Joined
·
58 Posts
Given the forum I'm posting on and my handle here, I may come off as slightly biased at the gate. I recently checked out FoMoCo's blurb on the 2005 Ford 500 at the source, and have a few comments, along with a personal epiphany and, finally, a question for the forum.
First, the comments. Ford is drawing comparisons between the 500 & our sweet baby the 300. So far, their big attention-grabbing distinction is entry price to get AWD. Assuming that not all of us live in Montana, I'm not convinced the seasonal handling advantages of AWD is worth the yr-round MPG trade-off.
Pricewise, if you assume that a 300/500 comparison is accurate, the Ford is much less expensive.... but that seems like a pretty wild assumption. To remain remotely fair, you have to take the 300C out of the comparison, because IMO the Ford 500 does not have a comparable trim level to the 300C, and that's without ever opening the hood.
Given that I'm not a nuanced performance expert [i.e. not a speed freak?
], I probably pay disproportinate attention to body styling. There is no comparison in that area. If you fall, like I do, on the love side of the immediate love/hate response that the 300 evokes, then you probably look at every Ford vehicle like I do and just yawn. There's absolutely nothing bad about Ford styling [except maybe the Focus], but can you find your Ford in a packed parking lot, without the telltale MickeyMouse silhouette antenna cozy?
The discussion between the Mercury Marauder and the 300C is interesting, but you have to keep it about performance, because styling is an unfair dimension to compare on. Arguably, with the $ you save on doing nothing to distinguish the outside from all other sedans, you deserve to spend more $ on making the Marauder fast. Without drifting too far into 300-phile subjective gushing, let's just say that Chrysler spent time going out on a design limb to come up with something that incites a reaction--love it or hate it, you will have a reaction--at least compared to what Ford/GM are shipping onto the lots.
I've only recently begun paying close attention to cars, and I can't muster oohs-n-aahs for a 4-dr sedan if I can't tell it apart from any other car. I don't know if that makes me inattentive or just a design snob, but to me $20-$40k is a lot of money to spend on anything, and doing so on a clone that elicits little excitement seems like a waste of money. I know we are talking about subjective responses to mass-produced items here, so 'individuality' is a relative term, but how many cars are churned out with what is labeled as 'distinctive' styling yet the mythical Average Joe can't tell one model from the next, let alone one year from another in the same model?
Which takes me to my little epiphany---Not everybody goes to buy a car for oohs-n-aahs. I don't know how typical of a consumer I am, but for the first time I noticed while reading Ford's ad copy that I was not being marketed to. I was not drawn in by any of their 'look over here,' with the exception of the 'Command Seating' spiel which sounded impressive, but left me suspicious that a mountain was being made out of an anthill. I'm not an heir to millions, so I'm still looking for value, quality, and all the other practical points that show up in marketing surveys. But I'm spending extra money to get a 1st-year design, and I suspect it's because I really like the 300------and that I have fallen victim to an especially effective Chrysler marketing campaign. I'm still trying to get the hook out of my mouth.
Lastly, the question for the forum. I know this has been asked before in other forms, but I'm going to phrase it a little bit differently. If you believe others when they point to Chrysler's quality inconsistencies, and you still buy the old 'Ford--Quality is Job 1' pitch, why do you own/anticipate owning a Chrysler 300? What makes the 300 better and different from a Ford product, either in general or directly compared to the 500 [I say the 500 because that is apparently the comparison that Ford would like us to make]? Are there people really making oohs-n-aahs over the Ford lineup, and if so, what it is about them that elicits that response? Cause I'm just not seeing it.
First, the comments. Ford is drawing comparisons between the 500 & our sweet baby the 300. So far, their big attention-grabbing distinction is entry price to get AWD. Assuming that not all of us live in Montana, I'm not convinced the seasonal handling advantages of AWD is worth the yr-round MPG trade-off.
Pricewise, if you assume that a 300/500 comparison is accurate, the Ford is much less expensive.... but that seems like a pretty wild assumption. To remain remotely fair, you have to take the 300C out of the comparison, because IMO the Ford 500 does not have a comparable trim level to the 300C, and that's without ever opening the hood.
Given that I'm not a nuanced performance expert [i.e. not a speed freak?
], I probably pay disproportinate attention to body styling. There is no comparison in that area. If you fall, like I do, on the love side of the immediate love/hate response that the 300 evokes, then you probably look at every Ford vehicle like I do and just yawn. There's absolutely nothing bad about Ford styling [except maybe the Focus], but can you find your Ford in a packed parking lot, without the telltale MickeyMouse silhouette antenna cozy?The discussion between the Mercury Marauder and the 300C is interesting, but you have to keep it about performance, because styling is an unfair dimension to compare on. Arguably, with the $ you save on doing nothing to distinguish the outside from all other sedans, you deserve to spend more $ on making the Marauder fast. Without drifting too far into 300-phile subjective gushing, let's just say that Chrysler spent time going out on a design limb to come up with something that incites a reaction--love it or hate it, you will have a reaction--at least compared to what Ford/GM are shipping onto the lots.
I've only recently begun paying close attention to cars, and I can't muster oohs-n-aahs for a 4-dr sedan if I can't tell it apart from any other car. I don't know if that makes me inattentive or just a design snob, but to me $20-$40k is a lot of money to spend on anything, and doing so on a clone that elicits little excitement seems like a waste of money. I know we are talking about subjective responses to mass-produced items here, so 'individuality' is a relative term, but how many cars are churned out with what is labeled as 'distinctive' styling yet the mythical Average Joe can't tell one model from the next, let alone one year from another in the same model?
Which takes me to my little epiphany---Not everybody goes to buy a car for oohs-n-aahs. I don't know how typical of a consumer I am, but for the first time I noticed while reading Ford's ad copy that I was not being marketed to. I was not drawn in by any of their 'look over here,' with the exception of the 'Command Seating' spiel which sounded impressive, but left me suspicious that a mountain was being made out of an anthill. I'm not an heir to millions, so I'm still looking for value, quality, and all the other practical points that show up in marketing surveys. But I'm spending extra money to get a 1st-year design, and I suspect it's because I really like the 300------and that I have fallen victim to an especially effective Chrysler marketing campaign.
I'm still trying to get the hook out of my mouth.Lastly, the question for the forum. I know this has been asked before in other forms, but I'm going to phrase it a little bit differently. If you believe others when they point to Chrysler's quality inconsistencies, and you still buy the old 'Ford--Quality is Job 1' pitch, why do you own/anticipate owning a Chrysler 300? What makes the 300 better and different from a Ford product, either in general or directly compared to the 500 [I say the 500 because that is apparently the comparison that Ford would like us to make]? Are there people really making oohs-n-aahs over the Ford lineup, and if so, what it is about them that elicits that response? Cause I'm just not seeing it.
