I was investigating these two cars tonight and I was frankly pretty impressed with both of them for what they are. I believe these are based on S80 Volvo underpinnings and thats pretty much immediately noticeable by the smooth flowing roofline which is very reminiscent of the VW Passat, very cool. My personal favorite is the Mercury (OMG! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT! A MERCURY PRODUCT I LIKE) Montego, its gonna have some really neat upscale features like Xenon headlights, LED Taillights(!), and AWD.

One thing thats confusing about this car, its NOT slated as a Taurus replacement, that job is supposedly for the upcoming Ford Futura, so where are these supposed to fit in? Is Ford getting rid of its Traditional RWD V8 cruiser the Crown Vic? THAT would be a tragedy, because with proper updates, the Crown Vic could be alot better.

The engine is nice too. A 3.0L 200HP V6 will power both of them and the Ford will also have the AWD option. My only gripe is the cabin woods ,the steering wheels and the darth vader look in the Montego, kind of ugly.

Mercury Montego:
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Mercury/100252232/029075-E.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Mercury/100252232/029076-E.jpg

Ford Five Hundred:
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2004/Ford/100076355/028709-E.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2004/Ford/100076355/028705-E.jpg

Edmunds is trying to compare the Montego with the new Chrysler offerings, but really, I think these will have more direct competition with vehicles like the Impala, and the upcoming Buick LaCrosse, which also sort of snuck up on me. Frankly, I cant even tell what this thing is based on. I THINK it could be sigma platform but who knows. What IS known,is it WILL feature the same engine as found in the 3.6L CTS as an option...

Buick LaCrosse:
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Buick/100283771/029062-E.jpg

(Jag X-Type anyone?)

Does it seem to you that the 3rd. pic looks something like the Buick version of the (GAK) :annoyed: CTS?? I'm starting to think all cars will look like this in the near future! The Mercury line has always been more upscale and luxurious than Ford, and it seems to show with the chrome rims, and the other things you mentioned.

Oh, sorry, I didn't even see the Buick pic until after I posted! Damn slow, old computer!! :annoyed: You see the resemblance too.

Does it seem to you that the 3rd. pic looks something like the Buick version of the (GAK) :annoyed: CTS?? I'm starting to think all cars will look like this in the near future! The Mercury line has always been more upscale and luxurious than Ford, and it seems to show with the chrome rims, and the other things you mentioned.

Hey Ralph... Thanks for reading more of my (useless? :p ) posts. Yea im trying to figure out what this car is riding on and it seems to be some sort of iteration of the CTS but Im not sure. Whats sort of confusing, Gothicaleigh posted a different upcoming Buick vehicle ( http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8506 ) which IS for sure on the same architecture as the CTS, so I dont know which one of these two, or if both are being produced on the same platform. Kind of crowded market if you ask me, but then, all of them seem to be these days (this is why I love the old MB's and Caddies).

Hey Ralph... Thanks for reading more of my (useless? :p ) posts. Yea im trying to figure out what this car is riding on and it seems to be some sort of iteration of the CTS but Im not sure. Whats sort of confusing, Gothicaleigh posted a different upcoming Buick vehicle ( http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8506 ) which IS for sure on the same architecture as the CTS, so I dont know which one of these two, or if both are being produced on the same platform. Kind of crowded market if you ask me, but then, all of them seem to be these days (this is why I love the old MB's and Caddies).

LOL! Someone has to! Any idea when these things will be on dealer lots so I can laugh, oops, I mean look at them to compare notes? I'm sure Goth can enlighten you on platform, she knows her cars! (I still can't find her pic on the post pic here thread!! :p )

LOL! Someone has to! Any idea when these things will be on dealer lots so I can laugh, oops, I mean look at them to compare notes? I'm sure Goth can enlighten you on platform, she knows her cars! (I still can't find her pic on the post pic here thread!! :p )

Hehe, guess im guilty of just loving car talk, of any sort!

Yes she definitely does know her stuff. I believe some people cant view pictures from ImageStation sometimes, I know I cant see them at work, and I think her picture, and Fritzi's are both imagestation hosted because I had a problem with them one day.

The Five Hundred and and Montego are most certainly 2005 Release, the Buick LaCrosse should be Fall 2004 as a 2005 Model.

I hate how Ford is pushing the Focus look into everything.

That Ford 500 sort of reminds me of a Volkswagen for some reason and you're right that Buicks front end does look like a Jaguar. That's the first thing I thought too.

I hope Ford doesn't plan on doing anything with their big RWDs because those are just about the only new cars I'd buy. The last I heard they weren't planning on doing anything with them for a while anyway. Maybe all these new models are simply new models. Both Ford and Chrysler don't have as many models out as GM does so maybe that's their way of adding to their lineup.

Fix or repair daily.

I certainly hope they improve the build quality over that of the Taurus. Every Taurus owner I've known has had a never-ending litany of minor and/or major problems. Then again, I had a Ford Expedition in the first year of production and the only problem it had in 50K miles was a bad heater motor.

Fix or repair daily.

I certainly hope they improve the build quality over that of the Taurus. Every Taurus owner I've known has had a never-ending litany of minor and/or major problems. Then again, I had a Ford Expedition in the first year of production and the only problem it had in 50K miles was a bad heater motor.

You know Ford products are probably the most hit or miss ive run across. People are either ecstatic about them, or they curse the day they got one. I know lots of Exploder owners who are indeed very happy, and lots of Taurus owners with nothing but trouble, and it wouldnt surprise me if Ford engineers the longevity of their product by the cost of the product, which is a very very poor way to run things because every customer deserves a safe reliable car, and it doesnt mean the company has to go bankrupt doing it. It seems however with the newer F150 and these siblings, and even the Focii (especially the soon to be defunct SVT version) things are definitely heading in the right direction despite initial issues with some of the products.

On the RWD's, The Town Car needs just a little more sp*unk (could someone tell me why the FAWK the word sp*unk is cursed out???) (yes TC drivers like sp*unk too) and the Crown Vic seems to need to quite a bit more still. I drove a 2004 CV and was not impressed in comparison to the ride smoothness and refined power in the TC, which is oddly enough practically the same car with luxo stuff in it and ride control.

the buick comes from the revamped pontiac grand prix platform , its still front drive and the classic buick 3.8 is the base engine

the day a buick isnt made with the 3.8 will be a sad day at buick indeed

the crownvic wont be replaced soon , but it needs attention , its the oldest design at ford , chassis dateing back to the late 70s with a new body hung on it every 10 years , its called the panther platform , i belive 78 was its first year 2nd oldest is the present day mustang which dates back to 79 (fox platform) next gen dates to 99 (dew 98) . i think theyll keep it rear drive for the next gen , probably a hybrid of the dew 98 running lincolin ls running gear and the live axel from the 2005 retro mustang

the buick comes from the revamped pontiac grand prix platform , its still front drive and the classic buick 3.8 is the base engine

the day a buick isnt made with the 3.8 will be a sad day at buick indeed

the crownvic wont be replaced soon , but it needs attention , its the oldest design at ford , chassis dateing back to the late 70s with a new body hung on it every 10 years , its called the panther platform , i belive 78 was its first year 2nd oldest is the present day mustang which dates back to 79 (fox platform) next gen dates to 99 (dew 98) . i think theyll keep it rear drive for the next gen , probably a hybrid of the dew 98 running lincolin ls running gear and the live axel from the 2005 retro mustang

Something I was quite happy to have, namely old tech RWD! In 1999, I was tired of CV boot changes, front wheel bearings humming and needing replacing, etc. So that year I bought the big Merc. Nothing was really that expensive to fix on my 1991 Grand Marquis, except when I needed all new oil seals due to a frozen pcv. I swore then that I would keep the low cost RWD for a very long time, but now here I am again with a front wheeler. lol. This Caddy's been great so far, but it's true I don't really drive it that much. I learn from this Forum how it may be for repairs in the future. That is part of the charm with RWD, the low maintenance costs IMO.

Ian, maybe the Crown Vicky has a slightly firmer suspension setup? Mercury is geared towards luxury over the Ford, and I know that my Grand M had a slightly softer, and smoother ride than my FWD Caddy. All in all, I thought I had the Lincoln TC chassis? This FWD Caddy sure handles beter though! I don't scrape the doors when I turn.

im almost sure the TC comes from the panther platform

and your right the grand and TC have a ride thats wicked smooth , id like to go out and comapre one to my caddy sometime as i have a sneeky idea that the grand is still smoother

im almost sure the TC comes from the panther platform

and your right the grand and TC have a ride thats wicked smooth , id like to go out and comapre one to my caddy sometime as i have a sneeky idea that the grand is still smoother

I'm curious, what's the smoothest riding car you've ever had?

a split between a overloaded up-armor humvee , a 97 town car signature series (rental), and a 89 Grand Marquis Wagon (a borrowed county squire looking thing)

but i havent had the caddys ride controll box plugged in since i had the seat restuffed so ill plug it in later this week and ill be rotateing and balanceing the tires (got a rear out of balance) but its so hard to tell without driving each car back to back

but i still think the big live axel fords ride like nothing else , couldnt feel a damned thing riding along at 60 mph , and theres nothing wiz bang about a grand marquis suspension which makes it really amazing ...i guess its the sheer weight of that pig

a split between a overloaded up-armor humvee , a 97 town car signature series (rental), and a 89 Grand Marquis Wagon (a borrowed county squire looking thing)

but i havent had the caddys ride controll box plugged in since i had the seat restuffed so ill plug it in later this week and ill be rotateing and balanceing the tires (got a rear out of balance) but its so hard to tell without driving each car back to back

but i still think the big live axel fords ride like nothing else , couldnt feel a damned thing riding along at 60 mph , and theres nothing wiz bang about a grand marquis suspension which makes it really amazing ...i guess its the sheer weight of that pig

I'll take the armored Hummer, sell it to our military and make a fortune. :p Those TC's are smooth allright, and I'm guessing they use air suspension also. Weight, and wheelbase is what I think makes it so darn slick, and it doesn't seem to need any fancy computers and air ride to help it either. (Mercury)

If you ever need to check your wheel alignment, a simple trick is to go straight over a puddle, and see if the tires overlap each other, but you prob. know this already.

might have to explain that one , my track width in the rear is narrower than the front ... i guess i could pick up a crab walk with that method tho

i just feel my tires to make sure they wear even , so far so good , just typical front drive wear (yet another nasty front drive thing)

might have to explain that one , my track width in the rear is narrower than the front ... i guess i could pick up a crab walk with that method tho

i just feel my tires to make sure they wear even , so far so good , just typical front drive wear (yet another nasty front drive thing)

Oh, nevermind, I thought you had an alignment problem. That puddle thing is just a little test before anyone goes to Midas, or ?. If it's normal to have a narrower track in the rear, what's wrong?

Crab walk? Might have to explain that one to me, I'm not near any ocean to even know what they look like. ;)

hmm , kinda like how a dog walks , the rear legs are off to one side and the fronts are off to the other

i tried to illustrate it but the forums delete all spaces among susttueing words like p_u_n_k with "love god"

hmm , kinda like how a dog walks , the rear legs are off to one side and the fronts are off to the other

i tried to illustrate it but the forums delete all spaces among susttueing words like p_u_n_k with "love god"
:lightbulb Got it. Sounds like it's time for Midas.

Ya TC shares the platform with Crown Vic and Grand. I havent been in a Grand in along time so its possible it has some of the soft ride characteristics to it too. I just remember when I was driving around the TC, man it had a BIG FAT Steering wheel with wood inserts that felt great, a good sound system, automatic headlights, some of the plushest leather Ive sat in, not one rattle anywhere. This rental mule had the park distance control and auto trunk pull down too, and when you combine all that with the Hertz Neverlost Navigation system... well I felt like I was driving a damn space ship, loved it. The 03 TC also has little goodies like Xenon lights as options which makes it pretty damn cool. I swear, had it been black, I probably would have stolen the damn thing.

Ian, can you tell me why the Xenon headlights are better than halogens. Also, can they replace halogens on a car that came with halos. I've seen a cuple of new Beamers, and the lights look bluish in color, are these xenons?

ps, do you know how much they cost on a new BMW Z8!! I heard something like 2500 cdn! They'd better be worth it. :devil:

Ian, can you tell me why the Xenon headlights are better than halogens. Also, can they replace halogens on a car that came with halos. I've seen a cuple of new Beamers, and the lights look bluish in color, are these xenons?

ps, do you know how much they cost on a new BMW Z8!! I heard something like 2500 cdn! They'd better be worth it. :devil:

Ohh maan are they ever, and truthfully the "option sheet" cost on them varies by MFR. For Example, on the TC, you can only get (as of '03) Xenon lights with the upper crust Cartier package, which obviously adds a hefty sum to your base price. MB and BMW do it a different way, in that pretty much every single vehicle they offer carries a Xenon headlights option on the build sheet, which will typically run you 500-800.00 US, and hasnt fluxuated a whole heck of a lot since their introduction. To answer your question; Yes, the blue tinted lights most noticeable on BMW's, Acuras, and the Honda S2000 are Xenon lights. To most of the public the initial cost seems like a waste, UNTIL you live with them for just a couple of days, it is like a night and day difference, absolutely THE number one option I look for on ANY car these days, they are THAT good. This is why I always get excited when another vehicle jumps on the Xenon bandwagon as dumb as it usually sounds. The field out of light out in front of you with Xenon lights has a defined cutoff, and a pure whiteness to it that is hard to describe, in total darkness its quite an amazing difference. I know when I drive the old Lincoln, I constantly think that the lights are OFF because the output of the halogens on it is just soo poor. More and more MFR's are realizing how much people want these things too, what was once an option reserved for some of the most expensive vehicles on the planet, has now found its way into vehicles like the Ford Focus SVT, Mitsubishi Lancer, and even Nissan's new Minivan, the first with Xenon lights. The first domestic attempt at Xenon lights WAS a failure though. The 1996 Lincoln Mark was the very first U.S. car to have them, and several hundred or thousands of them were recalled back to the factory to have the faulty systems retro'ed with Halogen setups. They are so unique (AC power instead of DC power), that today when they go out, most people replace them with a Halogen retrofit, so youll see alot of one-eyed bandit Mark's with one blue xenon light, and one halogen light. By 98' they got it right though, and the Mark VIII restyle had some of the nicest ones out there.

There ARE retro kits out there, but the truth is, they are usually very difficult to install without somehow affecting the oncoming traffic because standard Halo housings are simply not designed to handle the light output of a Xenon bulb, therefore you get a terrible glaring effect when driving by, which could be a safety hazard. The retro kits simply have a Xenon burner (bulb) which is rebased to "plug and play" into an existing 9006,9005,H1 etc... bulb hole along with a ballast/ignitor to power the lights, these kits are responsible for alot of the bad press that xenon gets though so I urge people to at the very least do it the pro-way which is to buy a complete system from a wrecked MB, BMW vehicle and retrofit in the ENTIRE projector assembly from one of those vehicles, it takes alot of work, but hey its worth it in the end. *Forgot to mention NHTSA has really started cracking down on the aftermarket kit manufacturers so they will be increasingly harder to find*

SOME cars though, IMO, should be left alone and Xenon lights would oddly ruin the classiness of them. For example, I would not swap a pair of Xenons into the old MB SL in my other post, or honestly, into a classic Deville either, because I think theyre headlight style is half of their charm. Granted it would be a cool project, but Id leave them be.

Theres also Xenon fog light upgrade kits from Hella which are pretty good, I had a set of these on my old 2003 Passat.

Good info, thanks! I'll take your word that they are better, as I've never experienced them. I'm still in awe at the difference halogen are over incandessant. hehe. Personally, I could never use up 1,000 or more dollars on lights, so I'm happy with halogens on mine. (still the originals) I heard somewhere (you maybe) that they last the life of the vehicle, so that's cool. I'm sure in the future all cars will have them, but the replacement cost freaks me out if a rock hits one on the highway or something. :madtalkin

my dad bought a 98 S320 back in late 97 and i remeber the xenon light option was around 800-900 dollars and he was unsure about spending that much on lights but the saleperson said that we will notice a night and day differnt with them and he went ahead and bought that option and i abosulty love driving his car at night. xenon lights make a world of differnce!!!! im surpisesd tehy didnt offer that option on the DTS, while the STS had them.

my dad bought a 98 S320 back in late 97 and i remeber the xenon light option was around 800-900 dollars and he was unsure about spending that much on lights but the saleperson said that we will notice a night and day differnt with them and he went ahead and bought that option and i abosulty love driving his car at night. xenon lights make a world of differnce!!!! im surpisesd tehy didnt offer that option on the DTS, while the STS had them.

Yep, I remember I think I mentioned that at one point before, but I think the big ovoid lamps on the DTS dont lend themselves easily to Xenon lights maybe? The 99 was the last year of that style S Class and 98 and 99 were the only years of that style to have the Xenon lights, the Xenon ones are ultra rare.