Mercury Milan Reviews from North America - Page 3 of 5

2007 Mercury Milan Base 2.3

Model year2007
Year of manufacture2006
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 2.3 Automatic
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance16020 miles
Previous carFord Taurus

Summary:

Nice car except for the weak motor

Faults:

Nothing at all.

General Comments:

The relatively low performance grade has nothing to do with the handling of this car, which is simply superb for a base family sedan. I love throwing this car hard into a freeway off-ramp.

The engine however, is another story. The 2.3L engine (a Mazda design) is very noisy and gutless. Not helping things is the extremely tall overdrive/lockup gearing, in which the engine is barely turning 2600rpm at 75mph. This causes way too frequent shifts in and out of 5th, and lockup on moderate highway grades, which in turn causes blasts of buzzing from the aforementioned noisy powerplant.

The stock radio (non-audiophile, 6 speaker) is quite good for a cheap system. Bass is punchy without being boomy.

The driving position height takes a bit getting used to... it feels like you are very high in the air unless you put the seat at its lowest position. Even then, it is still pretty high.

Gas mileage is great. On long trips I have gotten 32mpg cruising between 65-75mph. Around 24-25 in city/short trips.

Car feels very solid construction wise --- no rattles, unlike the Subarus and Nissans I've had.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th June, 2008

21st May 2009, 15:34

Funny you say the 2.3 Milan is gutless. I've floored my 2006 Milan Premier I-4 auto on the highway and a 2005 Accord EX-L 2.4 auto and there is not much difference in power or cruising ability. BTW, both are rated at 160hp and have 5spd automatic transmissions, that's not all that much to move a sedan briskly.

Yes, the Accord is peppier around town and has a much quieter engine under acceleration, both engines aren't audible at a steady cruise. Keep in mind that this is a naturally aspirated four cylinder lugging about 3300lbs around, it simply is not going to have the torque of a V6 or turbo 4. Just remind yourself that you're getting 5+ more MPG than the 3.0 Duratec V6/6spd auto version of the Milan, your wallet will thank you later. Happy Milan motoring all!

24th Aug 2009, 15:51

Original poster here. I can say without a doubt it was one of the more gutless cars I've had on the highway. And it's not like I drive 300hp V-8s or anything... the most powerful car I've ever owned was a 227hp WRX, and that was BY FAR the most powerful car I've ever owned.

Bear in mind I went from a Vulcan powered 95 Taurus to this car, and the Vulcan felt more responsive than the Milan unless you planted the Milan's throttle, which made the engine in the Milan rather unpleasant sounding. The Taurus weighs around the same (I had the base Milan, so figure 3200 not 3300+ like the loaded Premier), is down about 20hp and about the same peak torque. Nor is low-end torque a strength of the Vulcan 3.0 like it is the Essex 3.8 (optional engine that year).

Now, I've traded the Milan in for a 4 speed auto 2009 Focus, and it feels peppier in just about every situation.

But the only real big issue I had with the Milan's drivetrain was the aforementioned lack of 4th gear hold, or O/D lockout switch. Due to the lack of power at normal cruising speeds (65-70), it would annoy the hell out of me shifting out of 5th going up moderate grades.

Perhaps there was something wrong with mine; but I never had a CEL or any recommendations from the dealer for service.

2007 Mercury Milan Premier 3.0 6 cylinder

Model year2007
Year of manufacture2007
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 3.0 6 cylinder Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.6 / 10
Distance when acquired5500 miles
Most recent distance20000 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Passat

Summary:

This is the best car that I have owned in 34 years of driving

Faults:

I have not experienced any problems with the car so far.

General Comments:

This is a really nice car for the money.

I drive a lot of rental cars, and dislike most American cars because of they have that cheap rental car feeling. The Milan has feels well made and solid. The interior seems upscale.

It handles well, and the 6 cylinder engine has more than enough pick-up and delivers very good mileage.

I was looking at the Accord, the Camry, and the Mazda 6. I didn't like the Honda and Toyota because they are so common on the road. The Mazda didn't score very well in the JD Powers surveys. The Mercury scored very well in the survey.

The disadvantage is the resale value, but I plan to keep this a long time so that did not dissuade me from buying it. I previously owned a Passat and I think the Mercury is on par with the VW as far as quality and handling, and I hope that the Milan will be much more reliable than the Passat was.

** Update 16th September 2008: ***

I first wrote a review when I got the car, and have owned it for one year. It has exceeded my expectations in reliability, handling and performance.

On a recent trip to Maine, it consistently got over 30 mpg with the A/C on going 65mph.

The interior is holding up well, as is the body. No rattles, shakes, nothing.

The dealer service has been great as well, so far just oil changes and filters. Compared with the nightmare of a Volkswagen I traded in, this car is a dream.

I read complaints about the styling, but I think this is one of the better looking cars on the road.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd February, 2008

Average review marks: 8.6 / 10, based on 10 reviews