New Spy Pics of Five Hundred

[swenson88]

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.

 

How can you not think that last year's July and August sales were artificially inflated by employee pricing? Look at the sales numbers in those two months versus the rest of the months in 2005 and it's pretty clear that Ford sold close to double their average monthly volume of most vehicles due to employee pricing. Hard not to put into consideration. I don't think the 500 is a runaway success by any means, but comparing this August sales to last isn't a fair comparison.

[Edgey]

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

 

The 500 may have lost some sales to the new Fusion. The Fusion was not available this time last year. Ford had anticipated a more even distribution between the two cars but the styling and drivetrains appear to have slanted interest toward the Fusion. God knows it isn't a question of value since the 500 is arguably the best value between the two. The update should even things up between the two cars so you don't have to give up fashion and performance to own the 500. I would chose the 500 over the Fusion for the safety record alone! The crash data on the Fusion is awful, even WITH side airbags.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Edgey

[silvrsvt]

Any person agency or buissness that buys them is a consumer. Private citizens do not buy them due to a 15 year old body and even at that private sales of the 2 are still not bad considering how old the damn things are.

 

I mean come on we are talking about cars that 15 YEARS old that fact that sell any to private citzens at all tells you they must have something the private citizen wants.

 

Uh not at a 89% take rate for fleet sales for the CV and nearly 60% for the GM...

 

I'd say the car is barely holding on in the retail market at lower sale rates then the 500 or Fusion

[Len_A]

The 500 may have lost some sales to the new Fusion. The Fusion was not available this time last year. Ford had anticipated a more even distribution between the two cars but the styling and drivetrains appear to have slanted interest toward the Fusion. God knows it isn't a question of value since the 500 is arguably the best value between the two. The update should even things up between the two cars so you don't have to give up fashion and performance to own the 500. I would chose the 500 over the Fusion for the safety record alone! The crash data on the Fusion is awful, even WITH side airbags.

Exactly. My wife looked at the crash test data on the Fusion, and said "No way". Looks like either another Montego in our family or an Edge, if and only IF the Edge's crash test data is on pare with the D3's.

 

Uh not at a 89% take rate for fleet sales for the CV and nearly 60% for the GM...

 

I'd say the car is barely holding on in the retail market at lower sale rates then the 500 or Fusion

Exactly. Try find a Ford dealer who stocks many Crown Vics. Retail inventory levels on the Corwn Vic is very low. Not a lot of retail Crown Vic custoemrs out there.

[matthewq4b]

Uh not at a 89% take rate for fleet sales for the CV and nearly 60% for the GM...

 

I'd say the car is barely holding on in the retail market at lower sale rates then the 500 or Fusion

 

 

 

Uh ya no kidding. But the point is the CARS ARE 15 YEARS OLD. They have not recived a substantial sheet metal update in 15 years the last one was in the summer of 1991. By all rights they should have NO SALES PERIOD. That is the point. Even with styling dating back to MC hammer days and engine that is out powered by V6's, the most archaric suspension set up on the market and with far newer compition avalable they still manage to sell thousands of units retail.

 

Yes the fleet market is high on these cars but they are money making sales so really who cares? with margins higher than the 500 even in fleet.

There is some thing wrong when cars that structually date to the 1970's and sheet metal wise date to the late 80's-early 90's out sell the newest stuff from ford in the segment.

 

The 500 has sold 20K more units private this year than the CV GM. That is it. A vehical that is more than a decade newer and a few decades newer in base structure grabbed 20k more sales than a couple cars that are older than methusula and have modern direct compitition.

 

In all aspects the 500 twins are a failer. The concept is sound but the execution was a cluster fuck.

I said when these things were realsed they would bomb and never meet Fords expectations.

 

I' m sorry that I was right.

 

The make over is not enough stop the down ward sales slide. it may slow it or even stop it for a year but that will be the extent of it.

 

The 500 twins are an example of what happens when a good idea is poorly executed.

 

They are as stody as the CV GM styling wise and missed their intended target audiance totally . If we rember correctly it was the mid 40's proffesional. Ford ended up building anouther geezer mobile when they already had 2 or 3 in the stable and instead of updating the geezer cars that have a loyal following and highest owner loyalty in the buisness (for cars) they go an build a brand new geezer mobile then wonder why it flops.

 

Ford has cars that have the highest customer satifaction rates in the industry and instead of fixing the obviuos archaric short commings in these cars by redoing the sheet metal to actually appeal to more than .05% of the population they spend huge cash on the 500 twins to gain barely more than 20k in sales.

 

hell the CV GM have lost several times that much in private sales in the last few years due to neglect.

 

Ford has gained nothign with the 500 twins that could have not be got else where for less, not in sales or product image or quality as the 500 still ranks below the CV GM. The only plus is that it was not a botched launch riddled with recalls.

Proving that Ford can actually build a new car that is not a POS.

 

The CV GM will always have fleet sales just due to the cars reputation for durabilty and high owner loyalty. Well why in the hell did not Ford capitialize on this reputation make the cars appeal to more than a hand full of people.

Cars with a platnum plated reputation and they ignore them and not just for a while but over a decade.

 

The CV GM have a reputation that most company's would kill for to have linked to thier product. And instead of exploiting this Ford chooses to ignore it and then wonders why the stand in's fail.

 

 

 

Ford screwed the pooch with the 500 twins. Every thing Ford was hoping to get twith the 500 twins, reliability, quality, dependibility, they already had in cars in the segment. All that was missing was the apropriate wrapper. And Ford did even get that right on the 500 twins.

 

In the end Ford has not gained anything with the 500 twins that could have not be had with updates to the CV GM. Toss the TC in to the mix and the gains would have been even larger.

 

 

 

Matthew

[2005GTP]

Who cares about year over year sales and lets focus on what Ford is selling....they are selling cars which bring in little or no profit and not selling so many suv's which actually made money....bottom line.....if you sell a lot of something that does not bring in profits....you are better off going out of business.

[ZanatWork]

I cannot understand the people determined to hate the 500. For everything it is, it's fantastic. For all it's about to get, it'll be better. The Panther Mafia root for a car nearing 100% fleet sales, and others seem determined to hate the 500 for no reason other than they don't agree with its styling...or just babble nile toward it with NO clear reasoning.

 

$25. 5-star rated in all 4 directions. Huge interior. Very good fuel economy for its size. No steering recalls like the Avalon.

 

Gosh, what a horrid beast.

 

 

 

I should point out for the seriously challenged that the above was, y'know, sarcasm.

[DSenstad]

It is a transportant piece and thats all. Ford missed the boat by thinking they should follow the focus in the original 500, the front and rear didn't work. The car is solid, just a solid vehicle will sell if it doesn't have bad marks against it. If you eliminate the bad marks it will be fine. Lets see if they eliminated the bad marks when the critics come out.

[Traveler]

I cannot understand the people determined to hate the 500. For everything it is, it's fantastic. For all it's about to get, it'll be better. The Panther Mafia root for a car nearing 100% fleet sales, and others seem determined to hate the 500 for no reason other than they don't agree with its styling...or just babble nile toward it with NO clear reasoning.

 

$25. 5-star rated in all 4 directions. Huge interior. Very good fuel economy for its size. No steering recalls like the Avalon.

 

Gosh, what a horrid beast.

I should point out for the seriously challenged that the above was, y'know, sarcasm.

 

Don't blame the Panther fans for the sluggish sales of the 500/Montego. Hey, I test drove one and even with the current styling and the 3.0L its not a bad car. Debuting the upcoming 'enhanced' model as the 2005 model would have possibly made for better results. I don't think Panther loyalists detest the cars as much as the notion that the 500/Montego is the natural replacement for the Crown Vic and Grand Marq and that there is something wrong with those who would take a Crown Vic over a 500 or a Grand Marq over a Montego.

[DCK]

What completely new looking product are you talking about?

 

The Five Hundred/Montego competition:

 

Lucerne (volume equal to LeSabre from last year, more or less)

LaCrosse

Impala

Grand Prix

Avalon

300

Charger.

 

Which of these vehicles will be 'completely new' before 2010? About when we can expect a substantially revised D3.

 

Per some plans, the Impala and Grand Prix are going RWD in 2009, which means they'll steal a drop of like a whole year on the D3s. Apart from that I've seen no radical midcycles proposed for the LXs or the Avalon.

The 500 is getting a refresh to be competitive against its competition.............the avalon doesn't need a refresh because toyota did it right the first time.

[Traveler]

The 500 is getting a refresh to be competitive against its competition.............the avalon doesn't need a refresh because toyota did it right the first time.

 

 

Styling-wise?

 

Too conservative...but way too cold. The Avalon just doesn't have any personality, inside or outside IMO. Actually, I find the same thing with the Camry's interior, although I do give them credit for a remarkable improvement on the exterior, save for their V-shaped grille.

[Footballfan]

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

 

Noticed that too- hopefully the end result will not be adbominable like the new front end GM put on their minivans a few years back. I hope the final package is not like the one GM did; it will make the vehichle less desireable than it is now.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Footballfan

[630land]

"The 500 is getting a refresh to be competitive against its competition.............the avalon doesn't need a refresh because toyota did it right the first time."

 

Ahem, then why does Toyota do any re-freshes? Why aren't they still selling the 1996 era Avalon if they were right the first time?????

 

If Asians refresh it's 'continuous improvement'. For Ford, it's "they fucked up and have to fix it"

[DCK]

"The 500 is getting a refresh to be competitive against its competition.............the avalon doesn't need a refresh because toyota did it right the first time."

 

Ahem, then why does Toyota do any re-freshes? Why aren't they still selling the 1996 era Avalon if they were right the first time?????

 

If Asians refresh it's 'continuous improvement'. For Ford, it's "they fucked up and have to fix it"

Fords main concern is being the dullest vehicle in history and a lack of power............the avalon doesn't suffer from any. And like in other threads you have proven your logic to be that of a retard.

 

 

This line right here:

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

Why aren't they still selling the 1996 era Avalon if they were right the first time?????

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

 

Are you that much of an idiot? Seriously I am wondering since a rav4 v6 getting 29mpg highway you said was a big gas hog so it is absolutely clearyou kow absolutely nothing except to praise ford and blindly follow them.

 

The 500 refresh is a good job on fords part............I would have never expected Ford to actually fix a vehicles problems so soon.....good job ford. The changes are to make it competitive.

[DCK]

Which is true in the case of the 500.

Exactly, If the fusion gets a refresh for 2009 then it would go in the category "continuous improvement" But the 500 refresh is adressing problems it should of never had.

[Ralph Greene]

If Ford wants to engineer and style the 500/Montego to appeal to us "geezers", as some of you have stated....what's wrong with that? I would never consider buying some of the cars some of you consider "stylish". Just not my bag. Conservative styling is fine with me. It looks good a long time (in my eyes anyway). You know "different strokes" etc.

 

There are 80-100 million of us born since WW 11, we have the money to buy not talk, and we do buy cars.

 

My complaint is I don't see Ford advertising the features/benefits of the 500/Montego cars to the people most likely to buy them.

[Len_A]

If Ford wants to engineer and style the 500/Montego to appeal to us "geezers", as some of you have stated....what's wrong with that? I would never consider buying some of the cars some of you consider "stylish". Just not my bag. Conservative styling is fine with me. It looks good a long time (in my eyes anyway). You know "different strokes" etc.

 

There are 80-100 million of us born since WW 11, we have the money to buy not talk, and we do buy cars.

 

My complaint is I don't see Ford advertising the features/benefits of the 500/Montego cars to the people most likely to buy them.

I'm turning 47 pretty soon, and I'm with you. I like conservatively styled cars. I'm still from the 1986 MY Taurus/Sable school - form follows function. I never saw the appeal of the Chrysler 300, and I still don't. I'm barely 5' 5" tall, and I find the 300 claustrophobic inside.

 

 

 

I don't think Ford advertises the Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle near enough,and Mark Fields admitting a few months ago that Ford "orphans" cars, by blitzing the advertising at first then backing off, leads me to beleive that marketing is at least part of the problem.

[zoomerjrt]

I'm turning 47 pretty soon, and I'm with you. I like conservatively styled cars. I'm still from the 1986 MY Taurus/Sable school - form follows function. I never saw the appeal of the Chrysler 300, and I still don't. I'm barely 5' 5" tall, and I find the 300 claustrophobic inside.

 

 

 

I don't think Ford advertises the Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle near enough,and Mark Fields admitting a few months ago that Ford "orphans" cars, by blitzing the advertising at first then backing off, leads me to beleive that marketing is at least part of the problem.

If targeting the older generation was a good thing Buick sales would be out of this world. When they buy a car they hold on to it for years, you want buyers who flip cars every couple of years these are the people Ford needs to target, not the group on the way to bingo.

[wescoent]

I finally got behind the wheel of an '06 Five Hundred AWD a few days ago. It's a big car, which means it will never be nimble. But it rode very nicely and felt planted to the road. The motor is quite adequate, but doesn't have the kick I'm looking for in a new car. The '08 model should solve both the engine problem, as well as the styling problem.

[Len_A]

If targeting the older generation was a good thing Buick sales would be out of this world. When they buy a car they hold on to it for years, you want buyers who flip cars every couple of years these are the people Ford needs to target, not the group on the way to bingo.

That true. I see a lot of people my age hanging on to cars, and driving them into the ground, but you're right - the only way this business succeeds is style them in a way that makes people want to be separated from their money. I guess for what ever reason, my tastes, from the original 1986 Sable (second car I ever bought new) haven't changed. Can form follow function and still be done in a very dramatic, very stylish way? I think it can.

[Hemiman]

Wow! Go away for a weekend, and I have to read for an hour just to catch up. You guys have already said most of what I'm thinking about the "improvements" to the 500.

 

First off, I think the 500 cars are the best engineered in their price range. Second, as you all know, I hate the styling. Hated it on the VW & Audi too. Yes, as someone stated, Ford should have used BMW as thier inspiration, (an impossibility with Mays).

 

Will the Fusion/427 grill fix it? No! It will help somewhat, but the real problem is deeper than that. The arched roof line isn't a real negative either. I would say that the car could be fixed just by stretching the frontend 6 inches between the front of the door and the rear of the wheel well. (if someone could photoshop this for me, I'd be greatful). Yes, I know that would be a big $ change & will have to wait.

 

Someone stated that it's much harder to make sheet metal changes today than it was in the 50's-70's. How so? They didn't have CAD, or comupter sim, yet they changed 75% of a car's sheet metal every 2-4 yrs. Just look at the Mustang from 64 -73. I just don't buy that argument. 2 yrs to change the grill, headlights & taillights? Come on!

 

I would think they could at least have added some creases to the fenders & belt line, and maybe some meat to the C pillar. Or how about stretching the hood and the front of the fenders, creating a reverse slope of the grill and brow over the headlights similar to the Mustang?

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope the best for the 500.

 

 

PS, can we get spell check on this forum?

Edited September 4, 2006 by Hemiman

[Imawhosure]

I work where they are built, and I gotta tell ya, Ford is between a rock and a hard place.

 

 

You have many kinds of consumers, but 2 kinds are most prevalent,

 

 

1. I want a good, conservative car, so the media says Honda, Toyoty, so I am saying that also. 500?????? Ford junk, isn't it? And if it isn't, I am not going to be one of the test cases.

 

2. I want lines, speed, toys, handling. Ford 500????? Hey, talk to me about something I can boot the rearend out on when ma' ma is not looking. Besides, Ford is old junk isn't it? And if it isn't, I am not going to be one of the test cases to prove the analysts wrong!

 

What are you going to do as a company? Can't make everyone happy, and even when you make some people happy, they have a predetermined position that it can't be any good.

 

Look at Mustang!!!!!!!!! Lets rename it Pinto forevermore, and you people who purchased one would be embarrassed. Nothing has changed but the name, but you would be luck to get 1.380 out of it from anyone on resale.

Translated----------------->you are purchasing a name, and a memory, not a vehicle.......plain and simple.

 

While the market is full of competent vehicles in the 500s segment; they themselves start from a weak position just because of the media and who builds them.

 

If you look at the value of what it gives, it is more than competent, but as a poster so succintly points out in another thread on these boards-------------->It is perceived that GM and DCX are not close enough to their Asian rivals, Ford isn't close to GM and DCX.

 

With an inbred unbalance built in by prognosticators, even a very decent vehicle will not perform to its ability in the market.

 

Change a couple of things and call the 500 THUNDERBIRD, and watch how fast they fly off the showroom floors, just as if you change a few things on the Cobalt and name it Corvette II, the same thing will happen.

 

It is not reality, it is perception. And that is the problem.

 

Anyone can jump on the Mustang, charger, bandwagon.............eventhough the vehicle is not really modern. They are not buying it for that though, they are buying it for nostalgia. When it goes to competence, these same people want to know why Ford can't build MORE vehicles like Mustang; or DCX can't make more like Charger.

 

Truth be know------------------->while we believe that Ford, GM, and DCX are dumb, they are smart enough to know there is only so many self indulgent people in North America willing to buy these supposed HALO cars. The bread and butter for these companys will come from other places. Unfortunately for Ford, at this time their biggest fans are self indulgent, and everyone elses customers listening to media or even our debates think that anything else they might have is worthless..............until they drive it.

 

How embarrassing some of us who ridicule our own products, have not even taken the time to get behind the wheel to determine to see if our predertimed notions are correct!!!!!

 

P.S. Last year, I took the time to drive almost every one of our vehicles to see if we really are behind, ahead, or neutural. (wish I coulda tried a GT, lol)

 

Once you take away the notion that so and so is waaaaaaaaay ahead on quality,(which is bogus at this point in time I might add) you begin to see the niches that Ford fits in to with some of its car offerings.

 

What many of us don't comprehend is that the media does not like us!!!!!! Not because our name is Ford, but because we drink to much fuel.

 

To show this as fact, Cand D even tried to put a Vette z06 up against a Ferrari and a Turboed Porsche that cost at least 25,000 more than them.

 

Their conclusion----------->and let me paraphrase here cause I wouldn't want to be accused of trademark infringement or something--------------->On paper, the Z06 came out ahead. It beat all of its competitors in performance, skidpad, acceleration, etc, etc. BUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But what?!?!?!?!?!?! They just go and add more value to what the foreign job does better,(like brake pedal feel, engine sound((give me a break)) etc) than claims we American auto workers and companys are building junk!!!!!! What ever the foreign car does better, is weighted to be worth more, while in a test 2 months ago, it was weighted the other way cause it help another foreign car win.

 

HOW DUMB ARE WE??????????

 

Do not discount out of hand what we build!!! Try them, then try competitors, then come back and say something. Take into account price, reliability, gas mileage, interior room, roadability, etc. You will find that some of your conclusions are correct, but some of them are wrong.

 

If only the American and Canadian public would take the same approach, the results you currently see might be considerably different!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[retro-man]

I work where they are built, and I gotta tell ya, Ford is between a rock and a hard place.

You have many kinds of consumers, but 2 kinds are most prevalent,

1. I want a good, conservative car, so the media says Honda, Toyoty, so I am saying that also. 500?????? Ford junk, isn't it? And if it isn't, I am not going to be one of the test cases.

 

2. I want lines, speed, toys, handling. Ford 500????? Hey, talk to me about something I can boot the rearend out on when ma' ma is not looking. Besides, Ford is old junk isn't it? And if it isn't, I am not going to be one of the test cases to prove the analysts wrong!

 

What are you going to do as a company? Can't make everyone happy, and even when you make some people happy, they have a predetermined position that it can't be any good.

 

Look at Mustang!!!!!!!!!

 

Let me seize on that last line: Yes, let's look at the Mustang: The early Mustangs, and this is just as true of the recent ones, could be everything from a mild-mannered "Secretary's car" - with a 6-cyl, automatic (even, God forbid, a vinyl top), to a hairy-chested, 4-bbl, stick-shift, tire-smoking beast. This was true of other cars throughout the Ford lineup at the time from the Galaxie on down. Today, this is only true of the Mustang; not coincidentally I think, the most successful car in Ford's current lineup.

 

Look at the twin supercharged V6 that has been rumored for the upcoming Lincoln MKS (did I get that designation right? I can't for the life of me keep them straight from one another). Imagine if you could order the Five Hundred with that mill under the hood, with AWD. What about a 6-speed manual for those who like to row their own? Maybe hardly anybody ever would equip their cars this way, but it would be there to add luster to the lineup. As for now, we get one flavor only: Vanilla. Beige: it's the new black. Do we even remember how it is that Alfred Sloan decimated Henry Ford's market share? Have we learned nothing?

 

Imawhosure, I wish you and Ford good luck with the car. Tell you the truth, I don't mind the Five Hundred's styling at all. I think it is quietly handsome. (Rather, I have some concern that simply grafting the 427 front end from the Fusion - which so clearly is not an organic part of the original design - is going to look like the act of desperation that it is.) I think the basic architecture of the car: upright seating position, huge rear seat and trunk, is fine. I haven't driven one, but I'm sure it is mechanically fine. I bet the acceleration isn't even too bad.

 

I just wish it had something - even in the closet - to get the blood flowing.

[SysEng]

Someone stated that it's much harder to make sheet metal changes today than it was in the 50's-70's. How so? They didn't have CAD, or comupter sim, yet they changed 75% of a car's sheet metal every 2-4 yrs. Just look at the Mustang from 64 -73. I just don't buy that argument. 2 yrs to change the grill, headlights & taillights? Come on!

 

All cars back in the '50s were BOF. Trucks are still BOF, and change pretty quickly . Though the "panthers" are pretty static . Today these trash cans are "unibody", and any changes usually imply global changes to every component. Costly and dangerous from a product liability point of view. Check out what a mis- specification of tires did to the Explorer and Fords bottom line ( and that was a BOF package ) for an idea of what that can mean.

[Hemiman]

All cars back in the '50s were BOF. Trucks are still BOF, and change pretty quickly . Though the "panthers" are pretty static . Today these trash cans are "unibody", and any changes usually imply global changes to every component. Costly and dangerous from a product liability point of view. Check out what a mis- specification of tires did to the Explorer and Fords bottom line ( and that was a BOF package ) for an idea of what that can mean.

 

 

Mustang was unibody. I'm not talking about changes that would effect the basic unit structure. Please re-read my post. I'm mostly speaking of bolt on pieces. Yes, to crease the rear quater pannels, would effect the basic unit, (minimum effect).