These and Freestars drove shockingly well. Compared to the Sedona, Chrysler vans, GM crossover U Vans and Sienna, they had body control and suspension damping second only to the almost sporty Odyssey. It was really odd. The gritty engine, crappy interior, obvious badge job Mercury version, cheap sounding door dinger, glitchy power doors, and insanely anonymous styling all said "We phoned this in." But the darn things drove insanely well for a minivan.
@@2H2521 Eh, I dunno. The interiors were well styled, and the switchgear was a quantum leap over the previous generation of Ford interiors, but all the the plastic was hard and hollow, the leather was more vinyl than cow, the chrome touches were obviously cheap plastic, and the displays were all those terrible dollar store clock radio deals Ford used for about 8 model years. The corporate radio head unit and climate control buttons felt mushy but ok, the cruise buttons on the wheel were fine, but it wasn't class leading. The Odyssey was far and away the nicest minivan interior of that era, with the Sedona/Entourage a distant second. The Chrysler, Ford and GM vans all had some nice areas and some letdowns. The Sienna was a weird plasticky quasi-retro crap fest inside, and the Quest was... well, we won't mention the 3rd gen Quest interior.
I had a Freestar. The F150 4.2L was under hood. That thing almost never needed to down shift on hills like our caravans did. 22-24mpg on long trips w/ 19-20 in weekly driving was better than the Hondas our friends had. The ford version is stylish and has a much nicer interior than any other van for actually having to live w/ it for family and utility duties. Seen allot of these w/ very high miles as delivery vehicles
I will say that the interior looks much more modern and sharper. Something about pre 2004 ford products had more of a blobby interior. This one is sharper and colorful looking. I know Uplander from GM had door glitches too, did not know about Freestar having an issue too.
This is a better Mercury minivan than the Villager was. The 4.2 liter V6 was the best engine for this minivan. It would be worth it to have as an upscale family vehicle.
I had one of these. It was nice, until the transmission went out. Maybe if it had seconds row windows that rolled down, I would have been willing to shell out the $3,000 for a new transmission. 😢
I had a Freestar and love it. Drove the wheels off it and wish I still had it. It’s a shame it didn’t sell well enough to keep it around!
These and Freestars drove shockingly well. Compared to the Sedona, Chrysler vans, GM crossover U Vans and Sienna, they had body control and suspension damping second only to the almost sporty Odyssey. It was really odd. The gritty engine, crappy interior, obvious badge job Mercury version, cheap sounding door dinger, glitchy power doors, and insanely anonymous styling all said "We phoned this in." But the darn things drove insanely well for a minivan.
@Nic Cage With Bird The interiors of these were far better than any of the other vans you mentioned.
@@2H2521 Eh, I dunno. The interiors were well styled, and the switchgear was a quantum leap over the previous generation of Ford interiors, but all the the plastic was hard and hollow, the leather was more vinyl than cow, the chrome touches were obviously cheap plastic, and the displays were all those terrible dollar store clock radio deals Ford used for about 8 model years. The corporate radio head unit and climate control buttons felt mushy but ok, the cruise buttons on the wheel were fine, but it wasn't class leading. The Odyssey was far and away the nicest minivan interior of that era, with the Sedona/Entourage a distant second. The Chrysler, Ford and GM vans all had some nice areas and some letdowns. The Sienna was a weird plasticky quasi-retro crap fest inside, and the Quest was... well, we won't mention the 3rd gen Quest interior.
I had a Freestar. The F150 4.2L was under hood. That thing almost never needed to down shift on hills like our caravans did. 22-24mpg on long trips w/ 19-20 in weekly driving was better than the Hondas our friends had. The ford version is stylish and has a much nicer interior than any other van for actually having to live w/ it for family and utility duties. Seen allot of these w/ very high miles as delivery vehicles
I will say that the interior looks much more modern and sharper. Something about pre 2004 ford products had more of a blobby interior. This one is sharper and colorful looking. I know Uplander from GM had door glitches too, did not know about Freestar having an issue too.
Same with Taurus for 2004 - 2007 it has a much sharper/richer interior than 2000 -2003 did.
I have a 04 with almost 300k miles and she is still going strong.
We got a 2002 ford windstar
@lja1229, Mercury Monterrey is comfortable and great car
Very stylish. Great looking console and steering wheel. It’s a real shame Mercury is gone, for a number of reasons.
I love 💕 mini vans, they remind me of station wagons.
Minivans and wagons is my favorites
This is a better Mercury minivan than the Villager was. The 4.2 liter V6 was the best engine for this minivan. It would be worth it to have as an upscale family vehicle.
I've always liked these..
me-too, I made both on roblox
I had one of these. It was nice, until the transmission went out. Maybe if it had seconds row windows that rolled down, I would have been willing to shell out the $3,000 for a new transmission. 😢
Will it last 200,000 miles?
I'm so sad that ford don't make mercury or minivans anymore😢
Meh...They were very forgettable to be honest