DreRX8

Of course everyone does it--but Ford is the Master--and they do it with such lackluster results.

Gambit

the GT is hot looking, and the new mustang looks good, although I thought it looked kinda cheap when I saw one in person, their problem is that their ordinary cars are really really ordinary and boring

DreRX8

Yeah--I like the Mustang GT and Ford GT--but the Aviator/Explorer/Mountaineer, 500/Montego, Zephyr/Milan/Fusion, Escape/Tribute/Mariner, Navigator/Expedition are all feeble attempts at brand engineering. However the Navigator, and Mariner are decent luxury alternatives to their lower siblings. Financially I can't get past it--just like I refuse to buy a $60,000 Escalade which is basically a Tahoe--and I can still put 24"s and tvs in a Tahoe and get nearly as much attention for $30,000 less. Same with a Navigator/Expedition. GMs that are carbon copied appear to do much better (sales wise) than FoMoCo.

Gambit

I think GM does a better job at making them look different from each other...back in the late 80's early 90's Chevy made two cars Corsica and Beretta, that were identical, except that the beretta was 2 door and the corsica was 4, and they still each sold pretty well.

rx8wannahave

Gosh FORD, you did it again...the show car was MUCH BETTER looking. It looked strong...now, PUNKED...as always!

Steiner

Looks a little like the new Cadillac.

blksf8

who said this last week "everytime we see a crappy looking car, we'll call it a taurus"...fusion/taurus - same thing.

BlueFrenzy

It looks very ordinary to me. Almost as if I saw this car on the streets already. It'll just join the ranks of the taurus', neons, civics, etc. Definitely not a head-turner.

RX8_Buckeye

GM and Ford are no different when it comes to brand engineering these days. Both use the same sheet metal and try to get away with using different fascias, headlights, taillights, plastic body molding, and interiors to distinguish the models. I don't think GM is any better than Ford, though. Anyone who is the least bit interested in cars can see right through this brand engineering. But surprisingly, the less-educated customer really falls for this. Both companies are trying to change their ways, but obviously they have a long way to go. Fusion/Milan/Zephyr was a great opportunity for Ford to bring out 3 distinct models to represent 3 of its brands. Instead, they went with the old approach... I just don't get it.

Nonetheless, I see a significant distinction between the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr and the Mazda6. Personally, I really like the styling of Fusion/Milan/Zephyr. I think it's a step in the right direction for Ford. If the Taurus could sell relatively well with its aged styling, I think the Fusion will do much better. Regarding the powertrain, I agree that a better V-6 should be offered. But remember, when you compare the Honda Accord or Toyota Camry powertrains to the Fusion, keep in mind the difference in pricing. The Fusion will be significantly cheaper than the Japanese sedans. Part of the reason is that the 3.0L Duratec is much cheaper than Honda's fancy V-6, from which they've squeezed every bit of power they could get. Somebody said it earlier: the Duratec V-6 does fine for the Mazda6, so why not the Fusion? Also, Ford is developing a 3.5L V-6 which should be out within a couple of years. Look for this engine to be an option for one or more of these cars.