Last post on Nov 30, 2007 at 9:12 PM
You are in the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan
What is this discussion about?
Mercury Milan, Toyota Camry, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#171 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [wvgasguy]
Jun 07, 2007 (8:22 am)
So many things to respond to.......
Milans are simply a different trim level Fusion. Think of it as a Fusion M. Ford is selling around 17K Fusions and Milans per month and 40% of those are conquest sales (buyers who switch to a Fusion/Milan from a non-Ford brand). These are former Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Saturn, etc. drivers.
Ford just took top honors in JD Power Initial Quality Survey. Mercury was #2 behind Lexus. They were also #2 in the 2006 3 yr reliability survey. So far the Fusion is outperforming both the Camry and Accord in reliability. Projected resale values for the Fusion and Milan are higher than Camry and 1% lower than Accord (3 yrs) according to the Automotive Lease Guide.
Ford has dramatically improved quality while dropping rental fleet sales and overproduction. Overproduction leads to big incentives which reduces resale values. Large rental fleet sales leads to a glut of used cars which kills resale values. This is what happened to the Taurus and why Ford killed it. So far they are managing production levels with minimal incentives and maintaining high quality.
This is not 1985 anymore and the landscape has changed. Toyota is now plagued with reliability problems (engine sludge, transmission problems, Tundra camshaft failures) and the Fusion is more reliable than a Camry. Who woulda thunk it?
#172 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [akirby]
Jun 07, 2007 (9:45 am)
and the Fusion is more reliable than a Camry. Who woulda thunk it?
Still an unsubstantiated claim. My last Ford was a 2004 model. Had a rearend replaced and lost $12,000 in depreciation in one year. Ouch, I'm still hurting on that one. Won't get over it just by seeing JD Powers numbers.
I guess it just goes to show, build a better car; more reliable than the Asians and Germans and get the car rags to rate them high and perhaps your stock will go beyond junk status.
Sorry, still too risky for me to jump on this band wagon just yet.
I don't even want to remember 1985. Then again maybe I do. My 86 Lincoln was junk and back then my BMW was reliable. Oh for the days to return when the Germans start making reliable cars again!
#173 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [wvgasguy]
Jun 07, 2007 (10:32 am)
It is 100% substantiated by both Consumer Reports and Ford's own internal data plus a few other sources I think. I'll go find the link if you don't believe it.
You don't say which 2004 Ford model you purchased. There is a big difference in the new models like the Fusion, Milan, New Taurus (500), Expedition, F150 and the older models like the old Taurus and Focus. All vehicles introduced since 2004 have done much better than average. The others will catch up as they are redesigned. One example of the change: the Edge and MKZ were held up for 3 weeks at launch because Ford will not release vehicles until the production line can go 5 straight days without a single production line defect.
The facts are all there if you simply choose to believe them.
#174 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [wvgasguy]
Jun 07, 2007 (10:45 am)
AMEN, My Infiniti FX45 that I traded for the TCH was heads and shoulders a better car than the Camry.
At twice the cost, I would certainly hope so. Trying to explain why you would pay around $50K or more for a car no better than the Camry would be a tough thing to do, now wouldn't it?
#175 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [akirby]
Jun 07, 2007 (11:20 am)
You don't say which 2004 Ford model you purchased
It was an Expedition EB. $46,000 MSRP, 20,000 miles later a $24,000 trade in value ( best offer after several dealers). It was in MINT condition and loaded.
I can see myself with one someday if I needed a low milage 4x4 but I will never buy a new one again
#176 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [beantown]
Jun 07, 2007 (11:22 am)
Trying to explain why you would pay around $50K or more for a car no better than the Camry would be a tough thing to do, now wouldn't it?
Sarcasm seems to go over the head of most posters in this thread. So does a few other things. I'll leave you folks alone now to enjoy your Fords.
Just about anyone that pays $50,000 for a car should indeed have a hard time explaining it according to the statistics quoted in this thread. Just how much value can you place in a little better handling and ride and really justify it. In most cases the luxury purchase does not provide any additional benefits other than prestige. Luxury purchases don't really make sense, but to those that can afford them they don't have to.
(BTW, Actually I only had $10,000 more in the FX than what the TCH cost. Combined with 1.9% financing on the FX it was a decent purchase and a great car as well.)
#177 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [akirby]
Jun 07, 2007 (12:18 pm)
i think at least now the big 3 are competitive w/ honda and toyota on quality..i had a 79 pinto that was quite inferior to a 79 corolla or civic i am sure...but i think my 99 cavalier, 05 sunfire and 07 focus are very good cars and i am quite happy with them...same with a 86 mustang i had but i did notice it had a aluminum engine head gasket (cover?) that rusted out in 8 NH winters but other than thst i really liked car...i bought a used 1991 accord and that had a cast iron head gasket, so i was very impressed by that...after hearing how great japanese cars are i was surprised at some of things that went wrong on that car...door handle broke, igniton problems, headlight switch broke, front end problems, fender was falling off, glove compartment handle broke....loved the engine though...just was surprised at some of the things that happened w/ the honda, even with its age
#178 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [chetj]
Jun 07, 2007 (2:46 pm)
Aluminum doesn't rust - but the gasket can rot away.
#179 of 218 Re: Milan v Camry [wvgasguy]
Jun 07, 2007 (4:33 pm)
You were the victim of high gas prices reducing demand for large SUVs. Wouldn't have mattered if it was a different brand.