Last post on Feb 13, 2011 at 8:08 AM
You are in the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
What is this discussion about?
Ford Five Hundred, Mercury Montego, Sedan
#516 of 3623 Better Warranty
Mar 10, 2004 (9:19 pm)
Has anyone heard anything on whether Ford/Mercury will be increasing the warranty on their upcoming models. Even though I've been a faithful Ford/Mercury buyer in the past, I'm wondering how much longer they can continue to offer 3 years/36,000 program. It looks like they have hit the nail on the head as far as style in the 500/Montego, but I really think they need to increase the coverage to stay in the hunt with the other manufacturers. I really would hate leaving the Oval for some other vehicle that would give me better piece of mind with a better warranty. I know it's been discussed here, but I'm still amazed that they are using the Duratec 30 to pull this car around in it's first year of release instead of really stickin' it to the others with the newer motor, which is needed NOW, and not in 2006.
Mar 11, 2004 (2:48 am)
I wish they would increase their warranty as well, it worked with the Ford Focus actually, when they pushed it to 5yrs/100K miles I believe. But if Ford chooses too, they'll have to increase warranties on their luxury brands first, before placing Ford on the 4yr kind.
But Ford won't, unless GM, Toy, Honda does first.
Here's a story on the CVT that will become available on the 500/Montego and it's benefits on performance and fuel economy.
Mar 12, 2004 (6:43 pm)
Toyota's warranty is already above that of GM, Ford, and Honda- Bumper to Bumper is 3/36, but Powertrain is 5/60.
Mar 13, 2004 (11:23 pm)
I should have clarified, I'm talking about the standard bumper to bumper basic warranty. As for powertrain, many manufacturer's have anywhere from 5-60K, to 10/100K. I see it this way, it's VERY weird/odd for the powertrain warranty to be used. (although I do have some friends who have used it on their VW's, and Kia's- BUT NOT surprising considering their horrible reliability).
Bumper to Bumper is much more important and useable since it covers all except normal wear and tear.
#520 of 3623 Um yea, ok....
Mar 14, 2004 (9:33 am)
ANT, thats a weak argument in my opinion. Given a Chrysler with the 7/70 powertrain warranty, or one without for the same price, I'd be willing to bet that all consumers would take the one with the 7/70. Its peace of mind. Based on what information is it "VERY weird/odd for the powertrain warranty to be used." Id rather have the powertrain covered for longer, given that it contains some of the MOST expensive repair items. Hondas can sell easily with 3/36 on reputation alone, aside from the fact that nearly all of the cars they produce are class leading or darn near. Fords however, cannot, and I would be skeptical of a CVT AWD 500, and it doesnt seem like Fords going to offer anything to put consumers minds at ease. In my head, the 10 recalls of the first three years of Focus stick out.
Mar 14, 2004 (11:39 am)
Alpha01 - I agree - Ford will be selling unproven new technology (at least their unit is unproven), and Chrysler and others offer far better warranties. Just a transmission failure will make you understand the value of a better warranty, and modern automatics do not (ask any transmission shop) last nearly as long as they should. Maybe the very latest (e.g. the five speed in the explorer) will last longer. I think that many of us really do pay attention to warranties. If the headlight switch goes bad (bumnper to bumper), it is not nearly the same category as having a powertrain component fail.
Mar 14, 2004 (4:19 pm)
Toyota extended powertrain warranty is already included in higher price. It is just a gimmick to sell a car. You always can buy better extended warranty when purchasing the car. BTW Toyota Camry bumper to bumper extended warranty (5/100,000) for less than one grand.
Mar 15, 2004 (5:24 am)
"I'd be willing to bet that all consumers would take the one with the 7/70"
So why aren't people flocking to their vehicles? Sales of Chrysler's didn't skyrocket when they announced that warranty. And a longer powertrain doesn't guarantee the product isn't going to break down either. I know of a few sucker's who went into Kia's/Hyundai' because of their 10 year powertrain warranty and yes it's piece of mind, but already breaking down on it's 1st and 2nd year running.
" the 10 recalls of the first three years of Focus stick out."
What sticks out more is BMW's X5's 14-16 recalls, but of course, it would be un-holy to mention such a thing because of the label attentioned to the X5, heh...
I believe the recalls on the Focus were not powertrain related.
Mar 15, 2004 (6:38 am)
My posit on the Chrysler 7/70 warranty used a closed comparison between two identical Chryslers. The reason that the 7/70 warranty did not spur sales is because the current crop of DCX cars are uncompetitive, save the newer designs like the much improved Durango. My point was NOT that the 7/70 warranty helped sales, just that, for a consumer chosen between identical vehicles where one has a longer powertrain warranty, and one does not, I'd bet my savings that nearly all would opt for the vehicle WITH the warranty.
I agree, break-downs suck. But not having to pay softens the blow.
I was well aware that the X5 had many recalls, but are you sure you arent exaggerating when you say 14-16? In any case, quality control on that model was horrid, just as it was with the first several years of Focus. Its nice to see that Ford offers the long warranty on the Focus, and that by most accounts, reliability has significantly improved.
Your initial argument that a longer powertrain warranty adds little confidence to the consumer and/or has little value, is not one that you will convince me of. (And judging from the response of others here, it seems like I'm not alone) Just like how you couldnt convince me that the Freestar and Monterey would be competitive prior to their launch. And guess what? They arent. Rebates and financing incentives are high, Consumer Reports ranks them below the OUTGOING GM minivans, and most other Car magazines have panned them as well.
But I digress.
#525 of 3623 500 = Underpowered?
Mar 15, 2004 (9:27 am)
For me - yes, but . . .
In 1989, the Ford Taurus (IIRC) SHO had a 3.0 liter / 220 hp motor and it was a 6.5 to 7.0 sec 0-60 and low 15 sec. Quarter mile machine. With the rather baulky manual trans. The later automatics were high 15s, IIRC. Still not bad, acceleration wise. I do not recall the weight of these cars, but I doubt they were much heavier than the 500, unless the AWD is added. And the current 200 hp V6 is likely better in the low end torque dept. We’ll see.
Has anyone seen a weight for the new 500? And / or know the weight for the SHOs?
I am still surprised at 200 hp. With 240 hp in mainstream competitors like Accords - and now 250 in Altimas. BTW: The new ’05 Altima SE 3.5L V6 looks pretty cool, now that they have upgraded the interior substantially – and added a manual shift mode and 5 speed automatic. If FWD was not an issue for me, I’d be looking seriously at one. (And the pricing looks pretty reasonable.)
I will be VERY interested to see in there is a 300 hp AWD version of the 500 and Montego to follow in a year or 2 . . . Now that MIGHT interest me – in a couple of years.
Happy with 280+ hp and RWD - today.