 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / March 2007Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey
Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 2007 Relative Collision Insurance Costs Report, which will be available in car dealerships on March 30, 2007. With eight top picks, the Ford brand was the most recognized brand. Toyota, by comparison, only earned two top picks. Nissan, Suzuki, Hyundai, Chrysler, Audi and Saturn failed to earn any. The report compares differences in insurance costs for different makes and models of vehicles based on damage susceptibility. The findings are based on data compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute. Ford and Lincoln Mercury nameplates earning top rankings include the Ford F-150, Ford F-250 Super Duty, Ford Focus, Escape Hybrid, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Grand Marquis and Mustang GT convertible. Other products, including the Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, Ford Five Hundred, Ford Escape and Lincoln Navigator, ranked among the top three in their respective segments. NHTSA estimates top-rated vehicles could save consumers up to 10 percent on insurance collision-coverage costs. Each year, one in eight consumers is involved in an accident that could require collision repair, a $38 billion industry. > Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles > earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > consumers is involved in an accident that could require collision > repair, a $38 billion industry. These stats may or may not be relevant to car owners, unless they're fleet operations, as Hunter mentioned. Most people just pay the deductible, so total repair cost is meaningless. You could say that the cost impacts insurance prices, but I'm not so sure about that. And, of course, these stats do not address reliability. >> Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles >> earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > insurance prices, but I'm not so sure about that. And, of course, these > stats do not address reliability. Heck we don't even know where that story came from. >>> Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles >>> earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Heck we don't even know where that story came from. I think it came from here, first item: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=30644 >>> Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles >>> earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Heck we don't even know where that story came from. A trusted source. :-) http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=25712 Of course repair cost influence rates. Cost are what companies look at to set rates for their insured. Few buyers realize the big difference in premiums for FWD over RWD. For example the premium, for an insured similarly situated, for a Focus is as much as a CV . mike >> Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles >> earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > insurance prices, but I'm not so sure about that. And, of course, these > stats do not address reliability. I always wanted to ask the head of Ford at what point did he realize that Ford did not have an engine suitable for the Five Hundred. > Ford Tops Repair Costs Survey : Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles > earned a total of 10 best-in-class rankings in the National Highway [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > consumers is involved in an accident that could require collision > repair, a $38 billion industry. >I always wanted to ask the head of Ford at what point did he realize >that Ford did not have an engine suitable for the Five Hundred. Why do you say that? My Mother has a Freestyle (basically a Five Hundred Station Wagon). I borrowed it last year for a long trip and was very impressed. Very nice car, decent gas mileage and absolutely no problem keeping up with traffic. It won't keep up with a faux hemi powered Chrysler 300, but it is faster than a V-6 300 and on par with an Avalon or Camry. The new 3.5L V-6 seems like overkill for 95% of all potential buyers. Ed I test drove a Freestyle when if first came out. It could not possibly keep up with a Camry, Avalon or the larger V6 Chrysler. Maybe the 2.7 Chrysler but that engine is also inadequate. >>I always wanted to ask the head of Ford at what point did he realize that >>Ford did not have an engine suitable for the Five Hundred. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ed I think C.E. White just answered your question. > I test drove a Freestyle when if first came out. It could not possibly keep > up with a Camry, Avalon or the larger V6 Chrysler. Maybe the 2.7 Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Ed >I test drove a Freestyle when if first came out. It could not possibly >keep up with a Camry, Avalon or the larger V6 Chrysler. Maybe the 2.7 >Chrysler but that engine is also inadequate. The 3.0L Five Hundred can't accelerate as fast as the newer V-6 Camry's or Avalons, but it is much faster than the 4 cylinder automatic Camry, which is the most popular Camry configuration. The difference between a FWD 6 speed automatic Five Hundred and a 3.5 V-6 Chrysler 300 is trivial (around 0.6 sec according to Consumer Reports, although I have seen other tests were the Five Hundred was actually faster than the 300). I am sure with the new 3.5L V-6 the new "Taurus" will be competitive Ed The 3L was more than capable in the 500. A 500 with the six speed did a great job. The "perception" of being underpowered was in the AWD models, that came with the CVT which has been eliminated. Drivers, including magazine test drivers did not know how to operate a CVT equipped vehicle. They drove it like a conventionally geared tranny. When one starts out in a conventionally geared tranny, it always starts in the lowest ratio, not matter the throttle position. Any CVT if stared out a anything but, near or at full throttle, the tranny is starting out in a higher ratio. The same is true when overtaking another vehicle, one must floor the throttle. The less throttle the higher the ratio. It is akin to driving a vehicle with a five speed manual tranny and trying to start in third gear, or to pass on a grade without dropping a gear or two. mike >I always wanted to ask the head of Ford at what point did he realize that >Ford did not have an engine suitable for the Five Hundred. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> consumers is involved in an accident that could require collision >> repair, a $38 billion industry. > The 3L was more than capable in the 500. A 500 with the six speed did a > great job. The "perception" of being underpowered was in the AWD models, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > mike My Mother owns an AWD CVT Freestyle. Your description of the operation does not match my experiences. In fact, except for the missing shift points, it doesn't seem much different than the 6 speed Fusion I now own. The only disconcerting thing is the way the engine speed and vehicle speed don't have the traditional direct relationship of a "geared" transmission. The engine PCM adjusts the engine speed to an optimum value and then varies the ratio to increase speed. It you floor the car, the engine speed jumps up to the maximum power point and the transmission ratio is varied to accelerate smoothly. This was the second CVT equipped vehicle I have driven extensively. The first was a Saturn Vue. The CVT equipped Vue was faster to 60 than a Vue equipped with the same engine and a conventional automatic transmission (or with a manual transmission for that matter). GM had so many problem with their CVT that they abandoned it. I have not heard that Ford has any problems with theirs. I do understand that people find the operation weird, but that doesn't make it bad. I suspect Ford is dropping it because it is not rated to handle the power of the new 3.5L engine. The Ford CVT was actually purchased from ZF. Consumer Reports tested a 2005 AWD CVT Freestyle and it did 0-60 in 9.1 Seconds. A 6 speed automatic FWD Five Hundred did 0-60 in 8.7 sec. The Five Hundred tested weighed over 500 lbs less than the Freestyle tested. A Chrysler 300 V-6 was slightly faster to 60 (8.1 sec). In this class, 0-60 must not be too important. The most popular Camry model (4 cylinder automatic) did a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds in the CR road test. Other road tests got better results with the CVT equipped Five Hundred (I've seen 0-60s in the high 7's). Most of the initial road tests were moderately positive about the CVT, although they usually said it took some getting used to. Ed Some got 'better results' because they knew how to operate a CVT to start in the lowest gear LOL mike >> The 3L was more than capable in the 500. A 500 with the six speed did a >> great job. The "perception" of being underpowered was in the AWD models, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > My Mother owns an AWD CVT Freestyle. Your description of the operation > does not match my experiences. <snip> . Other road tests > got better results with the CVT equipped Five Hundred (I've seen 0-60s in > the high 7's). Most of the initial road tests were moderately positive > about the CVT, although they usually said it took some getting used to. > > Ed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.