mmarshall

By widespread CL member request and interest, a Review of the 2010 Ford Taurus.


http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/


In a Nutshell: Less Granny-like, very impressive overall, but not quite as solid-feeling in build quality as the smaller Ford Fusion.




















I received several requests for a review of the all-new 2010 Taurus, and there appears to be widespread CL interest in it. The 2010 version, for several reasons, has been delayed a little in some parts of the country. A few of them are starting to come into the D.C. area now, but they are generally factory-program vehicles (as my test car was) that are available for test-drives, but not for sale. One was (finally) available at a close-hand Ford dealership (in fact, they actually invited me up for a review and test-drive), so I decided to do that today, while I could, as a number of CL people were waiting for a review. One other new Taurus came in while I was there, but it was already pre-sold.

Ford introduced the all-new Taurus (and Mercury Sable) in 1986, which was somewhat radically-designed for the period (it was softly-rounded in an age of box-styling and sharp angles). The auto press, at the time, liked its design and performance, but was skeptical that it would sell. It DID sell, though, and went on to become one of the most sucessful cars in modern Ford history.....though a number of its sales were to fleet-buyersand rental-car companies. Still, it was popular with car owners as well as renters, and its styling, in time, was copied by many other auto manufacturers. Cars, in general, became less-boxy and angular and adopted the Taurus idea of jelly-bean curves. However, the 1995-2000 Taurus perhaps went too far in that direction, and its excessive reliance on ovals in both the interior and exterior turned some people off. Sales dropped off some (in the early 1990's, the Taurus had battled with the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry in a three-way, see-saw race for #1 in pasenger car sales) and Ford designers knew that this time, they had made a mistake. The early 2000's Taurus was more conventional, inside and out, and sales recovered a little, but were, by this time, going even more to rental firms and fleet-buyers. Quality control and reliability on the Taurus and Sable varied quite a bit from one car to another. If you took three random cars off the assembly line, one would, in general, be reliable, the second, adequate, but nothing special, and the third, possibly a lemon. Overall, Consumer Reports gave them avarage reliability ratings overall, but even that varied from year to year.

The real demise of the old-style Taurus and Sable came as Ford introduced the all-new Five Hundred and Mercury Montego full-size sedans. The Five Hundred and Montego were intended to gradually replace the Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. A nice, FWD/AWD raised-wagon version called the Freestyle was also introduced, which was somewhat larger than the Subaru Outback, Toyota Venza, Audi All-Road, and Volvo XC70, but still competed with them. The Crown Vic, of course, was a staple in law-enforcement and taxi fleets, and the Grand Marquis was generally a senior-citizen Grandpa/Grandma machine. The Five Hundred/Montego did not sell well, even though they had an AWD option that the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis lacked. Their 203 HP, 3.0L V6 was panned by the auto press as underpowered, and the CVT transmission in the AWD versions was not particularly well-done. Even though Crown Victorias were scaled back to fleet and police sales only and no longer presented much competition to the Five Hundred, the Five Hundred still did not sell well, though it was, in many ways, a fine car. Like the Grand Marquis, the Five Hundred/Montego, when it did sell, generally appealed to an older, somewhat conservative car-buyer. Ford marketers then decided that had simply used the wrong names, that they should not have tossed out the successful Taurus name, and so then they renamed the existing Five Hundred/Montego by bringing back the old Taurus/Sable names (the Freestyle wagon became the Taurus X), making some minor tweaks in the front/rear trim and the interior. But, by then, Ford had also decided to redesign the entire line, and, that, of course, became the new 2010 versions we are seeing today.

For 2010, the all-new Taurus includes 4 basic trim lines.....the SE, SEL, Limited, and, for the first time in a number of years, an SHO (Super-High-Output) version. This time, however unlike the former SHOs with Japanese Yamaha-built engines, the new SHO uses an EcoBoost twin-turbo Ford V6 (more on that in a second). SE, SEL, and Limited models get a 268 HP version of Ford's normally-aspirated 3.5L V6 and a 6-speed automatic (with paddle/Sport-shift in the SEL and Limited). SHOs get the same paddle-shifted automatic (no manual is offered), with a 365 HP Ecoboost (twin-turbo) version of the 3.5L V6.....essentially V8 power from a V6. The EcoBoost turbos are said to be able to spin at an enormous 205,000 RPM, which is good for power, but, of course, what that will do for turbo/bearing life, even with synthetic oil, remains to be seen. AWD is an option on the SEL and Limited, standard on the SHO, and not available on the base SE.....IMO a needless marketing restriction, as the SE's FWD drivetrain is otherwise identical to that of the SEL and Limited. Unfortunately, the Taurus X wagon version is gone, and the Mercury Sable version also seems to be gone, at least for now. Sad.....I liked the wagon version, as it was the only real domestic competition to Subaru, Audi, Toyota and and Volvo AWD wagons.

I was invited to come up and review the factory-program SEL model, so that is the one I actually wrote up. I had, of course, several requests for an SHO review, but the Ford people there said that SHO's, until further notice, are special-order only (8-12 weeks for delivery), and that they would not be sitting around on dealer lots for sale. I got to go over the non-NAV, cloth-seat SEL model pretty well, though I couldn't record the price/option details because it didn't have a conventional price sticker (or the factory computer printout) with it. It was strictly there as a public demonstrator, and not for sale.

Details coming up.




Model Reviewed: 2010 Ford Taurus SEL

Base Price: N/A (SEL models, without freight, start at $27,995)

Options: N/A

Destination/Freight: N/A

List Price as Reviewed: N/A*

*My test car was a Ford-owned program-demonstrator, not for sale, and and did not have an official price sticker.



Drivetrain: FWD, transverse-mounted, 3.5L Duratec V6, 263 HP @ 6250 RPM, Torque, 248 Ft-lbs @ 4500 RPM,
6-speed Sport-shift automatic transmission.

EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 25 Highway


Exterior Color: White Suede

Interior: Light Stone cloth with Light Stone inserts; Brown Oliver Ash wood-tone trim.





PLUSSES:


AWD option available on SEL and Limited models.

SHO model returns after years of absence.

Excellent underhood layout, and a thick insulation pad.

N/A 3.5L V6 reasonably torquey.

Smooth, quiet drivetrain.

Good noise isolation (in the tested SEL model).

Flat cornering with little body roll.

Nice braking and pedal feel.

Nice paint job.

Nicely-done exterior trim.

Nicely done, impressive interior trim.

Nice, clear, ice-blue-lighted gauges (like on some newer GM cars).

Nice (but not a killer) stereo-sound quality.

Comfortable, but not particularly well-supportive front seats.

Exceptionally well-padded rear cloth seats.

Well-done interior hardware.

Easy-to-use, well-done buttons and controls.

Good front and rear headroom/legroom.

Heavily-padded dash for safety.

Soft-feel trim materials inside.

Big trunk opening, despite the intrusion of the rear roofline.

Well-designed trunk hinges.

Thick trunk-lid insulation pad.

Fore-aft console shifter for the transmission instead of the annoying zig-zags.






MINUSES:


Freestyle/Taurus X Wagon version gone.

No Mercury Sable version (as of yet).

AWD should be available on the SE version.

Ride comfort a little stiffer than on previous version.

Flimsy-folding exterior side mirrors.

Engine-start button available only on Limited and SHO.

Some exterior colors limited to certain models.

Red candy and White Platinum paint colors optional at extra cost.

Less-solid-feeling doors/sheet metal/exterior hardware than on Ford Fusion.

Rather poor rear visibility out the back window.

Cheap trunk-lining materials (expept for the nice insulation pad).

No trunk remote-release for rear seats.

Temporary spare tire.

Flimsy, cheap-feeling, flat-black plastic shift-paddles.

Step-on parking brake not as easy to use as a console lever.

No body-side mouldings to ward off parking-lot dings.






EXTERIOR:

The exterior of the new 2010 Taurus, when walking up to it, is almost as different from the former Five Hundred/Taurus as the original 1986 Taurus was from its own predecessors. It is clear that Ford, this time, went for a total redesign, not just a warm-over or a facelift. Gone is the conservative, boxy-sedan styling of the Five Hundred/Taurus, replaced by a notably more rakish grille, headlights, roofline, trunk lid, and taillights. Not there was anything wrong at all with the old design (I, for one, liked it), but sedans today are expected to look (and handle) like 4-door sports cars.....if they don't, the auto press will inevitably pan them). So, Ford, at least to an extent, oblidged, and sleekened the Taurus up.

I've written a fair amount about how well the Ford Fusion is done with quality sheet metal/hardware (and indeed, the Fusion has an excellent reliability record). That is not quite the case with the new Taurus. The doors/sheet metal and exterior hardware were not junk by any means (except for the flimsy, thin-plastic snap-hinges and housings on the outside mirrors), but felt noticeably less-solid than the Fusion's. The paint job, however, was first-class. My car was done in a very light, vanilla/creamy, off-white color called White Suede (I wonder who in the paint department comes up with some of these names?) and was smooth and even, with little or no orange peel, although the whitish color, like most white paint jobs, didn't have much gloss. Nine different paint colors are offered, for 2010, throughout the Taurus line, but some are restricted to certain model lines....another needless restriction, IMO. They are generally nice colors, especially the Cinnamon (Brown) metallic, Candy Red Metallic, and Steel Blue Metallic, though not very bright except for the Candy Red. The Candy Red and White Platinum Metallic are extra-cost options....a page out of the German/Sweedish marketing book. The doors and side-fenders lack protective mouldings to ward off parking-lot dings. I liked the classy grille, which was somewhat Subaru-like with its chrome bars, mini-slits, and center-bar with the Ford blue oval....Ford decided to toss out the three-wide-bar chrome grille of the former Five Hundred/Taurus, which was somewhat retro from the 1965 Ford Galaxie.



UNDERHOOD:

Very good, at least on the non-turbo models........easily one of the car's better points. The fairly solid (but not rock-solid) hood is held up by two nice gas struts instead of a prop-rod, and has a nice, big, thick, well-attached insulation pad. The 3.5L transversely-mounted V6 fits in a little tightly, and, of course, as with all transverse-mounted V6s and v8s, access to the rear spark plugs is difficult, but, otherwise, it is a pretty good layout. The normally-aspirated V6s don't get an annoying plastic engine cover, so most of the things on top of the engine block (and some things down on the sides) are easily or fairly easily reached. The battery, on the right, also is nicely exposed, without a cover on it. All of the dipsticks, reservoirs, and filler-caps are easily reached in a snap. The oil dipstick is an especially nice, solid design, and lifts up right out of a hole on the upper-block, rather than a sometimes-awkward, wobbly tube (BMW, Mercedes, and other no-dipstick companies, are you listening?).




INTERIOR:

The interior is generally a pretty impressive place, though some of the hardware solidness, though good, like on the exterior, is not quite up to Fusion standards. Nevertheless, in my book, this is a pretty impressive-looking interior, and, IMO, for looks, outdoes that of the Lexus ES350, which is considered an entry-level luxury car (of course, since the Taurus is the new Ford flagship, a nice-looking interior was considered necessary). In an age when many cars are dumping wood trim, the SEL model has a nice WIDE wood-tone strip all acoss the dash (just the way I like it). However, nine different cloth/leather color and trim-pattern combinations are avaiable, depending on model and option package. My car had "Stone" cloth seats with "Stone" inserts (though the same name, the inserts were a darker, more widely-patterned contrast). The power-front seats were fairly comfortable, though not particularly sharply-blostered for support, and the cloth had a nice feel. Headroom and legroom, helped by the smooth-operating manual tilt-telescope steering column, were fine up front. BUT, here's the real surprise......many automakers, of course, skimp somewhat on the comfort and quality of the rear seats, compared to the front. Not so with the new Taurus, and, I want to emphasize....NOT so. The SEL cloth rear seats (I couldn't try the leather), though slightly firm in the cushion, had a huge amount of thick padding stuffed into them. You have to sit on them to believe them....they would hold up an elephant (I could make a political joke out of that, but I won't). The padding in them is so thick that it actually raises the seat level an inch or two above the front seats, yet the headroom and legroom genrally remain adequate for people my size (my car did not have a space-robbing sunroof). Well done, Ford.

The stereo, though not quite a killer like the Harmon-Kardon and Mark Levinson units, has a nice sound quality and solid, simple, easy-to-use readouts/controls (Iron Maiden, one of my classic Heavy Metal groups, did the musical honors today with "666-The Number of the Beast"). Almost all of the interior controls and diaplays were well-designed and easy to operate, though, like most American-designed cars, the Taurus has a dash-mounted rotary-switch for the headlights instead of the more convenient cloumn-stalk that I prefer. The upper-dash ridge is softly and heavily-padded for safety.....another thing that some automakers overlook today. The upper-door panels have nice, soft-feeling materials on them; the lower-parts, somewhat harder plastic. The steering wheel has a nice, solid-feeling design, with comfortable leather-rim stiching that doesn't press on the fingers like some do, but I generally prefer a three-spoke design to the four-spoke design used. The ice-blue, back-lighting on the clear, round, simple primary gauges seems to have been copied from those introduced on several newer GM products, notably the Chevy Malibu, Cadillac CTS, and Buick Enclave (nothing wrong with that.....I like them all). The trunk-lid release is a round button on the mid-dash, just to the right of the console...a corresponding circle on the left side houses either a conventional igniton switch or a engine-start button (more on that below). The sun visors have a fairly nice fabric surface, though the headliner seems a little thin. Visibility out the rear-side windows is generally OK, but the rear window, at the angle it is mounted, gives not much more than a modified-slit view out the back.




CARGO AREA/TRUNK:

As on many newer sedans, the trunk lid is somewhat impacted by the shape of the rear roofline, but, nevertheless, opens up into a fairly big opening. Loading high or bulky objects, within reason, should not be much of a problem. As the Taurus is considered a full-size car by today's standards, the available cargo room shares in that size, of course. That is helped by the nicely-designed and smooth-operating scissors-type hinges tat allow the trunk lid to go up to vertical or more. The Ford bean-counters hit a few things, though. One is the cheap, thin, paper-like fabric lining on the trunk floor and walls. Another is the lack of trunk-mounted remote-releases for the drop-down, split-rear seats to add cargo space...you must release the seatbacks by the old method, opening the rear doors and pulling the straps. And, of course, a temporary spare tire under the floor instead of a real spare (I've seen a proper, real spare tire on only one vehicle I've reviewed in the last year....the Toyota Land Cruiser).



ON THE ROAD:

Start the 3.5L V6 up with (on my test car) a conventional dash-mounted ignition switch (an engine-start button, part of the "Intelligent Access" package, that also includes other security-related items, is optional on the Limited and standard on the SHO). The V6 starts up smoothly and quietly (though I couldn't try an SHO, I would expect its exhaust to be somewhat noisier). The normally-aspirated 3.5L, though its 248 ft-lb. torque rating is not particularly impressive on paper, is not a slouch. It will give you a noticeable, though, not strong, shove in the back as you accelerate. I don't see the auto press panning this engine as much as they did the 3.0L V6 in the Ford Five hundred when it first came out. It gives smooth, quiet, and reasonably torquey power. The 6-speed Sport-shift transmission (with column-mounted shift-paddles on all but the base SE model), shifts smoothly and quietly, and I liked the fore/aft motion of the console shifter (those zig-zags on some shifters annoy me). The flat-black plastic column-mounted paddle-shifters, however, were absurdly cheap-looking, wobbly, and cheap-feeling.....I don't know what the designers were thinking, with an otherwise very nice interior.

The chassis/steering, though not BMW-precise, is a definite step away from the relatively conservative road manners of the old Taurus/Sable (one possible reason that the old model was popular with AARP membership). Steering response on the FWD model I drove (AWD is an option) is not particularly quick, but cornering is relatively flat, with little body roll. Wind and road noise are both well-controlled, with Ford apparantly having put a fair sum into getting a quiet ride. Ride comfort over bumps, however, perhaps because of the new tire size and less-fussy handing of the new version, is slightly (but noticeably) firmer than on the old model, though it not uncomfortable by any means. The brakes have a nice, almost BMW-feel to them in pedal firmness and response, with little if any sponginess. Response was smooth, even, and progressive, and neither the gas or brake-pedal placement caused any problems with my big circus-clown size-15 shoes.



THE VERDICT:

What we have here, for 2010, in one simple sentence, is a somewhat less Granny-like Taurus. The conservative styling and road manners have been traded for sleeker styling, inside and out, and a little more responsiveness in the chassis, though at the slight expense of ride comfort. I personally don't like the fact that the versatile FWD/AWD wagon version is gone, and the Mercury Sable version at least appears to be gone....though it is possible (?) that traditional Mercury customers wouldn't like the new verson as much as they did the old one. The new Taurus is definitely more of a Drivers' car now, particularly with the SHO version. It has adequate, if not ample, power, reasonably good handling, a library-quiet ride, especially on smooth surfaces, a nicely-done, rich-looking interior with an unbelievable cloth back seat, a good underhood layout, nicely-done brakes, and easy-to-use controls.

But it also has a couple of faults, like any car. Rear vision could be better. Some of both the exterior and interior hardware and sheet metal is not quite up to the standards of its smaller, less expensive brother Fusion. The ultra-high-RPM torbos in the SHO give some cause for long-term reliability concern. There are too many marketing restrictions, IMO, in both paint colors and the AWD hardware. And come on, Ford. European automakers gouge us enough with extra-cost paint colors....you don't have to join them as well.

Overall, though, I am highly impressed wiith the new Taurus, and recommend it as strongly worth considering, if you want a nicely-done, comfortable, American-designed sedan that, while not cheap, is thousands of dollars less than some of its German, Sweedish, and Japanese competitiors.

PhilipMSPT

iTrader: (5)

A very thorough review once again.

I am impressed with the "new" Ford; they have emerged with balanced products that people will buy. It's functional, appropriate, and pleasing; all the while being approachable and (in some ways) "patriotic". It doesn't have the fear or undertone of instability like other American makes and products.

Mike, it seems that you don't have too many issues with the Taurus. Almost all of the problems you mentioned are relatively easy to fix. Compared to its competitors, what should Ford do to be a bit more prominent and class-leading? Do you think it's a matter of engineering, or a matter of marketing?

mmarshall

Thanks.

Right now, though, it's probably more "patriotic" (if you want to consider it in that sense) to buy GM or Chrysler instead of Ford. Ford is not recovering from bankrupcy. Ford, right now, even though it didn't get public money like GM or Chrysler, or a partial takeover by a foreign company like Fiat, probably doesn't need sales as badly as its two main rivals. Of course, it can also be counter-argued that, because of that, a GM or Chrysler product, right now, may be a riskier buy.


The Fusion, to me, showed that Ford can do vehicle quality as well (or virtually as well) as any other company if they put their minds to it. I'm not a big believer in automotive marketing...or anything else that plays into the auto "image" buisness. In fact, much of what is wrong with the auto industry, today, IMO, is due to manufacturers chasing the "image" thing and trying to cater to the automotive press. They would do far better, IMO, to put those marketing $$$$$$ into engineering, quality control, and using good (or at least better) materials in their vehicles. Display their vehicles at auto shows, yes, but don't saturate the airwaves and junk mail with continual ads that do nothing for the vehicle but just appeal to TV junkies. If a vehicle is well-engineered and well-built, it will sell itself.

As far as the new Taurus itself, you're right. I didn't see a whole lot of problems with the vehicle itself. Several of the worst ones could be attributed to silly marketing decisions, like dropping the wagon and Mercury versions, paint-color availability/pricing, and not offering AWD as a separate option on the base SE model when there is no credible mechanical reason not to do so.

(A Mercury version could easily be done on the same assembly line, and if it doesn't prove popular enough to keep it in production, could just as easily be cut back or dropped). But, I don't agree with the views of some people that the whole Mercury Division, right now, is a liability to Ford and should be dropped, like GM dropped Pontiac, Olds, and Saturn. Mercury, like Buick, has a core of rather loyal buyers, mostly older than average.

geko29

Obviously Mike has and will chime in on this, but IMO it's all marketing. At a previous job I had to drive a Focus, and found it to be a surprisingly good car, despite its modest price tag ($14k base). There's always the little things you miss going from a luxury car to an econobox, but I never had that feeling that I'd want to kill myself if I had to drive it for 10 years. It was a quality, solidly-built, surprisingly roomy car that got all the basics right and left me with not a single major complaint. Contrast that with one of its competitors, the Chevy Cobalt, which I recently had the misfortune of having as a rental for two weeks after my BMW was rear-ended. That thing was a POS of the highest order. Cheap EVERYTHING, from the door panels, to the switchgear, to the seats (how do you make an econobox seat seem like it's something less than it should be?). Top that with TERRIBLE gas mileage (21mpg from a 155hp 4-banger, are you f***ing kidding me? My wife's 4000+ lb RX with 270hp V6 and AWD does better than that!), lack of power windows and locks as even an OPTION, and the list goes on. Oh, but it had a trip computer and automatic headlights, wa-hoo.

But general perception among those who haven't experienced both is that they're on equal footing. They're NOT, by any stretch of the imagination. And based on my limited experience and what I've been able to glean from people like Mike (who honestly review cars of all makes without bias--except maybe a little Subaru kool-aid ), the comparison holds across product categories, on up to the "flagships", with perhaps the exception of the Pontiac G8 (which is going away). Ford just seems to have their s*** together, in a way that GM and Chrysler/Fiat don't. Some may say it's the result of the current financial times, and post-bailout companies. But the Focus that was my DD for 3 years was a 2004, predating all the current silliness. My wife recently had a 2009 as a rental, and was quite happy with it, so they haven't lost their way, at least as far as that model is concerned.

So really, the biggest problem Ford faces is convincing the public that their vehicles are not the abominations that the US auto industry as a whole has become known for. Sure they'll have their occasional missteps (as the Five Hundred/Taurus that preceded the current generation will testify), but they seem to be hitting most of the important points in a way that I, personally, only thought an import manufacturer could just a few short years ago. I'm the guy who swore off Ford after a '96 Ranger tried repeatedly to take my life (known defect that the mfr refused to acknowledge) and then Chrysler after several horrendous Dodge and Chrysler models, who now puts Ford on an equal footing with Toyota/Honda/Subaru in the family-car marketplace. I'm shopping for a car purchase in the next two years (as many of us are), and the Taurus SHO makes the list. It's pretty far down, due to its large size, incorrect drive wheels, and lack of manual, but it's at least on there.

mmarshall

Thanks ....but Kool Aid?

I reviewed a new 2010 Legacy GT just last week, and criticized it in a number of areas.....more so than the Taurus review today. I have also strongly criticized the new Forester for bean-counting and decontenting on standard and optional features....though I haven't formally written up a review of it.

Disappointment with the lack of a manual, especially in low-traffic, uncrowded areas, I can understand, but which set of driving wheels in the new SHO do you consider "incorrect"? AWD comes standard.


Personally, I myself liked the preceeding Taurus/Sable, particularly the AWD and Taurus X wagon versions, but you're right that, nationwide, they they did not prove very popular outside of an older, more conservative group of buyers. The new Taurus, like the upcoming 2010 Buick LaCrosse, is a marketing attempt to change that.

(The 2010 LaCrosse, BTW, is my next planned review, but none have come into the D.C. area yet, even as company-owned demos like the new Taurus I drove today.

geko29

I'm just funnin' ya Mike. Like most around here, I genuinely appreciate your reviews. I don't honestly think you carry a bias, even towards your favorite brand(s). It was meant as a joke, hence the smiley.

I'm a purist. It's RWD (first choice), or rear-biased AWD (fallback option), or go home. I'm a yung'un and have only been driving for 16 years, but I've never owned a vehicle where the front wheels were driven (wife's cars don't count ), and that's not a step I take lightly. Same deal with the manual. I sold my last automatic when I was 19 (the aforementioned murderous Ranger), and I'm loath to go back.

encore888

Thx for the review; the new Taurus seems like a good effort, and I'm glad to see Ford try to turn itself around, they are the most promising of the US makes. Styling-wise, I like the front end, but the rest of the car kinda puzzles me, the greenhouse makes me think of the Chrysler 300 for some reason, even though the shapes are different...maybe it's the proportions.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

thanks for the review.

from one of the pics, it looks like the rear seats fold, but i didn't see a mention of that. did you try that?

i think not as 99% of owners will NEVER open the hood!

perfectly good reasons for not offering this.

1) it adds to the manufacturing logistics and forecasting complexity.

2) i'm sure it's based on feedback from testing and dealers.

3) people wanting the base version are primarily buying on price and so aren't likely to be willing to pay for awd hardware.

4) base models are typically offered only as a price leader when most people end up buying a higher level trim anyway.

nice (brave) quote , and i agree!

your assessment of "a somewhat less Granny-like Taurus" seems pretty begrudgin praise when you go on to say:



i look forward to checking one out some time when i take in either my wife's f-150 or my explorer to the huge ford dealer nearby.

thanks again for the review.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i think it's that the belt lines are high on both cars, the side windows appear 'short'.

I8ABMR

I know this car is going to be a nice jump for Ford interms of power, build quality, and performance but I think its so damn ugly and frumpy. I am not a fan of the styling. Unless its got evo or STI performance I dont know if many people will be able to look past the fugly sheet metal

pagemaster

Pretty minor issues.

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.

mmarshall

Sure. Anytime.

Yes, a good effort, but, in some ways, its smaller brother Fusion is a better one.

And, IMO, the decision to drop the Taurus X wagon and Mercury Sable was not necessarily a good one.


I don't see why, either....the 300's styling is far more squared-off than the new Taurus. It also has what are called "chopped" windows.

RX300-BV

I would guess the Taurus X would compete too closely against the Ford Flex.

Nice review mmarshall. 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.

mmarshall

Sure...Anytime. I'm going to try and do the Buick LaCrosse next, one of the primary competitors of the Taurus...I've got several requests for it, but availability in the D.C. area has been a problem.


Yes, I mentioned that they were split-folding for aded cargo space. but that there was no remote trunk release.....you had to do it the conventional way.

I'm not sure I agree, as research and customer feedback has indicated that more and more potential buyers want struts (or springs) to hold up the hood, instead of a prop-rod. And they want them for a reason. That is why most new cars rarely go backwards from struts to a prop-rod; usually, now, it is the other way around. A prime example is the Subaru Impreza, an entry-level car that, along with the Forester, now uses struts, contrary to most entry-level cars. Another factor, of course, is liability.......automakers don't want the small percentage of those who DO open hoods to have serious injuries because the hood falls down on them, especially the heavier steel hoods.
I also don't agree that only 1% of owners open the hoods. I agree it is probably not a majority, but the Owners' Manual itself warns that it is the owner's responsibility to make sure that the fluid levels in the reservoirs stay up....service technicians can't follow the average car owner, like a nanny, everywhere he or she goes, even with the Roadside Asistance programs. Most cars, for example, in proper mechanical condition, don't use that much fluid (though it is normal for brake fluid level to drop as the pads wear). But the Mazda rotary engines, for example, are notorious for oil use, even when running properly.....you often have to check the oil (and add a quart) every few hundred miles or so.

Well, that's WHY I said, on the base model, to offer AWD as an option, not as standard. The non-turbo models all have the identical drivetrain.....it would be a very simple matter. Those who didn't want it wouldn't have to pay for it; those who did wouldn't have to pay extra anyway for the more expensive SEL, Limited, or SHO models to get it.



Thanks. Outside of CAR CHAT, this is a Lexus forum (and I once owned a Lexus myself) but I call them as I see them.

It's no secret that I liked the old Taurus/Sable, but I have to think of those who want to know what the NEW car is like, not the old. The old one, as far as a new purchase goes, is soon going to be water over the dam.



Make sure you check the tire pressures for proper PSI on your test-drive. In this car, a couple of PSI off seems to make a difference in the ride-handling combo.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i agree with this.

r8 buyers are gear heads and definitely open the hood and likely do their own oil changes.

ford can't have it as an option without building some to have inventory, and that adds to logistical complexity for a vehicle i believe almost NO ONE will buy, and again, i'm sure ford tested that proposition with focus groups and dealers.

not sure what this has to do with your comment that the new one is 'less granny-like', hardly that much praise. it's like you said "the new one sucks less".

good point. thanks.