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!

Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego



  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    As per ANT14's post somewhere above, it's for both the SEL and Limited.

    I wonder if the Montego have some more sound insulation?
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Even the base Five Hundred has ABS disc brakes all around and base model has 17" alloys as well, so no advantage to CamCord in that regard. I think the feature content on the base Five Hundred is very competitive at under $23K MSRP.

    As far as I'm concerned 0-60 in the 8-9 second range is very acceptable, especially when you look at fuel efficiency in a car this size and weight. The 3.0 Duratech is nice and torquey at relatively low engine speeds, and some of those high horsepower figures of the competition really don't translate into all that much when you get to real world driving situations, where the vast majority of driving situations you rarely actually rev your engine to much over 4K on even fairly aggressive starts.

    Yes Ford can be criticized for not having a 240-270 Hp V-6 available now, however when you actually get down to real world driving, the 3.0 Duratech will do very well.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Did you see review of the engine/tranny combo? Their Limited/AWD/CVT took 8.9 to 60.

  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    "I wonder if the Montego have some more sound insulation? "

    The Montego gets the 500 SEL/LIM insulation, but on all trim levels.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    The AWD CVT version Five Hundred weighs 3815 lbs. For a vehicle with this weight and size class, I contend that 8.9 second 0-60 is acceptable. No, it is not a dragstrip vehicle and never was intended to be.

    Look back at Edmunds family sedan tests for smaller vehicles with V-6 automatics. Yes the Camcords are quicker, but Five hundred bests V-W Passat automatic 0-60 and 1/4 mile. How many people do you see whining about Passat V-6 lack of power?

    The Five Hundred is carrying around quite a few hundred more pounds than Camry and Accord, as well, with it being a much bigger vehicle and with AWD as well. I think the "lack of power" whiners are comparing it to the wrong competition in most cases.
  • What is the first vehicle to get the new 3.5L engine? What will be offered in the Zephyr?

    I was wondering if you stripped the interior out of a 500 and sprayed the floor board, trunk floor and interior door skins with a sound deadening mastic material if that would reduce the noise levels to a Buick LaCrosse level?
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    The Aviator (new one) will get the 3.5L DOHC V6 first. The Zephyr will debut with the 3.0L DOHC V6 first.

    If you spray sound deadening on the floor boards, you might be looking at Lexus like quietness, provided you laminate the side windows.

    I've always added extra sound deadening in all my vehicles. Specially Mustangs I had. Check the Lincoln LS forum (scroll back around 30 posts) where someone asked the same question as yourself, and I wrote up a huge post on it.
  • Seems $640 is quite expensive compared to what I had in mind. Literally take striped and taped car to a Spray in Bed liner shop and spray every nook and cranny with mastic. Afterward, reinstall carpet and panels.

    After reading your posts, I think I may go look at a used LS for my next car.

    Is the 3.0L a good engine in the car, or is the V8 the only way to go?

  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    All depends upon your needs, it's my 2nd LS, I had a 2000 which I had up to 125K miles without no issues. Considering I do 12MPG because I have a lead foot and I redline every shift, it might be a concern. Stock, the V8 will give you around 6.1-6.3sec on 0-60, mine is doing roughly 5.0 because of some aftermarket upgrades. The 3.0L (which is a higher output version of the one in the 500) does well, and will give you times of around 7.6-8.0 on 0-60Secs, and it's really what most people will need anyways.

    Of course, it's a totally different car than the 500. It's a bit more cocooned than the 500 because of the wide center console, much smaller trunk and backseat area. But much more a driver's car overall... again, all depends on your needs.

    Try a used LS after 2003 (was refreshed), you can probably get a good price on them once we turn the clock and it's 2005.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    We had a big day in the office yesterday opening bids for a large remediation project, so my wife and I wanted to get away later in the day, and she surprised me by agreeing with my idea to go look at cars and have dinner.

    First, I did find a way to adjust the seats and pedals in the Montego so that my right leg was not always resting against the console.

    Second, I discovered that the view out the front of the Montego is not really any better than in the 300C. The Montego seat does not go down low enough.

    We drove the 300C again before going to the Mercury dealer and loved it. It has both a telescoping & tilting steering column and adjustable pedals, so I was able to sit comfortably and see traffic lights I could not see driving my Mountaineer back the same route. I could see out of it to the front and sides just fine. It is a wonderful car in so many ways, but the big trunk made me come back to the Ford products after I had abandoned them following my first test drive of the 300C.

    My wife and I do have a growing collection of rental houses scattered across the country, and equity investments here and in Europe, so we place investing ahead of spending. However, with the number of business miles I drive (25,000 to 30,000 annually), spending on a vehicle is an investment in my happiness and productivity, at least up to a point. No, I will not buy an LS430 for $60,000 plus, but a 300C for $36,000 (everything but AWD, NAV, and sunroof) seems like a bargain.

    I also found it interesting that the Edmunds reviewers only obtained 19MPG from the 500 Limited AWD. An over-worked small engine will produce worse mileage than a larger engine working at partial capacity. Plus, the 300C owners who keep their foot off of the floor are finding that it really does return the 17/25MPG EPA rating, and it runs on mid grade fuel (only about 4-5% more expensive than regular).

    It seems that the base version of the Five Hundred makes sense, but the fancy versions are missing way too much to justify spending $30,000.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,091
    "mine is doing roughly 5.0 because of some aftermarket upgrades. "

    Would you be willing to share some (any?) details?
    On the LS board, of course?

    - Ray
    2003 LS V8 owner - not for sale, and unlikely to be traded on a 500 anytime soon . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Actually I just recommend people to visit some LS enthusiast sites, and they can see of the modifications people have tried. Mine mostly comes with the help of a Whipple Supercharger, beefed up transmission, modified headers/muffler, accessory drive belts. All under the original skin, without any hints of modifications done to it.

    And I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, since it'll expire the original vehicle warranty. This is best to do when A) It's paid for B) your out of warranty C) You have nothing to lose than cheap thrills.

    Don't think it hasn't entered my mind what the possibilty of a Supercharged 500 could do...But might as well wait for Lincoln to debut their version....
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Curious- what are your thoughts on the new Avalon?

  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    My SEL is regularly getting 22 in town and 27 on the road, this with AWD and 7300 miles on the clock (the car has been mine for 43 days now)...

    I drove a Chrysler 300 in California for a week back in September. That is what clinched my decision to buy the Ford. I didn't like the seating position, the poor visibility, or the very odd performance going down steep hills...I also did not like the LOOK AT ME! exterior, or the relatively small trunk.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    Having driven the 300C a few times, and the 500/Montego many times, the pluses don't overide the negatives, especially price wise. I was hoping that the Montego would be my car, but considering what the Montego doesn't offer, and the 300C does, it's the way to go. The 300 is a sweet machine that really deserves the Car of the Year Award from Motor Trend. I still can't understand Ford's way of thinking the past few years. While everyone else is giving more in their cars, Ford has been taking away. Back in 2000, when I ordered my 2000 Sable and found out that there was no four wheel disc brakes, no power passenger seat, no power lumbar, and no power antenna, to name a few things. And that continues right up to the 2005 model of the Sable. These were all things I had in my past Ford/Mercury vehicles and really wanted in my new car. Even though Ford offers AWD, 2 new transmissions, and Command seating as new steps in the right direction, they shoot themselves in the foot by leaving off struts for the hood, no power lumbar, a cheap looking interior, and mostly an underpowered engine that revs way to high trying to pull all the weight of these cars around. It's a real shame seeing how much improved the Mustang is, and then you see how they screwed up with the 500/Montego.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Different strokes for different folks. I OWN a Ford Five Hundred SEL. I couldn't care less about struts under the hood. The Volvo safety equipment on these cars alone, along with the Haldex AWD is far more important to me than any perceived difference in the interiors.

    But, by all means, if you like the 300C so much, go buy one! And enjoy!

    Just don't think everyone else is giving more on their cars. Decontenting is widespread, at Daimler and GM, and the so-called foreign makes as well...
  • “Back in 2000, when I ordered my 2000 Sable and found out that there was no four wheel disc brakes, no power passenger seat, no power lumbar, and no power antenna, to name a few things.”

    When I was shopping for Sable in 2001 there was a power passenger seat. Lumbar support is not very useful in Sable anyway. Seats are not very comfortable and have no lateral support. I can understand though about disc wheel brakes, I mean I also do not understand why Ford does not offer it Sable with Duratec. Why do you need power antenna?

    Otherwise there are lot features in my Sable I like, e.g. dimming mirror/compass, double visors (very useful indeed), entrance lights beneath windows and esp keypad entry.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Car and Driver tested the Freestyle in the January 2005 issue.... and achieved a respectable 8.2 seconds to 60 in the brake-torque technique, and a decent 8.7 seconds to 60 in the Street Start, a better indicator of real world acceleration. Passing times of 4.3 and 5.9 from 30-50 and 50-70 are both good as well.

    With test data on the Five Hundred from AMCI, MT,, and on the Freestyle from Car and Driver.... it seems that the transmission is key.
    The CVT is excellent, and the 6 speed isnt so much.

    Overall, a good job... the Freestyle with the CVT definitely posted MUCH stronger times than I expected. Curious that the 8.7 street start is faster than the similar test of the the Five Hundred (8.9 seconds). Then again, the Freestyle benefits from the CVT, and the Five Hundred was saddled to the 6 speed.

  • I am confused. Does the 500 have lumbar support for driver and passenger or not. What models have it and is it powered or manual? I haven't driven it yet but am looking to simplify and get away from the high Jag S maintenance/replacement costs. Are the footwells really that big a deal or is it similar to the Jag S type? I am 6'1".

  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    The footwells you will simply have to try for yourself and see. They ARE different, and they bother the fire out of some people and others not at all. At first I found the outboard intrusion mildly annoying, but now I don't even notice it. Your feet and legs may differ. Much depends on physique, expectations and attitude.

    My SEL has a manual lumbar support for the driver only...
  • brihambriham Posts: 33
    It seems the consensus of opions is as follows:

    Positives: High ride, large interior, safety(a la Volvo), CVT and available AWD(with proven volvo components)

    Negatives: Bland styling, moderately powered engine as the only choice.

    Personally I like the car. As a family car I think it would be a very solid choice. They may have considered offering a sport option first with a big engine and then have cheaper models available with the lesser engine, similar to how the 300 is packaged. If you can't afford the Hemi you have two additional choices. The styling is nice, it just looks bad when compared to the 300. What a tough act to follow.

    Here is a review from autoMedia: asp?affid=
  • nedc2nedc2 Posts: 192
    Driver's side manual lumbar adjustment is standard on all trim levels for the Freestyle, Five Hundred & Montego. Passenger side lumbar adjustment is only standard on the Limiteds and Montego Premier, it's available in some option packages on the SEL trim level.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687

    If you currently have an S-type, the footwell will be almost similar in width, if not an inch or 2 wider, but instead of being deep as in the S-type, it's a tad less deep. I have an LS myself and I perceive it's footwell to be narrow because of the wide center console, but in reality it's deep and sufficient even with size 13 shoes.
  • Edmunds review states an average of 19 MPG for the five hundred in their test. Is Ford kidding? Underpowered and lousy milage. Are they trying to lure people away from the H2? How can Ford ignore the fact that Toyota and Honda make their minivans get nearly 30 MPG. Both of the vans are larger and offer more room. These are just a couple of examples of similar or larger vehicles that get much better milage than this all new sedan. I had expected great improvement over the previous generation Ford sedans with the CVT but the older cars get better milage than the five hundred. When is Ford going to get it?
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    So why are the "test numbers" of Edmunds being used as the bible (worse case senario), then the numbers of Toyota/Honda (best case senario) being compared?

    From the friends that I have who own Odyssey's and Sienna, I can tell you they aren't even getting 23MPG even on Premium, downwind, no load, on Overdrive.

    I can tell you from testing vehicles, you'll never post good milage on the first week, let alone with a CVT because your still not accustomed to how it "shifts". I was posting 17MPG the first week under heavy throttle, It wasn't till the 3rd week I was able to post 23-25MPG, once I learned not to slam the gas fully to get power, and just let the CVT do it's job.

    Everyone has their own driving habits, and it'll vary greatly depending how they drive the vehicle. I've been known to average 19MPG on a friends Civic...And even driving my friends Sienna for a day of shopping, we were posting 16MPG, and I personally have yet to fall within the usual EPA estimates of any car. So is it me, or the car?... Hence, auto-journalist hardly ever post decent MPG because of the variations and techiniques they use on driving.

    How many people have posted 60MPH on the Prius ? Case in point....
  • The only close fried I know with an oddy has a 99 which averages 26 combined. The camrys I've been around routinly get 26-30 combined. The five hundred with a cvt should do at least that good to be a serious competitor.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Let me borrow your friends Camry for a few hours, and you'll see how it'll drop to under 20MPG as I routinely get in them. And I'll even be "nice" and throw in the Over-drive for kicks to give it an advantage (at the cost over overheating it's transmission which seems to be an issue lately).
  • If you can drop a Civic to 19 mpg than I think its safe to say you are not the average driver and I'll stick to comparisons with folks who want to keep there cars for more than a year. If the folks at edmunds who came up with 19 mpg for the 500 drive like you do than I hope they will stop posting reviews. I doubt they do. While they no doubt drive harder to see what it is capable of I suspect there #'s are closer to mainstream than yours. I base that on my own experience with vehicles. BTW, I was a loyal "Ford guy" until I suffered through a 1990 Explorer (17mpg on a good day) and a 2000 Windstar (17 combined mpg over 54,000 miles. In fact I once took a road trip with a buddy and his family, we drove the windstar, they drove their 99 Siena. Same load, same speeds - all highway. He got 27 mpg, we got 22. We'll see in a few months if there is solid evidence that the 500 does better but I'm willing to bet it won't come close to the imports, or even similar GM products.
  • fsvfsv Posts: 196
    Ford Territory = Ford Freestyle? Then how come they get 4L engine and we the miserly 3L?
  • brihambriham Posts: 33
    I saw 19-20 city and 27-28 highway. That's not too bad. See the specs on the bottom of the 500 review link below: asp?affid=
  • fsvfsv Posts: 196
    Ford Territory = Ford Freestyle? Then how come they get 4L engine and we the miserly 3L?
  • ehaaseehaase Posts: 328
    The Australian Ford Territory is based upon the Falcon and has nothing in common with the Freestyle.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    "Same load, same speeds - all highway. He got 27 mpg, we got 22. We'll see in a few months if there is solid evidence that the 500 does better but I'm willing to bet it won't come close to the imports, or even similar GM products."

    Windstar/Sienna...MAJOR difference. WIndstar uses the Essex engine, a 3.8L OHV V6 which is antiquated, definately not an engine to compare to the OHC Toyota offers. Distant cousin to the 4.0L OHV offered in your old Explorer, which itself wasn't a model of efficiency either. Even now with the new 4.0L OHC V6 (Cologne), it can post similar numbers to the optional 4.6L V8. Although next year's Explorer will use the 3V version, and post a fuel milage increase.

    One of the tricks to posting better EPA numbers is tailoring the transmission for quicker upshifts, as well as large gear ratios from one gear to another. GM has incorporated in some transmissions a "start on 2nd gear under light trottle" which obviously allows them to post higher EPA numbers.

    What it does lose is it's sporty personality once you need extra power and it delays response, and as I've experienced in Camry's for example, is quicker upshifts. And on higher geared transmissions once your hitting anything over 60MPH, pressing the accelerator to HUNT for a lower gear will result in some slight aggrevation when you hear quite a bit of noise, and don't see any results from it.

    " and I'll stick to comparisons with folks who want to keep there cars for more than a year"

    OK now I'm insulted :-) , I've always treated my vehicles harshly, drive them to redline constantly, etc. I've never had any issues with them. Yet my friends who drive a bit more "conservative" seem to be having issues in their transmissions, head-gasket leaks, electrical, etc. SO either I'm lucky, or I'm doing something correctly...


    Territory/Freestyle, 2 totalyl different vehicles, yet same pricipal. Plus overthere they are still using the Falcon platform, as well at that 4.0L Inline 6 (remember them here in the U.S. long ago?)...they work there since they have the factory and tooling for it, but it's a different beast altogether.

