2005 Ford Five Hundred from North America - Comments

5th Dec 2005, 18:41

Fords in general don't get spectacular gas mileage these days. I just had a rental Taurus and according to the trip computer, I couldn't get the car to average over 15 mpg in a 50/50 mix.

30th Jan 2006, 16:11

Fords are no more or less reliable than any other car. Read your JD Power report, Ford scores better than several Asian brands and worse than several other domestic brands. They're average cars at an average price, some will run for years and years and go hundreds of thousands of miles with no major problems (like most Tauruses), while some will give trouble from the moment they leave to dealer. So far, the Five Hundred has been getting some pretty good marks on the quality/reliability front, so this poster probably just got a lemon or a Friday afternoon car. Better luck next time.

6th Feb 2006, 23:46

We have driven Ford products for 25 years or more. We have owned everything from several new “Ford Tempos/ and a 1997 Ford Contour for the teenagers”, to used Lincoln Town Cars and E-150’s.

We have had virtually no problems out of any of the fifteen or so cars that my immediate family had owned except for one. It was problematic/lemon for us from the start, but it was a used 95 Lincoln Town Car that we bought in 97. We later found out that the Lincoln Dealer had sold us a car that had been in a major head on accident and the driver even died.

I currently have a 2004 Taurus SEL with over 60,000-miles of trouble freeness and my husband’s 2000 F-150 has over 150,000-miles of trouble free service.

Our children have switched to more “Sporty” imports and have had no trouble as well.

I would not think twice about buying a new Ford. I have even been eyeballing the Fivehundreds and plan on getting one this fall when the 07’s come out. I hear that the 07’s will have a bigger engine. I did drive a brand new 05 while my Taurus was in for a collision repair and it did have tons of get up and go, but I think that the car would get better gas mileage with a larger engine, much to the same as the Town Cars do. We also have a 1999 Town Car Cartier that we traded the 95 for. The Lincoln has 52,000 miles and has never even made one squeak or anything at all.

Our next door neighbor has a 1994 Ford Aerostar all wheel drive with over 250,000-miles and the only problem that he has had was the transmission went out at around 200,000-miles.

12th Apr 2006, 22:56

I have to say, the styling of the 500 is very attractive, better than any toyota car for sure, but it seems that 201 horsepower is a little underpowered for such a large car, can anyone who OWNS one attest to this?

18th Apr 2006, 19:49

The IIHS rates the Ford Five Hundred as "gold" pick for having good front, side and rear crash test results. There are only 3 other cars that achieve this, the Saab 9-3, Subaru Outback, and Honda Civic. No Toyota are gold picks.

Therefore, if safety is important to you, you should consider the gold pick cars. If safety is not important to you, then being injured or killed in an accident is not too important to you.

4th May 2006, 19:41

As a Ford employee, I find it disheartening having to read negative comments about our products, and somewhat aggravating. There is no legitimate reason we cannot excel at producing our vehicles and the only negatives should come from the styling, not the quality, as everyone has personal preferences. Personally, I'm very proud to be a Ford employee and have owned other domestic vehicles (used). None, has disappointed me.

Also, I find it puzzling, to consider such a wide disparity in quality, in the same models. Did you know the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator were made on the exact same assembly line? The Navigator receives a "No Confidence" vote for reliability. Go figure.

As another example, I have a first-year Ford Escape with 130K miles, and it has been a stellar performer. I average 19 mpg overall, and regularly obtain 24 mpg on my trips to St. Louis and New York, and that's not putzing at 55 mph. Yet, I read of owners saying they get no better than 17 mpg. What gives? Are people that horrible of drivers? (from what I've seen... probably so)

And, this ranting about hundreds of thousands of miles from foreign models? I've put over 100k on over 5 domestic vehicles - not one has let me down.

5th May 2006, 14:55

To the Ford employee above: Great comment. I drive a 2000 Ford Focus, and while I've had more than a few niggling problems, they've never overwhelmed me at once (but I'll never buy a first model year anything ever again). I think the 500 is a great looking car, and once Ford sinks their new 3.5L 250 hp V-6 into it, power complaints will be addressed with a vengeance. As a whole, Ford performs better than some manufacturers in regards to quality, and they lag behind others. But I don't think the company deserves the reputation it seems to have "earned" on this site.

6th May 2006, 08:52

"Ford has earned their reputation for producing many quality vehicles for a long time"

Bronco - inherently unsafe SUV.

Bronco II - inherently unsafe and severely prone to rollovers in any situation.

Explorer - Design flaws have caused more deaths than any car since 1990.

Ranger - inherently unsafe. All pickups of this type were recently listed as the most dangerous cars to drive.

Escort - mediocre quality not up to Japanese standards.

Focus - most unreliable Ford product of recent years. 20 recalls in 2000 AFTER they had worked the bugs out in Europe for three years. Current American Focus is a 10 year old design yet sold at regular prices, even though Europeans have the next version.

Crown Vics - inherently unsafe and responsible for many deaths due to design flaws. Many police officers killed as the car's inherent bad design forced officers to lose control.

Original Mustang - another brilliant idea: put the gas tank next to the bumper. Many deaths.

Pinto - Gas tank near the bumper now considered a great design by Ford. Many dead.

Documents have shown that in the case of the Pinto and the Explorer Ford explicity weighed lawsuits vs. money in producing the vehicles.

8th May 2006, 14:05

Okay, I was talking about the better more quality vehicles in the Ford lines. But.

Bronco - How is it unsafe? Or are you just making that up?

Bronco II - It's a small SUV, and a popular one at that. Actually it was the widest of the small SUVs of that time, but the twin I beam suspension is what made more prone to rollovers. Also it was more popular than the S10 Blazer and others, so of course more accidents would happen with it.

Explorer - Design flaws? People just have unrealistic expectations about the handling of a SUV, there's no getting around that. I'll admit that it was bad to have tires blowing out though.

Ranger - All pickups like this are dangerous to drive? Where? Who said this? Again, are you making this up?

Escort - Mediocre quality... It's a really cheap economy car, not a Lexus or a Mercedes.

Focus - Euros got the good version, admit to design flaws in first year, but them seem to be pretty good now.

Crown Vics - If they're that bad, why are they still used by almost all police deparments in every town, city and state?

Original Mustang - You have to put it somewhere.

Pinto - a POS tried an true.

"Documents have shown that in the case of the Pinto and the Explorer Ford explicity weighed lawsuits vs. money in producing the vehicles."

That's the mentality of ALL car companies and to think that only ford is like this is shortsighted and ignorant, they're all for-profit businesses.

Further comment posting to this review is disabled because of abuse