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
Oh, no problem here - you might be right. Until I can do a jackrabbit at a light with another vehicle - never know for sure. I had a 6 cylinder Continental 10 years ago, and my buddy had a V-8 DeVille, same size, the FWD small one. He was always bragging about how fast his Caddy was, so I challenged him. Blew his doors off. Humbled him but good, and frankly, I was surprised! So, this time, I could be wrong. But I have raced a Tahoe and killed it badly, so the Nav's not THAT slow.
Just got my Motor Trend. Not a word about the Five Hundred...
sigh
I think the 300 is hideous, and so do most of my friends. (The Five Hundred has class to its style, even if it will be knocked for being plain) The 300's popularity seems to be heavily tied to several demographics, and because of that, I wonder if it will sustain. Chrysler has seen this before- the PT Cruiser now carries nearly as substantial a rebate as the rest of its product line, for example.
my .02
~alpha
Not the one coming out this week (I received mine days ago)...The one's coming out next month. They are usually a month or 2 ahead in issue.
The 500's acceleration will be under/around 8 seconds.
Page 34 Aug 9 2004
"..the cars, based on the chassis made by partner Volvo, gets high marks for smooth handling, comfortable ride, and roomy, easily reconfigured interiors. Yet their heavy weight makes them feel sluggish, say those who have driven the cars. Ford takes issue with the characterization. 'We deliver better acceleration, better fuel economy, and half the emissions of some of our competitors, says a company spokesman'"
Those competitors are probably the Kia Amanti (terrible fuel consumption and an 8.9 second run to 60), and the Chrysler 300 2.7, (slightly better economy than Amanti, but even slower, at 9.5+ seconds to 60).
For has a problem, in my opinion, in that the Avalon is going to be redesigned by Spring of 2005, and the 300 offers something truly different. GMs full size cars will also be redesigned in the next 1.5 calendar years.
~alpha
http://autodeadline.com/Photos?source=mercury&model=Montego
~alpha
However, in future years, Ford is probably going to have to do some de-contenting to make the Five Hundred competitive with the base Impala in price. I can't see very many people being interested in paying over $25,000 for a Five Hundred.
or
http://tinyurl.com/5vb4t
Yeah, I read something awhile ago indicating that the initial planning for the Five Hundred and Montego was done during the Jac Nasser era, when Ford was having delusions of grandeur. I think that's why the cars are so well-equipped (and, presumably, pricey). I wouldn't be surprised if we see a cheaper model in a year or two. Considering that you can pick up a base Impala for around $18K with all the discounts, I don't think it's really in the same league as the Five Hundred as it currently exists. I would expect to see starting MSRP in the $23K range for the Five Hundred...I know the Impala starts around there too, but its MSRP is a bad joke, whereas I expect that Ford will not substantially discount the Five Hundred. At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens.
-Andrew L
The vehicles came out. Sales fell.
Alex is gone.
BTW, the NAV system wasn't something that most people in consumer groups were begging for... Hence, you might see it implemented next year (not a priority).
Do they plan on releasing special models maybe named Galaxy, and Fairlane? That would be okay by me. Maybe make a convertable 500 and call it the Skyliner.
One more thing, I would like to offer my gratitude for your willingness to answer so many questions. Seems that you have the insiders knowledge, and yet don't outright spill the beans, either.
Andy
I agree, some of these consumer groups I would be rid of, and concentrate on more of "what the competition is doing" but doesn't work that way. But sometimes holding out for a year for such complicated option to be available, can help simplify, and shorten the production and introduction time of a vehicle.
Stability Control Systems are also one of those items that are commonly late availabilities for the above reason.
Andy: I think I answered this earlier when the forum was started... Main reason the engine wasn't able to make an entrance at the same time as the vehicle... is because of plant consolidation, updating the Chicago Assembly Plant to flexible manufacturing, having to kill some other production (Taurus/Sable) to consolidate it to ATL only, and the engine plant itself can't be shut down completely to introduce a new engine, when current production is needed for other vehicles.
