16th Mar 2006, 09:24

I also agree that the Five-Hundred needs a bit more oomph. However, the engine does have 4 valves/cylinder, so it is a multi-valve engine, some have stated it's identical to the Taurus' 3.0 engine. It is NOT, the Taurus is an OHV engine with only 153 HP. The 2006 Mitsubishi Galant LS/GT has a 3.8 Liter engine and also makes only 230 hp, 27 more HP only, but it weighs quite a bit less. The issue here is the mass of the car and torque of the engine. The car weighs ~4,000 lbs. I used to have an 1984 Lincoln Town car with only 140 Hp, that weighed 400-500 lbs. more than my Five-Hundred and it was more lively as it had 250 ft/lbs torque at 1600 rpm. If this car had 250 ft./lb at 2,000 rpm, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

16th Mar 2006, 19:51

You ever think that engine horsepower isn't everything?

Horsepower is only good for when you have high revs, the more ponies you got at high revs the more go you got. But you need torque to really do anything, and as someone said before, this car has a lot or a decent amount of it to move it along. Not every car has to have tons of bhp and torque, especially family sedans.

17th Mar 2006, 08:05

Well look at the cars that its competing with.

300, Maxima, Avalon, Accord. All these cars are a much better choice then the Ford 500 in every aspect. The 500 has a higer seat, big deal if I want a higher seat I would buy a truck.

17th Mar 2006, 14:18

OK, let's see...

Chrysler 300 – $24,500

Nissan Maxima – $27,000

Ford 500 – $22,500

Toyota Avalon- $26,775

Honda Accord- $20,500

(all base models)

Now I'd say the 500 is pretty competitively priced in comparison to the other makes, and it offers AWD on the base model? I only see that on the 300 and the Subaru Impreza, but the Subaru does suck gas and isn't quite as big. The 300, well... it's Chrysler and you can't see out the windows...

Now the Accord may sound good, and it probably is, but Toyota and Honda cars are some of the most bland cars on the road, even though they have awesome reliability. But then the Accord doesn't have AWD, does it?

It's all a compromise, but to say all the other models are much better in every aspect, is just wrong, seeing the price differences. I mean I could get a top of the line 500 for the same price as a base model Avalon...

21st Mar 2006, 21:40

Those price figures are even more amazing when you realize that the Five Hundred is a large midsize/small fullsize model- basically one size category above the Sentra or Accord, yet it costs thousands less. More car for the money, not a bad deal at all.

13th Jun 2006, 11:43

To the person with the ideal the 3.0L Taurus only has 153hp.There are two engines they put in the Taurus. Our 03 has the 24 valve and it has 200hp.

13th Jun 2006, 14:04

I heard somewhere that toyota takes horsepower and torque ratings at the crank and not at the wheels. Then say that those are the real specs in ads. Is that true?

And if it is, it's a dirty underhanded trick to lure people in by making them believe a vehicle has better performance than it really does.

25th Jun 2006, 21:19

I agree with the previous comment on horsepower not being everything. I had a stock 1988 mustang gt that had "only" 225 hp, yet the car would smoke the tires and do 0-60 in just over 6 seconds, topping out at 144 mph. There is so much more than horsepower than determines speed (torque, gear ratio, weight...). Today many would say a couple hundred horsepower is "underpowered". Depends on too many factors to judge a car by horsepower alone.

14th Jul 2006, 15:37

To the June 13 comment.

I also heard that Toyota does this; it's just another example of how the foriegn auto makers may not be the second coming some people seem to think they are.