Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
You could push a Vette faster than a 500!!
BTW, there are a whole lot of 4 bangers out there that, by your contentions, are 'adequately' powered that will blow the doors off your 500 - kidney belts are recommended.
Come on now...keep it real!
Keep up?
Talking about an understatement...
If you are routinly passing up Vettes, they are obviously just crusing along. If you think for one minute that your 500 could beat a vette "in a race", YOUR CRAZY, MAN !!!
Smoking what?
Precisely why I don't need any more power.
It doesn't matter what the other CARS are capable of . . it matters what the DRIVERS of those cars are doing with the available power.
I'd go for that . . because NONE of these vehicles is truly UNDERpowered.
You need to READ what *I* posted, not what others think I posted.
Question: if I routinely pass up most vehicles, regardless of how much "excess horsepower" they have, do I really need more power?
Are you buying a sedan to "race"?
For the job at hand (which doesn't include racing), the Five Hundred is more than adequately powered . . as is demonstrated by all the Corvettes I leave behind.
If they want to get in a race with me, I'll let them blow past me and have their adrenaline and testosterone surge. And hopefully let THEM pick up the State Trooper up ahead.
I've certainly never noticed it sounding ROUGH. I'll admit it may sound "strained", though. However, it's getting the job done. If I'd wanted the sedan primarily for ACCELERATION, I probably would've gone with the Chrysler 300 (or later Dodge Charger) with the V8 Hemi. I test-drove one of the Magnums early on. I originally got a Freestyle, and that's what led me to eventually get the Five Hundred, as well. While the Magnum (and 300, I drove one of those, too) certainly elicited some visceral excitement from the torque and HP, in the end, the Five Hundred and Freestyle were more than adequate for what I needed the vehicle to do. And they won out in other areas. Primarily the ride height (I don't think any of the sedans can compete in that area), and also with the smoothness of the CVT.
The CVT may indeed be a solution to this problem but it shouldn't change how the engine sounds and feels under load.
It's TREMENDOUSLY better than the transmission they had in the Taurus with the same engine. I'm sure the engine sounds about the same at high rpm under load . . . however, the newer vehicles do have better sound isolation . . and I think the road noise from the Pirelli tires on the 18" wheels also helps in that regard. :surprise:
The new 3.5DT is apparently little more than a bored/stroked 3.0 and should solve the HP deficiencies, but I think the jury is still out on whether it really solves anything in the smoothness/willingness dept., have read conflicting reviews.
To me, the smoothness is really more a function of the transmission. I just haven't noticed any roughness in th ENGINE itself worthy of note.
In any case, Ford should not have produced this car with a 15 year old 200hp engine, the car could have been so much more.
From a purely MARKETING perspective, I can't disagree. From a PRACTICAL standpoint, though, I don't see that much difference. Not to say that I wouldn't have opted for the more powerful engine had it been offered at a reasonable price, though. Also, I think it's a testament to the design of the Duratec 3.0 that it CAN still be used in a car over a decade after it was introduced. But it's always needed a better transmission than Ford gave it, and the CVT is just what it needed, IMO.
BTW, there are a whole lot of 4 bangers out there that, by your contentions, are 'adequately' powered that will blow the doors off your 500
Actually, I'm quite sure there ARE some 4-bangers out there that can out drag-race me. But in significantly lighter vehicles, probably. And/or they have a super-charger or turbo-charger.
What I really worry about in the power department, though, is whether the vehicle can safely merge onto an interstate with a reasonable acceleration lane. Some around here (especially in construction areas) would demand a MOTORCYLE to really be safe. Also, the vehicle needs to be able to "get up and go" around cars that are travelling too slowly on the freeway.
What I do NOT have to do, though, is to be able to out-race everybody that wants to race. I'm perfectly willing to let those drivers go by me. I'm pretty happy with 10mph or so over the speed limit. Anything much faster than that and I worry more about speeding tickets than whether I can pass the next vehicle out there.
I will say that I tend to drive alone or only with 1 or maybe 2 passengers, and it's certainly NOT hilly around here (or most places I travel). So, I can't comment on how the car would perform (or not) with a full load in a mountainous region.
It's that thinking that is KILLING GM and Ford. You just cannot keep putting these old engines into new body designs. It just doesn't work and is not keeping up with with the foreign brands. I for one, am glad that Toyota is phasing out their 3.0 / 3.3 great engine, but over 10 years old now. The 3.5 is so much powerful and gets better mileage. Why can't the American brands get this??
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
And basically unneeded, IMO (see above posts).
You just cannot keep putting these old engines into new body designs
Well, they ARE now putting the 3.5L into the Five Hundred. How much that'll actually help, though, is another story.
I'd LIKE to think that the demographics for sedans of this size/calibre aren't buying based on HP/0-60 times as a main criterion.
