"Let us hope if a new coup is developed it will be more like the 91 Cougar and not the 83 garbage."
Hey, I object!!! Look, I had an 84, a 90, and a 94, and while I liked the big body cats too, appreciated the technology and all, the 83-88 models handed better in my opinion, especially at high speed. Much more nimble cats. Not that the later ones were bad, I'm just saying, the earlier versions were not "garbage" at all, as you put it. Not even close. I could name some garbage, if you need me to, but Ford Coupes don't qualify.
Was getting breakfast today at the local McDonald's in Rantoul, IL and spotted a 500, Montego and Freestyle in the parking lot. They were all marked "Job 2" and were test cars. I talked to the drivers, employees of the Chicago assembly plant, and sat briefly in the 500 and Montego. Nice looking cars, loads of room in the back seat, humungous trunk. But as a guy who's 6'5" and 280 lbs, I have to say they didn't configure the interior to take full advantage of its size. You definitely sit high up. The Montego had a sunroof and even with the seat lowered all the way my head touched the roof. The 500 with no sunroof afforded maybe 1" clearance with the seat lowered all the way. I wanted an inch or two more rear travel in the driver's seat. The center console is very wide and the driver's footwell area is not very spacious. Overall the cars provided less room FOR THE DRIVER than my Passat GL.
I don't understand why Ford would design a super tall car with huge rear legroom and then not provide enough downward and rearward travel of the driver's seat to COMFORTABLY accomodate large drivers. Missed opportunity here.
you met the worker who build the car? Were are eager to get you in the car, so you could try it out. Worker morale is very important to level of uqlaity in the car, if they don't believe they are in a good place, making good product, they won't work right. Same as in an office job.
I heard these compains here and elseware about the five-hundreds smallish front quarters. A big car has to have big space. Like the Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. These are excellent cars for big drivers, and the latter is really quiet and pelasant.
Meybe ford did this unpurpose with the 500 so that larger buyrs stay with the full size models and SUV's. All i know if that i would have maximsed room, because this cars doesn't have the 300C's pizzaz, its biggest selling point is practicality (largest trunk, etc) and the bigger the interrior is for its size the more practical it is.
Did the fact that they did not have wood paneling on the doors bother you? I'm just curious if they asked your opinnion on the car, and if they were ready to do anything about it...
You are 6'5" tall and probably in the 95th or higher percentile in height, so it would not be unusual for you to be a tight fit in most cars. Your Passat probably only fits because the seat travel must go way back, leaving no room behind you for rear seat passengers.
There will never be a car that suits everybody, or we would have a pretty boring world on wheels, right?
Yes I'm in the minority as far as height, but some MUCH SMALLER cars see fit to provide seat travel that accomodates very tall people....most Volkswagens and many Nissans for example...even if that means that there isn't much room behind the driver when the seat is all the way back. Actually, the Passat has reasonable room behind the driver even with the front seat all the way back.
The point is, when you put the driver's seat all the way back in the new Fords there is still ridiculous amounts of rear legroom -- it would have been trivial to provide more seat travel for the driver. There are few cars that have this potential, so why not use it to make the vehicle attractive to that couple of percent of potential customers on the tall end of the curve, when there is no downside to doing so?
I don't know that the drivers actually built the cars, I just asked if they were from the Chicago plant and they replied yes. They didn't ask my opinion of the car. They were OK with me sitting in it for a few minutes but didn't appear to be specifically tasked with soliciting reactions.
I've also had issues with interior headroom, but mainly because I have long legs. I've actually had decent headroom in cars like Mustangs, Mark8... It's not till my LS that I'm a bit tight, but there's ways I go around adjusting the seat so it doesn't feel like it.
I agree, Passat does have good headroom for tall driver, as I have many friends that have owned those cars (one of the few and rare compliments I'll give a Passat because of how astrociously unreliable they have been for ALL my friends).
I can't say I've had headroom issues with the 500, maybe of how I adjust my seats and even wearing a cap I still have a few fingers before hitting the roof. But I also recline my seat quite a bit back, so that might be how it works for me.
