| Ford Taurus Forum http://www.fordtaurus.net/forums/ |
|
| Autoweek's Autofile http://www.fordtaurus.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=845 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | johnclineii [ Mon May 16, 2005 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Autoweek's Autofile |
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102331 |
|
| Author: | Jhartwell [ Mon May 16, 2005 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Everything was great with the car BUT (seems they always have one of those) it didn't do so well on the track. Well, I've had my car since November and I'm happy to say I've never taken it on the track. Don't these people realize that all that matters on a family sedan is how it drives on the street? Don't think to many people will be taking these on the tracks. |
|
| Author: | Taiwanese [ Mon May 16, 2005 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I believe the most credible and useful reviews are from the owners, not from critics that have nothin better to do than trying to drive the c*&p out of someone else's flagship family sedan. |
|
| Author: | 500FX [ Tue May 17, 2005 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just to point out how inept the folks at Autoweek really are, they didn't even get the base price right. They priced the SEL which is $2000 higher than the base price of the SE model. This article is full of pre-conceived notions and is a poor article judging this vehicle. If they can't get simple things like the base price right, then how can we expect these folks to be able to even drive the vehicle properly. I'll be happy to take my SE on the track and prove that their "numbers" are not even close. In fact, I challege them to go ahead and "wet" the track down while they're at it. They stongly blame Ford for fitting the car with comfortable all-around tires that make perfect sense for everyday driving, then fail to mention wheel and tire sizes and the fact that Pirellis are available on the LTD. Maybe one of their "awake" staffers should have written the article instead. Souinds like one guy needs a promotion, so the writer can just go back to sleep. |
|
| Author: | PMCErnie [ Tue May 17, 2005 9:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inept is a kind word for this Autoweak story. Still, its better than syndicated reviewer Ron Morehead who highlighted in his review that the 500 comes standard with REAR wheel drive! |
|
| Author: | 500FX [ Tue May 17, 2005 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just shows that may of these writers have no idea what they are talking about. I just hope the public has the smarts to listen to owners and buyers, rather than make their choices from an article. It's been real apparent to me that a lot of the articles must be written without any face-to-face, or actual wheel time in these cars. Some of the things I've read almost border on malpractice, incompetence, or slander. |
|
| Author: | sskocz [ Wed May 18, 2005 4:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: 2005 Ford Five Hundred
S(edan)UV: Ford’s newest midsize sedan possesses DNA diversity I don't understand why this car keeps getting reviewed as mid-sized. My sticker clearly states large as the classification. 
|
|
| Author: | johnclineii [ Thu May 19, 2005 4:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can. Ford promotes the car as being mid-size, so as to not cannibalize sales from the highly profitable Panther platform--the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis. Many of the writers write largely what is in Ford's media kit and add a few words here and there. Some probably don't even drive the vehicle. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|