Struggling through the ‘00s, Ford launched a new, modern big sedan with lots of space and a name that was supposed to hearken back to the ‘60s. Unfortunately, bland styling and an inadequate powertrain quickly led the 2005–2007 Ford Five Hundred to be filed under “F” for “Forgotten.”
In the mid-2000s, Ford was hurting. Years of aggressive cost-cutting plus a multitude of automotive and non-automotive acquisitions by CEO Jac Nasser had severely weakened the brand. Furthermore, the company was a mess in a mid-seventies Chrysler sort of way. The launches of the Focus and Escape were plagued by poor build quality and recalls. The new Thunderbird generated about ten minutes of excitement. The Taurus, which was Ford’s bread and butter in what was once the hottest segment of the market, was now just rental-car fodder after its poorly received 1996 redesign and underwhelming 2000 update. Among many things, Ford desperately needed a new mass-market product to generate sales as well as help rejuvenate the car-side of the brand. Instead, they introduced the Five Hundred.
So why was the name of the car, evidently meant to evoke memories of the Fairlane and Galaxie 500s of yore, not “500” you ask? It’s because along with this car came a new decree that all Ford cars and car-based vehicles except the Mustang, Thunderbird and Crown Victoria henceforth have names that start with “F”, harkening back to the early ‘60s when the lineup consisted of the Falcon, Fairlane and the full-size Fords (the Thunderbird was an exception then, too). Hence, joining the Focus and upcoming Fusion were the Five Hundred and its crossover Freestyle companion. The Windstar was renamed Freestar, and legend has it that any executive who referred to the minivan as “Windstar” was charged $1. The successful van and truck-based SUV lines would retain their “E” names (Econoline, Explorer, Expedition & Excursion). By all rights, the Escape should have been renamed Farscape under this convention, but whatever.
Designed by George Bucher under the direction of J Mays, the designer Ford lured away from Volkswagen in 1997 after a string of hits that included the Audi A4 and A6 as well as the Volkswagen B5 Passat and New Beetle, the Five Hundred was supposed to launch a new exciting era of Ford cars. Besides, with the guy who designed these awesome Volkswagens and Audis overseeing the Five Hundred, how could it lose? Yet, somehow, something got lost in translation. One reviewer noted that the Five Hundred looked like a Passat with all the life sucked out of it. Car & Driver’s Patrick Bedard couldn’t stop yawning through the review. Frankly, after the retro 2002 Thunderbird, it was beginning to look like Mr. Mays could only design retro cars and cars that looked like the B5 Passat.
However, the Five Hundred was not a bad car. Despite the star designer behind the curtain, the Five Hundred was an exercise in function over form. Starting with the D3 platform, which was a variation of the P2 platform that underpinned Ford-owned Volvo’s S80, Ford sought to create a sedan that would appeal to SUV buyers who really wanted a sedan but didn’t want to give up the spaciousness or high seating position.
One of the main features of the Five Hundred was its 61.5 inches of height, more than five inches taller than the Taurus (which was kept in production to be literal, instead of figurative, rental-car fodder). This allowed what Ford called command seating, and drivers did sit much higher than in most other sedans. Behind the driver was a 60/40 folding rear seat that was set even higher with a massive 40.9 inches of legroom, two more inches than in the Taurus and, surprisingly, over an inch more than the Crown Victoria. Furthermore, behind the rear seat was a cavernous 21 cubic-foot trunk, far larger than the Taurus and slightly larger than the Crown Victoria. Another trick up its sleeve that was used to woo SUV lovers was all-wheel drive, also leveraged from Volvo.
With 128.1 cubic feet of interior volume, the Five Hundred was classified as a large car by the EPA, whereas the Taurus it was effectively replacing was classified as mid-size. Besides its volume, the interior, especially in Limited spec with the beige interior, was more attractive than the dull exterior would suggest. Handsome black-on-white analog gauges faced the driver behind the thick four-spoke steering wheel. The radio sat high on the center stack just below an upscale analog clock. Also, unlike the Taurus and Crown Vic, there was no column-mounted shifter. All Five Hundreds had a nice nickel-plated console shifter. The Limited also had wood-applique that looked like it was lifted from a Jaguar (and probably was, since it was also owned by Ford).
For those keeping score, the Five Hundred won the packaging round and lost the styling round. It might have been able to pull an overall win in the power department had Ford also used the S80’s twin-turbo inline-6, at least as an optional engine to generate some positive press. However, the only engine available in this car as well as the crossover Freestyle was the normally-aspirated 3.0-liter DOHC Duratec V6 first seen in the ’96 Taurus. Now with 203 horsepower – 3 more than the original version – it was a whole lot less fun in the heavier Five Hundred. To make matters worse, selecting the even heavier AWD model saddled the driver with a continuously-variable transmission instead of the six-speed automatic found in the front-wheel drive version. Unlike the CVTs of today that program in faux shifts to simulate a traditional automatic, this was an old-school CVT, where flooring the accelerator caused the revs to peak and just stay there until the desired speed is reached. Americans have rejected this setup in droves. Like other CVT/V6 combos, it was also known to be unreliable.
Many people who did take the plunge really liked the car, and if you’re not turned off by the looks or care about the lack of power, it’s easy to see why. I came across this FWD SEL, which clearly is someone’s daily driver, in my parking garage still chugging along after 20 or so years. I’m not entirely sure of the year, but since sales dropped considerably from “below expectations” in 2005 to mediocre in 2006 to pathetic in 2007, I’m betting it’s a 2005 model. Having started its life in the rust belt, then making its way to New England, I’m impressed it has as little rust as it does. Of course, that’s only the rust we can see.
One person who was definitely not impressed with the Five Hundred’s underwhelming sales or the “F” naming strategy was incoming CEO Alan Mulally*, whom Bill Ford lured away from Boeing after leading a successful turnaround there. In reviewing Ford’s 2007 model lineup, he was shocked to find the Taurus missing. The conversation went something like this:
Mulally: “Where’s the Taurus?”
Product Staff: “Well, we killed it.”
Mulally: “What do you mean you killed it?”
Product Staff: “Well, we made a couple that looked like bars of soap. They didn’t sell very well, so we stopped it.”
Mulally: “You stopped the Taurus? How many billions of dollars did it cost to build brand loyalty around that name?”
Product Staff: “Well, we thought it was so damaged that we named the replacement the Five Hundred.”
Mulally: “Well, you’ve got until tomorrow to find a vehicle to put the Taurus name on because that’s why I’m here. Then you have two years to put it on a car worthy of the name.”
And that’s exactly what they did. For 2008, the Duratec was ditched in favor of the new 260-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6, six-speed automatics were offered across the board, some styling tweaks were performed, and the Five Hundred was renamed the Taurus. In addition, the Freestyle was renamed the Taurus X, and the little-seen Mercury Montego (Mercury had an “M” thing to match Ford’s “F” thing) became the Sable. Two years later, in 2010, the Taurus was completely restyled into a lower, longer and wider sedan that also heralded the return of the SHO with Ford’s twin-turbo EcoBoost V6.
While more power and renaming did help sales prior to the 2010 restyle, they were still well below what Ford had originally intended for the Five Hundred. The overarching lesson here, I believe, is that SUV buyers want SUVs and are not likely to be lured into a sedan. Sedan buyers don’t want to sit high up like they’re in an SUV. Toyota is currently learning the same lesson with the Crown sedan.
It just goes to show that foisting fundamentally flawed four-wheelers on folks will fail despite fancy, foolish framing.
*To Alan’s credit, he drove a Five Hundred instead of a Jaguar, Volvo or Land Rover like other Ford execs.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 2005 Ford Five Hundred – This Is Not a Taurus, Is It?
COAL: 2005 and 2007 Ford Five Hundred — Sometimes a Car is Just a Car
Future Curbside Classics: 2008-2009 Mercury Sable – New Doors Closed
Here is a car that has virtually disappeared from the roads. I had remembered that all of them came with CVTs, and I had assumed this was why. But you have refreshed my memory. The 3.0 V6 was a good engine, and with the 6 speed, these should still be seen out on the roads in the ways that old Buick Centurys are – but nope.
A guy who lives down the street from me was a longtime Ford guy. He bought a new Mercury Sable of (the second half of) this generation but it did not stay with them long. Every new car since then has been a Honda Accord. I never had the opportunity to ask what happened with the Sable.
And yes, for a guy who spent a lot of time in Fords of the 80s and 90s, the mid 00s was a really depressing era.
I absolutely loved my 2006 Five Hundred SEL AWD…until the CVT conked out at only 120,000 miles. The car was a great overall package that fit my needs perfectly. Nice size, great trunk, excellent handling. If they made it again, but with a better transmission, I’d buy it again!
A former co-worker prided himself on getting the best deals possible on new cars, and apparently was able to buy a leftover bottom-of-the line 2008 or 2009 Taurus for well below dealer invoice price. I believe that it was FWD with the 3.5 liter V6 and a 6-speed automatic transmission. The Taurus was exceptionally roomy and easily carried 5 adults in comfort. Unlike some of the “bargain” cars that my co-worker had purchased in the past, it proved to be reliable throughout his ownership.
He loved that car and drove the heck out of it for about 10 years. But – in part because my co-worker preferred cars (not trucks or SUV’s) – he wound up replacing it with a new Hyundai Sonata (which he was also able to get a terrific deal on) when the Taurus began to look ratty thanks to the heavy use of road salt here in northeast Ohio.
I had a 2005 Montego swd with the cvt transmission. One of best cars I ever owned. No problems in 105000. Miles . Large easy to get into interior. Fold down rear and passenger seat. Great for hauling long objects. No brake engine or ac problems. Kept reading of cvt trans problems had none. Reminded me of old Buick dynoflo. Was good in snow good road clearance. Only bad was the ventilated leather seats in rear were not dog claw friendly. If they made it again would buy one. Replaced mine with Lincoln mks which is half that car at almost three times price
In 2005, we went car shopping. There’s a mega dealer 100 miles away that carries pretty much any car brand from USA and Asia except Korean variants.
We arrived at 8:30 am. We test drove multiple GM, Chrysler, and Toyota cars & SUV’s. My wife is particular about the “feel” of how a car drives. She really didn’t like anything we’d driven. The Honda sat too low, the Toyota steering didn’t “feel right”, yadda, yadda, yadda.
We were about to leave and we walked by a Five Hundred. She says: “What’s that?”. I told her about the details and she asked the salesman if she could drive it. We pulled out of the parking lot and within 500 feet she said “This one feels right. If they have it in gold; this is the one I want.”
She drove that car for 175,000 miles. We gave it to our son when his second child arrived, and he took it to 292,000 miles. He sold it to a friend and they drove it to 363,000 miles when the 6 speed gave up.
Was it a beautiful car? No. Was it powerful? Again, no. But to this day it ranks in the top 3 for my wife’s favorite cars.
In 175,000 miles of ownership, I only had to replace the upper motor mount outside of regular maintenance. My son replaced the alternator.
The Five Hundred came out around the same time as the S197 Mustang, a much better reception in the marketplace.
It also came out at the same time as the Chrysler 300, with its dynamic styling and optional HEMI engine. No contest in the sales race.
I remember being astonished at Ford’s confusing nomenclature nonsense during this era. One bad decision after another, none of which were particularly beneficial or relevant to consumer. Ford was very lost during this era.
As a big fan of tall cars, the 500’s proportions (it was essentially a sedan version of the Freestar) resonated well with me.
I walk by a Montego every morning on my pre-breakfast walk. But these have all become very scarce.
Poor Bill Ford; he hasn’t exactly had a great run of CEOs. I thought Mulally was rather out of his element at Ford. Sure, better than Jac Nasser, but not exactly inspiring. And then there was Mark Fields, and….and I’m none too impressed with Bill Farley; wasted tens of billions trying to be the next Tesla.
I’ve always been curious as to how/why Fields didn’t work out. He was a home-grown, Ford-baked long time successful wonderful boy and he face planted.
The biggest issue was that Fields was a car guy – he loved cars. However, he wasn’t well suited to the CEO role and wasn’t able to coherently form a vision for the future of the company as well as continue Mulally’s turnaround efforts. Even though the company was making money, the stock price tanked. The Ford family gets verrrrrrry nervous when the stock price is low.
Farley is a “car guy” too. I know it’s not an easy job but I just can’t understand his product line decision-making. Or in any case I don’t agree with it.
As a big fan of tall cars, the 500’s proportions (it was essentially a sedan version of the Freestyle) resonated well with me.
I fixed it for you 🙂
After reading “American Icon” by Bryce Hoffman, I believe that if it wasn’t for Alan Mulally, Ford very well may have gone bankrupt. Sure, he wasn’t a car guy, but he helped turn Ford from an organization where you worked your way up by how well you can stab your competitors in the back and few executives cared about anything besides the next promotion or bonus to one where nearly everyone was working together towards a common goal.
I’ve started to suspect that, aside from the exceedingly rare genius who’s a savvy car guy as well as a savvy finance guy, car manufacturers are best served by an alternating sequence of car guys and finance guys as CEO.
Car guys foster superb product but not necessarily the most rational long-term financial decisions, and finance guys make good financial sense but lousy product. By alternating them, you get good products reined in by sober financial decisions and vice-versa, thereby maintaining a sort of happy medium, albeit in cycles.
Thanks. Too much freedom!
I admit Mullaly did a lot to make Fotrd as a corporation work more cohesively. Ford was always notorious for having the worst politics and fiefdoms, and he did cut through much of that.
Great car. One of the big reasons I buy ford. Great engine, transmission and spacious. Job done right. Sold it after 300k miles. Never a powertrain problem.
