of course it's relevant. it's relative. what you see as marginal he sees as significant. the difference between a 939 board with an athlon 64 3200+ and a 754 board with an athlon 64 3200+ would be considered marginal by some significant by others.
of course it's relevant. it's relative. what you see as marginal he sees as significant. the difference between a 939 board with an athlon 64 3200+ and a 754 board with an athlon 64 3200+ would be considered marginal by some significant by others.
Yes, it's just one of their competitors. When the competition comes out with bigger and better things, it leaves Ford once again last. Simply put, the only thing that matters in terms of trouncing is sales and profit. I don't see Ford selling a decent amount of 500's, with as negative a public reaction and so-so reviews from the media.
So your whole argument is, it depends on that person's opinion/judgement? I'm sorry I'm not going to argue about what you "define" trounces as.
There were no REAL sports cars in the late 70s, you should know that. That 5.0 mustang was not considered "very very fast" as you said. By that thinking, my 1984 caprice classic was a "very very fast" car. So I guess you should be careful how you word thingsOriginally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Yes, I'm implyingt the 300m is a better car. Overall I'd say that chrysler and it's sublabels have been making superior product to ford.
The 5.0 had 225hp and only weighed about 2700 lbs. The 4cyl made around 88hp and weighed around the same.
Your memory sucks.
WRONG, the 5.0 in the earlier models, '79 or so only had 120 hp, it was then upped in later models the first HO 5.0 in '82 only produced 150 hp.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/f...anghistory-2559-5.html
chryslers still suck. talk about quality problems sheesh.
Regardless, bringing up 20+ year old standards when talking about a brand spanking new car really has no relevance. Why don't you bring up cars pre-1973? Thoes were very very fast cars, not the sh!tbucket 5.0 you are talking about.
Both chrysler and ford make crap. So I'm not sure why my garbage statement is too far off. They are putting a underpowered engine in a very heavy car. I'm not sure what market segment they are aiming at, but I'm pretty sure this won't be a very hot item at all.
I'm fairly sure you're not old enough to remember the 70s. I'll make that assumption, sue me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by: SampSon
There were no REAL sports cars in the late 70s, you should know that. That 5.0 mustang was not considered "very very fast" as you said. By that thinking, my 1984 caprice classic was a "very very fast" car. So I guess you should be careful how you word thingsOriginally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: SampSon
Yes, I'm implyingt the 300m is a better car. Overall I'd say that chrysler and it's sublabels have been making superior product to ford.
The 5.0 had 225hp and only weighed about 2700 lbs. The 4cyl made around 88hp and weighed around the same.
Your memory sucks.
WRONG, the 5.0 in the earlier models, '79 or so only had 120 hp, it was then upped in later models the first HO 5.0 in '82 only produced 150 hp.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/f...anghistory-2559-5.html
chryslers still suck. talk about quality problems sheesh.
Regardless, bringing up 20+ year old standards when talking about a brand spanking new car really has no relevance. Why don't you bring up cars pre-1973? Thoes were very very fast cars, not the sh!tbucket 5.0 you are talking about.
Both chrysler and ford make crap. So I'm not sure why my garbage statement is too far off. They are putting a underpowered engine in a very heavy car. I'm not sure what market segment they are aiming at, but I'm pretty sure this won't be a very hot item at all.
I'm fairly sure you're not old enough to remember the 70s. I'll make that assumption, sue me if I'm wrong.
Porsche 924 was first released with a 2.0 inline 4 pumping out 125 HP.
your pretty much wrong about everything so far. my first car was a '72 buick skylark, i got that in 1981. i remember what the late '70's and early '80's cars were like.
my 2nd car was a Datsun B210
the oil crunch of the '70s completely changed the auto industry. everything was underpowered in the late '70s.
But it's Ford that's coming out with bigger and better things, at a lower price. 2.7L V6 and 4speed auto in a 2 ton car is not what I would call bigger and better, especially when Ford is offering 3L and CVT at $1000 less. Ford has every 300 short of 300C licked. 3L V6 with CVT will provide same performance as 3.5 with 4speed auto and better fuel economy and demolish the 2.7L 4AT. You'd have to get the $27700 3.5L 300 touring model, just to match the performance of the Ford 500 base model which is $5000 less with better MPG. Now you are talking some real money. 4 speed auto just aint gonna cut it in 2004. Even I4 accord has 5 speed auto. You can subjectively like 300 looks, feel of RWD, etc. But objectively, the 500 is a better car period, and a much better car for the money.
300C is in $35K territory, so it's not even in the same market.
Had to stop that huge nest of quotes.
Yes cars were underpowered in the 70s. I would not consider very many cars "very very fast" in that era. I would definatly not consider a 4000 lbs car pushing 200 hp to be very very fast by any standards. Compared to todays standards thoes cars were very very slow. The first 924 was around 2600 lbs, still a far cry from the 4000lbs number you threw out. A civic puts up thoes numbers, and does better in the 0-60 and quarter mile.
I don't see how I can be wrong when were talking about opinions. I was wrong about how old you are, though that doesn't change anything in relation to how fast or slow we think a car is.
Exactly what is the point of all of this? Are we trying to say that by 1977 standards the Ford 500 is a fast car? Who gives a rip. By 1977 standards about 80% of the current line of production cars are "very very fast".
Either which way, the ford 500 isn't great it's mediocre, at best.
You don't understand - the 500 is inbetween a brick and a hard place. It's not luxury enough nor balls out, "holy sh!t" powerful like the 300C. It's supposedly a notch above the Accord/Camry/Altima. But at the price point it's at now, and with the impending rebates, it will in terms of performance, fuel economy, and price, compete with the upcoming Fusion, which is the Taurus replacement. There's better cars below it, and better cars above it. Why choose the 500 at all?
If that's the case, than all 300s aside from 300C are in even worse position, since they are inferior to Ford 500 for more money.
Why Choose Ford 500:
Interior and luggage space.
Interior comfort and refinement of a car built on a Volvo platform
Economy and performance of a 3L duratec engine and CVT or 6 speed auto not offered by competition.
More than adequate acceleration and great fuel economy given its size.
Clean conservative styling without pimpmobile aspirations.
Great available AWD system.
Great interior design reminiscent of Audi.
Great pricing even before incentives, killer deal with incentives.
Volvo S80 bred with Audi A6 starting at $20K pricepoint.
Fusion will be Mazda6 sized car, not really same market as the 300 or 500. Also a great car appealing to a younger crowd that preffers styling and performance over size and handling over ride comfort.
Um, the Fusion is a mid-size car - I know it's not in the same market as the 300/500. That's what I'm saying - it's similar enough that it will steal sales away from the 500. There's not enough differential to pull buyers towards the 500. It's bland and boring. The interior is standard Ford fare - it's a lot nicer than it was before, but it's all starting to become a little generic. Edmunds also mentioned the interior materials being less than desireable. Adequate acceleration and performance? Edmunds also mentioned "mediocre engine performance" and how the AWD system produced no noticeable difference in performance. (And how CVT is only available with AWD)
AWD isn't really supposed to give you a boost in performance, it just gives you better traction in bad weather conditions.
i wouldn't be surprised if ford offered an optional engine it's 2nd year.
Ahh, my bad about the AWD then. Rumor is that SVT is supposed to be working on a version of the 500, just a rumor though.
Look on edmunds website. The base model has CVT in FWD and AWD. The high end models are 6AT FWD and CVT AWD.
I have explained to you that Fusion is more of Mazda6 sized car, while 500 is 300 or Avalon sized car. They may both be "midsize" but their sizes and target markets are quite different. How many people crosshop Mazda6 and Avalon? Or Pontiac G6 and Buick La Crosse? That's the best I can explain it to you. If you still don't get it, wait till 500 comes out and compare it to Mazda6. Again, if acceleration is mid 7s to 60, that is adequate to good, since Nissan Maximas with AT prior to 2002 were 7.5s 0-60 cars, and they are by no means slouches. Most auto mags don't have any nice things to say about base 300 performance either. I think Edmunds called it "sluggish" which in my book is worse than "mediocre."
The AWD system producing no noticeable difference in performance and fuel economy is a good thing and a testament to the AWD system's efficiency.
iamwiz82
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2001
- 30,772
- 13
- 81
Ford is having some major issues with the 500 on the whole. As far as I know, from talk in the industry, they are having starter, CVT, wiper, engines, etc. I have been told that production is currently halted until the problems are lessened. Other than that, it is spot on.
I'm surprised that the 500 can do the 0-60 in 7.5s with only 200hp.
That's pretty quick for a boat with only 200hp. It must be light, really light for its class. OR underrated
That's pretty quick for a boat with only 200hp. It must be light, really light for its class. OR underrated
to put it into perspective, that 500 is just about as fast as a 4th & 5th gen automatic Maxima, which was regarded as a fast car in its class at that time.
And the 500 is about as fast as the 240hp Accord V6 and prolly faster than the Camry.
Either Ford struck gold with that CVT or their engine is severly underrated or the lightness issue.
It's funny how GM got out of the whole CVT business since they couldnt' get it right, and here's Ford doing really well wiht it.
The 7G Accord V6 probably does 0-60 in the mid 6's. The 6 speed coupes routinely hit mid-high 14's in stock form. I wouldn't call the 500 as fast as that.
Whatever. It's plenty fast. It's as fast as last generation pre 2002 auto maxima and auto accord. The people who buy 300's aren't gonna race it, and will be happy with 4th gen Maxima performance.
are you describing the car or the acceleration??
"mediocre" or "average" is what this car is supposed to be.
it's basically average or above average with every feature, performance spec etc. that's sufficient to sell well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter