Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The 3.5 V6 seems to me to be far more important for the heavier Five Hundred/Montego/FS and upcoming crossovers (Aviator/Mazda ---, Ford ---) than for the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr (except the SVT Fusion).
Besides the grille and headlights, the taillights should be redone using LEDs with red brake, amber turn, and white backup lights in some sort of pattern, but not anything which would narrow the wide trunk opening.
Besides that, there is the obvious need for a telescoping steering column, and for a few more inexpensive, but really handy optional features such as an exterior mirror which dims, rain sensing wipers, Bluetooth or On-Star, and built-in satellite radio. I would also prefer the option of cloth seats on the top of the line model, as they are the most comfortable in summer, and much less expensive than the cooled leather seats.
"Yes, the space efficiency is certainly noteworthy. In fact, the high general space efficiency makes the bulky and boxy console seem even more out of place. I certainly hope that it is re-worked."
Agreed!
For all the talk about space efficiency of the Five Hundred the footspace needs to be improved.
"The 3.5 V6 seems to me to be far more important for the heavier Five Hundred/Montego.
Absolutely!
"Besides the grille and headlights, the taillights should be redone using LEDs with red brake, amber turn, and white backup lights in some sort of pattern, but not anything which would narrow the wide trunk opening."
Not a biggie with me.
"I would also prefer the option of cloth seats on the top of the line model, as they are the most comfortable in summer, and much less expensive than the cooled leather seats."
I don't like leather either.
Gotta choose a company car from a list of 5...all 2006:
1-Ford 500 4-Door Sedan
2-Ford Escape 4-Door XLS
3-Chevy Equinox 4-Door Front Wheel Drive
4-Chevy Malibu 4-Door Sedan
5-Pontiac Grand Prix 4-Door Sedan
Since it's a company car, it is fair to assume that engines, HP, etc. will all be at base level. My primary concerns are space, especially in the trunk, performance (pick up and mileage) - this will be mostly New York City driving, size of the vehicle with regard to street parking, and I guess overall looks. None of them appear too stylish, but I do like the comparisons to European vehicles like Passats, A4's, etc. ">I see you have posted on several cars including the Grand Prix. May I ask you opinion?
Thanks
Well, first of all congrats on your career accomplishment such that you can get a company car. I know NY driving, thats most of the driving that i do, so i guess i can help you out a bit...
This is basically your preferance since some of these vehicles are really different from one another. First of all, if you can choose a 500 over a malibu, do it. Even though the Malibu is easier to park the 500 looks about $10,000 more expensive.
The Escape and the equinox are the best bet if you want the most space with easiness to park.
the length of the 500 is 200.7 inches.
the escape is 174.9 inches
the equinox is 188.8 inches
the GP is 198.3 inches
obviously the escape is easier to park. I think that since its a company car, there could be times when you would drive with clients/coworkers in the car, therefore there probably has to be a good backseat.
The GP falls off the list right away. GM Screwed up the practicality of this car in the name of design. Don't pay any attention to the specs, they are lies. I sat in the car. Its nice if its just you and say your wife or a firend, but i sat in the back and my 5'11" body found itself cramped and my hair BRUSHED UP AGAINST THE REAR WINDOW! Can you imagine what would happen on some NY potholes? That great union work would result in some hospital stays. This car would be off the list. That sucks b/c i think the car is really cool otherwise.
The equinox is a great SUV, and the adjustable rear seat that gives massive rear leg room is nice for passengers. The SUV is a bit harder to park than the Escape, but it depends on the mirrors and blind spots. I'm sure the Equinox has more room inside than the escape, is thats the case than unfortunatley the escape would be off the list... depending on whats more important, parking or rear seat.
now there is the 500. I think this is (especially for a company car) a beautiful machine. B4 they change the grille to make it look more exiting, it looks very regal, very conservative in a perfect business sence. I admitadly don't know where you work (industry) but i don't think you can go wrong on style.
The rear seat is probably better than the equinox in this car. But you pay for it with the high overall length. Therefore your real choice here is car or SUV... if its a car i suggest the 500, if its an SUV probably an equinox.
unfortunaltey performance is not in any of these cars/SUV's rosters. BUT for NY driving i think the 200hp/185hp in the 500/equinox (respectively) is enough.
