By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Maybe that's simply because Ford buyers are rational people?
With the current prices of hybrids vs. their counterpart ICB cars, they simply do NOT pay for themselves . . even at today's gasoline prices. UNLESS you drive a LOT of miles.
But still, there are waiting lists for the Toyota and Lexus products. Part of it is the newer hybrids are faster than the conventional counterpart while saving fuel, part is that segment of the market wanting the newest thing, and a significant part as well are those who choose to pay more for a vehicle that claims to be better for the environment.
One would think that Ford could serve the needs of such consumers, even if we don't always agree with their motivations. Ford has made a huge commitment to hybrids in coming years. Here's hoping their efforts will be at least as well received in the marketplace.
So what does that say about Toyota/Lexus buyers? I rest my case.
I actually considered hybrids (probably would've gone for the Lexus RX400h), but the economics simply didn't make sense. Neither did the long wait time to actually GET one, either.
I asked somebody (a Ford salesman, I believe) about why the Freestyle wasn't a hybrid. The answer given was that they *could* make it a hybrid with relatively little work . . but that one of the big issues was the supply of batteries for hybrid vehicles.
Part of it is the newer hybrids are faster than the conventional counterpart
In general, this isn't true, as the idea behind hybrids is to replace the engine with electric motors (for low speeds) and a SMALLER engine (for higher speeds). However, as you say, some are actually faster. Like the Lexus RX400h I mentioned above. It actually keeps the same displacement engine as the RX330, I believe. Though it runs on a different "cycle".
In the end, though, I decided against that for the reasons given above, plus the fact that having that much power in such a vehicle isn't really what I *need*. And after driving a 300C / Magnum with hemi's in them, I concluded that I'd have a bit of fun with that much power, but I probably wouldn't really enjoy it often enough to make sense.
And if I *did* start to enjoy it too much, it would probably mean that I was starting to drive in a manner that was WAY too unsafe. :surprise:
as well are those who choose to pay more for a vehicle that claims to be better for the environment.
In some ways they are better, but in some ways they are worse. But hybrids certainly make a lot more sense than totally electric vehicles, at least in practice for the forseeable future. But somehow I doubt those "greenies" have considered all the effects . . such as all those batteries that will have to be disposed of, etc.
One thing's fairly certain, though: at a LOCAL level, using hyrids/electric vehicles will surely improve the environment (assuming you dispose the batteries in somebody else's backyard :P ). But as the the *overall* effect on the environment, I'm not convinced that it's necessarily an overall positive. And at best, it's WAY less of a positive effect than most think.
Also- I see where the 500 will head (more towards a Fusion front end, which is a great idea). But isn't the Montego already very in-line with the corporate Mercury look? I prefer the Montego and wonder how they will freshen it.
Finally - I hope Ford starts offering remote start like GM has been doing for a couple years now. Very nice feature here in the cold north; and the few times I've used it in 90+ degree weather to cool off hot leather, I've been thankful. Fantastic and inexpensive!
Brian
This is available as a dealer add-on.
That is very true Ford buyers are very rational people. I used to be a Ford buyer for many years. The reason that most rational people would not buy a Ford Hybrid is because they would be afraid that there would be many,many problems with it that nobody at the dealership would be able to fix. Toyota has a reputation for making cars that work without problems. Unfortunately Ford does not have the same reputation for quality or trouble free cars.
People have trust in Toyota products, while most people don't have trust in Ford products. That is why people feel confident to buy a Toyota hybrid and not a Ford hybrid. Its the lack of confidence in the company that prevents most rational people from buying a complex product like a hybrid from Ford.
Besides Ford is not exactly known for developing and refining advance technology. Look at the fiasco with the CVT transmission in the 500/Freestyle. Years and years of development and millions of dollars spent on development. And for what? So the factory can be closed after a few years of production? What will happen to all of the current CVT owners when the transmissions start to fail?
Its this type of "commitment" from Ford that prevents rational people from buying hybrids from Ford. Its also the reputation of Toyota that enables rational people to buy Toyota hybrids.
Face it the only advance technology that Ford is capable of is "More Chrome" for the Ugly Navigator.
The point is that if you build a good car that appeals to a mass market it will sell in huge numbers. This market "Fragmentation" is nothing but lip service by Ford Management since they cannot design and build a passenger car with a mass market appeal. I guess its just easier to design an excuses than to design a popular car.
