I also looked for a 500 with a 6-speed in Atlanta. All 500's are either SE with CVT or Limited AWD with CVT. I could not locate a single SEL or a single Limited FWD. In Atlanta it makes no sense what so ever to buy an AWD car. It just does not snow here very often, and if it does the whole city shuts down.
Some people on this forum claim that EPA numbers are wrong and they bring up hybrids as an example of this. I agree that it’s possible to have inflated numbers for a hybrid. That is actually easy to understand and explain. Hybrids have internal batteries and if you start the test cycle with a full charge and end the test cycle with partially discharged batteries, and then some of the energy came from the batteries and not from burned fuel. This effect results in inflated EPA numbers. Since people measure gas mileage in a car over a longer period of time, their actual mileage comes up short.
Now how does this affect CVT or a 6-speed? It does not! Besides the manufacturer determines the EPA gas numbers. Why would Ford on purpose lower their rating on the CVT. I can see how a company would inflate the numbers to meet the CAFÉ standard or to use it in advertisement, but to lower the numbers on purpose. That’s just plain silly.
NO, I think that CVT is just less efficient then a conventional 6-speed transmission. Look according to FORD, the mileage for CVT is 20/27 and for 6-speed its 21/29. Lets see according to FORD 6-speed is 9% more efficient then a CVT at freeway speeds (29/27). If you drive the car for 100K miles you would save about $700 in fuel (at $2.20 per gallon) if you choose a 6-speed over a CVT.
Searching the web, I learned that CVT looses about 15% of energy. 6% is lost due to hydraulics and 9% is lost due to mechanical friction between the belt and two pulleys. This energy loss is due to the high clamping force required to prevent the belt from slipping in the pulley. This requires a CVT to have larger hydraulic pumps and this consumes more energy. Maybe this is why EPA numbers for CVT are worst then for 6-speed. Maybe, just maybe, the EPA numbers are correct.
I hope that somebody who works for Ford can explain to me what was the point of developing CVT technology. Even Ford admits that CVT costs more to build then 6-speed. Even Ford admits that CVT consumes more fuel. Even Ford admits that CVT was an interesting EXPERIMENT.
And when the Five Hundred first came out, the standard transmission (bad pun not intended) on the FWD SE was a CVT...then they switched back and forth...
Will it really be about two calendar years before a 2008 Five Hundred with the new 3.5 V6 and new Ford/GM 6-speed automatic is out? Ford is nuts if they wait that long. The heavier and larger Five Hundred & Montego need the 3.5 V6 far more than the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr. Of course, this assumes that the 3.5 and new transmission are quieter than the present 3.0 and CVT. I wonder what will be at the car shows in January? I have been hoping that a Lincoln version of the Five Hundred would be there, but if the new parts are two years away, I wonder how far out the Lincoln version will be?
The EPA mileage tests are indeed performed by each manufacturer but the test routine was established by the EPA and all manufacturers, at least in theory, perform the same test cycle (though as we recently have seen an example of some manufacturers cheating interpreting the SAE horsepower testing standard to favor themselves). The loopholes have recently been closed on the SAE horsepower test standard, but the EPA mileage test procedure is grossly out of date and divorced from the real world. Thus, I have little doubt that the manufacturers can tweak their drive trains and control software purposely to produce better EPA mileage as well, with not necessarily any correlation to real world mileage experienced by the average Joe Driver.
Ford would not purposely report lower EPA mileage ratings than their testing shows. My point was that EPA testing procedures are not necessarily reflective of real world results. Thus the CVT equipped 500's may indeed do as well or better than the 6 speed equipped 500's, due to their ability to adjust transmission ratios to optimize engine efficiency better than the 6 speed.
True there may be more parasitic losses in the CVT than the 6 speed, but no one but Ford knows this data, and they likely will not divulge it.
I'm sorry I know this message was posted a few days ago but I just have to respond to the mentality that was reflected here. Talk about a testament to "DONT INNOVATE"
TO pick on Mazda's Rotary is to show true lack of knowledge about this engine.
First the Rotary is exponentially more efficient than a otto cycle engine. The RX-8 is rated for 238 HP from 1.3 liters with no turbos or super chargers. Thats an incredible 183 hp PER LITER!
Nissan's vaunted VQ 3.5 L V6 in the 06 350Z is rated at 300 hp. Thats a mere 85 hp per liter.
If the Rotary had 100 years of research, and manufacturing experience at the same level as the Otto Cycle, we might all be driving Rotary equipped cars.
Which is better an engine with over 200 moving parts or an engine with 3!?!?
Take a look at the Star Mazda racing series. Why is this the most affordable open wheel formula race car? BECAUSE YOU SEAL THE ENGINE FOR 3 YEARS with NO REBUILDS! Other race cars require an engine rebuild after EVERY RACE!
Do you really think the car companies want us to have engines that reliable in our cars?
You want to know why more companies don't use unique designs or technologies its because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
Engineers are the same people who said the Earth was Flat. The same people that said steam boats would never replace sail. That said that Powered Flight was impossible. That said the sound barrier couldn't be broken. That told IBM's board that the world market for computers was 12.
I'm glad the Engineers are not in charge...Like my dad always said "before I went to school, I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one."
Hey now, I are one too. As to the RX-8 engine, I fail to see how its outstanding power to weight and power to displacement matter (except in racing) if the benefit is not reflected in terms of fuel economy or emissions performance. (Reciprocating sport motorcycle engines produce similar power/displacement and similar torque, durability fuel economy and emissions characteristics to Mazda rotaries.) The moving parts count is irrelevant if the 3 moving parts are very expensive, subject to inadequate lubrication and prone to wear out. Also the RX-8's engine has WAY more than 3 moving parts. (It has, for example, 6 tip seals, and the seals travel more distance around the trochoid than the tires cover over the ground even in overdrive.
When the RX-8 (or it's successor) stops using more fuel than a Mustang GT to propel a vehicle that weighs less than a Focus I'll reconsider the Rotary's efficiency. Until then I'll tend to think that Long, wide, thin combustion chambers with moving walls tend to have poor thermal efficiency, even if you can spin the heck out of them to make great power.
Engineers also designed and improved the steam engines that replaced the sails, significantly improved the safety and reliability of aircraft and designed every plane that has ever broken the sound barrier. I don't know the IBM story, but as an engineer I've never been asked to perform a market analysis. (Ducks aren't very good pack animals either, but that doesn't make them bad.)
At many companies you've heard of the engineers ARE in charge, or they were before the companies in question lost their way. Honda, Toyota and Porche spring to mind, as well as MicroSoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Dell.
Like many promising technologies CVTs have theoretical advantages that intrigue designers to try to overcome practical limitations that present themselves along the way. Perhaps the the elegantly flexible CVT will someday overcome the current limitations of internal friction and pumping costs associated with high clamping forces, or perhaps the limitations are insurmountable. . . only time and effort will tell. Early turbojets were hugely thirsty, smoked, had spool-up times measured in minutes and melted themselves. Those limitations have been overcome. Many other technologies that were at first promising have ultimately failed, or have taken decades to realize the promise. (Fusion (not fission) for power generation on earth, for example).
A rule of thumb is that early iterations of a superior technology are usually inferior to refined versions of inferior technology. In other words, early electric lights had all kinds of problems when compared to kerosene lamps (safety, cost, reliability, durability, infrastructure). . . but we know how that turned out.
It the CVT which is available in the Ford 500 superior to the conventional automatic? Apparently not, so far.
Engine efficiency is measured as SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION. SFC = lb/hr/HP. This means how much fuel is required by engine to produce 1 horsepower for 1 hour. SPECIFIC POWER OUTPUT is measure in HP/LITER. Actualy ECONOMY is one of the main problems with the rotary engine. Rotary engine does have high SPO.
But look, I don't what to discus rotary engines here.
Now you stated that I have the "DON'T INNOVATE" mentality. This is one point to which I will respond.
Every company has a limited set of resources. These are things like money, personnel, and yes even engineers. Its the responsibility of management to deploy these resources in a way that maximizes the profit for the company.
Now FORD management chose to develop the belt driven CVT transmission. This is the transmission which is now used in 500. TOYOTA management chose to develop electrically driven CVT transmission. This is the transmission which is the foundation of TOYOTA hybrids. Both companies developed CVT transmissions. Which transmission is better. Well lets see, FORD reduced the production of CVT from 1,000,000 per year to 250,000 per year. TOYOTA keeps increasing the production of their hybrid CVT transmissions. In fact FORD licensed TOYOTA's hybrid technology. Did TOYOTA license FORD's belt driven CVT technology? NO.
You see making changes just for sake of making changes is stupid. Developing technology just to make something different is just a waist of resources. The money FORD spent on CVT could have just as well been spent on development of better engines. Now it will be 2008 before FORD will install the new 3.5l in 500.
What do you think would have made FORD more money:
Introduce 500 with 3.0l and CVT or introduce 500 with 3.5l and 6-speed. I think that you will agree that more people would have purchased the 500 with 3.5l and 6-speed.
I know that if 500 came out with 3.5l and 6-speed, I would be driving one now.
gtee... your big assumption is that the cvt is going to have problems. if it functions as designed, what is wrong with it? how many cvt toyota hybrids are being produced? more tha 250k per year? it comes down to the cvt is expensive to produce. maybe toyota should have licenced fords engine management software for the priius, so they didn't have to hire college students to help solve the sudden power loss while driving on the highway, which is not reported with the feh, due to the engine cutting out. this has been corrected. maybe they reverse engineered ford software.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I have heard that Ford is planning an exterior redesign make-over on the Ford 500, does anyone have any information about that? Perhaps when they are going to do that?
First, the eCVT in the Prius is a Aisen product, not a Toyota product. The eCVT is a planatary gear set and only would work in a vehicle with two power sources. Ford uses the same unit in the Escape Hybrid.
You cannot pick on Ford for not developing its own eCVT because this transmission has NO APPLICATION outside of Hybrid vehicles.
Finally, Ford did not buy Hybrid technology from Toyota. When Ford got done independently developing its hybrid powertrain, they they realized that there might be patent issues with Toyota. Accordingly, Ford came to a licensing agreement with Toyota. Ford got the rights to use the hybrid system and Toyota received diesel technology from Ford. No money changed hands.
Ford is supposedly moving to adopt a Japanese style refresh plan on all their vehicles. Vehicles will be refreshed every 3 years rather than majorly redesigned every 8 to 10 years.
So yes, the 500 is already planned for a redesign for 2008 but it will probably be in the spring of 07.
Expect to see the Fusion's grill.
The 500 represents the last car Ford designed the old fashioned way. The design was set in stone years before it went into production.
In the future, Ford will use the Mazda model of designing cars digitally, and testing them digitally. This will speed up the developmental process.
Ford needs more product that much is clear. May it come soon.
Has the 500 been a success yet or is it causing problems for Ford? The car has had a lot of negative press for it's boring exterior. I just want to know if the car is selling any good number of units. If anyone has any reliable sales info. I would appreciate it.
I saw consumer reports yesterday. The 500 got excellent marks for reliability. I was impressed.
Finally, Ford did not buy Hybrid technology from Toyota. No money changed hands.
Can you read more carefully? Where in my message did I state that Ford paid for Toyota's technology. I wrote they LICENSED it. I also wrote that Toyota did not license the CVT technology from Ford.
When Ford got done independently developing its hybrid power train, they realized that there might be patent issues with Toyota.
That is the funny thing about patents the first one to apply for one owns it. Maybe if FORD did not spend so much time and effort to develop CVT, they could have developed eCVT before Toyota and applied for patents first and then Toyota would have to license technology from Ford. That was exactly the point of my post, that resources within the company are limited and it’s the management's responsibility to properly apply them.
And where did you get the idea that engineers tried to prove that the world is flat? You sound like you work in marketing department, because only they are capable of such original thoughts.
toyota, to their credit, got started in hybrids years before the domestics. it happens to be a hit. it is not the be all/end all of technology. my sister has a priius and is proud of it. i have a focus which also has a pzev rating.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
The Prius is a butt ugly automobile and she won't like it when she has to buy a new battery, they cost about $3,500 for the battery installation and disposal fee. Then your Focus will be her envy....that and Back Street Boys. lol.
Keep in mind that all Hybrids sold in green states or neighber states qualify for a 10 year 150,000 mile warranty on the "unique hybrid components" this includes full replacment cost of the battery.
the priius battery is covered for 8 years/100k. cali covers it for 10 years/150k. pzev focus has 5 years/100k powertrain warranty. like the five hundred, many vehicles need more than a quick glance.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Some time ago, I posted information on production figures, which seem to be a good indicator of sales. At that time the Chrysler 300 / Dodge Magnum / Dodge Charger production was 18 % ahead of that of the Five Hundred / Montego / Freestyle, but their lead has widened. Production figures thus far this year are:
Ford Five Hundred / Montego / Freestyle 219,139
Chrysler 300 / Dodge Magnum / Dodge Charger 281,890 (almost 29% more than the Ford vehicles)
An AWD CVT 500 gets only one mile per gallon less than a 6sp FWD, and the AWD weighs more and has the additional friction of the AWD clutch, etc. Back to back with everything the same, the CVT would probably get better mileage. The 6sp in the Ford is shift happy and not fun in traffic. Too bad if Ford can't follow through with the CVT- it is a smooth and enjoyable unit. Que sera, sera.
I've test-driven a FWD 500 with CVT and it's a transmission that I would not get used to. It slips more than a conventional automatic and eats any pep of the measly 3.0 engine. And it got worse mileage according to the sticker...
BTW, when will the 500 get a more powerful engine? The competition has 250HP and up.
I am rebuilding an 05 500 and an 05 Freestyle. Both of them were hit in the passenger front 1/4 yet none of the passenger airbags deployed. Anybody knows if the seats are equipped with sensors for the airbags. I also noticed that on the 500 we need to change the driver seat belt but not on the freestyle, can anyone tell me as to why it is the case?
But you need to tell us whether there were passengers in the passenger seats, and how much they weigh.
Obviously if there were no passengers, the bags shouldn't go off.
If there is a child, the passenger side won't go off for safety reasons (occupant sensing system).
The extent of impact also makes a difference - air bags won't always deploy in low impact situations.
As to the driver seat belt, don't you always have to replace seatbelts - they stretch or get stressed but you can't see it. Also there are seatbelt pre-tensioners that go off... How are you deciding whether to replace the seat belt or not? (And don't forget the driver on one vehicle might not have had his or her seatbelt on, in which case no replacement is necessary.)
Below the gas pedal on a CVT 500, there is a DETENT switch. Think of it as the panic plunger. If you only apply partial throttle, which might ordinarily produce a down shift in a typical automatic, the CVT builds torque gradually.
If you FLOOR THE PEDAL, pushing in the detent switch, you will get INSTANT TORQUE. Unfortuantely the instant torque also produces thrashy engine whipping sounds But the car is quite peppy otherwise.
I drive a CVT FWD Freestyle. There is no slippage, only continuous adjusting. I have also driven a couple of 6sp 500 and Montegoes. The 6sp is far too busy shifting all the time to maintain power and it is not always smooth.and sometimes you get a shift in the middle of a curve or going slowly up a hill. That transmission is always drawing attention to itself and the attention is not positive. Those of us who drive the CVT love it and if Ford abandons it, we will be sad and maybe screwed. I am increasingly convinced the Americans don't really know what they are doing, and I have been a supporter with my wallet for a long time. If this turns out bad for us, it will be the last American brand I will ever buy. Glad to see there is some activity in the 500-Montego site. It is also revealing to note that all the transmission related problems reported have been with AWD models. FWD CVT models seem to be more reliable. No surpise here, I guess, given the electronic and mechanical complexity.
I know what you mean. Those all of a sudden 5800 rpms can be a bit dramatic. I usually don't do that if I need lots of acceleration. I take it to 4500 rpms and it moves out very well since that is the torque peak- and no thrash.
I haven't driven a 500 with the conventional automatic yet. As a new transmission, it may be a while until they tune the software. The CVT has been along for some time in Audi models, and I sure did not like it. Quite power-sapping.
You may not agree, but each one decides where to put one's money and mine wouldn't be in a car with CVT.
Yet, the 500 has caught my attention more than once. It sure is a fine choice among full-size sedans. I cannot stomach the 300 and even less so the Charger. The Lucerne is too expensive and the Bonneville is no more. Then there are the Maxima and the Avalon, both in the expensive range. The new Impala is not quite full-size, but its OHV engine bores me.
Well, all in all, I'm glad I'm not in the market, for I'd feel orphaned.
That is what I was saying all along. CVT has no advantages and many disadvantages. Ford should concentrate on bringing the new 3.5 engine to 500. That will increase the sales. I read recently that Ford will add a 3rd shift to produce more Fusions. I think that 500 sales will also take off when the new 3.5 and a NORMAL 6-speed are put into 500. That is the combination that should have been released in the first place.
The car it self is very good. In my opinion 500 is a much better car then a Fusion, but its just too heavy for the current powertrain.
Oh well, I guess that we have to live with Jacques Nasser CVT legacy for a little longer.
My Passat has been a wonderful car. Only problem in (now) 7+ years was a stuck fuel injector. Not a squeek or rattle anywhere. The problem is that (a) it seems most folks didn't have the same luck I had with VW. (b) dealer service stinks when you need it. and (c) I don't want to roll the dice again... I'd also like to get one of the new Fords (500 or Fusion). But the 2.3L auto in the Fusion seems pretty labored and buzzy. And the 3.0L in the 500 just doesn't seem to cut it. The 2.3L 5spd is really nice, but my next car needs to shift itself as I now spend too much time on the cell in the car because of my job. The VW dealer is 2 lots up from Ford/Mercury so I went and drove a Jetta TDI with DSG. Wow. Put a tranny that drives like that with the 2.3L and I'd buy the Fusion/Milan in a heartbeat. Put a diesel in the 500 and I'd buy that even quicker (immediately in fact). Leave things as they are and I end up stuck in a wait state - happy my current ride is still solid and running well. ANT14: any updated outlook on diesel or hybrid availability in the 500? VW can't make the TDIs fast enough and are getting sticker all across the US. Maybe Ford wants some of that business?? Do you see Blue Tooth availability anywhere on the horizon?
Not sure what you mean by that. The CVT is contantly shifting. It's seamless. And if you want DOWN-shifting (big time), just floor it. Completely.
"How about unproven technology?"
I don't think it's really all that unproven. In vehicles of this size, yes.
To me, it's a far simpler system than a conventional automatic. Less things to go wrong. As long as the engineering was done correctly in terms of loadng, etc, then it should be fine.
Well you know we just don't get any hurricanes in Atlanta like you get in Houston because that is the only reason that you would ever need a car with AWD down there. Look all I was saying is that in the south there is no need to have cars with AWD.
I have been to Taxes and I have seen many people drive F-350's 4x4s to work. To me it is funny to see a little old lady in a F-350 diesel. Oh-well Texas will be Texas.
CVT's are ssoooooo old, and I'm trying to dig up a link online about their origins and first use, but I believe it stemmed from an initial invention about 80 years ago. Not sure what publication I read that on....
"Look all I was saying is that in the south there is no need to have cars with AWD. "
And how do you feel about "ESP" or "Traction Control"?
FWIW, the AWD on the Five Hundred (and Freestyle) works pretty much like Traction Control . . . except it's not only side-to-side, it's also front-to-back.
In normal driving, you're pretty much in FWD mode all the time. But when you do happen to need the AWD/Traction Control, it kicks in.
Cars don't really need airbags, either. At least none I've driven so far.
This AWD system adds about 200 lbs to the car and affects gas mileage by less than 10%. If it were an Oldsmobile, you could say "it's not your daddy's AWD".
If you have the muti-disc changer and do NOT have the rear-seat entertainment system (available in 2006 but not 2005 MY), you'll also need one of these to allow a direct-connect (via the Aux button on the radio):
I think that ESP and Stability control are very important. I would not buy a car with out Stability control. My current car came with stability control standard.
That is also the problem with 500. It does not come with stability control and you cannot get it as an option. AWD and traction control are different from Stability control.
Why would I need AWD? The only benefit of AWD that I can see is that you can go up some very steep slope when its slippery. If there is no snow or ice, then where are you going to encounter these types of conditions.
Stability control prevents the car from skidding off the road. I had been in situations were I took the turn too fast, and Stability control kept the car on its intended path. I have never been in a situation where there was not enougth traction and I felt like I needed AWD. I have been to some coal mines in 4x4 trucks, and I have never turned on the 4x4. In most cases you can get by with simple 4x2 as long as there is a LSD, and this is in a coal mine where its very dirty and slippery.
AWD adds 200lb, costs about $2000 extra and reduces fuel economy by 10%. Stability control costs maybe $500, has no weight and has no effect on fuel economy. TO me AWD is just one more thing to break on a car.
If I lived in Michigan I can see the logic of AWD, but in the south it just does not make any sense to me. I have never even considered buying a car with AWD. Stability control is very important to me. Its too bad that Ford did not equip 500 with stability control, because even Honda Civic comes with stability control standard.
So how is CVT a proven technology? Just because its 80 years old does not make it a proven technology. Its never been widely used. Remember Subaru Justy. That had a CVT. Which proved to be very unreliable. GM had CVT which proved to be very unreliable. That is what you call proven technology? Hot air balloons have been used for over 200 years. Does that make hot air balloons a proven technology?
Technology that is 80 years old and is in wide use is a proven technology. Example of proven technology would be NORMAL AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION with gears. I am sure that you remember that even Ford Model T had a two speed transmission with planetary gears. That is what I would call proven technology.
The DAF auto produced in Holland from 1958 to 1975 before being taken over by Volvo used a CVT transmission. Stating the CVT transmission has not been tested may be correct with the 500 but not all vehicles using them.
"That had a CVT. Which proved to be very unreliable. GM had CVT which proved to be very unreliable"
How soon we forget that for years, Honda was using a CVT in it's Civic HX, and now Hybrid Civic...Toyota also is using CVT's in the Prius, even with it's high torque off the line (because of the added battery quotient). Nissan has also dedicated to producing more CVT's as well, to be implemented in other vehicles aside from the Murano. Audi used a CVT as an optional tranny in the previous generation A4 (FWD only).
If it were unproven technology, all these manufacturer's wouldn't be investing the money they have been, and continue to fund R&D for it as well.
And the next wave will be Infinately Variable Transmission IVT's which are curently being tested (Torotrak is one).
At what point, or sales margin must a CVT reach, to be considered proven? Is there some magic number, break-down rate, sales figure, amortization cost for R&D ?
Since it is such a proven technology (and I love mine, by the way), the CVT will be available on the Five Hundred say, five years from now. And that it will be available with the coming 3.5L engine. I certainly hope that CVTs at Ford have a longer selling life than Merkur did in North America...
That is exactly the problem. CVT will not be available after 2008. Originally I thought that 500 will get the new 3.5l in 2007, but now it looks like it will be 2008 before it will become available. CVT goes away from American market in 2008. Its too expensive to produce and there is no market for it in USA. ZF tried to find other customers for CVT technology in North America and there were just no takers.
"ZF cannot find a North American customer for its continuously variable transmissions, or CVTs. Ford Motor Co. uses only ZF's engineering for its CVT in the US. ZF no longer has any CVT production in North America.
"We have had a difficult time implementing the CVT concept in the US and Europe, while in Asia, we've seen a completely different situation emerging," said ZF CEO Siegfried Goll through a translator. "
Comments
Some people on this forum claim that EPA numbers are wrong and they bring up hybrids as an example of this. I agree that it’s possible to have inflated numbers for a hybrid. That is actually easy to understand and explain. Hybrids have internal batteries and if you start the test cycle with a full charge and end the test cycle with partially discharged batteries, and then some of the energy came from the batteries and not from burned fuel. This effect results in inflated EPA numbers. Since people measure gas mileage in a car over a longer period of time, their actual mileage comes up short.
Now how does this affect CVT or a 6-speed? It does not! Besides the manufacturer determines the EPA gas numbers. Why would Ford on purpose lower their rating on the CVT. I can see how a company would inflate the numbers to meet the CAFÉ standard or to use it in advertisement, but to lower the numbers on purpose. That’s just plain silly.
NO, I think that CVT is just less efficient then a conventional 6-speed transmission. Look according to FORD, the mileage for CVT is 20/27 and for 6-speed its 21/29. Lets see according to FORD 6-speed is 9% more efficient then a CVT at freeway speeds (29/27). If you drive the car for 100K miles you would save about $700 in fuel (at $2.20 per gallon) if you choose a 6-speed over a CVT.
Searching the web, I learned that CVT looses about 15% of energy. 6% is lost due to hydraulics and 9% is lost due to mechanical friction between the belt and two pulleys. This energy loss is due to the high clamping force required to prevent the belt from slipping in the pulley. This requires a CVT to have larger hydraulic pumps and this consumes more energy. Maybe this is why EPA numbers for CVT are worst then for 6-speed. Maybe, just maybe, the EPA numbers are correct.
I hope that somebody who works for Ford can explain to me what was the point of developing CVT technology. Even Ford admits that CVT costs more to build then 6-speed. Even Ford admits that CVT consumes more fuel. Even Ford admits that CVT was an interesting EXPERIMENT.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_10_184/ai_n6261218
Well I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to spend my money on a Ford experiment.
cheatinginterpreting the SAE horsepower testing standard to favor themselves). The loopholes have recently been closed on the SAE horsepower test standard, but the EPA mileage test procedure is grossly out of date and divorced from the real world. Thus, I have little doubt that the manufacturers can tweak their drive trains and control software purposely to produce better EPA mileage as well, with not necessarily any correlation to real world mileage experienced by the average Joe Driver.Ford would not purposely report lower EPA mileage ratings than their testing shows. My point was that EPA testing procedures are not necessarily reflective of real world results. Thus the CVT equipped 500's may indeed do as well or better than the 6 speed equipped 500's, due to their ability to adjust transmission ratios to optimize engine efficiency better than the 6 speed.
True there may be more parasitic losses in the CVT than the 6 speed, but no one but Ford knows this data, and they likely will not divulge it.
TO pick on Mazda's Rotary is to show true lack of knowledge about this engine.
First the Rotary is exponentially more efficient than a otto cycle engine. The RX-8 is rated for 238 HP from 1.3 liters with no turbos or super chargers. Thats an incredible 183 hp PER LITER!
Nissan's vaunted VQ 3.5 L V6 in the 06 350Z is rated at 300 hp. Thats a mere 85 hp per liter.
If the Rotary had 100 years of research, and manufacturing experience at the same level as the Otto Cycle, we might all be driving Rotary equipped cars.
Which is better an engine with over 200 moving parts or an engine with 3!?!?
Take a look at the Star Mazda racing series. Why is this the most affordable open wheel formula race car? BECAUSE YOU SEAL THE ENGINE FOR 3 YEARS with NO REBUILDS! Other race cars require an engine rebuild after EVERY RACE!
Do you really think the car companies want us to have engines that reliable in our cars?
You want to know why more companies don't use unique designs or technologies its because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
Engineers are the same people who said the Earth was Flat. The same people that said steam boats would never replace sail. That said that Powered Flight was impossible. That said the sound barrier couldn't be broken. That told IBM's board that the world market for computers was 12.
I'm glad the Engineers are not in charge...Like my dad always said "before I went to school, I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one."
Mark
As to the RX-8 engine, I fail to see how its outstanding power to weight and power to displacement matter (except in racing) if the benefit is not reflected in terms of fuel economy or emissions performance. (Reciprocating sport motorcycle engines produce similar power/displacement and similar torque, durability fuel economy and emissions characteristics to Mazda rotaries.) The moving parts count is irrelevant if the 3 moving parts are very expensive, subject to inadequate lubrication and prone to wear out. Also the RX-8's engine has WAY more than 3 moving parts. (It has, for example, 6 tip seals, and the seals travel more distance around the trochoid than the tires cover over the ground even in overdrive.
When the RX-8 (or it's successor) stops using more fuel than a Mustang GT to propel a vehicle that weighs less than a Focus I'll reconsider the Rotary's efficiency. Until then I'll tend to think that Long, wide, thin combustion chambers with moving walls tend to have poor thermal efficiency, even if you can spin the heck out of them to make great power.
Engineers also designed and improved the steam engines that replaced the sails, significantly improved the safety and reliability of aircraft and designed every plane that has ever broken the sound barrier. I don't know the IBM story, but as an engineer I've never been asked to perform a market analysis. (Ducks aren't very good pack animals either, but that doesn't make them bad.)
At many companies you've heard of the engineers ARE in charge, or they were before the companies in question lost their way. Honda, Toyota and Porche spring to mind, as well as MicroSoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Dell.
Like many promising technologies CVTs have theoretical advantages that intrigue designers to try to overcome practical limitations that present themselves along the way. Perhaps the the elegantly flexible CVT will someday overcome the current limitations of internal friction and pumping costs associated with high clamping forces, or perhaps the limitations are insurmountable. . . only time and effort will tell. Early turbojets were hugely thirsty, smoked, had spool-up times measured in minutes and melted themselves. Those limitations have been overcome. Many other technologies that were at first promising have ultimately failed, or have taken decades to realize the promise. (Fusion (not fission) for power generation on earth, for example).
A rule of thumb is that early iterations of a superior technology are usually inferior to refined versions of inferior technology. In other words, early electric lights had all kinds of problems when compared to kerosene lamps (safety, cost, reliability, durability, infrastructure). . . but we know how that turned out.
It the CVT which is available in the Ford 500 superior to the conventional automatic? Apparently not, so far.
Engine efficiency is measured as SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION. SFC = lb/hr/HP. This means how much fuel is required by engine to produce 1 horsepower for 1 hour. SPECIFIC POWER OUTPUT is measure in HP/LITER. Actualy ECONOMY is one of the main problems with the rotary engine. Rotary engine does have high SPO.
But look, I don't what to discus rotary engines here.
Now you stated that I have the "DON'T INNOVATE" mentality. This is one point to which I will respond.
Every company has a limited set of resources. These are things like money, personnel, and yes even engineers. Its the responsibility of management to deploy these resources in a way that maximizes the profit for the company.
Now FORD management chose to develop the belt driven CVT transmission. This is the transmission which is now used in 500. TOYOTA management chose to develop electrically driven CVT transmission. This is the transmission which is the foundation of TOYOTA hybrids. Both companies developed CVT transmissions. Which transmission is better. Well lets see, FORD reduced the production of CVT from 1,000,000 per year to 250,000 per year. TOYOTA keeps increasing the production of their hybrid CVT transmissions. In fact FORD licensed TOYOTA's hybrid technology. Did TOYOTA license FORD's belt driven CVT technology? NO.
You see making changes just for sake of making changes is stupid. Developing technology just to make something different is just a waist of resources. The money FORD spent on CVT could have just as well been spent on development of better engines. Now it will be 2008 before FORD will install the new 3.5l in 500.
What do you think would have made FORD more money:
Introduce 500 with 3.0l and CVT or introduce 500 with 3.5l and 6-speed. I think that you will agree that more people would have purchased the 500 with 3.5l and 6-speed.
I know that if 500 came out with 3.5l and 6-speed, I would be driving one now.
your big assumption is that the cvt is going to have problems. if it functions as designed, what is wrong with it? how many cvt toyota hybrids are being produced? more tha 250k per year? it comes down to the cvt is expensive to produce.
maybe toyota should have licenced fords engine management software for the priius, so they didn't have to hire college students to help solve the sudden power loss while driving on the highway, which is not reported with the feh, due to the engine cutting out.
this has been corrected. maybe they reverse engineered ford software.
You cannot pick on Ford for not developing its own eCVT because this transmission has NO APPLICATION outside of Hybrid vehicles.
Finally, Ford did not buy Hybrid technology from Toyota. When Ford got done independently developing its hybrid powertrain, they they realized that there might be patent issues with Toyota. Accordingly, Ford came to a licensing agreement with Toyota. Ford got the rights to use the hybrid system and Toyota received diesel technology from Ford. No money changed hands.
Mark
So yes, the 500 is already planned for a redesign for 2008 but it will probably be in the spring of 07.
Expect to see the Fusion's grill.
The 500 represents the last car Ford designed the old fashioned way. The design was set in stone years before it went into production.
In the future, Ford will use the Mazda model of designing cars digitally, and testing them digitally. This will speed up the developmental process.
Ford needs more product that much is clear. May it come soon.
Mark
I saw consumer reports yesterday. The 500 got excellent marks for reliability. I was impressed.
Can you read more carefully? Where in my message did I state that Ford paid for Toyota's technology. I wrote they LICENSED it. I also wrote that Toyota did not license the CVT technology from Ford.
When Ford got done independently developing its hybrid power train, they realized that there might be patent issues with Toyota.
That is the funny thing about patents the first one to apply for one owns it. Maybe if FORD did not spend so much time and effort to develop CVT, they could have developed eCVT before Toyota and applied for patents first and then Toyota would have to license technology from Ford. That was exactly the point of my post, that resources within the company are limited and it’s the management's responsibility to properly apply them.
And where did you get the idea that engineers tried to prove that the world is flat? You sound like you work in marketing department, because only they are capable of such original thoughts.
my sister has a priius and is proud of it. i have a focus which also has a pzev rating.
Mark.
like the five hundred, many vehicles need more than a quick glance.
Ford Five Hundred / Montego / Freestyle 219,139
Chrysler 300 / Dodge Magnum / Dodge Charger 281,890 (almost 29% more than the Ford vehicles)
BTW, when will the 500 get a more powerful engine? The competition has 250HP and up.
TIA
:-)
But you need to tell us whether there were passengers in the passenger seats, and how much they weigh.
Obviously if there were no passengers, the bags shouldn't go off.
If there is a child, the passenger side won't go off for safety reasons (occupant sensing system).
The extent of impact also makes a difference - air bags won't always deploy in low impact situations.
As to the driver seat belt, don't you always have to replace seatbelts - they stretch or get stressed but you can't see it. Also there are seatbelt pre-tensioners that go off... How are you deciding whether to replace the seat belt or not? (And don't forget the driver on one vehicle might not have had his or her seatbelt on, in which case no replacement is necessary.)
Below the gas pedal on a CVT 500, there is a DETENT switch. Think of it as the panic plunger. If you only apply partial throttle, which might ordinarily produce a down shift in a typical automatic, the CVT builds torque gradually.
If you FLOOR THE PEDAL, pushing in the detent switch, you will get INSTANT TORQUE. Unfortuantely the instant torque also produces thrashy engine whipping sounds
You may not agree, but each one decides where to put one's money and mine wouldn't be in a car with CVT.
Yet, the 500 has caught my attention more than once. It sure is a fine choice among full-size sedans. I cannot stomach the 300 and even less so the Charger. The Lucerne is too expensive and the Bonneville is no more. Then there are the Maxima and the Avalon, both in the expensive range. The new Impala is not quite full-size, but its OHV engine bores me.
Well, all in all, I'm glad I'm not in the market, for I'd feel orphaned.
The car it self is very good. In my opinion 500 is a much better car then a Fusion, but its just too heavy for the current powertrain.
Oh well, I guess that we have to live with Jacques Nasser CVT legacy for a little longer.
I thought it made sense to buy one in Houston. LOL
Then again, I wanted the CVT, and the easiest way to get that in the LTD was to get the AWD.
How about faster 0 to 60 times?
How about smooother shifting?
How about simplicity?
Can you elaborate on this statement some more?
FYI, I love my CVTs (500 and Freestyle)
How about unresponsive down-shifting?
How about unproven technology?
Believe me, people can dislike CVT's and be sincere in their evaluation of its pros and cons.
I myself am waiting for dual-clutch robotic systems to become mature. But meanwhile I'll stick to conventional automatics.
The problem is that (a) it seems most folks didn't have the same luck I had with VW. (b) dealer service stinks when you need it. and (c) I don't want to roll the dice again...
I'd also like to get one of the new Fords (500 or Fusion). But the 2.3L auto in the Fusion seems pretty labored and buzzy. And the 3.0L in the 500 just doesn't seem to cut it. The 2.3L 5spd is really nice, but my next car needs to shift itself as I now spend too much time on the cell in the car because of my job.
