Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego

1…2425272930…71

Comments

  • justinjustin Member Posts: 1,918
    the 500 used the P2 platform, which shares DNA with the Volvo S80 (HUGE car) as well as some S60. from what i have read, the 500 is more close to S80 size, right? the S60 rides on a platform that was first used on the S80 with Volvo. S80 was out on the market first.

    anyway, it looks really nice on the outside, and inside in my opinion. not as boring as the Japanese cars, not as "mafia" looking as the 300C, and bigger and more useful than the Passat.

    it would be nice if the Ford could keep prices attractive and make this a car that people can be proud of. i still question the need for a Mercury twin though.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Yes the P2 platform started life on the S80, then later S60, trikled down to V70, XC70, XC90, etc. The platform can be stretched/shrunk in any which way for it's specific function, and be kept just as structurally rigid.

    Currently, Volvo really only has 2 platforms, P2 and P1 (known as C1 for Ford, basis for Euro Focus and Mazda3) which underpins the S40.

    I'm not mentioning the C70 convertible since it's on it's last year, and that vehicle will be replaced on a platform shared with the S40 as well (P1)...
  • mschmalmschmal Member Posts: 1,757
    http://www.fordvehicles.com/2005mustang/photogallery.asp?name=EXT- ERIOR&num=7

    Mark
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Another good review...

    http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/jedlicka.aspx?make=Ford&mod- el=Five%20Hundred&src=reviewers
  • ederzawiecederzawiec Member Posts: 61
    Took my family for a test drive, 5 of us in the car including my 4 year old in a booster. It was a 6 Speed SEL with 34 miles on it.

    Comfort: A lot of room. I'm 6'1", 200 lbs and had plenty of head and shoulder room in each seating position. Rear Center seat was quite hard and would be uncomfortable on long trips- A shame since the seat is about 10 inches off the floor hump. You'd think Ford would have been able to put in adequate padding. Front seats are comfortable but lack lateral support. The Wheel well protrudes significantly on front passenger.

    Materials: Cloth was average. Plastics were similar to what you'd find on a lower end car. Engine Materials seemed better quality plastic- The air cleaner was very solid for instance. Closing the doors resonates in a sort of "drum sound" rather than a high quality "thud".

    Performance: Seemed Sluggish, Transmission quickly kicked down and raced. Accelerator pedal seemed a bit "on/off" -ish as opposed to smooth.

    Driving. Not Boaty, but not sporty either. Somewhere in between. Good for a car this size. U-turns were a problem. The steering wheel was "far away". Wish it would telescope.

    Other: Full Size spare. Engine hood was held up with a rod rather than struts. I would not want to work on the car. Three plugs inaccessible behind engine. I could not see the oil filter.

    The dealer expects an AWD/CVT in a couple of weeks and I'm interested in seeing that. I wish the quality were better for a $25K car. The Avalon isn't much more expensive an not much smaller, but much higher quality.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    The Avalon isn't much more expensive? Better price comparable cars. I've found the difference in excess of five thousand dollars, and sometimes significantly more than that.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    You said a couple of things that really disappoint me, and may be deal breakers. First, the steering wheel is far away from the driver? I hate that "european" reach for the wheel thing, and if I feel the same, we stop right there. Second the prop rod for the hood? How GM is that? Shame on you Bill..... Shame.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    I just spent a couple of hours examining and driving a SE w/CVT this afternoon. Guess it's just different perspective but most of my observations don't agree with yours.