    Drive great though, I can tell you that...
  • yankeryanker Posts: 156
    I don't know which Toyota you are referring to but the Avalon does not require premium gas. We've had one since 2000 and it does nicely on regular but not low quality regular.
  • ehaaseehaase Posts: 328
    "a 3.8L OHV V6 which is antiquated, definately not an engine to compare to the OHC Toyota offers. Distant cousin to the 4.0L OHV offered in your old Explorer"

    The 3.8 (and 4.2) is a 90 degree V6 derived from Ford's old small block OHV V8, while the Explorer's old 4.0L OHV V6 is a 60 degree design from Ford of Europe (based upon the family of 2.0L, 2.6L, 2.8L, and 2.9L V6's). The 4.0L SOHC V6 in the new Mustang and Explorer is also derived from Ford of Europe's 60 degree V6 family.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    I'm an OWNER and DRIVER of a Five Hundred, AWD SEL. 7300 miles. I am getting 23 in town and 27 on the road. Consistently.

    By comparison, my 3800 equipped 2000 Chevrolet Impala LS got 15-19 in town (all over the map) and 28-31 on the road.

    I am VERY pleased with the fuel economy on the Five Hundred. I would gladly give a little of it up though, for the 3.5 engine that is coming for 2007. But I do NOT want to give up the CVT. I LOVE it!
  • The one area in performance were the five-hundred shines is in MPG. Don't even think of comparing it to a camry or accord, both of those cars are smaller than the five hundred and thus lighter, there V6's are also bigger (3.5L/3.3L vs 3.0) and thus thurstier. They also lack CVT's and do not have 6 speed transmissions than better manage power.

    Yes, the Five Hundred is slow, but for its size and weight it has the best fuel economy in the business.
  • tkfitztkfitz Posts: 95
    I had an chance to drive the 500 and a Toyota Avalon for a 6 hr one way ride up to N Maine. Ford up and Toyota down...The Avalon has a better engine and seems more refined, the Ford handled better. The one thought I kept having was - "wow this car costs thousands less!!" Hmmmmm.... Both were real nice highway cruisers and I had to really watch my speed in the ford.
    Both cars got about 28mpg cruising at 75 to 80 mph. The 3.5 engine in the Ford would be a real deal clincher and probably do as well or better on the highway I would think.
    By the way...female passenger thought the 500 was an Audi.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Was it an AWD or a FWD? CVT or 6 speed? Trim level? Leather or cloth?

    Inquiring minds want to know...

    johnclineii, he of the SEL cloth AWD (w/CVT, of course)
  • The 2006 Avalon with a 3.5L is suppose to have 280hp.

    If this is true, will Ford come to the table with their 3.5L at 240hp?
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    The 3.5L will be offered in various different tunings. Like Nissan's 3.5L which can vary between 235HP to 300HP. Obviously the higher tunes will be reachable with premium gas, but that's still being worked out.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    And I still think 280 hp is an overkill for a FWD vehicle. It can't give you that great mileage, and will definitely cause some torque steer. 250 hp is more than enough for a 4,200 lbs. FWD vehicle.

    However, Ford can use more power for the AWD equipped cars, due to the added weight (I know, just about 150 lbs. over the FWD version), and due to the AWD system which can take care of the torque steer problem (ACURA RL:-)
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Another trick is by tailoring off the Torque, the higher the horsepower number increases... hence, Acura RL's. If you have lower torque, than horsepower, it's less torque steer that needs to be dealt with. Therefore you might see that trick as FWD are approaching 300HP.

    Also, these are higher strung engines that will require it to work up the rev range high, to reach it's 300HP, therefore torque won't come into play till much later, and by that time the vehicle has already taken off whereas torque steer wouldn't pose a problem.

    There are times where an engine of higher displacement will not be able to use the above said trick, as in GM's 5.3L OHV V8 being fitted into the FWD Grand Prix... Yikes...
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    I, for one, think horsepower is highly overrated. Torque is far more important to me...And I had a 1992 Nissan Maxima SE. I KNOW what torque steer is. It isn't a big deal, if you know how to handle it. Unfortunately for the car companies, there are too many that expect the car to take care of them, regardless of what.

  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    With regards to your comments on the Sienna and Ody, the lead-foots at Car and Driver were able to average 21+ MPG with their Long-Term 40,000 mile test vehicle. Given that car's acceleration times and weight, I think thats darn impressive. CR averaged the same 21 MPG in their review of the Sienna, as well.

    For the literature lovers out there, this month's issue of Consumer Reports has a VERY favorable review of the Five Hundred... two SELs, one with the 6 speed/FWD and the other with the CVT/AWD. Interestingly (and backing up my point that the CVT is the way to go), the two vehicles posted nearly identical acceleration numbers. As a note, the FWD Five Hundred returned avg. fuel economy of 21 MPG, while the AWD version tested 20 MPG.
    Not bad, but nothing to write home about for brand new vehicles, IMO. (Both of those bested the Chrysler 300 Touring's MPG at 19 overall, but the Chrysler tested a good deal quicker than either Ford). As one more final comparison, the numbers that CR achieved for both the Five Hundred SEL 6 speed FWD and the 300 Touring matched nearly identically the numbers achived by Motor Trend.

    ANT, question- in the past you've stated that CR has a bias.... so are you going to dismiss the 500's performance in this issue?
  • CR did a comparo of 500 (CVT & FWD), 300 (V6 & Hemi) and Amanti in Jan.05 issue that came out last week.
    500 beat not only 300 V6 but 300C Hemi too! I know, I know CR is a somewhat biased publication, on the other end of the spectrum from Car & Driver or AutoTrend. They look at cars from usability stand-point, not from the excitement standpoint. But looking at the facts
     a) 300 has a horrible rear and low front view
     b) Smaller trunk
     c) No smooth shifting CVT
     d) $3-4k more expensive in V6. Hemi shouldn't even be compared to 500 - it's for a different crowd and at least $10K more.
     e) Worse fuel economy and etc.
    I think from the get-go, Ford designed 500 with ConsumerReports crowd in mind, while 300 was designed with MotorTrend crowd in mind. So, for all practical purposed we should stop comparing 300 to 500. I think 500 is designed for late 40- early 60 demographics, those with the most money. 300C was designed for much younger crowd willing to take a risky styling and lots of power in Hemi. 300 V6 was made to fill a void left by Concorde, it's really a cheaper derivative of 300C.
    What I don't get is that Avalon still tops the list in CR and ParkAvenue is 2nd. These are much older cars, and much more expensive. So, 500 is really on top of the list if you take the price into consideration as most of us do.
  • This seems as good a place as any to post this: Is it just me or is Ford just getting killed in the engine department these days? I realize that they have the 3.5 Duratech coming out, but that engine isn't due for at least another year, and only promises to match what the competition has on the market today. Nissan, for example, has had a V6 on the market for several years with this kind of performance. Ford seems to be benchmarking what the competition currently has on the market without also considering what the competition will have in the future. Who knows what Toyota, Nissan, and Honda will be getting form a 3.5L V6 by the time the 3.5 Duratech is out? My guess is that the new Ford engine will barely match or be slightly behind the competition in terms of power, and will be saddled with the same "not as refined as the imports" descriptions. Does anyone else think that Ford needs a totally new line of next generation engines that aim to beat, not meet, the competition? There are few, if any, mainstream vehicle categories left now where a Ford engine is considered the class leader.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    When I state biased, I'm honing in on their comments, thoughts, etc.
    Example: Digital instrumentaion on the HondaS2000 as reported by one rag, was praised for being futuristic, insightful, intelligent...Now when the Grand Marquis has it, it was condemed as old-tech, hard to decipher, etc.

    Instrumented data is just that, figures they received during testing, according to how they tested the vehicle. No need to dismiss that since that was their experience.


    There's a few engine surprises coming from Ford. Currently more effort is being placed on it's transmissions, but there's 2 engines currently being developed, and a few other's who will be receiving upgrades soon.
  • ANT14, you're killing me dropping a hint like that!

    Seriously, I understand that you can't go into greater detail, and I'm glad there are some surprises ahead for Ford engines.

    I'm looking forward to reading this sentence in a review of a Ford vehicle sometime in the near future: "This new engine surpasses the competition in both performance and refinement."
This discussion has been closed.