Howdy, Stranger!

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





2010 Ford Taurus

2456725

Comments

  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    Taurus at the Atlanta Auto Show today...looks impressive, esp next to the 2009 Taurus, which I drove as a loaner car and was mildly impressed with it...the 2010 was roped off on a pedestal, we could look but not touch or sit...is there a direct LIncoln version of the 2010, or will the MKS continue to look like the 2009 Taurus???
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Um, the MKS is the version of the 2010 Taurus I believe.

    Sing with me! One of these things is not like the other...

    image
    image
    image
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    The photos show that the MKS bears a lot more relationship with the 2010 Taurus than the 2009 Taurus. However, it is too bad that the proportions and shapes and lines of the MKS are not actually more like the 2010 Taurus. The MKS added to the front overhang and deleted some cabin space, and for what? It is not an outstanding design--though it is better than the 2009 Taurus/Montego, It is not as balanced and fresh as the 2010 Taurus. They were stuck with it, as it was far along in development, before Ford realized the depth of the trouble they were in. It is selling ok for what it is, and thank goodness Lincoln at least has this model to market now. Hopefully, more innovative stuff, like the Concept C (even if you hate it, it is a new direction and shows real creativity) is in the pipeline...cuz the MKS doesn't have any long-term staying power.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Yep - the only thing they had time to change on the MKS was the nose. I expect a mid cycle refresh to clean up the rest like they did on the Taurus. But I wouldn't expect it to look just like the Taurus body. In fact I'm sure it won't share ANY sheetmetal. Now when's the last time you could have predicted that about a Lincoln sharing a Ford platform?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    You have to go back to the Crown Vic and Town Car. The TC got its own wheelbase, body panels, interior...even a different windshield. About time Ford-Lincoln returns to that sort of differentiation. Good to see.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    :) I've been doing lots of research on the SHO, as well as the Limited. They seem to be well designed cars, and the interior is very nice. I'm having a tough time thinking about what I might miss on my '06 Passat V6. This car has everything, and then some. Prior to 2003, all my cars were either Ford or Mercury products. I really don't have many complaints on the VW, or the car before it, a '03 Acura TL. I always preached buy American, and now it looks like I might do just that, again. Anyone with some input, feel free to give me your thoughts. Thanks.....

    John
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    I understand your position. Tha last American car I owned was a 73 Pontiac Grand Am. Swore I'd never buy another Big 3 product after my many expensive problems with it; and the crappiest service I've ever experienced. There's been 15 new cars since that time, all Japanese; & they've all run 150 - 200,000 miles without a problem.

    That said, I'm looking forward to seriously evaluating the 10 Fusion & Taurus, Lincoln MKZ; & the New Buick Lacrosse - If GM is still around. Timing is right for me; the 06 Avalon is coming up on 150,000 in a couple of months & if any of these cars are as good as they appear to be I might just give the big 2 - forget Chrysler - another chance.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Why not buy American? The cars are just as good and the prices are often better.Sure, American cars were crappier in the 1970s (30 to 40 years ago...how is that relevant now?), and even into the 1980s and early 1990s. But there is no reason to believe you will have a better experience buyiing a Mazda6 over a Fusion or an ES350 over a 2010 LaCrosse. The 2010 Taurus should be a reliable winner as well.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Posts: 136
    I am definitely looking forward to checking out the new SHO. I sold my '94 SHO in 2001 w/108K miles. I really liked that car. Unfortunately there was not much else around that was American made that would compare. So I bought a 2001 Audi A6 2.7T w/6-speed. I'm holding on to the Audi until I can drive the SHO. If its as good as the write-ups seem to suggest I'll buy American again.
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    That's exactly why I"m willing to give them a close look this time. I drive 40-50,000 miles a year; and a car is just another business expense to me. It has to be safe, dependable, comfortable, economical - which includes purchase price, operating expense & depreciation cost- as well as reasonably enjoyable to drive on all kinds of roads. Brand is immaterial to me; & in the last 30 years or so the foreign Mfrs. especially the Japanese, have simply done a better job of meeting my needs.
  • rhawkrhawk Posts: 4
    I've been looking to buy for about a year now. I just can't find what I want. I've looked at Infiniti G37(nice car), Lincoln MKZ, V.W.CC, Cadillac CTS, Pontiac G8, but I think the Taurus will be my next car. Now whitch one, Limited or SHO?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    You looked at some terrific vehicles. Sounds like you want/need a big car (the Taurus is way bigger than any of the ones you have tried so far).
  • rhawkrhawk Posts: 4
    My wife want's luxury, I want fun to drive. She drives a small car, I drive a truck. Bigger is better for me(I need the room). I think the SHO is what I'm looking for. I'll know more after a test drive.
  • Very nice car from what i saw at the autoshow, but i dont think i could put down $26-27k for a car that will be worth $10k less in a year and your $5k upside down after a yr. Hope this model will shake the rental image the taurus became.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Today's edmunds "first drive" variant on the SHO claims a weight of 4368 pounds.
    Why in the world would it weigh so much. My 2000 Sable (Taurus cousin) weighs 3600; the first montego/500 series weighed about 3900. Why the incessant journey to morbid obesity? The new engine with 365 horses will be performance strapped trying to push all this lard about. Where is the extra weight and why? The SHO sounds like a great new direction for Ford but where are the weight police. The weight gain will cancel out most of the other gains with respect to acceleration, fuel economy and tossability. My god it's getting up to SUV weight. WHY?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Safety (air bags, door braces, etc.), turbos and AWD. It's also a larger vehicle than the old Taurus/Sable.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,000
    I wonder why they are only offering the SHO in AWD?
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    That much power to the front wheels would cause all kinds of drivability issues - torque steer, loss of traction on quick take-offs, front end plowing when putting the power down in the middle of a turn, etc.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I was able to find the numbers. A 2000 Merecury Sabkle (Ford Taurus) weighed 3325 and had 200 hp for a weigh to hp ratio of 16.6.
    the SHO is advertised in this story as 4365 pounds and 365 hp for a weight/hp ratio of 11.9, so it should move better than the earlier generation of Tauruses. Still imagine if they had held the weight down to 3500 then the weight to hp ratio would be less than ten and the thing would move. All Wheel drive and the size increase and the heavier engine must be the difference.
    As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO.
    What I fear is that the enormous weight rise will water down the new engine so as to make the SHO just another large sized sedan compared to the top of the line V6 competition (Honda, Toyota, etc).

    However you slice it the Ford is Porky compared to its peers and about 80 horses are tied up trying to move that extra weight. In the end it will perform like a 280 HP lighter competitor. That is a huge advance over the prior Taurus/Sable models but hardly a new champion in the sector. Why can't they shed some of these pounds?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Go compare the torque curves of those engines and you'll find that the Taurus produces WAY more torque at low RPM (say 1500) than the Accord. The Accord's V6 is a peak HP engine designed to rev high. The Taurus eb 3.5L is a torque monster - putting out 350 lb/ft starting at 1500 rpm or so. And it's a bigger car than the Accord which is in between the Fusion and the Taurus.

    Mfrs are always looking to reduce weight because it helps with fuel economy. They don't make them Porky on purpose. AWD, turbos, airbags, door reinforcments, moonroofs and gadgets all add weight.
Sign In or Register to comment.