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 566 of 582

#5650 of 5819 Re: 2010 Ford Fusion [lehrer1] by explorerx4

Aug 10, 2010 (1:48 pm)

Replying to: lehrer1 (Aug 10, 2010 10:58 am)
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.

#5651 of 5819 Re: 2010 Ford Fusion [explorerx4] by lehrer1

Aug 10, 2010 (9:01 pm)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Aug 10, 2010 1:48 pm)
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.

#5652 of 5819 Re: 2010 Ford Fusion [lehrer1] by akirby

Aug 11, 2010 (5:51 am)

Replying to: lehrer1 (Aug 10, 2010 9:01 pm)
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).

#5653 of 5819 Re: 2010 Ford Fusion [lehrer1] by explorerx4

Aug 11, 2010 (6:02 pm)

Replying to: lehrer1 (Aug 10, 2010 9:01 pm)
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.

#5654 of 5819 Re: Deep scratch [desgnr] by newowner10

Aug 11, 2010 (6:04 pm)

Replying to: desgnr (Aug 10, 2010 1:39 pm)
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

#5655 of 5819 2010 milan I-4 mpg by pod

Aug 12, 2010 (3:16 pm)

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.

#5656 of 5819 Re: 2010 milan I-4 mpg [pod] by xmech

Aug 12, 2010 (5:48 pm)

Replying to: pod (Aug 12, 2010 3:16 pm)
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?

#5657 of 5819 Re: 2010 milan I-4 mpg [pod] by jeffyscott

Aug 12, 2010 (5:49 pm)

Replying to: pod (Aug 12, 2010 3:16 pm)
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).

#5658 of 5819 Re: 2010 milan I-4 mpg [xmech] by jeffyscott

Aug 12, 2010 (5:55 pm)

Replying to: xmech (Aug 12, 2010 5:48 pm)
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?

#5659 of 5819 Re: 2010 milan I-4 mpg [jeffyscott] by akirby

Aug 12, 2010 (6:39 pm)

Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 12, 2010 5:55 pm)
It also prevents the fuel pump from running dry and causing premature failure.

Messages Page 566 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