED tail light woes (some have been recalled and fixed for free, others separated by just a few months build dates with identical issues are owner’s responsibility). And those tail lights are EXPENSIVE.
I guess the 20% of crap ones failed out years ago. These are hitting junkyards at an alarming pace now, though. Along with a shocking number of current Ford sedans.
An excellent piece on a significant car. I have two thoughts. First, the Ford-Mazda-Volvo tie-up got us this, one of the all-around best Fords to come down the pike in a long time. Contrast this with the Chrysler-Mitsubishi-Mercedes grouping that brought us the 2007 Sebring – a steaming pile of a car that was neither appealing in showrooms nor durable in use.
Second, I had almost zero exposure with these but always found the styling on the first few years of them almost perfect. My one ride was in a Milan that was a few years old where I was a little disappointed in the finishes and in the “feel” of the car. Perhaps the great looks of the car convinced me that it had a subjective quality feel higher than it did. But these have proved themselves as pretty durable in service.
In that curious split personality of Good Ford and Bad Ford, this was definitely Good Ford.
I always question those that deride the Sebring. Especially when the 2010 model I’ve owned and driven has given me 160K trouble-free miles and still looks good and drives great. Contrast that with my brother who is looking to get rid of his Milan with less miles and more issues. Say what you want, but the 2.4L World Gas Engine is bulletproof. And properly maintained, the oft derided Chrysler tranny also works great. I won’t question its lack of showroom appeal, but my “steaming pile” will likely outlast this Ford design. Time to give the trash talk of the Sebring a rest until you know what you’re talking about.
Your car contrasts with a friend’s Dodge Avenger that was nothing but a rolling series of electrical and mechanical failures. The 2.4 does seem to be a good engine (if you like big 4s, which I generally don’t). But the 2.7 V6 was still used in these. The rating sites I have seen these on rank them much worse than average in reliability. I am happy that you have been satisfied with yours but I won’t be joining you in that ownership pool.
That Mondeo you missed out on isnt a bad drive, better than the Japanese Mazda6, Ive had a play in both, the Mondeo had the Peugeot/Ford diesel but the Mazda only came here in petrol the next Mondeo had the dual clutch auto shift box a friend has one in diesel reckons its ok,
Family member owned a 2004 Mazda 6, 4 cyl 4 speed auto. It was surprisingly quick for what it was, and still ran well at 175k miles. It had Takata air bags, I took it to the dealer and had the recalled inflator cannisters replaced. It did use a fair bit of oil and didn’t get all that great MPG, around 20 around town. I thought it drove and rode well.
A few weeks after the recall, a 16 year old girl in a SUV turned left in front of the Mazda, both cars were totaled and air bags deployed. No injuries. If she still has the after accident photo on her phone I’ll post it, it was a hard hit. Only had the car about a year.
I feel like an old man about to yell at a cloud, but here goes…
I can’t stand the Fusion.
My father and I were looking at trucks to use as a travel vehicle for his job at the railroad. I found a mid level Fusion and sat down inside. I just wanted to see what a modern American sedan felt like. The instant my butt hit cloth, I felt something was wrong. Oh, the seating was nice, and the buttons were laid out well, and the plastics didn’t feel terrible… ect, ect, ect… It was at that moment I realized that there was no real difference between an American designed car, and the Honda across the street, or the Kia next door.
It’s been this way for many years now, but brands really don’t matter anymore. Any car you get from any brand is going to be basically fine. Every car sold nowadays is a world car. Instead of their being highs and lows of any car by a certain make, there’s is now only a dull drone of sameness, like the hum of an AC unit.
For example, in the 1970’s there was a world of difference between an Aspen and a Civic. Both were small cars. However, one was clearly an American car and the other Japanese. They felt different. Drove different. Were different. Both had good and bad things about them.
Now… I feel like it hardly matters. No matter what car you want, pick anything in that class and it will be nearly identical to the car next to it offered by someone else. It’s brand loyalty at this point. Yes, my old Gran Fury is a pain in the neck to work on. It’s a handful in the rain, and it’s styling is forty years out of date. No matter what’s wrong with it, it’s still a Chrysler. It drives like one, looks like one, and often breaks down like one. Despite all of that, you could never accuse it of being anything else.
Welcome to the club, lol! You are a grumpy old man before your time…
You are correct, there are no appreciable differences in design or manufacture of cars any longer. That is both good and bad. Good, in that everyone produces a fairly good product at a reasonable price. Bad, in that they are all really appliances after all. It really is just a matter of perspective. If you want to experience the differences, you have to do it via old cars. If you want generic ease of use and reliability, then a new car fits the bill.
A calligrapher appreciates a good pen. Someone signing a check could care less.
I’ll yell at the cloud with you.
The automotive industry went from clever marketing, tapping into previously unknown segments, trying new technologies and tapping into the public’s imagination with frequent styling changes reflecting the moods of the times to compete with rival companies, to what now can be best described as a war of attrition.
I truly feel there would be zero outcry by anyone but a few insignificant car enthusiasts if there were only one or two car companies left, and I think that scenario is becoming more inevitable every year.
+10 for the slut shaming!
Care to elaborate? How am I slut shaming? I’m not criticizing the woman for wanting to have sex with the man. I’m just making fun of the ad for not being very subtle about it.
I was kidding, I laughed out loud as I read your play by play.
Ah, okay. I was confused by your comment. Glad you liked it.
Motorweek video of 2006 Mazdaspeed 6, 2.3 4 cyl turbo, 6 speed MT, AWD
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D3srrc-ZsCP8&ved=2ahUKEwiKyM_T77XdAhUkJTQIHQ98B304ChC3AjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0xU9WN1tEcsad9111YMyPy
Excellent article and very apt analogy!
The Mazda (and Volvo) based period of Ford sedans was not something I was particularly easy about. What went through my head at the time was that if Ford can only build vehicles they know how to build (trucks and Mustang), then just stop padding the lineup with copied homework and just let your subsidiary companies handle that market. Ironically that dismal thought came to fruition with Hackett’s “No Ford” plan this year…. only they don’t have those subsidiaries anymore. Fusion may have been a fitting name but it starting with a letter F was likely more important to marketers than any deeper meaning relating to Ford/Mazda origins, which was a happy coincidence.
I also remember the 427 concept on the auto show circuit, conceptually it seemed almost exactly like the Chrysler 300C that went into production a year later, the same year Ford released the milquetoast Five Hundred in the full size segment the 427 presumably could have occupied. When the Fusion came out after the 427 was a distant memory, the nice looking front end was instantly recognizable, but the body and proportions were understandable mundane by comparison, the rear end was most disappointing with its clumpy triangular taillamps seemingly every mid-2000s car sporouted(let alone the Altezza treatment), the current gen Chrysler 300 actually looks near identical to the 427 in back now, and if that carried over to the original Fusion it would have been quite a bit better. My experience with it was with my Dad, as he looked deeply at a first gen Zephyr for a while, which was less attractive externally but the interior was much better he let me take the wheel during the test drive for a few blocks away from the dealership(I may have actually been on a learners permit at the time) but it didn’t really drive any better than the 99 Maxima SE he was looking to trade in.
I didn’t like The Last Jedi, I got the messages instantly viewing it. I found that not so subtle plea to the audience particularly rich, as my instant response is “let the past die??? Kill it? Hello? Hollywood? Then stop regurgitating old franchises like Star Wars and come up with something new!”. I almost intreprit the dialogue in the Last Jedi as frustration from the writers in that they have to waste their talents on another stupid Star Wars movie, and are irritated by the fact that’s all modern audiences are willing to pay for in huge numbers. Ford and many other mature companies are surely the same way, with many people with lots of modern day talent in various aspects of the business wasted on legacy, bean counting and catering to established market “demands”. I’m no Tesla(or Elon Musk) fan, but that car is 1977 Star Wars, untethered by the burden of continuing the past and effectively creating its own market niche. Last time Ford could claim that was 50+ years ago.
You do remember that the “let the past die” mantra was espoused by the antagonist, yes? Rey rejects this concept and refuses to let the past die entirely when she takes the texts with her instead of leaving them in the tree. The only credited writer on the film was director Rian Johnson, and it was his first (but certainly not last) Star Wars film. And just because the original 1977 film was irreplicable “lightning in a bottle” doesn’t mean all potential has been exhausted. If anything, the sequel trilogy, spinoffs, and other related materials have proven that there’s plenty of interesting and novel directions to take the SW universe.
Bingo. And its exactly what Rian Johnson has since elaborated on:
“It’s not ultimately where I come down in terms of the idealogical argument that I believe in,” Johnson said. “For me, I always think that if you’re cutting off the past, you’re fooling yourself and you’re just burying it somewhere where it’s always going to come back. And the only way forward is where Rey actually lands, which is to build on the past.”
https://comicbook.com/starwars/2018/01/16/star-wars-the-last-jedi-let-the-past-die-rian-johnson/
Nice article. I liked the Fusion when it debuted – particularly the styling of the front. Park one next to a contemporary Cadillac CTS, and the Ford looks like a more coherent design, and even better-finished.
This car helped lead Ford’s turnaround – it was the one domestic that was a credible alternative to the Camry and Accord of that era. The Focus of those years was decent, too. It didn’t have the refinement of a contemporary Civic, but it was reliable. We had a 2005 SE sedan that ran and ran without much attention. We traded it for an Escape in 2016 with over 235,000 miles on the odometer.
Apparently Ford will keep the Fusion name in the U.S., even as it ditches conventional sedans over the next few years. The name had built up some equity, judging by dealer complaints over the prospect of losing it completely.
“This car helped lead Ford’s turnaround – it was the one domestic that was a credible alternative to the Camry and Accord of that era.”
Right. The Malibu didn’t come into its own until the 2008 redesign, and subsequent generations have made critical mistakes (2013-2015) or merely not been impressive relative to the competition (2016-). And Chrysler has made a competitive midsizer exactly never. The recent 200 was close, but had a few major shortcomings.
The Fusion got relatively good reviews at the time, while the Edge, which debuted in the same time frame, received more lukewarm reviews.
The Fusion was viewed as an essential part of the Ford line-up – every car maker needed a competent mid-size family sedan in the line-up to be taken seriously – while the Edge was viewed as somewhat of a side show.
Now the Fusion sedan is going away, while the Edge is scheduled to receive another thorough update in 2-3 years.
Great writeup! My Fusion was the best car I ever owned – I had a 2006 for 9 years until my son totaled it by ramming a tree. The picture has the guilty but uninjured 16 year old and police officer cropped out. My brother owned a Mazda 6 V6 5 speed and my mom had a Lincoln MKZ at the same time, so I got a chance to compare all 3 cousin vehicles side by side. The Mazda was definitely the sports car of the group, a blast to drive but a bit hard edged. The Lincoln felt heavy and ponderous, with that ’60’s Continental style dash making the whole interior claustrophobic. My Fusion, as Motorweek said, was just right, a perfect blend of eager corner carving and long distance cruising comfort, although with a 4 cyl and auto it was just slightly underpowered. But it made up for that with amazing reliability, over 118,000 miles without a single major problem. I’ve never had a car that did everything you asked of it so well, and dressed in black with chrome accents, looked so good doing it. I sure miss my old Fusion, thanks for the memories.
Yeah, my best friend, when I met him, had two of these cars side-by-side. He drove a 2010 Fusion SEL (with the 4-cylinder), while his partner drove a 2012 MKZ Hybrid. Never mind the differences between the hybrid and the regular drivetrain; the Lincoln managed to feel much more cramped because all of the interior padding robbed space.
This is brilliant. I remember being enamored with these when they came out. I remember being even more impressed with the 2010 facelift version, which managed to win MT’s COTY award.
Someone should do a write-up on the D3/D4 platform, which was a modified version of Volvo’s P2 platform. Having owned a D3 car, in the form of a 2014 Lincoln MKS, I would love to know why Ford chose such odd measurements. Those cars are *biiiiig.* And mine seemed to have three feet of front overhang. I named mine C.O.W., for Couch on Wheels, which was both a commentary on how it drove, and a playful insult to its Bessie-the-Cow proportions.
I’m definitely going to do something regarding the D3/D4 at some point in the future. It might be an automotive history that talks about how the CD3 and D3/4 got Ford through some hard times. Stay tuned.
Wow, you’re not kidding… Wikipedia says the D3 wheelbase is only 2” less than a Crown Vic!
I should write something up. My folks have a 2009 Taurus and I had a 2008 SEL.
My folks bought theirs new. They had gone to Apple Ford to buy a Grand Marquis but my dad found the GM to be cramped.(he is 5 ft 11 in tall and weights about 200lbs) They tried the Taurus and compared to the Grand Marquis the Taurus was more roomy inside and bought it.
The car is smaller externally then the Vic/GM but interior room wise, the Taurus is bigger and the inside space better designed/managed. The car was more powerful (had 263hp compared to the GM’s 224hp) got better gas MPG then the GM while using a smaller engine.
It was a surprise to discover that the 2009 Taurus felt like it had more room then the Grand Marquis. Later when talking to a lot of Ford techs and other higher up dealership folks and then my friend who is a whole sale car seller, it is not that the 2009 Taurus had more room then the GM, it was simply that the Panther cars had a piss poor interior room design. I am 6ft 1in tall and weigh about 250lbs and yet I always felt cramped in panther cars. Driving one always brings to mind a clown car in a circus.(what the hell is up with that foot rest size anyway)
The Taurus 3.5l engine was not always roses though. It has a very stupid design flaw. It has a timing chain driven waterpump. However unlike Honda and Ford’s own Escort which has timing belt driven pumps and can be replaced with the engine still in the the car. On the 3.5l V6 you have to remove the #%$# engine from the car to do so. The waterpump is a wear item
Also a lot of Ford products with this engine went to the junk yard because the owners did not know the water pump took a big shit until it was too late. The weep hole is buried in the front of the engine where the coolant can both seep into the oil pan and also not leave any drops on the street. So the owner can have no clue something is amiss until it is too late. In my folks case, I only found the bad water pump by accident. I used it during one of the coldest days last winter and about 50 mins into the trip I was at a stop light and the fans came on at high speed. As nothing that would turn the fans on intentionally (A/C or defrost) was on, I suspected a cooling issue and took it back home to find out the coolant reservoir was empty
After looking on the net for answers I came across the water pump issue and how to spot the weep hole. Well $3000.00 later the car is running happy again
Ford’s Water Pump of Death…
Correct. The Duratec 3.5 and 3.7 liter engines have internal water pumps on the transverse versions. It was something I worried about with mine.
Note that the longitude versions, such as the one used in the Mustang, do not have that design flaw.
Wow, that is a bizarre mistake by Ford, and also curious that the rwd version is different!
I have no experience with these, but they seem like one of the better American sedans in recent memory.
I never drove one, but I always thought the first generation Fusion to be a pretty sharp looking car. There’s a few things I could do without like the Altezza taillights (which are not as obnoxious as the Mazda ones, at least) and the ubiquitous mid-2000’s silver plastic on the dash, but overall it’s a coherent, cleanly-styled car. I have yet to warm up to the current generation where it just got whacked with the ugly stick.
Incidentally, my neighbor who has had one of the original Fusions since I moved into the neighborhood in 2008 just traded it in on a new Honda CRV. A sign of the times, I guess.
Good read. My wife and I owned 3 of these all together, 2 Fusions, 1 Zephyr. All 6 cylinders. Loved them all, and wish I hadn’t turned in the loaded 2012 SEL lease with the appearance package. Miss that car to this day. Only real complaint was the ridiculous wide turning circle in the Zephyr. Tough to park sometimes.
Thank you, Edward for a detailed write up and for sharing those new to me commercials. I remember seeing it at the auto show in Toronto, loved how good SEL V6 looked with chrome accents, dual exhaust and nice 17″ rims.
I drive a “fancy Fusion” or a “Fusion in a tux” – ’11 Lincoln MkZephyr Hybrid.
Here’s my favorite commercial of a Fusion:
Lincoln Hybrid didn’t have an outdated instrument cluster. The wood was real, so were metals (aluminum and chrome). And it had a Bridge of Weir Scottish leather.
That’s the refreshed version, which coincides with the refreshed Fusion. Both were 2010-2012. The hybrid Fusion also had that instrument cluster. Prior to that, there was never a hybrid version of either sedan.
+1
The original Zephyr dash was more retro and Navigator like
I don’t remember seeing that Fusion commercial, but Jesus, that’s the best critical review of a car commercial, or any commercial, EVER! Just about fell off my couch laughing. You could do this for a living, Ed. Bravo!
Owned two of these, a 2006 S 4cyl 5spd, and 2009 SE AWD for combined 9 years. Each drove completely different from one another. The 4cyl was 500 lbs lighter and had a really short final drive that kept the engine RPMs near 3k at highway speeds. Drove and handled light and tossable, almost Honda-like. Traded it in for an AWD after relocating to a snowier region of the country. The AWD was an absolute beast in the snow even on all seasons (and a lot of fun with no stability control) and much more comfortable highway cruiser. Fuel mileage wasn’t the greatest, and it had its share of annoying fit and finish issues, unfortunately. Both were very good cars, attractively styled and mechanically stout.
I remain very excited when any manufacturer utilitlizes the resources at hand to make a better or even superior product. I felt this was a wise move by Ford that paid off handsomely without having to start from scratch. I also love the Flex.
The current Fusion IMO is still after 5+ years a beautiful design. The 1st gen Fusion was a great driver (especially in V6 AWD form), but the Altezza lights were a huge style mistake.
Great write up!
That’s the funniest article I’ve ever seen at CC. The advertising play-by-play made me lol at the breakfast table so much my wife insisted on reading the joke. (Normally we share such things).
I had to pretend I lost the web page before she could see. Some jokes don’t have universal appeal. Well done!
I’m curious just what Attractive Fusion Owner does for a living that requires she keep her business cards handy enough to fetch in about one second…
Seemed these were just right. Well-styled, well-built and well-marketed, although it seems Ford can’t hold onto a slogan for long, can they?
And the 2013 reboot was a home run. Still looks sharp to my eyes. At least in this segment, FoMoCo can say they went out on top.
I drove a few of the first generation Fusions as rentals and I really liked them. I’d had a few Tauruses as rentals, and driven my mother-in-law’s ‘99 Taurus a few times, but the Fusion was a much better car, and one I would have seriously considered buying if I was in the market.
I always liked the look of the first generation Fusion. I liked the front grille / headlight design of the 2010 refresh better than the original, but the taillights on the 2010 refresh were uglier than the original Altezza ones.
My problem with the Fusion, including the current generation, is that the steering wheel is not perfectly centered with the drivers seat.. it’s positioned off to the right a bit, which causes your left shoulder and arm to feel unnatural as you are driving.
I never owned one of these cars, but has them as rentals many times. After awhile, I switched rental car companies just to avoid getting one.
Anyone else notice this, or know why they were designed like this?
My husband had a 2012 and currently has a 2017 that I just today drove for two hours on our trip home. I’ve not seen this.
The only thing The Last Jedi succeeded at was…being a bad movie. It’s every bit as bad as the prequels.
Please, let us not labor the comparison between the first Fusion, which was a very good car that did a whole lot of things right, and “The Last Jedi,” which was an absolute trash movie that will be marked as the beginning of the end of the Star Wars franchise when the histories are written.
As for the Fusion, I was working in Ford World Headquarters when they started showing these around inside. The first time I saw it sitting in the lobby (Ford typically has several examples of the latest and greatest product sitting in the lobby of WHQ, often that people can get into and mess with), I said it’s about f—–g time! There was a car that broke the stodginess and bland J Mays generistyling that was suffocating the company in its sleep. The altezza lights were already a couple years out of date, but to me absolutely forgivable given that it was an audacious choice for that company at that point in time.
Some friends have one, a 2008 example with the 4-banger in it. It’s not only not given them an ounce of trouble-it’s been so good they just bought a new Explorer for her. He’s now driving the Fusion 90 minutes one way for work a couple times per week (he’s a pilot). The interior’s held up to two kids and a yellow lab.
I was, and remain, absolutely delighted that Ford was rightly rewarded for taking a risk with the Fusion.
Me and Mrs. M bought a 2010 Fusion SEL one year ago to replace the 03 530i that was beginning to cost us money. Its her main transportation and with the 4 cylinder engine, more than adequate as a daily commuter. I’ve always liked the Fusion and liked the second generation car even more. Which is why it was on my list of cars to replace the
5-Series.
Our Fusion sips fuel, is very comfortable on long highway trips and is well put together for an early build car (July, 2009).
I hate the Fusion. It’s inferior to the Taurus in my opinion. It also has everything I dislike about modern sedans. Only one body style option, no other seating options beyond the bucket seat and the fake stickshift automatic.
Owned a 2010 Fusion Sport 3.5L V6. Loved that car, real fun to drive and I had a set of winter tires, 16″ and narrower than stock. The standard 18’s on the Sport were really grippy. Sure glad water pump didn’t crap out. The Sport was a bit of an oddball, it had hyd power steering where all others were electric and the six speed trans was not the same as the other units either. Replaced it with a 2015 Cadillac ATS4 2L Turbo. I looked at the Lincoln MKZ? when I purchased the Caddy but I felt like it was just a tarted up Fusion, would rather have the fusion. Oh, and when I wanted to road test the Lincoln the battery was dead. Liked Cadillacs AWD setup better than Fords system. Cadillacs is based on rear wheel drive with transfercase rather than a frontwheel drive based AWD system. Fords maybe more efficient but having the motor sitting in a normal direction rather than sidways etc , yea the Caddy is not a practical or efficient but who cares, its fun to drive!