How much more familiar the match-up of Impala to Galaxie 500 would have been. And the outcome? The 500 had a number of obvious advantages over the Impala, especially if you value interior space. The idea of a CUV (Freestyle) and sedan sharing the same basic body architecture was unorthodox but rather brilliant. The result was one of the roomiest sedans in a long time, especially considering its modest overall length. Tall windows, high and roomy seating, Audi-esqe if a bit bland styling. All of which was ruined in the loathsome current Taurus.
Call me and oddball but I loved the 500. I had one as a rental and it drove very well, had excellent room inside and first class visibility. The V-6 gave more than adequate power, too, and I found it reasonably economical to run.
It makes a good used buy, too, as most owners were above 60, didn’t drive much and generally took good care of their cars.
In comparison, the Impala isn’t nearly as nice. It doesn’t drive down the highway particularly well and the room, especially in the rear, is on the small side for a car of this size.
Five Hundred.
Maybe Tom will buy one of these Volfords. Funny how Ford thought the brand equity in the Taurus died – suddenly they renamed this the Taurus and sales pickup…
Interestingly, I did business with a guy back in 1996 when he had a Lexus LS400 and one of the then-new jellybean Tauruses and liked them both.
The only major complaint I heard about the Five Hundred was the fact that Ford used this car to introduce a new HVAC system and the scroll compressors were notoriously unreliable and expensive.
In the end, based on the pic, I would be driving away in the Escalade EXT anyways…
It’s worth noting that the name change from Five Hundred to Taurus did absolutely nothing for sales. Even after the redesign, in 2010, sales have never cracked 70k a year.
Ford sold 107k Five Hundreds in 2005. The Fusion and Ford’s very public dithering about the name change probably did more to hurt sales than anything.
Granted, I thought dumping the Taurus in the first place was very stupid, but the name should have gone on the Fusion, not the Five Hundred.
I like these too! That is just about the perfect form factor for a family sedan.
The Five Hundred was a great car, IMO. It was claimed to be under powered, but the 3.0 V6 was quite adequate; the motor was bumped up to 3.5 when re-named Taurus, but I much preferred 500’s ‘piano-wire’ grille over the Taurus’ 3-bar chrome grille. This car was also available with all-wheel drive, too; but not many around here in Florida.
The Five Hundred was also quite pricey relative to the W-body competition. That may have been one reason why sales didn’t take off.
Didn’t the 3.0 models also come with a none-too-reliable CVT?
(EDIT – This wasn’t meant as a reply to Frankster’s post, but as a stand-alone.)
I believe it was standard on the AWD model and (possibly) available on the FWD.
Yes all the first AWDs (including the Freestyle) had the CVT and it was available on the FWD too. It was not real reliable and was dropped pretty quickly.
I don’t think the CVT was horribly unreliable, but when they did have problems they couldn’t be fixed. They had to be replaced at a cost of around $7000 from what I’ve heard. Hopefully whoever thought that was acceptable is no longer employed at Ford.
Anything that would ever cost $7000 to replace on a used Ford is horribly unreliable.
BMW has gotten burned on the CVT in the mini. It is an interesting and novel design but has had issues since a lot of owners tend to be rough with their cars. Most CVTs require regular fluid changes with a synthetic fluid that usually causes the service to run into the hundreds of dollars. There are distinct advantages on paper with CVT but a lot of drawbacks in driveability and services. So the jury is still out.
Nissan is the only manufacturer that has really made CVTs work in its lineup. It’s almost impossible to buy a new Nissan car without one.
I look at CVT the same way I look at variable displacement engines. Engineers are trying to create a system where they can have their cake and eat it too when it comes to power and efficiency. V8s are very powerful but also relatively inefficient outside of acceleration, some passing situations, and for towing. Four cylinders are great for cruising but (historically) have always had to be revved relatively high to hit the sweet spot in the powerband, can be underpowered in certain load situation, and some customers may not care for its relatively noisy and less than smooth perception. Four cylinders have come a long way since the Vega but they often still cannot match the inherent smoothness and instant on power that a larger displacement engine provides.
One of the biggest obstacles in car design is rationalizing real world experience. I, like many auto enthusiasts, tend to be acutely aware of our vehicles, their strengths and their weaknesses, and are diligent about service and maintenance. That is sort of the ‘perfect world’ scenerio that automakers would love a controlled environment where there are few variables. The problem is is that most people aren’t like that and that has to be taken into account. Part of the reason why quirks in imported cars were often less of a crisis was that, in the past, those owners/drivers often fastidious about their vehicles and accepted the quirks as pride of ownership. Mass market vehicles tend to be sold to people who generally have primarily utility in mind and probably don’t know or don’t care about their cars other than to fill them up drive then and go. So we use the “KISS” method, Keep-It-Simple-Stupid and you will send bland seemingly uninspired but otherwise basic competent vehicles.
Rented a Sentra on Maui. The CVT is fine just droning along in traffic. Mountain driving is a whole other story. Haleakala is a challenging drive and the Nissan CVT, along with Ford’s version of the DSG is not safe going downhill.
These are not considerations when engineers are after CAFE and maybe 5% of the cars sold ever venture out of the flatlands. That should be the same 5% sold with a manual transmission. But those are unavailable on most mainstream vehicles today.
I also recall reading that the Ford Five Hundred/Freestyle was the largest, heaviest car that a CVT had ever been used in. That never seemed to me like a very good long-term bet. To make it worse, I understand that this transmission has essentially been orphaned, making parts and service an expensive proposition.
I’ve been thinking Ford missed the naming boat since this car came out.
My parents have an ’07 Ford 500. You are spot on about the car being quite roomy; it is light years ahead of any ’00 and newer Impala. The only complaint they have with the car is its 3.0 liter 24 valve V6 is almost overwhelmed by the weight of the car and it does get a bit noisy inside at times. Having driven it numerous times, I can say it’s quite a pleasant car to drive and visibility is great. And, yes, it’s engine is overwhelmed in hilly areas.
Of course, I once sat down in the late 80’s and determined why Ford should have renamed the LTD Crown Victoria to Galaxie plus wrote out what all needed to be improved to live up to the name (Mustang 5.0 engine, better gearing out back, police suspension, four-wheel discs, etc.).
The current Taurus is quite nice, if different. I must admit, the rear end past the C-pillar looks tall and bloated. Also available in all-wheel drive, but only on Interceptor (police package), or twin-turbo’ed SHO model. I also would wish it was offered with a ‘center console delete’. I don’t care for the ‘cockpit-style’ seating in most new cars.
You can get all-wheel drive in the Taurus SEL and Limited also, but not the base SE. The availability may have been since the refresh/HP bump?
Edit
“Three trim lines were offered: SE, SEL, and Limited. An all wheel drive system was available across the range. Base prices start at US$22,795 for a front-wheel drive SE and range to US$28,495 for an all-wheel drive Limited.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Five_Hundred
Holy crap. What was I thinking? You are absolutely correct, Tim! Hopefully, my boss doesn’t read this site, or I’m fired. I sell Fords. That’s what I get for web-surfing instead of studying product knowledge at work!
Indeed, Ford SHOULD have done the right thing and bring back an historical name – a well-recognized one at that.
In many ways the 500 was the perfect large sedan – enormous glass and interior room. I looked these over carefully and planned out how I would make one of these a “Galaxie 500” by having custom script either manufactured like I did with my 2004 Impala or buying legacy script and risk having holes drilled to affix them or by some other means.
Add a pinstripe and you have a sharp-looking car!
The 500 looks good in brown, too.
Ford could have really cashed in on their legacy, but turned the “Taurus” into something it wasn’t – a mid-size, efficient family sedan.
Chalk up another Ford I really like!
I think you’re the target-market of this sedan; however, there are only about twelve other individuals in that market.
Perhaps, but I carry through on my ideas! Personally, I’m happy I’m one of the few. At least my car stands out from the pack, if only a little bit. It instills pride of ownership to me.
