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.
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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....
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.