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



  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    "The GM 3.4L and 3.5L engines feels more refined than Ford's 3.8L and 4.2L engines."

    That wouldn't take a lot, actually. The essex engines are updated, yet old tech.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    I've seen a lot of posts talking about the new engines, and the type of warranty that might be offered on these cars. Does anyone have any idea on what might be offered? Ant, you seem to be the most informative in this area. I have thought a great deal about either car, and will probably wait the extra year to get the better engine, horsepower wise. I'm hoping to get something in the 260HP range. Is this a reasonable expectation??
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    The 3.5L can deliver anywhere from 240HP (relaxed), to 285+ (peaky) if need be. All depends on how they wish to tune the vehicle. Obviously they'll tune it lower at first, so throughout the years they can up the horsepower, as the vehicle's life ages.

    I'm betting on a good solid 250HP/250TQ. to start with. But that's just MY personal guestimate.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Interesting, as that is what the four cylinder turbo in the upcoming Legacy/Outback will produce, and the car is much lighter.

    The relatively lower power output in the 2005 Five Hundred/Montego is what started me looking at the Subarus in a serious way. I may still wait for the Fords, but it is far more likely I will buy the Subaru. Sad, really, as I much prefer the body size and style of the Fords.

    I have 151,000 miles on my 2000 Impala LS, and can't wait much longer. I have serious concerns whether the 200hp engine in the Five Hundred is enough power for me. I live where coal trucks and two lane roads are frequently encountered, and power is a necessity, not a nice to have. And I am definitely interested in AWD.

    The fact the Subaru primarily drives the rear wheels while the Fords primarily drive the fronts is also a factor for me, as is Subaru's relatively much longer experience in AWD. On Ford's side, there are many more dealers, parts should be easier to get. On Subaru's, the transmissions are much more of a proven commodity than is the CVT I would be interested in.

    What to do, what to do....

    I also would MUCH prefer a sedan to a wagon, but the Subaru sedans are too small for me and my needs...
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    Why not also look at the 2005 Chrysler 300? It has proven parts, and the same large interior space as the 500 (except for a smaller trunk). It is available now with a 250Hp V6 or a 340HP V8, both connected to proven transmissions. All of the winter drive tests and reviews show that it and its Dodge Magnum Wagon twin do very well in slippery conditions without all wheel drive, but that will be available this Fall.

    The Ford is something to consider several years from now, when it will have the bigger engine and the bugs will have been worked out of all of the new parts.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    I saw it at the auto show, and unlike the Ford, the high beltline made me feel VERY claustrophobic. Also, Chrysler bought a 1994 Concorde back from me due to suspension problems the dealer never could fix. I am not too pleased with Chrysler's reliability, and would rather take my chances with a new Ford than with even a supposedly proven Chrysler....

    I just wish the inaugural Ford Five Hundreds had more power...
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    Toyota will also have a new Avalon for 2005 to compete with the 500/Monterey, and it will certainly have substantially more power.

    Honda will also have a four door car truck based on the next generation Pilot / Odyssey/ MDX platform. Yes, I think it will be competition for the 500, as it also addresses the needs of people who need space and a big "trunk." It will also have more power than the current vehicles, and therefore far more than the Ford.

    It still seems obvious that Ford needs to find a way to either get the new 3.5 V6 into production (with power to match the Nissan and Honda engines) sooner, or get more out of the current engine (the same Eaton supercharger used on the GM 3800 V6 would be one good choice).

    Subaru is controlled by GM - not a comforting thought with regard to quality.

    Also, Chrysler has a better warranty than Ford. It seems that Ford would have an easier time selling the 500 / CVT with a better warranty.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Subaru is owned by Fuji Heavy, in which GM has only a 20 percent interest, which is NOT controlling. And I have had good service from my Impala. GM has good quality, even though some time back that was NOT true.

    Be that as it may, the ONLY reason I probably will NOT be buying the Five Hundred is the lack of engine power given its large size.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    Why would Ford/Mercury allow the other manufacturers to get such a jump on them by using the 30 Duratec in the 500/Montego?? It really doesn't make sense to bring out 2 beautiful new cars that are underpowered when stacked up against almost all the other cars in their class. Someone really dropped the ball, BIG TIME. I also think they should change the warranty they offer.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    It's not as easy as it sounds to bring out a new car, or a new engine. And worse than bringing the new car out with an old engine, would bringing the new car out, with bad new engines. Until they are ready, tested and tested again, and clearly a solid, reliable and certified product, Ford shouldn't release them. They've done that in the past, and they get drubbed for every part failure.

    So, why not just hold the car up another year until the engine is ready? Talk about the competition getting the jump on them! They are in a bind, no doubt, and it's unfortunate that Ford wasn't able to bring it all to market right now, but things being what they have been the past few years, Nassergate, Firestone/Explorer issues, stock price, p/e ratios, etc., it now is what it is. And while we're all enthusiasts and pretty sensitive to the power issue, there are lots of folks who will probably think it's peppy. We'll see. If it's a "dog", well, that won't be a good thing, but other than a 4 cylinder Ranger, I haven't seen a really slow
    Ford in 30 years.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Until you get a few facts about 500's performance in front of you before you jump to the conclusion that the 3 liter Duratec will be so underpowered? As far as I know, nothing has been published yet regarding performance.

    The new six speed and CVT transmissions should allow it to more efficiently make use of the engine's peak torque range, and I would bet its highway mileage will be excellent.

    The three liter Duratec is more than adequate in my Taurus. Yes the 500 will be heavier, but not that much heavier, so I would bet it will satisfy 90% of the potential customers.

    The horsepower races in family sedans seems a bit ridiculous to me, in any event. Once you can get 0-60 in the 8-9 second range, it is adequate for almost any real world driving situation.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    My 1983 Buick LeSabre weighed about the same as a Five Hundred and had a 5 liter V8 with 140 HP! When I bought a 1986 Lincoln Mark VII LSC with 200 HP it was considered a hot car. It's amazing how our expectations change over the years.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Yep, expectations sure change. I went from an 1983 Chevy Celebrity with the POS Iron Duke engine (maybe about 100 HP?) to a 1990 Taurus with the Vulcan V-6 and thought I was in hog heaven with the excellent acceleration and better mileage, not to mention everything else on the car being vastly superior. Now I've got a 2000 Duratec Taurus and am even higher on the hog with at least as good or better mileage as the old Taurus, and people look down their nose at a Taurus with the good old Vulcan, and they brag on about the higher horses available in V-6 Camrys, Accords and Altimas.

    I don't really need anything more than what I have now, especiallly when I know with the OHC engines most of the improved HP available requires you to rev up to quite high rpms to make use of it. Actually, I hope the advent of 6 speed and CV transmissions will improve mileage, with comparable acceleration to what I have.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Let's not forget some of the engines that some of you are mentioning, require Premium fuel. Like Toyota's 3.0/3.3L/3.5L and Nissan's 3.5L. While the Taurus takes regular.

    Here's some spy info on Toyota's next Avalon (looks like a huge Prius to me).... 8&n=158

    Ironically, the majority of people wanting more power, chances are will never put it to use... And I constantly think of this as I'm flying Corvette's, Porsche's, BMW's. Same as many other vehicles, SUV's, Trucks, people will always want more power, YET see them at the mall parking lot and aside from not being able to park it, they cringe of driving over a sidewalk if road rage kicks in.

    While we compare performance from one vehicle, to another, the 500/Freestyle might excel in another area like interior space. While we enjoy the driving dynamics of another, the 500/Freestyle will excel in safety, etc. In other words, no vehicle is ever perfect, but if performance is the main attraction someone is looking for over utility/space/safety, then maybe a Mustang is the segment they should be shopping for.

    Performance/mileage facts about the 500/Montego/Freestyle aren't even close to coming out yet, so it'll take awhile since they are undergoing emissions certifications around this time.
  • tpat3tpat3 Posts: 119
    The car companies, those from Detroit especially, sell us power to overcome other flaws. And we buy it. Power is great, but safety, utility, economy, handling, stopping and reliability are probably more important for almost all situations.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Also, you can get that well equipped Duratech Taurus for well south of $20K. Try to find a Camry, Accord or Altima V-6 for under $20K.

    That Avalon looks to have pretty poor rear visibility. It might attract a younger demographic than the current Avalon, which has to be one of the more ungainly styled sedans around.

    Wonder if the finally found a place to hide the "Signature" Toyota low hanging tailpipe currently available on Camry, Lexus ES330, and Avalon.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 25,332
    with all the talk about CamCordIma V6s, it is still the I4 that 80-90% of buyers get in these cars (and frankly, it's really all that most people need).