Gotta give me some credit, though: No stick-on chrome B-pillar or shark-fin pieces, no smoked plastic rain shields on the doors, or any hideous skull or similar emblems from Auto-Zone!
I personalize the car as I would have designed it to the extent practical, per the photo I posted of my Impala last week.
Oh, no no, wasn’t saying you were wrong or anything in the least 🙂
It’s just that most people don’t make their modern cars look older! 😀
“…looks good in brown” was my main focus! haha
I too despise aftermarket stuff, i.e. 3 fender vents on either side of an 8-cylinder 1997 Expedition (cringe!).
Yes, it should have been the Galaxie 500 (or even just Galaxie). It also should have had round taillights, or at least round lights inside the lens like the Nissan Altima of recent years.
This car always struck me as the 53 Plymouth of the 2000s. Tall, dull, slow, not that appeaing, but decently built and fairly practical.
It was underpowered, and looked like a pregnant 1990s Audi. I could have lived with all of this but for the CVT. I have read lots of horror stories on these, that they were a unit unique to this car, and when it was discontinued, these are an orphan nightmare.
The new Taurus is indeed claustrophobic. My kids and I sat in one at the auto show, the console takes away all front room, either real or perceived.
I’m so horrified by the industry shift to ridiculously oversized consoles. The Taurus is one of the more egregious offenders. As a six and a half foot 220+ lanky person, the “console era” combined with the shift to chopped windshield height makes it impossible to find a new car I can literally safely operate. It’s either my knees in an uncomfortable console edge or door handle, or a view resembling a periscope between the huge a-pillar, shortened windshield, and oversized mirrors. When did this trend start? I drove a 94 Passat for years and still occasionally drive an 89 E30, so this is all a frighteningly new reality. I was happy that most pickups still had something resembling a bench seat and then the shots of the new Chevy trucks came out…CONSOLE! What IS this??? Automotive History, please…
I agree with the console, I think Ford should use the idea of the pushbutton transmission for the Taurus like they did with the Lincoln https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/curbside-question-a-new-lincoln-pushbutton-transmission/
Absolutely. Bench seats are hard to come by even in a pickup these days, at least in the well-equipped ones. Consoles are such a waste of space and make the cockpits feel cramped.
I’m tall but not overly so at 6’4″ and have found there are very few new cars I would be comfortable in for long trips. The new Taurus was very disappointing.
Rear-view cameras and blind-spot monitoring systems are pretty much becoming a requirement due to poor design.
That drives me nuts. Instead of eliminating or minimizing the blind spots, they make them worse, then “cure” them with stupid cameras and beepers. Are The Three Stooges running the automotive engineering departments today?
Just increase the glass area!
According to the Chevy website, the ’14 Silverado can still be had with a front bench, even in the top LTZ trim with leather.
I’d never buy a pickup without a front bench. I also like that GM still retains the column shifter, even with the console; Ford and Toyota force you into a console shift on better trimmed models that steals a shocking amount of space. Many minivans and CUVs have the same problem because putting a shifter on the column just isn’t “sporty” enough for a practical mommy mobile.
The Taurus, with it’s massive console and generally poor space efficiency, combined with stupidly-high beltline that further exaggerates the already-awkward height it inherited from the Five Hundred/Freestyle, may well be the most ridiculous, pointless family car currently available. If the Fusion offered a V6, there’d be zero reason for the Taurus to exist. Naturally, GM went ahead and made the exact same mistakes with the newest Malibu and Impala.
I’m wondering if this trend towards cocooning front seat passengers isn’t a function of multiple air bag design efficiency.
Just a guess.
Besides Galaxie 500, Fairlane 500 and Torino 500 sounds good as well.
1+
My company has a 500 as a fleet car, which I actually bought. I like the way it rides a lot, but after living with it for a while I grew to hate that console. That’s another one of those areas where I’ve done a 180 in recent years. I used to only buy cars with a console, now I hate that consoles in new today’s cars intrude into my leg room. It’s getting hard to find a car that I like without a console, though.
I sympathize. Can anyone think of a more space-hogging console than that of the Prius? Manufacturers seem to forget that lateral wiggle-room up front matters when you’re on a long drive & need to shuffle legs around.
The older Prii have lovely amounts of room but yes, the newer ones suck.
We have one of these in our work fleet. The car has terrible front leg room for something of this size. For a taller than average person like me, it was inadequate. The new Taurus’ are better in that respect, but not much. Overall the car is bland and boring driving experience. The new Taurus drivesa bit nicer, but the sight lines are horrible.
The Taurus was the result of Ford outsourcing its design capabilities to Volvo for the basic platform, and then stretching the 500 body to fit the SUV chassis.
Since Ford OWNED Volvo at the time, I don’t consider it outsourcing. And since Volvo has/had a great rep for designing safe cars it seemed a logical starting point for the Five Hundred.
Just to clarify the Volvo P2 was initially a sedan, the S80, not an SUV.
The logical choice in my eyes would have been to tool up for the truly Ford designed RWD Aussie Falcon instead. Hell, the name Falcon would have even matched the ridiculous F for Ford/M for Mercury naming campaign at the time.
As for the Five Hundred, I never cared for the “lets base all Ford cars on Volvos and Mazdas” strategy of the mid 00s. I don’t know how well the current move to global platforms will actually work out in the long run but at least they’re developed by the company whose badge is on the grille.
The Falcon platform was supposed to come to the US to replace the Panthers. However the financial melt down occurred and one of the first things that Mulally did after demanding that the Taurus name replace Five Hundred was to ax the plans to bring over the Falcon platform.
It would have taken the development of a whole new Falcon RWD platform, as the current one is considered obsolete, and not suitable for adapting to US standards (unlike the more recent Holden Commodore). That’s what Ford pulled the plug on, which means Ford AUS will have to make do with the current (and final) Falcon RWD platform.
Well the D3 is no spring chicken either. Surely whatever changes are necessary to keep that early 15 year old Volvo chassis alive could be applied to the Falcon.
The Falcon based Panthers were not going to replace the Taurus/Five Hundred but were to be a size larger, more “premium” and of course more expensive. Mulally decided Ford did not have the resources to devote to what certainly would have been a small volume vehicle.
I agree that it would be a nice preowned car to pickup but I couldn’t have paid retail for a new one. The only ones who did were the Ford loyalists and fleet buyers. The only attractive feature of this car to me was the AWD which would make for a decent family sedan in snowy climates…But I just can’t get over the boring styling. Looks like an American version of a Toyota Avalon just more expensive. And you can’t compare the Impalas with these cars. Those Chevy’s were some of the worst cars ever made and extremely uncomfortable to sit inside too. Overall, the five hundred was that good kid in high school that was always in the middle of the curve. Nice dude, but forgettable.
I remember hearing a lot of comparisons to the Passat when these first came out. Especially from the side view, the Five Hundred (and its little-known Mercury sister, the Montego) really does look like an Americanized interpretation of VW’s design language in the early-2000s.
Far be it for me to praise anything GM does – and I’ll never understand some people’s devotion to a nameplate that passed its glory years almost 50 years ago – but even the early-2000s Impalas weren’t terrible cars. They weren’t competitive with the best from Japan, but they were fairly reliable and a decent buy for the money. Presented with only these two options, I’d feel better choosing the Impala; these were really hit-and-miss years for Ford reliability.
As you probably know, the Ford Flex rides on this same platform. We’ve had ours for 3 years and it is the best vehicle my wife and I have ever owned. Roomy, smooth and quiet, reliable, good on gas (for its size).
I’m 6’6″ and fit comfortably in the car. Sight lines are excellent — great visibility.
While a polarizing design, I consider the Flex a descendant of the Country Squire or Country Sedan wagons of my youth. In other words a Galaxie 500 Station Wagon.
I like the Flex, even from someone who is married to GM literally and figuratively. I sat in one at the Detroit Auto Show and probably will again at the end of the month in New York. At the show I loitered around the vehicle for about 30 minutes engaging people who approached the vehicle but in a casual way so they did not think I was a staffer or doing it deliberately. Of course the biggest feature is always the styling it is square but very classic without being quite the toaster on wheels like the Toyota xB especially with the two-tone roof and stainless panelling. The interior is spacious and the 3.5V6 pretty good for the vehicle of course fuel economy is predictably mixed. It is a fairly pricey vehicle.
I call the Flex “The Toaster Oven”. That’s one slow selling car, err… crossover. The new Taurus sells a little better, but not much.
Didn’t J Mays crib the “arc” styling of the new VW bug, the Passat and then the Five Hundred?
When Ford announced a new Police Interceptor I thought a hybrid of sorts would work: the old Five H body with a new Taurus front clip, more power with the larger interior.
Nar I saw some real Galaxies on Sunday this just doesnt cut it, The 500 badge was on our Falcons so really no cachet out this way. I guess when Dearborn finally turn the Falcon tap off this is what we can look forward to.
, I hope they are good, big boots to fill
I’m glad someone else hates the new Taurus. Ugliest thing to hit the road since the Aztek. Fusion is not far behind. Why did they take something that looked good and do that to it?
I hate the Taurus, but mostly think the Fusion is okay… in theory. My biggest beef with the latter is that if you’re going to design a vehicle with so many body creases and panel cutlines, you’d better be damn sure that workers on the line are able to assemble it correctly. All the ’13 Fusions I’ve seen so far have been an unholy mess of poor fits and massive panel gaps.
I’ll admit that, for the moment, GM seems to be doing a better job than Ford in this regard.
Consumer Reports slammed the ’13 Fusion for its subpar build quality. It’s a shame, since the pre-production model at the car show looked impressive for the price inside and out.
I’m a fairly well-documented GM hater. I used to be a bit of a Ford fanboy – having bought into the hype of the last ~5 years – until I owned one. For all the raves about the ’10+ Mustangs, mine was a chintzy, shoddily-built piece of junk. Rattles, panel gaps, and the paint quality on my particular car was so bad that I never should have bought it (but I did, because it was dark, the dealer was pushy/sleazy, and I’m an idiot). The MT-82 in mine was only kind of awful, making lots of whiny, grindy noises and shifting poorly in cold conditions, but at least it always went into gear. The SYNC system, however, was crap and I’d hate to think how awful MFT must be on a daily basis. Then there’s the dealer network, that, even if I exclude the one I purchased the car from as a slimy outlier, provides about the same level of service I get with my current VW, which is to say somewhere between completely disinterested and God-awful. By comparison, my service experiences when I owned a Honda was almost always positive, and with my Toyota it was hit or miss.
So my admittedly short experience with Ford (dumped the car for financial/practicality/economy reasons) left me pretty cold. What really kills me is the continued fawning PR Ford gets despite continued evidence of build/reliability problems. I replaced my car with a VW, so it’s not like I’m allergic to unreliability and crappy service, but at least with VW their reputation reflects that. I won’t say I’ll never buy a Ford again, but I’d probably go to GM first.
Ah, for the days when Ford stylists hadn’t gone off the deep end, scribbling cars that look like weird deep-ocean creatures, bizarre cars for the SpongeBob generation…They just copied VW and called it done. I’d drive this car, and maybe, taking the idea from a previous respondent, attach a “Passat” badge on the rear.
I must be the only one who never saw a resemblance to the Passat, save for the basic shape of the trunk and taillights. What I instead see is the natural evolution of the ’86-95 Ford Taurus design language if the “jellybean” ’96 era never happened, just updated for the mid-aughties. There are Audi allusions just as in the ’86-95 Taurus.
History repeating itself, basically, except the 500/Taurus5G never made much of a splash.
Ironically, one Ford that I DID always see a scaled-up VW in was the ’06-’12 Fusion vis-a-vis the ’99-’05 Jetta.
The Fusion is the true Taurus successor; despite the 5G/6G having the “Taurus” name, they appeal to a different part of the market.
I think the Five Hundred was a case of the right car at the wrong time. When it was introduced it was plain, efficient and boring while other automakers were selling bold and brash large sedans, like the Chrysler 300. Then Ford did a quick redesign to make it less boring, more powerful and less efficient right as gas prices started to run up. Had this been introduced at the right time the “as good as fuel economy as the Honda Accord with full size interior room” sales pitch likely would have been better received.
I like this car; had one as a company fleet vehicle. The only thing that I didn’t like was the console that intrudes into my legroom. Otherwise it was a good ride. I also agree it should have been the Galaxie 500, but I’m not sure that it would have helped the sales any. It seems like Ford simply gave up competing in the mid size car market with the introduction of this car. The Taurus was gone and there was no replacement. People looking for the next Camry, Accord or Altima were not going to cross shop the Five Hundred.
Galaxie 500 would have been epic. I have driven a “Taurus-ed” 500 before the “true” Taurus restyle and LOVED it. If I wanted a large sedan and had roughly $15,000 or less to spend I could pick up a pretty nice 500/Taurus or a Monteego/Sable. For those of you who think the Impala’s trunk is big the 500 has an extra 2 cubic ft! Truely a 4 golf bags and 4 buddies kind of car. That’s what I believe every large sedan should be.
Funny thing about the Falcon it would be a good car to export but probably only the powertrain as it is now a very old car and it drives like it. My BIL works as a panel rep at the largest dealership in the Australia/NZ region its been Ford since Henry was and he tells me they do not mention Falcons any more Mondeos are what sells and a recent road test locally described the ecoboost 4s lighter weight has transformed the poor handling base model and still they dont sell so I can see Alan Mulaleys point duplication costs money one Ford like it or lump it, Actually THAT is old Henry talking.
I have a 07 500, and I’m wanting to trade in summer 2014. The drive train is okay and it’s great on the highway, but it’s nickel and dimeing me more than I like. Why the hell would Ford (or anyone else) put the throttle body and airflow meter downstream of the PVC hose in the intake? That’s a $600 repair and the parts are backordered because it happens to all of them. The steering started to make a thunking noise whenever I turned it at low speed, that turned out to be a steering bumper that needed to be lubricated. The damned thing sounded just like a bad CV joint. The middle motor mount that sits above and to the left of the motor had to be fixed as well. An air conditioner door had to be replaced as well. All this and it only has 92,000 miles and I don’t know what was done to it before I bought it at 79,000. As pleasant as it is to drive, I’d be reluctant to recommend it to anyone.
Clean the MAF for about $8 for a can of the cleaner at your local NAPA. Very rare that it truly needs replacement. If it does a reman one is $120 and a new aftermarket one is $160. Throttle body cleaner is another $8 and you are good to go.
From what I read, it was Alan Mulally who insisted – nay, DEMANDED – the car be renamed the Taurus. Upon arrival at Ford, he was angry that the Taurus had been discontinued shortly beforehand and felt there was a lot of brand-equity being discarded.
He might have been right about the brand-equity; but what he didn’t get and maybe still doesn’t, is that under the brand-equity there needs to be a product worthy of the reputation.
Mulally was a big fan of the original Taurus and was quite enamored with the process that created it. When he was at Boeing he frequently used its development and production process as an example of “how to do it right”. So yes that was one of his first DEMANDS.
And, you could add…that the current Taurus is the way to do it WRONG.
…by switching nameplates.
Ford still uses the Galaxy name (with a “y” not “ie”) on various global minivans, not sold in the US. Go figure.
Both me and my best friend had a choice between an Impala 3.9 of 2006 and 2008 vintages and two CVT equipped 2007 500’s. The 500’s were about 4-5 grand pricier, felt more top heavy and ponderous in the handling department, the 3.0 liter felt over matched and was noisy when pushed and the CVT left us cold. The biggest difference was the interior room and trunk space but the Impala also had a large enough trunk and the front seat space and comfort of both cars was within our preference. We chose the Impalas in the end and do not regret doing so to this day especially after seeing some with bad CVT units right after the warranty ran out! If this was a comparison of the 2008-09 Taurus then that would have been much more in the Ford’s favor, especially now that these car’s have come down so much in price lately, have the superior 6 speed automatic transaxle and the much more powerful but still noisy 3.5 Duratec.