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

1111113115116117

Comments

  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    No one has gotten close enough to take interior pictures of the mules.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    And likely no one has cared enough to make the effort. (I'm not knocking its obvious good qualities, but even with the new front end, there are few cars on the road that are as anonymous as this one.)
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    I have recently heard that the 2008 model will indeed have a new instrument panel (I sure hope that also means a new console), and that the Limited will also have a feature which some Cadillacs have....

    It will depend on the dealerships - if they order and promote the cars with the new styling / features and the new engine and transmission, they should finally sell very well.
  • Here's a couple of shots of a 2008 500 test mule:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=118930

    I was sort of hoping against logic that they'd do more than the usual Ford front and rear fascia band aids, but it looks like the 500 will remain a wall flower for now. Let's hope they take care of business with the interior.

    The new 3.5 should be a nice addition though.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Big whoop. Like that's going to tear up the sales charts now. BTW, these are the first posts since October.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Posts: 735
    Put a diesel in it and it will be on my list. Nice car, but lousy mileage, the 3.5L will make it a bigger looser. Put a 2.2L - 3.0L diesel in this car and you might have something.
  • Lousy mileage? What are you basing this on? My father has a 500 AWD/ CVT and he's routinely getting into the high 20's on the highway. That's pretty darned good for a vehicle this size.

    I agree about the diesel option though, and in more Ford vehicles than just the 500.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Posts: 735
    It’s not bad mileage, however, (without getting on the soap box) when one considers all the environmental and political issues in today’s world, we (consumers, corporations and the Government) need to get more mileage out of a barrel of crude.

    I agree, the 500 with the 3.0L getting 29mpg highway is not bad, but, with a diesel getting 35 to 42mpg would be great.
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    Out of a barrel of crude one gets twice as much gas as Diesel. However, Diesel cars mileage is just about 30% to 50% better, which means that in the end more barrels of crude would have to be mined.

    This is no surprise, as Europe is experiencing this very issue, having to export gas cheaply to the US and importing huge amounts of refined Diesel fuel to keep 30% of its car fleet running.

    Not to mention the cost to clean the Diesel engine exhaust to American standards (Diesel engines are allowed to pollute more than gas engines in Europe) and the poor NVH relative to gas engines, even in modern Diesel engines.

    HTH
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I'd like to see some data that shows you can actually get 2 gallons of liquid gasoline out of one gallon of crude. One thing I do know is that diesel fuel is much closer to crude in composition. Therefore, it takes less energy and expense to refine. So, no matter how you cut it, it is not a straighforward comparison between the two.
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    See for yourself: http://austingasprices.com/crude_products.aspx

    Now, if you only put enough energy to refine just Diesel out of crude, you'll have to throw away almost half of each barrel. Not very wise...

    HTH
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Um, excuse me, I don't mean to be impertinent, but the stats in that link show how much gas, fuel oil, diesel, kerosene, etc., are MADE FROM EACH BARREL. It adds up to 42 gallons per barrel.

    That about 19 gallons of each barrel becomes gasoline and about 10 gallons of each barrel becomes diesel and fuel oil speaks to product demand, but says nothing about what energy it takes to refine either one--or even how many gallons of gas or diesel you would get if you used all 42 gallons of crude to make either one. I mean it's not like you really think it takes 42 gallons of crude to make 0.04 gallons of aviation fuel, do you?
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    It is not about the demand of different products, but about the yield form a barrel of crude. Here's another reference: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html

    As I said, one can only extract so much Diesel fuel from a barrel of crude, and this amount in volume is much less than gas. Diesel fuel is made up by long HC chains and there is a limited amount in a typical barrel. This limit determines how much of each fuel type can be extracted from crude in factional distillation. The result is that the ratio of gas and Diesel cannot be set arbitrarily.

    Think of a barrel of crude as a solution of several fuels and the refining process just separates its components. Therefore, there's only so much gas and so much Diesel in a barrel of crude, roughly 2 to 1.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Sorry, your interpretation of what you are reading or presenting is not correct. (Even if your interpretation was correct, then should we use that amount of diesel that can be extracted from your conception of a barrel's constituents or not?...I think most people would agree it ought to be used in diesel cars and trucks rather than be discarded). But have it your way...this is not something you are willing to clear up in your mind, and not something that it is worth it to me to debate...but I do wonder how it is that you apparently think that California crude can produce only a fixed ratio of constituent products that differs significantly from the amounts shown on your previous link (aviation fuel difference for example). ;)
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Am I on the wrong topic?

    Mark.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    No, I am. I apologize for that. No more diesel comments!
  • bp027bp027 Posts: 5
    Any one know if the 08 will have stability control? After reading numerous articles, it has become a top priority in any future automotive purchase.
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Ford stated they would have stability control fleet wide by the 2009 model year. Assume that the 08 refresh of the 500 will get it. Fed rules requires stability control in all new cars by 2012.