I'm just under 6'3" tall, have a 34" inseam, wear size 12B shoes, and weigh about 190 lbs. Granted, you are bigger, but I can't see why you'd need more seat travel, when I'm sitting behind the wheel of a Five Hundred or Montego I don't have the seat at anywhere near its limit and have ample legroom. I do tend to put my seat relatively high and have the seatback set rather upright, so with the sunroof there is an issue of headroom but that has much more to do with the type of "cassette" Ford uses which is thicker than some other manufacturers use, I'd estimate that its a good 2 inches thicker than the one Mercedes uses in the C class cars, I'd also agree that the wheel wells are narrower than ideal but I find them acceptable, though I don't think I'd recommend the car to someone who wears size 16 EEEs Even at 6' 5" you should have either ample legroom or headroom in this car (without the sunroof) if not both. And as for the Passat, yes the front seat is roomy, but except for the footwells, which are a little wider, and less intrusion on headroom on sunroof equipped models, again this is due to the design of the sunroof cassette which Ford is using, it's no roomier than the Five Hundred. And compared to the Five Hundred, the Passat's rear seat room and trunk space are a joke, I don't need to put the driver's seat all the way back in a Passat, but nevertheless when I have that seat adjusted to where I'm comfortable behind the wheel, the my knees are making dents in the back of the front sear if I move back there.
Since the forum is developing personal ad attributes - I am 6' 1", 190, and 34" inseam, 47, blue eyes, ... Oops, no more personal ad, except to add happily married.
I went car shopping today and drove a Dodge Magnum SXT then a Montego Premier FWD. The steering wheel of the Montego does not telescope, so to sit without my arms too straight, my right leg does rest against the side of the center console. I would prefer a column shifter and a narrower console. The footwell also seems narrow, but there is an excellent dead pedal to rest my left foot. I need to spend more time with the car to really get a good feel for it.
Much to my amazement and delight, my folding telescoping ladder (55" x 22" collapsed) easily fit in the trunk laying flat on the floor, and left plenty of space for other things. The Montego really is a viable replacement for my 2002 Mountaineer SUV.
I only drove on smooth surface streets, but the car did not feel slow. Obviosly, we will need to try it on the freeways and on rough pavement. The Montego looks much better than in the photos. The two tone interior is also nice.
We will go tomorrow, hopefully to drive what I really would buy, a Premier AWD with the side air bags, but not the sun roof.
Is better than the 500, i think b/c of the modern headlights and 18inch wheels, the wood looks cooler IMHO. Can't wait till you tell us all about it, if you get the Montego...
I prefer the styling of the Montego too, but I really wouldn't say that is is better than the Five Hundred. There is only one functional difference between the two cars, and that's the lights. The Montego has HID headlamps and LED taillamps while the Five Hundred has halogens upfront and conventional incandescents in rear. Yes the Montego's lights are more technologically advanced and offer some small but real improvement in function, whiter more focussed headlamp beams and slightly faster brakelight illumination, not enough for the human eye to really notice, and longer service life, thay also will cost alot more to repalce, which can really hurt if you have insurance with a rather high deductible. Anyway, what I really like about the Montego is its styling, the two tone interiors are really sharp, the grill is less generic looking than the Ford's and the satin aluminum trim has a high-tech luxury look, the car even looks longer than the Five Hundred though it isn't, I think it's due to an optical trick with the aluminum accent strips in the taillamps which also give the car a less static appearance when seen in profile, the front and rear lower fascia pieces are also sleeker looking on the Montego contributing to the effect.
So you agree that 500 has less driver headroom and footwell room than Passat. We may argue whether the differences are significant or not, but they exist and are noticeable. You may not need extra legroom, but I do.
Of course the 500's rear seat is much roomier than Passat's -- but I don't sit there. The 500 is so much bigger a car overall that it could have been best-in-class in driver room as well as rear seat room, but for whatever reason Ford chose not to do this. That's all I'm saying.
Today we drove a Five Hundred Limited with all of the options, and saw a Five Hundred SEL and a Freestyle in the excellent light green color.
The CVT and AWD work very well, and it will take no time at all to become accustomed to how it sounds and feels. It felt as fast or faster than my 2002 Mountaineer with the 4.6 V8, and the speedometer confirmed my seat of the pants impression.
I fiddled with the seat, and found a comfortable location where my right leg does not touch the console. As I said above, the footwell is narrow, but the left foot rest is excellent. The seats themselves are excellent.
