What a joke. Years of ruining Volvo, now this. What a crappy car. Totally unimpressive. I can't imagine anyone will choose this over the (comparitively) massively powerful Japanese v6s.
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: Vic
While the car is admittedly boring, look at its target market. Last night's Motorweek episode on Speed gave it a very favorable review. Roomy, comfortable, well-appointed for its class, good ride and acceptable handling, 0-60 in the mid 7's, available AWD and CVT, and 29 mpg highway. MSRP fully-loaded might be in the high-20's, but they'll likely sell in the low-to-mid-20's after the usual incentives and rebates. The only drawback I can see is that they should offer the 4.6L V8 as an option (and then it will be the next cop car), but Ford is probably still working on getting the V8 to work with the AWD CVT.
I'm never going to buy one, but knocking it just because it's a bland Ford is pretty lame IMO. Camry and Accords are pretty freakin' bland IMO too.
The 500 isn't supposed to be the common family sedan - it's not the Taurus replacement. The Fusion is, which was based off the Ford 427 Concept (which looked pretty damn good). The 500 is a more upscale sedan - how can you polarize your sedans by having your common sedan this (supposedly) kick ass Accord/Camry fighter, with the looks and power, and have a stale car like the 500 as the upscale model?
The 500 price puts it in competition with mainstream Japanese V6's. It is much bigger than any of them, provides higher comfort and better transmissions, is available with AWD, and has comparable fuel economy. That you would consider it a premium sedan is a testament to its value. The styling is Audiesque. Not overly exciting, but not econobox either. This is a premium sedan at mainstream prices. It will be a huge hit for Ford, as you will soon discover.
Bullcrap. The only thing it has on the other sedans is trunk size:
"But at 200.7 inches long, the Five Hundred could certainly pass for such a car, with just 3.1 more inches of length packaged between its nose and tail and 1.5 more between the doors than the 73.0-inch-wide Taurus. The wheels get pushed farther to the corners, shrinking the relative front and rear overhangs, with a 4.4-inch-longer wheelbase (at 112.9 inches) and 3.0/2.9-inch-wider track, front/ rear (at 64.6/65.0 inches). But inside, those dimensions result in just 2.7 cubic feet of additional passenger volume?hardly a huge departure from the Taurus?and most of that benefits the rear passengers. In fact, the Taurus provides more front headroom (by 0.6 inch), hip room (by 0.7 inch) and legroom (by 0.9 inch) than the Five Hundred, as well as rear hip room (by 2.0 inches!)."
Better transmissions? An unproven CVT and a brand new 6-speed auto...
As opposed to a proven (bad) Honda 5 speed auto?
500 will be bigger than anything it its class and pricepoint. Command seating too.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Better transmissions? An unproven CVT and a brand new 6-speed auto...
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: NFS4
Better transmissions? An unproven CVT and a brand new 6-speed auto...
isn't the CVT basically the same one audi has been using for a few years?
this car needs the 3.5 duratec stat.
losing a little front passenger room vis-a-vis the taurus isn't a big deal, taurus is pretty damn cushy-big inside.
the fusion/futura (edmunds calls it both) looks a lot like the current mondeo
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: NFS4
Better transmissions? An unproven CVT and a brand new 6-speed auto...
isn't the CVT basically the same one audi has been using for a few years?
this car needs the 3.5 duratec stat.
losing a little front passenger room vis-a-vis the taurus isn't a big deal, taurus is pretty damn cushy-big inside.
the fusion/futura (edmunds calls it both) looks a lot like the current mondeo
It's being sourced from the same supplier, but it doesn't mean that it's the exact same transmission.
Originally posted by: jbWHO
"is that you lexus?"...maybe it's just me but it looks too much like lexus
Ok, then you point out the reasons why this car isn't garbage.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
that's moronic. it might be a bit staid looking, i like the look myself, but to call it garbage? :roll:
Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok, then you point out the reasons why this car isn't garbage.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
that's moronic. it might be a bit staid looking, i like the look myself, but to call it garbage? :roll:
The only thing I can see is price, and even now this car does not fall under the bargain category.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: Vic
While the car is admittedly boring, look at its target market. Last night's Motorweek episode on Speed gave it a very favorable review. Roomy, comfortable, well-appointed for its class, good ride and acceptable handling, 0-60 in the mid 7's, available AWD and CVT, and 29 mpg highway. MSRP fully-loaded might be in the high-20's, but they'll likely sell in the low-to-mid-20's after the usual incentives and rebates. The only drawback I can see is that they should offer the 4.6L V8 as an option (and then it will be the next cop car), but Ford is probably still working on getting the V8 to work with the AWD CVT.
I'm never going to buy one, but knocking it just because it's a bland Ford is pretty lame IMO. Camry and Accords are pretty freakin' bland IMO too.
The 500 isn't supposed to be the common family sedan - it's not the Taurus replacement. The Fusion is, which was based off the Ford 427 Concept (which looked pretty damn good). The 500 is a more upscale sedan - how can you polarize your sedans by having your common sedan this (supposedly) kick ass Accord/Camry fighter, with the looks and power, and have a stale car like the 500 as the upscale model?
The 500 price puts it in competition with mainstream Japanese V6's. It is much bigger than any of them, provides higher comfort and better transmissions, is available with AWD, and has comparable fuel economy. That you would consider it a premium sedan is a testament to its value. The styling is Audiesque. Not overly exciting, but not econobox either. This is a premium sedan at mainstream prices. It will be a huge hit for Ford, as you will soon discover.
Bullcrap. The only thing it has on the other sedans is trunk size:
"But at 200.7 inches long, the Five Hundred could certainly pass for such a car, with just 3.1 more inches of length packaged between its nose and tail and 1.5 more between the doors than the 73.0-inch-wide Taurus. The wheels get pushed farther to the corners, shrinking the relative front and rear overhangs, with a 4.4-inch-longer wheelbase (at 112.9 inches) and 3.0/2.9-inch-wider track, front/ rear (at 64.6/65.0 inches). But inside, those dimensions result in just 2.7 cubic feet of additional passenger volume?hardly a huge departure from the Taurus?and most of that benefits the rear passengers. In fact, the Taurus provides more front headroom (by 0.6 inch), hip room (by 0.7 inch) and legroom (by 0.9 inch) than the Five Hundred, as well as rear hip room (by 2.0 inches!)."
Better transmissions? An unproven CVT and a brand new 6-speed auto...
As opposed to a proven (bad) Honda 5 speed auto?
500 will be bigger than anything it its class and pricepoint. Command seating too.
LOL, I can't BELIEVE you actually used the term "Command Seating"...
Good lord, please don't tell me you work for Ford? Just b/c the new Ford auto has 6 gears doesn't automatically make it "better."
First off it's a ford, which I would not consider a superior vehicle. If you side by side compare it to say a chrysler 300, there isn't much that would push you to buy this ford, unless you get a heavy discount.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok, then you point out the reasons why this car isn't garbage.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
that's moronic. it might be a bit staid looking, i like the look myself, but to call it garbage? :roll:
The only thing I can see is price, and even now this car does not fall under the bargain category.
how would i know it's garbage or not, i haven't actually seen one, i haven't driven one.
shoot, i remember when 200 HP in a 4000 lb car was considered a very very fast car.
it's roomy, i love the trunk, i like the idea of higher seating (but i can't really say how i feel about it till i actually drive it, i might not like it).
Originally posted by: SampSon
First off it's a ford, which I would not consider a superior vehicle. If you side by side compare it to say a chrysler 300, there isn't much that would push you to buy this ford, unless you get a heavy discount.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok, then you point out the reasons why this car isn't garbage.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
that's moronic. it might be a bit staid looking, i like the look myself, but to call it garbage? :roll:
The only thing I can see is price, and even now this car does not fall under the bargain category.
how would i know it's garbage or not, i haven't actually seen one, i haven't driven one.
shoot, i remember when 200 HP in a 4000 lb car was considered a very very fast car.
it's roomy, i love the trunk, i like the idea of higher seating (but i can't really say how i feel about it till i actually drive it, i might not like it).
When exactly was a 200hp 2ton car considered very very fast? Are we talking the 80's here, 90s?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
Originally posted by: NFS4
<BR><BR>I don't find it ugly. I think that the current Tacoma is one of the best looking pickups out there. This is a clear evolution of that.<BR><BR>Hell, I don't even like the styling of a lot of Toyota models (Solara, Echo, MR2 Spyder, SC430, ES330, previous-gen Prius, the new revised Celica, Avalon) -- all fugly as hell IMHO.<BR><BR>So, I really don't see your point:roll:Originally posted by: Excelsior<BR>So since it is a Toyota, it isn't ugly, just big. <BR><BR>
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
08/10/2004 01:06 PM
Originally posted by: NFS4
<BR><BR>I don't find it ugly. I think that the current Tacoma is one of the best looking pickups out there. This is a clear evolution of that.<BR><BR>Hell, I don't even like the styling of a lot of Toyota models (Solara, Echo, MR2 Spyder, SC430, ES330, previous-gen Prius, the new revised Celica, Avalon) -- all fugly as hell IMHO.<BR><BR>So, I really don't see your point:roll:Originally posted by: Excelsior<BR>So since it is a Toyota, it isn't ugly, just big. <BR><BR>
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
We're talking about in the face of it's obvious competitor - the 300. The competition has upped the game and Ford has FAILED to match the game. Look at Brandon's link earlier in the thread and in my link - Ford has even admitted the V6 @ 203 HP is going to be a hurdle to overcome. In my updated link - Ford is even going to refresh it's styling.
Yes, I'm implyingt the 300m is a better car. Overall I'd say that chrysler and it's sublabels have been making superior product to ford.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
First off it's a ford, which I would not consider a superior vehicle. If you side by side compare it to say a chrysler 300, there isn't much that would push you to buy this ford, unless you get a heavy discount.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok, then you point out the reasons why this car isn't garbage.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
that's moronic. it might be a bit staid looking, i like the look myself, but to call it garbage? :roll:
The only thing I can see is price, and even now this car does not fall under the bargain category.
how would i know it's garbage or not, i haven't actually seen one, i haven't driven one.
shoot, i remember when 200 HP in a 4000 lb car was considered a very very fast car.
it's roomy, i love the trunk, i like the idea of higher seating (but i can't really say how i feel about it till i actually drive it, i might not like it).
When exactly was a 200hp 2ton car considered very very fast? Are we talking the 80's here, 90s?
are you implying that a chrysler is considered to be a better vehicle than a ford? seems to be a bit of a stretch.
yes, 80's. shoot the first mustang 5.0 that came out only had like 125 hp.
Originally posted by: SampSon
Yes, I'm implyingt the 300m is a better car. Overall I'd say that chrysler and it's sublabels have been making superior product to ford.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
First off it's a ford, which I would not consider a superior vehicle. If you side by side compare it to say a chrysler 300, there isn't much that would push you to buy this ford, unless you get a heavy discount.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Ok, then you point out the reasons why this car isn't garbage.Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Hey this thread is back, and the ford 500 is still garbage.
that's moronic. it might be a bit staid looking, i like the look myself, but to call it garbage? :roll:
The only thing I can see is price, and even now this car does not fall under the bargain category.
how would i know it's garbage or not, i haven't actually seen one, i haven't driven one.
shoot, i remember when 200 HP in a 4000 lb car was considered a very very fast car.
it's roomy, i love the trunk, i like the idea of higher seating (but i can't really say how i feel about it till i actually drive it, i might not like it).
When exactly was a 200hp 2ton car considered very very fast? Are we talking the 80's here, 90s?
are you implying that a chrysler is considered to be a better vehicle than a ford? seems to be a bit of a stretch.
yes, 80's. shoot the first mustang 5.0 that came out only had like 125 hp.
The 5.0 had 225hp and only weighed about 2700 lbs. The 4cyl made around 88hp and weighed around the same.
Your memory sucks.
and the ageing V8 - detuned further to 120bhp by 1980.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
We're talking about in the face of it's obvious competitor - the 300. The competition has upped the game and Ford has FAILED to match the game. Look at Brandon's link earlier in the thread and in my link - Ford has even admitted the V6 @ 203 HP is going to be a hurdle to overcome. In my updated link - Ford is even going to refresh it's styling.
First of all, 300 is only one of their competitors.
Second the base 500 offers a 3.0L engine 203hp and 207tq with CVT. The base 300 offers 2.7L 190hp 190tq and a 4 speed auto, while costing $1000 more.
Ford 500 not just matches the 300, it trounces it.
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
We're talking about in the face of it's obvious competitor - the 300. The competition has upped the game and Ford has FAILED to match the game. Look at Brandon's link earlier in the thread and in my link - Ford has even admitted the V6 @ 203 HP is going to be a hurdle to overcome. In my updated link - Ford is even going to refresh it's styling.
First of all, 300 is only one of their competitors.
Second the base 500 offers a 3.0L engine 203hp and 207tq with CVT. The base 300 offers 2.7L 190hp 190tq and a 4 speed auto, while costing $1000 more.
Ford 500 not just matches the 300, it trounces it.
So just b/c it costs less and offers a marginally better engine, it's trounces it? The people buying base 300s is probably an insignificant amount anyway.
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
We're talking about in the face of it's obvious competitor - the 300. The competition has upped the game and Ford has FAILED to match the game. Look at Brandon's link earlier in the thread and in my link - Ford has even admitted the V6 @ 203 HP is going to be a hurdle to overcome. In my updated link - Ford is even going to refresh it's styling.
First of all, 300 is only one of their competitors.
Second the base 500 offers a 3.0L engine 203hp and 207tq with CVT. The base 300 offers 2.7L 190hp 190tq and a 4 speed auto, while costing $1000 more.
Ford 500 not just matches the 300, it trounces it.
So just b/c it costs less and offers a marginally better engine, it's trounces it? The people buying base 300s is probably an insignificant amount anyway.
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: SuperTool
An automatic car that does 0-60 in mid 7's is fast. Like I said, that is pre 2002 Automatic Maxima territory with the 3.0L V6.
There is an obvious mentality among some on this board that Detroit should build V8 RWD land barges, and leave V6 FWD mainstream market to the Japanese. Ford making a product that beats the Japanese at their own game must drive you absolutely nuts. The same people who were posting here that horsepower isn't everything when Nissan came out with the 3.5L V6 and Toyota still had 3L with 50 less hp, are now bashing Ford for having 203 hp, despite it putting down the same acceleration numbers as a "sporty" FWD sedan of just 3 years ago. We need to forgive boring styling and 3.0L engines when it concerns Camry and Avalon, but waste no opportunity to bash Ford for exact same thing. And if you have nothing left to bash Ford with, hey, let's bash it for being Ford, for being American, etc, and so on.
Show me a thread by NFS4 bashing Avalon as underpowered and boringly styled, which it is at a much higher pricepoint, and I will stand corrected.
We're talking about in the face of it's obvious competitor - the 300. The competition has upped the game and Ford has FAILED to match the game. Look at Brandon's link earlier in the thread and in my link - Ford has even admitted the V6 @ 203 HP is going to be a hurdle to overcome. In my updated link - Ford is even going to refresh it's styling.
First of all, 300 is only one of their competitors.
Second the base 500 offers a 3.0L engine 203hp and 207tq with CVT. The base 300 offers 2.7L 190hp 190tq and a 4 speed auto, while costing $1000 more.
Ford 500 not just matches the 300, it trounces it.
So just b/c it costs less and offers a marginally better engine, it's trounces it? The people buying base 300s is probably an insignificant amount anyway.
on a hardware site, where we speak of a 939 mb trouncing a 754 board when the actual difference is less as a percentage than what you listed for the cars there, i'd say trounces is appropriate.