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 334 of 363

#3327 of 3623 Re: SE vs. SEL [luvmbooty] and Malibu Maxx by fsmmcsi

Apr 24, 2006 (7:17 pm)

Replying to: luvmbooty (Apr 24, 2006 8:56 am)
Perhaps I can answer your questions, since I bought a Malibu Maxx instead of a Five Hundred, Montego, or Freestyle (I also considered the Chrysler 300, the Dodge Magnum, the Toyota Tacoma, and the Ford Explorer), and the Maxx replaced my 2002 Mercury Mountaineer).
 
I prefer the looks of the Montego, especially the rear, but from the spy photos, the 2008 versions of all three of the Ford cars, and the fact that they will have the new 265 HP 250 Ft. Lbs. 3.5 V6 and new Ford-GM 6-speed automatic may make them worth the wait (all of the rumors on the internet indicate that they will be out very early in 2007).
 
I was very disappointed when I finally realized that the lack of a telescoping steering column just simply made it impossible for me to sit comfortably in the Five Hundred or Montego (the Freestyle is better, as the center console is narrower). The weak engine is a nuisance, especially because of the amount of noise it makes trying to move the vehicle and the price of loaded versions of these vehicles.
 
The Malibu Maxx was cheap during the "employee pricing" event - I paid $24,000 for one with every option, including XM radio, the rear skylight, a sun roof, and the rear DVD player. The rear seat room is fantastic, and the split rear seats recline and slide back and forth. It has automatic climate control, but just one zone, a flaw most evident when the sun is on just one side of the car. It is really too small for our needs, but the low price made it a good stop-gap car until the 2008 Fords or something else comes along. The fuel mileage is indeed excellent. In addition to saving money, making fewer fuels tops is a nice convenience. The 3.5 V6 and the old four speed automatic work well together, and the power is good. I drive enough that it will be time to either trade or keep it by the time the 2008 Fords come out. The main problem for me has been the lack of front seat comfort - the foam is thin and the springs weak, plus the forward and backward adjustment is mixed with the up and down adjustment (slide the seat forward the the seat rises up, slide it back and the seat lowers, probably because they were cheap and used three seat motors instead of four). You might also consider the Saab 9-3, Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura, as they are the same car underneath.
 
The 2006 Chevrolet Impala also is worth considering, and it has a large trunk, clever folding rear seats, and three engine choices (3.5, 3.9, and 5.3). If I had to buy a new car today, I would buy an Impala. The Buick La Crosse and Pontiac Grand Prix are the same car underneath.

#3328 of 3623 CVT by dieselone

Apr 28, 2006 (10:54 am)

My wife has an 06 500 SE w/CVT company car. I drive it quite a bit and really like the response of the CVT. While I'm not overly fond of the 3.0 Duratech, the CVT definitely makes the most of the 3.0's power once under way above say 20mph. So far it has gone 6000 miles trouble free.
 
BTW- In this months issue of Motor Trend, they had a 3 way comparison of the Montego AWD, 300 3.5 v6, and Lucerne w/ 3.8.
 
The Montego was quicker than the Lucerne 0-60, 45-65, and qtr mile. The biggest difference was the 40-60 times were the Montego was about .7 seconds quicker and nearly matched the 300 despite being the heaviest car in the test by 200lbs.
 
As for the Impala, it is a nice car, but if you want rear seat room and truck space, it's not in the same league as the 500. My wife had a choice of an 06 GP, Impala, and 500. We looked at all 3 and rear seat accommodation IMO are terrible in the GP and tight in the Impala, I surely wouldn't want to sit back there very long.

#3329 of 3623 Re: CVT [dieselone] by bruneau1

Apr 29, 2006 (9:55 am)

Replying to: dieselone (Apr 28, 2006 10:54 am)
In reality, do you think anyone is going to notice a difference under one second? Try counting off .7 and see if it makes a difference to you.

#3330 of 3623 Re: CVT [bruneau1] by ace35

Apr 29, 2006 (2:43 pm)

Replying to: bruneau1 (Apr 29, 2006 9:55 am)
i totally agree, auto mags make so much of 0-60 times, i think anything below 8 secs is fine for most passenger vehicles. Most people dont dart from stoplights in there vehicles, while i think its important to have good power for merging, passing, i dont need to be there in 6 sec's flat, as long as i have a good usable powerband that pulls the vehcile willingly. Thats why i dont understand all the critisism for the 500, they pan the 3.0L for being to slow, but last i checked it does 0-60 in about 7.7 to 8.5 sec's. which seems to be on par with other vehicles. So instead of calling it upderpowered they should just call it unrefined if it emits to much engine noise.

#3331 of 3623 Re: CVT [ace35] by jeffyscott

Apr 29, 2006 (3:25 pm)

Replying to: ace35 (Apr 29, 2006 2:43 pm)
8...I think 10 sec is just fine. I've never felt that I did not have adequate acceleration in our vehicles that have 0-60 times in the 9-10 sec range. And I am not a slow accelerator...I am generally the fastest pulling away from lights and get frustrated behind most drivers who do 0-60 in about 1/2 mile in actual practice. A faster car would just increase the frustration.

#3332 of 3623 Re: CVT [jeffyscott] by ace35

Apr 29, 2006 (4:13 pm)

Replying to: jeffyscott (Apr 29, 2006 3:25 pm)
10 sec's is where i would expect a SUV to be not a car, sorry.

#3333 of 3623 Re: CVT [ace35] by jeffyscott

Apr 29, 2006 (7:33 pm)

Replying to: ace35 (Apr 29, 2006 4:13 pm)
That's fine...I was agreeing with you that too much is made of acceleration times. What I meant was 8 is fine and for me even 10 is adequate. I just have even lower standards of acceptable acceleration than you .

#3334 of 3623 2008 Five Hundred by chrisl0

Apr 30, 2006 (5:43 am)

This year the 500 got a top pick rating from Consumer Reports and now I am considering buying one. I am pleased that they are going to upgrade the looks and put in a more powerful engine. Just one question now, do they plan to do away with that ugly fixed antenna and replace it with a power antenna or window grid antenna?

#3335 of 3623 Wall Street says..... by slider7

May 05, 2006 (7:13 pm)

GM and Ford have too much 2005/2006 inventory before 2007 models roll in August and foresee a similar price war to last summer aka employee discounting to civilian buyers.

#3336 of 3623 Re: 2008 Five Hundred [chrisl0] by slider7

May 05, 2006 (7:15 pm)

Replying to: chrisl0 (Apr 30, 2006 5:43 am)
The antennae and floor mats are located to the trunk until dealership arrival. Then they become "dealer installed" options. Four drops, a couple twists, $395. LOL!

Messages Page 334 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