Then again, I almost fell for it when I decided to test the Magnum and 300. :surprise:
Ultimately, though, I strongly suspect that I'll be keeping my Five Hundred and Freestyle much longer than the typical buyer of foreign large sedans (or that matter, American sedans). And I just as strongly suspect that I'll still be passing by cars loaded with all that extra horsepower on a routine basis. I'll spend less money up front, pay less in insurance, and by keeping the car longer, end up with a much better cost per mile driven. All in comfort and enough "oomph" to fit my needs.
Ultimately, that's what counts, I'd say.
The 3.5 is so much powerful and gets better mileage
I'd also like to think that with current oil prices, that people would start to wonder just how much more efficient a new 3.0L would've been, and how that would help our predicament. Of course, maybe I shouldn't worry so much about it since I'm in the business of finding and producing oil and gas.
I live in a very hilly area. The on-ramp I take every morning is straight up a hill and I need lot's of power for
merging. The 500 just didn't have it. The engine was rough, unrefined and extremely loud. Revving to 5,000rpm trying to climb that ramp. I promptly returned the car to the dealer and even after the dealer offered another 3k off the price, I still said no thanks. The Azera makes that same climb at 2,200rpm without as much as a whimper, shifts so smooth I often have to look at my tach to see if it's shifted. A smooth, quiet rush of power that after 1 year has yet to dissapoint.
Well, they ARE now putting the 3.5L into the Five Hundred"
" And yet GM is determined to stay with their old 197 hp engine in the Buick Lucerne.. I drove a 98 Regency Elite with this same engine, and while it was a good "steady" engine, I can tell you anytime you were facing hills, you could feel the engine strain. Of course GM is offering the Northstar V8 but it will cost you an extra 2 grand. Costly but Necessary if your gonna drive this car. ( my opinion )
Roland
Very well stated, and equals my Azera experience for a little over 4,300 miles since I took delivery in mid-November!...
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Avalon/Azera/Maxima = exceptionally powered = competitive
Lucerne 3.8/500 3.0 = not exceptionally powered = non-competitive.
tinydog's experience/comments 500 is exactly how I felt about the 500 and mirrors tjc78's opinion that 'Detroit's' continued habit of foisting ancient technologies on an increasingly saavy buyer is really what the problem is. Do you think, for a minute, that it does Ford any good to have to discount their cars an extra 3 grand just so tinydog, for example, will consider a car that he feels is unsafe as he struggles to get it to merge safely on a highway? BTW, Ford can make whatever claims they want on the 3.5, but you will have no chance of finding that engine in the 500 today, and suggest that even if it is an improvement it may be awhile before can get rid of whatever 3.0s they have left and/or the UAW allows them to shutdown the plant that builds them. Don't hold your breath.
Toyota has had, for years, wonderful 3.0 and 3.3 liter V6s orders of magnitude smoother and quieter than any DT ever thought of being. But instead of resting on their laurels, they go ahead and come up with a completely new engine easily sufficient for their new Avalon and soon to follow Camry as well as many many other things. Why, because they understood they HAD to - 200 hp is just not competitive in 3500 lb. large sedans. The result, of course, is an engine that is not only class leading but one that also saves Toyota hundreds of millions a year. It does sometimes take money to make money - something GM/Ford don't have.
I have no beef (or experience) with the 500, and it may be very "adequately powered". If I was trying to make the point you are trying to make, it wouldn't include the word "corvette". Your statement makes inference that the 500 can beat a vette, as can be seen by all the flack you received.
PS: I'll race you for Pinks !!!
(and an inference is drawn by the reader; an implication is made by the writer)
Sounds like poor road design, to me.
Fortunately, I've never had to live with anything like THAT. So, I can't comment.
Avalon/Azera/Maxima = exceptionally powered = competitive
Lucerne 3.8/500 3.0 = not exceptionally powered = non-competitive.
Competitive how?
Clearly I found the 500 to be competitive, and even the winner. As have others. There ARE other things that matter in buying a car than 0-60 times and horsepower.
Suffice it to say, I love the CVT and the ride height of the 500. Couldn't find that in other sedans.
Busted!
I still stand behind my (carefully worded) statement, though.
And it WAS stated to make a point.
If one HAS to win races, then the 500 isn't the vehicle for you.
All I can say is that given where I drive and my driving style (which I would classify as fairly aggressive, but not overly so), the Five Hundred was more than adequate in the acceleration department.
I really did consider the Magnum/300 initially, driven primarily by my "mid life crisis", I suppose.
Anyway, I mainly object to the pejorative term "underpowered" when applied to this vehicle. Granted, there MAY be some places and applications where this is so. If you've got an on-ramp that goes straight uphill, maybe it's not enough power. I'd be more likely, though, simply not to live in that particular location.
you are obviously missing the point and have never driven any of these cars or otherwise you'd understand - it's not a HP or acceleration contest as very few of us that own sedans like this are going to race anything (especially Corvettes) - its competitive or non-competitive in respect to overall drivetrain (and correspondent overall vehicle) refinement in combination with the better safety you also get with a vehicle with more power.
actually I'm happy that you are satisfied with the 500 - as I have said in earlier posts it is a well designed car in many respects - but not for me - I do have this thing about enjoying driving - at least occassionally.
That's how I'd describe the 500. I'd be a bit surprised to see that the Azera has a similar ride height, but I could be wrong.
But I *do* understand, since I've driven other similar vehicles to the 500.
I do have this thing about enjoying driving - at least occassionally.
I haven't had any complains in that department, either.
I like THAT benefit of it, as well. But mainly, I like how I can just "slide over" into the seat of the Five Hundred and Freestyle. I'm not sitting down into the vehicle (like most cars), nor am I climbing up into the vehicle like most truck-based vehicles.
I believe I'm at 72mph when I'm at 2000 rpm. That would put me at 2500 rpm at 90mph.
instead of hearing the engine screaming and struggling.
I don't really notice that. Then again, I normally have the ipod or XM playing.
Also, when I heavy foot the gas paddle I would expect to see the tachometer needle races to redline instead of it tumbles and tumbles to it.
When I "floor it" (not ALL that common), the tach races VERY quickly up to very high rpms . . . with little to no hesitation. I'm not sure how the non-CVT transmission responds to that, though.
Uh...Engines don't work that way...
the tach races VERY quickly up to very high rpms
Test drove a Fusion with 3.0 DT before, no contest with the 3.5L 2GR-FE in the Avalon.
If you're locked in a given gear it does work that way. (I'm assuming constant speed, not acceleration)
If you don't believe ME, you can see for yourself:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_speed_rpm.htm
All you need to calculate the vehicle speed from rpm's (under the conditions above) is to know the gear ratio and the tire radius.
Test drove a Fusion with 3.0 DT before, no contest with the 3.5L 2GR-FE in the Avalon.
Obviously, more HP will result in faster acceleration. You were testing a vehicle with a typical automatic transmission, though. If it's anything like that on the Taurus, you probably experienced a significant lag before the transmission decided to downshift. That lag is basically non-existent with the CVT.
It is an unusual sensation to drive these things, the engines 'sets' at a specific rpm relative to your throttle pressure (requiring a computer to decide how fast you actually want to accelerate) and then the car seems to 'catch up' as those gears continuously change, road speed increasing as engine speed remains somewhat constant. There is generally no gear change 'bump' as you would expect with a taditional auto (or manual) tranny. Some drivers will like it, others won't, but if you can visualize a 10 speed bike that has a cone at the rear wheel instead of those sprockets and the chain moving up and down the cone any position it wants - that would be the principle (oversimplified a bit).
I think that's a perfect explanation!
Depending on the reliability of this technology, I see it making the newer 6-8 speed automatics obsolete. Why settle for 8 speeds when you can have virtually infinite speeds (within the operating range of the engine/tranny). I would miss the shifting, though, so manuals may make a comeback (or heaven forbid, those old fashioned four speeds).
I feel that OTHER things are a lot more important than this. I don't mind the car being at 5000+ rpm in such cases . . as long as it can get the job done. For me, the Five Hundred gets the job done well, and it feels fine doing it. One could ask for lower rpm's to decrease the noise, I suppose . . but that's not critical in my decision-making.
I honestly can't figure out why some drivers don't like it . . it's how an automatic transmission *should* feel, IMO. I've always felt that automatics should be smoother than they are, and that they have too much lag when you stomp the accelerator, resulting in unpleasant shifts. The CVT solves all of that.
It's also interesting to get the car in a mode where it's actually still accelerating but the rpm's are going DOWN (on a flat road, too).
Can't say that I have a whole lot of argument with you here - but it is not the traditional rev-up shift/rev-up shift experience that we all grew up with. Would guess that the folks out there that really don't like it as those that prefer the manual tranny and the control over the driving experience that the MT allows - but I'll agree with quietpro, if the CVT does prove out to be a durable and reliable alternative, the multiple speed AT will become a thing of the past.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
I think he mentioned even 8 and 10 speed transmissions.
I would think that with THAT many gears, the benefits of the CVT would start being diminished. The main thing, IMO, would be how the transmissions were programmed. If they still "hesitated" and then chose a gear significantly away from the current gear to go into, that wouldn't work all that well. But, if the gear ratios are as close together as a 10-speed would allow, I'd think you could probably program the transmission to shift between each subsequent gear to smooth things out . . instead of just jumping from a high gear to a low gear after some hesitation.
Still, the concept of a CVT seems so simple and elegant to me, that I wonder why it wasn't chosen years ago as the de-facto standard for automatic transmissions. I can't hel but think there must've been some sort of mechanical limitations as a reason for it . . or exhorbitant cost differences.
I learned on a "three in the tree", and while I can appreciate the benefits of a manual transmission, I can't imagine having to live with one all the time as my main vehicle.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Precisely.
Or in other words, it's great to shift when you WANT to . . but not when you HAVE to. :P