    Didn't specifically try the middle rear but found the amount of interior space astounding for a car this size. Huge amounts of headroom, front and rear, rear leg room and trunk space. Noticed wheel well intrusion but found it to be a minor issue.
    Found the materials and fit and finish to be about the best I've seen in a Ford - especially considering the $22,800 price.
    CVT has far less of the "rubber band" or "slipping" feel I've noticed in others. It's smooth and really makes the best use of the available power. Moderate to fairly heavy throttle does not result in excessive rpm providing relaxed acceleration. Heavy or full throttle results in rpm near redline with resulting increase in noise but also a nice rush of acceleration. I like the electronic programing that Ford has chosen much better than the Honda Civic CVT I once owned.
    Totally disagree on the door closing sound. Perhaps the most solid I've heard. Better than my current Lexus LS 400. I like the wheel somewhat at arms length and found the 500 to be a bit too close for me!
    Very nice ride/handling compromise and suprisingly low wind and road noise.
    We're in agreement, though, on the hood prop rod!
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Holy Fairmont, Batman! Thanks for restoring some of my faith.
  • exalteddragon1exalteddragon1 Member Posts: 729
    Cost cutting SOBS, don't they know how important this car is for them. why not use struts to hold up the hood???
    If I had any money in ford, i'd divest. There, i said it dammit. Its illogical but over this i'd do it out of spite.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Yes, that all important strut is vitally important. Specially when I open it once a year to add anti-freeze. Oh, the humanity!... heh
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    If you are having to open the hood every year to add antifreeze, it sounds like Ford may still not have solved its problems with engine manifold leaks. I didn't realize this was still an issue. I certainly would not want to own a car where I had to add antifreeze every year.

    Also, I drive over 50,000 miles a year. According to Ford (unlike GM), I need to be changing the oil at least 10 times during that year. I thought that still required raising the hood.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    http://www.syracuse.com/business/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/bus- iness-0/1096017314151770.xml
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    " it sounds like Ford may still not have solved its problems with engine manifold leaks"

    It's not because of leaking, but because of the humidity in FL, the anti-freeze evaporates a bit every year. This has happened in all vehicles I have ever owned.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Well, I was mostly just a funnin' ya, but you just taught me something.

    --johnclineii, who has a Five Hundred on order, but no build date as of yet (sigh)
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Oh, opps. Hard to tell on here... I usually put a smile to convey I'm playing.

    You haven't received a build date yet ?
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Nope. I figure it's cause of the safety package. I am told they are on allocation. The order was placed the last week in August...
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    So far, the initial models going to dealerships are currently being built. Special orders will begin upon fair allocation of the specific models throughout all dealerships.
  • tacoboytacoboy Member Posts: 25
    Motorweek has published a tested 0-60 time of 7.5 sec 0-60 for the 500. That seems awfully good for such a big car with only 203hp. Does anybody who has driven it have any "gut" feel on this? Can this time be right or is Motorweek giving Ford a break?
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Scroll back a few pages, and you'll see the dicussions pertaining to that. But in essense, it's all in the transmissions. So yes, it is very possible. Also other independent tests have also come with similar results (7.4 Sec).
  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    Just this morning read the C&D report on this car, (a bit underwhelming I thought), and browsed back a few pages here. If the larger 3.5L Duratec isn't going to be available for a couple of years, what on earth have the Ford engine designers been doing for the last 6-7yrs?

    Agreed, 0-60mph in 7.4secs is quick enough, but my bet is that that is working the motor pretty hard. Seems like a strange way to introduce a hugely important new car. Couldn't they have borrowed the 6-cyl from the Mazda 6? Is that an entirely different engine or the same thing at a higher state of tune?
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    The six from the Mazda 6 is essentially the same engine but with variable valve timing. However, it doesn't accelerate the Mazda 6 any faster, though it allows Mazda to publish a higher Hp number. So it is mostly hype.

    Please look back on my post number 601. Numbers might surprise those who think the Mazda6 with an automatic has a lot of zoom-zoom!

    I think concentrating on better transmissions was a good approach. May not satisfy those who live and die by horsepower statistics, but good acceleration combined with good fuel economy in a car this size that is still affordable is a winner.
  • nedc2nedc2 Member Posts: 192
    The Mazda 3.0 l is the same engine with different heads, although it puts out about 20 more horses it is also peakier and generates about 15 fewer lb/ft of torque than the version in the Five Hundred, it probably wouldn't be as good a match for a car of this weight and for the CVT. Jaguar and Lincoln versions put out 24 to 30 more horses and higher torque, they require premium fuel.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Good question...

    The availability of the 3.5L will begin in 2006 and will debut first (unless things change at the last minute) on the next Lincoln Aviator which will be based on the CD3 architecture (Mazda6 based). It'll trinkle into other vehicles during that year as well.

    The issue of not having it available now is mainly factory allocation issues. Development has gone on for quick some time, but it's all about changing over the engine plants to allow for it. And that will require killing some 3.0L production, to make space for the 3.5L, which itself isn't easy to accomplish considering it's a popular engine on numerous vehicles.

    Therefore it needs to be implemented between model year factory shut downs, and have production ramp up quickly enough to make up for possible shortages. That itself is the main issue.

    And incase your wondering, no they wouldn't have been able to implement an exsisting engine like the 4.0L SOHC because that engine is mated to, and for RWD vehicles. (Personally, it's a gas hog too).

    Borrowing the Mazda6's 3.0L wouldn't have proved to be beneficial. It's the same engine, but with Mazda designed heads allowing for different tuning. While it works on the lighter Mazda6, its tuned differently. Yes it produces 220HP, but it must be worked hard and at higher RPM to attain them. Which is a common complaint you might read on Mazda6 reviews. (When mated to an automatic).

    The 3.0L for the Freestyle/500/Mont is tuned differntly, to be able to produce higher torque at lower RPM's. Example, on the FS version you'll have it pumping 80% of it's torque at a low 15-2000RPM, while in the Mazda6 version it'll probably be pumping just 40-50% at the same RPM band.

    Another possibility could have been using Lincoln's/Jags's 3.0L variation. While producing 232-240HP, it would have required premium gas and it's not something most customer's would like.

    The CVT allows the engine to work at it's peak performancce level, gearing it according to your pedal imputs. What also helps is the electronic throttle, which allows for quicker response, as well as upgraded computer programming that allows quick input. Drive a Taurus with the same engine (but different computer/transmissions) and you will see a huge difference in response, even if the Taurus weights hundreds less.

    With CVT, once you reach the speed you need and level off on the pedal, the RPM will start falling and in turn keep you at a steady and progressive RPM. In typical step-automatics, when you press the accelerator (according to what the computer will shift you to), you waste a bit more gas when slamming up to near redline (where most vehicles power inputs drop off), shifts up to a higher gear, and once again, another gear once you reached your attained speed.

    What most articles (although some do mention it) is the perceived factor. Because we are used to feeling a car jump, when it downshifts... or when a vehicle is so quiet... We might mistake that for being lifeless. I remember the first time I drove a Lexus LS400, I kept saying "OH How slow, this is a huge beast, it doesn't pick up speed"... well because it was so quiet, and the transmission was quit gentle.

    In fact, to this day there's numerous vehicles I'll drive and perceive them as being slow, but mainly because it's quiet and refined, while instrumented data suggests quite the opposite.

    But these new transmission will allow those 203HP seem like 250HP as the media publication from Ford has stated. There's some other cars (won't mention names) that say 250HP, but because of transmissions /computer programming, allow it to feel as it's producing 40 less.
  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    Good points everyone on the unsuitability of the Mazda version of the engine for this application. Lazy thinking on my part.

    I'm still amazed that a company with the resources of Ford could get get caught napping so badly that they don't have a 3.5L 6-cyl available for this car. It's not like it's a completely new thing - it's pretty much standard now on the mid-size sedans, as in Accord and Altima. Camry has 3.3L, Galant has 3.8L, etc, etc.. Does everyone need one? Not really. Does anyone actually need more than a 4-cyl - probably not unless you're towing. Seriously, what have they been working on? There's nothing really new in the 4-cyl arena, the 4.6L V8 has been around for a while, the trucks still use the 4.0L 6-cyl. Methinks some depts have been slacking!

    I leave you with this thought:

    If the CVT can make a 203HP 3.0L feel like it puts out 250hp, just imagine what it would do with a real 250hp! Or is that where the problem lies? Can the CVT not handle more power?
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    In response to your question, the 3.5L will use different transmissions, as with any engine upgrade. When manufacturer's design a specific engine, they might beef up an exsisting one and mate it with the newer engine. Ford and GM are working together on a new family of transmission for FWD application, they will be 6 speed automatics. Ford on it's own, is currently developing a new generation of RWD 6 speed transmissions as well. The 6 speed automatic used in the 500 is built by Aisin AW, not Ford.

    The CVT will be upgraded to handle 3.5L torque. Example, Murano has a 245HP 3.5L, and it's CVT is able to handle it.

    The future 3.5L is a bit more complex in design than the origins it's based on. Whereas, Toyota increased from 3.0L to 3.3L, and Nissan from 3.0L, to 3.5L (and require premium gas), Ford is not just increased the 3.0L, but integrating more complex and sophisticated techonology into the engines. It's not just a bore/stroke increase.

    Prior to this, they were also putting out other fires in the engine department. They continued to refine and implement the Duratec I4's engines which were Mazda designed originally. Now we see them in everything from the Ranger, Focus, Mazda3/6, Escape (just received it this year) to replace the older SOHC 2.0L (1.9L derived), and Zetecs.... IN europe, the Duratec I4's are even more popular, and come in numerous other outputs/displacements.

    Then we have the Triton V8/V10...Just received 3V techonology which debuted in the '04 F-150 5.4L, which includes VCT, which boosted power, while increasing fuel economy. In fact, it replaces the 5.4L DOHC Intech used in the Navigator, since it produces similar if not better power, while using regular fuel Now the 5.4L being phased into the Expedition as the sole engine. F-Series Super Duties receive the same engine, and their 6.8L V-10 also received 3V design.

    The Mustang using the 4.6L version, also received 3V design/technology with the same benefits. That engine will pretty much phase into other vehicles currently using the 2V version, such as the Explorer for example.

    The Essex V6's 3.8L/4.2L(On the Freestar) also received some minor attention for the Freestar introduction, but just a little since those will die in the next few years. (should have died years ago!)

    The 3.0L "Vulcan" V6 in the base Taurus, and mid-trim Ranger will die along with the Essex engines as well. (another, that needed to go).

    The Cologne 4.0L SOHC V6 will eventually die in the next few years when the 3.5L surplants them. (gas hogs anyways).

    So all this was going on, WHILE development of the 3.5L was also taking place. But personally speaking, here's the game strategy.... You improve the efficiency of your smaller engines (to gain CAFE credits). Then focus on the larger engines to do the same, and it's also the bread and butter vehicles/cash cows. Being V6's are mid-market, you can hold off a bit.

    Also, there's a 6.2L V8 (Hurricane) being developed to be used on the bigger trucks/SUV's. But started awhile back.

    And that's just the Ford/L/M products.... Volvo is releasing their own 4.4L V8, and has slowly improved their I-5's as well. Jag is developing a new I-6 and possibly share with Land Rover, which itself (LR) has received and bumped up some 4.2L Jag engines, to 4.4L to debut in the new LR3 (Different from Volvo's 4.4L though). Aston Martin also receives a 4.3L of Jags 4.2L V8 tuned for their needs. And AM's 6.0L V-12 has received various upgrades as well through this time.

    And in all this, I'm sure I left something out like Diesels globally, but that's another world of it's own.

    If you look at all they have been working with, it's really pretty much standard fare. It's just unfortunately some other moons don't align and the Freestyle/500 wasn't able to debut with this new 3.5L engine. But with current gas prices and the economy, maybe the 3.0L might attract some that wouldn't have shopped for something efficient to begin with.

    In comparison, we can take GM and DCX for example, and see what they have done with their engines. (BUt I won't take up that much space to describe each one). DCX has concentrated on it's Hemi, and that's about it. And GM NOW just started implementing what they call "High Feature" engines on certain brands, while continuing to use old-tech OHV engines where possible. It's not till now that they have stated they will concentrate on new engine families....
  • ederzawiecederzawiec Member Posts: 61
    In my recent post I mentioned that In my test drive, the SEL 6 speed felt sluggish..
         ederzawiec Sep 25, 2004 2:29pm

    In the Ford literature and magazine articles I've seen favorable comparisons of the 200 HP Five Hundred to 250 HP equivalent performance. However, they always compare the CVT not the 6 speed. Anyone see numbers on the 6 Speed?
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    Because the Motor Trend number ...if you look at, says "est". They didnt actually instrument the vehicle yet, and to me, their estimated time seems a bit optimistic.

