Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

1248249251253254276

Comments

  • Im not saying its a big deal, it just that a new model with more power should accelerate faster than the older model that is replaces. The current 211hp V6 fusion is more than enough power for me, its just when all the car magazines see those numbers on the 2010, they start to bash the car unnecessarily over minor numbers, just like they did with the current model 221Hp and the average clueless buyer that looks at those magazines all of a sudden thinks a accord or camry is so much faster due to those numbers.

    As for 7.0 with 263HP ford can do better considering its there Sport model for the car.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Whose numbers are you quoting there? Unless they're by the same people, you really can't compare them.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Thegraduate is absolutely right. Different publications will get different results and manufacturer claims will be different as well. Ford's claims have been more conservative lately than the numbers usually recorded by the enthusiast magazines.

    Car & Driver quoted a 6.8 second 0-60 for a 2008 Taurus with the 3.5. The Taurus is heavier than the Fusion and has a much less favorable (for acceleration) gear ratio than the Fusion Sport. Motor Trend quoted 7.2 for the heavier AWD version of the Taurus - again much heavier than the AWD Fusion. Based on those numbers, I would expect a Fusion Sport to be in the mid sixes using the same techniques.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Just stopped by a local Ford/Mercury dealer to take a quick look at the new Fusion and Milan. Ford has been bombarding us with this 34mpg, best in class etc. I checked their website and it states 34mpg HWY for the I-4 auto.

    The window sticker said 31MPG HWY. What's up with that? Also, I think eliminating the round clock from the Milan dash was a mistake. I think it added a classy look.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Only the S model gets 34 mpg. The SE/SELs get 31 mpg.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    why is this a big deal? do you really think anyone going to drag race a fusion?

    As someone who sells cars for a living, I would expect an understanding of selling the sizzle more than the steak. Bench racers everywhere are going to point out 0-60 times, horsepower ratings, etc.

    Can anyone feel 1 tenth of a second or 3 horsepower? Probably not. Are the cars going to be rated with specs?

    Also, why does a Fusion have to be inherently dull? If I wanted a dull sedan I would get a Camry. Ford will lose the race to the bottom. They need to make cars that are engaging to drive. The previous Fusion was a huge step in the right direction...I don't have enough seat time in the new one yet to know if the trend continues.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Tks. Why is that? Is the S model some kind of "mpg special" ie low resistance tires. less weight, ???.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,444
    a while back, i posted some bullet points from ford about how they got the 34 mpg rating.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,444
    do you know if the numbers are for a fwd or awd model?
    i had an 89 sho, it's 'been there, done that', 20 years ago.
    jeez, i'm getting old. :)
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    Whose numbers are you quoting there? Unless they're by the same people, you really can't compare them.

    The 2010 numbers quoted are from Ford themselves, and they are conservative to say the least...

    I agree though. Wait until C&D or MT tests a 2010 for themselves, then compare them to the current car from the SAME source. I can almost guarantee they'll be different (and most likely lower).
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Is the S model some kind of "mpg special" ie low resistance tires. less weight, ???.

    Yes.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    Seeing and reviewing all pictures, details and reviews, on the 2010 Fusion/Milan, I can’t help but share a few thoughts.

    While I am mostly impressed to see what Ford is capable of, having built a nice package, quite nice design (exterior), good ride/handling in addition to AWD, loads of features, good fuel economy (especially in the Hybrid version), plus add to that the good reliability Ford is joining recently, I still have some critic, especially on the interior.

    Why on earth is Ford adding more and more buttons with every redesign? Don’t they see that the button-cluttered interiors are getting bad reviews all over, even the good cars like the Honda Accord? Why do we need 12 separate buttons, plus an additional 12 "soft buttons" on the navigation LCD (=24 buttons) just to control the temperature? Why does it need to be so confusing? What’s bad with the old, tried and true, easy to use, 3 or 4 rotary dials? They can design it that way even for the automatic temperature control and even for dual zone! The Camry is a good example of an easy temperature control layout, but even the Camry has room for improvement (on the automatic temperature versions. The manual controls are perfect). The only so-called benefit is that you can "speak" temperature up/down, but IMO it's not worth it!

    And the stereo/radio controls are not much better either, still confusing. The Camry is a good example for the stereo system as well, and so is Hyundai Sonata. Even the Chevy Malibu is better (without NAV). For everything, it’s always better to use dials rather than buttons, and all the buttons has to be large, and easy to control even in middle of driving (a good example is the Toyota Highlander – giant controls!!).

    And what’s up with that steering wheel? To start off, it’s the largest in any midsize car! This size almost suits for a truck, and reduces the sporty feeling. It rather feels like you’re driving a big truck. All the Japanese steering wheels are much smaller and more comfortable to handle. And then, the Ford/Mercury/Lincoln steering wheel design is so sick and old.... can’t they come up with something fresh? And the integrated controls are confusing as well. They should be more divided and apart, not have so many look-alike buttons together.

    And in general, I think the interior does not look too clean and smooth. I can’t pinpoint exactly what it is, maybe the textures, maybe the colors, ergonomics, might be the control layout (or the fonts? I don’t like them), but either way it needs refinement. The new Taurus will be a bit better (the angled dash helps), the Flex is also better, but still not so elegant, attractive, or inviting, as many of the competitions. Also the gauges, while much better than previous Ford’s, can use some more sophistication.

    Otherwise, I think Ford is on track with the best out there. Keep it on; you’re going in the good direction!!
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    After you've listened to re-runs of Paul Harvey, adjusted the rabbit ears and had your nap, step into the 21st century, or even the mid 90's for that matter. Why don't you actually go to a Ford / Lincoln dealer to experience one for yourself. The new Fusion looks far better in person. My 2010 Fusion hasn't been delivered but I've thoroughly checked one out at my dealership and guess what, each one of the buttons has a specific purpose. With Sync, multi-disk/satellite radio and advanced sound systems, features like heated seats and advanced climate control, BLIS and rear camera an electronic switch is needed for each device. In my opinion the center console of the 2010 Fusion is far superior to Camry's steer horned dash and the Accord's block. Giant controls are a design nightmare. The Fusion's are the correct size for the size and shape of the center console. By the way, of ALL the reviews I've read not one has mentioned the buttons. You also mention the large steering wheel. Sit in one, it's not any larger than any other wheel I've encountered. By the way, a larger steering wheel gives you more control in an emergency and fewer turns from end to end. If new technology and lots of buttons, shiny buttons overwhelm you, I bet there's still a Honda out there with crank windows, AM radio and a sliding temperature control with cold, hot and too hot.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    In 06 when I purchased my Fusion SEL V6 with the 3.0 I questioned the 0-60 times posted at some sites. I saw times ranging in the low 7's to the high 8's. But as one person said.. these are family sedans, not sports cars. When I test drove the 2.5 auto it felt much quicker and responsive than the 2.3. Who is going to tell .4 seconds? can you count to .4 seconds? I honestly believe more people are going to buy the 2.5 in the auto configuration. When test driving and comparing to the 4cyl Accord or Camry the Fusion will go head to head no problem. The Fusion/Milan will win some would be Accord/Camry buyers and that is what Ford is trying to do. Give credit where credit is do. Ford is listening to consumers and delivering a car that finally competes with Toyota/Honda.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    UPDATE to previous post –

    OK, I went yesterday to a Ford dealership to visit the Fusion & Milan in person. I must say it looks much better in person than on pictures. Especially the 3D gauges, which except for the fonts which I don’t like (a matter of taste), I think it’s really nice and upscale. Good job, Ford!

    The steering wheel is also not AS big as it seems from the pictures, even though it’s still a bit bigger than I would prefer. Its design needs a refresh, though.

    The button-happy center stack is nice and feels of higher quality, but some buttons are placed too low and are being blocked by the gear selector. I must repeat, there are too many buttons. Even for the basic low-end cars, the temperature controls are too awkward and needlessly complicated to control. In the higher-end, there is even more buttons. The 4-way directional pad for track/seek scanning is also difficult to use, especially while driving. (See Edmunds review, they also mention the many buttons is not good). Also, the center stack needs to be more angled towards the driver. The 2010 Ford Taurus is much better in this area.

    The seats feels comfortable, and the leather seating feels of high quality, with nice stitching.

    Here are some minor improvements I would love to see in next release:

    - Less button clutter on center stack. I visited the 2010 Toyota Camry prior to the Fusion, and it’s much cleaner. Also the Fusion buttons are too small. They got to be bigger (Cannot understand why you claim it's a design nightmare. Just look at the reviews of the Highlander -- or see it in person)

    - Glove box is smaller than the Camry’s and most other Japanese mid-sized sedans. Also the competitors have illumination in glove box, Ford does not.

    - Illuminated ignition key ring is handy and found in all import sedans.

    - Interior door handles should be bigger. (I love giant ones, like the Chrysler 300). I would also like them illuminated, like on the Chevy Malibu.

    - Sun visor has no extender or secondary visor. And has very small visor mirror, which is not too useful.

    - Signal stalk is placed at a too high position, and controlling it is not as slick and precise as the Toyotas or Hondas. And the signal sound is kind of weird. Gotta get used to it.

    - I did not find a light in the trunk. It was probably only on my test car – I can’t believe there isn’t a light in the trunk.

    - Controls for the message canter has to be on the center stack, not on the left at the headlamps controls.

    - I read in many reviews (also here on Edmunds) that Ford changed the steering (to electric assist) from the previous (hydraulic steering) Fusion, for the worse. It does not have that crisp feel, but it’s numb and light. Except for the Sport model, which remains with the older system. Wrong way to go, Ford. While I understand that the industry is moving towards this direction which is better for the environment and helps fuel economy, (and I also believe that most people will not notice it much), I still think it should not come at the expense of loosing the excellent steering. At least offer a “handling package” which gives you the option of the better steering and better handling. As per Consumer Reports, the current Ford Focus also lost the crisp steering from it’s predecessor. Please, Ford. It’s critical for you to design everything top notch. (The Toyota Corolla got extremely bad reviews since the '09 redesign when they changed to electric steering, although their steering is worse than Ford's).

    But I admit, that the overall Fusion/Milan package is beautiful and it is very competitive with todays best.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    By the way, a larger steering wheel gives you more control in an emergency and fewer turns from end to end.

    Where does this odd theory come from? I can not see how the diameter of the wheel as anything to do with either of those issues.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    I'm not very smart, but it's based on the premise that it takes a 1 inch circumference wheel a full revolution to travel 1 inch versus a 2 inch circumference wheel which would take a half a revolution to travel the same distance. If all things are equal, shouldn't the same apply in the revolution of the steering wheel to turn the tires?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Actually - the larger the wheel the further your hands have to travel to turn it. Bigger steering wheel = slower reaction time.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    In addition the steering ratio is not related to the steering wheel diameter. The large steering wheel in my minivan has to be cranked around a lot more to make a turn than the small diameter wheel in my Mazda6.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    All steering ratios being equal, the bigger wheel requires more motion (movement in inches, ya know) than the smaller one.
Sign In or Register to comment.