Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

berri · February 2009

Cars.com review drove the 09 and 10 Fusion back to back on a long distance trip and said the 2010 was much improved and rather impressive.

xmech · February 2009

Well, that's good to hear. Just have to wait and see. Just hope gas prices don't go through the roof again before I 'upgrade'.

jeffyscott · February 2009

it now has poor steering feel thanks to electic power steering

If true, don't blame the electric-ness. VW has electric power steering and their system is fine.

Also I wonder if the system is adjustable, like VWs. Does the sport model have hydraulic or just a different setting on the electric?

mz6greyghost · February 2009

Does the sport model have hydraulic or just a different setting on the electric?

IIRC, the steering on the Sport is hydraulic.

tim156 · February 2009

I received the My Ford magazine and there was an article on the 2010 Fusion. That made me look on the net and I've become very interested in the newly designed model. I have to think this through but I'm considering trading my 2007 Freestyle for the new Fusion when they hit the showroom in March. Of course the numbers have to add up but I think it's a sweet looking ride with some impressive MPG numbers. I wonder if there will be any discounts or deals out there for this new model?

explorerx4 · February 2009

posted epa mileage is one place to look at for fuel mileage, but you should really look at more sources to try to figure out what a vehicle's real world mileage is, if that is your main concern.
this goes for any other concerns, also.

tim156 · February 2009

A fellow at work has a 2009 Fusion and says he's getting 36 to 38 mpg highway. Your right, real world numbers are different and depending on your driving habits can be significantly higher. With the 6 speed transmission and newly designed Duratec 2.5 Ford is claiming that the 2010 will get even better EPA estimated mpg 23/34. Using cruise at a reasonable speed, based on my co-workers experience, the new Fusion could get over 40 mpg highway. A good looking car that gets great mileage and is affordable, Ford is back.

thegraduate · February 2009

I'd believe that. I can approach 40 MPG (have exceeded it twice!) in my 2.4L midsize sedan (not a Fusion, but a competitor, '06 model). I imagine the Ford could do it just as well.

jeffyscott · February 2009

posted epa mileage is one place to look at for fuel mileage, but you should really look at more sources to try to figure out what a vehicle's real world mileage is

There really no other source to get a set of consistently derived numbers to compare. I don't know that there is any reason to assume that one's deviation from EPA figures for model X will be any different that that for model Y. Meaning if model X and Y are both rated at 25 mpg, you can expect to get about the same mpg from either one. You may actually get 22 or you may actually get 28, but you will not get 22 from X and 28 from Y.

explorerx4 · February 2009

my opinion is that epa ratings can be entirely unrealistic.
they are derived from identical testing conditions, but are they relevant?
believe them if you want to.
a few years ago, the focus was rated at 34 mpg highway.
the next year, the same car was rated at 37 mpg.
why? the engine computer mapping was changed to maximize fuel economy, instead of minimize smog.
you could go to the dealer, and get your previous model year car's computer reflashed, if you wanted to.
in this case, you could get different results from the same X.

explorerx4 · February 2009

that my mid size sedan gets within the epa range 18/27.

akirby · February 2009

The EPA ratings are not intended to represent your actual fuel mileage because your mileage can vary greatly from mine depending on climate, tires, driving styles, local traffic - etc. I drive the exact same route to work every day - 12 miles, 25 minutes. My mileage will vary from 24 to 18 depending on how much traffic I encounter and how many traffic lights I have to stop for (or not). There is no one perfect test that works for everyone.

And that's why the EPA test is the only valid way to COMPARE 2 vehicles and that's all it is useful for. There are far too many variables to compare one driver's mileage with another.

If your EPA rating is 30 and you get 35 then you can expect 30 out of a vehicle that's EPA rated at 26.

explorerx4 · February 2009

after reading this, copied from epa site, i have even less faith in the value of the ratings, than ever. i knew there were adjustments.

Background
Existing Tests and Methods

Fuel economy estimates have been provided to consumers since the 1970s as a tool to help shoppers compare the fuel economy of different vehicles. Currently, EPA relies on data from two laboratory tests to determine the city and highway fuel economy estimates. The test methods for calculating these estimates were last revised in 1984, when the fuel economy derived from the two tests were adjusted downward  10 percent for city and 22 percent for highway -- to more accurately reflect driving styles and conditions.

The city and highway tests are currently performed under mild climate conditions (75 degrees F) and include acceleration rates and driving speeds that EPA believes are generally lower than those used by drivers in the real world. Neither test is run while using accessories, such as air conditioning. The highway test has a top speed of 60 miles per hour, and an average speed of only 48 miles per hour.

Since the mid-1990s, EPA's emissions certification program has required the use of three additional tests which capture a much broader range of real-world driving conditions, including high-speed, fast-acceleration driving, the use of air conditioning, and colder temperature operation (20 degrees F). These conditions affect not only the amount of air pollutants a vehicle emits, but also a vehicles fuel economy. However, these tests were not required to measure fuel economy.

Top of page

Background
The New Methods to Determine Fuel Economy Estimates
For the first time, the EPA fuel economy estimates will use vehicle-specific data from tests designed to replicate three real-world conditions, which can significantly affect fuel economy: high speed/rapid acceleration driving, use of air conditioning, and cold temperature operation. Previously, these conditions were accounted for by across-the-board adjustments, rather than by vehicle-specific testing.

EPAs new fuel economy estimates will also reflect other conditions that influence fuel economy, like road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the effects of different fuel properties. The fuel economy for each vehicle model will continue to be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG estimates.

In 2011, manufacturers will need to perform additional cold temperature, air conditioning, and/or high speed/rapid acceleration driving tests for those vehicles most sensitive to these conditions. However, in order to provide consumers with better fuel economy estimates sooner, EPA will use new calculation methods that capture these driving conditions. These estimates will begin with model year 2008 vehicles. The interim period from model year 2008 to model year 2011 will give manufacturers enough time to plan for this additional testing, while providing consumers with estimates that capture more realistic driving conditions.

jeffyscott · February 2009

after reading this, copied from epa site, i have even less faith in the value of the ratings, than ever. i knew there were adjustments.

Maybe you want to be a little more specific, what in those paragraphs leads you to believe that EPA estimates are going to be less representative for one car vs. another? As long as they are equally representatve, then they are useful for comparisons.

Where people go wrong is they take their personal real world mpg figures and compare them to EPAs for a new car they are considering. For example, they get 35 mpg in a car with an EPA rating of 30 and then they say what is wrong with car A, it only get 30 mpg (EPA) and I am getting 35 in car B. Or they were getting 25 mpg in a car, that they have forgotten was rated 30, and then they complain when their new car, with a rating of 25, only gets 21 mpg.

explorerx4 · February 2009

i took the a trip under pretty much the same weather conditions in 2 different vehicles, about 400 miles across the the state of ohio. driving style was the same. use cruise control at about 70 mph. one averaged just over the epa highway mileage. the other beat it by 20%. these were according to the old epa methodology.

akirby · February 2009

All that means is that at 70 mph one car was better than the other. The reverse might be true at different speeds. Anecdotal tests are not scientific.

jeffyscott · February 2009

Yes, if one is shaped like a brick and one is not then the brick's mpg may drop faster than the other one at high speeds. Comparing EPA numbers is not perfect.

In addition, there are all sorts of potential sources of error in a single 400 mile test. I think if you repeated a single measurement like that with the exact same car, you could see measured results vary by 10-15% between runs.

explorerx4 · February 2009

the smart person will examine multiple sources for information regarding fuel mileage and other vehicles features and characteristics.
this is not limited to the fusion.
it's my opinion that real world test results are as valuable, if not moreso, than the EPA tests, which cannot be duplicated outside of an artificial environment.

akirby · February 2009

But the exact same vehicle driven on the same route on the same day by 2 different people can yield totally different results, depending on how it's driven. One might get 17 mpg and the other one 21. Now add in differences in tire pressure, tires, ambient temperature, fuel composition (oxygenated/ethanol/etc.), speed, wind, etc. and you'll get a huge range of values.

There are simply too many variables outside of the EPA tests that affect achieved fuel economy to use that as a yardstick. I'm not saying you should ignore it, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The EPA tests are at least controlled to eliminate as many variables as possible.

explorerx4 · February 2009

if the EPA numbers work for you, great. don't forget, they even fudge their own numbers. :P

akirby · February 2009

If I'm comparing 2 cars of course I'll use the EPA estimates. If you prefer to use other totally unscientific sources then be my guest.

jeffyscott · February 2009

You can see the un-fudged EPA numbers if you wish to. It makes no real difference when you are comparing one car to another as the fudging is applied equally to all vehicles.

If you want to look at "real world numbers", here are some:

http://fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=23563&browser=true&de- tails=on

Let us know what you learn from studying these numbers that range from 13-37 mpg.

explorerx4 · February 2009

that is 1 source.
here is another: fusion fuel mileage

i learned you are coming around to my way of thinking, which is check multiple sources.

joeblack1 · February 2009

Thank you so much for actually posting Ford Fusion related content and a link to a discussion group that actually discusses Ford Fusions!

joeblack1 · February 2009

Does anyone know when the 2010 supposed to hit the showrooms? Did anyone see the 2010 Fusion on Ebay? If you go to ebaymotors and plug in Ford Fusion, 2010 - 2010, then click on Completed Listings it shows up as having expired without being sold on February 16. The dealer selling it is Lone Star Ford of Houston.

tim156 · February 2009

I've been talking to dealers in the Minneapolis area for an early order of a 2010 Sangria Red SEL with Moon and Tune Package. The word I've heard is 2 to 4 weeks for arrivals to showrooms. Dealers have cars on order and said they can change their original order to fit my desires. The best price I've been quoted so far is: $24101.00. I hope to use that number with the dealers I talk to this weekend.

joeblack1 · February 2009

The ebay item is back again for the 2010 Hybrid: eBay item:Ford : Fusion (#200311872282). This time it appears to have somewhat serious bids. (28K with buy it now price of 33K).

I'm assuming the one you are buying is not the Hybrid. Does it have leather seats?
Do you know how your price compares to MSRP?

tim156 · February 2009

The one I'm looking at is a non Hybrid. I'm ordering black leather, 2.5L I-4, 6 speed transmission. Check www.fordvehicles.com cars, future cars and 2010 Fusion+Hybrid to see standard features for each model. The SEL is a nicely equipped car for the $$. I figured the MSRP for the SEL, Moon and Tune Order Code 301A is $26225.00 and using Edmunds TMV, dealer invoice is $24074.00.

kevin512 · February 2009

Tim156,

I live in the northern Twin Ciites area. Can you share which Ford dealers are giving you the best price quote for the 2010 Fusion?

I was also told a non-hybrid Fusion should be arriving in the showroom during the first or second week of March.

Kevin512

tim156 · February 2009

I got an e-mail quote from Anderson Ford in North Branch for $24101.00. Whether or not that will hold when I go to the dealership we'll see. I'm visiting three tomorrow, I'll keep you informed.

milkman1 · February 2009

So Ford has their pricing up on their site for the 2010. They also finally posted V6 fuel economy and it shows the same fuel economy for both the 3 and 3.5 V6 and it's not that competitive. There is a note on the 3.0 saying to look at the fuel economy guide for exact details, but I am not finding this referenced location anywhere on the site. Any information or direction would be most appreciated.

Thanks

jeffyscott · February 2009

"Fuel Economy Guide" is published by EPA

http://fueleconomy.gov/

akirby · February 2009

Kinda hard to comment if you don't post the numbers. I couldn't find them.

stephen987 · February 2009

Unfortunately fueleconomy.gov doesn't seem to list any 2010 models yet, unless they're hidden.

stephen987 · February 2009

The pricing info is under Future Vehicles, and I'm not sure how I got there, but here's the direct link to the "build and price" page for the 2010 Fusion:

Build & Price 2010 Fusion

milkman1 · February 2009

It's under the compare models section. Left hand column.

http://bp2.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/services/cars-proxy/BP2/CompareModels/Com- pareModels_8801F25B-CD1A-E963-956A-8561956A8561.pdf

jeffyscott · February 2009

The footnote is only about E85

** Fuel economy when operating on E85 will yield different values
than gasoline. See Fuel Economy Guide for more information.

EPA says: FFVs operating on E85 usually experience a 20-30% drop in miles per gallon due to ethanols lower energy content.

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml

Why is there such a big difference in mpg between the different 4 cyl trim levels? With auto there is about 10% lower hwy mpg for the SE and SEL compared to S :confuse: .

6-speed automatic (S) 23 mpg city/34 hwy.
6-speed manual (S) 22 mpg city/31 hwy.
6-speed automatic (SE, SEL) 22 mpg city/31 hwy.
6-speed manual (SE) 22 mpg city/29 hwy.

akirby · February 2009

My guess would be tires, weight and gearing.

akirby · February 2009

it shows the same fuel economy for both the 3 and 3.5 V6 and it's not that competitive.

I don't know what you're comparing it to, but it looks competitive to me. Not great, but not terrible. 1 mpg city and 1-2 mpg hwy is pretty close.

Fusion V6 18/27
Camry V6 19/28
Accord V6 19/29

tim156 · February 2009

Kevin512
I went to two dealers today. Freeway Ford quoted for a Sport Blue Metallic, SEL, FWD, 6 speed auto, Moon & Tune and remote start, $24300.98. Apple Valley Ford matched those numbers. I didn't get in trade what I was hoping for my 2007 Freestyle with 14200 miles but I like the price for the Fusion. One salesman took me to the reps house to see a fully loaded Sport. All I can say is WOW, this is one beautiful car! It's a horse apiece who I go with, so I'm going to try to get molded splash guards added for no charge and flip a coin.

explorerx4 · February 2009

i read somewhere that low rolling resistance tires and an aggressive fuel shutoff were 2 ways used to gain a better mileage result.

milkman1 · February 2009

I was just hoping for better economy out of the 3.0. It's smaller and less powerful than the accord/camry V6s. Even the sonata has more power, displacement and better fuel economy with it's V6. Other than this little mileage detail which will burn a lot of my cash in the long run, I like the features and price at the moment.

baggs32 · February 2009

I was just hoping for better economy out of the 3.0.

Based on what I've been reading on other forums most people feel the same including me. However it was pointed out that the new D30 does have 20 more horses and does get at least 1 MPG more on the highway. So it's not a total loss.

thegraduate · February 2009

It's about where the Honda 3.0L was in 2003. Still not up to the 3.5L in the Taurus.

baggs32 · February 2009

It's about where the Honda 3.0L was in 2003. Still not up to the 3.5L in the Taurus.

Well you can get the D35 in the 2010 Fusion now and it's MPG estimates are the same as the D30's. Only you get about 25 more HP and a sport tuned suspension among other sport model extras. Being that the sport model is supposedly tuned for performance I have no doubt it could compete with the Accord's 3.5L in FE if tuned for normal use. If you truly want FE don't get a V6. If you truly want performance, don't get an Accord or Camry V6 because they have nothing special in the way of sport over their base models. We should all wait for a proper comparo before issuing final judgement though.

explorerx4 · March 2009

fords do not usually make the most hp/liter. honda is usually the leader there.
if you take a look back at the performance chart from the c&d comparison test powertrain, the fusion is down 15 hp to the accord.
the accord wins the 0-60 by half a second(7.5 to 8.0).
the fusion and the accord have the same final drive ratio and pretty much the same
top gear ratio, although the fusion is a six speed vs a 5 speed.
in top gear acceleration 30-50 fusion wins by 1.8 (11.9 to 13.7)
50 to 70 fusion also wins this time by 1.6(11.4 to13.0)
this is a measure of real world torque, which ford emphasizes over hp/liter.
of course, i realize you can downshift if you don't want to accelerate in top gear.

thegraduate · March 2009

The fusion also has a bit more displacement than the Honda (which isn't quite 2400cc), good for torque.

jeffyscott · March 2009

My guess would be tires, weight and gearing.

After posting, I did notice the skinny tires on the Fusion S. I doubt the gearing is any different between the different trim levels. Higher trim would have more weight, but that would be the case with any model of car and I can not recall ever seeing different fuel economy ratings for different trim levels for any other model. I have only ever seen different numbers for each engine and transmission combination.

kevin512 · March 2009

Tim156,

I appreciate the information. Those seem like good prices considering this is the first month of availability, I didn't think it would be possible to get much under MSRP before summer. I'm going to talk to Midway Ford in Roseville once they have a vehicle available for a test drive (hopefully within the next two weeks), I've always gotten good service there on my '02 Explorer. Your numbers will give me a price to aim for.

I need to decide between an SEL and Hybrid. If I can get the $3400 tax credit for the hybrid, I may go that route. If not, I'll probably be looking at the exact same model and options you are looking at.

Kevin512

austinman7 · March 2009

My local salesperson said she would have 2010 Fusions on the lot in April. They had one in last week, but only for sales training purposes.

Does anyone know if push button starting is offered? I actually prefer the standard key with remote functions.

Also, with the bump from 220 to 240 HP on the 3.0 V6, do we know if there's a corresponding bump in torque?

Thanks.

Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles