Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2010 Ford Taurus

18911131417

Comments

  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    More like apples and berries. The 328i is a fine little RWD car. Like the Taurus, it has 4 wheels and 4 doors. It has superior handling, due it its much smaller size (it barely makes it into the compact class), rear drive and BMW tuning dynamics. It has a tight interior dimensions with a rather spartan look at the leatherette price point. It is not particularly quiet. At base price, it is not well-equipped, but if you could find one there, it would be a satisfying ride for those who appreciate its merits. It includes 16-inch wheels, heated side mirrors, a sunroof, vinyl upholstery, automatic climate control and a 10-speaker CD stereo with an auxiliary input jack. Power seats or anything else requires the expensive premium package.

    The Taurus on the other hand is a full-size FWD sedan that starts at $25K list and usually goes for less than sticker. It has a quiet cabin and enormous trunk. Standard equipment on the strippo includes 17-inch alloy wheels, automatic headlights, keyless entry, SecuriCode entry pad, full power accessories, cruise control, 6-way power driver seat, 60/40 split-folding rear seat, a tilt/telescoping steering column, steering wheel audio controls and 6-speaker stereo with CD/MP3 player and auxiliary audio jack. It gets better mpg than the little BMW (which requires premium fuel), and has a higher safety rating as well.

    Now, you can compare and cross-shop any two models you want, but most people wouldn't see these two as competing on price alone, let alone class, intended use, capacity, etc. The Taurus will more often be cross-shopped with cars like the Avalon, the Chrysler 300, Chevy Impala, Buick Lacrosse and Lucerne.
  • So, anyone with AWD 2010 Taurus...how did it do in the snow?
  • I have a 2010 MKS with AWD - same system as the Taurus. It gets around like a mountain goat as far as traction is concerned - excellent grip and very confidence inspiring.

    Two things could be a bit problematic in heavy snow. The low front valance would become a snowplow in deep stuff or drifts - virtually any new passenger car would have that problem. Also, the way the lower doors are designed on the MKS and the Taurus leaves an indentation below the doors that trap snow and slush. If that freezes, opening the doors could be more difficult.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    By the way, the Taurus is two feet longer than the 328i. It is a foot longer than the 5 series BMWs. The Taurus is even longer than the 7 series BMW. Comparing the Taurus to the 328i is just odd.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    For all the naysayers who said that Ford's changes to the Taurus (both stylistically and the manner marketed) would not make a difference in the historically abysmal residuals...
    http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/22/ford-brags-about-largest-residual-value-incre- ase-in-industry/
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I like Ford and have owned Ford cars for the last 25 years. This "projected" residual value rise would need to be tethered to the increased purchase price to be a meaningful number. 2010 non-base Tauruses have increased about $2k in price over earlier model years (becasue of improvements). Increased purchase price should result in increased residual value.
    And, of course, it is a projection for 3 years out. Projections are tricky, especially this early into the 2010 sales season.
    This is certainly worth highlighting by Ford (any even suggestive good news should be trumpeted) but I doubt it is a reliable or even meaningful stat unless the adjustment for purchase price is factored in. Whether it is or not isn't stated in the article.
    Predicting 2013 or 2016 values when it isn't even 2010 is a risky business.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Well of course the adjustment in purchase price is figured in. The fact is (and most people don't seem to realize) is that you don't get high resale, unless the vehicle sells for something reasonably close to list price. If a vehicle was very heavily discounted and loaded up with rebates and incentives (like the 09 Taurus), this always depresses resale. You have artificially created a market for a less expensive car than the car was designed to be. Detroit did this for years.

    However, resale is given more weight than it should have. If you pay far less at the beginning, of course the car will lose far more value as a percent of its list price (the way resale is usually calculated). But given that you paid less at the beginning, you SHOULD get less at sale or trade. Your actual cash outlay buy-to-sell is often no more with a car that has high resale v. low. Often, the buyer of a car with poor resale (if they caught all the front end discounts unavailable to the buyer of a conveyance with high resale) will come out money ahead. A high residual value is only important if you paid a BMW price in the first place. But car buyers don't get that, so the manufacturers will continue to crow about projected high residuals.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Why do you say "of course" the purchase price is factored in. I read the article many times and there is no mention of purchase price only "resale value" and "residual value" neither of which factors the purchase price.
  • poodog13poodog13 Posts: 320
    I read the article carefully as well and made the same assessment. The analysis specifically seeks to associate a discrete dollar value with the residual value of the car and then compare that dollar value to prior models and to competing current models.

    This is an entirely flawed analysis for the exact reason that "pod" identifies. Residual value is only meaningful as compared to initial purchase price. An increase in residiual value as a percentage of actual purchase price is what would be important here, or better yet, a comparison of the projected total cost of ownership over the first three years of the vehicle (assuming liquidation after year 3).

    Unfortunately, this is fairly representative of the type of analysis conducted in these types of articles, which is to say there's a reason they were journalism majors and not finance majors.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    But it is all moot, poodog, because even though you have a good point about actual purchase price, residuals and resale values are always figured against list price. That is because there is no good way to easily figure anything on actual purchase prices; those data are not readily available in aggregate form. And comparisons of total cost of ownership after three years also suffer from not figuring in actual purchase prices.

    There are high resale value cars like certain models of the Mini Cooper that sell over list. That is not figured in the "true cost of ownership" either. Bottom line, you more or less get what you pay for. If a model is in high demand or short supply, it will sell for at or near or even over list price. Used versions of it will sell for more as well. But since your outlay was more at the beginning, you damn well better get more at trade. However, if you buy a Lincoln Town Car for $12,000 off list price, you better expect it isn't going to be worth very much in three or five years. Usually, in the end you haven't lost anything, since your initial outlay was a bargain, compared to that Lexus that is now commanding $10,000 more five years later.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Ford did very well in January. Deservedly, they have good cars including the Taurus line. However Taurus was the second lowest ford model in actual sales at 3768 units (only the Lincoln MKsomething did worse). This is up 121% from armageddon January 2009 which is like saying up from almost nothing. I think the price point for the non-SHO models is $3-4K too high and predict rebates, driver loyalty and other incentives will reduce the cost by about this amount by the end of the year and if that happens and I can tolerate the limited rear view and mamouth center console I will probably buy one. Its not the car,which is good, it is the price point that limits present purchases.
  • Could not agree more. Many have said this, but the fanbois just don't want to listen. A 30K+ Taurus is a very hard sell. Especially with the not-so-stellar 3.5L Duratec. The SHO is an excellent vehicle, but $45,000 ?!?!? Good luck with that.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,669
    I don't think you'll see any big increase in incentives because Ford is no longer playing the volume game. You don't see a lot of Taurus' on the lots because they're matching production to actual demand and not creating artificial demand. And they should be reaping a nice profit on the ones they do sell. Throwing cash on the hood only helps volume, not profits and it kills resale values.

    What some of the non-fanbois fail to realize is that this isn't the old Taurus fleet queen. It isn't competing against the Camry and the Accord. It's in a different market segment now with the Fusion doing the dirty work in the midsize arena.

    So how did the Taurus fare against the Avalon last month? Or the 300C? Or the Buick LaCrosse/Lucerne? That is the competition.

  • Ok, Automobile says LaCrosse sales shot up an impressive 185 percent to 4246 vehicles. RTT News says sales of the Lexus ES350 was 2923 units, up 6.6% over January last year.

    Better then the ES350 which it competes with on price just larger.

    link title
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,669
    Toyota Avalon sales Jan. 2010 - 944, down 56% from Jan. 2009..
    Chrysler 300 was 1654 vs. 2200 a year ago.

    Taurus seems to be holding its own against the direct competitors.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I hadn't appreciated that strategy. If Ford is moving the Taurus to a more upscale category and intending the Fusion to fill from below that makes sense. If that is the case it may have been a good idea to change the name and leave the Taurus designation in the history books. This is obviously the case with the SHO model but I hadn't considered that they wanted to move the whole Taurus line. Since I didn't know ( an interested present Sable/Taurus owner) I wonder how many new to Ford buyers will shop the non-SHO Tauruses and find a sticker shock experience.
    I suppose I would prefer it to a similarly equipped Chrysler 300 or even an Avalon but, as outlined in earlier posts, I am looking for a reliable basic car not a Luxoliner with electronic doo-dads. My Sable has given 138,000 essentially trouble free miles and I will examine the Fusion and the new Focus when it appears. If I had to buy right now I would lean toward the new Hyundai Sonata.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,669
    How could a Taurus shopper not know about the Fusion?
  • podpod Posts: 176
    You don't know when to stop being chippy, even when someone agrees with you and says you raised a good point. I think you should chill out. Maybe they don't read car magzines. Maybe they just stopped in to look. Maybe it's too small. Maybe they don't like it. Maybe you're right and everyone should think like you. Maybe they have a ten year old taurus and are satisfied. Maybe your question is a rhetorical one intended to be irritating. The are lots of possibilities. Not everyone is as all knowing about the Ford line as you are. Maybe they are from Mars.
  • Maybe they are from Mars.

    Who cares then if they are from Mars. It would be really hard to get then financed anyway! :D

    Thank you tip the waiters I'm here all week...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,669
    I just find it next to impossible that a Taurus owner thinking about a new Taurus would not know that the Fusion exists as a smaller, cheaper alternative. You don't need to read car magazines - ads are everywhere including television. Not to mention the first thing the salesman would do if they balked at the Taurus price is show them the cheaper Fusion.

    I'm not talking about the average person on the street. I'm talking about someone who is seriously shopping for a new car. I just don't see someone walking into a Ford dealer, looking at the Taurus sticker, claiming that it's way too expensive and walking out without looking at a Fusion which is closer to the old Taurus than the new one.

    Sorry if that comes across as chippy, but I can't stand it when people compare apples and oranges.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I think the qualifying phrase you missed is "non Ford owners". No matter.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    If you are looking for a quiet, solid, good-looking car with plenty of power, try the Taurus Sel and don't go for all the electronic stuff. The Taurus at any level is much more car than the Fusion. We have a Sel with awd (not necessary in many climates), Sync with reverse sensing, leather with passenger power seat. We paid $28,700 with rebates and Costco pricing---a true bargain, believe me., especially with 0% financing. We have everything we need. A fwd is less, of course. It is a big car and happiest on a freeway where we are getting excellent mileage. The level of refinement is above that of the Fusion, but a Fusion is more fun to park and drive in town. We also have a Freestyle which we like very much, even with its roaring CVT which always knows what it's doing.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I wish the new products well. There are plenty of reviews from new or recent owners available on the forums. I wanted to extoll the trouble free history of my 2000 Mercury Sable now ten years and 140,000 miles old.
    1) no major unexpected repair charges except a fuel pump at 100,000.
    2) one brake job at 90,000 miles
    3) no exhaust system issues except new oxygen sensors at 120,000. No need for pipe repair or replacement!
    4) no electrical issues at all. No bulbs have even burned out.
    5) not a spot of rust.
    6) good fuel economy, even now 23 mixed and 31 highway with a V6.
    7) no leaks of oil, ps fluid or any other fluid.
    8) one battery replacement at about 100,000 miles
    9) Still retains about 85% of its get up an go. No major loss of power. I would expect a 140,000 engine to have lost some compression, etc. I still have all I need.
    10) no CV joint issues ever
    Are there some minor issues with interior wear, etc. Sure. But it is a trooper and I want to give a ten year review as testimony to Ford's excellent reliability which I expect has improved even more during the decade since I bought this one. Do not be skeptical about Ford quality. It has been a much better car than my prior BMW320i and Toyota Supra.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,159
    Had a chance to stop by the auto show. The new Taurus seemed like a really nice car. The only problem was that all the Taurus on display had sunroofs and they had very little headroom. I'm between 6'2 and 6'3 and my head was literally plastered against the roof. Not sure why they would have such low headroom in a big car? A lot of the Ford's on display had sunroofs. I know some people like them, but most cars you see in parking lots don't actually have them. It made the products seem cramped and also jacked up the sticker prices on the display vehicles. Not sure that was wise. The new Fusion was also nice and not quite as tight in headspace with the sunroof even though it is smaller and less expenssive than the Taurus.
  • Just a guess but those same Taurus models also probably had power seats. Those seats were probably powered off because the cars were shut down for the auto show. The seats are most likely 8 way adjustable so you can lower the seats down a good bit. I think Ford just tool the Volvo seats out of the S80 and put slightly different frames and upholstery so there should be three or so inches of height adjustment for both front seats.

    There is a good portion of the population that will not buy a car without a sunroof. I know you may not see them but I do see them while selling cars. No hole in the roof means no sale.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    What you say about headroom with the sun roof is true. We don't use sunroofs so we didn't order it. That's why it's so important to know what you want-need and try things out before buying. I have bought a car off the lot only once in my life, although the waiting was sometimes irritating.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,159
    Yeah, the Taurus on display had power seats, but they were connected. Lowering the seat all the way down my hair still seemed to slightly brush the ceiling and then the legroom was reduced. Disappointing for a big car. I think Ford may need to add some recent college grads to their design staff because kids in college are often 6 footers any more it seems and I think they could use some taller executives or something to preclude issues like this from happening. Americans are getting larger so they design a new larger Taurus with less space for the driver than in the previous mid sized Taurus??? Heck, the Accord has way more room and its smaller and more economical. I don't get it? When I'm in the market I may still take a look at it without the sunroof, but I was kind of let down and turned off which is a shame because the rest of the car seemed nice.
  • I wonder how many car-buyers are sharing my thoughts...my wife and I really like the new Taurus...and really like the upscale options for the seats...but we wonder if we will be better off waiting until the end of the '10 model year...for one specific reason: price. I cannot help but remember the large incentives that the summer of '09 brought to car-buyers...and the low-30's 2010 Taurus...in July-August...could it be a 27-28K Taurus at that time? I love the car...I really love the car...I'm just not sure it is worth what it now is selling for....
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,669
    Possible, but doubtful unless you happen to find one that's been sitting for a long time. Ford seems to be intent on limiting production and limiting incentives rather than throwing big cash on the hood.

    A vehicle is worth what people will pay and a fair number of folks are paying current prices. Here is a question - what do you think is better for the same money or just as good for significantly less money? Or do you think all similar vehicles are overpriced?
  • berriberri Posts: 4,159
    I don't seem to see a lot of these on the road. I don't know if that is by intent or if Ford is anxious to get the new Explorer in the Chicago plant to jack up volume and efficiency? I've seen some ads with a $1000 bonus on the new Taurus, but for all I know it is just some dealer gimmick offsetting little off the sticker.
Sign In or Register to comment.