Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

1…105107109110111

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member 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 Member Posts: 8,062
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 668
    What's a PCM?
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    I looked it up on the Internet: PCM = Powertrain Control Module
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It's the computer Boz. It controls the shifting of the transmission and it won't downshift if the RPM is too high.
  • savethelandsavetheland Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 90
    I guess you've looked into the cracked subframe issue? I think there was a TSB or something out about that.
  • podpod Member 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 Member Posts: 19
    What i do is Tilt the seat back & i have plenty of headroom
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 3,855
    edited August 2010
    The horizontal distance from your head to the restraint is a factor too.

    image

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/head_restraint_info.html
  • koho955koho955 Member Posts: 97
    After test driving everything in it's class such as the Honda, the Camry.......I chose the 2010 fusion SEL. It was by far the quietest and best driving of them all. I now have 9,000 miles and I do have a few complaints. The seats/headrests are very uncomfortable for most short or long drives. There is no handle above the drivers door but there is one on the other 3?????
    The car is fast (I have the V6) once moving and drives wonderfully on the highway but stop and go driving is brutal. The transmission shifts horrible in stop and go driving.
    This is my first American car ever and I am 50. For my $350 lease payment (0 down, 15K miles per year, 39 months) the car is pretty darn nice especially compared to the Camry and the Accord V6's!
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Check with the dealer - there is a TSB for the transmission.

    You don't need a handle for the driver - you should have both hands on the wheel.
  • lehrer1lehrer1 Member Posts: 54
    I have 2010 Fusion SE V6. I bought a tapered cushion for the seat and it works. I do not have any problem with the transmission. I do not like electrical assist steering.
    Otherwise the car is great for the price.
  • koho955koho955 Member Posts: 97
    Pretty sad that you had to run out and buy a cushion for your new car seats!
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    Spinning the head restraint reduces the protection somewhat.
  • lehrer1lehrer1 Member Posts: 54
    It is sad but it was an easy fix. More worrisome was a transmission recall and a loose battery terminal for the car fresh from the factory.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,306
    edited August 2010
    sounds like seat comfort was not a factor in buying the vehicle.
    could have been the same thing with any other brand, depending on their priorities.
    the transmission issue is not a recall. recalls are safety related.
    the TSB is a customer satisfaction issue.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,306
    the loose battery connection is a dealer issue. trust me, i had the same thing happen to me.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • lehrer1lehrer1 Member Posts: 54
    Why "the loose battery connection is a dealer issue"? The battery is installed at the factory, isn't it?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,306
    i have bought quite few new cars. the battery is usually disconnected and reconnected during the new vehicle preparation process.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • lehrer1lehrer1 Member Posts: 54
    Thank you, explorerx4,
    I did not know that the cars come to the dealership with disconnected battery. If you have a Fusion, what is your opinion of the car?
  • desgnrdesgnr Member Posts: 19
    2010 Mercury Milan Tuxedo Black Metallic
    I got a rough scratch on the front bumper coming off a high curb.
    Is there anyway i can repair this myself ?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,306
    The battery is connected when delivered from the factory, but is disconnected and hopefully reconnected prior to delivery.
    My fusion is an 07 SEL AWD model. I call it my poor man's Subaru. :) It's pretty solid and smooth, but you can see the penny pinching in places.
    Have averaged a bit over 22 mpg over 30k miles.
    I just got it back after letting one of my kids drive it all summer.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • lehrer1lehrer1 Member Posts: 54
    Thank you.
    Mine is 2010 Fusion SE V6 3.0L and I am happy with it.
    It is strange and expensive to produce two similar engines 3.5L and 3.0L at the same time from the view point of manufacturing.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The 3.0L has been around for a long time and the 3.5 is going into lots of other products. I think it was kept around until the smaller ecoboost engines arrive (like the new 2.0L which produces similar power with better fuel economy).
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,306
    i think it is sort of a capacity issue. the 3.0 is also used in the escape.
    there may only be so many 3.5's that can be produced.
    btw, we have an 04 escape with basically the 3.0 as my '07 fusion.
    we also have an '09 escape with the same 3.0 in your fusion.
    the '04 escape has averaged 19.2 mpg's over 81k miles and the '09 is averaging 21.8 over 18k. the '09 has 40 more horsepower.and also has the 6 speed transmission.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • newowner10newowner10 Member Posts: 227
    I had the same thing happen. There is a turrtle wax that is tinted black and comes with a wax stick that looks like lipstick. It is good for the lower area on the front.
    http://www.turtlewax.com/main.taf?p=2,1,4,5
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    Last two fills show 33.3 mpg which is an improvement from the initial 31.9 mpg. Mixed driving, 20% highway;70% suburban; 10% city. The refuel warning seems to come on at a little over 15 gallons fuel used. Since the tank capacity is 17.3 it would appear that Ford has built in a very generous buffer supply at about 2 gallons.
    Car is quiet and smooth and I don't notice significant power difference from prior V6 but I have not put it to heavy acceleration maneuvers yet since the engine is still under 2K miles. The MPG gauge is pretty accurate and seems to indicate that at 65-70mph on highway the mpg will aproximate 35 mpg. Since the Ford manual discourages calculating MPG until there are 1-3K miles I expect these numbers to improve as the car loosens up.
    A Theory: The people that get the highest MPG performance from their car without hypermiling are the same one who get 80,000 miles before a brake job is necessary. It is amazing to me how many people use the brake often for no obvious reason except that they don't look more than one car ahead and are surprised by every change in their immediate visual field. Obviously the less you use the brake the less you will need to accelerate to keep in flow and the better your MPG. You save money on both ends: better fuel economy and fewer brake jobs over the course of years.
  • xmechxmech Member Posts: 90
    The refuel warning seems to come on at a little over 15 gallons fuel used. Since the tank capacity is 17.3 it would appear that Ford has built in a very generous buffer supply at about 2 gallons.


    This is my only complaint about my Fusion. What good is that extra 2-3 gallons of fuel if you dare not use it? I'd rather it told the truth. Still, it has plenty of range, I've gone 430 miles once and only filled 14.5 gallons. I just think it's a waste if capable of more.

    Anyone want to try and see how many more miles you can really go after it says 0 miles to go? :P
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I see a lot of people having to frequently use their brakes on the freeway because they are tailgating the car in front of them. Because they leave so little room they have to brake frequently, they can not just coast for a moment to adjust to slight changes in speed by the car they are behind.

    But I think going 80,000 miles on front brakes is also dependent on where you drive. To go that far you would probably need to do a lot of freeway driving (without tailgating and riding your brakes).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I don't think I'd want a refuel warning light to come on only when the tank is empty. 2 gallons seems about right...that allows you 50-60 miles. You don't have to buy gas just because the little light comes on, I assume the fuel gauge is not indicating "empty" when the light first comes on?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It also prevents the fuel pump from running dry and causing premature failure.
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    Actually the 2010 Milan (and I presume the Fusion) have a pretty accurate mpg calculator and it tells you how many miles left on tank starting at 50 miles left I think. I managed to put 15.3 gallons in when the calculator said zero miles left. So it is not exactly as vague as simply the needle points to empty. I will need to check the manual for tank capacity but I am fairly certain that I read 17.2 or 17.3 gallons. I'm not sure whether the sensor knows when you refuel or simply reads a float level in the tank. I suspect the latter. The calculator then converts the gallons left into miles left from it's memory of how many mpg you average.
    The point about keeping the fuel pump under liquid is a good one although I suspect they could just locate it in a sump off the tank so that it would be wet even when the fuel is very low.
    In time I'm sure I'll test the limits beyond empty but the car is so new I don't want to insult it by running out of gas.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    A guy I used to work with told me that whenever he got a "new" car, he put a can of gas in the trunk and then would drive it until the tank was completely empty so that he would know how far he could go before the tank was really empty.
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    I like that idea and will try that in a few thousand miles. A reminder to Fusion/Milan owners with the new capless fillers: a special funnel is provided (under the trunk floor cover) to allow portable gas cans to be use to fill the tank. They caution that if you insert the spouts of portable gas cans they may damage the capless device. The funnel is a clear polysomething color and strapped in with the jack under the trunk floor cover.
    I did read the owners' manual again and yes the capacity of the tank is 17.5 gal for FWD and 17.2 gals for AWD for the 2010 models.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,306
    The low fuel warning is displayed when you have about 50 miles of range left.
    If you turn it off and don't fill up, it will pop back every ten miles later.
    I once went at least 7 miles with the DTE reading zero in my Explorer.
    Had no choice, I was on I-80 and had to get to the next exit.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    That's the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. Just get fuel before it gets to zero.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    edited August 2010
    I disagree. Carrying a portable tank and running it to empty is an excellent idea. To me, it's peace of mind to know how many miles you've got left when the low fuel light goes on or the computer reads 0 to empty.

    It can also be the difference between filling up in a not-so-nice part of town versus a station in a better part of town. You NEVER know where circumstances will lead you when you're running out of gas.

    Of course, it shouldn't become a habit, especially with the damage it can do to a fuel pump (by letting it run dry or clogging it with sediment that collects at the bottom of a tank), but knowing the true range is a good thing, and from an old cartoon, "Knowing is half the battle."

    :)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    But you can be pretty sure how much fuel is left based on the tank capacity and how much it takes to fill back up when it's near zero. We've pretty well established that it's close to 2 gallons and you can figure out how far that would get you.

    Running it dry isn't good for the fuel pump. You shouldn't go below 0 unless you have no choice. Besides, some people would take this information and start running it below 0 constantly which eliminates the idea of a reserve.

    Not a good idea IMO.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Yeah, I had posted it because I thought it was funny and nutty, not as a suggestion. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles