Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
carman21

Ford 500

Recommended Posts

I am not sure if this is true but, the 500 actually outsold the Chrysler 300 for the 2005 model year. I heard this on a radio show so I don't know the source unfortunately. If anybody could find out that would be great. If the 500 did outsell the 300 & the LaCrosse also did too. Then, besides V-8 power and RWD the 300 is a joke. Its ugly, with its K-mart shopping cart grill with chrome bling. The car makes you feel like your in a cage of steel,glass, and plastic. To make my point the car really sucks. Like most Muscle cars this one isn't as nice to live with as it is to drive. The 500 is a boring car but, its also cofortable. Its the first Ford aside from the Mustang and the GT40 that I've actually liked. I also like the Fusion. Ford claims the 500 is faster to 60 than the 3.5L 250hp V-6 300. That doesn't surprise me since my 3.8L 200hp V-6 Regal felt like it had more punch than the 3.5L V-6 300. The Ford is no performance car but, it does fel confident off the line and it does so in a much better package. I really can't wait for the 3.5L V-6 in the 500. That would make a good car a great car. Despite all the rants over this car it is a great car after all. I'd take it over any Taurus hands down. Even the Avalon doesn't really hurt this car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I REALLY don't think that's true--but the numbers might have been close. Like has already been posted, "technically" the Lacrosse outsold the 300, but that's simply a matter of a much higher rate of the Buick's going into rental agencies and other fleets. But as far as the 500, which I really like except for the homely look and front end, I just don't think it's true...........anyone have the true #'s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But as far as the 500, which I really like except for the homely look and front end, I just don't think it's true...........anyone have the true #'s?

[post="15066"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]


300---94K(thru Aug 05*)
500---75K*

However, sales rate in Aug. was 12k for the 500, 9.9K for the 300

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A fair comparison, I suppose, would be the sales for all three "Chicago cars", including the wagon variant (Five Hundred, Montego and Freestyle) compared to sales of all three LX cars, including the wagon variant (300, Charger and Magnum). As for me, I like the Five Hundred but I love the 300C. I have put almost 10,000 absolutely trouble-free miles on my 300C in just seven months time. It is fast, comfortable, and as good a turnpike cruiser as any car I've driven. And people still come up to my when I'm gassing it up to complement me on the car's looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford claims the 500 is faster to 60 than the 3.5L 250hp V-6 300. That doesn't surprise me since my 3.8L 200hp V-6 Regal felt like it had more punch than the 3.5L V-6 300. The Ford is no performance car but, it does fel confident off the line and it does so in a much better package. I really can't wait for the 3.5L V-6 in the 500.

[post="15053"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Not really suprising. There is a substantial weight difference.

300 = 3700lbs, base
Regal = 3400lbs, base
Five Hundred = 3600lbs, base

The 3800 also has much better low end torque....

Don't know how to 'splain the Five Hundred though unless the 6-speed or CVT really help it that much compaired to the 4-speed auto in the 300. Edited by Oldsmoboi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the Impala outsold the PArk Ave too but that comparison is just as irrelevant. Dodge Magnum/Charger sales would make for a better comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jazzhead' date='Sep 16 2005, 10:17 AM']
A fair comparison, I suppose, would be the sales for all three "Chicago cars", including the wagon variant (Five Hundred, Montego and Freestyle) compared to sales of all three LX cars, including the wagon variant (300, Charger and Magnum).


ford trips....145k thru Aug
DCX trips....151k tru Aug....

Aug 24k Fords
Aug 19.5k DCXers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fair comparison, I suppose, would be the sales for all three "Chicago cars", including the wagon variant (Five Hundred,  Montego and Freestyle) compared to sales of all three LX cars, including the wagon variant (300, Charger and Magnum). 

As for me, I like the Five Hundred but I love the 300C.  I have put almost 10,000 absolutely trouble-free miles on my 300C in just seven months time. It is fast, comfortable, and as good a turnpike cruiser as any car I've driven.  And people still come up to my when I'm gassing it up to complement me on the car's looks.

[post="15109"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


In that case, does GM get to count all the W-bodies? Cause then we know who wins the sales race pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really suprising. There is a substantial weight difference.

300 = 3700lbs, base
Regal = 3400lbs, base
Five Hundred = 3600lbs, base

The 3800 also has much better low end torque....

Don't know how to 'splain the Five Hundred though unless the 6-speed or CVT really help it that much compaired to the 4-speed auto in the 300.

[post="15162"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


the CVT can feel quite brisk. The 6 speed is a bit indecisive at times and slow to downshift. The CVT responds to the need with a proper ratio RIGHT NOW. The CVT is definitely quicker of the two on the 500. Once you hit above 45 mph or so, the 500 actually feels racy at times. Part of that is because the Duratec v6 is smooth and loves to rev. You get no signs of protest from the motor, so you can quickly get up to 80mph and it doesn't feel like its gonna hit the wall.

Some folks say the 500/Freestyle is slow off the line, I'd say its doesn't push you back into the seat and doesn't have the aggressive throttle linkage that GM does to make it seem quicker than it is. With the CVT is you lean into the pedal hard from the start, the CVT will then kick down its ratio and you get solid grunt off the line. Its just a matter of pushing the gas pedal down more than you may be used to to get the CVT to respond with a lower ratio right off the line. You don't necessarily need to keep the throttle down, just long enough to blip the revs up and make the CVT understand its gotta chage its ratio more radically than with just a trickle flow of fuel. When driving the CVT you have to pay a little more attention to where exactly you have your foot on the throttle pedal, to get the most out of it.

Having driven the Chicago trio 4 times now, I can totally say its legit the 7.5 0-60 with the 500 and CVT. My comparitive basis is a Magnum 3.5 RWD wagon, and I never thought that car was terribly responsive, engine/tranny/porky weight wise. I don't think that car could do 7.5 with the 3.5. maybe like a 7.9 or something. Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all about image. There used to be a drawing of the 300C=Chocolate and, directly below, 500=Vanilla. I couldn't find it, but you get the point. The 300C is cool and unique and powerful, whereas the 500 is bland and boring and weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some quotes from Car and Driver from a couple months ago. Ford likes to lie in their ads. Was there small print on the bottom of the screen? I remember the ad they had about the F150 beating the Ram, and then in the small print it said something like "up to 1500 RPM". So Dodge aired a commercial with no fine print that had both trucks drag racing with trailers, and it said something like after 20 test runs, the Ram won every time.

500
On the mechanical side, the aging 3.0-liter V-6 is good enough for fleet sales, but it'll never be a source of joy—0 to 60 takes 7.9 seconds, just a squeak ahead of the last-place Kia, accompanied by a thrashing racket in the upper rev ranges. A six-speed gearbox is a theoretical advancement, but this one makes rough and poorly timed shifts when you hustle.


300
And it wins you over on the road. It has confidence. It moves with certainty. There's nothing iffy about the steering and brakes. Even without the brawny Hemi, there is satisfying acceleration, although it's well back from the leaders of this group. The climb to 60 mph takes 7.3 seconds. A quarter-mile speed of 90 was traditionally the threshold of being a fast car. Many of today's models do better; four of this group's six meet or exceed that mark, including this 3.5-liter 300 at 15.6 seconds at 90 mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some quotes from Car and Driver from a couple months ago.  Ford likes to lie in their ads.  Was there small print on the bottom of the screen?  I remember the ad they had about the F150 beating the Ram, and then in the small print it said something like "up to 1500 RPM".  So Dodge aired a commercial with no fine print that had both trucks drag racing with trailers, and it said something like after 20 test runs, the Ram won every time.

[post="15310"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


ford's ad times were with the CVT. Car and Driver's test was a six speed. The CVT is noticeably quicker and more responsive. The CVT is now what's shipping on most 500's. I have absolutely no reason to believe the CVT 500 front drive can't hit the 7.5 mark.

Myself, the Magnum 3.5 really wasn't any fun to drive. It felt heavy and not at all nimble. It kind of felt like driving a van or bus or truck or something. The 500 at least felt like a car. Now, its possible the Magnum I drove only had the 4 speed auto, now they are shipping with 5 speeds. Maybe someone can see what Car and Driver tested, i bet it was a 5 speed 300. Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time anybody got excited about a Camry?  http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[post="15368"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Well, if it was their first (or first new) car ever, I could see it then. http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ford's ad times were with the CVT.  Car and Driver's test was a six speed.  The CVT is noticeably quicker and more responsive.  The CVT is now what's shipping on most 500's.  I have absolutely no reason to believe the CVT 500 front drive can't hit the 7.5 mark.

Myself, the Magnum 3.5 really wasn't any fun to drive.  It felt heavy and not at all nimble.  It kind of felt like driving a van or bus or truck or something.  The 500 at least felt like a car.  Now, its possible the Magnum I drove only had the 4 speed auto, now they are shipping with 5 speeds.  Maybe someone can see what Car and Driver tested, i bet it was a 5 speed 300.

[post="15359"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Well here's a quote from a site that tested the CVT:

In front drive, with CVT, the new Five Hundred can sprint from 0 to 60 in 7.5 seconds. The 6-speed is the fuel economy champ, however, with impressive EPA ratings of 21 city and 29 highway. http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2403.shtml


7.5 sec. is slower than 7.3 sec.. The 300 Touring that C&D tested was an 05' meaning it was also just the 4-speed

The Magnum handles the best out of all of the LX's due to it's near 50/50 weight distribution:

Based on Motor Trends Figure 8 testing the Magnum is the best handling one of the group. The Charger RT did it in 27.7 seconds with an average g of .62 and the c did it in 27.8 at .62 g's. The Magnum clocked in at 26.9 at .65 g's. The magnum srt 8 also beats the 300 srt 8 the figure at with the magnum clocking in at 26.1 and the 300 at 26.3 I know the magnums weight ratio is almost perfect so this may have something to do with it. http://www.lxforums.com/board/showthread.php?t=17309

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting to note that the E55 wagon is faster than the E55 sedan, even though the wagon weighs more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget the fact that 2.7l 300s are fleeted generously and even Tourings are offered as 'premium' cars by rental agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There has been alot of pentup demand for a new midsize Buick from Buick fans, so it wouldn't suprise me if the LaCrosse outsold the 300 by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the fact that 2.7l 300s are fleeted generously and even Tourings are offered as 'premium' cars by rental agencies.

[post="15502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Appx 25% of 300's are fleet sales, while Ford has limited the Chicago triplets to less than 15% fleet sales (I believe actual numbers are 14%). Also, for the first 6 months, Ford did not allow fleet sales on the Chicago cars.

The good car in the 300's, is the 300C. This car is also significantly more expensive than even the most maxed out 500, thus, it should not even be considered in a comparison with the 500.

Frankly, I wouldn't really compare the cars at all. One is all about image.......... and the other is all about utility. Short of 4 tires and a steering wheel, there really isn't much that is comparable between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Base models of the 500 and 300 are a legit matchup. Agreed about the 300C and even the 3.5l Touring to an extent. Placing a Touring next to a Montego is more realistic. I agree about the sizzle vs. the steak, though. Though the 300C is excellent in its own right, there is nothing compelling about the 2.7l 300s except for the cheap price and big brother looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I wouldn't really compare the cars at all. One is all about image.......... and the other is all about utility. Short of 4 tires and a steering wheel, there really isn't much that is comparable between them.

[post="15724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


You don't have to compare em'.......Car and Driver already did, and the 300 Touring beat the Ford Fivehundred:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=9639

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to compare em'.......Car and Driver already did, and the 300 Touring beat the Ford Fivehundred:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=9639

[post="15975"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


myself, I'd be driving the 500. The 300 is a penis-extender car. I like the practicality of the 500 and I think the 300's styling is far too faddish. If for no other reason alone than the fact that the 500 has a nice airy greenhouse and the 300 is far too confined.

The 500 in that comparo has the 6 speed, had it had the CVT it would have done better. Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So any car that is eyecatching, powerful and RWD is a penis-extender car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that the E55 wagon is faster than the E55 sedan, even though the wagon weighs more.


Better weight distribution...in drag racing, wagons were often used back in the day because they transfer weight to rear wheels better under hard acceleration than a coupe or sedan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So any car that is eyecatching, powerful and RWD is a penis-extender car?

[post="16132"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


:lol:


I's say neither, I'll just take a charger... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So any car that is eyecatching, powerful and RWD is a penis-extender car?

[post="16132"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


I'd hardly consider a car with 190 horsepower to be powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hardly consider a car with 190 horsepower to be powerful.

[post="16206"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


HEY! My car has 160hp!! :angry:


:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY!  My car has 160hp!!  :angry:
:P

[post="16220"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Yeah, but it doesn't weigh 3800 pounds. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it doesn't weigh 3800 pounds.  B)

[post="16223"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]



Hmmm...my daily driver has 195 hp AND weighs 4500 lbs... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hardly consider a car with 190 horsepower to be powerful.

[post="16206"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


I was referring to reg's comment that the 300 is a "penis-extender car." I never said anything specifically about the rental-spec base 300 and its engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sci-you might be able to get away with it if you wanted... Has anybody seen how some people drive the base 300s like they have a Hemi? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So any car that is eyecatching, powerful and RWD is a penis-extender car?

[post="16132"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


a 'large percentage' of the schmucks I've seen driving 300's are ex-jocks and chumps dressed like they are trying to hang out with Tiger Woods after the back nine, or guys trying to be the next big CEO. The Poseur crowd. That, and wannabe rappers that managed to find some money for dubs and a subwoofer collection in the trunk.

its the group of guys that really wanted a Lexus or Mercedes and couldn't fit the bill for one so they gravitate to the car with the big Bentley grille hoping to fool everyone into thinking its an expensive car they bought. So everyone can think they have more money and a bigger penis than they actually do.

as for 'eyecatching', Liza Minelli shitfaced walking around manhattan is eye catching too, but that mean its worth looking at? Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hardly consider a car with 190 horsepower to be powerful.

[post="16206"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


LOL, exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess we better watch what kind of cars we buy. We might be labeled. If you like a car and you buy it, more power to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, exactly.

Doesn't the LX weight like 4400 pounds ....? 

[post="16700"][/post]


Base 300 = 3700 lbs & 190 HP
300 Touring/Limited = 3767 lbs & 250 HP
300C = 4046 lbs & 340 HP
300C SRT-8 = 4160 lbs & 425 HP

Ford Five Hundred = 3643 lbs & 203 HP
......yep, that's it.....only one weak engine choice that's only 13 HP more than the CHEAPEST possible 300. That's 222 less HP than the best AVAILABLE 300. That's more HP than a whole nother 500 engine, and then some.

I would say that the 300 is the Ultimate Anti-Poser car. I mean c'mon, it's a Chrysler!!!!.....it is what it is. It takes someone who is comfortable with their sexuality, and penis size, to drive around in a vehicle that some people might write off for just being a Chrysler. I mean, for God's sake, they could have bought a Lexus ES(Camry/lamb in sheeps clothing), or a CTS (nice looking, but weak!), a C230 Mercedes (a Mercedes, for people who can't afford a Mercedes), etc. Those are the ultimate poser cars!

Don't worry about people looking at you while driving a Ford 500. The average person wouldn't even know that they weren't looking an 8 year old Audi.

Posted Image
Posted Image Edited by BrewSwillis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can name a certain car that can be considered to be "poser-ish" but I don't want to get shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh yall think just because people buy the 300 they are in a category.No people have the MONEY to buy what they want.Most people that buy this want american luxury and japenese cars are just a fad anyway. Edited by stroke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not into penis extension as much as Reg is, but the Ford and Chrysler simply appeal to different sets. This has already been pointed out and beaten to death, so I'll just summise my points in saying... *The LX cars are respectable in their own right. *I personally do not find the 300 appealing. *I find nothing appealing about the base 300 except for those that buy one and dress it up with a faux Bentley grille and dub rims (which I have seen); in such a case, 2.7l 300s are very much poseur cars in that they're imitating their more expensive kin. *I would find a comparison between a Montego and 300 to be more reasonable since Chrysler and Mercury (and Buick) are midtier premium brands. *In such a comparison, one would find a 300 Touring or Limited more appealing for its RWD configuration, larger engine, and looks. One would find a Montego more appealing for its FWD/AWD setup, airier cabin, greater spaciousness, and also looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one person i know personally traded his aging Lexus LS for his 300. Nice guy, but I'm pretty sure he only bought the 300 for status reasons. I'd be pretty sure he's not the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone think four years ago that we would be talking about people buying a Chrysler as a status symbol? Just goes to show that one strong design, even a cheap Bently ripoff can change people's perception. Buick could have had this with the Lucerne if it had come out a few years ago, or with the LaCrosse if it weren't a little cramped, had the ass of a Taurus and the front overhang of a 1972 Grand Prix. I wonder if the 300 really has any staying power. Time will tell.

For what its worth, to bring this back somewhat into the Ford end of things, I'd buy a Montego over a 300 anyday. I saw one today and it looked really freaking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...