    In general, I prefer the performance measures that Car and Driver does, particularly the 5-60 acceleration, which is indicative of real world performance, since not many of us are likely to brake-torque away from a stop-light.

    Motorweek instrumented testing seems never to be close to what the mags get. How the stop vehicles so short from 60, I've never figured out.

    ~alpha
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    A relevant quote:

    ***There are the two bland mid-size products coming this fall from Ford — its Five Hundred sedan and Freestyle crossover vehicle, Ford’s first. They may indeed be conservative, even derivative of a 5-year-old VW Passat, but you only need to understand the success of, say, the Toyota Camry to understand that affordable and dependable blandness can mean big success if they are executed properly.

    Are the Five Hundred and the Freestyle destined to be home runs? Probably not. They may not need to be in Bill Ford’s 21st-century Ford, which is building “our business case on the back of hitting a bunch of singles.” ****

    The entire article can be found at: http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0409/29/a01-288088.htm
  • mariner7mariner7 Member Posts: 509
    I agree that, among big 3, Ford does more engine development than anyone.

    But Ford's coming 3.5 still doesn't catch up to the current engines from Honda and Nissan. Honda makes 240 & 270 hp from 3 & 3.2L. Nissan can make 280-290 from 3.5. Ford admitted as much when it said its 3.5 could meet the Nissan engine in most applications.

    And new Altima & Accord are only 2-3 years away, almost certainly with engine upgrades.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Yes those V6's do pump out more power. But then again, it's relative to the vehicles cost. For the Altima, upgrade to the V6 around $25K, to get the V6, and that requires premium gas. In comparison, you can get a bargain basement Taurus with a V6 starting around $18-19K.

    The Duratec 3.0L V6 in the LS, S-type easily pumps out 232/240HP, but requires premium gas. Something Ford tries to avoid as much as possible. Customer expectations and consumer research indicates people take that into consideration.... Granted, the typical Infiniti or Lincoln buyer, might not care about using premium gas.

    The 3.5L will fill a gap between the 3.0L and the 4.6L V8, and they are aware of that.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    If the 500 actually accelerates 0-60 in the mid 7.5 second range as the preliminary figures in the press seem to indicate, the only thing the 500 will be missing from a marketing standpoint is the ability to advertise 230+ horsepower. With the size and weight this car is and the decent fuel efficiency, they have done it right, in my opinion.

    Face it, this is a large family sedan and is never going to appeal to the boy racer crowd anyway. The 300/300C may end up being a niche car once the novelty of the bold styling wears off and people realize they will have to spend nearly $30K to buy the Hemi version to obtain acceleration better than the 500 will produce, and will have to live with limited visibility, no option of all wheel drive, etc.

    Maybe the smaller Fusion will be more appealing to the performance crowd or Ford will let Mazda sell to those buyers, but there is a great amount of people willing to buy a mid to large size car at a reasonable price with excellent acceleration that doesn't have to have over 200 Hp. Just look at all the four cylinder Camrys and Accords on the road and you will see a large market for less powerful sedans.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Actually, the take rate on the 4 cylinder Accord's/Camry's are approx. 84%. Usually the owner's really just wanted more space, over their Civic/Corolla cousin, and transaction prices usually average around $23K.

    The Ford Fusion will have a high performance version named Fusion ST270 (Street Tuned) that will sport 270HP for the boy racer crowd if need be. Again, the 500 is NOT in the Camry/Accord, shopping league. It's targeted at a totally different market.

