New Spy Pics of Five Hundred

[Mark B. Morrow]

Going back a ways, but I still think it's relevant:

 

1977 - Baskethandle Thunderbird

1980 - Kleenexbox Thunderbrick

1983 - Aero Bird

1987 - Refined AeroBird

1989 - MN12 Thunderbird, which received minor tweaks in 1991, 94, and 96

 

It's interesting to note that Ford's fortunes ascended trought the 1980's when they weren't letting all their cars linger. Even the rest of the line receieved updates and changes with more regularity, you can see for yourself in The Standard Catalog of Ford. The stunning 1987 T-Bird restyle changed virtually ALL the sheetmetal (except the hood and doors) and was kept for only two years! (of course, then the MN12 rotted as SUVs took off, but that's another story).

 

The MN12 is a case similar to the FiveHundred. When it debuted in 1989, is was panned as being large and underpowered with the base 3.8, despite the world-class IRS and other class-leading refinements. The SC won MT car of the Year but the 3.8 was already earning a dubios rep, and the SC never had much footing. Ford rushed to cram the 5.0 in there by 1991, and the 4.6 was respectable for 1994 on (ALL-new interior for 94 also). But despite those efforts, the market turned and Ford killed them off in 1997. Of course, they weren't advertising them worth a damn and the largr body structure had long gone stale (compare to the late 70's on when no car lasted longer than 4 years)... HMMMM where have we heard this recently...

 

I hope the FiveHundred turns out differently. I'm glad that ford isn't just sitting around But as others have pointed out, the competition doesn't sit still and there's more now than 30 or even 10 years ago.

 

Maybe if the '08 FiveHundred picks up a little, it will encourage Ford to make more sweeping revisions for the next refresh. Again, I submit the 83 vs 87 T-birds: the doors and greenhouse were same/similar, yet they were clearly not the same car.

 

The T-Bird traditionally ran in 3 year cycles from the beginning

'55-'57

'58-'60

'61-'63

'64-'66

'67-'69

'70-'71 ( basically the '67-'69 with the beaked nose)

'72-'76

'77-'79 (three years, not two and among the most successful in the T-Bird's history)

'80-'82 (the dark ages of T-Bird (Fairmont) design) (Planned for an expected fuel crisis)

'83-'86 ( four years, Again very successful)

'87-'88 (A refresh of the prior model)

'89-'99 ( Same car with various refreshes over 10 years)

 

It isn't really feasable in this environment to do two year cycles of major changes. In the old days the cost of designing new bodies was relatively cheap. Now you spend Millions in a redesign plus the required crash testing and other regulatory costs. I don't expect to see major changes in the 300/Charger or Impala any time soon. The 300 is already looking dated and the Impala is no beauty queen. In fact i have a hard time telling the current one from a Malibu.

 

The new Camry is by far the UGLIEST car I have seen since the Aztek. It is nothing but a bad rip-off of the Mazda 6 with none of the 6's positive attributes. Camry owners don't care much about style or power. The last two Camtys were plain and most are sold with 4 cylinder engines. Toyota has held on to the market in that class because of its perceived quality, a perception Toyota seems to be throwing away with their recent missteps.

 

Ford did abandon the car market in the late '90s early "00s by not replacing the Taurus and updating the Panther cars. There isn't much they can do about that now. Ford has a great family car in the 500/Montego. It blows the Camry and Accord away in interior and trunk space. It has AWD which neither offers and it is a bargain at its price. The marketing has been abysmal. Ford needs to concentrate on advertising that car to that market and making incremental improvements like the 3.5, six speed and updating the front/rear and interior. I have not heard anything negative about the 500/Montego from anyone who owns one. Hopefully word of mouth will continue to build. I do agree that all the talk about improved models has kept me from seriously considering trading to a Freestyle at this time. The '08 should be an early intro to get the improved models out on the floor.