So many factor's to take into consideration that makes it virtually impossible. And no other engines could be implemented either. Closest relative (in power) would be the Cologne 4.0L SOHC V6 from the Explorer, but that's only mounted Longitudely for RWD vehicles. Anything else (like the Vulcan 3.9, 4.2L are unrefined OHV engines found in the Freestar, not suitable for this vehicle). So this is really the only possible senario.
Yes a higher output version of the 3.0L Duratec would have been possible, as found in the Lincoln LS at 232HP. But that version requires premium gas (not something to aim for at this time in our economy), it's a bit costlier to manufacturer, and it's a bit peaky for it to attain it's power.... while this approx. 3800LBS requires torque from down low, which the simple 3.0L can furnish.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0408/02/a01-229485.htm
As for the engine, 3.0 will work today. A 3.5L is going to add most likely $900 to the cost and subtract 2 mpg.
And ab-so-freaking-lutly nothing will matter if the car is not reliable. I will not beta test for any manufacturer. (PERIOD)
Mark
Mark
"Just for kicks I went back and looked at CR's acceleration data for the 3.0 Duratec in Taurus vs 3.0 Duratec modified and with 5 speed automatic in Mazda 6.
Taurus 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. 45-65 in 4.9 seconds. 1/4 mile in 16.4 seconds. Curb weight 3325 lbs. CR mileage test: 15 city, 31 highway, 22 overall
Mazda 6: 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. 45-65 in 5.3 seconds. 1/4 mile in 16.5 seconds. Curb weight 3355 lbs. Cr mileage test: 14 city, 30 highway, 20 overall.
Seems all that tweaking Mazda did with variable valve timing and a 5 speed automatic did nearly nothing but allow Mazda to publish a 10% higher horsepower rating, but with worse mileage, and in only one acceleration test did it beat the Taurus.
My point, wait until you drive the 500 with the 3.0 Duratec before you pass judgement on its inadequate engine, and if you think it is inadequate, then buy something else or wait for the 3.5. I'd certainly rather Ford release 500 this fall than wait a year for another engine option."
With the 3.0 Duratech in the 500 and new transmissions, I would expect it to have nearly the same or slightly less acceleration capabilities than the lighter weight Taurus with a 4 speed automatic, certainly adequate for the market this car is shooting for. And, if after it is on the market and you don't think it is adequate, buy something else or wait for the larger Duratech a year or so later.
Mazda designed/developed, their heads specifically to produce a bit more horsepower, 220HP....BUT, that isn't much of an issue since the vehicle weights around 3100-3200lbs.... So it's ok for that engine to rev higher to produce those 220HP. Whereas the normal Duratec 30 found in the Taurus, acheives it's power lower in the rev range, where it'll be beneficial for this @ 3800lbs vehicle.
Example: At 2000RPM, the Taurus 3.0L could be pumping out let's say a good 180LBS of TQ, whereas the Mazda6 version would be producing 130lbs at that same level. (This is an example, not actual data).
So yes the Mazda6 overall produces more HP, but is it really useable when you need to swing up to 6000RPM to attain it ? Hence, I rather have the Taurus version.
And there is an article in Business Week this week about the manufacturing process for these vehicles which says, in passing, some less than complimentary things about the cars. It can be found at:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_32/b3895056_mz011- .htm
A representative quote follows:
***It doesn't help that the three new cars are generating yawns. Sure, the cars, based on chasis made by partner Volvo, get high marks for smooth handling, comfortable ride, and roomy, easily reconfigured interiors. Yet their heavy weight makes them feel sluggish, say those who have driven the cars. Ford takes issue with the characterization. "We deliver better acceleration, better fuel economy, and half the emissions of some of our competitors," says a company spokesman.
