For 72 years, Ford had a brand for buyers who wanted something a little nicer than a car that had a Blue Oval, but was cheaper than a car with a Lincoln badge. Mercury hasn’t been with us since 2011, and its fall from grace was a sad one, as Mercury struggled to find an identity in its final years. Yet, there was one bright spot. On the surface, the Mercury Milan might have seemed like a lazy rebadge of the Ford Fusion. But under the familiar bodywork was not just a fine commuter car, but Mercury’s last car to ever come with a manual transmission.
Back in 2018, Ford shook the car world when it announced that it was discontinuing every four-door car in its lineup. Sure enough, Ford followed through on its threats. The Focus bowed out in 2018, and was followed closely by the discontinuations of the Fiesta and the Taurus. The last sedan standing was the Fusion, which soldiered on to 2020. It’s been six years since the Ford car-pocalypse, and much of America has seemingly gotten used to the Ford lineup being full of crossovers, SUVs, and trucks. Only the Mustang holds down the car fort at Ford nowadays.
The Fusion was one of the real gems that America lost in this process. Sure, the Honda and Toyota competition sold more copies at the end, but the Fusion looked sharp, was beloved by many of its owners, and even had an honest 325 horsepower sport version that was a bit of a sleeper. The Fusion also reeled in quite a few awards when the first generation launched in 2006. That honesty, I think, was one of the defining traits of the Fusion. It didn’t try to be anything it wasn’t, and what you saw on the tin is what you got.
If you’re a fan of rowing your own gears, the best Fusion was perhaps the one that didn’t call itself a Ford. The Mercury Milan split the difference between the Ford Fusion and the Lincoln Zephyr. The Milan was nicer inside than a regular Fusion, but also came with something that the Lincoln did not: a manual transmission. What buyers got was a classy car that was easy to drive, had an excellent engine, and was somewhat frugal at the pump, but still had something for the enthusiast.
Ford’s First ‘Digital’ Cars
The heart of the Ford Fusion and its siblings is the CD3 platform, an architecture developed by Mazda, in which Ford had a controlling 33.4 percent stake in back then. The platform’s life kicked off in 2002 as the underpinnings of the Mazda 6. But Ford had big plans for the CD3 platform. It spent $1 billion on the CD3 program, cooking it up into what it hoped to be the bones of models to be sold around the whole world. But there was more, as the Ford models developed on the CD3 platform would be hailed as the Blue Oval’s first truly “digital” cars.
Milan is built on the new global CD3 architecture developed by Ford Motor Company. Eventually, this architecture will serve as the basis for as many as ten unique vehicles in North America, with combined sales up to 800,000 units annually.
Ford developed the CD3 as its first fully “digital” car, allowing the company to cut months of development time, saving money and bringing the vehicles to market more quickly. Supercomputing power let engineers build an entire car in an exact duplicate of the assembly plant without stamping a single piece of sheet metal. During this “virtual build,” engineers identified and implemented more than 300 ways to improve such things as vehicle fit and finish, tool clearances and ergonomics on the production line.
“This really made us focus on the way the car would be built,” says Pat Villerot, supervisor, final assembly engineering, Ford Vehicle Operations. “We were able to check clearances in the vehicle, verify the build sequence and prove out ergonomics for the plant workers. For example, we could simulate building the car at a certain height on the assembly line, and use virtual people who are representative of our plant workers to make sure this was the proper height.”
Before Ford adopted this digital technology, designers and engineers often iterated through physical prototyping. As WardsAuto wrote in 2005, some issues weren’t tackled until later on in development. Now, engineers were able to build and test out their designs in a virtual environment before committing the time and resources to building test mules and prototypes. Since the various departments involved in the development of a model were all hooked into the same software, it also meant that problems could be solved sooner.
Clay models and physical demonstrators were still built, of course, but Ford’s teams were able to collaborate and hone in on their designs before putting them into flesh. A Ford press release from 2008 explains how the company leveraged what it called the Virtual Build Arena:
Ford employs advanced motion capture technology – commonly used in animated movies and digital games – with human modeling software to design jobs that are less physically stressful on workers. “The benefits are fewer injuries, lower cost of tooling changes, higher quality and faster time to market. We’re seeing improvement in every one of those metrics, and our virtual technology is a factor,” said Allison Stephens, Ford ergonomics technical specialist with Vehicle Operations Manufacturing Engineering. Stephens demonstrated to media today the ergo technology in a virtual assembly plant. An engineer outfitted in a digitized harness, gloves and head gear installed a virtual center console exactly as a plant operator would.
The engineer’s size and movements were captured and loaded into a computer program, redrawn as a digital employee, an avatar called Jack, and displayed on a large screen. The human modeling software then determines the ergonomic and quality impact on the assembly-line work. Changes can be made quickly and efficiently to the vehicle or part design to avoid adverse impact. Ford has integrated ergonomic requirements into product design specifications and customer quality checks. “With this technology, our digital employees – Jack and Jill – are helping us predict the ergonomic affect of long-term repetitive motions,” said Stephens. “The impact on health and safety metrics as well as on quality has been tremendous.” Ford has been advancing its approach to digital ergonomics work since it began using virtual tools to improve ergonomics in 2000. The company is collaborating with the University of Michigan as part of a technology consortium as well as participating in the Virtual Soldier Research program with the Department of Defense and the University of Iowa.
As a part of the company’s product development, the ergonomic data are handed off to the Virtual Build Arena, where the program team – designers, engineers, suppliers and line operators – assemble the vehicle part by part, virtually. This happens long before the first physical parts are produced and a prototype vehicle is built. In fact, the virtual build event takes place before Ford and its suppliers install tooling and set up workstations. In the virtual build event, Jack and Jill assemble the vehicle part by part on a wall-sized computer screen as the program team scrutinizes the vehicle’s manufacturing feasibility, i.e., how well the parts go together in the assigned sequence and at the specific plant where the vehicle is to be produced. “The impact on cost-savings and quality improvement is significant,” said Cheryl Bruins-Rozier, Virtual Build manager. Bruins-Rozier said the technology contributed to high quality early builds of the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS, both launching this summer. In each case, the vehicle reached the prototype build stage with 80 percent fewer manufacturing feasibility issues. “Thanks to the virtual tools, parts compatibility on both vehicles was extremely high,” she said. “These products are on track to launch at world-class levels.”
In 2005, Ford’s designers estimated that the Fusion program would span only 38 months compared to the 45 months that a typical Ford took to develop back then. To further illustrate just how helpful virtual build techniques were, Ford told WardsAuto that development on the Lincoln Zephyr began 13 months after the Ford Fusion. Yet, they were still able to launch at around the same time.
The Gen-X Mercury
The Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and Lincoln Zephyr each launched in 2005. As CNET wrote in 2006, to create the trio, Ford took the Mazda 6’s CD3 platform and stretched it, widened it, and strengthened it, creating the CD338. Sadly, as Autoweek reported in 2005, Ford’s plan to morph the CD3 into a global platform stalled out when its European brands concluded that CD3 didn’t meet their performance requirements. Instead, they would build models out of the CD1 and EUCD platforms.
But here in America, the CD3 was a big deal, as it was a major component in Ford’s rejuvenation plan, which, as Autoweek reported, was a bet on selling lots of different family cars. The Fusion — which was originally called the Futura before Pep Boys sued — was supposed to carry the family car torch after buyers started scooping up Hondas and Toyotas rather than the Ford Taurus. The Fusion was to be the value-oriented model, with the Zephyr (later called the MKZ) as the upper-crust luxury model. Right in the middle was the Milan.
While the Fusion was Ford’s draw to get people from buying a Toyota or Honda, the Milan and Zephyr were supposed to help breathe new life into Lincoln-Mercury, which was then an entity of Ford’s Premier Automotive Group. Allegedly, the average Mercury Grand Marquis buyer was over 60 years old, and the brand had gotten a reputation for being the automaker your parents bought from. Meanwhile, Lincoln Town Car buyers were either pushing 70 or were drivers taking people to the airport.
The Milan, along with the likes of a new Mariner, Marauder, and Monterey, was supposed to get younger people into the new hip and fresh Mercury. From Mercury:
The Milan is critical in attracting a new, younger demographic to Mercury showrooms. These new consumers, between the ages of 25-36 and broadly defined as Generation Xers, are the youngest of a group of increasingly younger Mercury customers. They also express some of the same unique, trend-defying traits that underpin Mercury’s renaissance. In general, Gen Xers are savvy consumers looking for stylish, functional products that match their unique lifestyle. Mercury research shows that 81 percent believe in strong self-expression through fashion and that 61 percent claim unique, personal styles drive their purchase decisions. “First and foremost, the new Mercury customer wants something that stands apart from the crowd,” says Darryl Hazel. “They don’t want something they will also see in their neighbor’s driveway, but they also don’t want a car that’s brash or showy. They want premium features, but without the luxury price tag.”
The range of new products at Mercury requires a new method of communication to reach an expanded set of consumers. “Our new products give us the opportunity to redefine our brand,” says John Fitzpatrick, Lincoln Mercury general marketing manager. “Thus, we set out to relaunch the Mercury brand with a fully integrated marketing communications campaign, called ‘New Doors Opened.'” “New Doors Opened is Mercury’s fully integrated marketing communications campaign that features the vitality of the Mercury brand woven into the everyday discoveries of modern life. A record 25 percent of the total marketing budget for ‘New Doors Opened’ is dedicated to Internet communication initiatives. “The Internet has changed how people shop,” says Fitzpatrick. “We know that more than two-thirds of new car purchases are researched on the Internet. Mercury understands it’s an essential channel to communicate with our target customers.”
Another component of the Internet communications strategy was a breakthrough undertaking for Mercury – or any other major automotive brand – because its vehicles were not the main focus of the project. “Meet the Lucky Ones” was a story written and produced with an independent-film sensibility about the often-comic misadventures of a quirky, slightly dysfunctional family and unfolded over a five-week period last fall. “Meet the Lucky Ones” helped attract nearly 1.9 million unique visitors to www.mercuryvehicles.com. During the five-week program, www.meettheluckyones.com had more than 472,000 unique visitors, almost 181,000 of whom then elected to visit the Mercury Mariner section of the Web site to learn more about the vehicle. Finally, more than 33,000 unique opt-in e-mail addresses were collected from individuals seeking more information about the Mercury Mariner, exceeding the campaign’s target by 32 percent.
In addition to spreading the word on the Internet and through clever marketing, Lincoln-Mercury dealers also updated their designs to look more like art galleries than car dealers. Per Lincoln-Mercury’s data, gallery dealers outperformed non-gallery dealers in every metric.
It Came With A Manual!
The Milan, like its two direct siblings, had solid bones. It rode on a 107.4-inch wheelbase with a modest 191.4 inches of length. Power came from a Mazda 2.3-liter dual overhead cam, 16-valve four with 160-horsepower and 150 pound-feet of torque on deck. In Ford form, this engine was called the Duratec 23. Optional was Ford’s 3.0-liter dual-cam Duratec V6 with 221 horsepower and 205 pound-feet of twist. The four-cylinder had a choice of either a five-speed automatic or a five-speed manual, while the V6 came paired with a six-speed automatic.
Backing it up was what sounded like a cushy ride. Here’s what John Davis of MotorWeek said:
Within a year Mercury will add all-wheel-drive to the Milan, and in 2008 a gasoline-electric hybrid will appear. But even now EPA fuel economy estimates are quite acceptable for the Milan V6 at 21 city/29 highway. Our mixed driving loop of 25 miles-per-gallon was just as expected. So was performance. Our Milan will hit 60 in 7.0 seconds, and cover the quarter mile in 15.4 seconds at 93 miles-per-hour. The V6 has plenty of grunt, pulling hard from idle to mid-range. It revs quickly, but with a fair bit of mechanical noise. The 6-speed automatic is sharp and positive.
Handling hardware consists of a short/long arm front and multi-link rear suspension. But tuning felt different than Fusion, a little softer. Turn in is quick, and steering weight is good, although there is never enough feel for us. While a very safe car with good grip, if you drive through the front push you can throttle steer the rear end quite nicely. Milan is easily the most sporting sedan from Mercury in recent memory. The up side of this softer setup is a very quiet and compliant street ride, fitting nicely between Fusion and Zephyr.
Braking is by 4-wheel discs with our car’s optional ABS, which produced longish stops of 135 feet. Nothing dramatic here, but we did have to apply a few more steering corrections than in either Fusion or Zephyr. Mercury has traditionally favored comfort over performance, but we think Ford should tighten up Milan’s overall feel so it completely lives up to its Euro-trendy look.
A Fusion, But Fancier
Of course, the whole reason to get a Mercury back then was to get something a bit nicer than a Ford. A base Milan sported cloth seats with six-way power adjustment on the driver side, a tilt and telescopic steering wheel with built-in cruise and audio controls, a six-speaker stereo with MP3 capability, a one-touch down driver window, LED taillights, and a few other bits.