Can you add options to your car, meybe if you added out of you wallet? I don't know if you want to do this, but the 2006 500 has a nav system and the limited model is quieter than the base model, or so i hear :P
Personally if it were my choice (I am studying accounting) I would pick a 500 and add about 3K of my own money to give it a Nav and 18inch tires. OR, if you could, take the montego. It looks even more european (hey, just take a look) and it has HIDs and LEDs STANDARD!
The chevy is nice b/c of the seating position, you could see a bit over traffic, but the 500's seating position is higher than the average car. The five hundred is just a really excellent sedan. It looks expensive, it has presence, and well... its solid. I hope this helps.
Oh, here is some motivation...
The black with black interrior is very nice. The red wood trim is beautiful as it offsets the black and the cromed mirrors are awesome.
Geeman1
Anything significant such as the larger 3.5L Duratec V6, or new re-styling won't come up till the mid-cycle upgrades, which is still about over a year away.
I haven't been to Detroit (the city) since the mid-1980s. It seems that January of 2007, when the show will feature the 2008 models, will be a better time to go to Detroit and take my wife to the Ford Museum and so-forth. The last time I was there, I was a customer of a software company which held a private party for the user group members in the Ford Museum.
I'll just go to the Anaheim show this week and the LA show in 2007.
Is anyone else here going to Anaheim?
safety - from its Volvo "dna";
size inside vs. size outside - out of the most space efficient cars out there (and the stadium seating gives a "commanding" view of the road; and
GAS MILEAGE, say what you will about the "smallness" of the 3.0, gas mileage is among the best for this size car - and it still accelerates 8.5 0-60! That gas mileage is a direct result of the small displacement of the current engine!
The Avalon now has 268HP...280HP was before the new standards of reporting correct HP where phased in this a few months ago..
Why can't we have 280hp when toyota has 268. Their power has been lowered, thats great, but it does not mean we have to relax, now is the time to STRIKE!
Ford could score a big hit if they smash the avalon HP while keeping the fuel economy constant. Ford has a great car on its hands. They need to finish the job. Offer the 3.5, and make it top notch. We know it can do 270. We should see this in the Five Hundred.
I'm telling you ant, if the sales and MKT share gains won't recoup the investment, the media representation for the FIve Hundred will be well worth it.
Otherwise its just... "Ford has improved, but still lags behind the superior Japanese competition."
Not something any red while and blue blooded American wants to hear.
Hell, Ford can do it this time, its all a matter of will.
Besides the Lexus LS430, they are the only cars with a such a big trunk.
1) On continued steady up-grades, does the engine/transmission sound or feel distressed?
2) Do you get adequate engine braking on down-grades?
I'm in the market for a Five Hundred, and was looking through a couple of magazines recently, and interestingly the interior dimensions listed for both the Five Hundred and Taurus were somewhat baffling. In practically every interior dimension (front and rear) listed, except for only a couple, the Taurus' were greater than the Five Hundred. Hmm . . . I need to take my tape measure and do some measuring.
-Jeff
-Jeff
Meybe, PLEASE, could they call it the Mark IX?
Priced around 23K. Couldn't find them on 2005's.
So what will happen to the CVT. Does this mean that Ford developed the CVT and only used in on SOME 500s and Freestyle for 2 years? Why Ford did not use the CVT on Fusion? It seems that it cost a bunch of money to develop something as complicated as a CVT and only use it for two years. What will happen to all of the people who purchased a 500 or Freestyle with a CVT? Will CVT be discontinued at the end of 2006?
If CVT was such a great idea, why Ford did not announce that the new 3.5 engine will be mated to a CVT. Are there some real problems with a CVT that it will be discontinued after only 2 years? I know that GM had all sorts of problems with CVT, and now Ford is discontinuing the CVT after only two years. It does not look good for CVT or the people who bought cars with CVT.
CVTs have torque limitations and can't handle the torque from the 3.5L.
I hope Ford will send the CVT down market to the Focus, etc.
Mark
And if not, they will continue to be shipped to Europe where they are used on a few Fords there as well...
If you cannot develop a transmission to handle the torque from your engine then why bother developing this technology in the first place. Is it that Ford has just way too much money? I am sure that there was somebody at Ford who was aware that the new 3.5l will come out with 250ft-lb of torque. So why not develop a transmission from the start that can handle this torque.
To me it seems that this whole CVT thing was a major MANAGEMENT screw up, and that consumers who purchase cars with this CVT will get to pay huge amounts to fix their cars at the Ford dealer when problems show up later. I am sure that you cannot go to AAMCO to fix this thing.
Obviously Nissan's CVT can't handle the toque of their 4.0L V6, or 5.6L V8, therefore they limited the use to only the 3.5L... So should we ask Nissan....
"If you cannot develop a transmission to handle the torque from your engine then why bother developing this technology in the first place"
As anything, there are limitations on technology for X X X reasons. In the case of the one used in the 500/FS it's 207TQ. and hauling around 3700-4200 (unloaded) of weight. Several hundred pounds more than the Murano.
So example, if we place the CVT in the Fusion which weight many hundreds of pounds less than the 500/FS, and possibly in fully loaded SEL Fusion trim, you offset the added load/stress and can certainly couple the CVT with an engine with a bit more torque.
Another point, the Murano obviously sells at a higher pricepoint than a Fusion. Therefore, placing an expensive CVT unit on a 500/FS makes more economical sense than placing one on a Fusion. And at the level of a Focus, it'll take a few years of amortization to allow it to trinkle into budget models.
Also, manufacturer's place certain limits pertaining to the added stress/load of a particular vehicle. Just when you read these "Maximum towing at 7300 lbs". It's smart to use some room for error because YOU KNOW there's someone out there that will load it to 7500lbs. even if they are fully warned. SO in these senarios, you under-estimate to allow room for error to make up for these people's mistake.
When the 3.5L was being developed, soon after the GM 6A joint venture took place. Other option would have been an Aisin supplied 5Spd Auto, (which from Toyota customer complaints, seem to be giving them issues) but instead developing a 6spd would place Ford ahead of the competition.
Ford is also viewing development of IVT's such as (Torotrak.com) which can be used without the torque limitations of CVT's.
The CVT requires less parts over a conventional automatic, therefore less things to go wrong. If a CVT does have a major breakdown, chances are it'll be replaced (and it's easy to do so) rather than be "re-conditioned".
I myself have tested numerous transmissions, which I know have inherent flaws in them, which I can purposely "break" if need be. The CVT protects consumers from those common things we do to transmission which can cause them to fail.
This is what I have read from several sources. Replacement cost is estimated at $6k. This extremely high repair cost is suppose to kill residual value.
If you own a 7 year old 500/Freestyle that needs a new CVT tranny, the car will be worth next to nothing.
I would anticipate by then, there will be a 6sp conversion kit available.
ANT14 - Will the Mercury version of the Freestyle for 2007 get a 6sp?
1. Which Ford models sold in USA will use the CVT transmission for 2007 model year? As far as I know non.
2. CVT transmissions are capable of handling torque in the 250ft-lbs range. This is demonstrated by Nissan using CVT in Murano with 246ft-lb of torque. Ford chose not to use the CVT transmission in Fusion or 2007 model 500. They all use 6-speed automatic transmissions.
3. As far as I can tell CVT will be discontinued after 2006 model year. Yes I know some will be shipped to Europe, but you know in Europe 90% of cars are sold with manual transmission anyway. So the volume of CVT production in 2007 will be very low. What will stop Ford from canceling CVT all together. NOTHING. Soon the CVT will be just a foot note in history.
Right now there are not many problems with CVT transmissions, but they have only been out for one year. My 1994 Ford Thunderbird with AOD-E 4 speed transmission did not develop torque converter chatter until the car had 40K miles and was out of warrantee. This was a very common problem with Ford transmissions, almost every car built in 1994 (4.6 engine and AOD-E) had this problem, and it cost me $900 to fix it. Ford did not step up to the plate and pay for the repair.
Many companies have problems with transmission. My sister has a Honda in which the 5 speed automatic went out at 45K. At least that was fixed for free because of the recall.
