That’s quite a statement. Car to be a bit more specific?

What makes it THE BEST?

Yep.

My F-I-L went to look at a new Grend Marquis when I had suggested he look at the Montego instead. He liked the way it drove, he liked the interior, and he liked the room.

But he would NEVER buy it!

The reason he gave me, “It doesn’t look like a BIG car!”

So now he has a Grand Marquis that is slower than the Montego and is no where near as good a driver, but it looks like the big car he has always liked.

And he’s going to put on the fake convertible top on this car that we stopped him from putting on his 2001 Impala.

One thing about the big trunk that I was looking forward to having this year – it’s designed to minimize usefulness. There’s a big hole in the middle, which gives it it’s depth, but everything falls in it wasting all the space around the edges. It isn’t as useful as the square foot numbers indicate.

The car really isn’t underpowered. It’s just a whiney, high revving engine that doesn’t feel like it belongs in a full size near luxury hopful car. The car feels like it should have some v8 torque, but it doesn’t.

I’m really pretty happy with the car, but I won’t be getting one again next year. I’m only in my mid 40’s and this thing make me feel older than that. It could be a buick.

Awesome looking, fully functional, quick, enhanced handling and power over a standard XR6 turbo.

You don’t want to see one of these things rapidly filling your rear-view mirrors…..

Toyota is real good about improving on the FWD, transverse engine, unibody platform. But their stars wouldn’t shine so bright against a Galaxie or two.

Look for the Ford Galaxie (a.k.a. Interceptor) to arrive at dealerships at the same time as the new Chevy Camaro. The next thing we will be hearing is “Toyota is out of touch with the auto buying public. They dictate to buyers rather than anticipate.” All I can say is, as long as the cars keep getting better, then let the games continue! ;)

Forget about keeping up with the Avalons, that’s how you win ‘em over.

Some concerns: the trunk is obviously less usable for Taxis, and I doubt the dash has the real estate to easily add police equipment. That and it looks generic, the proportions aren’t boldly American like the Panther.

The Panther follows the KISS principle and it makes money. That’s pretty much why I think it needs to stick around.

What happened to Toyota will happen to Ford (and General Motors). The cars are going to be slammed for the next few months in the automotive press. Ford catches on, introduces new engines to go along with nicely equipped cars, complaint is over, cars start selling.

“Performance family sedan” is an oxymoron and journalists’ attempts at tearing these cars apart because they don’t drive like a Porsche 911 Carrera misrepresents the car and hurts honest business.

Is the AU Ford Falcon a BOF or unit body vehicle? Your thoughts as to Panther vs. Falcon? (don’t know much about the latter)

8 seconds to 60 for a family car that doesn’t claim to be a sports sedan? What’s the issue? The power war in the family car segment is largely silly, as the potential of the cars is usually untested throughout their lives.

The new motor should help silence the one major ocmplaint against these cars. I hope so…after years of reading how “boring” Toyota entries were, the near-crucifiction of the D3 cars for the same sin seems completely ridiculous.

The history buffs can argue that, if they wish. :)

But there’s more: aside from better fuel economy/performance, the Avalon isn’t much smaller than the Montego, only 100lbs lighter and “handicapped” by a 5-speed automatic.

Even with next year’s improvements, the 2008 Sable is playing catch up to its smaller competition. I don’t see the Volvo-Fords working out without a major redesign.

A redesign that’s better off on the Panther.

Paul, you have some good stuff in there. I had an E39 BMW 528 wagon that was comfortable, held lots of stuff and could get 28-29mpg with 110,000 miles on the odo. While not a speed demon off the line, it was a very smooth car at speeds somewhat north of the legal limits. I can’t see why the automakers can’t build a smooth, efficient six like BMW can.

SherbornSean: I wonder what they will do with the Edge. I really couldn’t stand much more of that song about liking to live on the Ayedge.
I hate that bloody song too. The faster it goes off the air, the happier I will be.

That’s why we see all those C&D commercials comparing Fusion to Camry and Accord. I wonder what they will do with the Edge. I really couldn’t stand much more of that song about liking to live on the Ayedge.

