Review: 2010 Ford Taurus
#18
Unless its got evo or STI performance I dont know if many people will be able to look past the fugly sheet metal
Last edited by mmarshall; 08-18-09 at 10:37 AM.
#19
Thanks.
Though I haven't reviewed it, and can't make any absolute comments on it, in general, I thought the whole Flex program was needless and a marketing error. Even discounting the larger Expedition and Explorer, Ford already HAD two other small-to-medium-size SUVs in the line-up....the Escape and Edge (and, of course, the Mercury Mariner, the Escape's twin). And then, on top of that, the Mazda Tribute, CX-7, and CX-9 SUV's are all Ford-owned. So, as I see it, the LAST thing in the world Ford needed was ANOTHER small-to-mid-sized SUV like the Flex.
Making decisions like that, I sometimes wonder how Ford avoided bankrupcy like GM and Chrysler.
No, it doesn't contrast. The "less Granny" comparison was a metaphor to indicate that it is less conservative in both interior and exterior styling. The suspension and tires are also set up a little more for firmness and responsiveness than the last Taurus, although, of course, it's no sports car.
Making decisions like that, I sometimes wonder how Ford avoided bankrupcy like GM and Chrysler.
I do agree with bitkahuna, calling it less granny doesn't sound like much praise. IMO it's a pretty negative statement and contrasts completely with everything else you laid on in your review.
Last edited by mmarshall; 08-18-09 at 11:09 AM.
#20
Well, yes, I agree. Unlike, say, the Mitsubishi Outlander, which I thought was a borderline POS, I really didn't find a while lot on the Taurus to complain about. I'm going to find both Plusses and Minuses on any car...that's just the nature of a review. But the Minus list, on this car, was not very long, nor did it have many serious issues on it. In fact, the lousy marketing decisions and policies for the new Taurus, IMO, are worse than the car itself.
Definitely a possibility. Other strong candidates, IMO, depending on just when and how they are released, will be the fuel-cell Honda FCX, extended-range hybrid Chevy Volt, Buick LaCrosse, Chevy Camaro SS, and Cadillac's new flagship (yet to be named).
It handles better than either the Camry or non-Touring versions of the Avalon, and has, IMO, a better interior than either one. I address this in more detail in my reply to bad co's post, below.
I think it will get Motor Trend Car of the Year.
Overall a very good car that is right in between a Camry and Avalon.
Last edited by mmarshall; 08-18-09 at 10:43 AM.
#21
Thanks.
The biggest difference between the new Taurus and those other cars is in the suspension/steering. It easily outhandles (and has a slightly firmer ride than) most stock versions of the Camry and Avalon, both of which are softer in the chassis and have better ride comfort to compensate. I haven't tested the Touring version of the Avalon, which might be a little stiffer than the other models. The noise isolation on the new Taurus is excellent (with the specific tires on the one I drove) and appears as good as on the library-quiet Avalon.
The G8 GT, with its much larger N/A V8, outpowers the standard 3.5L Taurus, but may or may not outpower the 365 HP, twin-turbo Ecoboost SHO......you'll have to check auto mag tests for that. The G8, being an Australian RWD design, of course, has better-balanced handling and quicker steering response, though the Taurus corners very flat on the front suspension for a FWD car, and has good resistance to body roll. I much prefer the Taurus interior to the G8's (which I thought was generally dull and cheap) and also prefer it to both the Camry and Avalon interiors. The Taurus back seat, in particular, is superb.
I have seen a few SHO's in Chicago with the Michigan manufacturer tags, my question is how would you compare to cars like the avalon and the impalla and to an extent the g8?
The G8 GT, with its much larger N/A V8, outpowers the standard 3.5L Taurus, but may or may not outpower the 365 HP, twin-turbo Ecoboost SHO......you'll have to check auto mag tests for that. The G8, being an Australian RWD design, of course, has better-balanced handling and quicker steering response, though the Taurus corners very flat on the front suspension for a FWD car, and has good resistance to body roll. I much prefer the Taurus interior to the G8's (which I thought was generally dull and cheap) and also prefer it to both the Camry and Avalon interiors. The Taurus back seat, in particular, is superb.
#22
#24
The European-spec Focus is a far more sophisticated and sporting small car than the American-market Focus, which, in comparison, is pretty much an econobox. Like you note, the American version not a bad car by any means, (I reviewed one not that long ago) but is basic transportation and not a whole lot more.
#25
The European-spec Focus is a far more sophisticated and sporting small car than the American-market Focus, which, in comparison, is pretty much an econobox. Like you note, the American version not a bad car by any means, (I reviewed one not that long ago) but is basic transportation and not a whole lot more.
#26
In Europe, Ford has an AWD, 350 HP turbo Focus RS with an in-line 6 that they considered bringing to America, then pulled the plug on the idea. It could have competed here with the Subaru STi and Mitsubishi Evo......perhaps even more so.
#29
What we have here, for 2010, in one simple sentence, is a somewhat less Granny-like Taurus.
this car is a monumental step forward over the prior car AND relative to its competition today. while no car is perfect, what other car today offers similar options, room, value, refinement, and features?
#30
As far as a Camry or Avalon being "Granny", no, they're not necessarily old-folks cars, but they ARE conservative in the sense that I was using the term, though the Avalon Touring model and Camry SE maybe slightly less so.
while no car is perfect, what other car today offers similar options, room, value, refinement, and features?
Last edited by mmarshall; 08-18-09 at 10:14 PM.