Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego

porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
edited September 2014 in Ford
What do you think?
Porknbeans

Grand High Poobah
The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
«13456771

Comments

  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    There is no mistaking who Ford is gunning for on this car. They finally realized that although the Taurus is a fine car, it's wonderfully mediocre. Even though it is just an illustration it has more visual appeal than the Taurus. Now lets see how well it works and how well it's built.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    Here is another article:


    http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=1857


    I just realized that the designer for this car used to be the lead designer at VW/Audi. That helps to clarify the similar style lines. 6-speed auto with cvt sounds nice but I have to wonder about the performance of the 3.0litre v-6. How long do you think before they stuff the v-8 from the Mustang in this thing and turn it into a true competitor. IMO Ford is either going to have to increase the output of the 3.0 or increase the engine size.

    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    This seems like a good idea. I like the idea of the tall sedans. While I'm not a big fan of the looks of the Toyota Echo, I always thought it would be interesting to apply that "tall car" philosophy to a bigger car and end up with a really huge interior. That's what it seems like this Ford is to me.
  • teoteo Posts: 2,508
    Interesting. I'll believe it when I see it. And Bill Ford better not mess up the initial quality of this car.

    Still 2 years away. Maximum Bob, take notice.
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    That brings up a continuing problem for "domestics" - they are slow to market. Ford needs this right now, but it won't be on dealer showrooms for another 2 years. By then Toyota will have a new, re-designed Avalon, the new Accord will be out, etc... Just like Chevrolet needed the new Vectra last year, not next year. Better late than never, I guess.
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    porknbeans - from post #3 - I think the 3.0L V6 engine will be fine. I don't think the car will be much bigger than the current Taurus, just taller and roomier. Sort of like a Camry vs. an Avalon. I think the 3.0L with around 200-230HP will be fine. I doubt the 4.6L V8 will fit, and I wouldn't want that much power in a FWD car anyway.
  • teoteo Posts: 2,508
    My problem with the Ford 500 is that it looks very similar to the current VW Passat. Keep in mind that by 2004 VW will likely have an all new Passat sedan and wagon.
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    Your point is taken, however even if Ford is able to keep the weight the same the market they are targeting suggests more performance. The Taurus and Toyota appeal to a certain type of driver and the Nissans and VW's appeal to another. Personally, I think they are going after the Nissans and VW's with this car. I would even go so far as to say that they may be going after the entry Lexus, Infinity and Acura's. With that kind of target market I think Ford has to up the ante.

    As far as shoehorning a v-8 under the hood VW was able to do it with the Passat I would doubt that Ford would come to the table without having that ability in their hip pocket. After all they were able to get a v-8 into the SHO (granted it was anemic) and the 4.6 that is currently in the Mustang isn't all that big (size wise).
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • Wow, it was nice of Ford to sit there and style their new car after my Audi A4. I'm honored. Even the same rims.
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    My impression was it's more like Ford's interpretation of a Toyota Avalon, not a sports sedan. The emphasis was on roomy interior, tall seating postition like an SUV, etc...in the press release you posted. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

    BTW, the SHO had a special 60 dgree V8 made by Yamaha (more compact than a "normal" 90 degree V8), and the Passat has VW's W8 which is very compact. I still doubt the 4.6L V8 could be crammed in there. Maybe the SOHC version but not the DOHC version.
  • teoteo Posts: 2,508
    If the assembly and initial quality are right from the get go I don't see a problem for the 500. But the car tries to copy too much the German looks, nothing negative about that, but I think manufacturers need to be more original with thier designs while still borrowing some "Likeable" bits and pieces of design.
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    I'm not a big fan of J Mays. What has he done that is original? VW new Beetle, new T-Bird, Ford GT-40, Ford 49er, etc...are all "inspired" by previous cars.

    Did he create the "new edge" look, i.e. the Mercury Cougar, Ford Focus, etc.. look? If so, then I'll give him credit for some originality.
  • bobbyknightbobbyknight Posts: 121
    I don't think he was around at Ford until '99. Good observation about styling cars that were not orginial, like the Beetle. However, I like the styling direction Ford is taking. I would rather have an American Audi than an American ? in the CTS.
  • lancerfixerlancerfixer Posts: 1,308
    I see a lot of Mondeo in it, too. Not a bad thing.
  • bac111bac111 Posts: 9
    Their styling for the longest time has just be crazy. I hope the real metal looks as good as the drawing. I mean, really, it has been years since a really good Ford sedan hit the market. The '86 Taurus was amazing, light years ahead of what GM had going. What did they do? They "freshened" it for '91 or so and then BAM the Oval Taurus came out in '96. Whoever was in charge of that design should have been fired. I remember reading when it came out about "the first Ford in 40 years with an oval window" and "there is not a straight line anywhere in sight" like these things were designing triumphs. Ya gotta be kiddin' me. The current version is better than the '96, but it still doesn't look like a "total" package. I am hoping the 500 is a good looking car and I don't care if the "stole" from Audi or VW. You can argue that the '86 Taurus stole some from the '83 Audi 5000 if you want.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    that v8 SHO was not 'anemic'. I know, I drive one.

    Not as fast as it should have been, maybe. That crticism is fair. 0-60 in 7.4 is not anemic for a 3.4 litre engine in a 3600 pound car.

    The best published time i saw on the original v6 with a 5 speed was 6.7 seconds.

    The best time I think I saw on a GTP was 6.8. The lauded 300M was around 7.7 seconds.

    The promise of 8 cylinders was let down by a typical slow shifting Ford automatic.

    Still, it was a faster v8 than the Olds Aurora.

    So no, not anemic.

    So with this new Ford 500, it seems to me that this absolute brilliantly compact, beautiful to look at jewel 60 degree Duratec/Yamaha v8 would be a perfect powerplant for this new car. Maybe as an option to the 3.0. It would fit the upscale image well. Pump up the HP to about 250 and mate it to the 6 speed auto and the engine would have no problem getting the car in the 6.5 second range for 0-60 which is quite good still in sedan land.

    I mean....most sedans tested today you see above 8 seconds and even most automatic sports sedans are still above 7.5. So a 0-60 in 7.4 is hardly anemic.

    That v8 would be so perfect for the upscale image Ford wants with the A6, errr... I mean 500. Hey Bill Ford.....build it please.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Posts: 572
    While I will wait to see it in person, it looks like a copy of what everyone else is doing. It lacks what traditionally Galaxie 500's always had - inspired styling and attitude. Still might be nice as another blend into the crowd type of car.


    Have another personal reason. If I parked this car in my garage next to my 1967 Ford Galaxie 500 XL convertible, the old gal may just refuse to start after seeing it's progeny reduced to being just another copycat of Audi.


    Here is a link to a real Ford "500", alas 35 years old.


    http://www.fordregistry.com/images/PG%20XL%202DC/RN_01125_7W59H208521_02.jpg

  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    My apologies, I stand corrected. I'm working from memory and must admit that I've never driven it, but didn't that V8 make fewer horses than the V6 that was in the previous SHO? I thought that I read a review that stated that the performance on the V8 SHO vs the V6 SHO was worse. I could very easily be wrong. Again I'm working from memory and that's why I called it anemic.

    For Ford to stay competitive, especially in light of their declining sales, I think they MUST build it.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    In an interview with Reuters, Mays stated that Ford is going for a worldwide "look" that is recognizable for all models. He stated that European and Australian models are "perfect" and the American models will be changed to that model over the next couple of years. I would guess that the 500 is a major step in the "perfecting" of their American division.

    I thought that some of you might get a kick out of this.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • bobbyknightbobbyknight Posts: 121
    The hp in the latter versions of the SHO V6 had 220. The V8 had 230 hp.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    as a Ford dealer we are very excitied about this car....

    considering j.mayes background, it's easy to see where the styling overtones have come from.
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.....again.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    http://auto.com/industry/iwira29_20020329.htm


    I have a few questions:


    1. Has anybody seen or have pictures from this video?


    2. It looks like the competition is the Avalon and Max. Still think it doesn't need more power and more refinement than the Taurus?


    3. Personally, I think that raising the front seat is a bad idea. What do you think?

    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • stormdavystormdavy Posts: 83
    I think it is a great idea: better visibility, 'command of the road' feeling, tall driver position w/o the attendant higher drivetrain & tipover potential.

    Hopefully someone really tall could adjust the seat down accordingly.
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    Plus, if you have a high roofline, you can have a more "chair like" position in the backseat, too, so you have more leg room. That's why a Toyota Echo is roomy for a small car. Cars in general are getting taller.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    "It has a sophisticated look to it that has been severely lacking in Ford cars for many years, finally purging the ghosts of the cartoon-ish Taurus once and for all."

    From autoextremist.com today's "issue" about the Ford 500.

    If this was an Asian car, there would be no moans of "it looks like a.." and "its not original".
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    Good point. Everyone knows a Lexus LS430 looks almost exactly like the previous generation S-class Mercedes.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    What else i can't stand is detractors never acknowledge any improvments, just nit pick silly junk like trim and image.

    When it's radical its too "wacky" and if its conservative its a "copy".
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    Ford can't afford another fiasco like the '96 Catfish Taurus. Which is why they're going extremely conservative on this car. Sure, the automotive press may not rave over it, but they're not the ones Ford has to impress. Heck, the Automotive press bashes anything that doesn't handle like a Corvette, even if the vehicle was designed to take old ladies to church potlucks! If Ford can convince the "unwashed masses" who by Camry's and Accords as fast as Japan can crank them out that this is a good car, the public will care less who Ford copied stylingwise. Personally I think it's a boring car, but a boring car is exactly what Ford needs right now if they're to take sales leadership back from the Camry.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    and take it back through retail sales and not be another "rental" king. even when the taurus was winning its sales titles, it was because over half of its sales was due to fleet sales. not good for prestige and resale value. but isn't this car suppose to be more upscale than a taurus and therefore be too expensive to ever win a sales title. by the way, it's taking ford way too long to come out with a redesigned taurus.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    ...Is ready to forsake the Taraus, once the darling of their fleet. They're pinning their hopes and dreams on the new 500 (I still say they should have called it the Galaxie or the Fairlane. 500 is so bland). If the 500 turns out to be a winner, I expect Ford will discontinue tha Taurus all together, decontent the 500, and use the Mercury nameplate to sell the more upscale, expensive version of the vehicle designed to go for the upper-middle class, while the Ford version would take on 4-banger base model Camrys and Accords. After the wonderful '96 redesign, Ford pretty much screwed up any brand equity associated with the "Taurus" nameplate. It's got the "rental car" stigma, and it's time for Ford to move on. In a way, really, it's sad that what was once the number 1 car in America has come to this. But like any great athlete that's over the hill, it can't win any more Super Bowls, and for it to keep coming back year after year with nothing but past greatness to go on would be foolish. It looks like Ford has the new generation of MVP all star in the new 500. As much as I like Fords, I hope this one works. The company has really worked to get models like the Focus and T-Bird launched with as few glitches as possible, and hopefully, this car will be the one where those efforts pay dividends. This is Ford's big gamble to get back on top, and I think they've got all their ducks in a row on this one.
  • rbentonrbenton Posts: 30
    My take on the 500 it is, a better looking Avalon, hopeful a competent design. My worry is with the transaxles' since both of them are jointly developed by ZF. In my opinion I just don't trust the ZF Ford combination. Given that both companies have a record of producing transaxles' that don't last long in the hands of American driving conditions and maintence habits. Blue Oval news had a Feature on how Ford is dismantling their powertrain development work force. So Ford is giving up fixing their current problems. Instead they are bringing ZF to do their work, I see this as a way to cut development costs of a vehicle in bean counter sort of way. This is supported by reports massive cost increases with no improvement in quality control. One only has to look the dismal repair record of ZF 4 HP18 and ZF 4HP 22 Transmissions. These trannies seldom last more 70-100K no matter how they are driven and maintained. Basically they are as failure prone as AXOD and A604 from Ford and Chrysler respectively yet are 2x-3x more expensive to fix. So given Ford current lack of quality control in the name of pleasing stockholders dividends (ie Ford Family and other big wigs) and ZF repution for overpriced and underengineered crap, I have no cofidence in reliabilty of the 500 until it proves itself to be as Reliable as a Nissan Primeva (Infinti G20). Enough Ranting about Found On The Road Dead Again!!!!!!!!!
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
  • fdthirdfdthird Posts: 352
    Good golly I hope not!

    I had two blow out sidewalls on my '73 Mercury Montego...a lot of fun!
  • stormdavystormdavy Posts: 83
    Does anyone know where the designer of the infamous 'catfish' Taurus is today? Still with Ford? I'm interested in factual answers, or if you can suggest a better place to post. Thanks.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    i have some info posted in the taurus topic....his name is doug gaffka, but i don't know where he is today.
  • pluskinpluskin Posts: 79
    He is still at Ford. Believe it or not, I think he did most of the design work on the new Thunderbird. He has also been promoted.

    I would suggest anyone interested in the story behind the 96 Taurus, read a book called "Car" Its a behind the scenes look at the entire development process, and why they designed it like they did.
  • verozahlverozahl Posts: 574
    WHY did they design the 1996 Taurus as they did? As I already have enough tormented nightmares in my sleep, I'd rather not know the origins of the Oval Demon.
  • pluskinpluskin Posts: 79
    The reasoning went something like this. They wanted to capture import buyers. Market research showed that even if they built a car that was equal to the Japanese competition as far as quality/performance/etc., the import buyers would still not buy it unless it was priced much lower. The one place they thought they could beat the Japanese though and get these buyers was through design. Much of the success of the 86 Taurus was its cutting edge design. So they wanted to achieve that again. So they set out to build a car that was better then the Camry, and better looking then the Camry.
    Obviously, when you go for a design that is not conservative, you run a risk. It could be a big hit or a big dud.
    I think the lesson here is that you don't do the risky crazy designs on mass market family vehicles, but rather on niche vehicles or youth oriented products. Notice the very evolutionary changes in the new Explorer and Expedition. They weren't about to make the same mistake.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    Well, Ford seems to have done pretty well with the Forty-Nine concept and the T-Bird. Do you think they might take the risk of bringing back some cues from the '55 Fairlane for a mass-market vehicle, now that they've tested the waters? They don't have to do anything as drastic as a modern '59 El Dorado, but round headlights & taillights, a big chrome grille (as long as it didn't look too busy), and a rather subtle body crease the shape of the chrome trim on a '55 Fairlane would have a car than would not alienate the mass market, and still give it a bit of old fashioed charm most imports seem to be lacking. Toyotas and Hondas seem to lack any emotion at all. Mustangs and Firebirds seem to say "Get outta my wat or I'll kick your ---!" The new T-Bird and the VW Beetle seem to have, happy, cheerful personalities. Ford needs to give this car a look that has personality, not just something that is different for different's sake.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    to some extent the 96 Taurus was to be a copy of the Oldsmobile Aurora.
  • verozahlverozahl Posts: 574
    The Japanese gave up on sport coupes in the US in the late 1990s, thus leaving the road open for outdated Mustangs and Firebirds.

    The Taurus as a copy of the Aurora? Ooops... something went wrong there!

    The Five Hundred appears to be naught but an impersonation of the Passat.
  • pluskinpluskin Posts: 79
    Where do you get that from? They don't look anything alike, they are in different segments, and I've never heard anything about the Aurora being a benchmark for the Taurus.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Posts: 205
    I don't think that boring car or copycat is the recipe for Ford. And reason of Accord and Camry success is not that they are boring, but proven reliability and top quality.

    BTW there is a comparo test in the last Motor Trend where Taurus was the dead last after Impala, Altima, Accord and Camry. I agree that Camry is the best of the bunch, though if Ford would copy Camry, I would rather buy Camry.

    Of all the bunch Camry and Taurus have a lot of similarities according to the test, up to the point that Toyota has implemented New Edge design better than Taurus (though starting with ovaloid extremist car it is almost impossible to make a car complying to the New Edge philosophy without full redesign). If Accord, Altima and Impala has one contingent of buyers who like more sporty cars, Camry and Taurus have the different contingent who like more comfortable, smooth and refined ride.

    What Ford could do, to make a more conservative Taurus and more avantguard Mercury, so everybody would be happy. And it has to match quality of ride, braking and steering of Camry. And get rid of exposed screw heads, low quality and bad looking door seals, front bench seat philosophy, that makes sacrifices in ergonomics. Gauge cluster though is well made and easy to read, lacks the modern look with mechnical odometer and doesn't even have transmission mode indication !
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    Ford was looking to emulate the molded look of the Aurora, but could not directly copy the character lines of the Aurora. Somehow the oval window theme got worked in there as well. And, the Taurus itself was smaller in wheelbase than the Aurora, therefore its proportioning is not the same.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    nothing particularly wrong with this i don't think......


    image


    what Ford was trying to copy off the Aurora was the rounded look, grilleless front and dropping tail. Also the fender flaring, except Ford tied the fender flaring together across the entire length of the car with a rounded character shape that goes through the door handles.

  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    Reg, geocities doesn't allow linking pictures to outside sites. We can't see your picture.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote: "geocities doesn't allow linking pictures to outside sites. We can't see your picture"

    Right click on the red x. Click on "Properties.

    Copy the URL and paste it to your URL address line.

    Hit Enter.
This discussion has been closed.