Moving up to the Premier trim got you into what we’d call “premium” car territory. Standard was leather seating, and the dashboard was lined with real satin-aluminum trim. Optional was genuine Mahogany wood. Other luxuries in the Premier included automatic climate control, 17-inch machined aluminum wheels, traction assist, seat heating, a sunroof, an eight-speaker sound system, and more. In 2010, the Fusion, Milan, and MKZ also got Carlite SoundScreen, which was acoustic glass with a sheet of polyvinyl butyral in the middle to cut down on noise and vibration.
All of this was wrapped up in a body that chief designer Darrell Behmer said was supposed to attract youthful customers like “a fine Italian suit.” Even the name, Milan, is supposed to make you think of Italy. The Milan had a starting price of $18,995 in 2006. Moving up to the Premier was $20,890. Getting a base V6 was $21,995 while the Premier V6 was $23,495.
The Milan’s manual transmission was actively marketed throughout its run, with Mercury calling the five-speed “for spirited driving pleasure” and saying that getting the manual was the way to squeeze the best out of the Duratec 23. Yet, despite that, the period reviews I’ve read were all for automatics. The good news is that, since the Milan is pretty much just a fancy Fusion, we can refer to reviews of the manual Fusion. MotorWeek described the Fusion’s manual as “felt a lot like the MX-5,” which is pretty high praise.
Having that same manual in a Milan just means getting that same Mazda shift feel, but with slick metal, Mahogany, and leather around you. A more recent retrospective from Hagerty calls the Milan with a manual a “Goldilocks commuter car,” and that Camry and Accord buyers would have been perfectly happy with a Milan, if not happier.
The Milan got even better in 2010, too, with the four-cylinder powertrain upgrading to the coveted 2.5-liter Duratec four with 175 HP and 172 pounds of twist on hand. That’s the year the manual got an extra gear, too. According to Mercury, the 2010 Milan 2.5-liter four had a best-in-class 60 mph acceleration time of about 8 seconds. While not particularly impressive, that’s not bad for a family car from 2010. This is also the same powertrain that people keep snatching out of Fords to put into their Miatas!
While I have never driven a Milan, I have ridden in its Ford Fusion sibling. It was fine. It was neither bad, nor the best car ever. It was, as I said in the opener, honest. It wasn’t loaded down with gizmos and gimmicks, but it wasn’t spartan, either. It was sort of where many cars from the 2000s were, where there was just enough technology to feel modern and to take away some of the pain points of the past. It didn’t need jumbotron screens, logos all over the place, “connected” anything, or hardware that costs more than a dinner at Five Guys to replace after a minor parking lot oopsie.
I imagine the Milan is a lot like that, but with some nice leather and such thrown in.
Mercury’s Last Manual Survived Until The End
Sadly, it wasn’t enough, because while the Milan eventually became Mercury’s best-selling car, the brand still lost its footing, identity, and sales. Ford canned the whole brand, and since then, Mercury is but a distant memory. It’s sort of wild to think about because, in recent times, I can remember when I last saw a Milan, a Grand Marquis, and a Marauder, but I would draw a blank on any other model. Don’t even ask me when I last saw a Milan in good condition. I’m willing to bet that many people weren’t even aware that the Milan was even available with a manual.
While it’s probably safe to assume that a Milan with a manual transmission is rare, there are no production numbers, so it’s really anyone’s guess. Regardless, the Milan itself is about as remembered as Mercury is, and if you find one for sale, don’t be surprised to see that it has a ton of miles and maybe a crash or a few in its records. None have graced the pages of enthusiast auction sites, and the one I found for sale is going for under $5,000.
I think the world needs more cars like the old Milan. For the modern equivalent of $32,087, buyers got a sedan with a slightly nicer interior, a manual transmission, and a peppy engine. It was a normal car that didn’t try to promise you the world; it was just a little bit more fun than usual.
But I also acknowledge that the Milan was built for another car market, one that was more receptive to mid-size sedans that didn’t have a Toyota, Mazda, or Honda badge on it. Heck, the Milan was built for a world where Mercury was still around. Of course, the Milan was also a part of an era where manuals were more common. Still, there’s something that seems neat about an average, everyday car with some luxury touches and a dash of fun sprinkled in. I guess I really can imagine myself in a Mercury.
I saw both the Fusion and the Milan in manual trim when I worked at the FLM dealer back in 2010-2012. Both times I saw either of them was trade-ins. I was shocked to see either in manual transmission as well.
My mother bought the last Mercury on the lot of our local L/M dealer – a white Milan (not a manual.) I think they looked better than the tri-bar grill Fusion, but they fixed the Fusion with the Aston-Martin front end (which I call the grouper mouth), my C-Max had it as well.
>The four-cylinder had a choice of either a five-speed automatic or a five-speed manual, while the V6 came paired with a six-speed automatic.
THIS always annoys me. 4-cylinder and manual or V6 and automatic. No V6 with manual.
Every damn time. Want a manual? Your choices are gutless penalty box or $100,000 rocketship with carbon ceramic brakes and astronomical insurance. Looking at you, CT5.
Happened with the bronco too. “We heard you and you can now order the Sasquatch package with a manual trans!” Oh good! And we can get it with the good engine too, right?
Right?
I always thought these and this gen Fusion were good looking cars.
I like them better than the restyled Aston Martin Fusion by a long shot. Big shame they never released a SHO variant, I think it would have been great.
My dad worked at the Ford Dealer in Cooperstown NY, and sold me my first (and probably last) brandy-new car a year out of college. As an enthusiast on a budget with an active lifestyle, the premier manual Milan checked a lot of boxes. In November of ’06, i took delivery of a new blue 5-speed milan with the black and tan leather interior and cool brushed aluminum accents.
Other than the leading edge and rocker rot and the troublesome combo-style rear calipers, it was a great car. It hauled way more than you’d imagine with the rear seats down, even the front pass seat folded flat to help you fit in those 12′ 2×8’s tight against the dash, ha. Handled good enough for public roads, got over 30 mpg on the hwy, zippy enough for regular traffic, was quite reliable, and we put over 250k miles on that car, and sold it for the quintessential $1/engine cc.
While i miss that car, we have replaced it with something that feels to the inch like the same exact car but with 40+ mpg and low end turbo torque, a ’17 Jetta SE with a black and tan leather interior and … a 5-speed manual. This configuration is getting harder and harder to find, that’s for sure! Will be a practical, useful and safe car to hand down to our kids.
That being said, both of my boys want to drive a manual transmission and they think it’s cool that they’ll likely be the only kids in the high school parking lot driving manuals, and that makes my motor-soul very, very happy.
The kids are alright!
You’re raising those guys right! I taught my son how to drive a stick in my 2001 A4 Jetta TDI. It’s a skill he’s never had to use again in his 16 years of driving since. His high school friends thought it was so cool to see me rowing my own gears while I was transporting them to deafening metal concerts. When they commented on it, I told them how fun and engaging it was to drive manuals. I tried…
Around then, a young girl driving a gas Jetta of the same year her parents had given her stalled out repeatedly going uphill past a restaurant where our family was having lunch al fresco. I walked over and asked her if she wanted help. She said yes and I had her sit in the passenger seat and showed her how to use the handbrake to keep from rolling backwards while trying to find the right combination of fuel and clutch pedal. Getting back to the table, I looked at my son and told him that being able to drive a stick was a way he could impress a young woman. He rolled his eyes. Ah. Good times.
at that time the manual was intended to be a loss leader or perhaps a price setter on paper. had they managed to fit one beside the 3.0 and maybe indicated it was an XR model I don’t doubt they could have done a little business in the sporty side of things. the FWD and Mercury stigma still would have put it in a deficit against the likes of the 3 series Beemers of the day, but it certainly would have helped. I recall it being a bit of a big deal for GM when they added a manual to the 4 cylinder Olds Alero. But as a gen X’er, I can say tacking it onto just the 4 banger versions did not draw us the same way the same trans to the v6 version would have.
I had a 2007 Fusion with that Duratec 23 and the manual stick. The car was optioned out really well for what it was too. I bought it for $5k for a commuter car and it was great at that. Super slow off the line but comfortable and interesting to drive. The engine was a tank while the rest of the car fell apart though. I had to replace the oil pan from the previous owner over tightening the plug and the engine bottom looked new. Couldn’t believe it for 176k miles it had.
Might as well just have gotten the 1st Gen Mazda6. Then you could get the V6 with the manual. I loved that car.
Finally, the Mercury content I crave, and have demanded, on Monday like all omnipresent deities intended. AND I MISSED IT.
I feel like I have brought shame upon my entire household.
Not picking on Mercedes here because many of the writers use this phrasing too, but just once I’d want to hear what a “dishonest” car is, or one that “tries to be something it’s not”. We hear an awful lot about the opposite.
I’d say basically half the cars that Jason used to feature on Glorious Garbage. Cars that seemingly promise more than they deliver.
To pick on my favorite car, some Smart owners consider a North American Fortwo Brabus to be dishonest. Has the right badging and looks… but doesn’t actually go faster, unlike its European siblings.
I actually don’t remember Glorious Garbage, now I have something to do the rest of the workday…
Exhibit A: The PT Cruiser GT.
The PT Cruiser is basically a small minivan without a sliding door. It’s pretty, but it’s intended to be a box that moves stuff.
The GT got low-profile wheels, an “autostick” transmission, and a turbocharger under the hood. It looked almost cool.
…and after all that, it still drove like a minivan. Except now with torque steer!
The GT badge on that car wrote checks that the rest of the vehicle could not cash, even with its “performance” upgrades.
That’s a dishonest car.
eh, it honestly increased performance, so I feel like it was not as dishonest as say the early 2000’s SS Silverado. Yes the 6.0 was a step up from the 5.3, but it was also available in the C3 GMC as well as Denali and HD 2500’s, so basically you got a lowered version of one of those. Made it less useful from a truck standpoint and only marginally better performance, if at all.
My list of Dishonest Cars includes:
1982 Ford Granada
1988 Chrysler New Yorker Turbo
80’s Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport
Any car in GM’s 1958 lineup
Any small car that BMC/BL with the name Vanden Plas
Hyundai XG350
Mid 2000’s Mercedes products
Fisker Karma, probably even a Lambo Countach since it is nearly undrivable due to ergos and visibility.
Also the Monte Carlo SS, actually basically anything in the 2000’s with an SS badge except maybe the Camaro’s and Trailblazers.
Yes! Especially the last generation Impala based one…although the last SS (Holden Commodore) was a pretty rad SS.
ok, yeah, I kind of forgot about the cop spec SS Holden
that one, but they also just sold a sedan that was the “SS“…RWD, V8 and you could even get a manual.
I’d add the entire current Mercedes-Benz lineup – particularly those which have AMG appearance packages but are not AMGs under the hood.
And Maybach – which seems to be German for “Brougham, but with more gauche logos”
A tackier lineup of cars has rarely existed.
Also BMW’s M-Sport cars – for the same reasons.
I’d also add the new Lexus ES – which is just a Toyota Crown in faint disguise.
And the Nissan Armada Nismo – for obvious reasons.
As well as any Rolls-Royce which is in Black Label spec – as if blacking out the trim will transform your 3-ton luxury-liner into a sports car.
Don’t talk smack about the Armada Nismo loud enough for Matt to hear…
Let me put that in ALL CAPS then.
I remember these vehicles well, they were the car of metro-Detroit back in the day. 99% were Fusion owners but you could find a Milan at the fancy malls on any given day. Great car for the newly graduated interns with parental funds. I always wanted one in the VOGA trim during the final model years.
“Don’t even ask me when I last saw a Milan in good condition.”
I know exactly where I last saw a Milan and a Grand Marquis in good condition:
The local VA Hospital parking garage.
“I think the world needs more cars
like the old Milan.”There – fixed it for ya.
There is a Milan in my condo complex garage. It rarely moves, and is most definitely senior-owned, low-mileage, and in excellent shape. I don’t need it, but seeing it is oddly tempting. Not light-your-soul-on-fire desire, but kind of like an excellent warm crusty baguette with fresh butter and just the right amount of salt. Simple but tasty. (having owned one, shoutout to the Duratec 4. Take care of it and it’s as good as any Toyota)
The wedge generation Fusions/Milan were great looking cars. Very thin on the ground now, though. They apparently reached their lifespan.
The 2013 Mondeo Fusion was even more impressive to me. Titanium 2.0-liters felt expensive. They offered a manual with the 1.6-turbo, and Ye Olde 2.5 Duratec was available in lower trims if you wanted peace of mind.
Fucking idiocy to kill that car off after nailing it, but I guess they needed the resources to choke the Escape nameplate to death and release the market-poison EcoSport.
Mercury would be a decent name for another line outside Mustang, especially for EVs. The Ford Mercury (“Meta One?!”).
I can see GM doing a Chevrolet Saturn. That works even better.
…and to complete the joke, Stellantis would debut the Chrysler Uranus.
I had a few of these as rentals back in the day, automatics, of course. Perfectly pleasant, if not exciting in any way. I actually liked them better than the same gen Mazda6, though I LOVED the previous gen Mazda6 and would grab them when I could. Avis had tons of those back in the day, and they were a common upgrade car.
Can’t say I have ever so much as laid eyes on a manual Milan, though I had a friend with a manual Fusion. And one friend has one of the VERY last Fusion PHEV Titanium’s, in a very Mazda like red. He originally leased it, and likes it so much he bought it when the lease was up.
In their time on the rental lots we’d choose Fusion 1.1 every time. Fusion 2.0 felt bulky and had bad visibility in comparison.
Yeah, sadly they got infected by modern car disease of needing to make you “feel safe’ by hiding your view of the big bad world outside. Sucks.
Checks day of week on calendar.
Monday, Mercury Monday.
Glad to see it still occasionally makes an appearance!
I would like to offer a rewrite of this article.
Headline: The last Mercury sold with a manual transmission was a 2011 Mercury Milan.
Post body: “See headline”.
“Honest” is exactly how describe a badge engineered car.
Can I offer some criticism that I think is more a design problem than anything else? I really appreciate these articles that draw from period/primary sources, but my eyes simply cannot read such long blocks of italic text, so I end up skipping over most of them, and sometimes giving up on articles entirely when there’s too much of it. Which makes me feel like I’m missing out! Is there a way to think about how to incorporate that research that’s easier to read?
Or maybe it’s just me. But I really want to appreciate pieces like this (and the obvious work and care that goes into them) more than I’m able to.
Nope – not just you.
A block quote is usually the preferred format for long quotations for this reason. Italics are good for emphasis but poor for long passages; they’re visually grabby and demanding.
Agree – on my tiny-screened 5 year old iPhone, at least… Any italicized text from long quotes displays as two or three words per line, so I just scroll past all of it.
Agreed! Italics are meant for emphasis, definitely not for long-form text.
Ditto.
Hmmm…so I just tried to disable the italics, and the site left them in, anyway. I’ll see if it’s a backend thing forcing that!
Edit: Ugh, yep, it’s a forced feature. Blockquote something, and it’s automatically put into italics. Hold on, let me see if I can trick it to stop doing that.
Edit 2: Nope, it’s forever present, even if I try going through the textual version of the editor. I’ll send a suggestion to the dev team to give us the option to blockquote without italics.
Thank you for looking into this (and addressing it in the COTD article). Stuff like this, that’s obviously built into the site’s backend, is clearly not your responsibility, so your going above and beyond for us readers is greatly appreciated!
When I travel south of the border, I think the largest difference I see in the automotive landscape is the presence of Mercurys from 2000-2011. The brand gave up in Canada after 1999, so the sight of a Mercury Milan or Mercury Mariner is always a reminder that I’m Stateside. Other giveaways would be seeing pre-2010 Scions or Toyota Land Cruisers of the 100 or 200 series
Ford used to be unique among the domestics by subtly pitching us with “we sell cars in Europe too you know.” So manuals in sedans for a longer time than you’d expect was part of that old world charm.
It’s one of the reason I got my Focus – I could get a stick and some fun in an everyday runabout. Something Europeans take for granted, but even back then was getting rare stateside.
But I’d like to quibble about the timing of this of this piece. Shouldn’t it be coming out on Tuesday or later??
That sad part is that a late Focus with a stick is a damned good, and really great to drive car. My only gripe was the dismal rear seat legroom. Absent the Achille’s Heel of them the dreadful Powershit automatic.
The whole death of Ford’s cars makes me sad.
They were decent vehicles.
But the best CD3 was the Mazda6 imho.
At least it has real turn signals in the back, unlike the Fusion.
Fun fact: the Milan, Fusion, and Zephyr/MKZ were made in Mexico, while the Mazda6 was made in the US (alongside the Mustang). I still think that’s funny making the foreign nameplates here and not the domestic names. They should’ve made the American names in the US and just given us the 6 from Japan.
Of course the transmission felt like a Mazda, because it *is* from Mazda, as is the MZR I4 (though the V6 is from Ford). The suspension and brakes are identical to the 06+ 6 (which is also when the Fusion came out). That means you can use Bilstein shocks and other aftermarket shit offered for the 6, even if not listed for the Fusion/Milan/MKZ.
The Milan is still silly, though. They should’ve just offered the I4 and manual on the Zephyr, and of course the Fusion should’ve gotten amber turn signals. Cadillac had recently brought back the manual in the CTS (and not just for the V, either).
The best part is how the Euro Mondeo of the time looks just like the Fusion/Milan but shares no parts with it. Mexico got the Euro Mondeo until the Fusion came out, when they switched.
What Mercury should’ve done is just import Euro Fords and some Mazdas that might be too expensive to sell as a Ford over here (like that Mondeo, just call it a Mercury), also the real Mk2 Focus (which we never got, just a rebodied enshittified MK1), the C-Max, Galaxy, etc. Kind of like what GM was trying to do in the bailout era, Opel/Saturn–>Buick, Holden–>Pontiac)
To stick up for the USDM ’08- ’11 Focus (I own one and love it), if it’s not the Euro model, it is the Mk1 with all its bugs completely worked out. There’s a lot to be said for that.
I wanted a mk2 Focus, but bought a Mazda3 as the closest thing, though Euro reviews usually placed the Focus higher in comparisons. The mk3 Focus I replaced the Mazda with was better in every way (especially rust protection!).
The Mondeo itself was far too expensive to build to sell here (though of course you can buy one in Jaguar drag). They were not going to repeat the mistake that was the Contour/Mystique. Which is why they built them in NAFTA-era Mexico, and dumbed them down a bit for the US “cars by the pound” market. I assume Mazda got high enough ATP’s for the 6 to be able to build them in Flat Rock, plus it’s likely that factory just didn’t have the capacity to make ALL of them there anyway, but had enough spare capacity to make it worth making the 6 there.
Also interestingly, the Ford Fusion was listed as the MOST reliable car certain years in Consumer Reports, and the Mazda6 was rated the LEAST reliable certain years across the same generation.
This almost made me laugh out loud:
> Xers are savvy consumers looking for stylish, functional products that match their unique lifestyle. Mercury research shows that 81 percent believe in strong self-expression through fashion and that 61 percent claim unique, personal styles drive their purchase decisions
I get it, market research happens, and everyone likes to think they’re more unique than they are, but something about this quote teed up a Simpsons-esque nonsense line, I’m feeling like it’s coming from Kent Brockman, who dutifully reports that “81 percent of Gen Xers believe that they are, on average, 75 percent more unique than their peers,” before looking off-camera and asking just what on earth that’s supposed to mean.
I’m not picking generation fights or anything; it’s that that juxtaposition of soft, qualitative statements butted up against expressions of fact, especially statistics, will always tickles my cynical funny bone.
More on topic, the death of Ford’s cars still frustrates the shit out of me. They were still having massive quality issues (Powershift, everything else) but they were at least handsome, the STs were beloved, and the glorious, ridiculous Focus RS is always the first car I try to get my digital mitts on in a racing game.
Edit: bahaha, I went to close the tab where I was checking that I was in fact thinking of the Powershift and had typed “Powershit”. Yep, that about sums it up.
The best part is that after Ford stopped selling the Focus and Fiesta here, they chucked the PowerShit and immediately went back to regular automatics, including on the ST. An automatic Focus ST would’ve been very successful for them.
I really think they sabotaged their small cars on purpose so they can say “see, small cars don’t sell here”
That’s a quote you could probably hear those puppets say about every generation they’re looking to sell to.
The good, everyday car still kind of exists, but given the capitalistic view of the world with maximising profits, trinkets, features, etc it is a much harder sell.
Or I’m just a luddite and the everyday car has just gotten much better equipped so feels less “honest”.
I wonder if the problem is us as consumers. In the past, “honest” cars sorta force-fed everyone a basic auto enthusiasm with their spartan, driving focused experience. Some of us (i.e. all of us here) embraced it, but most buyers just tolerated it. Car companies figured this out and started to offer what most people actually wanted – gadgets, varying degrees of maximized comfort, and above all, entertainment, leading us to the personal transport pod era we seem to be entering.
Am I so out of touch?
No, it’s the children who are wrong.
It’s simply gotten to the point that it is actually cheaper to just build pretty much all the cars with all the “stuff”, so even basic cars are equipped like luxobarges of my youth. And the average American neither knows nor cares what makes a car good to drive. Most of the country is boring, flat, straight, congested roads anyway (at least the parts where the vast majority of the population lives). And at that point, infotainment system on wheels is absolutely a huge selling point. I just look at how many people even here prioritize a car having CarPlay\AA over nearly everything else and just shrug. I’m too busy enjoying how my cars drive to care about that nonsense. Though I sure do miss the windy back roads of Maine. At least I normally get my fix of that in the summer. Nothing like a brisk flog on a nice day in my Spitfire.
Yeah, that’s where I think it’s at. When I think about the 90s cars I drove when I was 18 in 2004, then remember that a 90s car to an 18yo right now would have been the equivalent of me driving a 60s car, it all comes into focus.
Yup, it’s pretty wild. When I got my license 40 years ago, a car as old as my two BMW daily drivers are today would have been from 1971. Not that I would have said no to a nice ’71 BMW 2002 in high school!