Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan



  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'd be willing to bet the implication is that it produces more engine wear than it is worth, not that it'd "blow up" after a few minutes.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Direct quote:

    Ya right. So since my car can to 6000rpms in second gear and if I leave tranny in 2nd gear it will stay at that speed till the engine blows
  • newowner10newowner10 Posts: 227
    It must be a real steep hill for the engine to stay at 6000 rpm for more than a few seconds if you are not pressing the accelerator.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Eh, sarcasm doesn't always translate across text messages. Perhaps that was the case here. I'm agree with ya kirb, just trying to make sense of it.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Not sure why you're replying to me, but I'd agree. Anything over about 3,500 RPM should reign in the speed pretty quickly.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    What's a PCM?
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    I looked it up on the Internet: PCM = Powertrain Control Module
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    It's the computer Boz. It controls the shifting of the transmission and it won't downshift if the RPM is too high.
  • savethelandsavetheland Posts: 671
    Using engine breaking is recommended for driving on slippery roads, like driving on the snow. You do not want to use brakes esp on turns. I actually do not like that cars with automatic transmission do not tend to brake with engine. It make difficult to control car. Braking by engine does not mean it jumps to 6000 rpms. It slows car gradually if you do not press accelerator and then switches the gears at appropriate moment. You have to sync engine rpms with speed before changing gears otherwise you will damage transmission. That is when you can use brakes. I hope Ford engineers are not stupid and know all this facts. So do not worry too much.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    edited July 2010
    Given the sales success and excellent frequency of repair record that Ford has established over the past 5 years or so, wouldn't it be time for the company to consider raising its warranty period from the standard 3/36,000 to at least 4/48,000?
    It would distinguish them from the other domestics and support the franchise dealers who do all the warranty repair for the most part. The Koreans offer 5/60,000 for similarly priced vehicles. BMW has gone to 4/48,000 but for the price they ask they can afford to. Cars are so much more reliable now, isn't it time to reconsider the dated 3/36,000 standard. It would be another reason to choose Ford over GM, Chrysler, etc. As a Ford owner for the past 20 years I have had no major warranty repairs, which, I expect, is typical. I think there are a number of people who are going with the new Hyundai Sonata, for example, rather than the Fusion/Milan I-4 based on the longer warranty. There may be other features that entice with the new Sonata the 200hp or the sheet metal but when you drive both you realize that the Koreans haven't figured out the suspension challenges.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The opposite situation would be more likely, I think...a company with a poor reliability record offering a long warranty, that is what Hyundai did. Right now, I'd think Toyota would be more likely than Ford to feel a longer warranty could help them sell more cars. I think GM would be a better candidate to do this than Ford. If either of those companies did it then Ford might feel they had to match them.

    The only recent changes for full warranties that I am aware of have been the other direction, both Mazda and VW went to 3/36 (they formerly had 4/48).
  • frida2frida2 Posts: 1
    I drove a Honda Civic for 8 years and adored it until I totalled it in March. Never thought I'd buy a Ford, but I must admit I love my 08 Fusion SEL V6 more than my Honda. I have 50,000 miles on it. I get amazing mileage on long distance trips and one of my favorite features is the SYNC system. My only complaint is a noise my mechanic can't figure out that occurs when I hit bumps. Thinks it's the suspension but can't find a problem unless I start spending money and replacing parts to track it down. Would buy another one in a heartbeat. :)
  • xmechxmech Posts: 90
    I guess you've looked into the cracked subframe issue? I think there was a TSB or something out about that.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    edited August 2010
    Many find the inclination of the new headrests difficult to adjust to. Some have even decided against a ford product based on this issue. One solution (which, it must be stressed, obviates the protective function of the original headrests) is to pinch the two retaining caps at the seat top, remove the headrest altogether and then put it back into the same holes but in reversed direction. This tilts it way back and out of the way. Incidentally it greatly improves rear visibility (if, like me, you are the type who actually looks through the rear window when backing). Try it. You may like it. The downside? If you are in a rapid decceleration head-on accident and you survive the forward pitch into the air bag, you may snap your head off on the rebound. I don't remember seeing that many loose heads on the road in years ago when older cars did not offer such "protective" headrests. Like most solutions there are tradeoffs.
  • desgnrdesgnr Posts: 19
    What i do is Tilt the seat back & i have plenty of headroom
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    It's not just Ford - all new vehicles have to meet the new requirements and most seem to be just as bad as the Ford implementation.

    The new Explorer says that it offers a 4-way adjustable headrest which can only mean the ability to adjust the angle. This should solve the problem once it makes it into the other new vehicles.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I don't think the issue for most critics of the headrests is headroom (i.e. vertical clearance between your head and the headliner). I am six feet tall and have no issue there even with the moonroof. It is the forward tilt of the headrest which forces your back into an exaggerated forward curve that actually prohibits full contact between your back and the seatback. My back complained after an hour in the car and I never have had back issues.
    In the reversed headrest position you can achieve full contact with the seatback and, at the same time, achieve a vertical seating posture. I prefer a straightback chair whether in a car or at home; in the car I feel more responsive and with better sightlines when I am sitting with the back almost vertical. Different strokes for different folks.
    I may even fashion a beanbag or memory foam pillow to velcro on the reversed headrest so that my head can sense some support with the new headrest position. I don't understand how these new headrests are safer than ones whose forward edge is aligned vertically with the seatback rather than protruding forward and requiring the "C" shaped spine. Volvo used to advertise about active head restraints but these are clearly passive. They don't move at all when loaded. I know that Ford and others are required to provide these by the automobile safety board but I don't get the benefit compared to ones that would be slightly more vertical.
    By the way the Milan is a great value and quiet ride. I don't hold the headrest issue against Ford but I am glad that the fix is quite simple.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Many find the inclination of the new headrests difficult to adjust to.

    It is not actually a "head rest." It is a head restraint.

    It is designed that way so as to maximize resistance to an acceleration-extension injury to the cervical spine in a rear-end accident. This is actually a salutary feature.

    You will get used to it. More and more manufacturers are adopting it.
  • skibry1skibry1 Posts: 174
    For one to achieve maxium protection is to have support at least to the top of ones
    ear.Does spinning the headrest still provide optimum protection??
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    edited August 2010
    The horizontal distance from your head to the restraint is a factor too.

Sign In or Register to comment.