There is this fellow Dave Foster, who does research on combustion and gives public talks on fuel efficiency and the future of the IC engine in cars. When people ask him why the automakers are holding back on, say, 50 or even 100 MPG cars, his answer is “so, what are you willing go give up?”

I guess from not only your review, but the corroborating input of may other people who have drive the Montego/Five Hundred is that maybe you don’t so much give up absolute acceleration, but the car has a “Caption, she no-gonna take it much longer!” quality under full throttle.

A small displacement engine is not an automatic recipe for high fuel efficiency. The Volvo’s of ages past were big, heavy, boxy cars with little four cylinder engines, and while acceleration was glacial (I remember a bumper sticker on one making fun of the zero-60 time along with all of the usual Volvo owner bumper stickers), the fuel economy was nothing spectacular either.

On the other hand, a modern aerodynamically-efficient car on radial tires doesn’t need that much power to cruise at highway speeds, and a lot of the highway gas consumption consists of heat and friction losses in a motor that is oversized for cruise conditions but needs to be large enough so the car can get out of its own way when conditions warrant.

It has long been known that a free breathing small displacement engine can generate all of the required horsepower needed, and with the right transmission settings and good aerodynamics and low rolling resistance tires, a small displacement engine can give good fuel economy. Almost all current cars have considerably smaller displacement engines, even for the same size and lately upward creeping weight of cars.

One thing the big displacement rear-drive V8 car offered besides higher weight and lower fuel economy was much smoother operation. A small displacement engine can be tuned for the horsepower, but it will have to rev faster and longer and will make a lot more fuss moving the car.

So I guess Ford made a big product-planning mistake with that powertrain in trying to push fuel efficiency. But the review community, which has a role in educating consumers into what tradeoffs are possible, is their partner in crime. If you are comparing the Crown Vic, Chrysler 300, and Ford Five Hundred, you could say that the cars are comparable in size, but the Five Hundred will get you 30 MPG on the highway while the Crown Vic and 300 will only get you 25. That is like you are paying $2.50/gallon for gas when those other guys are paying $3/gallon, but for their troubles, those other guys are getting a smoother-running car – you decide. If you are comparing Camry-Avalon-Fusion for V6 performance and smoothness, that is a whole different game because those are smaller cars.

But what does the automotive review community do with the Five Hundred? They throw up their hands and say “engine is too small” while in other writings they will say “Ford is in trouble because they concentrate on the F-150 and won’t come up with new car designs.”

The situation can’t all be put at the feet of reviewers or auto consumers — Ford really dropped the ball on educating the public about what is good about that car. On the other hand, the Montego/Five Hundred is really a mass-market version of a Volvo, both in terms of the chassis as well as the attributes of big-boxy-crash safe-no a tire burner, and while there is a market for Volvos, it is always been a niche market.

I guess the sad thing is that Ford will take away the lesson that apart from the Prius (which too is a niche market), there is no market for fuel efficiency and will back away from other cars exploring the edge of the envelope. They will stick the 3.5 in there, the critics will be happy, the auto-buying public will probably be unimpressed because the car has been out there for so long, and I can buy myself a used one with a 3.0 for cheap if I am willing to forgo the upcoming stability control

I’ve spent enough time with that RWD chassis, the LS2 and T-56 to know that this package will rock the house, right out of the box.

I wouldn’t be surprised that a V8 G8 won’t be significantly higher than a decked out Montego.

V8 G8. Nice.

I would expect that the G8 will blow you away in terms of steering, chassis ability and confluence, and general “smile” factor. It is a generation ahead of the 10 year old Monaro chassis, and reflects it.

The only problem is the agricultural quality (not to mention lack of grunt!) of the V6 engines, although they are more than acceptable fuel economy-wise.

Go for the LS2 with T-56 Tremec, and it’s a hoot of a car.

Oh, it’s also much better looking without the bonnet scoops……

86er: I’m hoping the ‘09 Impala is not some rebadged Holden, otherwise my hope of getting behind the wheel of a (new) vehicle that looks and feels American will likely be extinguished for good.

I own a rebadged Holden… first GM car I have owned and enjoyed in a long time (I am a long-time GM truck buyer though.) The Aussies never lost the feel of what a V8 RWD car should be like. GM here in the US can use the help.