Still, at a time when Chrysler Group (DCX ) is wowing buyers with its brashly styled, 300C sedan, Ford is bringing out a crop of bland cars. Ford execs point out that the Honda (HMC ) Accord and Toyota (TM ) Camry, both top rivals, aren't exactly sexy. But they are well-established contenders. To lure buyers away from Accords or Camrys, says Wesley R. Brown, an analyst at consultants Iceology, "you have to do something extraordinary."*****
Anyway, I used to have a Maxima with ~180 hp and 180 ft-lbs of torque. That car weighed about 3300 lbs. and it more than met my acceleration needs. Personally, I would gladly give up 0.5 seconds on my 0-60 time for 5-10% better fuel economy. I try and avoid drag race situations, so I'd only benefit from acceleration every so often. However, I benefit from better fuel economy every time I drive.
IT LOOKS LIKE A SHOEBOX
We have seen this before with the Hummer 2...lots of buzz about something different...heck i even thought it was cool at the beginning but now I wonder why anyone would buy one...the buzz is gone...
The Five-Hundred will not shoot off the lots in epic fashion like the 300C fell prey to bald, 5'5", divorced, 42 year old men. It will find the people who want the elegant smooth ride...Normal people who don't need 6,000 horsepower to go buy a gallon of milk. It is best to make a car that fits in the middle of the pack, where most people fit in. I don't care if people think it is bland, I think this car screams "Yeah, I know what I'm doing." It has a silent "James Bond-Like" confidence about it. This car will take everyone by surprise.
Classy.
[img]http://www.fordvehicles.com/fivehundred/images/pho/popups/fv- h05_inpho_popup_4.jpg[/img]
-Andrew L
Of course, those pics could of pre-production models, so maybe they will add something like more chrome trim, accent colors or carpeted lower section to break the monotony.
~alpha
I myself have an issue with these "canted towards the world" center dashboard consoles. Again, Mark8 had it canted towards the driver, Probe, Aurora (all dead now- hmmm link ?)...While dashboards now are canted centrally for passenger involvement ( I want them to have NO CONTROL over the buttons ), but obviously, different tastes...
On these japanese style (i call it that because its same as in mazdas handas and toyotas.) you push down on the switch to lower and pull on the switch for close the window.
Its good to know that even Ford is still willing to change for the better even if it means abandoning long held methods...
Now if only we can get the government in on change for the better........
Mark
This is not nitpicking this is cheap!
Cheap cheap cheap. I though someone fired ol' Jack N. the cheap a**.
But would we want to? How dare you have a car that is called your flagship, and not have features that are available within your own family of vehicles in the lowest ranges?
For example, the Mazda 3 has a nav system option, and i think Xenon headlamps. Wre are they ford? And I don't think the wood is cheasy, i agree with other posts that said it could be on the door panel to brighten it up a bit.
If its a mistake not having Nav in the 500, not having it in the montego is a disaster. Montego should have everything standard if they want to differentiate themselves from ford. the nav, the xenon, and the LED headlamps. I'll pay a premium for that.
The engine, look we can ague about the 300's design which i like even though its german owned, the point is that powerful engines mean powerful sales, all else equal (quality, price, etc).
I heared they are going to make over 100,000 of them this year alone.
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php?action=fullnews&id=117
about 12000 last month, if it continues growint the way it is...
Sometimes you just can't win. This is not a luxury sedan folks, it is still meant to be a fairly high volume sedan that is affordable to a relatively large demographic.
I guess this proves some people will never be satisfied. Heck, some people have been complaining in the Honda Accord discussions about elimination of the glove box light and the passenger side key lock (not to mention their V-6 transmission recall) You can nitpick just about any car on the market, from a lowly Kia to a six figure luxury yacht.
I really like the dual visors, they come in very handy at certain times in my daily commute when the sun is low.
The Taurus, by the way is rock solid, now at four years old and about to turn over 40k miles. Not single a squeak or rattle, which would be major nitpick issues on any car I would own, if they showed up.
http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=Ford&mid=WKA20040728389- 88&mime=JPG
Just another example of cost cutting by leveraging all parts of the auto.
On another note, I'm in Chicago and registered for Ford's Innovation Test Drive on Saturday. We'll get to "Drive" the 500, Freestyle and SuperDuties, plus get a close-up look at the 05 Mustang and awesome GT (wish I could drive that :-)
I'll send you my thoughts on the test drive this weekend, including the wife's view.