Jump to content

2008 Mercury Mondeo


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Meh, Mercury needs a new grille and a new logo. I say leave it be and slap a god head on the front and back and be done with it.

I am more along your line of thinking. Can someone show the difference? Either way, that is really all you have to change. Call it Mondeo not Milan. That will only confuse the herd. :hyper:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not bad the lower grill (bumper) needs some work. But other wise quite good.

 

Leave the Mondeo name and just trash the Milan Remember "Bold Moves" . Best of all the Lincoln counter Part could use the same chassis. Would put the current Zepher-MkZ to shame.

 

Matthew

Agree on the lower front fascia. I'm not sure Lincoln should get a version of the Mondeo. The Mondeo is very much a European sedan, something that would work well for the Mercury female/urban image being developed. Lincoln is moving towards a traditional "American luxury" image and the MKZ is arguably the better vehicle for that mission than a swoopy EuroFord.

 

As an aside, the CD3 is the more "sophisticated" chassis as far as suspension design. The multilink rear of the CD3 is more complex (Thank you Mazda.) than the EUCD's traditional setup. Nothing is wrong with either platform, but Volvo insisted it couldn't fit a transverse inline engine into the CD3 and said the crash performance wasn't good enough for a Volvo. They won their argument and got to develop EUCD off of the C1 chassis. But I don't see how an EUCD Lincoln would be "better" than a CD3 Lincoln.

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, the CD3 is the more "sophisticated" chassis as far as suspension design. The multilink rear of the CD3 is more complex (Thank you Mazda.) than the EUCD's traditional setup. Nothing is wrong with either platform, but Volvo insisted it couldn't fit a transverse inline engine into the CD3 and said the crash performance wasn't good enough for a Volvo. They won their argument and got to develop EUCD off of the C1 chassis. But I don't see how an EUCD Lincoln would be "better" than a CD3 Lincoln.

 

Scott

 

more sophisticated?

 

thats cute. how about the NVH problems of CD3, both Road and engine?

 

Why couldn't the Mazda6 outperform the old mondeo in Ride or handling? With its "more "sophisticated" chassis"?

 

I am tellingyou that EUCD is superior to CD3.

 

I could care les if a lincoln is based on it or CD3. I think the MKZ works fine. it is mercury that needs the help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more sophisticated?

 

thats cute. how about the NVH problems of CD3, both Road and engine?

 

Why couldn't the Mazda6 outperform the old mondeo in Ride or handling? With its "more "sophisticated" chassis"?

 

I am tellingyou that EUCD is superior to CD3.

 

I could care les if a lincoln is based on it or CD3. I think the MKZ works fine. it is mercury that needs the help.

Really? You've got my attention. I've never heard of NVH problems as related to CD3 - the Mazda6 was noisy, but that was a tire/sound deadening issue that has largely been corrected in the '06 updates (more sound deadening - you still have to change the tires yourself.) The Fusion/Milan may be noisy (again, sound deadening/tires) but the MKZ is being called quiet. The "V" and "H" part are more to do with engines - the 2.3L is smooth (for a 4 cyl) but the 3.0L can be harsh. I've yet to read the 3.5L MKZ being called harsh.

 

So, to me at least, your issues seem to relate more to tuning and/or equipment than with an actual platform deficiency. Also, I've never heard, anywhere, that the old Mondeo was a better handler than a Mazda6.

 

I've done a quick search for any comparison tests of the Mazda6 and Mondeo but I can't find any. But we could compare awards. How many awards has the Mondeo won? The Mazda6? More than 60.

 

LOL @ CD3 being better than EUCD.

 

That's why Ford Europe is using it instead of EUCD, right?

I explained in my previous post why FofE is using EUCD instead of CD3. Transverse engines and "crash worthiness" as Volvo said. I still believe it was more an issue of "We want our own stuff" and not wanting to use an all-ready developed chassis, which seems very likely given Ford's global fiefdoms. But that's opinion only. Fact is "crash worthiness" and transverse engines.

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...