    The 500 will likely be a bit heavier than the 4 cyl competition, but probably not by enough to offset the extra power of the V6.

    So, if you get limo-ish room with comparable performance to the mainstream compition, along with competitive mileage, a large chunk of the buying public will be real happy.

    What the heck, a Mazda MPV uses the same basic engine, and is considered to be reasonably sprightly for a minivan (even loaded up), and I'm sure it is at least as heavy as a 500, without the slick trannys or aerodynamics.

    Makes you wonder how people survived back in the '80's, with heavy cars with wheezy little engines. I'm surprised we all didn't die the first time we tried to get on the interstate!

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    The issue, though, is that the 500 isnt competing against 4 cylinder Camrys, Altimas, and Accords which are typically equipped in the $20K to $25K range. The 500 range is going to bottom at $23K and top above $30K. In that context, being able to accelerate at the same pace as a $20,000 Camry LE (average tests put this car at about 9 seconds to 60, with Accords and Altima 4s doing the trick faster, in about 8.5 seconds) isnt very impressive, and may deter many buyers. People argue that the new trannys will help, and I bet they will. But will they be enough to offset the relative power deficiency.

    Also, I'm not sure who calls the MPV a sprightly minivan, but I believe that would be due to its size/handling and not acceleration- it trails the Quest, Sienna, and Ody in such measures and CR cited lax engine response as an issue in there full test.

  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Unless the CamCords grow quite a bit in interior and trunk room, fact is the 500 is not directly competing against those cars anyway. It will be about a foot longer, and much taller with a huge trunk, especially when compared with Accord. So 500 more likely competes against maybe Avalon, larger Buicks, Pontiac Bonneville, and Ford's own Crown Victoria, though the CV will continue on to be more a Grandma and Grandpa and police and taxi special.

    That's about it in the full size under $30K range(affordable range), so I really don't think that in this vehicle, ultimate performance means squat to nearly all of their potential buyers.

    Leave the smaller sedan size to the coming Futura which will sit right at the same size range as Camry, Accord, Altima, Mazda 6, etc, etc. Ford will not make the mistake again of trying to market a Focus and Contour that have nearly the same space capacity. This killed the Contour because you could get a Focus less expensively with nearly the same room, or a Taurus with much more room and little or no more cost. They are spreading the size ranges more than in the past, which is good.
  • nedc2nedc2 Posts: 192
    I would say that Nissan is the worst culprit here, followed by Dodge and Chrysler.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I think performance means something to these people, especially if those people coming out of CV and Grand Marqs are used to low revving torque rich engines with smooth take off. Two competitors that you omitted would be the Kia Amanti and Chrysler 300. The 300, in particluar, offers two engines that trump the 500 in power and torque. The Bonne and LeSabre are soon to be replaced, and the new Avalon will debut a couple months after the 500.

  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    I've seen a few places that are offering some specs on the Ford 500/Mercury Montego. They are showing the car with the 200 HP Duratec. I really couldn't care less about my 0-60 times, but I want a car with plenty of balls when needed. My days of drag racing my Fords are way, way in the past, so I don't need to know my 1/4 mile times either. I've driven the Duratec motor in my past 5 cars, and they've been OK. The whole reason for my original post was why the hell did Ford lag behind and let most of the other cars in their class develope a better and more powerful engine. They knew they were building some totally new vehicles and should have been on top of things as far as putting NEW motors in NEW cars. Ant, you seem to be the most knowlegeble person here as far as what's coming up in the future. Is there any possibility they may re-power these cars part way through the upcoming model year? In the past they've released 2000.5 cars, or what ever the year was. I'm driving a 2003 Acura TL with the 225 HP engine. There isn't anyone who can tell me that the extra 25HP I have in this car doesn't make a difference. The first couple of times I nailed the pedal I was shocked. Partly from the power off the line, and then when in traffic it was there for me, with plenty left. And partly because I couldn't believe that as little as 25 extra HP would make such a difference. Any positive remarks will be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks, John
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    (and don't forget that TL weighs much, much less than the Five Hundred will...Come on, somebody help fdcapt2 here. I, too, don't really WANT to buy something else, but I am probably going to. Far more than horsepower, it's the torque, at both standstill and at highway speeds, that most concerns me.)
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    " Is there any possibility they may re-power these cars part way through the upcoming model year?"

