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

19293959798176

Comments

  • 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...

    FSV,

    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.

    Sigh.
  • 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?
    ~alpha
  • 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
    Alpha,
    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.

    Frizz,

    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.