Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, I know all the above are the same car. I was wondering how good these are, anyone have experience with one? I hear they are pretty roomy and have a nice interior. I like the styling, very clean compared to some of today's bigger cars that have lots of un-needed creases.
Also any idea why they were big sales flops? Any fatal flaw to the design/engine/transmission ? Thanks in advance!
Hi, I know all the above are the same car. I was wondering how good these are, anyone have experience with one? I hear they are pretty roomy and have a nice interior. I like the styling, very clean compared to some of today's bigger cars that have lots of un-needed creases.
Also any idea why they were big sales flops? Any fatal flaw to the design/engine/transmission ? Thanks in advance!
My neighbor had a 500 and it had many issues. Rear brake noise and premature wearing out of the pads.
One of my friends has a 2007 Mercury Montego and she LOVES it! She bought it new and never any issues. Ironically she traded it in today because it had been demolished by THREE major hail storms we have had within 4 weeks. She didnt want it repaired, but she had on her FB that she is sad to see it go. She really loved that car. She traded it in on a brand new 2011 Taurus, so you can see she is still loyal to the brand.
I love the style and the roominess of the Fords. The 500 was my first choice of car for my wife...she sat inside one and didn't care for certian ergonomics. We bought a Lucerne instead. I'd still like to have an AWD used 500, they are a pretty nice car (from what I've read/seen).
The "500" moniker hearkens back to the 1960's. Bad marketing move; this is a major reason the 500 was changed to "Taurus". However, I don't care what they name it, I'd still like to have one.
Hi, I know all the above are the same car. I was wondering how good these are, anyone have experience with one? I hear they are pretty roomy and have a nice interior. I like the styling, very clean compared to some of today's bigger cars that have lots of un-needed creases.
Also any idea why they were big sales flops? Any fatal flaw to the design/engine/transmission ? Thanks in advance!
They were pretty good. The 3.0L V6 was a very good engine, although not very powerful. The car was very solid, built on a Volvo platform, and had very good crash ratings.
There was an AWD version (also used in Volvo AWD models). Two transmissions; an Aisin AW 6 speed, and a ZF designed CVT. The CVTs were apparently OK. AWD adds some complexity (and potential repair costs) on models so equipped. I would think that the early 3.0 front wheel drive 6 speed was probably the most durable of the series. The newer 3.5 engines with ford automatic trans were probably all right too, but don't know anything about them.
Not sure why it wasn't a success. I thought it was a nice car, and knew a couple of owners who liked theirs quite a bit. I guess it was too plain for the mainstream market. Maybe it was too close to the size and styling of the Panther platform (Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car) vehicles. I see a lot of retiree types driving them. (I like the Panther cars myself, but the designs are pretty old.) The interior styling of the 500/Tarurus of that time was not very exciting. Just my opinion.
I have one and it has 294,839 miles, my dad gave me it after buying the 2013 Taurus. He bought it at 6 miles. (which he test drove.) Mines the 6-speed automatic, FWD-SEL model. We've ALWAYS kept up with oil changes, and such. The car is great, I love the navigation head-unit, the cars roomy. To spite what people have said about the power of it, it has some great acceleration and top speed. It's governed ofcourse. The car is still running perfectly, the engine and trans are perfectly fine. I love the car, fords outdone themselves with this product IMO. Feels like it has 80,000 miles!
Hi, I know all the above are the same car. I was wondering how good these are, anyone have experience with one? I hear they are pretty roomy and have a nice interior. I like the styling, very clean compared to some of today's bigger cars that have lots of un-needed creases.
Also any idea why they were big sales flops? Any fatal flaw to the design/engine/transmission ? Thanks in advance!
The rear brakes (disc) have a history of wearing out premature.on the 500 My neighbor had a 500 the first year they came out and the car was loaded and had about a 29k price tag.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? Thanks in advance!
