Autoweek tests Ford 500: Car falls short

[Buick61]

2005 Ford Five Hundred
The Five Hundred Spells Out The Future Of The Car At Ford, Though Don’t Say Bye To The Taurus
NATALIE NEFF
Published Date: 9/13/04


2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED
ON SALE: Now Base Price: $22,795
POWERTRAIN: 3.0-liter, 203-hp, 207-lb-ft V6; fwd, CVT
CURB WEIGHT: 3664 pounds
0 TO 60 MPH: 8.5 seconds (est.)

"One of the hurdles we’re going to have to overcome is the 203 horsepower."

So confessed Amy Marentic, marketing manager for the Five Hundred, at our daylong introduction to the vehicle at Ford’s Michigan Proving Grounds. Not exactly what one expects to hear about an automaker’s brand-spankin’-new offering—and certainly not about what Ford has hailed as "Redefining the North American Sedan" in its press materials.

But we appreciate the honesty. The fact is, the Five Hun-dred has a few hurdles to overcome—least of all its horsepower—but when it comes to overall packaging, the Five Hundred does a decent job of addressing the ever-increasing requisites of the family sedan.

First off, Ford says don’t mistake the Five Hundred for a Taurus replacement. The venerable Taurus will continue to be offered, says Ford, increasingly so to fleets (at least until next year when a new midsize called Fusion may put it to bed for good). 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!).

Any Five Hundred model can be ordered with awd, but it only comes paired with the continuously variable transmission, or CVT.

If you’ve never tested a CVT, the experience can be a little off-putting at first as there are no shift points, no geared steps in the transfer of torque from the engine to the wheels. The engine simply revs more or less as needed.

We found power delivery through the CVT more satisfying—if a little strange—than with the six-speed automatic. If you’re attuned to the way a traditional auto tranny sounds and feels when it’s doing its thing, the lack of shift points with the CVT makes the Five Hundred feel deceptively
slow off the line. But keep your right foot planted and the Five Hundred gets up to speed before you realize it. The six-speed, on the other hand, is frustratingly slow on downshifts.

During our drive around the proving grounds, the Five Hundred felt solid on the road, displaying a confident ride and fairly responsive handling through the twisty evaluation course. There is a decent amount of feedback through the steering wheel, and the car brakes impressively for its mass, the four-wheel discs—12.5-inch dual-piston vented fronts, 13.0-inch solid rear—handling aggressive stops with little drama.

Then there is that 203 hp, courtesy of a slightly revamped version of the 3.0-liter Duratec V6 found in the Taurus.

The problem with that figure—and the cause for the confessional—isn’t so much that 203 is egregiously low. After all, a base Accord or Camry comes with only 160 hp of four-cylinder power (though at significantly less cost). But both Honda and Toyota offer optional V6 power, up to 240 and 225 hp worth, respectively. The Chrysler 300 even makes its 5.7-liter, 340-hp V8 Hemi available—for considerable more cash, to be sure, but available nonetheless.

No such alternate powerplant can be had in the Five Hundred. If you opt to go full-zoot—awd, CVT and all—the Five Hundred’s curb weight can reach upward of 3815 pounds. That means that every horsepower cranked out by the 3.0-liter has to haul around 18.8 pounds. Compare that to its rivals, decked out in similar fashion (most powerful available engine and heaviest curb weight): Accord, 14.1 pounds per horsepower; Camry, 15.3; 300C, 12.0. Even the Taurus, with 201 hp, only had to haul 16.4 pounds per horse.

Choose the base trim, the front-drive CVT model, and the Five Hundred does beat its entry-level rivals, at 18.0 pounds per horsepower—but it will cost you more than all except for the Chrysler.

A Five Hundred starts out at $22,795, including destination. That’s only $1,125 less than the 300 but over $6,000 more than a base Accord and almost $4,300 more than a base Camry.

Also expect the Five Hundred to get superb fuel mileage for a vehicle its size, with front-drive six-speed models getting 29 mpg highway/21 city. CVT-equipped front-drive models are rated
at 27/20 mpg. All-wheel-drive Five Hundreds (all of which get the CVT) still do well, at 26/19 mpg.

No doubt Ford will sell bucket loads of Five Hundreds, with that generous equipment list and loyal customer base (and certainly some attractive incentives) keeping them rolling off showroom floors. But we can’t help but be a bit disappointed. Like we said, the Five Hundred has more than just its horsepower hurdle to overcome.

The Five Hundred constitutes one of the most conservative styling efforts we’ve seen from Ford in a generation, a convic-tion amplified by the concurrence of its launch with—and the excitement generated by—Chrysler’s 300.

The 300’s bold, no-holds-barred design has garnered a lot of attention and sparked even more discussion. Many hate it; many more, from our experience, love it.

The Five Hundred, on the other hand, engenders little passion. Of the handful we’ve heard actually talk or inquire about the car, few have had anything particularly negative to say about its design, but none have gone buggy over it.

Five years ago Ford owned 12.7 percent of the car market in the States and 19.1 percent overall. Through this July those numbers have dropped, to 7.5 percent and 15.0 percent. Which begs the question: Should an automaker in the position Ford finds itself—with a dearth of product, geriatric lineup, shrinking market share and measly profits—play it so safe with, arguably, its most important product?

Maybe Ford should have a few more Years of the Car.


Full Article

[doh]

Where's the 0-60 times comparisons? Words like

the CVT makes the Five Hundred feel deceptively
slow off the line. But keep your right foot planted and the Five Hundred gets up to speed before you realize it.

Then followed by words like

But we can’t help but be a bit disappointed. Like we said, the Five Hundred has more than just its horsepower hurdle to overcome.

Makes me want the actual numbers. I have heard the numbers for it's sister the Freestyle as being 0-60 in 8.65 sec, Rendivous 10.6 sec, Pacifica 9.4 sec but the seat of the pants feel is not there.

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by doh@Sep 14 2004, 05:40 PM
Where's the 0-60 times comparisons? Words like

Then followed by words like

Makes me want the actual numbers. I have heard the numbers for it's sister the Freestyle as being 0-60 in 8.65 sec, Rendivous 10.6 sec, Pacifica 9.4 sec but the seat of the pants feel is not there.

The estimate at the top of the article says 8.5 sec. It doesn't look like they got to do any of their own instrumented testing.

[bakerna]

Originally posted by doh@Sep 14 2004, 12:40 PM
Where's the 0-60 times comparisons? Words like

Then followed by words like

Makes me want the actual numbers. I have heard the numbers for it's sister the Freestyle as being 0-60 in 8.65 sec, Rendivous 10.6 sec, Pacifica 9.4 sec but the seat of the pants feel is not there.

acceleration=torque do some research before making accusations. Although I have to agree....this is gonna blow..

[AdmiralViscen]

Can anyone tell me why Ford was sitting so pretty 5 years ago? People here are always bringing that up, but I was only 13 at the time and didn't follow car statistics. What the hell did Ford have out that made people think it was going to overtake GM? All I can think of is some redone Tauruses and old standbys like the Mustang and F-150. Unless the Mustang's redesign really had that much of an impact on overall Ford sales...

[93JeepCherokee]

Originally posted by bakerna@Sep 15 2004, 02:17 AM
acceleration=torque do some research before making accusations. Although I have to agree....this is gonna blow..

Well, actually torque is the measure of a force's tendency to produce rotational motion around an axis and is dimensionally equivalent to work, and power is work over time, and acceleration is dependent on time, therefore acceleration is dependent on power...

Of course you knew all that, didn't you? I mean, you did "research before making accusations"...

[93JeepCherokee]

Oh and Ford won't have any problems selling Five Hundreds. It is vastly superior to the Malibu.

[jro4566]

0-60 in an estimated 8.5 seconds was much better than I expected for a car with this engine and this weight.

[Ming]

the Five Hundred’s curb weight can reach upward of 3815 pounds. That means that every horsepower cranked out by the 3.0-liter has to haul around 18.8 pounds. Compare that to its rivals, decked out in similar fashion (most powerful available engine and heaviest curb weight): Accord, 14.1 pounds per horsepower; Camry, 15.3; 300C, 12.0. Even the Taurus, with 201 hp, only had to haul 16.4 pounds per hp

Sad is the day when Hondas and Toyotas out-power Detroit Iron. :type:

[Tone]

Interestingly, another review I read (I believe in Automobile) said the car felt stronger than the 250 hp 300 they had for comparison. Autoweek quotes the 8.5 second estimate, but everywhere else I've seen that figure attached to the Freestyle, which is a bit heavier.

The basic FWD 500 is only about 3600 lbs -- in the same ballpark as something like an Impala, (and a couple of hundred pounds less than a V6 300).but with more interior room and a huge trunk. It may not impress like the 300, but Chevy sells a lot of Impalas and this looks like more of an Impala-fighter than a 300 competitor.

The CVT has the ability to quickly get to and hold revs a peak power, optimizing acceleration. The downside is that most people are not used to hearing their engine rev at a contant 6000 rpm and find it a bit disconcerning, but if you can get past that there are efficiencies in both acceleration and economy.

Ford does plan to have a 3.5 V6 out within the next two years with 250+ hp. Plus it seems to have split the Taurus market into the 500 and the Mazda6-based "tweaner" that will likely be more appealing to enthusiasts.

[dav305z]

i just read in this months automobile that it does 0-60 in 7.9(!).

[desmo9]

The 500, like the Pontiac G6, are to be launched with one engine offering each...and one that's not exactly earth-shattering. And I think this a much bigger risk for Pontiac, which seeks to attract a more trendy, performance-oriented type of buyer. When a car launches, and people know that in a year a hotter engine is coming, many will wait. Once they wait a year, the cars are all around the streets ... the novelty and buzz of the car has worn. Again, not a good thing for Pontiac, imo.

Ford and GM justify this approach in a desire to split up the launch... if they use a known powertrain in the first year, they're reducing the number of things that could go wrong. Once the dust settles on the rest of the car's launch, they'll release additional powertrain. Rather weak approach. But the conservtaive segment of the Ford 500 won't care as much. It's not as if the Taurus was a powerhouse, and until the styling got funky it sold very well. Further, most Accords and Camrys sold are still of the lower-powered, 4-cylinder ilk. I like what Chrysler's doing with the 300 alot, but recognize that there's still demand for a less in-your-face familymobile. The 500 is a tame design that's also very clean, and not pitifully underpowered, so I think it'll do very well.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally posted by 93JeepCherokee@Sep 15 2004, 03:08 AM
Oh and Ford won't have any problems selling Five Hundreds. It is vastly superior to the Malibu.

Id like to know exactly how you came to this conclusion? And the 500 will be going against the Impy/Grand Prix, to which its sadly no where near each.
Ford better prey that GM screws up on the Impala restyle. All the CVT's in the world wont stop the onslaught.

If people can think the Malibu V6 is underpowerd, the 500 must be like driving a slug. 200hp in an AWD heavy large midsized sedan like the 500 istn enough.

[MN12Fan]

Originally posted by bigals87z28+Sep 14 2004, 09:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigals87z28 @ Sep 14 2004, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-93JeepCherokee@Sep 15 2004, 03:08 AM
Oh and Ford won't have any problems selling Five Hundreds. It is vastly superior to the Malibu.

Id like to know exactly how you came to this conclusion? And the 500 will be going against the Impy/Grand Prix, to which its sadly no where near each.
Ford better prey that GM screws up on the Impala restyle. All the CVT's in the world wont stop the onslaught.

If people can think the Malibu V6 is underpowerd, the 500 must be like driving a slug. 200hp in an AWD heavy large midsized sedan like the 500 istn enough. [/b][/quote]
I think the comment was intended to be sarcastic, and even if Cherokee was being sincere it would nearly be an irrelevant point to start with because the Malibu and the Five Hundred aren't in the same vehicle class.

The Duratec 30 may seem underpowered relative to the competition but it must be taken into account that this car, and its siblings, the Montego and Freestyle, are going to driven on regular urban roads, not the racetrack, and a 0-60MPH time of 7.9-8.5 seconds is not that bad for conventional usage, especially for vehicles this big and heavy. The 245+ horsepower Duratec 35 will go into production next fall at Ford's engine plant in Lima, Ohio to be ready for usage in 2006 model year vehicles, specifically, the Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle, among others (I've heard that the Escape and Mariner may even get this engine eventually). With this in mind, the Duratec 30 will truly become the base engine of these cars, as it should be, and the Duratec 35 will be available for those who demand stronger performance. So, until next year, Ford will have to deal with this "handicap" (which I'm not entirely sure it is, although I wouldn't call it a strong point either) and bank on the vehicles' other selling points. After all, when one considers what the Five Hundred and its corporate siblings are replacing, I would consider the vehicles to be quite appealing.

Also, just as a side note, why did Buick61 title this thread "Autoweek tests Ford 500: Car falls short?" Yes, the topic of this thread is Autoweek's test of the Five Hundred (Ha, ha! I posted a link to this article first before Buick61, see: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forum/index.ph...opic=7761&st=15), but who decided that the car "fell short." I didn't think the article was that negative. It did point out the percieved inadequacy of the Duratec 30 but it also had many positive things to say about the rest of the car, which is important because Ford is selling a complete vehicle, not just an engine.

[barcodedorganic]

the segment with which they're competing in is the bread and butter sedans...if it's not outstanding it's not going to get much praise if it doesn't out do toyota and honda on all fronts looking purely at the car...the sheeple will continue to flock to those brands and overlook the ford

the 500 is purely average in a world where it can afford to be anything but