LexFather

That had me rolling over here......

videcormeum

Sorry - that was being a little harsh. The 500 isn't trash - but it's far less than I'd hope for.

Yeah as a matter of fact - I've test-driven a Five-Hundred Limited w/ AWD & CVT. The brakes and handling are above par (FAR better than that of the Taurus it replaces) but the cabin isn't very well isolated (especially considering the price tag which hovered around 30 grand for trim level I drove) and the interior presentation is merely acceptable due in large part to the relatively crappy materials employed throughout (the lid of the storage bin on the dash didn't sit properly, for instance). As for the drivetrain - the engine was way too noisy (and it's not a pleasant noise either) for me to accept the tach to sit around 2500 rpm under moderate acceleration; 30 seconds of crappy engine noise really got under my skin. In other words - I don't like the engine tranny combo. I'm sure I'd much prefer the 6 speed auto in the FWD version.

All in all - for a safe, reliable vehicle that gets decent mileage - I'd recommend the car to anyone - just not the upper trim levels b/c there's too much of the low $20k base model to be found in them.

M.

Lexusfreak

The 500 is way underpowered however.....I don't mind the look of it personally (although close to the Passat).....but Ford really dropped the ball when they didn't come out of the blocks with at least the 3.5L V6. Hence the reason why it's been a very slow seller compared to other vehicles in their class! Goes even double for the Freestyle which I just love the styling! But no gut's! The Chrysler 300 came to market with no less than 3 engine choices (4 now as far as I know!) & the Ford has just 1 for 2 new models? Unacceptable imo! & yes I have driven both vehicles with just passengers & not even any cargo.

mmarshall

Your assessment is pretty close, flip.....it is competent, well-designed, and an excellent suburban all-weather soccer-mom vehicle, but not terribly exciting.

Lexusfreak

The way it's powered, it about as exciting as watching paint dry! lol

mmarshall

Depends on what you consider "underpowered" . True, it's no Dodge Viper, but like said earlier, the AWD's CVT transmission makes the most out of every available horse and gives it performance roughly equal to a non-CVT 230 or 240 HP. If that is still underpowered in your book, fine...I'll respect your opinion.

Of course you guys may have a point once you get all the seats filled with adults and the cargo area filled up. CVT or not, with 203 HP it may THEN be underpowered.

Lexusfreak

Considering the other vehicles in the class & the fact that Ford is loosing serious market share, it was a huge mistake to not bring the new engine to market when the vehicle was launched (at least offer it along with the 3 litre V6).

Don't get me wrong MM, I like the styling of both the 500 & Freestyle (my wife want's to price one out when her lease is up) & the quality I feel is fantastic with these new models as is the CVT technology.......it's just someone was seriously asleep at the switch in the power department especially if the vehicles have a full load of people & cargo to carry.

About a dozen automobile write up's on both vehicles (American & Canadian) say the exact same thing.

mmarshall

I don't know this for an absolute fact, but my strong guess is that the 203 HP engine was picked because Ford engineers wanted to use the CVT for CAFE mileage requirements and that is the largest engine and the most torque that the they felt that the CVT could safely handle. Gotta remember...the CVT is only now (along with Audi) beginning to be used with more powerful V6's. Up to now the CVT has had problems with longevity, is relatively unproven long-term technology, and has primarily been used with low-power in-line fours and the old Subaru Justy in-line three. But I think......as I mentioned before....that you will soon see many more of them, especialy if Ford and Audi CVT's prove reliable with V6's.

OK, so much for the 500. There were two other cars in the test. Let's not forget them either.

Lexusfreak

Ford also offers the 6 speed automatic too in addition to the CVT (same tranny offered in the 2005 Mazda 6 as you know too). Ford didn't have the new 3.5L engine ready in time for the 2 vehicles at launch (which Ford engineers also admitted too) so it wasen't to capitalize on the fuel economy numbers, they just got caught with their pants down.......the upcoming 3.5 is rated better than the old duratec engine anyways for fuel economy.

But your right MM, must not lose sight of the other vehicles in the test.

LexFather

I can feel that but they also have a damn 500hp GT running around and now a 450hp Shelby Mustang. THey have 380h[ Lightnings with S/Cs and even in Europe, near 300hp Focus RSs.

So why do we get the aneamic engines. I don't even jump on the "more hp is better' bandwagon but 200hp was ample 10 years ago. That was a feat. In 2005, the 4 cylinder Acura TSX has that much peak power.

Ford can do it, they just refuse too. And are losing sales.

Bean

iTrader: (1)

The Nissan Murano handles their 3.5L VQ just fine

Lexusfreak

Very good & fair point Bean!

Inabj2

Believe me phoenix traffic Matches that of Baltimore-Washington DC area. Especially in Phoenix Az. I witnessed the 2 plenty of times and its pretty damn comparable. I might even lean to Az being slightly worse! The stuff that I see in I-17 or I-10 can easily compared to what can be found on the Beltway! Especially on friday afternoons.

And basing on the cars accelaration times... I dont see how it even matches those that have 230-240 hp alternatives that are anywhere from a whole second to nearly 2 seconds faster in the 1/4! (depending if comparing auto or manual competitors.)

mmarshall

Thanks, Bean...among larger-displacement vehicles, forgot the Murano has it too.

mmarshall

I was going by DOT (U.S. Dept. of Transportation) figures. They place DC second to the L.A. basin. But of course Phoenix is growing so fast that, as you say, it may now be comparable to D.C in congestion. (We are too...on the outer fringes) DOT bases the ranking on the average number of hours stuck at a standstill. However, by almost any measure you want to use, L.A. is THE worst.