2005 Ford Five Hundred

[TBR]

"The 300's problem is that it has no direct true competitors. There are no mainstream large, RWD, V8 sedans for it to compete with."

You're right, the 300c doesn't really have any direct competitors, but the regular 300 does and it is compared to those cars it is overpriced.

[ifcar]

I think the 300 could easily be matched up with the CTS.  Although, the 300 wins that easily as it is quite a bit cheaper.

The 300 wins for pricing and interior space, and the CTS beats it at everything else. The 300 is an overpriced family car, not a better-value CTS.

[BMWDave]

Sorry Dave, but your argument makes no sense at all. It's like saying the A8 doesn't compete with the 7-series just because one is styled conservatively and the other is Bangle-ized. Manufacturer design does not change the fact that cars of comparable size, price, and body type compete with one another.

Not true at all...the two luxury sedans you mentioned both come from similar companies, are both sporting inclined, are both priced about in the same range, and are both aimed at the same people.  THe same cannot be said for the 300C and 500.  One is a safety oriented family sedan with very conservative styling, and very practical packaging, and the other is a styling tour de force, and has a small interior.  They simply appeal to different people.

[bajanbuoy]

"The 300's problem is that it has no direct true competitors. There are no mainstream large, RWD, V8 sedans for it to compete with."

You're right, the 300c doesn't really have any direct competitors, but the regular 300 does and it is compared to those cars it is overpriced.

Fine, I'll bite.

V8 aside, the 300 is still a lot bigger than what they are comparing it to.



For instance, when the 300 placed second to the Avalon in the C&D comparo, the Avalon they tested was more expensive than the 300.  So much more, in fact, that they could've opted for the V8.

And Iffy, the CTS is also quite a bit smaller than the 300.  What cars are you comparing that directly compete with the 300, size, RWD and all, that makes it so overpriced.

[ifcar]

Dave, what? The 300 is still a full-sized sedan, and has plenty of interior space. Far more than a Fusion, a bit less than a Five Hundred. And the pricing is similar, the Chrysler is just more.

[BMWDave]

Dave, what? The 300 is still a full-sized sedan, and has plenty of interior space. Far more than a Fusion, a bit less than a Five Hundred. And the pricing is similar, the Chrysler is just more.

The 300 is a very big car on the outside, and yet its interior space leaves me wanting for more in such a car.  I guess I should have clarified.

[ifcar]

"The 300's problem is that it has no direct true competitors. There are no mainstream large, RWD, V8 sedans for it to compete with."

You're right, the 300c doesn't really have any direct competitors, but the regular 300 does and it is compared to those cars it is overpriced.

Fine, I'll bite.

V8 aside, the 300 is still a lot bigger than what they are comparing it to.



For instance, when the 300 placed second to the Avalon in the C&D comparo, the Avalon they tested was more expensive than the 300.  So much more, in fact, that they could've opted for the V8.

And Iffy, the CTS is also quite a bit smaller than the 300.  What cars are you comparing that directly compete with the 300, size, RWD and all, that makes it so overpriced.

Why shouldn't the 300 V6 be compared to other family cars simply based on which wheels are powered? Why is RWD a requirement in finding competition?

If I insisted that to be a competitor against the BMW 530i for comparison purposes (example) had to have an I6, I could suggest that it wasn't expensive for its class either, as it has no competitors.

[TBR]

"The 300's problem is that it has no direct true competitors. There are no mainstream large, RWD, V8 sedans for it to compete with."

You're right, the 300c doesn't really have any direct competitors, but the regular 300 does and it is compared to those cars it is overpriced.

For instance, when the 300 placed second to the Avalon in the C&D comparo, the Avalon they tested was more expensive than the 300.  So much more, in fact, that they could've opted for the V8.

And Iffy, the CTS is also quite a bit smaller than the 300.  What cars are you comparing that directly compete with the 300, size, RWD and all, that makes it so overpriced.

Ever heard of the words "comparably equipped"? The V6 300 has nothing over the Five Hundred except its styling, yet the Five Hundred is considerably cheaper.  

[giant_mtb]

There are a few full-size RWD and V-8 sedans I can think of...the Crown Viccy family comes to mind.    

[bobwill]

That's true, but I doubt that many people are actually cross-shopping them. :D
Of course, the same thing is probably true of the CTS that I mentioned earlier.

[giant_mtb]

Yeah..I wasn't really being seroius when I mentioned the Viccy...of course no one cross-shops them.  

Yeah...the only viable competitor (I guess) is the CTS...sort of.  B)  

[bajanbuoy]

"The 300's problem is that it has no direct true competitors. There are no mainstream large, RWD, V8 sedans for it to compete with."

You're right, the 300c doesn't really have any direct competitors, but the regular 300 does and it is compared to those cars it is overpriced.

Fine, I'll bite.

V8 aside, the 300 is still a lot bigger than what they are comparing it to.

For instance, when the 300 placed second to the Avalon in the C&D comparo, the Avalon they tested was more expensive than the 300.  So much more, in fact, that they could've opted for the V8.

And Iffy, the CTS is also quite a bit smaller than the 300.  What cars are you comparing that directly compete with the 300, size, RWD and all, that makes it so overpriced.

Why shouldn't the 300 V6 be compared to other family cars simply based on which wheels are powered? Why is RWD a requirement in finding competition?

If I insisted that to be a competitor against the BMW 530i for comparison purposes (example) had to have an I6, I could suggest that it wasn't expensive for its class either, as it has no competitors.

Ok, good point!


So how do we compare cars then?  Just by price, by features, by size?


The point is, YOU can't speak for everyone.  You can only tell us what your preference is!  

For example; (I'll use your comparo - *plug-plug*   )

In your comparo you had the TSX as a bargain at $31,000.00, but the much larger, more powerful 300C at $34,000.00 is overpriced (not to mention a 300 limited [a step down from the C] bases somewhere in the $30,000.00 range).


Well, I gues to end all; what cars would you compare to the 300 that makes it so overpriced?

[ifcar]

Ford Five Hundred, Buick LaCrosse, Kia Amanti, Nissan Maxima. The non-Avalon large sedans. Could even throw in the Accord and Camry as better values than the 2.7-liter version.

[bajanbuoy]

Ford Five Hundred, Buick LaCrosse, Kia Amanti, Nissan Maxima. The non-Avalon large sedans. Could even throw in the Accord and Camry as better values than the 2.7-liter version.

Well the only car in that group even worth mentioning is the Maxima, which the 300 is larger than.

Just because the Accord and Camry may be at the same pricepoint as the 2.7, doesn't mean they are in the same class.

The Amanti, although a nice vehicle is a bargain basement choice, so of course it is gonna be cheaper.  The LaCrosse is..... well nevermind.  

I can see where you're headed, I just disagree that it is overpriced.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  But, out of these vehicles, the 300 may be a bit more expensive (the SL Maxima is actually more than a 300 Touring), but none of these are better (IMO), save for the Max which has an optional 6speed MT.

:D

[ifcar]

A Maxima 3.5SL isn't more than a comparably-equipped 300 Touring, which doesn't even include standard ABS. And what you decide is "worth mentioning" decides whether or not they exist?

The 300 is overpriced because virtually everything in its class is less expensive when comparably equipped. And it doesn't do anything that even less-expensive midsizes can't, so one could consider it overpriced against them as well.  Seems simple.

EDIT: And factor out styling, and the 300 has nothing over its better competitors.

[Shane]

The Ford 500 is truly a dull car.  On the street it's so boring.  It can have all the wonderful attributes in the world, but do I want to be seen in one....no.  It looks like every other vanilla car all wrapped up in one.   Value, quality and sound engineering are all good....but after all is said and done, many want to walk up to their new car and be excited about it, loving the way it looks.  The 300 has the 'it' factor....people love the way it looks.  And I think the 500 is already dated looking, the too high green house is so yesterday, the too common wedge shaped tailights, ungainly proportions.  The Chrysler is an instant classic.

[TBR]

The simple fact is that most people don't care how their car looks, how else would you explain the success of the terrificly bland Camry?

[Raza]

The simple fact is that most people don't care how their car looks, how else would you explain the success of the terrificly bland Camry?

My favorite ice cream is mint chocolate cookie, but in a pinch, I'll grab vanilla.  It's like you said, not everyone has the liberty to choose what they want, but rather buy what they can.  The Camry isn't that ugly, anyway.

[TBR]

Nope, but neither is the Five Hundred.

[Shane]

The simple fact is that most people don't care how their car looks, how else would you explain the success of the terrificly bland Camry?

Toyota sells purely on the perception of reliability alone.  It's souless, an appliance for the road...I guess many want that peace of mind.  The Ford does not have that reputation.  It needs to have some flair.

[ifcar]

The flair-less Taurus sold, so the attractive-but-bland Five Hundred can as well. Anyone who wants flair can choose the smaller Fusion.

[bajanbuoy]

A Maxima 3.5SL isn't more than a comparably-equipped 300 Touring, which doesn't even include standard ABS. And what you decide is "worth mentioning" decides whether or not they exist?

The 300 is overpriced because virtually everything in its class is less expensive when comparably equipped. And it doesn't do anything that even less-expensive midsizes can't, so one could consider it overpriced against them as well.  Seems simple.

EDIT: And factor out styling, and the 300 has nothing over its better competitors.

But I STILL mentioned them anyway, Iffy!  



Well, put in that light (against cheaper competitors), yes it is more expensive!  But does that make it overpriced i.e, not worth it?  I don't think so!  But I'm sure you'll disagree!!  :P

I guess it can be akin to the BMW 330 versus Acura TL arguement!  Even though the TL is comparable to the BMW 330 in almost all categories, the price of entry for the BMW is a bit higher (BTW, I agree with your assesment, if it were my money between the two, the TL would get the nod).  

So what are people paying extra for?  RWD, the Badge alone, the cache of driving what is perceived to be a better driving or a drivers car?  Do you think that can be said for the 300, 500, Lacrosse, Maxima and Amanti comparison (of course the Maxima is arguably the best handler and the sportiest)?

I guess what I'm asking is, when does more expensive equate to being overpriced?   At what level/price-point do you go from buying what is perceived to be one of the better driving cars in the segment and paying extra for it, and just being overpriced?

Note:  I'm not attacking Iffy, just wanting his views.  Let's keep it civilized, folks.  :)

[ifcar]

So you're arguing that styling and the perception of driving a good car (even if it's no better than its competitors) is worth a substantial price premium? Not a chance.

[TBR]

The simple fact is that most people don't care how their car looks, how else would you explain the success of the terrificly bland Camry?

Toyota sells purely on the perception of reliability alone.  It's souless, an appliance for the road...I guess many want that peace of mind.  The Ford does not have that reputation.  It needs to have some flair.

Do you think Toyotas have always had a good reputation? Most definitely not, bland sells if the price is right, no matter the reputation.

[TBR]

So you're arguing that styling and the perception of driving a good car (even if it's no better than its competitors) is worth a substantial price premium? Not a chance.

Not to you, but many people are perfectly willing to pay extra for upscale styling.  

[ifcar]

Doesn't make it a better car though, and it certainly doesn't make it a better value. It simply means that consumers are willing to pay more for it, just like consumers are willing to pay thousands for navigation systems and vinyl-covered roofs. Those add-ons aren't good values just because some people want them.

[Raza]

Doesn't make it a better car though, and it certainly doesn't make it a better value. It simply means that consumers are willing to pay more for it, just like consumers are willing to pay thousands for navigation systems and vinyl-covered roofs. Those add-ons aren't good values just because some people want them.

Nav systems can come in handy now and again.  And with my mom's sense of direction, she uses the Nav system alot.

[BMWDave]

Doesn't make it a better car though, and it certainly doesn't make it a better value. It simply means that consumers are willing to pay more for it, just like consumers are willing to pay thousands for navigation systems and vinyl-covered roofs. Those add-ons aren't good values just because some people want them.

Nav systems can come in handy now and again.  And with my mom's sense of direction, she uses the Nav system alot.

They definitely can come in handy...if you are in an unfamiliar area, they are very useful.

[cozmik]

Having a 300C in the family, I do have a lot of personal ecperience with it. From my experience with it, it is simply a very good car. It is not overpriced, it's asking prices are reasonable for what you get. The interior is of good quality IMO, though the materials could be a little better, they generally look good, and it's all screwed together very very well. It drives wonderfully, acceleration is just stupid fast, and it looks damn good. The Boston sound system is pretty great too for this price range. The 500 doesn't offer any feature that the 300 doesn't, at least as far as I know. And a 300 3.5 and a 500 top of the line should be priced fairly similarly. The 300C is in a completely different league.

Either way, despite size similarities, they are aimed at very different sets of people. If just a large basic car with no flair, no fun, get you from point A to point B is all you need, the the 500 is probably a better buy. If you like to have something a bit more entertaining, and a bit more interesting to look at, the 300 wins hands down.

[ifcar]

Doesn't make it a better car though, and it certainly doesn't make it a better value. It simply means that consumers are willing to pay more for it, just like consumers are willing to pay thousands for navigation systems and vinyl-covered roofs. Those add-ons aren't good values just because some people want them.

Nav systems can come in handy now and again.  And with my mom's sense of direction, she uses the Nav system alot.

They definitely can come in handy...if you are in an unfamiliar area, they are very useful.

But are they a good value at $2,000 simply for the benefit of fitting in the dash? What's a good GPS go for these days?