Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego

16061636566117

Comments

  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,554
    "mine is doing roughly 5.0 because of some aftermarket upgrades. "

    Would you be willing to share some (any?) details?
    On the LS board, of course?

    Thanks,
    - Ray
    2003 LS V8 owner - not for sale, and unlikely to be traded on a 500 anytime soon . . .
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Actually I just recommend people to visit some LS enthusiast sites, and they can see of the modifications people have tried. Mine mostly comes with the help of a Whipple Supercharger, beefed up transmission, modified headers/muffler, accessory drive belts. All under the original skin, without any hints of modifications done to it.

    And I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, since it'll expire the original vehicle warranty. This is best to do when A) It's paid for B) your out of warranty C) You have nothing to lose than cheap thrills.

    Don't think it hasn't entered my mind what the possibilty of a Supercharged 500 could do...But might as well wait for Lincoln to debut their version....
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Curious- what are your thoughts on the new Avalon?

    ~alpha
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    My SEL is regularly getting 22 in town and 27 on the road, this with AWD and 7300 miles on the clock (the car has been mine for 43 days now)...

    I drove a Chrysler 300 in California for a week back in September. That is what clinched my decision to buy the Ford. I didn't like the seating position, the poor visibility, or the very odd performance going down steep hills...I also did not like the LOOK AT ME! exterior, or the relatively small trunk.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    Having driven the 300C a few times, and the 500/Montego many times, the pluses don't overide the negatives, especially price wise. I was hoping that the Montego would be my car, but considering what the Montego doesn't offer, and the 300C does, it's the way to go. The 300 is a sweet machine that really deserves the Car of the Year Award from Motor Trend. I still can't understand Ford's way of thinking the past few years. While everyone else is giving more in their cars, Ford has been taking away. Back in 2000, when I ordered my 2000 Sable and found out that there was no four wheel disc brakes, no power passenger seat, no power lumbar, and no power antenna, to name a few things. And that continues right up to the 2005 model of the Sable. These were all things I had in my past Ford/Mercury vehicles and really wanted in my new car. Even though Ford offers AWD, 2 new transmissions, and Command seating as new steps in the right direction, they shoot themselves in the foot by leaving off struts for the hood, no power lumbar, a cheap looking interior, and mostly an underpowered engine that revs way to high trying to pull all the weight of these cars around. It's a real shame seeing how much improved the Mustang is, and then you see how they screwed up with the 500/Montego.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Different strokes for different folks. I OWN a Ford Five Hundred SEL. I couldn't care less about struts under the hood. The Volvo safety equipment on these cars alone, along with the Haldex AWD is far more important to me than any perceived difference in the interiors.

    But, by all means, if you like the 300C so much, go buy one! And enjoy!

    Just don't think everyone else is giving more on their cars. Decontenting is widespread, at Daimler and GM, and the so-called foreign makes as well...
  • “Back in 2000, when I ordered my 2000 Sable and found out that there was no four wheel disc brakes, no power passenger seat, no power lumbar, and no power antenna, to name a few things.”

    When I was shopping for Sable in 2001 there was a power passenger seat. Lumbar support is not very useful in Sable anyway. Seats are not very comfortable and have no lateral support. I can understand though about disc wheel brakes, I mean I also do not understand why Ford does not offer it Sable with Duratec. Why do you need power antenna?

    Otherwise there are lot features in my Sable I like, e.g. dimming mirror/compass, double visors (very useful indeed), entrance lights beneath windows and esp keypad entry.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Car and Driver tested the Freestyle in the January 2005 issue.... and achieved a respectable 8.2 seconds to 60 in the brake-torque technique, and a decent 8.7 seconds to 60 in the Street Start, a better indicator of real world acceleration. Passing times of 4.3 and 5.9 from 30-50 and 50-70 are both good as well.

    With test data on the Five Hundred from AMCI, MT, Edmunds.com, and on the Freestyle from Car and Driver.... it seems that the transmission is key.
    The CVT is excellent, and the 6 speed isnt so much.

    Overall, a good job... the Freestyle with the CVT definitely posted MUCH stronger times than I expected. Curious that the 8.7 street start is faster than the Edmunds.com similar test of the the Five Hundred (8.9 seconds). Then again, the Freestyle benefits from the CVT, and the Five Hundred was saddled to the 6 speed.

    ~alpha
  • I am confused. Does the 500 have lumbar support for driver and passenger or not. What models have it and is it powered or manual? I haven't driven it yet but am looking to simplify and get away from the high Jag S maintenance/replacement costs. Are the footwells really that big a deal or is it similar to the Jag S type? I am 6'1".

    Thanks!
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    The footwells you will simply have to try for yourself and see. They ARE different, and they bother the fire out of some people and others not at all. At first I found the outboard intrusion mildly annoying, but now I don't even notice it. Your feet and legs may differ. Much depends on physique, expectations and attitude.

    My SEL has a manual lumbar support for the driver only...
  • brihambriham Posts: 33
    It seems the consensus of opions is as follows:

    Positives: High ride, large interior, safety(a la Volvo), CVT and available AWD(with proven volvo components)

    Negatives: Bland styling, moderately powered engine as the only choice.

    Personally I like the car. As a family car I think it would be a very solid choice. They may have considered offering a sport option first with a big engine and then have cheaper models available with the lesser engine, similar to how the 300 is packaged. If you can't afford the Hemi you have two additional choices. The styling is nice, it just looks bad when compared to the 300. What a tough act to follow.

    Here is a review from autoMedia: http://www.automedia.com/autoReviews/2005/ford/500/rts20041101fh.- asp?affid=
  • nedc2nedc2 Posts: 192
    Driver's side manual lumbar adjustment is standard on all trim levels for the Freestyle, Five Hundred & Montego. Passenger side lumbar adjustment is only standard on the Limiteds and Montego Premier, it's available in some option packages on the SEL trim level.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Jag,

    If you currently have an S-type, the footwell will be almost similar in width, if not an inch or 2 wider, but instead of being deep as in the S-type, it's a tad less deep. I have an LS myself and I perceive it's footwell to be narrow because of the wide center console, but in reality it's deep and sufficient even with size 13 shoes.
  • Edmunds review states an average of 19 MPG for the five hundred in their test. Is Ford kidding? Underpowered and lousy milage. Are they trying to lure people away from the H2? How can Ford ignore the fact that Toyota and Honda make their minivans get nearly 30 MPG. Both of the vans are larger and offer more room. These are just a couple of examples of similar or larger vehicles that get much better milage than this all new sedan. I had expected great improvement over the previous generation Ford sedans with the CVT but the older cars get better milage than the five hundred. When is Ford going to get it?
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    So why are the "test numbers" of Edmunds being used as the bible (worse case senario), then the numbers of Toyota/Honda (best case senario) being compared?

    From the friends that I have who own Odyssey's and Sienna, I can tell you they aren't even getting 23MPG even on Premium, downwind, no load, on Overdrive.

    I can tell you from testing vehicles, you'll never post good milage on the first week, let alone with a CVT because your still not accustomed to how it "shifts". I was posting 17MPG the first week under heavy throttle, It wasn't till the 3rd week I was able to post 23-25MPG, once I learned not to slam the gas fully to get power, and just let the CVT do it's job.

    Everyone has their own driving habits, and it'll vary greatly depending how they drive the vehicle. I've been known to average 19MPG on a friends Civic...And even driving my friends Sienna for a day of shopping, we were posting 16MPG, and I personally have yet to fall within the usual EPA estimates of any car. So is it me, or the car?... Hence, auto-journalist hardly ever post decent MPG because of the variations and techiniques they use on driving.

    How many people have posted 60MPH on the Prius ? Case in point....
  • The only close fried I know with an oddy has a 99 which averages 26 combined. The camrys I've been around routinly get 26-30 combined. The five hundred with a cvt should do at least that good to be a serious competitor.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Let me borrow your friends Camry for a few hours, and you'll see how it'll drop to under 20MPG as I routinely get in them. And I'll even be "nice" and throw in the Over-drive for kicks to give it an advantage (at the cost over overheating it's transmission which seems to be an issue lately).
  • If you can drop a Civic to 19 mpg than I think its safe to say you are not the average driver and I'll stick to comparisons with folks who want to keep there cars for more than a year. If the folks at edmunds who came up with 19 mpg for the 500 drive like you do than I hope they will stop posting reviews. I doubt they do. While they no doubt drive harder to see what it is capable of I suspect there #'s are closer to mainstream than yours. I base that on my own experience with vehicles. BTW, I was a loyal "Ford guy" until I suffered through a 1990 Explorer (17mpg on a good day) and a 2000 Windstar (17 combined mpg over 54,000 miles. In fact I once took a road trip with a buddy and his family, we drove the windstar, they drove their 99 Siena. Same load, same speeds - all highway. He got 27 mpg, we got 22. We'll see in a few months if there is solid evidence that the 500 does better but I'm willing to bet it won't come close to the imports, or even similar GM products.
  • fsvfsv Posts: 196
    Ford Territory = Ford Freestyle? Then how come they get 4L engine and we the miserly 3L?
  • brihambriham Posts: 33
    I saw 19-20 city and 27-28 highway. That's not too bad. See the specs on the bottom of the 500 review link below:

    http://www.automedia.com/autoReviews/2005/ford/500/rts20041101fh.- asp?affid=
  • fsvfsv Posts: 196
    Ford Territory = Ford Freestyle? Then how come they get 4L engine and we the miserly 3L?
  • ehaaseehaase Posts: 328
    The Australian Ford Territory is based upon the Falcon and has nothing in common with the Freestyle.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    "Same load, same speeds - all highway. He got 27 mpg, we got 22. We'll see in a few months if there is solid evidence that the 500 does better but I'm willing to bet it won't come close to the imports, or even similar GM products."

    Windstar/Sienna...MAJOR difference. WIndstar uses the Essex engine, a 3.8L OHV V6 which is antiquated, definately not an engine to compare to the OHC Toyota offers. Distant cousin to the 4.0L OHV offered in your old Explorer, which itself wasn't a model of efficiency either. Even now with the new 4.0L OHC V6 (Cologne), it can post similar numbers to the optional 4.6L V8. Although next year's Explorer will use the 3V version, and post a fuel milage increase.

    One of the tricks to posting better EPA numbers is tailoring the transmission for quicker upshifts, as well as large gear ratios from one gear to another. GM has incorporated in some transmissions a "start on 2nd gear under light trottle" which obviously allows them to post higher EPA numbers.

    What it does lose is it's sporty personality once you need extra power and it delays response, and as I've experienced in Camry's for example, is quicker upshifts. And on higher geared transmissions once your hitting anything over 60MPH, pressing the accelerator to HUNT for a lower gear will result in some slight aggrevation when you hear quite a bit of noise, and don't see any results from it.

    " and I'll stick to comparisons with folks who want to keep there cars for more than a year"

    OK now I'm insulted :-) , I've always treated my vehicles harshly, drive them to redline constantly, etc. I've never had any issues with them. Yet my friends who drive a bit more "conservative" seem to be having issues in their transmissions, head-gasket leaks, electrical, etc. SO either I'm lucky, or I'm doing something correctly...

    FSV,

    Territory/Freestyle, 2 totalyl different vehicles, yet same pricipal. Plus overthere they are still using the Falcon platform, as well at that 4.0L Inline 6 (remember them here in the U.S. long ago?)...they work there since they have the factory and tooling for it, but it's a different beast altogether.

    Drive great though, I can tell you that...
  • yankeryanker Posts: 156
    I don't know which Toyota you are referring to but the Avalon does not require premium gas. We've had one since 2000 and it does nicely on regular but not low quality regular.
  • ehaaseehaase Posts: 328
    "a 3.8L OHV V6 which is antiquated, definately not an engine to compare to the OHC Toyota offers. Distant cousin to the 4.0L OHV offered in your old Explorer"

    The 3.8 (and 4.2) is a 90 degree V6 derived from Ford's old small block OHV V8, while the Explorer's old 4.0L OHV V6 is a 60 degree design from Ford of Europe (based upon the family of 2.0L, 2.6L, 2.8L, and 2.9L V6's). The 4.0L SOHC V6 in the new Mustang and Explorer is also derived from Ford of Europe's 60 degree V6 family.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    I'm an OWNER and DRIVER of a Five Hundred, AWD SEL. 7300 miles. I am getting 23 in town and 27 on the road. Consistently.

    By comparison, my 3800 equipped 2000 Chevrolet Impala LS got 15-19 in town (all over the map) and 28-31 on the road.

    I am VERY pleased with the fuel economy on the Five Hundred. I would gladly give a little of it up though, for the 3.5 engine that is coming for 2007. But I do NOT want to give up the CVT. I LOVE it!
  • The one area in performance were the five-hundred shines is in MPG. Don't even think of comparing it to a camry or accord, both of those cars are smaller than the five hundred and thus lighter, there V6's are also bigger (3.5L/3.3L vs 3.0) and thus thurstier. They also lack CVT's and do not have 6 speed transmissions than better manage power.

    Yes, the Five Hundred is slow, but for its size and weight it has the best fuel economy in the business.
  • tkfitztkfitz Posts: 95
    I had an chance to drive the 500 and a Toyota Avalon for a 6 hr one way ride up to N Maine. Ford up and Toyota down...The Avalon has a better engine and seems more refined, the Ford handled better. The one thought I kept having was - "wow this car costs thousands less!!" Hmmmmm.... Both were real nice highway cruisers and I had to really watch my speed in the ford.
    Both cars got about 28mpg cruising at 75 to 80 mph. The 3.5 engine in the Ford would be a real deal clincher and probably do as well or better on the highway I would think.
    By the way...female passenger thought the 500 was an Audi.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Was it an AWD or a FWD? CVT or 6 speed? Trim level? Leather or cloth?

    Inquiring minds want to know...

    johnclineii, he of the SEL cloth AWD (w/CVT, of course)
This discussion has been closed.