The point is that not all transmission problems show up after one year. Some problems show up only after 3-4 years time when the car is out of warrantee. Why risk spending 6k to replace a CVT down the road? Why not just buy a Five hundred with 6-speed and not worry about future problems. I am sure that resale value of a Five hundred with a 6-speed will be higher then with a CVT.
The Freestyle AWD and 500 AWD will use it for MY 2007.
"2. CVT transmissions are capable of handling torque in the 250ft-lbs range. This is demonstrated by Nissan using CVT in Murano with 246ft-lb of torque."
No, all CVT's are designed for different torque loads, using different components (linked belts, or pulley are some examples). If Nissan is using one that it's limit is at 250TQ., and the engine pumps out 246TQ, then you have 4TQ room of error. All it'll take is any type of induction modification to the engine that will give it more power, to kill it's CVT. Sometimes to err in the side of caution, you do not take it close to it's peak load...(whatever it might be).
"Ford chose not to use the CVT transmission in Fusion or 2007 model 500. They all use 6-speed automatic transmissions"
Too expensive to place on a Fusion which starts at $16K.
"3. As far as I can tell CVT will be discontinued after 2006 model year."
There's plans for usage in other vehicles...
" So the volume of CVT production in 2007 will be very low. What will stop Ford from canceling CVT all together. NOTHING."
The factory is working at full capacity to fullfill orders, they have been for the past year. Fords investment in CVT's, and IVT (even better) will continue provided there's vehicles that can affordably accept them, in markets where they can be embrassed.
"My 1994 Ford Thunderbird with AOD-E 4 speed transmission did not develop torque converter chatter until the car had 40K miles"
I had a 96 with the 4.6L, with 82K miles when I turned it in. Can't say I had that issue, but only issue was a lightbulb that burned out.
"Some problems show up only after 3-4 years time when the car is out of warrantee."
I agree, by then CVT replacement costs will lower as more of them are available in the marketplace. Currently the factory is at full load, which makes it expensive to replace. Ironically the cost of the CVT is what makes it expensive, NOT the labor. Labor-wise, the CVT is cheaper to replace than the 6speed.
BTW, the Aisin 6 speed automatic is cousin to the 5 speed Aisin, which are supplied for use on Camry's, Lexus, Volvo's, and numerous other vehicles. And from the examples I have seen, it's not too nice seeing some of the headaches SOME of those owners are experiencing. Let's hope the 6speed Aisin proves better.
The GM/Ford JV 6A should do quite well. The internal life expectacy reports beat anything out there, and the materials and the simplicity behind it are far advanced from what competitors have to offer, or will offer for that matter.
Frasier,
Yes, unless some last minute senario occurs.
I love mine, it was one of the big selling points. The 5-speed on the company Explorer drives me crazy shifting all the time. I can't imagine what a 6-spd would be like. The CVT is smooth and is always in the right gear. It would be a shame for Ford to discontinue it.
But, each time I search the dealers inventories all they have on the lots are CVT and all wheel drives. Zip 17007.
No wonder they are having problems, there is not a six speed to even test drive. They must have made a bunch of CVT's and are now pushing them out the door.
griffman
Some people just don't want to risk buying a car with new untested technology. If CVT was on the marker for at least 3-4 years and there was a low failure rate, then I would consider buying a car with this transmission. The way things stand now its new untested technology.
The maintenance costs of CVT are also greater than with the 6 speed. Fluid has to be changed every 30K or 60K with a CVT, while the 6-speed does not require any maintenance. As far as I know CVT uses special fluid that is not cheap. The CVT service at the dealer will run about $200. So if you drive for 100k miles and do the sever duty service it will cost you $600 extra for the CVT. On to the 6-speed version gets better gas mileage.
I think that people who buy a car with CVT should also purchase a 7year/100k power train warrantee. I think this will payoff big time down the road.
To me as an engineer, the CVT concept looks wrong. It’s like the Wankel engine that is used in the Mazda RX8. It looks good on paper, but only Mazda makes it. There must be some engineering or economic reason why other companies stick to piston engines. There must also be very good reasons why other companies stick to normal automatic transmissions.
Look at the facts:
The CVT development started in 1998 in a joint venture with ZF. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_1998_Nov/ai_53290257
In 1998 Jack Nasser proclaimed that Ford would produce 1 million CVT transmissions per year in 2002. (We all know what great things Jack Nasser did for Ford)
In 2002 the CVT program was way behind schedule and so in 2002 Ford started to develop a conventional 6 speed with GM. This is the transmission that will be used with the new 3.5l engine. Notice that Ford did not want to develop a higher capacity CVT, NO. They went ahead with development of conventional 6 speed.
In 2004 ZF backed out of this venture, and Ford took over the manufacturing of CVT. The capacity was also reduced from 1 million units per year to 250,000.
Once Ford ramps up the production of new 6-Speed there will be no reason what so ever to produce the CVT. Mark my words, the CVT will be discontinued within two years.
not to cast some doubt on the new 6 speed, but the 5 speed was supposed to be maintenance free too. i have an '02 explorer and it shifts much better after having the fluid changed.
Also, the CVT is in the AWD models...almost all the FWD models have the Six Speed...and the EPA testing methods do not reflect real life, especially for the CVT. I am regularly getting 28+ on the highway....I doubt I would do much, if any, better with the Six Speed. And I have the AWD, which adds weight and friction...
Actually the severe duty service recommendation for the CVT is fluid change every 30k. That is 90k/30k*$200=$600. That is how I got this number.
Also, the CVT is in the AWD models...almost all the FWD models have the Six Speed
Not true. Most FWD Limited and SEL and SE come with CVT. I looked for a FWD 500 with 6-speed and I could not find even one in Atlanta. All came with CVT.
the EPA testing methods do not reflect real life, especially for the CVT.
That is a good one. Yes blame the TEST. It’s the government's fault. Maybe its because the CVT is just not as efficient as a geared 6-speed.
The fact is that CVT has to maintain high internal hydraulic pressure at all times which consumes energy. Also the final drive ratio for a CVT is 5:1 compared to 2.41:1 for a six speed. The reason Ford had to go with a high final drive ratio is because the CVT cannot output sufficient torque. Since power = speed * torque, the transmission operates at a higher internal speed to deliver the power to the wheels. Maybe its the parasitic power loss from high pressure and high internal rotational speed that causes the CVT to have lower EPA number rather then the EPA's conspiracy against the CVT.
Look the real issue is not $200 or $600 over the life time of the car. The real issue is that CVT technology is simply not needed. I started this discussion because I simply don't understand why Ford is forcing this technology upon its customers. CVT does not offer any tangible benefits over geared 6 speed transmissions. If anything its more expensive, more maintenance prone, gets worst gas mileage and its unproven. That’s too bad, because I really like the car.
Oh well I guess that I will just have to wait until 2007 when 500 comes out with 3.5l and a normal 6-speed transmission.
And there will be no GM/Ford Six Speed in 2007 Five Hundreds. The earliest that is currently expected is Model Year 2008. And that will be a new transmission, currently being introduced in some GM models, and soon some Ford models. The current Six Speed in the Five Hundred/Montego and the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr is from Aisin, a Toyota affiliate.
I would guess Ford is putting in either the 6 speed or CVT to balance inventory/production rates of both transmissions. I see lower end models available with either CVT or 6 speed when doing a dealer inventory search in my area.
There is truth to the idea that EPA mileage estimates are becoming nearly useless in determining actual mileage, as the test is very artificial and some manufacturers have become very adept at designing their vehicles to look really good per the EPA test, but in reality do not perform nearly that well for most drivers.
An extreme example is the hybrids, which do deliver good mileage on an absolute basis, but rarely is anyone able to actually obtain the EPA values in real world driving.
My Taurus (Duratech equipped), on the other hand, has almost always exceeded both city and highway EPA numbers for my car.
At first ALL FWD SE's had the CVT, then they were only built with the Six Speed, then they could come either way...you are right about the balancing..I have no idea how FWD SE's are being equipped this week!
It would be really interesting if somewhere we could get our hands on equal to equal comparisons of mileage of a 500 FWD with the CVT versus the 6 speed. Yes the EPA says the 6 speed is better, but I'd like to see a controlled side by side real world test. Also, anyone know at a constant 60 MPH on level ground, what is the engine speed turning on the CVT vs six speed?