I like the front end styling of the Five Hundred better than the Montego, but the Montego is clearly the better choise, as is has the two-tone perforated leather, the LED taillights, and the HID headlights.
We will go out again, maybe tomorrow, to see if we can find a Montego AWD and drive it on some rougher surfaces.
Smith1 - you could move the whole seat back by simply bolting two steel straps to the floor then bolting the seat tracks to them, or it may be possible to simply re-drill the seat tracks. Of course, if you move the seat back too far, the left arm rest will be too far forward.
in that article, it said the 500, with an oriental rug fit when the seats fold front, is:
"not exactly the kind of merchandise Jay-Z would hunt down in his dubbed-out blingmobile"
lol, hey does anyone know if the 500 has A/C vents near or below the back of the front seat armrests for the rear passengers? Does the montego? I know some versions of the Taurus had them. For a car of this size and purpose, It should right?
Alright, for anyone who has driven the AWD or FWD Limited is the acceleration time adequate and is the noise/vibration/harshness level at 70 mph acceptable?
All depends on your definition of acceptable. And actual numbers mean virtually nothing, as it is all in how a car is tested. Numbers from one source can't really be compared with numbers from another source...
As far as *I* am concerned, the AWD has acceptable performance FOR ME. I strongly suggest you drive the car and decide for yourself. Why would you care if someone else thinks it is accepatable if you then find out it is NOT acceptable to you?
Remember, the CVT in the AWD and base FWD makes this car SEEM slower than it is. There are no shifts as such. And the engine revs much higher at first than it otherwise would...
As I said in my two posts above(1464 and 1468), the performance of both a FWD 6 speed and an AWD CVT seemed good, and the speedometer confirmed my impression.
We sat in the Montego in the showroom yesterday and I finally found the optimal seat position. It just takes a little time to fiddle, and is better if the salesman is not breathing down your neck.
The ride on good roads seemed very smooth and quiet, but I will not order my Montego until I have driven an AWD CVT version on some of the typical lousy freeways in southern CA. All of the reviews to data indicate that it handles and rides well.
Yes, I agree with you, johnclineii, test numbers depend on so many things - (e.g. driving technique, air temperature, road surface, engine temperature, and the number of miles on the vehicle (a brand new one will be slower). I suspect that each of the car magazines tries to be consistent, but I would not compare numbers from different sources.
These recent comments reinforce my earlier comment about the lack of footroom in front, but my issue was one of depth (front to back) of the driver's seat. If Ford had that much extra room in the car, why didn't they make the front seat a bit more comfortable?
Well comfortable they are, you probably mean extending it further back ? If doing so, you take away legroom from the already generous rear seat. But it's what gives bragging points for rear accomodations.
Ford STILL has not accepted my order placed the last week in August. But, my dealer has found a comparable Five Hundred at a dealer about 150 miles away. I am probably going to buy it there on Wednesday. Stay tuned!
It's gold instead of white. The interior is pebble instead of shale. We could find no white SELs equipped with AWD, the safety package and no moon roof or leather. I also got (and had originally ordered) the reverse sensing system.
Sorry if I misstated my concern. It is not the distance the seat moves, it is the physical length of the seat, from your knees back to your hips. My '98 Taurus has better 'support' for your legs than the Limited I saw.
I have been informed by the Ford Motor technical support staff that the Five Hundred and Free Style are not available with a cabin air filtration system (with pollen filter). Since I have severe allergies, this is a deciding factor for me. Ford has been behind its competition in this respect for some years and such systems are now commonly available either as standard equipment or options among most competitors' vehicles. I have been a loyal Ford customer for years,and this will be my last disappointment with this company.
Ohhhhh I get it. Yes I now understand what you mean. I've had that same issue occur in many vehicles, I just tend avoid even thinking about it and adjust the seating so I don't even notice it, if the issue is present.
VJT,
What about keeping the A/C running on recirculation mode ? I have a few friends with severe allergies and since it's more fuel efficient to run the A/C in recirculation mode, they bypass the need of a filtration system.
I have been informed by the Ford Motor technical support staff that the Five Hundred and Free Style are not available with a cabin air filtration system (with pollen filter). Since I have severe allergies, this is a deciding factor for me. Ford has been behind its competition in this respect for some years and such systems are now commonly available either as standard equipment or options among most competitors' vehicles. I have been a loyal Ford customer for years,and this will be my last disappointment with this company.
What's up with that? Very disappointing for an all-new car, especially considering all the Volvo input into the design. The availability of AWD does not really compensate, in fact many AWD vehicles also have stability control. Some argue that FWD plus stability control is SAFER than AWD without stability control. In any event, stability control can be a lifesaver and omitting it, at least as an option, from an all-new design is foolish.
I currently use the recirculation mode,together with a pollen mask because an air conditioning company informed me that the recirculation mode still permits about 10 percent of the outside air to enter the cabin for safety reasons, in order to avoid the possibility of carbon monoxide build up in the cabin. Before that I did not use a pollen mask and could not understand why, when I took long business trips,I would be suffering allergy symptoms using the recirculation mode. Also because mold spores are a year round problem in the South, I had similar problems using the heating system. The pollen mask works but it is uncomfortable and difficult for conversations. An air filtration system would eliminate the need for the mask since it would filter all the air coming into the cabin.
When I first heard about the Free Style and the Five Hundred about a year ago I postponed buying a new car expecting that Ford's newest arrivals would be so equiped, since the Avalon, Highlander, 4 runner, and Pilot already offered such systems. Hence my disappointment with Ford.
If they dropped the cabin air filter on the Five Hundred, it is unfortunate, but Ford has had it on the Taurus since I believe 1996, at least on other than the base models. My 2000 Taurus SES has it. It filters all incoming air and is located at the base of the windshield, accessible by removing some clips on the right side of the plastic cowl screen.
Thanks for your response regarding the Taurus. My son owns two Taurus wagons, so I am aware that they have cabin air filters in some trim lines.
We were interested in a larger model and since the Crown Victoria and its Mercury twin have never had a cabin air filter we had hoped that the Five Hundred would.
The reason I wrote my initial note was that after test driving both the Five Hundred and the Freestyle I was assured by the sales person that both models had cabin air filters. Yet this could not be verified by the sales manager or the service manager. It took eleven days to get an answer only after having called Ford Motor Company myself. I thought this information would be useful for others.
These concerns may seem trivial to those who equate allergies with itching eyes and other minor discomforts. But there life threatening issues in serious cases, which I shall not go into here.
That's not acceptable. I hope Ford will add a filter soon - if possible. The stability control they can add for sure (they did it many times with other vehicles).
Come on Ford! Why have you always to be behind in some respects to save a few pennies! Don't you see you're losing market share and have low sales like never before?? It's for a reason! Stop the BS, and fully compete with your competitions!
It is unfortunate if anyone has severe allergies, but such a condition is rare. The solution is simple - if someone absolutely wants a filter, they should buy a car with a filter. Otherwise, it seems that Ford did an excellent job of focusing on the things which most people want. The same with stability control, and blinking map displays. They are things some people may want, but not things which I or many others care about.
Please don't equate stability control systems with blinking map displays or air filters. Modern SC systems are arguably the most significant automotive safety advance since airbags. More important in fact than side airbags or antilock brakes (whose value is in fact disputed). The cost of stability control is now less than $200 per car. There is NO EXCUSE for not offering this important safety feature on an all-new vehicle. It could have been offered as an OPTION that would not have added a penny to the MSRP or in any way encumbered those of you that "do not care" about advanced safety.
No surprise there, they priced it at $1600, not a very good value proposition on a $15,000 econobox. Their pricing was insane, these systems cost like $200-300. (Stability control was a $250 option on my 2003 Passat.) A grown-up family car with Volvo roots should have stability control available. At $500 they would have plenty of takers.
