Last post on Feb 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM
You are in the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
What is this discussion about?
Ford Five Hundred, Mercury Montego, Sedan
Aug 04, 2004 (8:43 pm)
The fusion will not directly replace the Taurus. The taurus in itself would be too hard to directly replace as its sales are far to great. So we've been spreading the risk with the Freestyle, Five Hundred, and Fusion. The Freestyle will compete more with subaru and other sports wagons and for those people who arent looking for something as sporty as a Nissan Mazda or Subaru. The Five Hundred is to compete with the Avalon for the mid-large sedan market. They both have comparable engines, sizes, and specs. They found though that people who are buying Avalons want a more comfortable car. The target age range will be around 40. The Fusion is targeted at the Camry and Accords while the Fusion 3.5L will be targeted at the Altima which is a little bit more sporty with aggressive sloped back headlights, tri-bar steel bar grille, nice interiors, and american styled exteriors. Fords trying to differentiate itself from the Japanesse and Europeans in design style so people actually buy american for american design not copied Euro or Japanesse styling.
As for the person who said that the Five hundred was a 2005 car you're wrong. It first started in 1999. Nasser has always been obsessed with euro everything so when it came to design a new flagship he of course wanted it euro based. Then came Bill Ford and Fords future took a 180 to the north. Bill Ford layed out his goals to make more enviormentally friendly cars, focus on sigma six quality, increase profit per car to Japanesse levels, and add a more american flavor to fords car designs. For example did you know that the Focus's sound deadening panels are actually made out of old jeans, and that the lights at the dearborn and atlanta plants are powered by paint fumes? Just some of the innovations Bills been pioneering to make Ford a more cleaner company.
The fusion and Milan will both come in hybrid forms as well.
Aug 04, 2004 (8:52 pm)
Fords cost cutting isnt to use cheaper materials. Actually its the opposite by streamlining designs and reducing the number of different parts used you considerably reduce transport costs, retooling costs, supplier costs, taxs, etc... Quality also rises as supply chains arent interrupted nearly as much. Fords now able to reinvest those saved costs into higher quality material. So while you may get a wider variety in interiors from other brands you'll get better quality interiors and exteriors from ford motor company. Another way Ford is cost cutting is to stream line platforms. By doing this you reduce platform expenditures by up to 10% and save 20% on retooling costs. This allows for flexible manufacturing and on time manufacturing. By doing this you further improve quality and are better able to meet demands by the market. Fords now able to produce a couple of platforms that work for multiple vehicles. Point in case in the rouge plant theyre now able to produce the fusion, freestyle, montego, five hundred, milan , and a number of other cars since theyre all based on the 6 platform. A huge part of retooling costs comes from Platform making which can cost millions of dollars. Simply put Fords trying to streamline production as much as possible while still improving quality. What youll begin to see starting next year is a huge jump in quality. Weve already seen this with the new F-150 as well as the new Ford focus both of which are using shared interior systems. These and the new cars for 2004 + 2005 should bring them far above the Industry Avg. in quality standards. With the new investments in interior plus fit and finish you'll see a higher rating as well in the Consumer reports which many people use in helping to decide their cars.
#1009 of 3623 Mazda 6 platform, V8 & gas prices
Aug 04, 2004 (9:34 pm)
The Mazda 6 platform is not what is under the Five Hundred, Montego, and Freestyle - it started as the Volvo 80.
As for gas prices, I do not see how anyone who performs the calculations would place fuel mileage high on their list of priorities. I drive roughly 27,000 miles per year, far more than average. With gas at $2 per gallon, a 17MPG car costs $3,176 per year, and a 25 MPG car costs $2,160, a savings of just $19.54 per week, less than $0.04 per mile.
Also, as Chrysler has shown, a powerful V8 with cylinder deactivation produces the fuel mileage of a much smaller engine.
Aug 05, 2004 (3:34 am)
And it's the Chicago plant that produces Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle, not Rouge. In fact, the suppliers have aligned themselves in many cases right outside the plant.
Aug 05, 2004 (5:45 am)
I apoligize for the type about what platform is being used the 6 and volvo platform are being used.
Aug 05, 2004 (7:01 am)
Though I agree that the Fusion is likely targeted at a more "sporty" consumer, that does not mean that it will not grab a healthy part of the Taurus customer base. If Fusion is capable of carrying 5 passengers in relative comfort and has a 15-17 cubic foot trunk, it will certainly replace the Taurus in many customer's minds. Even though I am in the demographic getting "too old" for Fusion, it will probably more closely fit my needs than the 500, which is quite a bit longer and heavier than the current Taurus. I may even consider a Focus next time around.
One thing the automakers soon find out is that no matter how much they try to target cars to the youth market, the fact is the vast majority of people under 30 are not buying new cars, they are buying used, as that is what they can afford. Or they are buying Korean, at the bottom of the new car price range.
Aug 05, 2004 (7:56 am)
The midsize- to large sedan market have fragmented significantly since the last major redesign of the Taurus. There will be a more econo Fusion that youre proably looking for as well as an ST version just like the Focus ST that appeals to people looking for a more sporty car. The styling wont be as aggressive as Nissans or Mazdas ,but wont lack the dullness found in Toyotas. Most people will generally buy the 3.0L duratec since it better fits their needs and gets great gas mileage. Itll also have a 6-speed transmission as well a CVT. Youll just have to wait to see what it looks like. I was impressed when I saw it, but I like more sporty styles so thats proably why. Its looks almost exactly like the drawing, but was in black with black and white dots on side for camo.
Aug 05, 2004 (8:59 am)
The artist that sketched the "Futura" and 500 years ago, did quite well. Whereas the one who sketched the Montego got it ALLLLLL wrong... Made the Montego look lowered/slammed.
#1015 of 3623 Re: Mazda 6 platform, V8 & gas prices [fsmmcsi]
Aug 05, 2004 (9:08 am)
As far as gas prices...
To me, ~$1000 a year is a lot of money. I plan on keeping a car for at least 6 years, so that extra money spent on gas adds up. And when you consider that that $1000 is after tax, then you are talking about $1300+ extra that I can put into my 401K vs. driving a less fuel efficient vehicle. I don't drive as much as you do, but even if you cut your numbers in half, my answer is still the same.
It's all about trade-offs. For a 3600 pound vehicle, the value I place on horsepower begins to drop exponentially after 180hp. ...so I don't want to pay for it.
That's just where I'm coming from, and I admit that I'm cheap.
#1016 of 3623 Re: Mazda 6 platform, V8 & gas prices [spidermonkey]
Aug 05, 2004 (9:57 am)
I agree that $1,000 / year is not a trivial amount to most people.
“drive roughly 27,000 miles per year, far more than average. With gas at $2 per gallon, a 17MPG car costs $3,176 per year, and a 25 MPG car costs $2,160, a savings of just $19.54 per week, less than $0.04 per mile.”
Well – a more likely comparison, meaning something closer to what a typical consumer might see / use when buying a new vehicle, it seems to me would be more like 15,000 miles per year (closer to typical / average) and overall 22 MPG vs 25 MPG. Here the difference calculates as:
15,000 / 22 MPG = 682 gal x $2.00 = $1363 / year
15,000 / 25 MPG = 600 gal x $2.00 = $1200 / year
diff = $163 / year = $3.13 / week = $0.44 / day
Apologies for some rounding errors . . .