I got a loaner Ford 500 Limited in early December of 2008, and I had it for three weeks until we bought a new 2008 WRX STI, and except for having far less horsepower, the 500 Limited was superior in every way, but most noticeably driving the Interstate during snowfall as the Ford was clearly superior despite having all season tires and out Subie having dedicated Dunlop snow tires. Unfortunately, I only found this out once we had bought the Subie and experienced the difference on the Interstate. To this day I regret not having bought the Ford instead of the Subie.
Five Hundred….WRX STI…..Five Hundred….WRX STI. You’re right. That’s a very tough choice.
Adam Dixon, It was no choice. The Ford dealer where our totaled Mazda Speed 3 was towed gave us the 500 Limited free for our use until we could get our insurance payout on the Mazda (yes, it was given to us for no charge for three weeks). As for the STI, we had been following the tempting deals Subaru had advertised all that fall on the STI ($6,000 to $8,000 off sticker on new 2008 models) for several months, and mistakenly thought that the STI was the better car, so we bought it. Happy now?
Counterpoint.
I love finding low mileage older American sedans. In 2024, after selling my 1989 Buick Electra with 26K miles, I picked up a 2005 Five Hundred Limited, fully optioned, 45K miles. Most of the exterior colors for these had fancy marketing names, but mine was black, and it was officially called… “Black,” I guess in a nod to Henry Ford.
I bought it for $6000 and sold it for $7000 two years later — zero body rust but had a guy replace the engine cradle that was more rusty than I was comfortable with — and troubleshoot a wonky instrument cluster (fixed by replacing the HVAC control unit — oh the joys of Canbus architecture).
The 500 was actually a very positive experience: loved the way it looked (elemental, rational, unassuming), the ease of getting in and out, the uprightness in traffic, the big wide seats with excellent heaters, tons of headroom, great visibility (sight lines under the rearview mirror ftw), the utterly simple and straightforward Germanic IP, the hugely practical fold down rear seats, and the tons of commodious cubbies (dash top compartment and usable door-card cubbies). I adapted to the 203 hp, and found it more than sufficient. The 3.0 V6 was super great (the last decent Ford engine?), if not quite as sonorious or massively smooth as the Buick 3800.
Every Ford I’ve ever owned always reminded me of the myriad tiny choices made by Ford to meet cost targets –that however Audi-esque they might have looked, there were compromises: e.g., bumper fascias that were less robust than necessary to prevent them from getting wavy and cheap looking over time, exterior trim pieces, e.g., chrome, that looked cheap in their detailing. But such is the nature of compromise.
I wasn’t too keen on the lifetime average of 22mpg and at the end of last year moved to a 2012 MKZ Hybrid, 44mpg (Fuelly.com average on my tenure, over 7K miles).
There’s a ’08-09 Taurus Limited a half block from where I live, and a similar Sable I’ve seen several times in the nearby grocery parking lot. I really like these, and for years was what I recommended to parents looking for a good used car for their teens to drive. What’s that they say about “big, slow, and boring” being the safest choice? This was basically a Volvo structure, and the Taurus versions especially had up-to-date safety features (optional on the ’08, standard in ’09 at least on Limiteds) and these depreciated far more than, say, a Toyota Avalon. I think, if styled right, the taller stance would help lure buyers back to sedans – most modern sedans are so rakishly low, with A pillars so slanted I can barely get my head under it when entering. The 500/Taurus was loaded with room, easy to get in and out of, and easy to see out of too. And had mostly excellent ergonomics. I thought the 2010 Taurus was far inferior – back to poor packaging and poor outward visibility. Maybe it looked a bit better but I didn’t mind the Audi-ish appearance of the 500/Taurus even if it was a bit bland and derivative.
I’m a retired Ford dealer. While the car did not sell well as new, it was a great value as a used car. We bought and sold hundreds of rental returns. Back in the 00’s, Ford decided that all car names would start with an F, thus the name Five Hundred. I brought up at a Ford meeting, ‘what about Mustang and Crown Victoria?’ The Ford exec said ‘Hmmm, didn’t think about that.’
We have the new and improved 2008 Taurus AWD Limited with the 3.5 and a real automatic (6FR?). It is comfortable, roomy, and I got it for free.
However, it has required some repairs and maintenance. Around 130,000 km it got control arms and bushings, front struts, front wheel bearings, ball joints, stabilizer links, transmission and engine mounts, dog-bone mount, AC condenser, hood struts, alternator belt, belt tensioner, both seat heater elements, a window switch, and brakes. It got worse at 132,000 when the power transfer unit (transfer case) failed. The dealer wanted $2500 for the part alone. I found a new-car take-out and with a friend’s labour fixed it for $1100. This expensive component fails because IT DOES NOT HAVE A DRAIN! The HVAC motors have all failed – I replaced the ones I could find – and the one behind the dash is a ten-hour job ( says the dealer). It got plugs and injectors at 140,000 km. The HVAC works, but only through the defroster ducts. The plastic “chrome” is peeling off the wheels. The headlights fog from moisture. The leather on all seats is disintegrating.
I am waiting for the next problem – the water pump is inside the engine and a failure will be the end of this car.
It now has 150,000 km, (just under 100,000 miles) and I won’t be surprised if the car is soon going into the shredder before it reaches that milestone. I installed a drain in the PTU and next week I’m changing the gear oil again.
Otherwise, a great car!
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?”
Just as Ford kept the old Taurus lingering for rental fleets, Ford also kept the full size Crown Victoria around all through the Five Hundred’s production for police/livery fleets(but still sold LXs right along side these in showrooms)giving them two completely different midsize cars and two completely different full size cars in the lineup at one point. I always got the sense that these straddled a line that was too big for midsize buyers and too untraditional for the domestic full size buyers of the time. The Volvo chassis always seemed less about bringing their engineering pedigree into Ford’s, but rather trying to find a use for owning Volvo that never seemed to be all that well thought out during that acquisition phase.
The D3/4 platform ironically only found true success when the Explorer was moved to it making it a true SUV platform instead of one that straddled tall sedan/psudo crossover wagons. The fully restyled chopped top Taurus for 2010 had a blip of success as well, and those cars are still pretty common now, but the 2013 Fusion seemed to take the wind out of its sails(sales?). Funny enough the F for Ford model effectively superceded the Taurus twice then.
My wife and I bought a Crown Victoria in 2007, and all of the Ford dealers we visited tried to get us to buy a Five Hundred instead. Actually, I liked the Five Hundred – it was a good value and offered a lot of space – but the allure of getting one of the last traditional RWD sedans was pretty compelling to us at the time.
Knew someone who had one of these, from the factory it needed a software update on the transmission. Then they moved away so never knew how it worked long-term for them.
I wonder how the Five Hundread would have fare if he have been named Taurus right from the start?
It most certainly would have done somewhat better, at least in the first year. Mulally was right – there was a lot of brand equity in the Taurus name. Unfortunately, the Five Hundred/Taurus was a niche product designed to be a successful mass-market product.
It seemed as though Ford was trying to reinvent the full-size American sedan. I remember Car and Driver saying that the Five Hundred was trying to recall the days when the purchase of a new car from one of the Big Three was a point of pride for a family.
Renaming the car and ditching the CVT for a conventional automatic did help. I always thought the Freestyle/Taurus X was underrated, but buyers obviously preferred a known name (Explorer) and styling more in line with conventional crossovers and SUVs.
I am not see how the current a Toyota Crown sedan will end up the same ending of Ford 500. It is superior product, a Lexus in discount, it is designed as premium product at the beginning. Those who overlook Crown will miss how great it is. Anyway, it probably will be a 2020s version of Cressida
I enjoyed both the essay & comments—especially the varying ownership experiences. I’ve only ridden in one once, but it made a great ergonomic impression: lots of room, big trunk, higher “H-point,” etc. I loved the 3.0 engine in my Taurus, and this sounds like a great old-man car for a coast-to-coast trip. I occasionally see low-mileage examples and get tempted, though my longtime Ford dealer says this about ‘grandma cars’: sometimes they’re a headache, and sometimes you can put a LOT of miles on them.” Here’s a nearby Ford dealer’s 46K-mile black/black, 6-speed automatic example: https://www.griffinford.com/viewdetails/used/1fafp25105g130660/2005-ford-five-hundred-sedan?type=finance&_gl=1*1dhcj41*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6oWP9JiklgMVRIHCCB1djSTpEAAYASAAEgKVifD_BwE&gbraid=0AAAABDfQg913J4boA3Q_83WK01XwS3MzM
When these came out, I was working at Ogilvy & Mather, and we were Ford’s ad agency at the time. I worked on IBM, and we had a couple of these as pool cars to go between NYC and IBM in Westchester County on the sinewy Saw Mill Parkway. It was as lumbering and uninspiring as you describe.
We also had a Ford Flex, which I liked. But it went nowhere too.
I honestly think there were more B5 Passats sold in my part of California than 500’s (oops, Five Hundreds). Or for that matter, more than the later Tauruses. Like the Passat, the Five Hundred was a handsome car but lazy design on the part of Mays and Ford management to approve it, regardless of the name.