    Coincidently, Consumer reports rated Ford's AdvancTrac in the Explorer quite highly, especially compared to some other brands who have "standard" stability control.

    Mark.
  • I'm convinced the 500 is superior to any mid-size sedan. It has so much room inside. Its only weakness is its 200hp Duratec. Ford should've offered the 250hp at inception. As usual, late to the party. Everyone, esp. auto journalists, have branded the 500 as "underpowered". Let's hope that changes, the 500 deserves better.
  • I'd rather have the Five Hundred with the 3.0L Duratec and the CVT than with a 5-speed transmission and the 3.5L Duratec.

    I still maintain that the vast majority of those who brand the Five Hundred as "underpowered" wouldn't actually USE any more power than is available in the current engine if they had the 3.5L available. Instead, they simply want to get the same power, but at lower rpm.

    I'll take the higher rpm's along with a transmission that can get me there (and back) SMOOTHLY. And that's exactly what the CVT does.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Don't neglect another weakness...it is so plain that no one at all notices it.
  • There's nothing wrong with being "plain" and "unnoticed". It has several very positive effects: it doesn't get stolen often, and you don't get pulled over very often.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 11,864
    i doubt if i will ever get another vehicle without a moonroof. they are great, although not as good as a convertible. in the summer crack it open to let the excess heat out. if it is not too sunny, you can open a rear window too, and save using the a/c. in the winter let in some of that precious daylight. :)
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2014 Ford F-150 FX4
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    Wow! It seems that Ford has listened, as far, far more was changed on the 2008 model than just the engine, transmission, and front and rear styling. They re-did the interior and made significant changes to the suspension, body, and so forth. I look forward to driving one.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    They added lots of missing features, so now all the feature list boxes are checked.
    People who were on the fence and were waiting for more power, satellite radio, auxiliary audio input, stability control, Bluetooth or a nav system may buy it now, but the styling still is not that great to attract many new buyers. The new grill only looks good in the photos where you look straight-on at the car from very close up. At an angle and from further away where you can see the rest of the body of the car, it doesn't look very good. The grill doesn't work as well on this car as it does on the boxier Fusion.
    I wonder about the fuel economy and pricing.
    It should be a good choice for crash safety anyway.
    Not exciting even compared to the other conservative sedans it competes against, but is an improvement and should sell a few more than before unless pricing is too high.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Click Here

    It's a very substantial update that addressed many, if not all the comments that many people had over the vehicle. Many of them, not expected.

    It's not about a new drivetrain, rather, all the other little things as well. My personal favorite is the FordSync system, which no one expected. And yes, stability control available as well, and favorite other high-tech gadgets.
  • But how does that 6-speed compare to the CVT?

    I love my CVT . . the Freestyle is one of the reasons I got the Five Hundred, and so I made sure that I got one with a CVT in it.
  • I have mixed feelings about this one. I like the fact that Ford really seemed to listen and take care of a lot of the options that people seem to want, and there seems to be lots of small improvements (and a big improvement under the hood) that might add up to something substantial. Unfortunately I don't think the exterior styling is much of an improvement; in fact, it looks to me like the standard Ford mid product cycle front and rear fascia band aids. I've always observed that Ford's original product releases tend to look better than when the products are refreshed a few years later, because the exterior changes on the refreshed products tend to look tacked on to the original design rather than truly integrated into it. The new 500 doesn't seem to be an exception. I like the idea of using the Fusion grille, but in this application it just seems very conservative and plain, while on the Fusion it looks modern and unique. I think part of this is that on the Fusion you have more interesting headlamp shapes and the 2 chrome strips under the grille. It also works better on the Edge because of the more interesting headlamp shapes. On the 500 the whole "face" of the vehicle comes off as one rectangular block. It reminds me a bit of some of the Crown Vic front ends over the past several years; not something bold and new.

    I think the 500 will stack up well on paper vs its competition, but it still looks like it will blend into traffic. I'd expect a modest bump in sales at most from the refresh, and I'm not sure this will be enough to keep this car selling for the next couple of years.

    As a side note, I have to say that I'm losing faith in J Mays in particular and in Ford's design team in general. I have been a big Mays fan over the years, but I'm just not seeing consistently good designs coming from Ford. He's been there long enough so that he can't say that these products were all in the pipeline when he got there as we heard for a while. They've done some great concept vehicles, but what actually makes it to the showroom is hit and miss, and no strong theme has emerged in their design other than a 3 bar grille that works for some vehicles and doesn't for others.
  • gene_vgene_v Posts: 235
    I really liked the old design better. The only critisms that I had was the underpowered engine and the width of the center console and the footspace. As I look at the new console pics it is still too wide. And I don't know if they fixed the footspace.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    The 2008 Five Hundred and a few other Ford models have a lot of cool new optional features.
    One that looks interesting is the new voice recognition system that you can synch with both your cell phone and portable music players.

    What do you think of this?

    http://www.syncmyride.com/
This discussion has been closed.