My review: 2010 Mercury Milan and Ford Fusion Hybrid

[twintornados]

Everything I've read said it's the same engine with a bit of extra power. If it's not, what is it really?

The biggest difference from the 3.0L from 2009, to the 3.0L for 2010 is that it is now Flex-Fuel capable...that unto itself defies the labeling of it as a "carryover"

 

Have you taken a 2010 Fusion/Milan out with a 3.0L and a full tank of E85?? let me know when you do, it should provide an insight to the car that many other articles have missed.

[DC Car Examiner]

The biggest difference from the 3.0L from 2009, to the 3.0L for 2010 is that it is now Flex-Fuel capable...that unto itself defies the labeling of it as a "carryover"

 

Have you taken a 2010 Fusion/Milan out with a 3.0L and a full tank of E85?? let me know when you do, it should provide an insight to the car that many other articles have missed.

 

There are only two public E85 gas stations in all of Maryland, making E85 capability something of a dubious benefit here.

Edited May 11, 2009 by DC Car Examiner

[notquitesane]

But you must admit that if anyone read your article, they would be led to believe there were NO changes to the 3.0L V6, which is untrue.

[twintornados]

There are only two public E85 gas stations in all of Maryland, making E85 capability something of a dubious benefit here.

So...your article only applies in Maryland??

[DC Car Examiner]

So...your article only applies in Maryland??

 

I write for the Washington, D.C. edition of Examiner.com. The target audience is indeed local.

 

Furthermore, it means getting E85 to test with isn't especially easy.

[DC Car Examiner]

But you must admit that if anyone read your article, they would be led to believe there were NO changes to the 3.0L V6, which is untrue.

 

It now reads "largely carried over."

[NickF1011]

It now reads "largely carried over."

 

Were Toyota's V6's "carryover" when they enlarged the 3.0 V6 to 3.3 liters and then to 3.5 liters? I mean they are still fundamentally the same engine aren't they? :P

 

Sorry. We can stop :beatdeadhorse:

[FordBuyer]

But you must admit that if anyone read your article, they would be led to believe there were NO changes to the 3.0L V6, which is untrue.

 

 

One issue being ignored when talking about the 3.0L Duratec is that it's BULLETPROOF. Kind of important, don't you think? Ford has updated the engine, and when you combine that with its BULLETPROOF nature, you have something. My personal vehicle has the 3.0 Duratec and so does my company car pushing 103,000 miles. Both never miss a beat with no maintenance other than oil changes and replacement of serpentine belt and coolant flushes. No driveability issues whatsoever. I don't know about you guys, but its BULLETPROOF nature are most improtant issue. Add in its smooth power, great driveability, and decent fuel mileage, and that is not all bad. I average 22mpg in combined driving and have gotten as much as 30mpg highway on some trips, but on most average between 27-29mpg.

[DC Car Examiner]

Were Toyota's V6's "carryover" when they enlarged the 3.0 V6 to 3.3 liters and then to 3.5 liters? I mean they are still fundamentally the same engine aren't they? :P

 

Sorry. We can stop :beatdeadhorse:

 

What I'm reading says the Toyota 3.3 and 3.0 were essentially the same engine but that the 3.5 is not.

[twintornados]

I write for the Washington, D.C. edition of Examiner.com. The target audience is indeed local.

 

Furthermore, it means getting E85 to test with isn't especially easy.

So...without sounding smarmy....why on earth would you post your results here if your target audience is Washington DC only? Why should I care what a Fusion does in the DC area.... :shades:

[one2gamble]

I still think the Milan is ugly. That front end is just horrendous.

 

 

I have finally seen both in person, I dont find the Milan attractive at all but I do see why some people would. Theres just something strange about the headlamps that turns me off on it, it is pretty original though. It manages to stand out without the in your faceness of the fusion.

[Nick Martin]

Everything I've read said it's the same engine with a bit of extra power. If it's not, what is it really?

 

That's 20 extra hp to be exact.

[probeGT]

It is not an error, mentioned in that context and in passing. Ford fans just seem to be extremely sensitive to the word "carryover" under the common misconception that an older design is necessarily a negative.

 

Yes, it IS (was) an error, and don't blame the "extremely sensitive" "Ford fans" for pointing it out. You explain this situation to any copy editor of any expertise, car mag or otherwise, and s/he would tell you to change it. You know why? Because it's wrong.

 

Now that THAT part is cleared up, let's re-start the debate over whether "largely carried over" is misleading . . . to me, a 40 hp boost in power resulting from all the changes Richard pointed out goes beyond largely carried over. You're right on the interior, though-it is "largely carried over."

 

Although maybe you should largely carry over a thesaurus to your office. . . you gots lots of carry over.

[probeGT]

Sorry. We can stop :beatdeadhorse:

 

Oops. . . I guess not.

[DC Car Examiner]

Yes, it IS (was) an error, and don't blame the "extremely sensitive" "Ford fans" for pointing it out. You explain this situation to any copy editor of any expertise, car mag or otherwise, and s/he would tell you to change it. You know why? Because it's wrong.

 

Now that THAT part is cleared up, let's re-start the debate over whether "largely carried over" is misleading . . . to me, a 40 hp boost in power resulting from all the changes Richard pointed out goes beyond largely carried over. You're right on the interior, though-it is "largely carried over."

 

Although maybe you should largely carry over a thesaurus to your office. . . you gots lots of carry over.

 

What 40 horsepower boost? I see a difference of less than half that.

[Critic]

There are a lot of engines that change over time that continue to be the same design. Nissan's VQ, for example, gets lots of little changes over the years, but I'd never hesitate to call it a carryover engine.

same:

block

connecting rods

oil pump

water pump (probably)

crankshaft

bearings

finger followers(probably)

timing chains (probably)

coils

plugs

plug wires

engine sensors (probably)

PCM hardware

starter

flywheel

 

different:

pistons

rings

valves

valve springs/spring caps

camshafts

heads

intake manifold

exhaust manifold

cam gears

VCT mechanism

PCM programming

injectors

 

Now could you please explain to me how that's the 'same' engine?

 

Could you please provide a definition of the word 'engine' that allows those changes to occur while continuing to describe the engine as the 'same' as its predecessor?

There in essence is the BIAS. IF Ford does those little thing's, It's a carryover. IF an Asian does it, it's not a carry-over. My bias says' hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[probeGT]

What 40 horsepower boost? I see a difference of less than half that.

 

 

My bad. . . all other points stand. Also, as long as you asked, you tried to justify it before by saying that it was used in passing. That makes it EVEN MORE IMPORTANT to get it right. IF you had said the engine in the car you were testing was "carried over" and then went on to describe it, people could judge for themselves. As it was, you just said one line about a car you didn't test, leaving the reader inaccurately informed.

 

Then, after making a Journalism 101 mistake, you try to blame us overzealous Ford Fans (on whose board you posted a link to your article) for pointing it out. You did the right thing by fixing it, but it was absolutely a mistake, not just Ford fans defending their honor.

[RichardJensen]

My bad. . .

See, DC, if you'd done this initially, instead of insisting that you made no mistake.........

[DC Car Examiner]

IF an Asian does it, it's not a carry-over.

 

I have already said that's not the case. You may not agree with what I call a carryover, but I am consistent on that point. I don't know where you would get that idea except from a general frame of mind that everyone is unfair to American cars.

[Critic]

I have already said that's not the case. You may not agree with what I call a carryover, but I am consistent on that point. I don't know where you would get that idea except from a general frame of mind that everyone is unfair to American cars.

Where did I get that idea? Straight from your words in the quote I posted of you. Now you try to turn it completely around and say you never said it, here let me quote it again. What part of my original post didn't you quite seem to understand?

(DC Car Examiner @ May 10 2009, 10:35 PM) There are a lot of engines that change over time that continue to be the same design. Nissan's VQ, for example, gets lots of little changes over the years, but I'd never hesitate to call it a carryover engine.

 

What we actually need to do, is not comp[lain to you, because that's not soaking in. We need to go above you to your boss's and point these errors out and continue hounding until a retraction appears on page 25.

[Michael Reynolds]

I have already said that's not the case. You may not agree with what I call a carryover, but I am consistent on that point. I don't know where you would get that idea except from a general frame of mind that everyone is unfair to American cars.

 

No offense (seriously), but I strongly suggest the usage of a dictionary. Examples of carry over powertrains are as follows:

 

2008 Escape V-6/I-4

2010 Mustang V-6/V8

 

I wouldn't call an engine that has 221 hp/205 lb-ft of torque for the 2009 MY that now sports 240 hp/223 lb-ft of torque carryover. It's far from it. That's like calling the the G37's engine carryover from the G35's.

[DC Car Examiner]

Where did I get that idea? Straight from your words in the quote I posted of you. Now you try to turn it completely around and say you never said it, here let me quote it again. What part of my original post didn't you quite seem to understand?

 

That would be the part where you said I would hold an Asian car to a different standard. As your "proof" you quote me saying I would call the Nissan VQ a carryover, say in the 2007 vs. 2006 Altima.

 

What we actually need to do, is not comp[lain to you, because that's not soaking in. We need to go above you to your boss's and point these errors out and continue hounding until a retraction appears on page 25.

 

Good point.

[notquitesane]

I believe the Car and Driver review of the 2010 Fusion indicates a "significantly enhanced" engine.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_li...st_drive_review

 

Leftlane news says it's "a modified version of the outgoing motor"

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-fusion-review.html

 

CarTest indicates an "enhanced 3.0L"

http://www.cartest.ca/2010_ford_fusion.htm

 

Auto123 indicates "an updated four- and six-cylinder line-up"

http://www.auto123.com/en/car-reviews/new/...ns?artid=103685

 

MSN Autos says "3.0-liter engine is up 19 horses and 23 lb-ft of torque to post a healthy 240 ponies."

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.a...mp;model=Fusion

 

Consumer Guide Automotive says "A 240-hp 3.0-liter V6 engine replaces a 221-hp 3.0 V6 on non-Sport V6 Fusions"

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...ford-fusion.htm

 

New Car Test Drive says "The 3.0-liter V6 engine, the first optional engine for the new model year, has also been given a substantial power and torque upgrade, to 240 horsepower, available with either a six-speed manual or six-speed overdrive automatic transmission."

http://www.newcartestdrive.com/sneakpreview.cfm?ReviewID=252

 

I could go on... and you say carryover... oops... largely carryover... gotcha

[Critic]

That would be the part where you said I would hold an Asian car to a different standard. As your "proof" you quote me saying I would call the Nissan VQ a carryover, say in the 2007 vs. 2006 Altima.

 

 

 

Good point.

 

 

Post above this says it all doesn't it. NOW your trying to quantify it with a model and a year?

There are a lot of engines that change over time that continue to be the same design. Nissan's VQ, for example, gets lots of little changes over the years, but I'd never hesitate to call it a carryover engine.

Consider what you wrote in this quote. And then go back to 10th. grade journalism and ask that teacher how to word this so your meaning is intact. Tell your boss your wages and benefits need to be cut, because an autoworker could write better than you can.

[rmc523]

What 40 horsepower boost? I see a difference of less than half that.

 

He may've thought you were talking about the 3.5, which has 265 (or 262)-hp, accounting for the additional 20-hp over the new 3.0?