My loser Five Hundred with the 3.0L Duratec

[jpd80]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought all the Five Hundreds used the CVTs.

My mistake the Fivehundred we drove did have a six speed,

it was the older Taurus that had the 4-speed auto.

Edited May 5, 2008 by jpd80

[Noah Harbinger]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought all the Five Hundreds used the CVTs.

 

THe CVT was in the AWDs, and the FWD SE (the FWD SEL and Limited have the 6-speed).

 

Edit: God I can't believe I know that.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Noah Harbinger

[suv_guy_19]

THe CVT was in the AWDs, and the FWD SE (the FWD SEL and Limited have the 6-speed).

 

Edit: God I can't believe I know that.

 

I didn't see any pint in mentioning the SE since it wasn't around at the end. Don't worry, I knew the same useless info.

[Noah Harbinger]

I didn't see any pint in mentioning the SE since it wasn't around at the end. Don't worry, I knew the same useless info.

 

I'm glad I replied to the one who didn't know, then

[351cid]

Seriously though does your opinion really matter. Just because you own and drive the car, doesn't mean that you know anything about it. As a 2008 Focus owner, even though I love my car and think Ford did an exceptional job with the car it doesn't mean anything because I actually own the car.

 

The opinions that really matter are the people who have never driven our cars and are convinced of how terrible they are due to their world class "internet" knowledge. I am sorry to be a dick, but from what I have learned here the opinion of real owners are irrelevant.

 

:P !

 

 

Eh...my father in-law was impressed with the car enough that when his Avalon bit the dust, he bought a 2008 Taurus.

[FordBuyer]

Seriously though does your opinion really matter. Just because you own and drive the car, doesn't mean that you know anything about it. As a 2008 Focus owner, even though I love my car and think Ford did an exceptional job with the car it doesn't mean anything because I actually own the car.

 

The opinions that really matter are the people who have never driven our cars and are convinced of how terrible they are due to their world class "internet" knowledge. I am sorry to be a dick, but from what I have learned here the opinion of real owners are irrelevant.

 

!

 

 

Yeah, it is amazing how often you hear that the 3.0 L 24 valve V6 is a loser engine when IN FACT it is a great engine. I KNOW because I own one and use another one as a company car. Neither one has so much as hiccuped even once in over 120,000 miles of driving between the two. I have heard that the engine gets lousy fuel mileage...FACT: I get 29mpg highway and 22.2 in mixed driving. I have heard that it's underpowered...FACT: in my Taurus it has no power problem in acceleration or top speed, smooth, strong power through all the gears. I have heard that it's a rough engine...FACT: it is a very smooth engine with no vibration at any speed. In sum, the Ford 3.0 24 valver is an exceptional engine and probably main reason why Ford is getting great quality rating. It has been workhorse engine in lots of applications from Fusion to 500. The new 3.5 from Ford is basically part of same family. Great, all around engines with reliability being its best quality.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

{Sarcasm}

god, what a bunch of freaking cheerleaders! I can't believe you people have your collective heads so far up your collective a$$es that you're spouting off this drivel. I mean, really, Ford sucks, the D3s all suck, they all loose money had over fist, they aren't outselling a well established, high reputation vehicle that has massive fleet volume, and that massively undersized engine for the application is just a rattle trap peice of junk that you're just deluding yourself about. You all must be either stupid or just out and out delusional to think that Ford has improved anything in any way over the old Taurus, or even changed their business practices and corporate methodology for any of this. They're going down the tubes in a hurry, are in fact the worst car manufacturer to have ever polluted this planet with their presence and really just old up tents and bend over backwards and let trascinda just run things because obviously that fool they got from Boeing doesn't know a d*mn%d thing about running a large scale manufacturing business and his predecessors knew nothing of economics and business management basics either.

 

{/Sarcasm}

[Ralph Greene]

We feel the same about our 6 speed 2005 Montego. Comfortable, terrific milage, adequate power (0-60 in 8's), and very reliable.

 

Ford is spending billions looking for a way to give consumers economy, adequate power for a people mover, and reliability, and they had it all along. Just needed some stylng changes along the way. For this particular car and for our use, I prefer the 3.0 (or updated version) over the 3.5. Smaller engine can use less fuel. 6 speed (Aisin) auto is amazing, it's like it's thinking for me, always seems to get in the correct gear for what I'm doing.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[silvrsvt]

I believe the 2008 Taurus would get the same fuel economy

 

My parents have an 08 Sable AWD and they are't that pleased with its around the town MPG, but I keep telling them they have to wait till it has about 9-10K miles on it before they get a good reading, I had HORRIBLE MPG out of my Mustang the first 10K miles or so, but I think that was partly to from me flooring it :P

[NickF1011]

Yeah, it is amazing how often you hear that the 3.0 L 24 valve V6 is a loser engine when IN FACT it is a great engine. I KNOW because I own one and use another one as a company car. Neither one has so much as hiccuped even once in over 120,000 miles of driving between the two. I have heard that the engine gets lousy fuel mileage...FACT: I get 29mpg highway and 22.2 in mixed driving. I have heard that it's underpowered...FACT: in my Taurus it has no power problem in acceleration or top speed, smooth, strong power through all the gears. I have heard that it's a rough engine...FACT: it is a very smooth engine with no vibration at any speed. In sum, the Ford 3.0 24 valver is an exceptional engine and probably main reason why Ford is getting great quality rating. It has been workhorse engine in lots of applications from Fusion to 500. The new 3.5 from Ford is basically part of same family. Great, all around engines with reliability being its best quality.

 

Eh, I'll bitch and moan about the 3.0 V6 all day, and I have a car with one too. I don't know how anyone could put up with that thing in a car that didn't have a manual transmission. It feels ridiculously gutless at anything under 2500 RPM. And probably the only reason it doesn't sound harsh is due to the sound deadening used on the D3's compared to the other vehicles it is used in. It's a thrashy, noisy engine in my Mazda6. Runs like a champ and has been completely reliable for 80,000+ miles, but it still leaves plenty to be desired.

[NickF1011]

We feel the same about our 6 speed 2005 Montego. Comfortable, terrific milage, adequate power (0-60 in 8's), and very reliable.

 

Ford is spending billions looking for a way to give consumers economy, adequate power for a people mover, and reliability, and they had it all along. Just needed some stylng changes along the way. For this particular car and for our use, I prefer the 3.0 (or updated version) over the 3.5. Smaller engine can use less fuel. 6 speed (Aisin) auto is amazing, it's like it's thinking for me, always seems to get in the correct gear for what I'm doing.

 

Hmmm....fuel economy differences between the 3.0 and 3.5 are marginal. I'll take the 3.5's torque any day, given the choice. That's one reason fuel economy is less-than-stellar in my Mazda6: I need to rev the living hell out of it to make it do anything.

[igor]

Eh, I'll bitch and moan about the 3.0 V6 all day, and I have a car with one too. I don't know how anyone could put up with that thing in a car that didn't have a manual transmission. It feels ridiculously gutless at anything under 2500 RPM. And probably the only reason it doesn't sound harsh is due to the sound deadening used on the D3's compared to the other vehicles it is used in. It's a thrashy, noisy engine in my Mazda6. Runs like a champ and has been completely reliable for 80,000+ miles, but it still leaves plenty to be desired.

do NOT say "gutless V6" untill you have driven Chrysler's 3.7l V6 .. oh man .... what a NIGHTMARE!!! The other adjectives - too: trash, rough ... everything - I drive a Liberty with the engine and what a nice car completely let down by a horrible engine.

 

The D30 (in the Mazda6) is buttrey smooth and amazing engine in comparison.

 

Igor

[BORG]

The D30 in the D3 was terrible unless driven a specific way. I'm use to that with my old Taurus which was only pleasent to drive if you were patient and gentle. The D3s are great cars all around, fantastically rigid and nimble chasis. But the engine was absolutely inadequate for the application and the problem has been completely fixed by the D35 (end of story!).

[Devodev]

My daughter's birthday is today, so the wife and I drove to Jacksonville NC to be with her.

 

I stopped at a station and filled up when we left. We drove to NC and spent yesterday and today with her...we did some driving around, but not much. I stopped at the same station and filled up on the way home. We averaged 30.7 mpg. My calculations are manual, and if you want to figure them yourselves here are the numbers...515.8 on the odometer and 16.78 gallons of 87 octane regular. Most of the road speed was with the cruise set on 75.

 

We have about 45 miles of two lane. I happen to have the chance to pass another car, and did so without vibrating windows from the horrible 3.0L engine, and there was no need to panic as the 45 mph to 70 mph was in acceptable time.

 

Neither my wife, nor I feel any discomfort from traveling our 300 miles this afternoon, after doing the same yesterday morning. We had PLENTY of room for the goodies we took to my daughter and grand daughter.

 

This car is a fantastic road car, and I have to say I don't understand why it is as unloved as it is.

 

 

Were you visiting Camp Lejeune? J-Ville, NC is a beautiful drive and that's what made the car feel great. :P

My dad hated his Explorer until he moved to FL. and now he thinks it's great. See, for loving a vehicle it's all about location, location, location.

Just kidding, as with nearly anything, if a car fulfills all your needs and doesn't cause you any trouble then you can't ask for more.

[Ralph Greene]

I'm not claiming my wife's Montego is equivalent to an Infinity M 35, A MB E 350, A BMW 530, and the various Lexus 300's, etc. But am saying it is a terrific car for the money. I think a low mileage 6 speed auto is a terrific used car bargain.

 

BTW....my wife and I do drive it "a certain way", certainly not in a spirited way. That's how you get the economy and smooth driving. I've got other vehicles for laying rubber and hauling stuff. Most of you who like this vehicle do as well.

[Admiral]

Hmmm....fuel economy differences between the 3.0 and 3.5 are marginal. I'll take the 3.5's torque any day, given the choice. That's one reason fuel economy is less-than-stellar in my Mazda6: I need to rev the living hell out of it to make it do anything.

 

That's something I just can't wrap my head around. The D30 is a throughly modern design, aluminum block and heads, RFF valve train with DOHC and 24 valves, dual-stage intake manifold in some applications, variable intake cam timing on some applications, it has a pretty robust rotating assembly and a freaking bed plate for the lower end. With such a 'modern' design I can't for the life of me figure out why it's such a festival of NVH. Just blame the timing chains I guess.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Your headline confused me. I was expecting something completely different.

 

It reminds me of the sage wisdom of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Edited May 5, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[351cid]

Your headline confused me. I was expecting something completely different.

 

It reminds me of the sage wisdom of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

 

It was my twisted humor showing through :D

[30 OTT 6]

Your headline confused me. I was expecting something completely different.

 

It reminds me of the sage wisdom of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

This thread is mostly dead.

[boston]

The 500/Freestyle is a pretty darned good vehicle that drives very much like the XC70 Volvos without the turbo.

Its an underrated vehicle by Ford/their dealers and the general public

[Mark B. Morrow]

This thread is mostly dead.

 

Miracle Max: [Lifts and drops the arm of the dead Westley] I've seen worse.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miracle Max: He probably owes you money huh? I'll ask him.

Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.

Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

Inigo Montoya: What's that?

Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

[P71_CrownVic]

:rolleyes: I knew that was coming sooner or later.

Yeah...for ONCE it is me bringing up the Panthers in a thread...

[Extreme4x4]

One thing I have found will all of Fords engines, for the last 10-15 years (depending on engine), is that you really have to get them broken in. Before 10-20K miles, they just do not have their full power, or full economy.

 

I have the 3.0 in my 03 Tribute, and love it. Its the trans I don't like (sluggish and easy to get caught in the wrong gear). 64K completely trouble free miles............ and I really like the way it sounds at full throttle, as it has a good growl to it (unlike some, I really don't like completely silent engines, especially when I get on it). The fuel economy is pretty good, but would definitally be better with a better trans.

 

The '09 Escape/Tribute/Mariner does make a compelling package, for replacing my '03.

 

That said, I would have no reservations about a 500 with this engine. I drove one for the day, and found it to be very easy to get along with............ and downright peppy.

[regfootball]

The D30 in the D3 was terrible unless driven a specific way. I'm use to that with my old Taurus which was only pleasent to drive if you were patient and gentle. The D3s are great cars all around, fantastically rigid and nimble chasis. But the engine was absolutely inadequate for the application and the problem has been completely fixed by the D35 (end of story!).

 

smart owners like me got the tranny flash on the 6 speed and shifting issues pretty much went away. the engine is thrashy in stop and go driving and i would like more power, but i am amazed at the passing power and shift quality at higher speeds and on the interstate and freeway, considering how big the car is and all.

 

the 3.0 revs smoothly and makes good power once you wind it up.....its just that ford never drowned out the NVH that went with it.

[armadamaster]

Yeah...for ONCE it is me bringing up the Panthers in a thread...

 

Dammit P, we're supposed to wait for them to do that...remember?

 

I was gonna point out there's a 2003 Town Car owner over at CVN getting over 30 HWY MPG on a regular basis. :reading: