Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego

1106107109111112117

Comments

  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    This is compeetely not true.
    I love how people who know nothing about the car business chime in where their stupid coments.

    First, at Ford, all models are basically balance out...that menas no more orders are accepted.

    The only inventory at my lot that we have any appreciable quanty of ie more then 10 are trucks. Explorers, Mountaineers, F-150s and Super Duties.

    Only the Super-Duties are in 07 production this month. And they are building all diesel until July.

    I can never have to many Super Duty Diesels.

    I have 3 Focus

    4 Fusions
    4 Milans
    1 Zephyr

    like 8 Five Hundereds
    about 6 Montegos
    1 Freestyle

    8 Escapes
    4 Mariners

    about 6 Mustangs

    I work at a big dealership we did 70+ new Fords in April which was in the to 20 for our region.

    Mark.
  • dturrdturr Posts: 70
    Anyone know why some Montego's that I have seen in Tampa and Fort Myers have a half vinyl roof ? Are there any large incentives looming on either the 500 or Montego? Thanks. dturr.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    They have half vinyl roofs because they are being sold to blue hairs and geezers who still think those aftermarket mods are cool. When they were young and middle-aged adults, vinyl roofs were extra-cost options (or standard on premium models) from the factory.

    I've seen some pretty awful vinyl applied to just about every sedan sold above the subcompact class. Some of these look so bad it hurts, but others are at least good for a laugh.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Yes, it just beautiful when the vinyl dries out and begins to peel off.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    Hey, even "geezers" have a right to their taste. I certainly wouldn't want a vinyl roof, but i believe in the French expression "A chacun son sale gout." To each his nasty taste.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Well, I also believe that. At the same time, I am 54 and on the cusp of geezerhood. I know I would appreciate some kind soul saying to me, "Hey! No one does that anymore," if I hadn't noticed or figured it out for myself yet.

    I can't imagine how a fake roof covering is going to jazz up a Montego. How about putting some $$ into better wheels, or a tasteful rear spoiler? (I saw one a well-intgrated one on a 500, and it actually improved the line of the rear end.)
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    I saw a Ford Tempo with a coach roof once. I think I busted a rib laughing.

    Mark.
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Posts: 271
    I'm 34 years old, living in NY. The car, above any, I would buy today, after a lot of searching, would be the Ford Five Hundred.

    I've come to understand that compact cars, even with decent crash scores, can't compare with a larger car in a collision. There are too many large SUVs out there and even more unsafe drivers. Being I have a 3 year old, everyone driving on highways 55 mph, but who does 55 today, I don't know why people would be a little more careful about the car they choose. Even on city streets not many drive speed limits. Can't say I do but knowing that, I want a car with perfect crash scores.

    Can't afford SUV prices, wouldn't if I could. Just think that unless I drove in Maine and needed a 4x4 I would, but I don't. Cars depreciate and I think it's unnecessary.

    108 cubic feet of passenger space, 21 cubic foot trunk, a folding front passenger seat(how much more room could you need), perfect crash scores, and an MSRP starting at 22,230 is exactly what I'm looking for! It's a luxury car at bargain prices! Being that the Montego starts at 24,430 and IS the same car, why buy the Montego? A Toyota Avalon did impress me until I compared prices!

    A lot of people would say Ford has a bad rep but I've owned a 95 Taurus and I haven't had frequent or major problems. I know it's not the fastest car out there but I'm not a street racer, especially with a three year old in the back.

    I'm curious though about other owners and potential buyers on their age. Is most buyers over 50? Over 40?
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    One factor to keep in mind is that although the Five Hundred and Montego have perfect government test scores, they don't do well in the Insurance Institute crash tests without side curtain (head) airbags, and side curtain airbags are NOT standard, so the odds of finding that safety gear are against you.

    The Accord, Camry, and Avalon all come standard with side curtain airbags.

    I understand Ford will make side curtain airbags standard in more of its passenger cars next year, and the industry has adopted a voluntary phase in of side curtain airbags over the next few years.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I've come to understand that compact cars, even with decent crash scores, can't compare with a larger car in a collision.

    This is not completely true in all cases. In the IIHS side impact test the VW Jetta clearly did better than the 500, as did the Audi A3 (note that IIHS classifies cars by weight so these are in their "midsize" category, despite being comapacts). For side impact test the results are directly comparable among all sizes and weights of vehicles.

    In frontal impact test the results are not directly comparable for different weight cars. But these two compacts are heavy, but they do still weigh about 400 pounds less than a 500 and the 500 did do better in the IIHS frontal tests.

    The Jetta and the A3 have stability control either standard or readily available as a cheap option. This safety feature is not available on the 500.

    Nothing wrong with the 500, it seems to be a very safe vehicle and is certainly spacious. I just disagree with your blanket statement, implying that all compact cars are unsafe.
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Posts: 271
    Is it hard to find a Five Hundred with airbags? I wouldn't buy any car without front, side, or rear airbags. I don't think the Accord, Camry, or Avalon did as well on thier crash ratings? Airbags or no airbags!
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Posts: 271
    Didn't mean to imply that all compacts are unsafe, but I read an article off the web saying the degree of safety. The article informed of injuries reported from small cars vs. large cars. I wish I could remember the article to refer it to you.

    IIHS reported that the Ford Fusion was a death trap, so I wouldn't recommend that car to anyone! So I suppose I'd rather be in a Honda Civic, which IIHS rated Gold, rather than a Fusion! Jetter can keep that piece of %^&*!:lemon:
  • slider7slider7 Posts: 33
    Capital Ford in Raleigh got two SEL's and Town & Country in Charlotte got one. Appears 2007 has the silver painted LTD grill installed on the SEL. Let the summer sell off begin baby! I hope a coach roof and continental spare are available. LOL!
  • slider7slider7 Posts: 33
    SEL and LTD only no more SE, dropped two colors, added two colors. Chrome Wheels and chrome mesh grill are factory options. Can get either with 18 inch wheels. Gee do I want the black on black LTD with chrome rims or Redfire on black LTD with Chrome wheels? Okay Both!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I think you are exaggerating a just a bit with "death trap".

    I find it funny that when I am on a Ford forum, people say VW= :lemon: , then when I am on a VW forum they say Ford= :lemon: . I guess I should buy a Toyota...oh wait they have transmission problems now.

    Civic was rated gold, but is in small car category because it is a much lighter car. It is about 500 pounds less than the Jetta...so its frontal crash test is certainly not comparable to the 500s and also not even comparable to Jetta's. Side crash test results of Civic were not as good as Jettas, but were pretty comparable to the 500.

    Here is a driver death rate report from IIHS. As you say, on average, larger cars are safer...but as you can see some smaller cars were quite safe. The old version of the Jetta had lower death rate than a Taurus as did the Civic.

    The new version of Jetta is more like the size of the Passat, which had one of the lowest death rates. This was some of the other data that led me to believe that VW was doing a good job on safety.

    The most disappointing thing is, it seems like there is a general trend that american makes are less safe than foreign based on these death rate stats.

    http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Posts: 1,106
    I guess I should buy a Toyota...oh wait they have transmission problems now.

    They've had them before, too. Can you say Camry? Sure ya can. :P
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I don't care as much about crash tests as about such real-world data. As a car designer said at an SAE conference, cars are designed for the crash tests and it's not unconceivable to think that a car that fares well at a lab test at 35MPH would fare abysmally at 40MPH.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Kinetic energy=1/2MV^2, where v is velocity so going from 35 to 40 mph increases the kinetic energy of a moving object by nearly 31%. In a crash this energy has to be dissipated somehow, which will result in a lot more bent metal, and maybe dented passengers as well.

    Standardized crash tests may be important, but it is also important not to dwell on slight differences between vehicles as the test is just one data point, and even then it is only one test of one sample as well.

    I always get a chuckle out of those who post in one sentence that they want the safest vehicle available, then they also want that vehicle to go 0-60 in 6.5 or 7.0 seconds as 8.0 or 8.5 seconds is just to slow. Seems the priorities are a bit inconsistant to me.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I look at both. That is why I included a link to a real world study of death rates to back up my point that size is not the only factor in vehicle safety.
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Posts: 271
    It's unfortunate these real world tests can only be done on previous year models. I read the Status Report and found it very informative. Thanks for that jeffyscott.

    I will definitely consider a VW Passat based on the info from the Status Report, though it could be very pricey. The Value Edition would be my choice. The passenger volume equals only 96 cubic feet is its only setback for my taste.

    I also like the int/ext design on both Ford Five Hundred and the Passat. With a VW designer and Volvo underpinnings, gives me good feelings about the Five Hundred would be an excellent family car. Bigger and cheaper than the Passat might make it the better deal. :surprise:
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    You need to try the Passat. Most find it has plenty of room. Going by cubic feet numbers can be misleading...just as rear legroom measurements often don't give a real picture of how roomy a seat position feels.

    Where the 500 really shines over the Passat is in trunk room. However, a lot of people find 13 to 16 cubic feet more than adequate...it depends on your needs. With the 500, you will be driving a vehicle that is a foot longer, so that may be a consideration too.

    Cheaper is also relative. Passats hold their value very well. However, if you are going to keep the car 10 years, who cares?
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    The IIHS death rate publication is also very subject to the demographics of the drivers of a particular car.

    For example, no matter how safely designed a car is, if it attracts mostly "street racer buyers" or younger drivers, no matter how safely the car is designed, it will not look good in this study simply because the majority of drivers of that particular vehicle are risky drivers and will push up the death rates.

    Still the most critical safety variable of any vehicle is the human behind the wheel.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Please, take a look at the reliability of a VW, or speak to owners before purchasing once. Having 12 friends who from 98-2003, bought their products had nothing but problems with them.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Ok, and just to balance that a bit...

    Between 1998 and 2003 I owned a Passat, a Golf and an Audi TT. Not one problem with any of them, and I still have the diesel Golf. Was very pleased with all of them. The 1999 Passat wagon was a real gem. Nothing at that time at that price could touch it for features and quality of the interior.

    BTW, I've had good luck with Fords too.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The IIHS death rate publication is also very subject to the demographics of the drivers of a particular car.

    They did adjust for this to some extent. The text of that report idicated the figures were adjusted based on the percentage of female drivers.

    The old Jetta certainly attracted a younger set of drivers than the taurus, yet death rates were about the same...slightly lower for the much smaller Jetta actually. Ford hired a VW designer...perhaps they should recruit some of their safety folks as well :).
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Ford has Volvo in their stable, and has plenty of expertise on the Ford side in safety as well. Taurus was about the first to have dual powered front airbags and sensors to determine passenger location and weight, for example.
  • frizz2112frizz2112 Posts: 84
    Overall VW's reliability numbers haven't been great as of late, but the Passat seems to be an exception. I haven't checked in the last year or two, but I researched reliability in '99 and '03 when I bought Passats and they were on par with anything Ford was making at the time reliability wise. The Golf, Jetta and Beetle, depending on the drivetrain you choose, can have terrible reliability.

    I checked out a new Passat last week, and although I'm not nuts about the new styling, the interior makes the one in the 500 look like rental city.
  • flivverflivver Posts: 2
    I just rented a 500 in SLC for five days. Without luggage or passengers, the bottom of the trunk must have scraped the pavement at every speed bump or gutter recession in the city's roads. I went nuts. With passengers, that car is so low to the ground that we nearly high centered it on more than one occasion. It was a shock to see how poorly engineered that car is all in the name of trying (apparently) to have the industry's largest trunk. What is Ford thinking? This is so basic... I've rented a Milan and a Fusion and think they are great, but the 500 is just an awful car when going over indentations. I love the Mustang, fusion and Freestyle, which (I know) shares the 500s underpinnings, but it is different and good/much better than the 500. I just hate that car!!!

    Has anyone else shared a similar experience with this car?
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    Never heard of this before, in fact the 500 is higher off the ground than many competing sedans. Yours must have been crippled.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Posts: 1,106
    Try driving one on a Ford lot . . . that rental sounds like it's been HIGHLY abused or modified!
This discussion has been closed.