2006-2008 Mercury Milan: Road Test

In most respects, differences between Milan and its Ford Fusion cousin are minimal. In either model, acceleration varies with the engine. Expect good passing and merging power with the V6, but Milan lacks the around-town response of a six-cylinder Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Too frequently, it requires heavy throttle application in routine driving. The smooth, responsive six-speed automatic makes the most of available power, but a manual-shift mode would be useful, especially for hilly terrain. Even with manual shift, a four-cylinder model performs adequately at best. A test stick shift Ford Fusion took 9.2 seconds to reach 60 mph. Inordinately heavy clutch action and balky shift linkage make the manual gearbox unpleasant to operate, too. Fuel economy isn't bad. A test Premier V6 averaged 20.1 mpg. With manual shift, a four-cylinder Ford Fusion averaged 22.1 to 25 mpg. Test AWD models have averaged 18.0 to 21.7 mpg. Both engines use regular-grade fuel. Ride comfort also satisfies. These cars feel compliant and controlled over sharp bumps and patchy pavement. The Milan Premier with its 17-inch tires feels generally composed and absorbent, but sharp bumps can jolt. Milan has a firmer ride than the Fusion or Zephyr, with less float on high-speed bumps. Little difference is noticeable between 16- and 17-inch tires. In steering/handling, too, differences between Milan and Fusion are minor. Both are pleasant and competent, abetted by nicely weighted and responsive steering. Expect good balance in turns, with modest body lean and a solid, well-planted straightline feel. Test front-drive V6 sedans have suffered mild torque steer--unwanted pulling to the side--in low-speed acceleration. Close-quarters maneuverability is hurt by a wide turning circle, and to some testers, by steering effort that is too high. Stopping power is good, with progressive brake-pedal feel. Both engines produce coarse full-throttle growl, but they're better muted in normal, gentle cruising. Overall, the V6 is quieter. Little wind rush is evident at highway speeds. Tire thrum is heard over grooves and coarse pavement. Gauges are easy to see and clearly marked, but audio and climate switchgear takes time to decipher. They rely on too many buttons. The same is true of look-alike steering-wheel audio/cruise controls. The low-mounted climate panel can force a long look away from the road. Although the available navigation system is easy to program, poor incorporation of audio controls complicates what should be simple adjustments. Milan is more obviously upscale than Fusion, with generous use of soft-touch surfaces, and choice of real metal or wood trim. Milans provide ample leg and headspace for six-footers up front. Firm, supportive seats are a bit roomier than the class norm. High seating positions contribute to fine outward visibility. All models have a tilt/telescopic steering wheel, which is a driver-comfort plus. Adult-adequate rear headroom is accompanied by good toe space and fine support. Knee room is tight with front seats more than halfway back. The backseat is firm and nicely contoured. Rather long doors can be troublesome in tight spots, but they open wide to ease entry/exit. Although the trunk is usefully cubic-shaped, it's too shallow for larger items. In addition, the budget-grade felt-type liner looks and feels cheap--especially given Milan's upscale aspirations. Lid supports are non-intrusive struts. Decent in-cabin storage is a plus.

Value for the Money
Milan and Fusion both earn Recommended ratings, against the Accord and Camry. They match those perennial class leaders for roominess and road manners, if not engine refinement and cabin design. Milan has no real advantage over a comparably-equipped Ford Fusion, which is essentially the same under the skin, though Mercury gave its sedan richer-looking interior appointments. Both are capable midsize sedans that merit consideration.