Volvo Safety at 1/2 the Cost

Author's Rating:

Pros: Safety, Exterior style, traction control, comfort, interior space & trunk, 17 in wheels.

Cons: Bland interior, installed a dash cover due to reflection, mediocre fuel consumption.

The Bottom Line: 
The same platform as the Volvo S80 at about 1/2 the price. It looks like a large Passat, traction control is std., and it should have good resale value.

Author's Review
Aug 15, 2005
After driving it for a while can report that the fuel consumption on two 500km highway trips averaged out to be 8.8L/100Km or 27mpg. My regular city/highway driving varies so I will have to check the consumption a few more times, but for now it is 9.8L/100Km or 24mpg. Be careful when car shopping in Canada since the MPG values are usually given in Imperial gallons. This is quite crooked because virtually every magazine and web site list USA MPG and the Imperial gallons makes the consumption look better than it actually is. The values I listed are USA MPG.
Given the size and safety of this car the I can live with those numbers and it is better than other cars in its class. A hybrid version would be nice but that is true for all gas-only vehicles.

Other updates would be that I had it on a freshly graded dirt road and can report the traction control (TC) is working. It was like being on rails with the TC on and I could barely cause a decent fish-tail. Even with the TC off it still handled well (mine is an all wheel drive model). The dash reflection is not an issue anymore since the cover and I really like the riding position. I guess the next report will be after I get to drive on some snow and ice.

July 14, 2005
If you buy this car make sure to get the safety package option because Ford now owns Volvo and has finally put Volvo safety technology into a Ford, specifically the Five Hundred, Mercury Montego and the Freestyle. These cars are built on the Volvo S80 platform and if Ford was smart they would make the safety package standard equipment (it's not that expensive) a major selling feature. After a lot of research I think this is one of the safest vehicles for the money. It scored excellent in the NHTSA (www.safercar.gov/) and the IIHS (www.iihs.org) crash tests. The IIHS side impact test was not completed yet (as of July/05), but I’m sure it will do well. Compared to the Accord, Camry and Altima the 500’s safety cage was stronger and during crashes, with other all other factors being equal, heavier is better and the 500 has a weight advantage. Yes, this extra weight adds to fuel consumption, but it’s not too bad. Buying a Ford 500 2WD SE safety pkg. saves a whopping 45% vs. buying a Volvo S80. (the Ford SE all wheel drive still saves 40%)

As you can see I put safety first when shopping. At this cool site (www.informedforlife.org) you can see a combined score for safety. Keep in mind though that the Ford 500 & Freestyle scores are for cars without the safety pkg!. They should score the same as the Volvo S80 with the safety pkg. I found many journalist tended to focus on rather trivial things. For example, why should anyone care about a colorful interior or satellite navigation when the crash test dummies recorded fatal injuries after a moderate crash test? As a bonus the early reports suggest that this car will have a better than average resale value, especially for a Ford. Traction control was standard equipment and we went with AWD due to our bad winter roads.