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

18990929495176

Comments

  • Nobody paid attention to G6 eigther when I was there. I sat in G6, and again, GM cannot make things right. Not bad, but e.g. control panel (audio/climate) feels and looks cheap. You touch it a lot during day - at least they could pay some attention to this thing, workmanship that’s what I am talking about. "Sport sedan" with the engine that cannot rev? Come on.

    Talking about Jaguar - Ford puts billions of dollars into not so high quality luxury brand in England that cannot compete with kinds of BMW or Cadillac, to bring and sell it here. Finally they will have to move production to USA, it makes sense. They could instead of wasting money on Jaguar and bringing it here spend same amount of money on development and make a great car out of Lincoln, just like GM did with Cadillac, and still sell it in USA with a PROFIT. Jaguar is a storied brand, but Lincoln is storied brand too. Then why let American brand down and waste money on an import brand. That’s what I cannot understand. And I want to add that there is a cultural mismatch, Ford is not supposed to run things at Jaguar just for nostalgia, let British do it, esp if it is more about wasting money than about making money.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Because Jaguar, they can sell in many other countries worldwide, and command a premium price. Lincoln, is just in the U.S.

    What is hurting Jaguar is how U.K. money exchange, in relationship to the U.S. Dollar. Which is why some U.K. factories need to close. And control re-investment in renovating/improving them, for Flexible manufacturing. I suggest moving capacity to one of Ford's U.S. plants.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    ANT14, you aren't saying the Duratec35 is ONLY for FWD are you? It will be available on the AWD too, will it not?
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    whats the next V6 in the Mustang? We can't be stuck long term with the Cologne 4.0 Can we?

    Mark
  • That 4.0 has got to be one of the worst engines ever designed. It's just complete garbage. You better hope it doesn't stick around long term. They have been known to smash themselves to bits when the timing chain fails- I have seen it happen many, many times.

    Hope that wasn't already completely obvious. :(
  • nedc2nedc2 Posts: 192
    From what I heard, the Duratec 35 and its derivatives, the engine's architecture can be used to build engines up to ~4 litres in displacement, will be replacing several V6s, the 3.8 and 4.2 in the minivans, and the Cologne 4.0 L V6 in the Mustang, so how can it be FWD only? The Ford/GM 6 speed transmission is FWD only.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    The 3.5L is designed for FWD, RWD and AWD applications. Which transmission it'll use, depends on the application. If it's solely FWD, then the GM/Ford transmission will be used, or CVT. If it's RWD, then it'll be a Ford unit. AWDs transmission choice depends upon the engine configuration (longitude or horizontal).
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    It seems to me that you can play a game called "What's Missing" with most new Ford products. The F150 does not have side&head air bags nor stability control. The Five Hundred/Montego do not have stability control, a competitive engine (no, I do not think the competition is 4-cylinder Accords, Camrys, and Altimas, I think is is Avalons and Buicks and Chrysler 300s), nor other things what are either deal breakers or big annoyances to various of us who really want to see winning products from Ford.

    For me, the lack of a telescoping steering column and the weak engine are probably deal-breakers. I have driven several different Five Hundreds and Montegos, but will try some more.

    If you want lots of additional power, then a supercharger would require many expensive upgrades. However, a mild amount of boost would tide them over until the 3.5 comes. GM has many years of excellent results with low boost on their 3.8 V6. Buick, Chrysler, Nissan, Honda, and now Toyota (the new Avalon engine will produce 280HP, 260 Ft.Lbs.) all offer substantially more than 203Hp and 207 Ft.Lbs. The new Avalon will even achieve 22 city and 30 highway MPG with its engine. Who's asleep in the engine department at Ford?

    With all of the information on the new Avalon now seeping out, It seems that it may well give the Ford, GM, Chrysler, and other Asian car makers fits, especially if priced well. A loaded Montego / Five Hundred is $31,000. Toyota can charge some number of thousands more just for the nameplate and the reputation for reliability and resale value associated with it. It will have the interior space to compete head on with the Five Hundered and Montego and Chrysler 300, and may even have a big trunk (the extra length left over after accounting for the longer wheelbase and rear seat space has to be somewhere). If it has a big trunk, the only advantage left for Ford and Chrysler will be the AWD. Buick will be left with no advantage.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    We paid $25,500 for our 2002 Mercedes-Benz C230 coupe. For that price, it has exterior mirrors which dim, stability control (with choice of winter and summer modes), rain-sensing wipers, and other such convenience / safety features. For $4,000 more, the Montego would give me some more sheet metal and plastic for the bigger back seat and trunk, better cup holders, and a larger center console storage bin, and what else? As I have said before, Ford does not need to make such things standard, but they certainly should be optional - buyers would pay for the features and Ford would gain profit from the mark-up. Why don't they understand this?

    I am not a retailer, but somehow the end of the year is very busy for us, so I will forget about cars for a while and check back in January after the auto show, so I wish an early Happy Holidays to everyone here.
  • I don't know about Passat oil chages, but my 02 GLS TDI Golf has about a $50 hit at the dealer for its synthetic oil chage. Its only once a year (for diesels anyway) but wow, that's high.
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    "The Five Hundred/Montego do not have stability control"

    They have AWD and traction control. AWD on Avalon, Camry, Altima, Accord... ???

    "a competitive engine"

    Engine's only one part of the powertrain. Ford's transmission choices make the powertrain more efficient, plus with AWD the car will not torque steer. Besides, these are family cars, not sports sedans. Sticking a high powered engine into a FWD family car is gas wasting tomfoolery, IMO.

    "the lack of a telescoping steering column"

    The Five Hundred has adjustable pedals. Whether you move the pedals or steering column, it comes out the same.

    "Toyota can charge some number of thousands more just for the nameplate and the reputation for reliability"

    Why not just flush your money down the toilet, it's worth just as much as a "reputation". Or buy an extended warranty with some of the many thousands saved, which guarantees you will not pay.

    "Buick will be left with no advantage."

    Actually, the top model of the LeCrosse is getting good marks for quietness and of all things, as a driver's car - a description never associated with an Avalon.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "The Five Hundred has adjustable pedals. Whether you move the pedals or steering column, it comes out the same."

    No, actually it doesn't.

    ""The Five Hundred/Montego do not have stability control"

    They have AWD and traction control. AWD on Avalon, Camry, Altima, Accord... ???"

    Stability control and AWD are not even remotely similar in application or function. If you live somewhere, for example, where theres no snow and it doesnt rain a lot, stability control can save your [non-permissible content removed] if you take a turn too quickly, but AWD cant. And AWD will rarely be useful.

    Have you seen the recent studies on stability control?

    "Engine's only one part of the powertrain. Ford's transmission choices make the powertrain more efficient, plus with AWD the car will not torque steer. Besides, these are family cars, not sports sedans. Sticking a high powered engine into a FWD family car is gas wasting tomfoolery, IMO."

    Thats fine. But preliminary specs put the Avalon at 22/30, as good or better than the Fords. Given the same consumption, why not have the extra power?

    And I've read comments on the LaCrosse CXS's good handling... but I have yet to see anyone call it a drivers car.

    Final thought- extended warranties dont buy you resale value.

    ~alpha
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    "No, actually it doesn't."

    Please... two different methods of achieving the same thing. Ok... the Avalon sucks for not having adjustable pedals, what's the matter with them?

    "Stability control and AWD are not even remotely similar in application or function. If you live somewhere, for example, where theres no snow and it doesnt rain a lot, stability control can save your [non-permissible content removed] if you take a turn too quickly, but AWD cant. And AWD will rarely be useful."

    If I had to choose, I'd take AWD since it does rain and snow quite a lot here.

    "And AWD will rarely be useful."

    Maybe where you live... here it's a significant offering. Again, why don't the others offer it, what's their problem, putting out these "almost there" cars?

    "Thats fine. But preliminary specs put the Avalon at 22/30, as good or better than the Fords. Given the same consumption, why not have the extra power?"

    The current smaller Avalon gets 21/29, so the bigger 270hp one will get 22/30? Right...

    "And I've read comments on the LaCrosse CXS's good handling... but I have yet to see anyone call it a drivers car."

    Not only good handling, but powertrain, steering and braking as well. Only thing missing is RWD... you can buy a CTS if you want that.

    "Final thought- extended warranties dont buy you resale value."

    What does one have to do with the other? If the Ford breaks, you don't pay, if the Toyota does, you do, that's the bottom line.

    And to get an Avalon equipped to the level of the Five Hundred will cost many thousands more, as a fully loaded AWD Five Hundred maxes out where the Avalon XLS starts.

    You can get it on the front end or the back end, your choice. Of course if you choose the back end you lose big in opportunity costs - the cost of having money that could be used for investment tied up in a depreciating asset instead.

    Those alone will eat up most of the supposed resale value advantage, yet they're rarely considered.... but here's a thought - you put the extra money into an Avalon and I'll put it into my house. You won't be the winner once the real total costs are accounted for.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    However, one cannot and must not safely assume that real estate values always go UP. They do not. Usually, but not always. There are no such guarantees.

    Back to cars....
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    "However, one cannot and must not safely assume that real estate values always go UP. They do not. Usually, but not always."

    Never had a house go down yet, most went up a lot, sometimes in a pretty short period of time. Every car went down a lot.

    My money's on the house, always.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    I must agree on that. A vehicle will always depreciate and you can expense much of it if you own your own business. A house usually appreciate (providing on the market), and much of the improvements done can be expensed as well, before flipping it and buying something else. Or renting them, without having to pay certain applicable taxes prior to the 2 year mark.
  • "The current smaller Avalon gets 21/29, so the bigger 270hp one will get 22/30? Right..."

    Why not? The 2004 Avalon has a 4 speed auto, the 2005 will have a 5 speed auto. Along with advancements in VVT, it seems entirely possible.

    Look at the Civic - the 115hp LX gets slightly worse fuel economy with the auto than the 127hp EX. (Thanks to VTEC)
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I disagree with you that adjustable pedals and telescopic wheel offer the same customizability.

    You took my statement "And AWD will rarely be useful" out of context. I meant with respect to the situation I described. I certainly value AWD... we just got an 05 Legacy that I absolutely love. However, I do wish it had stability control, which is more useful in emergency handling type situations, on all roads. In my opinion, it is a mistake for Toyota not to offer AWD on the new Avalon. However, I think it is a bigger mistake for Ford not to offer stability control. Kudos to Chrysler for offering both.

    The Avalon's 3.0L engine is now over a decade old in basic architecture. While that would be youthful for Ford or GM, its one of the few remaining Toyotas powered by that engine, which is on its way out. I see no reason to think that a more advanced VVTi combined with a newer engine design and a transmission with more ratios can't be more fuel efficient while providing more power. (Its not like Toyota hasnt done this before- the last generation Camry 2.2L 4 produced 136 hp/150 foot pounds of torque and was rated at 23/30. The current generation Camry 2.4L 4 produces 160 hp/162 foot pounds of torque, is ULEV-II certified, and coupled to the 5 speed auto.. gets 24/34).

    The LaCrosse CXS looks to be a good car. But, at $32,000 MSRP moderately equipped (and topping out over $34,000 loaded), it seems a questionable value. My point was that while I have read the favorable commentary on the CXS only handling dynamics, nobody has called it a "Driver's Car". If they have, I missed it, and invite you to cite a reference.

    "Those alone will eat up most of the supposed resale value advantage, yet they're rarely considered.... but here's a thought - you put the extra money into an Avalon and I'll put it into my house. You won't be the winner once the real total costs are accounted for."

    Wow, thank you for your sophistication and insight. I would have never thought of that, having studied Finance and Economics and all. Marginal utility of your car depends on the value you place in your vehicle. I spend a lot of time in mine, and so I'd rather have the better vehicle, even if my opportunity costs may be what you perceive to be high. And I think if you really wanted asset value, you'd be putting money into a house that you're renting to someone, or preparing to sell. But investing and real estate are for other board discussions, not edmunds.com. Robbie K's Rich Dad Poor Dad has a great website that you might want to check out.

    ~alpha
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    The purpose of both, telescoping steering wheel and adjustable pedals are for the same reason, but one may be better oven the other, depends who you ask. I like it powered, though, so the power adjustable pedals have an advantage for me.

    But the 500 offer adjustable pedals optional on the Limited only. That's bad news.

    AWD and stability controls are NOT for the same purpose. AWD is to aid acceleration in inclement weather, while stability assist is more aimed to avoid accidents and help you brake, correct steering input, etc. So you may need both, and both are very welcome. but AWD in an area with no snow is of little advantage.
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    "I disagree with you that adjustable pedals and telescopic wheel offer the same customizability."

    Fine... but neither me or my wife I had any problem at all getting comfortable in the Montego Premier or Freestyle with the seat/pedal combination that's offered. I consider a telescoping wheel redundant and unnecessary in this car.

    "I see no reason to think that a more advanced VVTi combined with a newer engine design and a transmission with more ratios can't be more fuel efficient while providing more power."

    We'll take a wait and see on that. Until there are real world numbers on these cars there's not much point on speculating. That includes the Five Hundred, as there is many a car out there that have EPA numbers that have little to do with reality.

    "My point was that while I have read the favorable commentary on the CXS only handling dynamics, nobody has called it a "Driver's Car". If they have, I missed it, and invite you to cite a reference."

    The exact term "driver's car" wasn't used, but there is this quote:

    "One version of LaCrosse, the $29,000, high-end CXS, really is a sporting device, good enough in manners, agility and scoot to satisfy pretty demanding drivers."

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-11-11-bui- - - - - - - - ck-lacrosse_x.htm

    "Sporting device" and "satisfy pretty demanding drivers".... not words used to describe Avalons. It's also notably quiet, so the Buick does indeed have something to offer.

    "Wow, thank you for your sophistication and insight. I would have never thought of that, having studied Finance and Economics and all."

    Well, nice to see you agree with me on that. I thought it was pretty obvious but many people don't get it.

    "Marginal utility of your car depends on the value you place in your vehicle. I spend a lot of time in mine, and so I'd rather have the better vehicle, even if my opportunity costs may be what you perceive to be high."

    If "better" means more expensive, then great. The problem is that the Avalon isn't what I'm seeing as any better, just costing more. What I value is getting what I want for the least amount of money and I see that in the Five Hundred.

    "And I think if you really wanted asset value, you'd be putting money into a house that you're renting to someone, or preparing to sell."

    Just so happens I do just that (the rentals). Got the money to buy 'em by not buying overpriced cars.

    "But investing and real estate are for other board discussions, not edmunds.com."

    It depends if you want to ride out paying more up front for better resale argument. Opportunity costs and investing are big reasons not to. They're also why "cost of ownership" estimates are bunk, since these costs aren't accounted for.
Sign In or Register to comment.