Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego

3623 messages,  Last post on Feb 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM

You are in the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Five Hundred, Mercury Montego, Sedan

Messages Page 290 of 363

#2889 of 3623 two things by johnclineii

Nov 17, 2005 (5:19 am)

There are NO FWD Limited models with the CVT...there are AWD Limited Models with the CVT but no FWD Limited models with the CVT. ALL AWD Five Hundreds have the CVT. ALL FWD SELs and Limiteds have the Six Speed. FWD SE's can have either transmission, depending on when they were built and how they were ordered.
 
And there will be no GM/Ford Six Speed in 2007 Five Hundreds. The earliest that is currently expected is Model Year 2008. And that will be a new transmission, currently being introduced in some GM models, and soon some Ford models. The current Six Speed in the Five Hundred/Montego and the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr is from Aisin, a Toyota affiliate.

#2890 of 3623 Re: two things [johnclineii] by badgerfan

Nov 17, 2005 (8:19 am)

Replying to: johnclineii (Nov 17, 2005 5:19 am)
All Five Hundreds are built in the Chicago plant, so "where they were built" has nothing to do with it.
 
I would guess Ford is putting in either the 6 speed or CVT to balance inventory/production rates of both transmissions. I see lower end models available with either CVT or 6 speed when doing a dealer inventory search in my area.
 
There is truth to the idea that EPA mileage estimates are becoming nearly useless in determining actual mileage, as the test is very artificial and some manufacturers have become very adept at designing their vehicles to look really good per the EPA test, but in reality do not perform nearly that well for most drivers.
 
An extreme example is the hybrids, which do deliver good mileage on an absolute basis, but rarely is anyone able to actually obtain the EPA values in real world driving.
 
My Taurus (Duratech equipped), on the other hand, has almost always exceeded both city and highway EPA numbers for my car.

#2891 of 3623 eh? by johnclineii

Nov 17, 2005 (10:46 am)

I said "when they were built" not where...
 
At first ALL FWD SE's had the CVT, then they were only built with the Six Speed, then they could come either way...you are right about the balancing..I have no idea how FWD SE's are being equipped this week!

#2892 of 3623 Re: eh? [johnclineii] by badgerfan

Nov 17, 2005 (11:17 am)

Replying to: johnclineii (Nov 17, 2005 10:46 am)
Sorry, I could swear I read "where" not "when"! Better not put me on a witness stand for a crime!
 
It would be really interesting if somewhere we could get our hands on equal to equal comparisons of mileage of a 500 FWD with the CVT versus the 6 speed. Yes the EPA says the 6 speed is better, but I'd like to see a controlled side by side real world test. Also, anyone know at a constant 60 MPH on level ground, what is the engine speed turning on the CVT vs six speed?

#2893 of 3623 Re: eh? [johnclineii] by gene_v

Nov 17, 2005 (1:55 pm)

Replying to: johnclineii (Nov 17, 2005 10:46 am)
Every 2006 SE in stock at my local dealer (Largest in midwest) has a CVT. 14 total. No SE's with a 6 speed. Previously all 2005's were 6 speed.

#2894 of 3623 No 500 with 6-speed by gtee

Nov 17, 2005 (8:48 pm)

Replying to: gene_v (Nov 17, 2005 1:55 pm)
I also looked for a 500 with a 6-speed in Atlanta. All 500's are either SE with CVT or Limited AWD with CVT. I could not locate a single SEL or a single Limited FWD. In Atlanta it makes no sense what so ever to buy an AWD car. It just does not snow here very often, and if it does the whole city shuts down.
 
Some people on this forum claim that EPA numbers are wrong and they bring up hybrids as an example of this. I agree that it’s possible to have inflated numbers for a hybrid. That is actually easy to understand and explain. Hybrids have internal batteries and if you start the test cycle with a full charge and end the test cycle with partially discharged batteries, and then some of the energy came from the batteries and not from burned fuel. This effect results in inflated EPA numbers. Since people measure gas mileage in a car over a longer period of time, their actual mileage comes up short.
 
Now how does this affect CVT or a 6-speed? It does not! Besides the manufacturer determines the EPA gas numbers. Why would Ford on purpose lower their rating on the CVT. I can see how a company would inflate the numbers to meet the CAFÉ standard or to use it in advertisement, but to lower the numbers on purpose. That’s just plain silly.
 
NO, I think that CVT is just less efficient then a conventional 6-speed transmission. Look according to FORD, the mileage for CVT is 20/27 and for 6-speed its 21/29. Lets see according to FORD 6-speed is 9% more efficient then a CVT at freeway speeds (29/27). If you drive the car for 100K miles you would save about $700 in fuel (at $2.20 per gallon) if you choose a 6-speed over a CVT.
 
Searching the web, I learned that CVT looses about 15% of energy. 6% is lost due to hydraulics and 9% is lost due to mechanical friction between the belt and two pulleys. This energy loss is due to the high clamping force required to prevent the belt from slipping in the pulley. This requires a CVT to have larger hydraulic pumps and this consumes more energy. Maybe this is why EPA numbers for CVT are worst then for 6-speed. Maybe, just maybe, the EPA numbers are correct.
 
I hope that somebody who works for Ford can explain to me what was the point of developing CVT technology. Even Ford admits that CVT costs more to build then 6-speed. Even Ford admits that CVT consumes more fuel. Even Ford admits that CVT was an interesting EXPERIMENT.
 
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_10_184/ai_n6261218
 
Well I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to spend my money on a Ford experiment.

#2895 of 3623 and by johnclineii

Nov 17, 2005 (8:49 pm)

And when the Five Hundred first came out, the standard transmission (bad pun not intended) on the FWD SE was a CVT...then they switched back and forth...

#2896 of 3623 Two calendar years? by fsmmcsi

Nov 17, 2005 (10:19 pm)

Will it really be about two calendar years before a 2008 Five Hundred with the new 3.5 V6 and new Ford/GM 6-speed automatic is out? Ford is nuts if they wait that long. The heavier and larger Five Hundred & Montego need the 3.5 V6 far more than the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr. Of course, this assumes that the 3.5 and new transmission are quieter than the present 3.0 and CVT. I wonder what will be at the car shows in January? I have been hoping that a Lincoln version of the Five Hundred would be there, but if the new parts are two years away, I wonder how far out the Lincoln version will be?

#2897 of 3623 Re: No 500 with 6-speed [gtee] by badgerfan

Nov 18, 2005 (7:27 am)

Replying to: gtee (Nov 17, 2005 8:48 pm)
The EPA mileage tests are indeed performed by each manufacturer but the test routine was established by the EPA and all manufacturers, at least in theory, perform the same test cycle (though as we recently have seen an example of some manufacturers cheating interpreting the SAE horsepower testing standard to favor themselves). The loopholes have recently been closed on the SAE horsepower test standard, but the EPA mileage test procedure is grossly out of date and divorced from the real world. Thus, I have little doubt that the manufacturers can tweak their drive trains and control software purposely to produce better EPA mileage as well, with not necessarily any correlation to real world mileage experienced by the average Joe Driver.
 
Ford would not purposely report lower EPA mileage ratings than their testing shows. My point was that EPA testing procedures are not necessarily reflective of real world results. Thus the CVT equipped 500's may indeed do as well or better than the 6 speed equipped 500's, due to their ability to adjust transmission ratios to optimize engine efficiency better than the 6 speed.
 
True there may be more parasitic losses in the CVT than the 6 speed, but no one but Ford knows this data, and they likely will not divulge it.

#2898 of 3623 Re: Nobody wants CVT [gtee] by mschmal

Nov 18, 2005 (9:14 am)

Replying to: gtee (Nov 16, 2005 11:18 am)
I'm sorry I know this message was posted a few days ago but I just have to respond to the mentality that was reflected here. Talk about a testament to "DONT INNOVATE"
 
TO pick on Mazda's Rotary is to show true lack of knowledge about this engine.
 
First the Rotary is exponentially more efficient than a otto cycle engine. The RX-8 is rated for 238 HP from 1.3 liters with no turbos or super chargers. Thats an incredible 183 hp PER LITER!
 
Nissan's vaunted VQ 3.5 L V6 in the 06 350Z is rated at 300 hp. Thats a mere 85 hp per liter.
 
If the Rotary had 100 years of research, and manufacturing experience at the same level as the Otto Cycle, we might all be driving Rotary equipped cars.
 
Which is better an engine with over 200 moving parts or an engine with 3!?!?
 
Take a look at the Star Mazda racing series. Why is this the most affordable open wheel formula race car? BECAUSE YOU SEAL THE ENGINE FOR 3 YEARS with NO REBUILDS! Other race cars require an engine rebuild after EVERY RACE!
 
Do you really think the car companies want us to have engines that reliable in our cars?
 
You want to know why more companies don't use unique designs or technologies its because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
 
Engineers are the same people who said the Earth was Flat. The same people that said steam boats would never replace sail. That said that Powered Flight was impossible. That said the sound barrier couldn't be broken. That told IBM's board that the world market for computers was 12.
 
I'm glad the Engineers are not in charge...Like my dad always said "before I went to school, I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one."
 
Mark

Messages Page 290 of 363

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement