RSS
Home
Review: 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and 2010 Mercury Milan - the Honda Accord done better for less money
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The redesigned 2010 Mercury Milan (above) and Ford Fusion are very competitive all-around family sedans, and now come
in a new gas-thrifty hybrid version. See more photos of the Fusion and Milan below the article in today's slideshow.
Recent months haven’t been too good for new car sales. Sharp declines fill the headlines, and all but three midsize family sedans have seen their sales fall off by more than ten percent last month.
The first of those three outliers is the Hyundai Sonata – whose combination of comfort, refinement, and value made it the winner of a recent DC Car Examiner comparison – which essentially held steady in April 2009 compared to 2008.
The second is the Ford Fusion, whose 2010-model redesign appeared on dealer lots last month featuring new styling, improved gas mileage, and a new gas-electric hybrid version. Its sales were up 22 percent compared to last April, and up 44 percent compared to this March. (The third is the low-volume Subaru Legacy, whose total sales of just 2,561 units were less than the Fusion’s sales increase.)
This jump in sales does not bring the Fusion to the level of the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, but it did leapfrog the Chevrolet Impala and Malibu and the Nissan Altima, the first Ford family sedan to do so since the automaker fumbled its Taurus earlier in the decade.
And after a test drive of the redesigned 2010 Mercury Milan (which is essentially identical to the Fusion) and a shorter drive of the new Fusion Hybrid, it’s easy to see why demand for the car has increased.
The Fusion/Milan was already a highly competitive car even before its recent upgrades. It placed second in the midsize sedan comparison, thanks to its ride, handling, interior space, safety, reliability, and bargain pricing.
The new version doesn’t have the same discounts as the outgoing 2009 model, but its extra features, its improved interior quality, and its big jump in gas mileage add to the car’s many existing strengths.
However, the Fusion/Milan still doesn’t feel as opulent as some of its competitors. Ford clearly put a lot of effort into the quality of the car, especially in the interior, but not all that money was properly allocated to give the best overall impression.
This was also the case in the outgoing model. As I wrote about the 2009 Fusion:
Ford clearly tried to give the Fusion an upscale aura inside. It listened carefully to complaints about hard plastic and coated the dashboard with a material you can sink your finger into. But you wouldn’t know you’re looking at quality unless you happen to give it a good poke; it doesn’t look special and it’s not exactly a high-contact surface. Ford’s interior budget might have been better spent on the places you’re more likely to touch, like the armrests.
I am pleased to report that the door armrests in the 2010 model are now generously padded, but the rest of the interior is largely carried over. Materials still feel nicer than they look, but you see most of them more often than you touch them. Also, the automatic transmission’s gear selector slides too easily past Drive from Park, giving a cheap feel to something drivers would use with some regularity.
The plush cloth seat trim on the tested base-model Milan was an interior strong point, however, and the tested Fusion Hybrid’s leather was nice too. However, while the seats are acceptably comfortable, they’re neither coddling nor especially supportive; several competitors are better. The rear seat is too hard, but it’s roomy enough for three adults.
The 2010 Fusion/Milan got a new base four-cylinder engine for 2010, but the overall driving experience has changed little compared from the previous version.
The 2009 Fusion SE 4-cylinder I drove had a firm but comfortable ride, responsive but less-than-sporty handling, and a somewhat weak and noisy engine with mediocre gas mileage. That’s still the case, with the new engine offering only a modest improvement in performance and refinement. The car is still perfectly pleasant to drive and hardly underpowered, to be sure, but it has not caught the competition there. The ride is also slightly smoother, and I didn’t notice a handling penalty.
The 2010 Milan, with its new 2.5-liter 4-cylinder, gets much better gas mileage than before: its EPA rating as tested improved from 20 to 23 miles per gallon in the city and shot from 28 to 34 miles per gallon on the highway, both with the automatic transmission. Not only is that better than any other gas-powered midsize family sedan, but it’s even better than many economy cars, including the stickshift Hyundai Elantra Touring reviewed here last week.
However, higher-end versions of the 4-cylinder Fusion and Milan, despite having the same specifications, are rated at a comparatively low 22 city / 31 highway. These figures may be more realistic, but they remain competitive for a midsize sedan and still an improvement over the 2009.
The Fusion and Milan also offer a 3.0-liter V6 that is largely carried over from the 2009 model and that other reviewers have said is showing its age against newer engines in the cars’ competitors in terms of power, refinement, and fuel economy, suggesting that consumers interested in extra power may be better-served elsewhere. (I did not drive a V6 car myself.) The high-end Fusion Sport also comes with a big 3.5-liter V6; the Milan offers nothing more than the 3.0.
But the biggest change to the 2010 Fusion/Milan is the newly available gas-electric hybrid (shown at left), whose ratings of 41 miles per gallon in the city and 36 on the highway trump the competing hybrid versions of the Chevrolet Malibu, Nissan Altima, Saturn Aura, and Toyota Camry. The car starts in electric mode without using the gas engine and can stay electric-only – infinite miles per gallon – past 40 miles per hour if you baby it enough.
I was only able to drive the Fusion Hybrid for a few minutes, as the dealer wanted to keep miles off of it. But while I found the operation of the hybrid technology to be seamless and few other compromises in the driving dynamics over the standard Milan, staying in electric mode requires especially gentle acceleration. I typically drive with a very light foot, but the gasoline engine kicked in immediately for me at first.
Owners who work at it would get to know their cars very well; Ford’s own drivers recently averaged over 80 miles per gallon driving around D.C. Drivers who don’t put much effort into conserving gas, however, would likely see little mileage improvement over a standard 4-cylinder Fusion or Milan to justify thousands of dollars in extra cost, as is the case in any hybrid even more than in most cars.
In the Fusion Hybrid, a display of green leaves starts to sprout next to the speedometer as you drive gently and disappears leaf by leaf if you don’t, serving as an extra reminder that you bought the car to minimize your fuel usage. You also get a summary of your last trip’s gas mileage when you turn the car off.
The loaded Fusion Hybrid I drove had a sticker price of nearly $32,000, up from a base price of $27,270. (The Milan Hybrid base price is $27,500.) The $5,000 options package on the car included leather seating, a moonroof, and upgraded stereo system, and a navigation system.
Most Fusion and Milan Hybrids in stock in the D.C. area so far seem to be these pricey models, and dealers don’t seem interested in selling these in-demand cars below the sticker price. For comparison, Toyota Camry Hybrid – the closest equivalent to the Fusion and Milan – starts from $26,150, and Fitzgerald Auto Malls sells them no-haggle for around $5,000 below their MSRPs. However, the Camry Hybrid is rated for 33 miles per gallon in the city compared to the Fusion/Milan Hybrid’s 41 mpg.
The base Fusion and Milan are more cost-competitive. The Milan I drove was very well-equipped with at $22,780, with an automatic transmission as its only added option. Fortunately, dealers aren’t as protective of the base car as they are of the Hybrid; local dealers are already listing 2010 Fusions and Milans equipped identically to the one I drove no-haggle for under $20,000, and available discounts will likely grow even further to make the car a strong value.
At that sticker price, the car included power windows, locks, mirrors, and front seats; Ford’s keypad entry and capless gas tank features; alloy wheels; a satellite radio receiver; six airbags; and antilock brakes with traction and stability control.
This no-options Milan is comparable to the midlevel Fusion SE, both in price and feature content. A Fusion S model that’s about $1,000 less has manual seat adjustments and no satellite radio, but there’s no comparable Milan version.
A few months ago, the 2009 Fusion SE was selling for $17,500, the lowest price of the eight cars in this midsize sedan comparison. The 2010 costs more, and still doesn’t feel much more opulent, even in the $32,000 fully-loaded version.
But now that the Fusion/Milan’s gas mileage has been corrected – and then some – the car no longer has any significant faults. There are areas where it’s only okay instead of great – its interior design and seat comfort, and the power and refinement from its four-cylinder engine – but even “okay” by today’s standards is quite good, and much of the car is even better than “okay.”
If you’re looking at a Honda Accord, you should be looking at the Fusion and Milan. Their key strengths are the same: good ride and handling, a high-quality but not luxurious interior and strong reliability. And the Fusion and Milan have better gas mileage, better crash-test results, and a much lower price.
They don’t have the space, refinement, or ultra-bargain pricing of a Hyundai Sonata. But the Fusion and Milan are worthy midsize sedans that just got even better.
Vehicles tested: 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid / 2010 Mercury Milan base
Vehicle base prices (MSRP): $27,270 / $21,180
Vehicle prices as tested (MSRP): $31,940 / $22,780
Estimated transaction prices as tested: $31,940 / $19,909
Test vehicles provided by: Castle Ford, of Silver Spring, Md. / Safford Mercury, of Silver Spring, Md.
Related Articles:
Comments