    FdCapt, If Ford chooses to, they can make the 3.0L Duratec pump out 240HP if need be. Examples such as the Lincoln LSV6 and Jag S-type V6. Issue, it would cost a bit more, and require premium fuel.

    The price to pay for performance. And maybe Ford doesn't feel like they want to offer a premium fuel requirement on the vehicle. Imagine the headlines on newspapers...."they installed a CVT to save fuel, but you gotta pay premium for it" Because of course, the media would divert the story in a negative tone.

    They could try the Mazda6 version fo the 3.0L, which requires premium but bumps 220HP, BUT it's configured to produce lower torque at 192TQ. It's designed to breathe higher (at the price of torque), which Mazda installed their own heads.

    As for the TL's, Honda's engines have always been peaky, and gotta slam it hard to attain power. They also use low axle ratios which is part of the story, that helps acceleration. The axle ratio's on the 500 will be even lower, which will help substantially.

    Overall, just wait till the first few models are publically tested. Just don't expect Mustang performances though....
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    One minor correction, the Mazda6 version of the Duratec does not require premium fuel, at least according to Edmunds. Also it's peak torque is 192 ft-lbs at 5000 rpm, whereas 3.0 in Taurus is 207 ft-lbs at 4500.

    The 220 Hp in the Mazda is at 6300 rpm whereas in the Taurus it is 201 at 5500 rpm.

    To me, you really aren't getting much, if any bang out of the Mazda variable valve technology for real world driving. It does give you a higher horsepower number you can advertise though to fool the uninformed public. You gotta really wind up the Mazda. Maybe that's where they get the "zoom-zoom"!
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    You do NOT have to slam the (last one) TL's engine hard to attain power. Ford's current duratec engine is on par (or maybe even more peaky) with the last generation accord V6. Not the old TL with it's 5 speed automatic.

    I Agree with the others who say give the car a chance. Test driving by the specs doesn't tell you the whole story. A ford 500 representative from Ford was on Autoline Detroit and she assured everyone that the car has good low end performance due to its new innovative transmissions.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687

    Opps, that's right, the Mazda6 doesn't require think I have a friend with one...I just have my mind elsewhere today (steaming carpets).
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    But have you actually driven the mazda 6 v6 yourself to see if it does give you more power in real world driving than the ford duratec.

    i hope you just don't look up some specs to come to your conclusions.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    No, I have not driven a Mazda6 V6, and yes I understand that different transmission and final drive ratios can also have a large effect, which is precisely why I think a lot of people posting here are premature in writing off the 3.0 Duratech in the 500 as being inadequate.

    One thing we can be pretty sure of is that no one in this discussion has yet to drive a 500 with either the 6 speed or CV transmissions!

    At the risk of sighting statistics instead of driving experience, I pulled a few more nuggets off Edmund's comparisons to make my point:

    2000 Taurus Duratec 4 speed automatic, 0-60 8.3 seconds, 1/4 mile in 16.4 seconds at 1/4 mile speed of 86.7 mph. Taurus weight 3313 lbs.

    Mazda6 V-6 5 speed manual, 0-60 7.8 seconds, 1/4 mile 16.8 seconds at 90 mph. Mazda 6 weight 3243 lbs.

    Interesting that the Taurus got through the 1/4 mile sooner than the Mazda, but it's speed at the end of 1/4 mile was a little slower. The Taurus must have better low speed acceleration, right?

    More than one way to skin a cat. And yes, results may vary, especially depending on who churns the gears in the manual Mazda. But no overwhelming differences between the two. Just wind the zoom zoom up a little in the freer breathing variable valve timing Mazda Duratech to squeeze a few more horsepower, but the Taurus Duratech does about as well.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    "But have you actually driven the mazda 6 v6 yourself to see if it does give you more power in real world driving than the ford duratec."

    I drive my friends Mazda6S about twice a week, and call me spoiled because my car is a V8, but I don't wish to say the engine lacks torque, but at first press up to 3000RPM there COULD be a bit more thrust. Granted, past 3000RPM the Mazda V6 makes up for it and will get you to 0-60seconds quickly, but [non-permissible content removed]'s that initial launch.

    IN comparison, her husbands Taurus with the Duratec jolts forward at first press of the gas, then remainds a bit more composed throughout the rev range. IN comparison, another friends Saturn L300 3.0L V6 has just 190TQ, yet it's quick at first press....

This discussion has been closed.