The VW dealer is 2 lots up from Ford/Mercury so I went and drove a Jetta TDI with DSG. Wow. Put a tranny that drives like that with the 2.3L and I'd buy the Fusion/Milan in a heartbeat. Put a diesel in the 500 and I'd buy that even quicker (immediately in fact). Leave things as they are and I end up stuck in a wait state - happy my current ride is still solid and running well.
ANT14: any updated outlook on diesel or hybrid availability in the 500? VW can't make the TDIs fast enough and are getting sticker all across the US. Maybe Ford wants some of that business?? Do you see Blue Tooth availability anywhere on the horizon?
Bill
Haven't noticed that at all.
"How about unresponsive down-shifting?"
Not sure what you mean by that. The CVT is contantly shifting. It's seamless. And if you want DOWN-shifting (big time), just floor it. Completely.
"How about unproven technology?"
I don't think it's really all that unproven. In vehicles of this size, yes.
To me, it's a far simpler system than a conventional automatic. Less things to go wrong. As long as the engineering was done correctly in terms of loadng, etc, then it should be fine.
I have been to Taxes and I have seen many people drive F-350's 4x4s to work. To me it is funny to see a little old lady in a F-350 diesel. Oh-well Texas will be Texas.
CVT's are ssoooooo old, and I'm trying to dig up a link online about their origins and first use, but I believe it stemmed from an initial invention about 80 years ago. Not sure what publication I read that on....
And how do you feel about "ESP" or "Traction Control"?
FWIW, the AWD on the Five Hundred (and Freestyle) works pretty much like Traction Control . . . except it's not only side-to-side, it's also front-to-back.
In normal driving, you're pretty much in FWD mode all the time. But when you do happen to need the AWD/Traction Control, it kicks in.
Cars don't really need airbags, either. At least none I've driven so far.
This AWD system adds about 200 lbs to the car and affects gas mileage by less than 10%. If it were an Oldsmobile, you could say "it's not your daddy's AWD".
Saw one of these at CarToys today. Man, is it SWEET!
I think I'm going to have one installed, along with an XM Commander (which will go in the flip-down eyeglasses holder).
The screen for the I-drive will mount underneath the rearview mirror. I've got a couple of ideas on the joystick, but no final decision yet.
This is the Commander.
http://www.xmradio.com/commander/index.jsp
If you have the muti-disc changer and do NOT have the rear-seat entertainment system (available in 2006 but not 2005 MY), you'll also need one of these to allow a direct-connect (via the Aux button on the radio):
http://www.logjamelectronics.com/piefrd04aux.html
You can use one of these to allow switching between the Ipod and XM Commander:
http://www.logjamelectronics.com/soundaux3.html
http://www.harmankardon.com/drive-1/default.aspx
The guys at Cartoys missed that. The input is on the SIDE, not the back (where the other inputs/outputs are).
It may be simpler, but the chain has always been its weak spot. That and its complex, high-pressure hydraulic control system.
And it's unproven because in decades it's been sold in just a handful of cars around the world. Too few applications to debug it thoroughly.
That is also the problem with 500. It does not come with stability control and you cannot get it as an option. AWD and traction control are different from Stability control.
Why would I need AWD? The only benefit of AWD that I can see is that you can go up some very steep slope when its slippery. If there is no snow or ice, then where are you going to encounter these types of conditions.
Stability control prevents the car from skidding off the road. I had been in situations were I took the turn too fast, and Stability control kept the car on its intended path. I have never been in a situation where there was not enougth traction and I felt like I needed AWD. I have been to some coal mines in 4x4 trucks, and I have never turned on the 4x4. In most cases you can get by with simple 4x2 as long as there is a LSD, and this is in a coal mine where its very dirty and slippery.
AWD adds 200lb, costs about $2000 extra and reduces fuel economy by 10%. Stability control costs maybe $500, has no weight and has no effect on fuel economy. TO me AWD is just one more thing to break on a car.
If I lived in Michigan I can see the logic of AWD, but in the south it just does not make any sense to me. I have never even considered buying a car with AWD. Stability control is very important to me. Its too bad that Ford did not equip 500 with stability control, because even Honda Civic comes with stability control standard.
Technology that is 80 years old and is in wide use is a proven technology. Example of proven technology would be NORMAL AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION with gears. I am sure that you remember that even Ford Model T had a two speed transmission with planetary gears. That is what I would call proven technology.
How soon we forget that for years, Honda was using a CVT in it's Civic HX, and now Hybrid Civic...Toyota also is using CVT's in the Prius, even with it's high torque off the line (because of the added battery quotient). Nissan has also dedicated to producing more CVT's as well, to be implemented in other vehicles aside from the Murano. Audi used a CVT as an optional tranny in the previous generation A4 (FWD only).
If it were unproven technology, all these manufacturer's wouldn't be investing the money they have been, and continue to fund R&D for it as well.
And the next wave will be Infinately Variable Transmission IVT's which are curently being tested (Torotrak is one).
At what point, or sales margin must a CVT reach, to be considered proven? Is there some magic number, break-down rate, sales figure, amortization cost for R&D ?
"ZF cannot find a North American customer for its continuously variable transmissions, or CVTs. Ford Motor Co. uses only ZF's engineering for its CVT in the US. ZF no longer has any CVT production in North America.
"We have had a difficult time implementing the CVT concept in the US and Europe, while in Asia, we've seen a completely different situation emerging," said ZF CEO Siegfried Goll through a translator. "