Tom_Spangler said:700 pounds??? The difference is less than half that. FuSpo: 4128, Edge Sport: 4437. Granted, that's because the FuSpo is kind of a fat pig for what it is, but still.
Holy smokes!! 4128 pounds! Isn't that around what a Taurus SHO weighs? Why bother with the Fusion at that point?
Knurled. said:Nick Comstock said:Fiesta ST, performance oriented version of a fiesta. Same for the focus and now the edge. This is not like the sticker and tape packages of the seventies and eighties. The performance is there. The numbers back it up.
It's a truck. It has about as much to do with a Fiesta or Focus as a wheelbarrow has to do with a skateboard.
Yes, you might make it fast, but it's still a wheelbarrow.
I know you are opposed to most things that aren't sports cars or Volvo's. But I believe there is a place for performance tuned CUVs and SUVs. Hell I'd like to see performance tuned mini vans. Bring on the hotted up pick up trucks and wagons. I'd love to see an ST version of everything Ford builds. And I still don't believe that would be watering down the ST brand as long as the ST version out performs the base version it's all good.
Knurled. said:Tom_Spangler said:700 pounds??? The difference is less than half that. FuSpo: 4128, Edge Sport: 4437. Granted, that's because the FuSpo is kind of a fat pig for what it is, but still.
Holy smokes!! 4128 pounds! Isn't that around what a Taurus SHO weighs? Why bother with the Fusion at that point?
Yep. And that's a big part of the reason there's a Taurus SHO in my garage. Very similar performance for less money (a year ago when the only FuSpos were new ones).
I am not complaining about this. I applaud this. There are people like me who have a wife that want crossovers because she doesn't want the "minivan soccer mom" image. Even though we all know minivans are super rad. We shopped around and I decided on a Forester XT because A) she loved her base model forester prior to that and B) It came with 250hp/250tq and a similar engine to the WRX. It's an absolute blast to drive despite the horrible seating position and lack of trunk space compared to a CR-V and a Highlander.
Honestly if we weren't in the market for a 3 row crossover/suv/minivan I'd consider this.
I do despise the fact the Fiesta ST is being killed off here. I heard one snap, crackling, and popping today and it made me wonder if I could get a killer deal on one (despite it having an interior designed by someone who really enjoyed late 90s Jelly Bean Ford Taurus interiors).
Nick Comstock said:I know you are opposed to most things that aren't sports cars or Volvo's. But I believe there is a place for performance tuned CUVs and SUVs. Hell I'd like to see performance tuned mini vans. Bring on the hotted up pick up trucks and wagons. I'd love to see an ST version of everything Ford builds. And I still don't believe that would be watering down the ST brand as long as the ST version out performs the base version it's all good.
And they will still be driven by timid failures-at-life who only drive trucks because they are afraid of the world around them.
I don't see the trend of minivans as a problem. I see it as a symptom of the wussification of the populace.
Knurled. said:And they will still be driven by timid failures-at-life who only drive trucks because they are afraid of the world around them.
What a lovely sentiment. And not the least bit judgemental! 
I don't see the trend of minivans as a problem. I see it as a symptom of the wussification of the populace.
I have a minivan i will barely allow passengers into, another one i removed most of the seating from, and i guarantee i spend more time scaring those around me than i spend scared in them.
I can extrapolate a version of your viewpoint that i could agree with but going just off of what you said it's hard to defend. I do feel that there is a way of thinking that puts you in larger and heavier vehicles regardless of the fact that that increases your danger to everyone else on the road. I also think that a LOT of people go through their whole driving careers never striving for improvement and thinking that it's acceptable to feel uncomfortable reversing a car at even walking speed, for example. There's a whole lot wrong with the way a whole lot of people drive and make vehicle choices, but its ok because the ability to drive and eventually to own vehicles will probably go away in my lifetime and that'll fix it all RIGHT up. Hooray!
Now that I think about it... after knurled judgmental narrow minded dick of a post he made without thought
I would rather my kid and wife drive in a suv or truck. If my wife was to get t-boned in her fusion on the driver side she'd be hit directly by the car. The same if my 7 year old son was sitting by the window instead of the middle. Now if the same thing happened while they're in my excursion then the car that t-bones them will most likely hit them under their seating position. Not even impacting their legs directly. Much less their torso like it would in her car. If I had to choose which side of the punch they're on, then....
Thanks kKnurled, I'm now a wussified timid failure-at-life for wanting to increase my family survival in an accident.
In reply to yupididit :
But at the same time, if they get hit by something else as big and tall as an Excursion, it's back to square 1 as far as impact location.
In reply to rslifkin :
You just have to lift it until it's the tallest thing on the road, then it will surely be the safest. Just watch out for low bridges!
In reply to rslifkin :
Youre right, specially here in Texas lol. But, still better odds than her fusion. Either way, I'm eventually replacing her car with an suv or cc pickup. She's 4'11 and basically hugs the steering wheel of cars while suvs she can actually not sit so close to the wheel. I wish there were cuv's that we like other than the Mercedes. GC, Explorer, 4runner, or f150.
Yeah, my S.O. is 4'11 as well and it's surprising how dangerous most airbags start to seem when you are that close to them. Adjustable pedals are the main fix, and like you say are more likely to be found in SUVs it seems.
Weight=safety is only true if there isn't a widespread race to the top of the weight scales because everyone thinks weight is safety. I think one of the major reasons cars have been getting heavier has been because of safety requirements, but i think cars gain weight as a result of designing them to be safer, not that they're safer because they're bigger/heavier. I don't think buying the heavier of two vehicles because you assume it to be safer is a good bet. In general, you're probably better off picking whichever of the two is newer vs what is heavier.
I do think going taller is sort of an advantage because of where you're likely to be hit, but i'm also dubious of the side-impact worthiness of body-on-frame vehicles, especially ones that aren't new. Also, the type of accident you are MOST likely to die in are rollovers iirc, and the type of vehicle you are most likely to roll over in? A tall one.
Everyone having tinted windows also favors taller cars. You can't see through other cars like you could 25 years ago, you have to look around or over them in traffic. Driving a Miata in five lanes of packed 75mph traffic when you can't see more than one car in any direction sucks.
I'm on my phone or I'd be inserting the Ron Burgundy 'well that escalated quickly me'.
Honestly sometimes i think if they we're giving away free Miata's 50% of this forum would complain they didn't come with a turbo kit and the other 50% would complain they didn't come with hard tops.
In reply to Vigo :
Well you know my excursion isn't lifted and never will be. Since your boo is the same height as my wife you've noticed the sitting position difference. I still stand behind my thinking that a taller vehicle that she can sit further away from the wheel is safer for her and gives her added visibility as well. And my choices all being 2015 or newer she will also get all the safety doo-finkles of modern cars.
Her or my son sitting eye level with the millions of ranchhand steel bumpers on all three trucks in Texas do not sit well with me.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
Wrong, 25% of the turbo complains would actually be V8 complaints.
Her or my son sitting eye level with the millions of ranchhand steel bumpers on all three trucks in Texas do not sit well with me.
I have no problem with your Excursion. An excursion on stock wheels/tires probably turns and stops better than a 2018 truck with 37s slapped on, and since i've installed some of those full replacement aftermarket bumpers i know how much weight they add to a vehicle. None of that stuff is good for safety. You've only been in Texas a while and you already know that stuff is EVERYWHERE.
Tom_Spangler said:Knurled. said:And they will still be driven by timid failures-at-life who only drive trucks because they are afraid of the world around them.What a lovely sentiment. And not the least bit judgemental!
I may have been a bit bitter and angry at the world when posting that. This may have been influenced by people driving at walking speed because there was snow in the air.
There is a modicum of truth in my statement, however vitriolic it may have been. It seems like the more timid and meek and afraid of the world a person is, the larger the truck they drive. Bold people don't do that.
One of the boldest people I know bought a C4 Corvette to drive as a winter car so his Miata doesn't get salt on it.
Meanwhile, a local family is grieving because they put their daughter in a cute-ute "for safety" (no snow tires, no driver training) and she slid off the road and ended up dying upside down in a ditch. That is absolutely horrifying. One could make the snap judgement that if they cared about her, then they wouldn't have put her in one of the worst vehicles possible to drive on snow, but that is also wrong. They made a decision based on poor information, that information being that trucks are safe.
Trucks are dangerous as hell not just for the people around them but also for the people driving them. They can't steer and they can't stop. The only way they are "safe" is that they might be larger than whatever poor sap they invariably get crashed into. And that "advantage" is gone when nine out of ten vehicles on the road are trucks.
Knurled. said:
Trucks are dangerous as hell not just for the people around them but also for the people driving them. They can't steer and they can't stop. The only way they are "safe" is that they might be larger than whatever poor sap they invariably get crashed into. And that "advantage" is gone when nine out of ten vehicles on the road are trucks.
I love hyperbole as much as the next person, but why don't we look at some facts before declaring trucks "dangerous as hell". From Car and Driver, the 2017 F150 stops from 70 in 175 ft and a 2017 Edge takes 177 feet, while a 2016 Fiesta takes 173 feet and a 1990 Miata takes 195 feet! I guess if a truck can't stop, then a Miata must not even have brakes!
What about handling? A 2017 F150 hits 0.76g on a 300 ft skidpad, the Edge hits 0.85g, the Fiesta 0.83g and the Miata just 0.82g. The F150 lags a little in turning, but the Edge beats the Fiesta and the Miata! Sure, modern tires on the Miata would change those numbers dramatically, but was driving in 1990 really that terrifying if one of the best sports cars of the era gets beaten by a "dangerous as hell" truck?
I tried to find tests for transient handling like a slalom or emergency lane change but I couldn't find anything. I think the Fiesta would win there simply because it's so much narrower than the trucks, but it would be interesting to see the numbers.
In reply to Schmidlap :
Your numbers are exactly why I consider the most dangerous cars on the road to be older econoboxes on cheap all seasons. They tended to be under-tired size-wise, so newer stuff will typically have more grip. And because the older ones are cheap cars, they tend to get cheap, crappy tires. So they end up with far worse braking performance than most other things that aren't a truck with a trailer behind it or larger.
As far as transient handling, given equivalent tires and an equivalent tire size (contact patch) to weight ratio, the vehicle that's widest relative to its CoG will be the one that can generate the most lateral grip to change directions with (assuming we ignore suspension geometry for this purpose).
I have been driving for quite a few decades and have been T boned once. In an '11 Fiesta. In the drivers door. I didn't receive any injuries and none of the broken glass reached me. Side airbags.
So I don't worry about getting hit in the side. More like getting hit from the rear.
Vigo said:Her or my son sitting eye level with the millions of ranchhand steel bumpers on all three trucks in Texas do not sit well with me.
I have no problem with your Excursion. An excursion on stock wheels/tires probably turns and stops better than a 2018 truck with 37s slapped on, and since i've installed some of those full replacement aftermarket bumpers i know how much weight they add to a vehicle. None of that stuff is good for safety. You've only been in Texas a while and you already know that stuff is EVERYWHERE.
Did you install it by yourself? If so, how!?
In reply to Knurled. :
I understand not liking something. But now you're just making E36 M3 up. At this point all I can do is laugh at your opinions. I support your right you have and express them though. 
And now the rumor is that in 2020 there will be a 400+hp Explorer St
Did you install it by yourself? If so, how!?
Nope! Sure didn't, lol. We would use a lift to hold them up for painting and then installing was a 3 large man job. In my current condition (back is aggravated right now) i wouldn't be a part of it, lol.
You'll need to log in to post.