It does my heart good that there are others out there, Ford lovers like myself, that are fed up with this stupid plan to go forward, but at the same time, step back. They give us all new cars that don't even have struts to hold up the hood, or they give us a mast antenna, hint, it's 2004, they do away with cabin air filtration, power lumbar support, up until these cars, they didn't even have 4 wheel disc brakes on Taurus and Sable, unless you bought the station wagon. Hence, another reason of many that caused Taurus and Sable to end up way behind the rest of the field. I sat down one night with the window stickers from my 2000 Sable LS, my '97 Taurus LX, '94 SHO, and on and on. It is such a joke the way they push new cars at us, that are missing standard features from prior models that people enjoyed. I loved not having to cough and gag during certain times of the year when my allergies started up, because my car, back then, had an air filtration system. It amazes me why they don't go for the gusto, and kick some [non-permissible content removed]. The 500/Montego are pretty cars. They have some nice features. I have driven 4 different models, 2 with AWD, 2 without. They are "nice" cars. Nice doesn't make it anymore, and hasn't for awhile. Like someone else posted here that they were expecting much more considering the Volvo connection. True, the AWD is Volvo, but they really needed to take the extra few steps to reach, and maybe pass Toyota and Honda. It ain't happening this year, and unless they get their heads out of their butts, it ain't happening anytime soon. Almost every person that I spoke to at car dealers had the same concerns that I talked about here many months ago. They couldn't believe that the engine is no where close to anyone else in their class, and are very worried about how this engine will hold up pulling almost 4000 pounds around town. And the talk is no new engine, the 3.5, until 2007. I really hope they wake up before they end up with 100,000 new vehicles for the car rental companies......
If you want a Volvo at a Ford price, you really ARE dreaming. I agree about the decontenting, to an extent. You see, that is the major reason I am BUYING a Five Hundred today, and trading off my Impala LS. It's a 2ooo, and had many more features than the 2oo5 Impalas have...
If you really want a Volvo, the dealer awaits. I bet it has cabin filtration, too. I understand this is a very easy add to most cars...
Is this like the Contour where it has the place to fit the filter, just that they don't offer it from the factory? If so you could probably pick up a filter for $20-40 and put it in.
Now I have no idea if that is the case with the Five Hundred, but just a thought.
Mast antennas flat out work better than ones built into glass. I don't want one in glass as I see it as a step backward. Good for Ford to stick with function over form.
I agree the cabin filter should be standard.
Struts on the hood are nice, but I would rather have the struts on the trunk with a hinge system that doesn't intrude into the trunk space, and Ford did do this right on the 500. Struts for the hood are not that big a deal. How often do you open your hood? I change my own oil and average less than once every two months on hood openings.
The 3.0 Duratech engine has been bashed and bashed in these discussions, but who really cares when it can get up and go 0-60 in 7.5 seconds or so? This matches or exceeds Toyota Camry, Avalon and Impala, even with its 3800 optional engine. OK Accord V-6 is a bit faster, but anything under 8 seconds is very acceptable to all but the leadfoots.
Mileage with the 3.0 Duratech is excellent with this engine and either CVT or 6 speed automatic. Both of these transmissions can be considered to exceed the state of the art(IE Camry, Accord and Avalon) in a car with starting prices in the low $20K range.
You want a Ford more like a Volvo? Then my suggestion is BUY THE VOLVO! It is wholly owned by Ford and you can enjoy paying the price premium over the Ford.
Want a Ford that is closest to a Volvo without the price premium? The Five Hundred is the pick.
I don't know if that is feasible. It depends on how they designed the cowl inlet air housing, whether is will accept one. Anyone looked in a operators manual yet? My Taurus manual has specific instructions and illustrations on how to change the cabin air filter, and I would almost bet that you could install the same filter into even a bottom line Taurus that did not have a factory filter.
Whether Ford made provisions for it on Five Hundred is unknown, at least by me.
The Montego Premier two wheel drive has every feature of my 2002 Mountaineer two wheel drive, except the SUV-specific rear air conditioning, 3rd seat, and heavy-duty hitch, and the Montego adds side air bags (both have head curtain air bags), LED tail lights, and HID headlights, yet it is priced $6,740 less ($27,790 vs $34,530).
It seems to me that Ford is becomming better at providing content for the dollar.
I plan to order a Montego with all wheel drive and every option except the sunroof, but it will still be $5,040 less than the Mountaineer, and get 35% better gas mileage. That is real progress.
Our massive amount of over-regulation drains resources and money which could otherwise be used for things we want. New cars are extremely clean, but the emissions regulators will not stop demanding more, while they ignore the massive pollution from old clunkers.
