Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego

1616264666771

Comments

  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    My wife also really likes the way the stability control on her VW handles winter roads.

    A pro-SUV co-worker admitted to me that his honda minivan with 2WD and stability was better in winter than his 4WD SUV.

    This is an extra bonus to the added safety of stability.
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    They certainly should, for it's nothing but extra software on a car with ABS...
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    its more than extra software. First, the ABS system has to be sophisticated enough to handle it. Probably a 4 channel system is required.

    Also there are more sensors for a vehicle with Stability control such as a Yaw Sensor. A steering input sensor, a acceleration input sensor and probably helps if you have a car with drive by wire throttle.

    Mark.
  • sonofknudsonofknud Member Posts: 50
    I think stability control is a big miss. Consumer reports thinks it will save more lives then air bags and child car seats combined if I remember the article correctly. I do have experience myself in my VW I had to swerve to miss a dear doing 70 on a freeway and it all happened so fast I believe the stability control help me keep the car on the road.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,250
    how do you know stability control contributed anything?
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • Well, obviously he doesn't.

    But if a buyer feels more safe in a vehicle with stability control, then he or she will buy that. In addition, the systems do actively prevent vehicles from going beyond limits the vehicle can sustain. No, they are not perfect, and some conditions can be too much for the system to overcome. But like airbags, they add a clearly measurable extra margin of safety.

    If Ford's competitors offer the system (some as standard equipment), then Ford is going ot lose more and more customers who care about such things--unless Ford begins to offer the option.
  • jrdoajrdoa Member Posts: 11
    I own this vehicle and cannot figure this out nor can any dealer I have asked. Can anyone explain to me what exactly the mp3 means on the radio? I've read on the specs that this vehicle has an AM/FM in-dash 6 CD player with MP3 stereo. I have made several homemade cd's that are mp3 files and keep getting the error "bad disc". The dealer supposedly checked my stereo and said it's fine and it's just my discs. Help!!
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    First, make sure you actually are burning discs in MP3 Formant and not in WMA or some other format. If you are using Windows Media player and didn't pay extra for an MP3 burner software then you are probably not using MP3 format.

    Second, you can not use "nested" folders. The disc should have a main directory with folders and in each folder should be the actual MP3 Files. you can put the files in a folder that is inside a folder.

    Mark
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    Just noticed these new 06 Ford Five Hundreds on my look that look way different from the side.

    Ford removed the flat door molding from the middle of the door and replaced with a wedge shaped molding at the very bottom edge of the door. The car now looks completely different and very very European.

    Mark.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Member Posts: 792
    Since production of the 2007 models is supposed to begin in May, the order guides should be out by now, but I can't find one. Does anyone have an idea where to find them?

    Yes, I am back here because the too-short Sport Trac box and too-tall tailgate would be way less useful to me than the trunk of the Five Hundred or Montego.
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    IT was released Saturday to dealers but I can't post a link because its on a password only site.

    In summary,

    SE goes away.

    SEL is decontented to 06 SE level but there is a SEL Comfort package and SEL Interor Power Package that brings the car back to 06 SEL level of equipment.

    Ok that makes NO sense.

    All FWD cars are now 6-speed..

    Options that added are Family Entertainment Package and Sat. Radio oh and Heated Seats are available on SEL.

    Mark.
  • kiiwiikiiwii Member Posts: 318
    Mark, do you know if the "stability (or skid control) program" will be available in 2007?
  • jrdoajrdoa Member Posts: 11
    Mark, Thanks for the reply. However, I am using the mp3 format. Like I said, or may not have, some disks work, some don't. Wow, alot of commas's there.

    I don't use folders at all. How would that make a difference?

    Again, thanks.
  • jrdoajrdoa Member Posts: 11
    Here is where this stands with my mp3 issues. First to go back to my problem, some / most of my homemade mp3 discs are being "kicked out" with a message "bad disc". This happens to a variety of brand name discs. My dealer checked for any problems with the radio and reported all was fine. I contacted Mercury earlier regarding what then, does the mp3 exactly mean or provide on the radio.

    My response from Mercury was this: "...we recommend that you contact Visteon Audio at: www.visteon.com or (800) 847-8366." Upon doing so, Visteon told me they have nothing to do with my vehicle (Mercury) and told me to contact Delphi.

    When I did that, I got the message "Thank you for contacting delphi.com. Delphi does not work directly with consumers for this type of information. The reason for this is that the vehicle manufacturer controls the warranty and policy for products that Delphi sells to them. Please contact your vehicle dealer for the information you require regarding your audio system. If your dealer can't answer your questions, they can contact our technical support at 1-800-428-0501.

    I just contaced Mercury again to find out what exactly this mp3 on the radio means. (I'm sure I know what it is (playing mp3 discs, but just want to hear it from them.)

    Stay tuned....
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    Saving MP3 files
    • Your Family Entertainment System supports discs containing up to
    255 files. Discs containing more than 255 files will not play.
    • Always save MP3 files with the .mp3 extension. The player recognizes
    an MP3 file by the .mp3 extension, so MP3 files saved with different
    extensions will not be played. Never save a non-MP3 file with the
    .mp3 extension as the file will not play properly.
    • The player supports multi session discs. However, be sure to import
    the previous session of the disc before you add new files. If you do not
    import the previous session, only the last session will be played.
    • When burning a disc, ensure that you close/finalize the disc
    before playback, or the disc may not play properly or an error
    message may appear.
    • Some CD-RW discs may operate inconsistently and may cause an error
    message to appear. We recommend burning MP3 files onto CD-R discs.

    https://web.msslib.dealerconnection.com/RightSite/getcontent/myfile.pdf?DMW_OBJE- CTID=09000c588052f3e0

    Mark
  • jrdoajrdoa Member Posts: 11
    Mark, again thank you for your response. The unfortunate part is that all of your points listed are followed. I'm just wondering if there is a difference between cd-r discs and Music cd-r's. I use cd-r's.
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    Use brand named data CD-Rs. Also, try 1 level of Folders.

    Also, I know this is stupid but make sure you are actually ripping into MP3 format.

    Most computers out of the box do not have MP3 ripping software installed or if they do its only a trial version.

    If you didn't pay something for MP3 ripping software, there is a good chance you are not using MP3 format.

    Windows Media Player rippes in wma unless buy an add on.

    These players are very finiky. It could just be the CD writer that you are using. It could be the brand of CD-Rs that you are using. It could be the allignment of Mars and Jupiter etc.

    Mark.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    I've used mp3's burned onto CD-R without issues.

    I'm using some older Kodak Gold CD-R (rated at only 4x, though I'm burning them at 40x without issues).

    I'm using NERO to burn the CD-R's. I burn them in a single session.

    I'm using only a single level of folders (all tracks for an album area under a folder with the album name).
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    :)

    Mark.
  • petroniopetronio Member Posts: 18
    Based on the lack of discussion, is anyone buying this car right now? I think this is a perfect car for my wife, but I have a hard time paying upwards of $27k for a Ford. Has anyone had any reliability or other problems with the model?
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member Posts: 468
    Ford sells over 100,000 per year. Somebody must be buying. Reliability for the first year 2005 has been average, with FWD better. Forget the AWD unless you need to plow through snow.
  • lzclzc Member Posts: 483
    I'm considering buying. I'm attracted to the car's safety as indicated by its great crash test scores, and also to its comfortable and spacious seating and good view of the road, something not easy to find outside of SUVs.

    I'm hesitating because I want to include vehicle stability control, a feature I understand will be available on the 2007 models. The one negative that probably won't change is the basic driving experience, which is less responsive than I'd prefer. Oh, the cars goes where you steer it, but it's clearly a large, American-style freeway cruiser.

    But . . . in comfortable, safe, and reasonably reliable passenger cars, there aren't that many choices.

    Based on the Five Hundred's recent sales record, large discounts off MSRP should be available.
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    there will not be stability control on the 2007 model.

    Mark.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    Forget the AWD unless you need to plow through snow.

    I say to get the AWD so that you can get the CVT instead of the 6-speed tranny.

    But then I just love the CVT. :blush:
  • petroniopetronio Member Posts: 18
    My wife wants AWD because we get a lot of snow in Poughkeepsie NY. I think FWD with VSC works fine in snow (AWD only helps you get out of snow not stop or really recover from a skid -- maybe traction control helps a little there) but VSC is not available in the 500. High seat and overall visibility are also pluses.

    The only experience I have with Ford is my mother 1983 Ford Escort. Brrrr.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    59,7oo+ miles with NO unexpected repairs or unusual maintenance here. And that's with the AWD.

    I would NOT forget the AWD. Had there been no AWD, I would likely have bought a Legacy or Outback Wagon.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Member Posts: 792
    I'll second John's motion. As ANT14 (he has been absent lately - hope he is OK and just busy) pointed out long ago in this forum, AWD is a safety feature which improves traction in many situations. Besides winter driving, think about accident avoidance, loose gravel, rain, mud, uneven pavement, and other such situations. Unless there is some inordinate extra cost, or significant additional noise from the drive train, why wouldn't someone get AWD on a car on which it is offered? It may add some additonal parts, but designs such as the Volvo-type AWD used on the Five Hundred, Montego, and Freestyle have been around for enough years and have been proven to be reliable. In their literature on the upcoming Edge, Ford (www.media.Ford.com) indicates that they expect more and more vehicles to be equipped with AWD over the coming years.
  • jrdoajrdoa Member Posts: 11
    I purchased the '05 Premier AWD and must say, I love this car. It's awesome in the snow (live in Chicago), but my gas mileage has totally sucked (15-17mpg).
  • petroniopetronio Member Posts: 18
    Subaru would be my first choice (I drive a 2000 L wagon), but we need room for three car seats in the back.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member Posts: 468
    I love the CVT,too
  • AWD costs more, gets worse gas mileage, has more components and weighs more. For those reasons, some people will not buy it. That doesn't mean they are "right" and you are wrong. It means there are more choices for more situations. For many, the ideal would be FWD (or RWD) with EBD, traction control and stability control. Those systems all weigh less than AWD, so they will have a place as an alternative to it.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    This article is so important I am not quoting any part of it. You will want to read it!

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/AUTO01/604070379/1148-
  • lzclzc Member Posts: 483
    Thanks for the link to the Detroit News article. Unfortunately, I think Ford is wrong if it believes style is the primary reason for the Five Hundred's disappointing sales. After all, Toyota has done rather well with styles universally thought to be "boring."

    I agree that the Five Hundred needs a new engine, one that's smooth and quiet. As to acceleration, it comes with the price of reduced gas mileage. Once again, I wonder if Detroit isn't fighting the last war.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    By all accounts, the 3.5L is MORE economical than the 3.0....
  • The engine should help, but small styling changes will do little. Yes, the Ford 3 bar grill is more distinctive, but it is hardly "sexy," especially when attached to the rest of the bland (some might even say dumpy-looking) body. Ford sure missed the boat on that clean sheet design. And when is stability control coming? With many cheaper sedans offering it--some even as standard equipment--why buy a vehicle without it (unless perhaps the dealer cuts the price to the bone)?
  • lzclzc Member Posts: 483
    The 3.5 might well be more economical. Modern engines are more efficient. That doesn't mean, though, that most of the improvement won't be directed to more power rather than fuel economy.

    The NY Times recently had a good article on how today's family sedan will match (or better) the 0 to 60 mph times of many muscle cars of the 70s. Americans want speed, not fuel economy.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Member Posts: 792
    To me, the Five Hundred and Montego, from the side, and the Montego also from the rear, are handsome and classy, certainly not dumpy, and definitely not fashion victims as is the Chrysler 300. The fronts of both are the problem, and the substantial collection of spy photos now up on Edmunds and other web sites make it clear that the new designs will be just what is needed, along with the new engine, new transmission, and feature / option upgrades to make these vehicles top sellers. The discussion one year from now should be most enjoyable. :)
  • IMHO, the 500 from the rear suffers from the same awkward rear glass to trunk transition that marred the previous Passat design from that angle. Park next to an Audi A6 to get the contrast on how it can be done so much better.

    The side is just bland, taking a graceful Audi-like look and making it more anonymous. Yes, of course it is not high fashion. However, it will only look even less inspired as it gets more out of date.

    Chrysler's approach, creating a "fashion victim" works quite well actually. By the time everyone is tired of it, they will have issued a complete redesign--something they frequently do. Like it or not, it encourages people to buy new. As an aside, when cars get old enough to become classics, it seems to be the odd and bold that garner attention, at least as much if not more than the understated designs do.

    Ford is famous for putting new front clips on previous designs and calling it a redesign. In no case that I can recall, has that approach turned a lukewarm seller into a hot commodity. I do hope in this case that it does spur sales (especially too if they plan to fix that too-wide console that robs driver room). It's a decent ride, and Ford could use the sales. Thus, in this case I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong.

    It just strikes me as another example of too little too late. In the first place, why didn't they use an overall shape more like the widely acclaimed 427? (And why didn't didn't they do a quick reskin a Crown Vic in that fashion for another specialty model, rather than that half-a**ed effort Mercury called the Marauder?) Issuing a design that looks a lot like a 1998 German car is hardly an attempt to lead with something new.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    Americans want speed, not fuel economy.

    I wonder at what gasoline price this attitude will change substantially?
  • gened1gened1 Member Posts: 256
    My wife just recently aquired a Chevy Impala with the 3.5 engine. While it seems to be a little more energetic than my 500 3.0 it also uses more gas. I just read that GM and Ford collaborated on a 3.5 liter engine and transmission. and was wondering if anyone knows if this engine will be used in upcoming Ford products? It is probably the one now in the Impala. I still feel that when I press the 500 gas pedal down with authority the car takes off sufficiently for my needs. I think the cars computer learns the driving habits of the driver. On a recent four hour trip to NYC I averaged 28+ mpg at 70 - 80 mph.
    Gene
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    I know that GM and Ford collaborated on the new 6-speed transmission. I wasn't aware they'd also collaborated on the 3.5L Duratec, though.

    Sounds like it could be the same engine/tranny to me. Certainly the transmission.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    a. The Impala does NOT use the GM/Ford Six Speed Transmission. In fact, it still has only a four speed automatic!

    b. The 3.5L engine coming from Ford was NOT developed with General Motors.

    So, nothing from the Impala experience will translate to the new Five Hundred.

    And I used to own a 00 Impala LS and now have a 05 Five Hundred, which I intend to trade when the new 3.5L comes out...
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Member Posts: 792
    Other than the fact that both are 60 degree V6 piston engines, and they both displace 3.5 liters, there is nothing else in common between the GM 3.5 and the Ford. I now own a 2005 model car with the GM 3.5 engine. GM substantially revised it and their 3.9 liter V6 for 2006. The GM engine is a pushrod engine (not a bad thing, as the Corvette Z06 engine proves), and the Ford 3.5 is a double overhead cam engine, as is the present 3.0.

    GM and Ford will both use the new front wheel drive six speed automatic they jointly developed, but neither is yet selling a car in the US equipped with it. However, by one or two years from now, all GM and Ford front wheel drive or front wheel drive-based all wheel drive cars will probably be using that new transmission. The programming of the control electronics is different for each company.

    Ford and GM both have completely unrelated six speed automatics for rear wheel drive, or rear wheel drive-based all wheel or four wheel drive vehicles. Ford is now using their old four speed automatic in the Crown Victoria, Town Car, F-150 and Grand Marquis, their newer five speed automatic in the Explorer and Mountaineer equipped with the V6, and their newest six speed automatic in the Navigator, and Explorer and Mountainer V8s, and will use it in the 2007 Expedition and Navigator. GM is now using their new six speed automatic in the Escalade and the Yukon Denali, but it will soon spread to the rest of their GMT-900 vehicles (Sierra, Tahoe, Silverado, Etc., replacing their old four speed. GM also has a five speed automatic for some vehicles (e.g. the CTS).
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    The NY Times recently had a good article on how today's family sedan will match (or better) the 0 to 60 mph times of many muscle cars of the 70s. Americans want speed, not fuel economy.

    If that newspaper were any honest, it would also state the mileage figures of today's family sedan and 70's muscle cars.

    As a matter of fact, Americans want speed and get fuel economy as bonus. ;)
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
  • lzclzc Member Posts: 483
    Yes, mileage has increased since the days of the 70s muscle cars. Most of that gain came early, though, because of vehicle weight reduction.

    Since then, total U.S. vehicle mileage has remained virtually unchanged. During that time improvements in engine performance have gone to improved acceleration.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Member Posts: 792
    In the Edge and MKZ, the new 3.5 is rated at 265 Hp and 250 Ft-Lbs.

    In post 3124 I said " ... since the 3.0 in the Fusion, Zephyr, and Milan now produces 221 horsepower on regular, if the 3.5 is only just as efficient, it will produce 257, not the 250 horsepower Ford estimates. However, it seems almost impossible that such a long delayed new engine will not be much more efficient than the unit it replaces, so 270 horespower on regular seems entirely possible, even likely." Ford - where is my 5 horsepower? ;) Just kidding - Ford has done an outstanding job, especially in light of the simplicity (less to go wrong), and the fact that it only requires regular gasoline.

    From what I have been reading, the new 6-speed automatic is equally outstanding.
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    No, most of the gain came from improvements to fuel delivery. As a matter of fact, cars are in average heavier nowadays than in the 70's due to crash regulations, yet are thriftier and faster.
  • lzclzc Member Posts: 483
    >>>As a matter of fact, cars are in average heavier nowadays . . . .

    You are mistaken.

    " . . . . . passenger cars over in the 4,500 pound weight class and above made up 50% of the 1975 new car fleet but only 0.9% of the 2000 model new cars. The decline in full-size car weight is not due to introduction of SUV’s since the market share of 4,500 pound and heavier passenger cars had dropped below 1% by 1985. Since adoption of CAFE, small passenger cars got heavier while large passenger cars got lighter . . . . "

    http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=77&did=319
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Wow, 1/2 the cars weighed over 4500 lbs :surprise:

    Bur your link also indicates the average vehicle has gotten heavier in a more recent time period:

    Advances in fuel economy technology have lead to a gain in overall fleet from 1980-2000 from 22.5 to 24.0 even though the average weight of the fleet went up from 3,227 pounds to 3,868 pounds during that time frame.
This discussion has been closed.