    There's some vehicles out there (I won't mention names) that sport some impress HP on paper, but in reality it's the transmission that helps it. Look up some of the axle ratios on these (higher tuned) engines, and you'll see 4:10's, 4:30's, etc. (higher the number, the quicker it accelerates while the 3.0L in the Taurus runs on a slower 3:73/3:98)... If you were to remove the engine itself, and run it on a dyno, it would register much less HP. These are some of the tricks in the industry.

    In the 500's case, Ford could have lied and stated 240HP and it would have been easy to believe. Think about it, a 3700-4000lbs vehicle, running 7.4-8.5 secs. Take a far example, a Mazda MPV with the same engine and weight but different transmission, and that sucker will clock you in around 9.6-10.+secs.

    It's just unfortunate that some people look at those number's, which is why Ford's in trying to drive that fact home about the transmissions.
  • mariner7mariner7 Member Posts: 509
    "In the 500's case, Ford could have lied and stated 240HP and it would have been easy to believe."

    There might be a heavy price to pay down the road. One example is the hot rod version of Mustang a few years back didn't have the hp advertised, Ford had to pull it off the shelf.

    Another was RX-8. I think Mazda had to lengthen the warranty or something. Another was Miata.

    Sports car buyers are much more picky about hp, but hp rating can easily be checked out.

    Curiously the tested times of 500/Style seem decent, but I've yet to read a review saying their performance is sprightly. Some have said they're sluggish at speed.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Yes, That was the SVT Cobra. Mazda has the same occur with the RX-8-Miata, they extended the warranty, or gave them the option to buy back the vehicle, or take free service coupons, etc.

    But I stated it as an example.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    If the reviewers are testing CVT versions, it is probably more perception of sluggish due to the way the infinitely variable transmission shifts.

    If they are used to conventional automatic transmission kicking down quickly to a lower range, they probably percieve the CVT is not giving them the same jolt, even though it may be accelerating more quickly and smoothly. I would expect the six speed automatic to provide feel more like what people are used to, while the CVT equipped Five Hundreds might mislead a lot of "seat of the pants" reviewers.

    I am waiting to see some instrumented results like 0-60, 45-65, 1/4 mile times and top speeds, etc, which so far have not been reported by anyone I am aware of to date.

    Ford would best be served putting out some side by side acceleration comparisons to other medium to large size sedans to put to rest the naysayers who think a 200 Hp engine is not up to the task.
  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    Hmmm, I'm still not convinced that this is a good engine/transmission/vehicle combo. The CVT allows this large, heavy car to get good 0-60 times by keeping it revving in the power band - i.e. running the snot out of it. It doesn't make for relaxed driving or good fuel economy. I suffered a too-small engine in my old '99 Trooper - 3.5L, 215HP, 230lb ft in a 4600lb vehicle = 13mpg and a lot of noise. I think the 500 will be a much better package once they release the bigger engine.

    ANT14 - how do you figure this isn't aimed at the same market as the Camry and Accord? I think it's exactly the same market. Middle income young families in the 'burbs. Park it next to the Explorer in the driveway. Can't get in the garage because of last years bikes!
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    The CVT doesn't necessarily make the engine run at say 5600RPM ALL the time...Only till you get the speed you desire. When you slam the gas, it'll hit high, then start trickling down. IN comparison to other automatics, you'll be doing probably 500-1000 RPM's less, than an automatic equivalent when you keep the pedal at a constant level. You should give it a test drive, but also play the passenger and watch the needle as the salesperson drives it around for a bit, and you'll get a better idea.

    The vehicle is aimed moreso at those that would typically buy the Avalon or Impala. Officially that is the target competitor's.

    The Ford Fusion debuting next year, will actually be the Taurus replacement, and be slotted under the 500 sedan. Granted, I'm sure there's many Tauri' owner's that will upgrade to the 500, but the Fusion will be the vehicle that will be mass produced to compete head-on with the Accord/Camry.

    Accord/Camry/Altima, midsize sedans with I-4 standard, optional V6, and that's exactly what the Fusion will accomplish. And in typical tradition seen with the Focus and 500, it's interior dimensions will be quite large, given it's exterior porportions. Mercury will receive the Milan (it's twin), and Lincoln receives the Zephyr, from this same vehicle.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    Just how often in normal driving situations do you actually put the "pedal to the metal" anyways?