Comments
Hey, I object!!! Look, I had an 84, a 90, and a 94, and while I liked the big body cats too, appreciated the technology and all, the 83-88 models handed better in my opinion, especially at high speed. Much more nimble cats. Not that the later ones were bad, I'm just saying, the earlier versions were not "garbage" at all, as you put it. Not even close. I could name some garbage, if you need me to, but Ford Coupes don't qualify.
http://www.freep.com/money/autoreviews/mailbag7e_20041007.htm
and
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/04/pf/autos/suv_types/
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1F131B79
I don't understand why Ford would design a super tall car with huge rear legroom and then not provide enough downward and rearward travel of the driver's seat to COMFORTABLY accomodate large drivers. Missed opportunity here.
I heard these compains here and elseware about the five-hundreds smallish front quarters. A big car has to have big space. Like the Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. These are excellent cars for big drivers, and the latter is really quiet and pelasant.
Meybe ford did this unpurpose with the 500 so that larger buyrs stay with the full size models and SUV's. All i know if that i would have maximsed room, because this cars doesn't have the 300C's pizzaz, its biggest selling point is practicality (largest trunk, etc) and the bigger the interrior is for its size the more practical it is.
Did the fact that they did not have wood paneling on the doors bother you? I'm just curious if they asked your opinnion on the car, and if they were ready to do anything about it...
There will never be a car that suits everybody, or we would have a pretty boring world on wheels, right?
The point is, when you put the driver's seat all the way back in the new Fords there is still ridiculous amounts of rear legroom -- it would have been trivial to provide more seat travel for the driver. There are few cars that have this potential, so why not use it to make the vehicle attractive to that couple of percent of potential customers on the tall end of the curve, when there is no downside to doing so?
I don't know that the drivers actually built the cars, I just asked if they were from the Chicago plant and they replied yes. They didn't ask my opinion of the car. They were OK with me sitting in it for a few minutes but didn't appear to be specifically tasked with soliciting reactions.
I agree, Passat does have good headroom for tall driver, as I have many friends that have owned those cars (one of the few and rare compliments I'll give a Passat because of how astrociously unreliable they have been for ALL my friends).
I can't say I've had headroom issues with the 500, maybe of how I adjust my seats and even wearing a cap I still have a few fingers before hitting the roof. But I also recline my seat quite a bit back, so that might be how it works for me.
I went car shopping today and drove a Dodge Magnum SXT then a Montego Premier FWD. The steering wheel of the Montego does not telescope, so to sit without my arms too straight, my right leg does rest against the side of the center console. I would prefer a column shifter and a narrower console. The footwell also seems narrow, but there is an excellent dead pedal to rest my left foot. I need to spend more time with the car to really get a good feel for it.
Much to my amazement and delight, my folding telescoping ladder (55" x 22" collapsed) easily fit in the trunk laying flat on the floor, and left plenty of space for other things. The Montego really is a viable replacement for my 2002 Mountaineer SUV.
I only drove on smooth surface streets, but the car did not feel slow. Obviosly, we will need to try it on the freeways and on rough pavement. The Montego looks much better than in the photos. The two tone interior is also nice.
We will go tomorrow, hopefully to drive what I really would buy, a Premier AWD with the side air bags, but not the sun roof.
Anyway, what I really like about the Montego is its styling, the two tone interiors are really sharp, the grill is less generic looking than the Ford's and the satin aluminum trim has a high-tech luxury look, the car even looks longer than the Five Hundred though it isn't, I think it's due to an optical trick with the aluminum accent strips in the taillamps which also give the car a less static appearance when seen in profile, the front and rear lower fascia pieces are also sleeker looking on the Montego contributing to the effect.
Of course the 500's rear seat is much roomier than Passat's -- but I don't sit there. The 500 is so much bigger a car overall that it could have been best-in-class in driver room as well as rear seat room, but for whatever reason Ford chose not to do this. That's all I'm saying.
The CVT and AWD work very well, and it will take no time at all to become accustomed to how it sounds and feels. It felt as fast or faster than my 2002 Mountaineer with the 4.6 V8, and the speedometer confirmed my seat of the pants impression.
I fiddled with the seat, and found a comfortable location where my right leg does not touch the console. As I said above, the footwell is narrow, but the left foot rest is excellent. The seats themselves are excellent.
I like the front end styling of the Five Hundred better than the Montego, but the Montego is clearly the better choise, as is has the two-tone perforated leather, the LED taillights, and the HID headlights.
We will go out again, maybe tomorrow, to see if we can find a Montego AWD and drive it on some rougher surfaces.
Smith1 - you could move the whole seat back by simply bolting two steel straps to the floor then bolting the seat tracks to them, or it may be possible to simply re-drill the seat tracks. Of course, if you move the seat back too far, the left arm rest will be too far forward.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fivehundred/features/
"not exactly the kind of merchandise Jay-Z would hunt down in his dubbed-out blingmobile"
lol, hey does anyone know if the 500 has A/C vents near or below the back of the front seat armrests for the rear passengers? Does the montego? I know some versions of the Taurus had them. For a car of this size and purpose, It should right?
thanks
Actual numbers would be appreciated. Thanks.
As far as *I* am concerned, the AWD has acceptable performance FOR ME. I strongly suggest you drive the car and decide for yourself. Why would you care if someone else thinks it is accepatable if you then find out it is NOT acceptable to you?
Remember, the CVT in the AWD and base FWD makes this car SEEM slower than it is. There are no shifts as such. And the engine revs much higher at first than it otherwise would...
We sat in the Montego in the showroom yesterday and I finally found the optimal seat position. It just takes a little time to fiddle, and is better if the salesman is not breathing down your neck.
The ride on good roads seemed very smooth and quiet, but I will not order my Montego until I have driven an AWD CVT version on some of the typical lousy freeways in southern CA. All of the reviews to data indicate that it handles and rides well.
Yes, I agree with you, johnclineii, test numbers depend on so many things - (e.g. driving technique, air temperature, road surface, engine temperature, and the number of miles on the vehicle (a brand new one will be slower). I suspect that each of the car magazines tries to be consistent, but I would not compare numbers from different sources.
It's gold instead of white. The interior is pebble instead of shale. We could find no white SELs equipped with AWD, the safety package and no moon roof or leather. I also got (and had originally ordered) the reverse sensing system.
2005 Five Hundred SEL AWD
VIN: 1FAHP27125G111632
Dealer: Chenoweth Ford Lincoln Mercury
(888) 871-1583
Route 50 East, Clarksburg, WV 26301
Ext: Pueblo Gold Met.
Int: Pebble - Total MSRP: $27,340.00
- 3.0L 4V V6 Duratec Engine -
- Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)
- All Wheel Drive (AWD)
- Automatic Headlamps
- Keypad/Autolock
- Power Windows and Locks
- Heated Folding Exterior Power Side, Body Color
Mirrors
- Remote Keyless Entry with 2 Fobs
- Chrome Bodyside Moldings
- 4-Wheel Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS)
- 17" 7-Spoke Aluminum Wheel with Exposed Lug
Nuts
- P215/60Rx17 BSW Tires
- Dual Zone Electronic Automatic Temperature
Control (EATC)
- AM/FM Stereo/Clock/CDx6/MP3
- Electrochromic Interior Rearview Mirror
- One-Touch Up/Down Driver Window
- Front and Rear Carpeted Floor Mats
- Speed Control and Audio Controls on Steering
Wheel
- Reading Lamps for Rear Seat Passengers
- Leather-Wrapped Shift Knob
- Leather-Wrapped Steering Wheel
- Anti-Theft Perimeter Alarm and Perimeter
Lighting
- Woodgrain Appearance on Instrument Panel
Appliqué, Center Stack & Center Console
- A/C Ducts in Rear of Front Console (For Rear
Seat Passengers)
- Personal Safety System™
- SecuriLock® Passive Anti-Theft System (PATS)
- 8-Way Power Driver Seats with Manual Lumbar and
2-Way Manual Fold-Flat Passenger Seat
- Eight Cup/Bottleholders
- Instrument Panel Storage Bin
- SPACE (Side Impact And Cabin Enhancement)
Architecture™
Total Base MSRP: $25,845.00
Special Packages:
- Safety Package Options/Upgrades:
- Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)
- Reverse Sensing System
- Traction Control
- Cloth Front Row Bucket Seats/Rear Seat w/60/40
Split Fold-Flat Seat Back
Total Base MSRP and Options: $26,690.00
Destination Charge: $650.00
$27,340.00
support staff that the Five Hundred and Free Style
are not available with a cabin air filtration
system (with pollen filter). Since I have severe
allergies, this is a deciding factor for me. Ford
has been behind its competition in this respect for some years and such systems are now commonly
available either as standard equipment or options
among most competitors' vehicles. I have been a
loyal Ford customer for years,and this will be my
last disappointment with this company.
Ohhhhh I get it. Yes I now understand what you mean. I've had that same issue occur in many vehicles, I just tend avoid even thinking about it and adjust the seating so I don't even notice it, if the issue is present.
VJT,
What about keeping the A/C running on recirculation mode ? I have a few friends with severe allergies and since it's more fuel efficient to run the A/C in recirculation mode, they bypass the need of a filtration system.
support staff that the Five Hundred and Free Style
are not available with a cabin air filtration
system (with pollen filter). Since I have severe
allergies, this is a deciding factor for me. Ford
has been behind its competition in this respect for some years and such systems are now commonly
available either as standard equipment or options
among most competitors' vehicles. I have been a
loyal Ford customer for years,and this will be my
last disappointment with this company.
Also because mold spores are a year round problem in the South, I had similar problems using the heating system. The pollen mask works but it is uncomfortable and difficult for conversations. An air filtration system would eliminate the need for the mask since it would filter all the air coming into the cabin.
When I first heard about the Free Style and the Five Hundred about a year ago I postponed buying a new car expecting that Ford's newest arrivals would be so equiped, since the Avalon, Highlander, 4 runner, and Pilot already offered such systems. Hence my disappointment with Ford.
Perhaps your MD can write a prescription for a new Lexus.
No wonder prescription drug prices are out of control!
Toyota Lexus division must be on drugs themselves to induce dreams in their marketing types to come up with new features to cater to the decadent.
We were interested in a larger model and since the Crown Victoria and its Mercury twin have never had a cabin air filter we had hoped that the Five Hundred would.
The reason I wrote my initial note was that after test driving both the Five Hundred and the Freestyle I was assured by the sales person that both models had cabin air filters. Yet this could not be verified by the sales manager or the service manager. It took eleven days to get an answer only after having called Ford Motor Company myself. I thought this information would be useful for others.
These concerns may seem trivial to those who equate allergies with itching eyes and other minor discomforts. But there life threatening issues in serious cases, which I shall not go into here.
Come on Ford! Why have you always to be behind in some respects to save a few pennies! Don't you see you're losing market share and have low sales like never before?? It's for a reason! Stop the BS, and fully compete with your competitions!
At least that is the way I see it...
If you really want a Volvo, the dealer awaits. I bet it has cabin filtration, too. I understand this is a very easy add to most cars...
Now I have no idea if that is the case with the Five Hundred, but just a thought.
I agree the cabin filter should be standard.
Struts on the hood are nice, but I would rather have the struts on the trunk with a hinge system that doesn't intrude into the trunk space, and Ford did do this right on the 500. Struts for the hood are not that big a deal. How often do you open your hood? I change my own oil and average less than once every two months on hood openings.
The 3.0 Duratech engine has been bashed and bashed in these discussions, but who really cares when it can get up and go 0-60 in 7.5 seconds or so? This matches or exceeds Toyota Camry, Avalon and Impala, even with its 3800 optional engine. OK Accord V-6 is a bit faster, but anything under 8 seconds is very acceptable to all but the leadfoots.
Mileage with the 3.0 Duratech is excellent with this engine and either CVT or 6 speed automatic. Both of these transmissions can be considered to exceed the state of the art(IE Camry, Accord and Avalon) in a car with starting prices in the low $20K range.
You want a Ford more like a Volvo? Then my suggestion is BUY THE VOLVO! It is wholly owned by Ford and you can enjoy paying the price premium over the Ford.
Want a Ford that is closest to a Volvo without the price premium? The Five Hundred is the pick.
Whether Ford made provisions for it on Five Hundred is unknown, at least by me.
It seems to me that Ford is becomming better at providing content for the dollar.
I plan to order a Montego with all wheel drive and every option except the sunroof, but it will still be $5,040 less than the Mountaineer, and get 35% better gas mileage. That is real progress.
Our massive amount of over-regulation drains resources and money which could otherwise be used for things we want. New cars are extremely clean, but the emissions regulators will not stop demanding more, while they ignore the massive pollution from old clunkers.