Wild Ass Rumor Of The Day: Three-Cylinder Ford Fusion For North America

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler
wild ass rumor of the day three cylinder ford fusion for north america

A story making the rounds of various forums is that Ford will introduce a 1.5L version of the Ecoboost three-cylinder in the MY2014 Fusion. Yes, a three-cylinder might be offered in a North American family sedan.

Ford offer’s the Fiesta’s 1.0L triple in European versions of the Fusion (dubbed the Mondeo), while the Chinese Mondeo gets the 1.5L variant. This engine makes 177 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 177 lb-ft from 1,500-4,000 rpm. These numbers are nearly identical to the 1.6L Ecoboost 4-cylinder, but apparently, both engines will be kept around. The 1.5L will be offered with an automatic and stop-start, while the 1.6L will be only available with a stickshift. If the rumors are to be believed. We have put feelers out to our Ford contacts, but haven’t gotten any word back yet. Supposedly, the 1.5L engine will let Ford claim the fuel economy title back from the Nissan Altima and its 38 mpg highway rating.

Join the conversation
4 of 51 comments
  • AFX AFX on Apr 09, 2013

    How about a 3-cylinder aircooled radial Ecoboost engine, has Ford tried that one yet ?. I'm thinking along the lines of an turbocharged Anzani engine mounted to the front bumper of a Fiesta, sorta like the Morgan that Baruth got to ride in. This guy has a "Better Idea" for a Ford: http://www.carscoops.com/2008/01/1929-ford-model-with-250-hp-cosworth.html That is until someone comes along with a Hayabusa engined Model T.

  • Offbeat Oddity Offbeat Oddity on Apr 09, 2013

    Ford could try putting the Fusion on a diet before putting in a three-cylinder engine. Some of their vehicles weigh a couple hundred more pounds than the competition and could stand to be a bit lighter.

  • Joeveto3 Joeveto3 on Apr 09, 2013

    The Fusion's base curb weight is 3600 pounds. Imagine if it were 2900. That's where I get lost in all of this. There was a time, when 5-6 passenger cars weighed less than 3000 pounds. No, they didn't haveairbags pointing at every mm of human flesh, and their structures could not support the weight of a steamship resting in the middle of a framerail, but somehow we survived. As others have pointed out, our societal bloat, mechanical and otherwise is truly to blame. We created this game, we're the players, and we've been played.

  • Niky Niky on Apr 10, 2013

    I don't see any problem with this. I've driven the new Volvo S60 with a turbocharged 1.6 liter four-cylinder, and that drove pretty fine. Much better than the 2.0T in the old car, and actually better than the current 200+ hp 2.0T. In fact, the 2.0T makes enough torque that the traction control and drivetrain ECU have to clamp down torque to where the 1.6 is actually peppier in the first two gears. A 1.5 turbo would be fine as long as it's tuned right. It will probably drink less gas in the city cycle, but might do worse on the highway at your typical American 80 mph cruise...