Have you noticed that with most recent redesign of Ford products the population of that product diminishes? (F150 and Mustang are exceptions.)
Take at look at Explorer, Expedition, Freestar, Crown Vic, Focus, Navigator, Grand Marque, Taurus, etc. After every refresh the product became less and less popular with consumers. I am afraid that 2008 refresh of Ford 500 will prove equally mediocre and unpopular. You know why? Because the main focus of all of these refresh cycles was not to make a better product, it was to make a cheaper product.
And one more thing ANT14, a couple of month back I argued that CVT transmission is a joke and a huge waste of Ford's resources. You said that it will continue to be used in Europe. Now that the Batavia factory is scheduled for a shutdown, do you still think that CVT is a good idea? If its such a good idea, then why is Ford closing the factory? You know companies don't close factories that make good and profitable products. You do know this, right?
The CVT's will still be used and manufacturered elsewhere around the world. Killing Batavia was part of Ford "Way Forward" plan mainly because of the cost of producing it in the U.S.
"You know why? Because the main focus of all of these refresh cycles was not to make a better product, it was to make a cheaper product."
The cost per unit to produce on all the vehicle, are much higher. Specially considering the increase in raw material costs across the board. Interiors have received 3 times the monetary investment as they are updated. Explorer/Expedition uses a much more expensive IRS, rather than live-axle that it replaced back in 2001. The new 6 speed transmissions on the 2006's are also more expensive than the units they repalced, etc. The A/C systems, the thicker glass, the insulation... There's soooo many items, and not enough space for me to elaborate.
I don't see your point on that issue.
The F150 still dominates its segment, and I suspect it is because it can offer a great interior and competitive power in a good looking, updated, well-priced flexible package. Ford did not cheap out on the 2004 re-do; it gave the vehicle a new body in the redesign.
All the great improvements made to other Ford vehicles often get hidden under a bushel. I suspect that there has been a corporate decision to try to recoup some of the increasing costs of upgrades by recycling the body through two or three or more updates, and by infrequent engine upgrades.
It ain't working. It fools some people, but to many eyes the redesigns look uninspired and tired enough that a growing share begins to shop elsewhere.
The goof with the 500, basically a good vehicle, was uninspired styling out of the box and no engine option from the get-go. A decision to be "safe" was an opportunity missed.
Market fragmentation may be real, but if you are shooting for only a solid fragment, it behooves you to have several vehicles that can then go after other fragments. Sales after all are the thing when you are in business. If you cannot provide that array, then the vehicle you do produce ought to be able to be configured many different ways a la F150.
This is available as a dealer add-on. "
Is this a splice and solder job?? I have an aftermarket remote start on two of my 3 cars right now, and while they are very good, having it integrated with the BCM is superior.
You can accomplish much more integration if done at the factory:
1. heated seats can be turned on when cold
2. the heat or A/C can come on based on interior and exterior temperatures even if you forgot to leave the climate set "correctly"
3. better alarm integration, etc.
My experience with dealers and service departments has been pretty poor on the Ford side. They never get interior bits put back correctly. My boss tried getting a dealer to install a Sirius radio in his Mariner and had a horrible time.
It should be engineered in Dearborn and plugged into a factory harness at assembly time.
Brian
These do have to be spliced in.
http://www.p71interceptor.com/remotestart/goldsilverbronze.pdf
Most dealers do not install alarms but have an outside vender install them.
Mark.
Also, the lack of engine choises is not limited to the Five Hundred, Montego, and Freestyle. The F-150 only has a little six to allow them to claim a low price for a stripped truck, the 4.6 V8, and the 5.4 V8. None of the Ford V8s have cylinder deactivation. GM has Ford badly beat when it comes to engines. Look at the new Tahoe with cylinder deactivation. It is larger than an Explorer, but gets better mileage.
I think that feature is kind of a silly gimick.
I'm not a fan of SUVs, but since you mention the new tahoe...this vehicle still has only a 4 speed transmission. Most vehicles now have 5 or 6 speed. I think a substandard trans is a bigger issue than remote starters.
I'm not willing to pay much for it, though, down here in the land of humidity and heat.
Ford's Triton is a modern 5.4L 3-Valve engine with OHC and variable valve timing. And still they are only able to make 300HP from this engine. This makes no sense to me what so ever. The whole reason to go with OHC and multiple valves per cylinder and variable valve timing is to make more power. So were is the power? And don't tell me about the torque. The whole reason to have variable valve timing is to have a wide torque band. The Ford 5.4L should have a minimum of 350HP now.
I just think that somebody is sleeping at Ford's engineering department instead of developing competitive engines. Or maybe every body is worried about their jobs with the "Way Forward" to worry about making competitive engines.
Also - GM only charges around $200 for this option on most models. High end ones have it standard.
I'd never bother.
And the only reason I'd use it in winter would be if I'd parked outside, and needed to get the car warm enough to make it easier to remove the ice off the windshields.
Yes, for now just the 2007 Escalade (and I think the GMC Denali) version(s) of the large GM trucks and SUVs have GM's new 6-speed automatic, but they will soon use it in all of them. GM will also soon be using same Ford-GM joint venture 6-speed that Ford will install in the Five Hundred, Montego, Freestyle, Fusion, Milan, MKS, Edge, MKX, and various others in their front wheel drive cars.
Given that on hot days, it can take 20 minutes for the car to actually cool down to 71F where I live, I doubt that 30 seconds before I get in the car will make a lot of difference.
I did have a rental car once that had the remote start. It was kinda neat to play with, but I could certainly live without it.
On the other hand, if it were only $200 extra as a factory add-on, I'd probably get it. After all, I got the useless $800 moonroof. :P
Right, old technology engines are still able to have more power output then Ford's new technology engines. Why is this? You mentioned the new generation of 5.4L, when is this coming out? The lack of engine power is something that has effected Ford engines for a long time now. Just compare any car segment and you will find that Ford engines produces less power then the competition.
Ford 500: 200HP, competition 240-270HP
Ford Explorer V6 210HP, competition 240-290HP
Ford Freestyle 200HP, competition 225-270HP
Lincoln Navigator 300HP, competition 400 HP
Lincoln Zephyr 220HP, competition 250-280HP
I think that you get my drift regarding the lack of power from Ford's engines. What I don't understand is why? On paper these engines are competitive, they have features like OHC or DOHC. Most have variable valve timing. All of these features should increase the power output, but the completion manages to build engines with what seems like simpler technology and still have more power output. I just used the example of Chevy 5.3L because this engine still uses very simple construction technique and it manages to have high power output.
What I don't understand is why Ford makes engines with high output for other markets but not for America. Look Australian 5.4L DOHC BOSS 290 makes 388HP, why we cannot get this engine in America. Ford Australia makes a 4.0L DOHC engine which makes 250HP, we have to stick with a 4.0L OHC which makes only 210HP. I mean why does Ford send the best to other parts of the world, and we get the cheap stuff here in America.
Although I don't totally agree with the above (e.g., Ford GT, Shelby Mustang), one does wonder why Ford does not make better use of architecture and engines they use in other parts of the world. The European Ford line-up offers some great choices. However, they are not designed to be easily imported.
Perhaps this goes back to the Contour/Mystique? Those cars, while decent, did not reach sales targets because the back seat was too tight. Somehow they managed to make a space-robbing roofline look dumpy and anonymous. The next generation European Ford was light years better, but never considered for the US. It would have made a great Mercury model.
GM has a good idea. New Saturn models will actually be Opels. Thus, they will save development of two separate lines, and this clever bit of badge engineering will likely not hurt their reputation, as neither marque is sold where the other is.
Ford could do that with Mercury--or dump the poor old thing entirely and start a new more relevant-to-today division. Looking at Mercury production lately, it is dismal. The Montego and Milan and the new Mountaineer are all selling in embarrassingly small numbers, despite being competitive vehicles (and arguably better looking than their Ford counterparts).
Man you got that right. I had a moonroof on my three last cars and boy are they useless. Hardly ever used those stupid things. But if you want the higher trim models they almost always have moonroofs already. Dealers love to get cars from the factory with moonroofs.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130342&Sear- - chID=73238747171141
It talks about how Ford is using the latest technology in China to build the new Ford Focus there. Notice that its the new Focus, not the old Focus that we have here in America. I think that its just plain silly for Ford to sell new generation of cars in China and have old generation of cars in America. Does this tell you something?
Look at even Ford 500. Sure its a nice car, but again its just a simplified version of Volvo S80. The changes were made to make it cheaper to build. Notice I said cheaper to build, not build better. Have you noticed how Honda Civic is the same car all over the world, same with Toyota Camry.
Maybe these Japanese are on to something here. Americans are not stupid. We don't want old cars and old engines. We also want world class cars with world class engines. I guess that Ford just does not want to send it here thats all.
Anyone who is looking for an up-to-date, well-engineered machine, is unlikely to enter a dealership that promotes these montrosities. I've seen padded vinyl roofs on just about everything. I think it was originally to give the car the look of a convertible, but with cloth topped convertibles on the way out, I don't know what bad idea will surface next for dressing a pig in simulated pearls.
We don't really have to trade cars. We have an 04 Vue which we like, but we have just been looking around a little.
I would appreciate any input you all can give me, especially if you have one of these cars. Let me know how it has been on fuel economy and reliability. Thanks in advance for your comments and advice.
I did get to know the BMW dealer really well during this time. They were such nice people, and they let me drive all of the new BMW's while my car was getting fixed once per month. Oh the good old days..... Actualy it was a nice deal. Once per month I could drive a different BMW while mine was repaired. They used to hate when I drove a loaner car for 300 miles in one day. It was a nice spring day in Georgia mountains. Great weather and the idiots at BMW gave me a Z4 as a loaner. HA HA HA. I drove that car like "Bat out of Hell" for the whole day in GA mountains. If I remeber right I even returned the car with an empty tank of gas. The good times ended when the warrantee expired on the 740. Then it was really time to sell the car. Good bye 740.... Hello Honda....
The only differences are that in the '06 you can get a Navigation system, and a Rear Seat Entertainment system.
I have the Limited AWD (with every option for the '05), and I love it.
Once you actually start driving it, I think you'll find it's more of a "powerhouse" than you think it really is. The AWD has the CVT in it, and gives a completely different sensation to the driver than a standard automatic does.
You'll find that to get great acceleration (and less mpg), you need to keep pushing down on the accelerator as you accelerate, and try to keep the rpm's constant.
If you just hold the accelerator in one position, your rpm's will drop off as your acceleration continues to decrease and you approach the cruising speed for that accelerator position.
Ford manufactures their cars and trucks and makes the STOCK PERFORMANCE of the car less because they don't need to have the numbers on their side. Trust me, the power stroke one-upping has been going on for quite a while with Chevy. Chevy will do some cheap mods to improve the way the engine runs, and all Ford has to do is just dial her up a little notch. Ford depends on any other factors sell the cars, which hasn't been working because Ford's cars don't look like what the mainstream wants (they look BETTER in my opinion). Now they have the Fusion, Edge, and the redesigned Expedition and Expy EL that will compete with the Suburban. People like harder lines these days. It's only fitting that Chevrolet went back to the bubble when that's exactly what people DON'T WANT.
Trust me - if you wanted to make a Five Hundred perform better than a Monte Carlo SS, you could easily do it - but it's not going to come that way from the factory - you're going to have to do it on your own.
Hmm, I saw a Chevy HHR for the first time today (had never heard of it before then, either), and I liked the looks of it. Sorta like a PT Cruiser, but more like a wagon.
Doubt I'd buy one, though. But I liked the way it looks.
Then again, I liked the oval Taurus.
I think 100 hp more means to me that my vehicle does not have to work as hard to provide what I want from it. Other factors being held constant (and I know they aren't), it will last me longer being less stressed over its service life.
Nice attempt at rationalization, but I really don't think there's too many examples out there of cars with engines that have died because they were overstressed during the life.
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with just saying: I want those extra horses 'cuz sometimes I feel the NEED for SPEED.
I like the extra horses, because there is a certain "luxury" factor in having a vehicle that does not need to strain in performing its daily rounds.
There are few people who actually drive vehicles that far . . and it has little to do with the engines wearing out.
because there is a certain "luxury" factor in having a vehicle that does not need to strain in performing its daily rounds
If I drove enough to take a car "several hundred thousand miles" in less than 8 years, what I'd consider "luxury" would be to have a driver.
Clearly, it all comes down to perception of value, actual cost of a vehicle, and perception of one's own desire to pay x price for a vehicle.
I'm quit sure I could afford a 60k automobile . . . but I elect not to do so.
Then again, I never thought I'd pay 30k for a vehicle. Not what I paid for the Five Hundred, but I did pay that much (a bit more, actually) for the Freestyle.
And, no, I don't really care all that much. But I'm bored waiting for my cookies to bake at this moment.
Read This:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhorsepower.html
Mark
Don't assume that this standard system is equal to AdvancTrac available from Ford.
Mark.