[J-150]

Going back a ways, but I still think it's relevant:

 

1977 - Baskethandle Thunderbird

1980 - Kleenexbox Thunderbrick

1983 - Aero Bird

1987 - Refined AeroBird

1989 - MN12 Thunderbird, which received minor tweaks in 1991, 94, and 96

 

It's interesting to note that Ford's fortunes ascended trought the 1980's when they weren't letting all their cars linger. Even the rest of the line receieved updates and changes with more regularity, you can see for yourself in The Standard Catalog of Ford. The stunning 1987 T-Bird restyle changed virtually ALL the sheetmetal (except the hood and doors) and was kept for only two years! (of course, then the MN12 rotted as SUVs took off, but that's another story).

 

The MN12 is a case similar to the FiveHundred. When it debuted in 1989, is was panned as being large and underpowered with the base 3.8, despite the world-class IRS and other class-leading refinements. The SC won MT car of the Year but the 3.8 was already earning a dubios rep, and the SC never had much footing. Ford rushed to cram the 5.0 in there by 1991, and the 4.6 was respectable for 1994 on (ALL-new interior for 94 also). But despite those efforts, the market turned and Ford killed them off in 1997. Of course, they weren't advertising them worth a damn and the largr body structure had long gone stale (compare to the late 70's on when no car lasted longer than 4 years)... HMMMM where have we heard this recently...

 

I hope the FiveHundred turns out differently. I'm glad that ford isn't just sitting around But as others have pointed out, the competition doesn't sit still and there's more now than 30 or even 10 years ago.

 

Maybe if the '08 FiveHundred picks up a little, it will encourage Ford to make more sweeping revisions for the next refresh. Again, I submit the 83 vs 87 T-birds: the doors and greenhouse were same/similar, yet they were clearly not the same car.

 

 

 

 

good example. A car that's been killed many times.

[Edgey]

The 500 may not sell in the volumes Ford is accustomed to, but it will become a demonstration to a significantly new Ford customer that they can build substantive and reliable vehicles. Ford admits that the design of the 500 is a weakness, but it is very servicable. The 2008 update should help to prove that the 500 has been a very modern design all along, obscured by poor detailing.

 

Judging from the spy photos of the Montego and 500, I think we're in for something very familiar and not wonderfully surprising. It won't make the 500 the next blockbuster, but it will breath more life into it than the last Taurus update did. They have a great product that needed the finishing touches; hopefully more pepple will be attracted by the design and sold on the content.

[goingincirclez]

good example. A car that's been killed many times.

 

Exactly - No matter how many times they reinterpreted it, redefined it, or farked it up (1980), they 'fixed it quick" within a few years and it soldiered on. Only when they let the overal body style get stale (MN12) did it die off...

 

It isn't really feasable in this environment to do two year cycles of major changes. In the old days the cost of designing new bodies was relatively cheap. Now you spend Millions in a redesign plus the required crash testing and other regulatory costs.

 

Excellent point. I've realized this myself but should have made note of that in my post. That's the real catch-22 of so much competition: There is always something "new" out there, and the public doesn't give a damn about financial returns and engineering development and lead time and testing... there's always something new. 4 or 5 years for a "major" restyle may be reasonable, especially when the penalties for rushing it and farking it up are so great... but who wants to wait that long? When people take 3-year leases, who wants to wait one or two extra years? Their lease is up now, they want something new NOW. Otherwise they might not have leased in the first place.

 

Still, beauty is more than skin deep but it still takes a looker to get you to see that. Ford certainly can't let bodystyles age anymore. There is always something else out there. If the greenhouse engineering truly locks a car design in stone, then maybe they need to investigate ways to allow more flexibility for redesigning that area without sacrificing stuctural integrity. Of course there's still tooling to pay for... but if redoing a few dies and jigs at some expense means you could end up amortizing the others more quickly overall, it might be worth it?

Edited September 2, 2006 by goingincirclez

[voncoon]

They oughta rename the 500 the "Diversity", as this is what got Ford into the dying condition it is now in now. You can say what you want about their crappy vehicles, it don't matter, they got "diversity". They are sinking, but sinking in a politically correct manner.

[RichardJensen]

Back atcha Richie. Most of your horseshit is just the typical Koolaid crowd crap. lol I think the fact that the 500 is selling like shit compared to the rest of the market is pretty much all the verification I need. The vast majority of people that I've talked too about the car think it's ugly as hell. I don't need some journalistic expert to point out the obvious. If it was so damned great than why is Ford refreshing it after only 2 selling seasons?

Hmm. It's outselling the Avalon, for one, and the LaCrosse has a higher year over year sales decline. But I guess those vehicles aren't in the same market. The Five Hundred is not selling as well as the Mustang, nor is it selling as well as the Silverado, which are competitors, per your absurdist theory of the minute.

[ZanatWork]

I've asked politely and repeatedly that Buick's "Lucerne" be renamed "LuSable". Look at the front end if you have any questions. If you still have questions, the next step is a Lasik surgeon.

 

The Five Hundered only had 2 flaw that were mentioned with any regularity:

 

1. Too conservatively styled.

 

2. Too little power compared to competition.

 

Okay...so the styling is getting revamped if not totally redone, and the power issue is being handled.

 

What's the problem? The 2004 problems hardly count, as there is no use whatsoever is bitching about the lack of power or styling (for the record, I find that color choice greatly helps or hurts the front end). The car is hugely safe, incredibly commodious, and quietly has made a couple hundred thouseand friends. The fact that it's not advertised anymore hurts the ales, and I can only hope that Ford has learned from that and will not repeat the mistake.

 

This is a comfortable, roomy, extremely safe car with very good chassis manners. It's about to get better. How that is worth complaining about, I can't guess.

[fllcobra]

If the 500 is so great, can anyone answer why sales dropped 50%?

 

... anyone?

 

... still don't hear anything?

Edited September 3, 2006 by fllcobra

[RichardJensen]

If the 500 is so great, can anyone answer why sales dropped 50%?

 

... anyone?

 

... still don't hear anything?

Uhhhhhhh Employee pricing?

 

F150 volume dropped 45% year over year in July. That doesn't mean that YTD numbers were down a similar amount. With the Five Hundred, if you look at sales volume from Jan. to June of last year, it was pretty consistently in the 7-9k range. For July and Aug. last year, it was 13k and 12k respectively.

 

For the year, Five Hundred volume is down 17.5%, but was down 41% in July and 51% in August, obviously skewing the YTD numbers.

[Guest Sixcav]

Uhhhhhhh Employee pricing?

 

 

Uhhhhhh, Kookaid drinking Richie? LMAO

You got a lame excuse for every Ford failure don't you boy. Employee pricing doesn't account for a 51% drop in sales. Across the board all Ford models are down with the exception of the Mustang and, if you want to count it, the GT. And they aren't down just a little Richie. The Freestyle is down 42%, the Freestar 68%, the Ranger 43%. Overall the company is down 11%. So don't hand me the stupid excuses about employee pricing or whatever your latest Koolaid crowd theory is.

[RichardJensen]

 

Yeah. There must be some other explanation.

 

:hysterical:

[Guest Sixcav]

There is another explanation Richie. Their line up SUCKS!! lol They don't have the cars people want to buy and their trucks and SUV's are not selling because gas is high as a cats back.

[RichardJensen]

Yeah. Employee pricing has nothing to do with July and August sales declines. It's merely coincidence that the largest monthly declines are from those two months. The real reason, as provable by statistics and logical arguments is 'Ford sucks you loser'.

[Len_A]

I agree. Lowering the greenhouse would have done wonders for the Five Hundred. Instead, it looks about like what it is--a Five Hundred with a new nose and tailights grafted on. And no dual exhaust tips? If you put another 65 horses under the hood (33% increase), why the hell wouldn't you announce it with dual exhausts? Three years after Job 1 is enough time to make some substantive changes.

 

The process for determining what content to put in product changes is definitely broken at Ford.

The spy shot I saw on Edmunds of the 2008 Montego shows dual (side-by-side) exhaust tips - see phote below. The huge exhaust tip shown in the LeftLaneNews spy shots is one used strictly on test mules, for hooking them up tp exhaust gas analyzers, and also for hooking them up to hoses that take the exhaust gases out of the dynometer labs. Strictly an OHSA requirement, and not a piece that goes into teh production car.

 

 

Also looks like Montego gets a revised decklid and bumper, with the licence plate moving to the bumper.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2006 by Len_A

[Bluecon]

Five Hundred might be an alright car, but it is not remotely an American sedan - it is some weird bastard child of Volvo and Ford, and the set up was done purely to save cash on designing a proper American sedan.

 

For the price, it is a nice package, but it is not really a Ford. Ford of North America doesn't really build automobiles anymore - it builds trucks, and merely borrows designs from overseas operations to build half-assed automobile product on the cheap.

 

I like large sedans, but this one obviously used an overseas platform that is not ideal in order to save a few bucks. None of the Big Three really build a proper large sedan, outside of the Panther, and it could use some attention paid to it after all these years of neglect.

Well put. They already had the panthers and instead of modernizing it they came out with this bastard stepchild.

 

This vehicle needs to be rear wheel drive with a V8. And if they would have redisned the Crown Vic they could also supply the police market wich must be very lucrative despite being 'fleet'.

 

Even GM has figured that out.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Bluecon

[Traveler]

Sort of looks like they are adding a hint of length to the front end...or at least the illusion of it.

[cheri/ck]

Ford needs to be worrying more about market share loss in the truck segment than worrying about new cars. Everyone likes to over-analyze the numbers but the bottom line as I see it is that Ford has totally disappointed and alienated their "truest blue" following and that being the truck crowd. This problem is likely to take some time to play out.

 

Dodge is the main recipient of the 6.0 Powerstroke debacle. And, I'm not sure yet, but expect that GM is likely to be the main recipient of the problems with the latest F-150. Why worry about cars when you are losing your bread and butter mainstream product - light-duty trucks in North America for Ford are huge!

 

As long as Ford has Mazda and Volvo to help with the cars then I expect they can orphan out their cars well enough to be competitive. I for one am very worried about their trucks. Quality of late is a huge problem and Ford has probably lost lots of loyal customers as a result.

 

I have often wondered what price tag Ford puts on their loyal customers considering how little they have supported known engineering problems and made that loyal customer suffer and pay. Guess we'll see as the numbers continue to decline.

[RichardJensen]

F-Series volume YTD: 545,963, down about 13%

Silverado volume YTD: 434,937, down about 17%

Sierra volume, YTD: 142,129, down about 17%

Avalanche volume, YTD: 32,109, down about 34%

Ram volume, YTD: 250,144, down about 12%.

 

As you can see from these numbers, Ford and Dodge have picked up market share this year, on Dodge's account this is probably more due to the Mega cab than the Cummins diesel.

[cheri/ck]

F-Series volume YTD: 545,963, down about 13%

Silverado volume YTD: 434,937, down about 17%

Sierra volume, YTD: 142,129, down about 17%

Avalanche volume, YTD: 32,109, down about 34%

Ram volume, YTD: 250,144, down about 12%.

 

As you can see from these numbers, Ford and Dodge have picked up market share this year, on Dodge's account this is probably more due to the Mega cab than the Cummins diesel.

 

 

I think your top and bottom numbers mean more than anything and I rather doubt the Mega-Cab has a lot to do with the overall totals. The way Ford factors in every full-size truck sale into "F-Series" numbers does not equate to GM's numbers. And, Ford should be way ahead of Dodge rather than a percentage point below.

 

Like I said - this thing will take some time to play out. The declining 2006 numbers for all light-truck manufactuers mostly reflect those folks not buying trucks that don't really need them. Ford needs to be worried about lost sales to those that buy trucks because they have no other choice for either their lifestyle or workstyle.

 

And, I'm not at all sure that those angry ex-Ford owners buying Dodge trucks will ever return to the Ford fleet.

 

We'll see how this plays outs over the next year or so.

[taxman100]

Gas prices are killing truck sales to the more casual buyer - it has all been discussed ad naseum, but it is killing Ford right now.

 

I like the F-150, but the new one is too big and heavy for an inline-6 with automatic - the kind of F-150 I've always known. It's gas mileage stinks even with a v-6. My brother had a mid-80's F-150 with that powertrian, and it did okay on gas.

[bystander]

Yeah, and worse rear seat room in exchange.

 

Funny also how this turned into a debate about cars that have been launched SINCE the Five Hundred, instead of cars being launched between spring of next year and 2010 or so.

 

Just keep shifting the point of view for the debate. Eventually you'll find one that suits your prejudice, and you can set up camp there.

You find me the words 'major styling mistake' in relation to the Five Hundred, from a Ford exec., on the record.

 

If the updates the Five Hundred receives do not substantially change its overall appearance (and I will be willing to bet based on the photos published that the 2008 will just look like a 2005 with a different nose treatment, tail lights, and rear bumper fascia), it is perfectly relevant to consider the cars that have come out since the Five Hundred debuted in 2004. Keep in mind that the Five Hundred's overall shape and detailing are nearly a carbon copy of the 1999 VW Passat (see photos below). The Five Hundred's styling was five years old when it first made it into showrooms in late 2004. I'm simply advocating more substantial changes to break that linkage with what will be a nine year old car when the 2008 debuts.

 

And I found an article from Peter Horbury (Executive Director, Ford North American Design), in which he says, "The Five Hundred was not a success." Read it for yourself to interpret his meaning. I doubt he would say the car was not a success if he didn't mean to imply it was a styling mistake. So, you're right I didn't find the words "major styling mistake" (my paraphrase) quoted by any Ford exec.

 

http://www.designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=1802...1&year=2006

Edited September 3, 2006 by bystander

[RichardJensen]

The way Ford factors in every full-size truck sale into "F-Series" numbers does not equate to GM's numbers.

Actually, GM's numbers are for 1/2-1 tons, just like Ford. The 650/750 are reported under 'heavy trucks'.

 

Also, bear in mind that Dodge's incentives on the Ram have been higher than the F-Series, and that buyers shifting to Cummins will have to put up with the many weaknesses of the Dodge 3/4-1 ton lineup, including dramatically lower payload and towing. For all the Cummins reliability, IIRC, Dodge's capacities are lower than GM's.

[RichardJensen]

 

That's this year's A6.

 

So, while the Mays roofline is somewhat old, it is still in use elsewhere.

 

The Five Hundred design with the three-bars and new headlights, like the Fusion, is, bold enough for a company that needs to move 2.75M units of Ford brand stuff a year. The 'C' pillars and rear treatment of the Fusion are, to me, extremely unsatisfactory from a design standpoint. They are as anonymous as the Five Hundred's C pillars and decklid, but less graceful.

 

However, Horbury is right: the Fusion has a great 'face', and it's one that is nicely scalable. It's distinctive, yet simple. It can be applied to most sedans and coupes, without looking like any other brand. Ford hasn't had this since they went grilleless in the mid 80s. That look worked for them until the late 90s.

 

While the profile is somewhat derivative for both the Fusion and the Five Hundred, I think the market will forgive that, given the exceptionally distinctive face, high quality interiors, and nice mix of performance and value. Evidence that the market will forgive a bland profile is to be found with the Fusion, Milan, and Zep, all of which look totally anonymous from the side.

[fllcobra]

Does anyone this it is possible that the warmed over 500 can flop so badly that it can actually hurt Fusion sales?

[RichardJensen]

Does anyone this it is possible that the warmed over 500 can flop so badly that it can actually hurt Fusion sales?

Anything's possible.

 

However, it's difficult to see what could be that catastrophically disastrous about the Five Hundred redo. And dn't say "Well, given Ford's history..." Because it just isn't so. Most of Ford's cars have failed on their own demerits, not the demerits of similar vehicles.