    In 95% of routine driving situations, you are likely only using half or less of an engines max torque and/or rpm capabilities to accelerate. So you are only taxing the engine to it's maximum capabilities very rarely.

    The 3.0 Duratech has been in production in a lot of vehicles and I have heard of virtually no particular weaknesses from a reliability standpoint, even when put into the relatively heavy Mazda MPV. I have no concerns about the engines capacity to perform well and long in the 500. Hopefully the new transmissions are reliable, which would be my concern more than the engine.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Ok I'm the rare case that redlines every other downshift, and it's been the same on each vehicle I've ever had. My 11MPG fuel economgy reflects this issue, supposedly when the sticker said 18/24 on my LS.

    But that's ok, that's just me, and I'm weird that way.
  • ederzawiecederzawiec Member Posts: 61
    I agree that the sedans that best compete against the 500 are the Avalon and Impala. I am on the fence with the 500 and the Avalon and don't know which way I'll go yet.

    I think Ford also wants to lure some SUV buyers. I don't know how successful that will be. According to my 20 year old "SUVs are cool. The five hundred isn't."

    Cool isn't important to me in this purchase. Quality, Comfort and Value are. Ford is losing on the first two.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    the 500 sits tall, more like an SUV, to satisfy those (like me) who prefer the truck like seating position of the SUVs, while still being a sedan.

    I'm delighted, for one, that Ford started this trend of "taller cars". I have always been more practical in my preferences for autos, liking Station Wagons in the 70's & early 80's, Minivans next, then discovering SUVs in the 90's, and have pretty much stayed with the most versatile vehicles, (SUVs) ever since. But a taller sedan would still be comfortable, easy to get in and out of, yet offer the (few) advantages of sedans. Good for Ford, for reinventing the family Sedan again. It looks like Value is there, comfort should be there given the design, and if the 500 is anything like the 04 and 05 Ford vehicles I've purchased and driven, the quality is definitely there.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Member Posts: 122
    I am having a really hard time getting through the shock of these cars costing more then $30 thousand, when you have cars that deserve to be priced this way (Acura TL, Infiniti I35, Cadillac CTS, Infiniti G35, etc.). They offer a lot more quality and power. I picked up some material on the '05 Acura TL, and read the sticker price, and then tried to figure out why Ford and GM think they should be in this price range. I was given a price today on a 2005 Acura TL, that was almost the same as the loaded Montego Premier, and has so much more to offer. I know some people will get all pissy about this post, but think about it. A Ford 500 costing $30000 with an under powered engine, no Navigation available, no Sattelite radio, no Zenon headlights, and a few more missing bells and whistles. I know that the American manufacturers are trying to catch up to the foreign car builders, but I think they need some more time at the drawing board.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Member Posts: 122
    A while back I asked if anyone knew the specs on the upgraded sound system in the 500/Montego. I stopped at the local Mercury dealer to see if they had a car to test drive, and came up empty. While I was there I asked the salesman if he knew where I could get the info. He went into the TOP SECRET manual that they keep hidden from our view, and came up with what I was looking for. The system is pushing 320 watts, 7 speakers including 2 tweeters and a sub woofer, a feature called RDS (radio data system) , MP3 capabilities, and a bunch of other features. I hope it sounds as good as my Mach system in my SHO.
  • exalteddragon1exalteddragon1 Member Posts: 729
    I mean these sedans are so under everything, why don't they mention this sound package, finnally something competetive!
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    fdcapt2, the solution is quite simple. To you, those other cars offer so much more. Fine. Buy them.

    To me, NONE of those cars is worth a second look. Why? I need/want the space the Five Hundred has. I drive an Impala LS now, have looked at Avalons, Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, Buick LeSabre and even Lincoln Town Car. Price those cars, comparably equipped. Ooops, can't get AWD in any of them. Gee!

    And, this car is VALUE priced for the class it is meant for. It is not meant for the boy racer crowd, which the cars you listed--fine cars all--are. It is also far larger than any of those fine cars. This car is NOT meant to excite those who like Acura TL's and such. And frankly, it doesn't.

    I am one of the very few who am interested in both groups of cars. But an elderly mother who has trouble getting in and out of cars, long 800+ mile trips that are usually accomplished in a day on very rough expressways and the need to haul up to four passengers in comfort all dictate a "boulevard" or "turnpike" cruiser with lots of room. I hope and think the Five Hundred will fill that bill for me.

    If, that is, they ever accept my order!
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Well, it's a step. Actually, an Accord is only at 50 percent, so it's pretty darn good!:

    http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0409/30/b01-289470.htm

    This should positively affect lease payments.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    They got the starting base price on the Five Hundred wrong in that article. It is $22795 including shipping, not $24495. $22795 is not overpriced for the base model, in my opinion, and this is a far cry from $30K. Yes you can equip them up to $30K, but you don't have to.
  • ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    Like in all vehicles, many of us will aspire for all the bells and whistles. The vehicle for $22K is a great bargain, but option it fully, and it can top $30K and have other competitor's that might have something better/different. All depends upon the persons priorities.

    These same vehicles (when you hit $30K), will have options themselves. BY the time you option them, your looking at $34K-36K, so it starts adding up.

    I'll use a common situation, a friend of mine Did... She wanted a $20K Camry (after having had 2 Toyotas stolen within 3 months), I was able to get her off her Toyota loving craze by showing her real cars that have character. She then thought, "Hmm for a few thousand more, I can have a Altima V6". Then she thought, "Hmm, for a few more, I can have a Volvo S40". While we were shopping for it, I tell her "For $2K I can get you the S60 fully loaded". And she walks out at $31K with something she didn't even plan for to begin with. And yes ALL cars she looked at vaaried greatly, and she went thru 3 different segments.

    Then it was convincing the husband "If you want me to get pregnant, then you give me the Volvo". Ok she's 7 months pregnant now, but she got her damn Volvo.

    And the common senario happens quite often. Someone looks at the base model, what's toys, starts going up the price scale. And some might realize something else might be better for the same price, while other's really like the vehicle and stick with it.
  • buckwheatbuckwheat Member Posts: 396
    Below is a copy of an e-mail I recieved sent by an unknown sender. Accordingly the content and credibility of same is not substantiated.

    "Quality Woes Plague Five Hundred, Freestyle and
    Montego Launch"
    September 28, 2004

    Given that these models were launched (JOB1) on August
    10th at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant (CAP), and were
    originally slated for shipment on August 23rd, dealers
    were expecting larger stock levels by now. However,
    shipments of these early units were halted with
    quality concerns, though many have since been cleared
    to leave the plant following inspections and repairs,
    though only at a trickle.

    Internal Ford Motor Company documents recently
    furnished to a well known Ford enthusiast site,
    indicates that there are serious quality issues with
    the early-build Ford Five Hundred, Freestyle and
    Mercury Montego models. While the documents detail
    everything from build costs to assembly concerns, the
    most troubling area that these documents detail are a
    high number of quality issues plaguing the D3 platform
    vehicles.

    According to the documents, these early D3s have
    possibly suffered from one or more of sixty-five (65)
    quality concerns, from defective platforms to faulty
    CVT gearbox and paint quality problems. In addition,
    employees at the Chicago assembly plant have been
    voicing their concerns on the message boards of the
    Ford enthusiast site since September 25, 2004.
    However, according to the source, the sheer number and
    serious nature of several of these problems is
    abnormally high, and potentially cause for
    consternation, particularly for buyers of
    early-production Five Hundred, Freestyle and Montego
    models.

    For a company that has already been stung in the press
    and the court of public opinion for a high number of
    recalls and perceived quality lapses, fundamental
    component concerns like the quality of Ford's CVT
    transmissions have Dearborn executives and company
    loyalists alike reaching for the antacid.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles