The Ford 500 ...observation

Lest we forget...

RCSignals said:
Funny. I thought the first Tauras was just an insipid box.

the jelly bean style with everything round was actually the best of them all. (quality wise etc, not entirely style wise) The roundness was toned down for the next year.
Taurus only suffered from lack of further development. In many ways Ford is still suffering from the effects of Nasser.
Click to expand...

You may recall, RoboCop introduced us to the very futuristic looking Taurus. It was widely considered an engineering masterpiece, and state of the art, plus it made Ford a leader in sales and profit.

Oh, and the 2X cupholders are for R & L handed users, and two fisted drinkers.
 
RCSignals said:
Funny. I thought the first Tauras was just an insipid box.

the jelly bean style with everything round was actually the best of them all. (quality wise etc, not entirely style wise) The roundness was toned down for the next year.
Taurus only suffered from lack of further development. In many ways Ford is still suffering from the effects of Nasser.
Click to expand...

Box? Wasn't that the Fairmont?

The Jelly Bean may have been a better car than the original Taurus, but it was also using 1996 technology instead of 1986 technology... so it should have been much better.

Relative to competitors available in the marketplace, the original Taurus was a grandslam. Likewise, the '89 - '95 SHO was about the same car (suffering from the lack of development you mentioned)... in '89 the original was was amazing (even without enough clutch) but by '95 the advantage it held over everything else had shrunk considerably.
 
Why are they dropping the CVT? Do they not have one that can handle the bump in HP or something? I had a CVT on the Maxima rental I had for 2 weeks last year, and thought it was pretty damn cool. (And that Maxima had about 260 hp...)
 
And really, from a consumer point of view, if you aren't into doing your own shifting, do you really care if its a CVT or a 6 speed auto? Either way, its a car with a mind of its own that is guided by some Ford programmers idea of how a car should shift. CVT, Auto - average consumer won't give a damn as long as they aren't required to think or do...
As for HP, I recall that any Ford in this segment from the 70's likely had an inline 6. A 200 or 250 with about 120hp max. It was always plenty and got about 25mpg. Suddenly, in the year 2007, everyone needs close to 300hp to be happy. Its ludicrous. And the car mags speak out of both sides of their mouths. They'll slam a car that wont do 0-60 in under 7 seconds, but then complain when one wont get stellar mileage. The editors of these magazines should take a stand and decide what it is they want: Power or efficiency. Tell me: Why does your wife need 260 hp to get groceries (yes, sexist example) or your kid for going to his/her part time job, or even us if its the second car in our stable? We need to curb our apetite for HP in absolutely every vehicle that manufacturers make. I was first attracted to Tempos in 1988 becuase of how well they handled. The handling, meaning conservation of energy in corners, more than made up for the anemic power plants. Here is Ford with one of the only cars in the segment with 4 wheel independant suspension and all anyone can talk about is hp. Silly. I always have, and always will be able to eat Acuras, Hondas, Cobalts and Neons on the track, and its because of handling, not power.
Rant done. Unless I think of something else. Carry on.
 
There have been many good points made here. But I think that a major part of the problem is that we are discussing transportation appliances in enthusiast terms. The 500 was never intended to be exciting. I suspect that most of the people who buy them are judging them on reliability, comfort, and cost of operation. Which is how it should be. But to ask if anyone likes the 500, or the Chrysler Sebring, or the Toyota Camry, is meaningless. If those cars are operating properly they are unremarkable.

I think that unltimately the only way to properly judge a transporation appliance is coolly and without emotion.
 
Very, very true. At one point in my rant, I think I may have alluded to this idea. Maybe not, though. It was a rant, after all :)
 
Let's be honest. The 500 is straight up boring. I don't care how big its trunk is (less than 1 cu. ft. larger than panthers) or how well it will take you to the supermarket. The car has NO style and it is front wheel drive (no, I wouldn't pay extra for a part-time all wheel drive since it will just cost me more to maintain out of warranty).

For around the same money, one can get a plain jane 300. While it doesn't have the Hemi, big wheels etc. as the 300C, it's got style. The view out the rear truely sucks, but I would deal with it and many of its other short commings.;) Why else would people buy coups/ sports cars as their only cars? STYLE. Nobody wants to buy a brand new car that won't get a second look from ANYBODY.

Think of it this way. If one can only afford one car (and not an expansive one at that) I would rather be seen in a simple 300 rather than a 500.

I have driven the 500 (friend's) and I think it's really well made and a great all around car like you all mentioned but, it is so boring that I would hate owning it (especially as an only vehicle). I would buy a used something else before I by a 500.

Edit:
Please Ford, WAKE UP! Release the Interceptor because when GM releases the new rear wheel drive Impalas, Cameros, Pontiac Firebirds etc. you will have no chance to compete with your current line up.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
forums
<o:p></o:p>
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top