Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

jeffyscott

I agree it is one data point and one issue ("reliability"). I also agree that the self-rating of "serious" is probably the biggest problem.

OTOH, for JD Powers they apparently consider all problems equal. This also makes no sense. We had our new car in within the first couple of months for 5 very minor issues. Were I filling out a JD Powers survey, I guess that would mean 5 problems. On a CR survey I would report no serious problems.

On this issue, I give more weight to what my credit union says the price of the same 100,000 mi extended warranty would be on different cars. I do not buy the warraty, but based on that, I can guess that the supposedly unreliable car we bought is maybe going to cost me (on average) an extra $500 in repairs over that time. This cost has essentially zero impact on the buying decision. OTOH, a different unreliable car we did not buy would have, perhaps, cost a couple thousand extra...that was a concern.

Since most cars are pretty reliable these days this data point is likely not to be very important to me. Many more cars are screened out based on safety, comfort, handling, etc.

akirby

So when the CR does not accept any endorsements and does not let use their results in any advertising happens to consistently like some brands, they are biased, but when a guy who has a financial interest in promoting certain brands, put long, inconsistent and self-contradictory "explanation" of things, it is "fair"? Please...

All I said was their survey methods are not as statistically accurate as some people like to believe. The article points out the potential for the survey answers to be biased (although not intentionally) simply because of the process used to solicit the responses.

I don't believe they're intentionally biased but I do believe their survey methods do not produce statistically accurate results.

akirby

The author of the web site obviously did not like the fact that CR called the interior of the DC vans "plasticky"--which it is, IMO.

Well that just goes to prove that you read what you want to read rather than what was intended. The author did not disagree with the plasticky comment. Rather he was pointing out that the Sienna minivan had (in the author's estimation) the very same plasticky interior yet received no such criticism. The other examples show more inconsistencies between objective facts and subjective criticisms:

For example, in a one page review, they said five times that the Volvo had unacceptably tight rear legroom. This despite the fact that in the objective measurements published on the next page, the Volvo had as much legroom as any other car in the comparo (there were four) and more than most...They also call the Acura's gas mileage "good," while they call the Volvo's "acceptable." That's interesting, since they get the exact same mileage and the Volvo gets it on regular gas rather than premium like the Acura. They also ding the Volvo a couple of times for sluggish acceleration, despite the fact that it's only two-tenths slower to 60 than the Acura (which was "good" and "peppy").

yzassandy82

Howdy! Being the proud owner of an 06 Fusion SEL I4 with AT, I am happy to report nothing lower than 25 mpg's over 2,000 miles in mixed driving. Have had as high as 26.5 so far, but haven't taken any road trips up to Vegas to really get the most out of it. But can hardly complain at this point. Not much difference between my last Focus which averaged around 27 mpg's.

The one thing I will mention is that the auto tranny seems to be geared toward sporty driving and as such revs pretty high and hard through 2nd gear. Also, this cars seems to be more about horsepower than torque. So, don't be afraid to push it a bit. It seems as if the mpg's are higher when the engine is pushed, as opposed to easing out of a light. Just a thought!

backy

OK, let me clarify my statement: I think the DC vans have a more "plasticky" interior than the Sienna.

alpha01

If you read ANY automotive publication, you'd know that objective measures don't always provide the full story. A car can feel sluggish due to a stupid transmission mapping, for example, or may feel peppy based on throttle tip-in, when numbers indicate the opposite.

In my personal experience, the Subaru Tribeca feels strong to me, but almost every rag nails it for slow acceleration times, for example.

Same thing goes for interior space- rear seat room is affected by many things, and usable legroom is especially influenced by the shape and placement of the front seats.

~alpha

mschmal

CR is an acronym for Creative Reporting.

Mark.

calhon

What I see in the article is mostly a number of issues that are true in general about surveys (e.g. responses are voluntary, relatively low response rates)

True, but in a properly conducted scientific poll, steps are taken to minimize the negative impact of voluntary responses. First, it is crucial to do random sampling from whatever population is being used - whether it is the population at large or just CR subscribers. CR does absolutely no sampling.

Second, response rates need to be monitored and controlled at the model level. That usually requires stratified random sampling, meaning separate random samples of the known owners of each model are asked to respond. CR doesn't know individual model response rates or if the respondents actually own the cars they report on, i.e., there is a lack of basic controls.

Accordingly, CR's survey is much more prone to self-selection biases. It's also much more susceptible to fraud and manipulation. The methodology is similar to the simple unscientific online polls found in car forums or on websites such as MSNBC.

Whenever MSNBC.com does one of those polls, there is link saying "not a scientific survey". It's worth a read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/

pat

We need to get back to the subject, folks. There have been several discussions about CR on the Automotive News & Views board over the years. I'm not sure if there is an active discussion at this moment, but the host, pf_flyer, can reactivate a closed one, or anyone is free to start a new one.

But since this discussion is specifically about Fusion and the Milan, we really need to get back to them.

Thanks.

theman123

Thanks

ANT14

LINK

akirby

That should shut up the critics for a little while at least.

Too bad they couldn't get this engine out 2 years ago, but it sounds like it will be worth the wait.

thebigfoist

I have the V6 Fusion and I'd agree that it does rev up pretty hard through the first couple of gears. Not a problem for me, but maybe a concern for folks who'd like a more "conservative" ride.

ryguy1718

I have looked all over the web i can't find out if ford will put the 3.5 in the fusion.
If anyone knows, let me know.
Ryan

mz6greyghost

I have looked all over the web i can't find out if ford will put the 3.5 in the fusion.
If anyone knows, let me know

Not for a while. The Duratec 35 will debut in the Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX and Lincoln MKZ this fall. And it will be included in a refreshed Five Hundred next year (something the Five Hundred SORELY needs).

As for the Fusion, I'd guess late '07 as an early '08 model at the earliest...

In other words, don't hold your breath.

akirby

It's not that they don't want to use it in other vehicles but they won't have the plant capacity to make that many right away - at least not reliably. And after the Focus launch fiasco a few years ago Ford has been almost perfect on new/significantly changed vehicle launches.

scape2

Ford should make a limited edition Fusion with the 3.5. Something like a Fusion GT. I feel they should limit the number of 3.5's that go into the Fusion. The 3.0 in my opinion is plenty of power for a family sedan. I think this HP thing is getting way out of hand. How about balance of drivetrain? road feel? sound proofing? Put the extra $$ into interior or added safety features. I agree the 500 is way overdue this engine. This is a bit heavier car and is needed.

mopowah

that the horsepower race has gotten out of hand. I remember back in the 80's and early 90's, the Camaro IROC-Z had about 250hp and the Mustang GT 5.0 put out about 215. Now that is considered "underpowered" in a 4-door midsized family sedan. I'm all for power, but at a certain point you gotta wonder when we have "enough" power. Are we going to get to the point where the Camry is putting out 400hp and does 0-60 in 4.0 sec. flat? Why? It's a family sedan for crying out loud! I think we are getting to the point where they really need to focus on fuel efficiency and come up with a way to get 40 mpg out of that 265 hp v6. Maybe it's a new type of transmission (I would kill for that DSG tranny Audi came out with) in combination with direct gas injection and more efficient air intakes? I don't know (not an engineer, so I have no idea) but I think the last we need is a 400 hp Camry.

jeffyscott

I certainly agree that the HP race is just idiotic. However, I assume "they" are giving the buyers what "we" want.

For me the 4 cyl with 160 HP is powerful enough. I'd rather have things like stability control available, top scores on IIHS crash tests, 6 speed trans without having to get the 6 cyl.

mopowah

"I certainly agree that the HP race is just idiotic. However, I assume "they" are giving the buyers what "we" want."

I think you're statement is pretty much on the money but I also think that the general buying public as a whole are basically lemmings in that they will naturally buy the car with the most hp given all other things being equal. I think that car makers should take the responsibility and pull the reigns in on the power and focus on other technologies.

ANT14

You mean, something like "Fusion ST270", with a 270HP 3.5L V6? ?

snakeweasel

that the horsepower race has gotten out of hand.

As with others I will agree with that. Once you get above a certain amount of HP additional HP is really just needed for boasting and marketing. I mean if a car with 220 HP can accelerate well, get up to highway speed on the on ramp, and pass withe ease does it need 250 HP? If it doesn't need 250 HP why give it 275 HP?

Instead of making more powerful engines for already over powered cars lets get more efficient with what we have.

That being said instead of offering a more powerful V-6 on the Fusion/Milan they should be offering the V-6 with a manual tranny.

yzassandy82

"You mean, something like "Fusion ST270", with a 270HP 3.5L V6? ?"

Are you giving us a forewarning of things to come?

dave2222

I've heard from various people in Dearborn that they're actually putting the 3.5L in the fusion, but why hasn't there been an official annoucement by Fields yet? Even with the estimated sales of the mkz, cx-9, edge, and sister lincoln it shouldn't take up the 325,000 unit capacity at the Lima Plant.

I know the engineers are already working on the 08 M.Y programs so the ST270 must be an 08 M.Y program.

I don't understand why fields isn't telling about a number of the upgrades that are happening to the various vehicles. ANT14 I know you know some of the things that are happening to your mainstream vehicles, but why is everyone being so secretive? Is there some new tightened security policy? There's some really cool things happening performance wise and I can't wait to see (so I hear).

I'm guessing Fields may be putting your programs on hold right now like he did to Mazda to make sure the new one's are going to be competitive hence the lack of products and all the special edition products (fx-2, gt350h, etc..). I'm fairly sure I'm correct on this.

I think then that we'll see some interesting developments technology wise and performance wise on the upcoming lincolns and fords, I haven't heard too much about mercury from the grapevine.

jeffyscott

I think that car makers should take the responsibility and pull the reigns in on the power and focus on other technologies.

Except the primary responsibility of these corporations is to make money for the shareholders. If there is a social desire to have them, say, emphasize mpg over HP, the best way to accomplish this (IMO) is for our elected represenatives to put a hefty tax on fuel. If gas was $5 per gallon, "we" would be much more interested in mpg than HP.

dino001

And why woudl "we" support such a move?

jeffyscott

Clearly "we" do not. Hence the us of the word if in If there is a social desire...

Perhaps some (though clearly not a majority) might, if some other taxes (eg. income tax, payroll tax) were reduced to offset a punitive gas tax...and we were confident that they would not just raise the other taxes back up later on.

Instead we want to pretend that we can just have the government order car manufacturers to make a giagantic SUV that gets 50 mpg, with a 400 HP engine and sell it for $25,000. And while they are at it they can order the oil companies to sell gas for $1 per gallon, too.

I am glad that Ford at least makes a 4 cyl with good mileage and adequate power available in the Fusion. That was never an option in the Taurus.

mopowah

Sure, I understand the whole "why wouldn't we want more power" thinking. But seriously how much more power do you need in a 4 door sedan? Every 4 door sedan out there over 17k can easily go fast enough to get arrested. (Yes, I know I sound like an old lady) but I just think there are better use of the limited resources available to engineers. Also, it's too easy to just come out with a new engine that beats the competitions engine by 5 or 10 hp. We need something that really sets us apart from the crowd.

cowbell

You argument makes sense, but unfortunately that's not how it plays out in the market place. Car companies make higher HP engines because that's what sells their cars. I'm not saying people don't consider fuel economy, but I'm pretty sure in survey after survey, people put fuel economy at the bottom of the list of what they are looking for in a car.

The problem is not with the manufacturers. It's with the us.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/AUTO03/602080386/1149- /AUTO01

mopowah

by that survey. Which is why I think the manufacturers need to take the initiative and put less focus on improving hp and more focus on maintaining the current power levels and improving efficiency. I'd like to think that the general public would sort of self-govern themselves but I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen.

mz6greyghost

Don't worry, the HP race won't last. Many places are paying over $3 per gallon for gas already, and it's only going to go up. It's not worth having a 320 HP sedan that gets 12 MPG on the highway, as some Charger/300 owners are suffering from. At least not to me...

akirby

According to the brand manager for the Fusion, interviewed a few weeks ago, there are no engine changes planned for the 2007 Fusion, just cosmetic changes and new features. Now it's possible he was lying or that Fields may have changed that decision and moved up the ST270 to 2007 if it was technically feasible. But I think it would have to be AWD - the torque steer with only 221 hp is bad now - can't imagine 270.

The good news is 270 should be achievable with intake and exhaust mods to the base 3.5L without having to use premium fuel.

volk1

In case anyone needs to be reminded why car companies put excessive horse power into car models, just think back to the Ford 500 launch. Ford put in the 200hp Duratec and got annihalated in the press. Every single auto critic repeated the same dribble that the 500 is underpowered. Its not, if you've ever driven one. In addition, for a car its size, its fuel economy is rated at 21 city / 29 highway with the 6 speed trans. (which is outstanding). This type of criticism, right out of the box for the 500, is the single biggest factor in its early depressed sales.

akirby

Luckily, most of the buying public never reads a car review or cares about horsepower, so the 500 survives just fine with only 200 hp. It would get more attention and attract more enthusiasts with the 3.5L but it won't double sales. The 3.5L PLUS updated styling might.

dino001

Is that why they cut production of 500s? That vehicle is an example how one single thing can nearly kill the product. In all other aspects it had a great potential for run-the mills customers.

It looks like Ford's problem altogether - always messing up one important aspect of a product with really good potential (Focus - build quality, Fusion - crash test, 500/Freestyle - power).

In my opinion Ford's products (especially in last few years) are generally better than GMs, at least in aspect of reading general market demand. Unfortunately, they also happen to have some fatal flaws that set the company back to its hole and the products basically dead on arrival. They also have no clear pricing strategy - neither "value", nor "content" oriented. Always behind, always messed up details.

akirby

I said it was selling ok, not great. It needs the styling update more than the extra power. They're slowing production to prevent oversupplies which would cause big incentives which is a good sign.

baggs32

It needs the styling update more than the extra power.

I'm not real clear if you know that it is getting a styling update or not based on the way you worded your last two posts. Anyway, it is getting a styling update for MY08 and we should see it introduced next winter when the car shows ramp up again.

More here

akirby

Yes, I knew about the planned styling update. I also think Fields, if possible, will accelerate (no pun intended) the 3.5L production to get it into the 500 asap.

bj02176

There is no torgue steer on a 2006 fusion in my opinion As I just traded my Ford Escape for the V6 SE. 1200 miles and I'm not noticing this, not on mine anyway. Same great ride as a Camry, same great handling as an Accord or a Passat.

However I don't think it zooms as fast as a Sonata, as the one I test drove gave me goose bumps just like Martina McBride's voice.

Sadly a Mexican built car is turning into my most well built car, None of the problems with my previous Camry or Accord.

It's almost embarassing. I've created an artificial rattle by placing a flashlight in the passenger door.

akirby

There is no torgue steer on a 2006 fusion in my opinion

Then you're not giving it enough throttle. Trust me, it's there. It's not terrible, but it's definitely noticeable.

Your engine won't develop maximum power or fuel economy until 5K miles or so. Try it then.

rparis

I ordered a Milan and have been told it will be built on April 24, but will take 3-4 weeks for actual delivery.

What has been the experience of others who have ordered a car-does it actually take 3-4 weeks for delivery and has anticipated build date been accurate?

Thanks

baggs32

I also think Fields, if possible, will accelerate (no pun intended) the 3.5L production to get it into the 500 asap.

Already done. All MY07 Five Hundreds sold will have the 35 under the hood. IIRC, it, the Freestyle, Edge, and Lincoln MKX will be the first to get it. I guess the new Mazda CX-9 will also have it but I'm not sure if that's an '07 or '08.

A lot of people are hoping he accelerates it into the Fusion for sure.

johnclineii

That's NOT my understanding. The 3.5L comes in model year 08, CALENDAR year 07.

The 07 is a short model run. The ordering guides are already out for it, and do NOT indicate the availability of the 3.5L at all.

That would be good news if that is now the case, though.

baggs32

It could be that I read something wrong on the Five Hundred and Freestyle but the MKX, MKZ, and Edge are definitely getting it for MY07 according to this.

ANT14

MY2007 will be a short one for the 500/FS, the 2008's will come out around spring to summer time of 2007 with the 3.5L.

Dave,

I like Mark Fields actually, he has (for a better word)..guts... To go ahead and push for better performance. Granted, we won't see much of his results for another 2 years, but smaller decisions on timing, or tweaking can be halted. ST270 is something I mentioned over a year ago if we scroll back enough. Of course, what THAT was back then, can alter now other than thought of adding "something" that will be "special" for a year, before phasing it in completely.

Production of the 3.5L needs to ramp up and be phased into other vehicles as a priority, and as demand is met, then it'll trinkle into other vehicles. First the Edge/MKX/MKZ then we have the D3 vehicles, then Fus/Mil. Of course, since the MKZ/Fus/Mil are built on the same line, it's really just a matter of allocation to dump a 3.5L into a Fus.

baggs32

Thanks for clearing that up ANT and for being so open with information when we "need" it.

So I guess the D3's will get the power with the new looks which makes sense I guess. Those two will seem like all new vehicles come MY08 which should help sales. I actually like the FH and FS the way they are right now and can't wait to see them re-done. It looks like they won't be "Fusionized" but close enough.

ANT14

A more controlled "Fusionized" actually. Of course the 3-bar grille, lower fascia, new tail-lamp treatments, etc. Actually the Montego will be a bit bolder since it's lights will incorporate a more Mountaineer like treatment to them and have a bit more of that satin-nickel finish to it.

baggs32

Funny you mention the Mountaineer because the new looks of the FH, Escape (both from spy shots), and Freestyle (artist rendering on C&D) all point to the new look of the Expedition IMO. The Explorer kind of went it's own way and wasn't tied in with the rest. I have one and love it so I'm not complaining!

What ever happened to the Fusion being the "new face of Ford"? The others are similar, but still not as bold if you ask me.

nick0401

I ordered a Fusion on January 28. The dealer told me it would take about 6 to 8 weeks. It finally got to the dealer on April 10th. 11 weeks. I was getting very impatient because I really love the car and I knew what I was missing. The dealer said it took so long because it was an A plan order.

ANT14

The 3-bar grille will carry into a few other vehicles as well that you wouldn't expect it to, but in a less obvious way....