Any Ford 500 experiences here?

Both good and bad, plus suggestions on what model to get much appreciated. TIA

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
who wrote:

Do they still make the lincoln LS? I always thought that was a nice mid-size car.
Whats the price of these five hundreds anyway.
its five hundred, not 500 ;P
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The 500 is a FWD or AWD car. Everyone I know that owns one loves them. Prices range from 22K to 31K
Ford discontinued the RWD LS, why I have no idea. I owned four of them after I switched for the buying Lexus LS V8s in 1999. Great cars, just as good as any Lexus I owned, and 20K less than the RWD Lexus. I still own a 2005 that I keep at my home in Key West.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Thats a real shame, i really like the Lincoln LS styling. Never drove one, but i was thinking about getting one for hte wife. we need to get a larger car for her, and she won't drive a fullsize (wanted her to drive an STS).
What wa the last model year for hte ls? 2005?
How IS the handling in these LS, i have read few reviews on them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
2006 Like it is on rails. RWD with 50 weight distribution, built on the same basic chassis the Jaguar 'S,' T-Bird and the 2005 Mustang. I have never spoken to an LS owned that ever had anything but good things to say about their LS. My 2005 will become a part of my collection of cars. ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Which brings us back to the question, why was such a car so short lived. What was it, 3 years in production?
I mean surely something less useful like the high-end Expedition could be canned before something unique as the LS. Probably the thinking was it would only take away from Grand Marquis sales.
I suppose, the Marauder was short lived as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try 7 years (Model Years 2000 through 2006). The fact that you thought it was only out there for 3 years illustrates a big reason it is not more popular.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The LS was built for seven model years, 1999 till 2006
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mike,
You have to get over claiming the current model Mustang and LS and Thunderbird share a chassis. The LS and Thunderbird yes. The Mustang - NO WAY. Ford claims they share part of one stamping. They share no suspension parts. They share no engines. They do share automatics (but then so do Explorers). I have a 2004 Thunderbird and a 2006 Mustang, and from personal inspection, they are not even close to the same. If you look at an LS and a Thunderbird, you immediately see shared components. You look at a Mustang and a Thunderbird, and you see two completely different vehicles. In many way the Mustang is a better vehicle than the Thunderbird despite having supposedly inferior suspension parts (strut front suspension and solid rear axle for the Mustang, versus SLA front and rear independent suspension for the T-Bird). If you want to claim Ford started out with the Thunderbird platform and morphed it into the Mustang, I can't argue with you (but I could claim they started out with the Model T and morphed it into the Mustang as well). But claiming they share the same basic chassis is just plain wrong. To share a basic platform you have to share more than a small section of a floorpan stamping.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are free to believe whatever you chose but you are not correct. The 2005 Mustang was indeed derived from the basic LS chassis, even though engines, drive trains or suspension parts are not the same from one to the other, any more they are on the Jag or the T-Bird
mike hunt
.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Mike,
Don't you ever get tred of being wrong. You are spouting total BS on this subject. There are virtually no shared parts between a 2005 Mustang and an LS. The basic floorpan is different. All of the suspension parts, the suspension anchor points, and even the basic suspension design is different. They are completely different platforms. Somehow you got it in your mind that the early press reports that Ford was developing the Mustang from the DEW platform came true. It did not in any meaningful way. Did the some of the same team members work on both platforms - almost certainly. Did they use DEW design data when developing the Mustang, almost certainly. Is the Mustang dervied from the LS - not in any meaningful way.
As for the Thunderbird and the LS, they actually share many componets. Most of the suspension parts are the same identical parts. The console and HVAC systems are the same parts. The V-8 engines are the same. The transmissions are the same. The brake pads are the same. The brake rotors are the same. The LS got some expensive features that Ford did not offer on the Tbird, but a quick look throught the parts catalog and repair manuals illustrates the basic features that are the same. If you do the same with the Mustang, you'll instantly see that they are no more the same platform than the Fusion and the Five Hundred.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like I said you are free to believe whatever you chose, I'm not going to debate your personal opinion. I worked as a chassis design engineer for Ford for almost twenty five years, I know several of the engineering team members that worked on those cars. I know what I am talking about. Anytime you design a new vehicle you take advantage of the economies of scale of a previous dynamically certified chassis, when possible. The engineering costs of revising a existing chassis is millions less than it is to design and certify a totally new untested chassis. Naturally a 30K vehicle will not be exactly the same as one that sells for 40K. Engines, drive train components and suspension parts can be, and often are, different You certainly do not design a new chassis for a one off, like the Mustang. Even the original Mustang was basically a Falcon chassis. The Fusion chassis, that uses a 4 and a V6, as well as manual and automatic trannys, is derived from a basic chassis first used on a Mazda.
The 500 basic chassis is derived from one first used on a Volvo. The engine used are not the same on those either. The Freestyle has a different body and suspension but is built on the same basic chassis as the 500.
All manufactures do it all the time. When I work at GM in the fifties Buick an Olds used the same chassis but completely different engines, drive trains and suspensions. The Honda Accord, their minivan and even their Ridgeline truck are all derived from the same FWD car chassis.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the '05 Mustang derived from the LS????? what a load - there is no comonality - period - end of discussion....you're wrong: deal with it.
which has sure helped fhe poor guy with his original question about the 500.
500: GREAT CAR (if you like front drive).....and IT is derived from a Volvo package. Extremely roomy and comfortable....huge trunk. Initial "expert" reviews were that it was underpowered (yeah, if you want 0-60 in under 8 seconds) and everyone bitched about the "bland" styling (slap Toyota badges on it and the same experts would think it was the prettiest thing ever made).
I understand there will soon be a Lincoln version, which says a lot about the mess FoMoCo is in. The Lincoln line-up: Town Car (nice vehicle which derives from the 1980 model which derived from the '79 Crown Vic).......the soon-to-be renamed Zephyr which derived from the Ford Fusion cum Mercury Milan which derived from the Mazda 6. And a bunch of rebadged, overpriced Ford trucks. And this from the company that used to run the "cookie cutter" ads making fun of Olds-Buick-Cad being so much alike. How the mighty have fallen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good question. My friend who likes good deals just got one, so I expect they are selling out low.

True, but local Ford dealers are advertising it as "500", a much better name. Ford naming leaves something to be desired. Everything starting with "F"; UGH!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
who wrote:

easier to make it rhyme with Ford that way haha.
Is it just me or does the five hundred look like a Passat?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
who wrote:

My mom has an '06 Five Hundred. 3.0 2WD. She loves the CV tranny. Absolutely no problems with it yet. Upper 20s as far as gas mileage and that's mostly stop and go driving, short distances. I feel she should have gotten the FFV model, but she chose not to. Time will tell what problems this model will have, if any.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I bought an '05 500 Limited just over a year ago and I love it. The car has AWD and the CVT transmission. Pickup and acceleration, including highway merging are fine. All the newspaper articles about the anemic pickup are garbage. the people who wrote those articles probably never even drove it. The car is roomy in the cabin and trunk and on a trip from LI to Virginia this summer, down through Delaware and the eastern shore of Maryland and Va, gas mileage was 27 mpg. Exclusivly around town it gets more like 17, which I understand is about what the Volvo AWDs get, too (the underlying AWD technology is the same, I'm told). There is no "shift shock" with the CVT transmission, just smooth acceleration, and good kick-down when you need it. My 2-cents, as long as you asked....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is no flex fuel (FFV) version of the Five Hundred. Ford has said there will be a hybrid version in the future.
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.