You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

5511 messages,  Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM

You are in the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

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

Messages Page 7 of 551 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 551 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#61 of 5511 by tomcat630 Jul 06, 2003 (1:02 am)
Futura is to be made on a stretched and widened Mazda 6 platform. So the nsaysayers who claim it will be "too small", don't have a clue.
#62 of 5511 by ANT14 Jul 06, 2003 (4:22 pm)
Unfortunatly I've already gotten those responses think it'll be small compared to the competition.   YES the vehicle will be smaller than the Taurus... but length wise. While the Futura will have more valuable space WHERE it counts, over the Taurus.
#63 of 5511 by nvbanker Jul 06, 2003 (8:57 pm)
Well, I hope they come up with a sexy name for it. I guess the one that disappoints me most, of the new string of "F" words, is the Freestar..... I'm not a big fan of the Alliteration being used now, Futura wouldn't be all that bad - originally was a Lincoln Concept car if I recall correctly. But I worry about an allegiance to a format in favor of a universe of great options - ignored because they don't start with "F". Five Hundred works, Focus works because it's a "cute little thing". Freestar is dumb. Nothing wrong with Taurus, but Sable could go away.   Well, it's just me - what do I know, I've only spent about a half million on cars in my lifetime so far, and I can tell ya, the neatest car in the world won't go home with me if it's named something I'm going to have to explain everytime a colleage looks at it. The Ford Flatulence..... The Mercury Mistake, The Ford Detour.......HEY! Bring the Fairlane back. It has great historical value......
#64 of 5511 Speaking of the Mecury Mistake by f111d Jul 10, 2003 (12:11 pm)
Since I own one. I hope the new vehicles use more common sense (I know I'm talking out of the other end now!) (maintenance) approach when it comes to the OBD II design. "Pre-Cats" with twin O2 sensor requirement, is center of the OBD II system. At least make these Pre-cats simple to replace. What a costly maintenance item the way they are now and I won't even talk cost cutting or the previous poor quality of the 95-96 model years. Pre-cat built into the manifolds ($1600 for V-6 plus over a half days worth of labor) with before & after O2 sensors and the programming in the PCM what hassle mechanics have chasing their tails???? I guess it keeps up the profit margins, BUT the maintenance costs are strapping the American family. And for those many that are wondering "why are sales so poor". HELLO!!!   Just one more design problem facing the accountants at Ford. I was going to say engineers, but I'm sure if given half a chance could design for maintenance instead of throw away. Of course in the last 40+ years I've been trying to do as much work on my own vehicles I haven't seen it happen, yet! I've even got an old laptop with ODB II software -www.OBD-2.com- Alex Pepper read his bio on his web site.   I hear it and see it everyday, families trying to make the decision, do I put food on the table or fix the Ole Junker. This is just the pollution & safety components. Hard choice, especially in light of our lack of reliable public transportation.        I can see why the Europeans are embracing the 2.0 Turbo diesels, I've read about for the Focus and PT Cruiser. I'd love that torque, too no cheap OBD II equipment failing, "damn CEL is on again"! Of course CEL lights for many other faults not related to the EPA/safety equipment.   I can't imagine the nightmare Hybrids are going to cause. I just don't see them being accepted, especially after the word gets out the real cost at the dealerships' repair shop. Ford needs to do a much better job at the dealership repair shop. "OH we've never seen that problem" this denial phase is being heard all over the country. Not good! from contour.org and Ham radio and from my own dealer that Ford has given all these PR awards. I call it "lip-service awards". Paul N8BUU F111D
#65 of 5511 by ANT14 Jul 10, 2003 (2:29 pm)
I believe the 2nd Generation diesels will be well received, over other hybrid senarios. Diesels allow low torque (which americans love) at low RPM, for great get up and go. And the infrasture is there as well.
#66 of 5511 by nvbanker Jul 10, 2003 (4:54 pm)
I agree, and I enjoy watching all of this hype over the hybrids that are coming out, giving you 10% more MPG over your already fabulous 40 MPG the non hybrid gets you. Seems like a lot of work and mechanical potentiality for the yield. I'd rather do the diesel thing.
#67 of 5511 Mistake? by alpha01 Jul 11, 2003 (4:53 am)
Perhaps there were quality faux pas, but I thought the Mistique/Contour were very good vehicles. At the time they debuted, I was 14, but had they been around 6 months ago in updated form, I probably would have checked them out. In particular, the old Mistique was a really sharp vehicle, well-received by Car and Driver and CR, but not such a good performer in the IIHS offset test. That, a marginal sales campaign and so-so quality killed the Mistique/Contour line. Too bad. Especially for a domestic make, they were a real find- compact, sporting, stylish.   ~alpha
#68 of 5511 Love my mistake by f111d Jul 11, 2003 (6:54 am)
Vehicle ownership is greatly enhanced with internet web sites such as the contour.org and I think I've said before I see no reason not to keep my Mistake for 10 more years. If I do buy a Futura I hope we can get a Futura.org going. I know the SVT helped by drawing in a larger group of car buffs, but the orginal Contiques are very enjoyable drivers car. Not exactly the best wording Hmmmmm.   I to was excited about the first Contiques, everything but the headlights performance. At that time some of the Chryslers really brought out the inadequacies of the SAE/American low-beams. Thank goodness the 98 models corrected that and so has every manufacturer since. It sure took allot of complaining to get the manufacturers to raise the height of the lenses. I believe the headlight unit in my Mistake is a slightly modified aiming/beam pattern of the E-code. I'm extremely happy with them. I just hope the new stuff continues on this path, low-beams that are very useful and little dazzle. Now if SAE folks would get active removing all these faux Hid's/blue etc lights from the highways. Some of those bulbs the driver has to be blind driving in the rain. HID is way to expensive, haven't heard much from the folks in Europe what the driving public really thinks?    The X-type Jag sure learned the hard way, no diesel offering? Who would ever thought Jaguar owners would have wanted diesel. Given the OBD II nightmare, after reading those 2.0 turbo test drives, I want one. Just exactly how much more pollution is there? I need to get time to Goggle and bone up. Paul Echelberger N8BUU
#69 of 5511 by ANT14 Jul 11, 2003 (7:05 am)
A new particulate sout filter can be implemented into the Diesels innards, (changable at certain time points) that can make them workable for the american market. Current issue is, lower the sulfer on the U.S. gas, to allow for diesel to take off. Some refineries have begun this process.   Chrysler has already ventured into diesel with the upcoming Liberty. Ford already has dispatched a diesel team to study the possibilities. A diesel Focus fpr 2006 would be the first offering if everything goes as planned.   And yes, the Futura can hold diesel engine cabilities, same diesel engines co-created with Peugeot over in Europe. Those would easily fit the Futura , but instead, they'll use the Hybrid engine of the Hybrid Escape set to debut later this year (fleet) early next year (regular public).

Messages Page 7 of 551 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 551 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan