Howdy, Stranger!

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

2010 Ford Taurus



  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    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 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: 2,419
    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: 2,419
    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... 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: 2,419
    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: 2,419
    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: 7,623
    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: 7,623
    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: 7,623
    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: 7,623
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.