Joe Wiesenfelder
cars.com
May 26, 2005
The Ford Five Hundred's biggest problem is the Chrysler 300, a giant hit. I'm a fan, but I question if the Five Hundred isn't the vehicle with staying power. In the end you want a car that doesn't become dated, that you can live with every day.
You can bet that a few years ago in the design studios of Chrysler and Ford, the 300 was seen as a big risk and the Five Hundred was seen as a safe bet. Ironically, at this point in the American market, fielding a blandly styled vehicle is actually riskier than taking a stand. A J.D. Power and Associates report last year revealed that polarizing car designs sell better than those that evoke no strong emotion in either direction.
Perhaps the Five Hundred's assets will become apparent as furor over the 300 dies down. The Five Hundred is roughly as roomy inside as the 300 and roomier than the Ford Crown Victoria despite being smaller from bumper to bumper.
Exterior Specifications Compared
Chrysler 300 Ford Five Hundred Ford Crown Victoria
Length (in.) 196.8 200.7 212.0
Width (in.) 74.1 74.5 77.3
Height (in.) 58.4 60.1 56.8
Wheelbase (in.) 120.0 112.9 114.7
Curb Weight (lbs.) 3,700 3,643 4,057
Steering Diameter (ft.) 38.9 40.0 40.3
Manufacturer data
The Five Hundred has pleasant ride quality and competent handling. The car's platform is derived from that of Volvo's S80 sedan. Overall I'd say the Five Hundred's ride is similar ? perhaps softer than one finds in European cars but nowhere near the mush we've come to expect from American road barges. The steering improves upon the current S80's numb, somewhat heavy steering.
Models equipped with the optional all-wheel drive include automatic leveling that employs self-leveling rear shock absorbers, which are similar to air shocks but don't require a compressor. When the rear end is loaded and sits too low, the shocks restore the correct level when they rebound after absorbing bumps in the road.
Have you ever climbed into a subcompact car, something like the Chevrolet Aveo, and been surprised by how roomy it is inside? If so, imagine attaching an air hose to it and pumping it up a couple of size classes and you have the Five Hundred. The interior volume is far superior to the current Ford Crown Victoria, which makes up most of the police cruisers and taxicabs in the country. The Five Hundred provides a compromise between cars and sport utility vehicles by locating the front seat cushion 4 inches higher than that of the average midsize sedan. The height improves legroom in addition to the driver's vantage point. The backseat legroom is heroic.
Ford has delivered on its promise of higher-quality interiors. Both the design and the materials quality in the Five Hundred are impressive.
Unfortunately, our preferred resource, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, hasn't crash-tested the Five Hundred at the time of this review. It scored a quadruple-five-star rating in the government tests, which are less reliable (learn why in the Guide to Interpreting Crash Tests). Side-impact and side curtain-type airbags are optional and include the Safety Canopy feature, whereby the curtains deploy in the event of a rollover.
As of its intro, the Five Hundred comes with one engine, the 3.0-liter Duratec V-6, which is rated as follows.
Engine Specifications
Duratec 3.0-liter V-6
Horsepower 203 @ 5,750 rpm
Torque (lbs.-ft.) 207 @ 4,500 rpm
Required Gasoline regular unleaded (87 octane)
Manufacturer data
The standard transmission is a continuously variable type in its first mass-market application. Ford also offers a conventional six-speed automatic on the front-wheel-drive versions of the SEL and Limited, the higher two trim levels. I drove the CVT-equipped all-wheel-drive Five Hundred SEL.
Close behind consumers' styling complaint is one about power. Some say the Five Hundred is underpowered, a term that is too carelessly thrown around. I'd categorize it as modestly powered. The CVT behaves differently than do conventional step-gear transmissions, with a slower launch as the CVT adjusts to maximize acceleration. Many conventional automatics introduce delays of their own in the form of hunting and/or kickdown lag ? it just happens at a different time. For a new technology, the CVT is capable and has logged few complaints.
All the same, if I were to load up an all-wheel-drive model with people and cargo and then take to the hills, I suspect I'd find the power lacking as well. The Chrysler 300 with a 3.5-liter V-6 has more guts, and the 300C with its 5.7-liter V-8 is in another league. I'm often asked if Ford will offer a V-8 in the future. The company doesn't discuss such plans, but I'll be very, very surprised if a V-8 doesn't come along within the next year or so.
I think all-wheel drive is being overhyped and oversold these days ? in part because rear-wheel drive better justifies it. In most urban and suburban areas that have decent snow removal, front-drive cars like the Five Hundred should be just fine, especially when equipped with standard traction control and ABS. That said, if you intend to resell your car in a region where four-wheel drive is valued (rightly or wrongly), you might be better off shelling out the extra cash now for the feature that the next buyer thinks he needs.
Unfortunately, Ford doesn't offer an electronic stability system at this time.
It's not notable for a large car to have a large trunk, but the fact that the Five Hundred's 21-cubic-foot trunk joins a commodious cabin in such a compact shell ? that's notable. Ford conservatively claims the Five Hundred's trunk can hold eight full-size golf bags. Also of note is the split, folding backseat, a feature that remains rare in full-size cars. One drawback to the car's front-drive layout is a towing capacity of 1,000 pounds. The Chrysler 300 can hack 2,000 pounds.
Let the Five Hundred's slow start work to your advantage: Ford has been offering zero-percent financing to some buyers, and factory-to-dealer incentives also have been available at times during the year. Check our Incentives before you buy.
I believe that if the Five Hundred were more interesting looking, it would be a hit. Currently it's a lot like a minivan: roomy and both space and fuel efficient, but not compelling to look at. It's possible that, in time, this model will attract similar buyers ? practical people who don't feel their image is tied to their car.
This guy makes several comparisons between the 300 and 500. I'm not so sure they are direct competitors for one thing. The 500 seems more aimes at older, more conservative buyers who prefer comfort and space over power and style. The 300 looks to attract a younger buyer wanting to drive in style. In additon 2 of 3 engines offered in the 300 are more powerful than the single engine offered in the 500.
The Five Hundred vs. 300 thing has been said and resaid. The 300 V6 is the stylish, trendier car, and the Five Hundred beats it in most other ways.
The 500 is doing very well at the moment, though it certainly isnt a smash hit like th3 300. I'm waiting for consumer's reaction to the Fusion....I feel that car competes more with the 300.
QuoteThe 500 is doing very well at the moment, though it certainly isnt a smash hit like th3 300. I'm waiting for consumer's reaction to the Fusion....I feel that car competes more with the 300.
Really, I'm pretty sure the Fusion is considerably smaller.
QuoteThe 500 is doing very well at the moment, though it certainly isnt a smash hit like th3 300. I'm waiting for consumer's reaction to the Fusion....I feel that car competes more with the 300.
Not at all. The Fusion will be much smaller and significantly less expensive.
They're priced similarly, sized similarly, and are both available with AWD. Seems like a pretty close comparison to me.
QuoteQuoteThe 500 is doing very well at the moment, though it certainly isnt a smash hit like th3 300. I'm waiting for consumer's reaction to the Fusion....I feel that car competes more with the 300.
Really, I'm pretty sure the Fusion is considerably smaller.
The 300 is not so big inside, and the Fusion is not such a small car. It definitely is more sport-oriented, style-oriented, than the 500. I just feel it competes more with the 300 than the 500 does.
QuoteQuoteThe 500 is doing very well at the moment, though it certainly isnt a smash hit like th3 300. I'm waiting for consumer's reaction to the Fusion....I feel that car competes more with the 300.
Not at all. The Fusion will be much smaller and significantly less expensive.
And have a manual too, I believe/hope.
Does anyone know after what model year the Taurus will be killed? Or will it remain as a fleet seller?
QuoteQuoteThe 500 is doing very well at the moment, though it certainly isnt a smash hit like th3 300. I'm waiting for consumer's reaction to the Fusion....I feel that car competes more with the 300.
Not at all. The Fusion will be much smaller and significantly less expensive.
I still feel that it has the style needed to compete with the 300, and the 300s main advantage to most is its great style. The 500 lacks such style.
I could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
QuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
And keep in mind, that Ford, unlike Chrysler, made 2 vehicles instead of one to compete with the 300. I am just picking which of those vehicles I think, as an individual, competes with the 300 more.
QuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
Are you sure the 300s "main point" is style? It also packs a monstrous V-8 and brings RWD back. And if the Fusion is really a competitor to the 300 than the Mazda6 must be too??
QuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
There is a large difference between attractive/interesting and trendy. The Mazda6 is one, the 300 is another.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
Are you sure the 300s "main point" is style? It also packs a monstrous V-8 and brings RWD back. And if the Fusion is really a competitor to the 300 than the Mazda6 must be too??
Only 1 version packs the V8 ;)
QuoteQuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
There is a large difference between attractive/interesting and trendy. The Mazda6 is one, the 300 is another.
I find the Fusion styling to be on par with the 300s.
QuoteAnd keep in mind, that Ford, unlike Chrysler, made 2 vehicles instead of one to compete with the 300. I am just picking which of those vehicles I think, as an individual, competes with the 300 more.
The 300 and Five Hundred are both large sedans, comparably priced. The Sebring and the Fusion are both midsize sedans, comparably priced.
Very clean competition there.
QuoteQuoteAnd keep in mind, that Ford, unlike Chrysler, made 2 vehicles instead of one to compete with the 300. I am just picking which of those vehicles I think, as an individual, competes with the 300 more.
The 300 and Five Hundred are both large sedans, comparably priced. The Sebring and the Fusion are both midsize sedans, comparably priced.
Very clean competition there.
Not so clean. The Fusion is a styling tour de force, while the Sebring is bland. The 300 is a styling tour de force while the 500 is bland.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
There is a large difference between attractive/interesting and trendy. The Mazda6 is one, the 300 is another.
I find the Fusion styling to be on par with the 300s.
But it's a different sort of styling.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
There is a large difference between attractive/interesting and trendy. The Mazda6 is one, the 300 is another.
I find the Fusion styling to be on par with the 300s.
But it's a different sort of styling.
But revolutionary in its own way, IMO.
"This guy makes several comparisons between the 300 and 500. I'm not so sure they are direct competitors for one thing. The 500 seems more aimes at older, more conservative buyers who prefer comfort and space over power and style. The 300 looks to attract a younger buyer wanting to drive in style. In additon 2 of 3 engines offered in the 300 are more powerful than the single engine offered in the 500."
The 300 is an old man's car, despite its trendy styling and big power most will likely be sold to the over 40 set.
Quote"This guy makes several comparisons between the 300 and 500. I'm not so sure they are direct competitors for one thing. The 500 seems more aimes at older, more conservative buyers who prefer comfort and space over power and style. The 300 looks to attract a younger buyer wanting to drive in style. In additon 2 of 3 engines offered in the 300 are more powerful than the single engine offered in the 500."
The 300 is an old man's car, despite its trendy styling and big power most will likely be sold to the over 40 set.
I've seen mostly young slickers in them.
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.
QuoteQuote"This guy makes several comparisons between the 300 and 500. I'm not so sure they are direct competitors for one thing. The 500 seems more aimes at older, more conservative buyers who prefer comfort and space over power and style. The 300 looks to attract a younger buyer wanting to drive in style. In additon 2 of 3 engines offered in the 300 are more powerful than the single engine offered in the 500."
The 300 is an old man's car, despite its trendy styling and big power most will likely be sold to the over 40 set.
I've seen mostly young slickers in them.
I don't think I've seen anyone under 40 in one and my 75 year old grandfather almost bought one.However, a girl that used to work where my brother works drives a Magnum RT and she is in her mid-twenties (now that is a combo you have to love) :lol:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI could see where you were coming from, but the difference in size and price is just too great for them to be close competitors. Also, the Fusion doesn't look as different as the 300, it just looks like a less-boring midsize.
I think its the most exciting midsizer out there at the moment. It definitely isnt bland, and is a nice styling exercise. The 500 cannot compete with the 300s main point, its style, while the Fusion can.
There is a large difference between attractive/interesting and trendy. The Mazda6 is one, the 300 is another.
I find the Fusion styling to be on par with the 300s.
But it's a different sort of styling.
Ifcar how is the 300's styling Trendy?
Trendy in definition is a pre-existing style or fashion, copied to be in-sync with the in-crowd; a follower so-to-speak.
Just because the 300 appeals to many people and is differently styled, certainly does not make it trendy! Especially when comparing it to the likes of the Mazda6 which is in fact trendy!
I think your personal dis-taste for the 300's styling and general standout-ness (I know it's not a word), sours your judgement.
Indeed the 500 is a fine car, but saying that it is all-around the better car, because it has .9" more room here and 1.1" more room there is a bit much.
JMO :)
Distaste for its styling? I like the 300's styling. I just consider the car overpriced and unable to stand out against its competitors.
I was hanging out with one of my friends, and he decided he wanted to check out the new mustangs, so while at the ford dealership I sat in a 500. Granted I didn't spend much time trying to get situated, but I couldn't seem to get the seat adjusted in such a way to get much clearance between my knees and the steering wheel. I expected it to be a lot better than that. Granted, I have abnormally long legs, and stand over 6'3", but I've fit in compacts better than that.
QuoteDistaste for its styling? I like the 300's styling. I just consider the car overpriced and unable to stand out against its competitors.
Overpriced compared to what?
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. The closest competitors for the 300 are the Ford Panther's (which are about 15 years old), GM's Impala/Lucerne/Bonneville trio, none of which are RWD or as quick (save for maybe the Bonny GXP), but also carry huge incentives/rebates all the time (not just during EP times).
So if the 300 seems to be expensive, it's because GM and Ford doesn't have anything comparable, and anything close to the 300's size and power from overseas will be considerably more expensive. The only car I can see that can be really compared to the the 300 and C is the Avalon, which is no bargain in any sense of the word.
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'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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteSorry 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.
Quote"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.
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.
QuoteDave, 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.
QuoteQuote"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.
QuoteQuote"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.
There are a few full-size RWD and V-8 sedans I can think of...the Crown Viccy family comes to mind. :lol:
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. ;)
Yeah..I wasn't really being seroius when I mentioned the Viccy...of course no one cross-shops them. :lol:
Yeah...the only viable competitor (I guess) is the CTS...sort of. B)
QuoteQuoteQuote"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?
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.
QuoteFord 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
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? :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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?
QuoteThe 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.
Nope, but neither is the Five Hundred.
QuoteThe 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.
The flair-less Taurus sold, so the attractive-but-bland Five Hundred can as well. Anyone who wants flair can choose the smaller Fusion.
QuoteA 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? :rolleyes:
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. :)
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.
QuoteQuoteThe 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.
QuoteSo 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.
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.
QuoteDoesn'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.
QuoteQuoteDoesn'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.
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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteDoesn'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?
QuoteHaving 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.
The 300C isn't overpriced because it offers something that no other like-priced large sedans do: a 340-horsepower V8. The 300 V6 models only offer their look to justify their added expense over competing cars.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDoesn'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?
They can run up the bill too.
The only car we have with Nav has it standard.