Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

5819 messages,  Last post on Sep 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM

You are in the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mercury Milan, Ford Fusion, Sedan

Messages Page 505 of 582

#5041 of 5819 Re: Milan Impression [savetheland] by theman123

Mar 14, 2008 (10:06 pm)

Replying to: savetheland (Mar 14, 2008 4:31 pm)
Thanks savetheland, I'm not dogging you or telling you off. However, I should have stated it more clearly that I was talking about the V6 not the 2.3 liter 4 banger not being very refined by modern standards. I know the 2.3 liter is a fine engine. Mazda uses it in allot of the cars. Mazda, has a turbo charged direct inject version of the 2.3 liter engine in the Mazdaspeed 3 and it's kicking out 260 HP. People and critics alike have raved about the 2.3 liter engine. As far as your Focus. The Focus community is heated that Ford dropped the 2.3 liter from the Ford Focus and going soley with the smaller more fuel efficient 2.0 liter engine.
 
However, the Duratec V6 has been around since the Taurus. It was state-of-the-art 20 years ago but it's a reliable work horse compared to modern engines. Don't get me wrong I'm not dogging the V6. I had a 1995 Ford Taurus and I loved that car dearly. When you stepped on it. The engine sounded like it was about to explode. I would get and Fusion/Milan with the V6 no questions asked. The only thing that would stop me from getting the V6 is that fact that gas might hit $4.00/gallon by the end of the summer. So, I would want a more fuel efficient 4 cylinder engine.
 
The 221 HP V6 engine was one of the biggest complaints against the Lincoln Zephyr which is now the MKZ. Critics said that the Duratec V6 is a good motor but it's not made for a luxury car. So, that should give you a good idea of how refined the motor sounds. Along with the fact that allot of other car manufactures had V6's with more power than the 221 HP Zephyr. That's why Lincoln dropped the old V6 in favor of the new 3.5 V6 for the MKZ. People love that engine and it was one of wards 10 best engines in 2006 or 2007. Along with that the MKZ sales have been up 56% year-to-date.

#5042 of 5819 Re: Milan Impression [theman123] by oshkosh49

Mar 15, 2008 (7:44 am)

Replying to: theman123 (Mar 14, 2008 10:06 pm)
Actually, the 3.0L V6 that was in the Taurus 20 years ago was the Vulcan V6, not the newer Duratec V6. Two completely different V6 designs. The older Vulcan V6 was a two valve per cylinder, overhead valve, pushrod design. The newer Duratec 3.0L is an four valve per cylinder, double overhead cam design.
 
Yes, Ford made a couple mistakes with the Duratec V6.
 
First, they put the 203 HP version of this 3.0L into the Ford Five-Hundred (new Taurus) and the Mercury Montego (new Sable), which are larger cars than the Fusion/Milan. They had to correct that mistake by replacing the 3.0L with the 3.5L in the Taurus (old Five-Hundred) and the Sable (old Montego).
 
Second mistake, they did the same thing with Zephyr/MKZ. The Zephyr at least got the 221 HP version to begin with. But when you're competing against the Cadillac CTSs and Acura TLs of the world, it seemed like Ford didn't come fully loaded to the fight.

#5043 of 5819 Re: Milan Impression [oshkosh49] by akirby

Mar 15, 2008 (8:13 am)

Replying to: oshkosh49 (Mar 15, 2008 7:44 am)
Just a note - the Zephyr wasn't even supposed to exist. It was rushed to market when the LS sales tanked and it was eventually killed. The MKZ that debuted for 2007 was the car that was originally planned. Of course the 3.5L should have been ready for the 2006 models anyway - it was at least 2 years behind. And Lincoln shouldn't have been in such a position with their car lineup. But they were so they had to make the best of it.
 
I don't think we'll see those mistakes with the current regime once they recover from all of the mistakes of the past.

#5044 of 5819 Re: Milan Impression [oshkosh49] by mz6greyghost

Mar 15, 2008 (8:27 am)

Replying to: oshkosh49 (Mar 15, 2008 7:44 am)
Actually, the 3.0L V6 that was in the Taurus 20 years ago was the Vulcan V6, not the newer Duratec V6. Two completely different V6 designs. The older Vulcan V6 was a two valve per cylinder, overhead valve, pushrod design. The newer Duratec 3.0L is an four valve per cylinder, double overhead cam design.
 
That's correct. The DT was first introduced in 2.5L form in 1993, and was offered in the Contour. The Taurus didn't get the DT until 1996, when the 3.0L debuted, replacing the 3.8L V6. The 3.0L Vulcan V6 was still considered the "base" engine, with the DT as an "option".

#5045 of 5819 Re: Milan Impression [mz6greyghost] by oshkosh49

Mar 15, 2008 (4:00 pm)

Replying to: mz6greyghost (Mar 15, 2008 8:27 am)
I had a 1991 Ford Probe LX with the 3.0L Vulcan V6 with a 5-speed manual. It was only rated at around 140 HP. (But I had a 1986 Ford Escort just before with an 86 HP 4 cylinder. So the Probe was very quick in comparison.) Then a few years later they came out with the 2.5L Duratec V6 for the Probe GT, rated at 165 HP. I don't recall which year it was that Ford increased the size of the 2.5L Duratec to 3.0L.
 
Today, I own a Silver Birch Clearcoat Metallic 2006 Milan Premier with the 3.0L V6, with the Medium Light Stone two-tone leather seats, and Wales Mahogany Wood Trim Package. Very happy and satisfied 22,000 miles so far. No mechanical issues at all. Zero, None. Totally reliable.
 
Then you read all the Toyota Camry reviews with the continuous auto transmission problems and you realize that reality hasn't caught up with the perception.

#5046 of 5819 Re: Milan Impression [mz6greyghost] by savetheland

Mar 15, 2008 (4:34 pm)

Replying to: mz6greyghost (Mar 15, 2008 8:27 am)
I had ‘94 Taurus with Vulcan 3.0L V6. It is a ridiculous engine, even for ‘94 – less powerful than e.g. Toyota I4 in Camry from same model year, much less refined and consumes inappropriate amount of gas for what you get in return. 3.0L Duratec was a huge leap forward. I have it in my Sable. It is not as refined as other modern engines but is fuel efficient enough (I get 24 mpg on daily average) and it least you can drive fast. It lacks low end torque though and intake resonates unpleasantly at low rmps. There are also unpleasant vibrations at idle. Acceleration is not as good as in other cars. New version on Fusion/Milan does not have issues with idle vibration and engine sound a little bit more refined but still low end torque is not sufficient. In general this engine seems to be reliable but not fuel efficient by modern standards and low rpm torque is a real issue while driving in city.
 
Ford Focus with 2.3L Duratec feels like sports car compared with my Sable with 3.0L Duratec. Ford can replace 3.0L Duratec with I4 with turbo. It will make nose lighter also, takes less space under hood and easier to maintain.

#5047 of 5819 Re: I too have read [scape2] by keithm1

Mar 18, 2008 (4:49 pm)

Replying to: scape2 (Mar 08, 2008 11:09 am)
Yeah, I saw the verve, a nice looking car. Perhaps a little "supercharging" will help with the horse power issue while maintaing good fuel milage.

#5048 of 5819 new fusion owner here by explorerx4

Mar 18, 2008 (4:59 pm)

sel awd, color alloy. only had it for a few days.
it looked good on the lot, but looks great on the street.
getting a lot of looks from drivers of other mid sizers.
the awd doesn't seem to be as 'front drivey' as the focus,
which is good for me because i like rwd.
steering/handling is not as taut as the focus(zts), but pretty balanced.
compared to the focus i traded, the headlights are way better.
gas mileage won't be in the same league (duh!),
but i can't tell how it will shake out, yet.
i also have an explorer, but don't drive it often.
the fusion still seems big, compared to the focus i was used to driving.

#5049 of 5819 Vulcan V6. by mschmal

Mar 19, 2008 (8:06 am)

Typical "american car" shopper. "OH I don't want a 4 cylinder"
 
me: But the 2.3L I4 in the new Fusion uses modern technology to produce 160 hp which is 5 more hp than the V6 in your 94 Taurus.
 
Oh I know I don't want a 4 cylinder I had one back in the 80s and that car couldn't get out of its own way.
 
Mark

#5050 of 5819 Re: Vulcan V6. [mschmal] by explorerx4

Mar 19, 2008 (5:27 pm)

Replying to: mschmal (Mar 19, 2008 8:06 am)
i wanted the awd. if a 4cyl was available with it, that would have been my first choice.

Messages Page 505 of 582

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement