Howdy, Stranger!

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





2010 Ford Taurus

1171820222325

Comments

  • beer4704beer4704 Posts: 46
    Quick question, please. does anyone know if you can can get Navi on SEL? Or do you have to get Limited version?
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    If you want a Limited with Nav but want the 18 inch wheels, you could see if the dealer would be willing to swap the wheels/tires with an SEL. Of course, you would be giving up the chrome clad wheels that are standard on the Limited.

    As others have mentioned, the 2010 Taurus is intentionally firmer than the 2008s and 2009s - also a bit firmer than the LaCross or Avalon. Having said that, the Goodyear RS-As have always seemed like an odd choice to me. They are a bit harsher and noisier than I would like on a car of this type.
  • c2c35c2c35 Posts: 37
    I've read allot of these messages that everyone has written. Is anyone happy overall with there taurus? Did everybody forget how to have fun due to all of the years of being forced to dive generic cars that had to sacrifice power and style for a small forien jobbie to save on gas. I'll tell ya what I had an 05' 500 ltd awd that i loved but unfortunately got in a bad accident in. That car actually saved my life w/o a scratch! It was unreal! The 2010 taurus SEL that I bought is absoultly unreal! I do have the 19" front wheel drive, paddle shifters wit, leather with the option red paint w/ all the toys (exept nav) I wanted an sports car but at the same time a family car. To be honest I do miss the awd but i'm having a ball with this car! If anyone feels the same please let me know!!! It's about time that Ford gives us this absolutly fun toy!

    THANK YOU FORD! :)
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    We are very happy with our SEL. It was a bargain and is extremely good looking and have received many compliments, even from very young people. The mileage is better than the quoted numbers. I use Mequire's Ultimate Detailer and it never leaves the garage unless it looks perfect. Back to the tire issue. it is ironic and stupid on Ford's part to give the base model the best ride and noise levels. When one pays more, one should get better not just more stuff.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Ford will apparently never figure out the appeal of the original Taurus. They certainly have improved the looks and gotten it a bit more power--since it went through its "500" iteration. Still, it is too damn heavy and what is the deal with wheelbase to length that makes for these truly long overhangs? Don't get me wrong, I think it is a good car. But it is not yet a standout. Unless you get the Ecoboost, the standard engine combined with the fat body, makes it the slowest amongst the competition. And even though Ford has made great strides with NVH (yeah!), it is still not anywhere near the quietest, smoothest car in its class. What it really does have going in spades is quality. I give Ford a lot of credit for rising to the top of those ratings.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Slowest among the competition? Please elaborate.

    As for the overhangs, etc. I think that's the limitations of the D3 platform. Should be fixed for good with the next gen D4. Some suggest the CD3 platform will be stretched to replace the D3.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    I will take the risk of getting some disagreement from owners of the 2010 Taurus - and Allen.

    The 2008 and 2009 "500" looking Taurus' were homely as h*ll, and most will agree on that. However, they had more room inside, were lighter and quicker than the 2010, and they had a more compliant ride. Yes, the 2010 looks better and has better interior materials but I do not like what was lost with the 2010.

    As for looks, I can't quite come to grips with the crease in the rear fender, the busy "C" pillar, and the blocky rear end. Frankly, I think the Chrysler 300 does "blocky" a lot better with more cohesion and, of course, a better length to wheelbase ratio. The Buick LaCrosse has some fussy details, too, like the stupid chrome blips on the hood and the sweepy line down the side but overall I find the looks of the Buick far more compelling than the Taurus.

    Regarding smoothness and quietness: While the Taurus is a bit firmer than some, I think it is at or near the top of its price class in terms of a quiet ride - particularly an SEL with the 18" tires. The fleet queens Impala, 300 and Charger do not come close in the NVH department.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    No disagreement from me except on the looks, which I really like. I think they purposely went a little overboard in an attempt to distance the 2010 from the old model.

    It will be interesting to see what the new platform brings.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 2008-9 Taurus isn't bad looking, but against a 2010 Taurus it happens to look incredibly dated, inside and out. Be that as it may, it was a screaming deal when they sold for those two years and are a fantastic cruiser still.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Yes, they were a screaming deal.

    We bought a 2008 SEL new for around $19,000 just for my wife's work car/grocery getter. I was amazed that I enjoyed driving it more than the Lincoln LS that I had at the time. Even though outdated in appearance, it rides, drives and performs better than current Impalas, Chargers, etc. If we need to go somewhere with 3 other people, we leave the new MKS at home and take her Taurus due to the huge back seat and trunk.

    If we were to replace it today, we would look really hard at a Fusion, though.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The only demerit I see against the previous models (and the current ones) is that they feel as big as they are. Some vehicles "drive small" like the current, bloated Accord; the Taurus pitches and dives under heavy acceleration and braking, making it feel like more of a boat than it really is. Beyond that, the handling is secure if not fun.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Yes, I agree that the 2008s and 2009s were not great handlers. Part of the issue for me is the high seating position. It just feels top heavy and the soft suspension gives a lot of body roll.

    I think the 2010s handle quite a bit better. I have had a couple of them as rentals and they are tighter handling and the seating position seems lower. The '08s and '09s are nice interstate cruisers, though. Also the soft suspension on the olders ones does a nice job of soaking potholes and broken pavement.
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    Right now I am currently driving a 2010 Ford Taurus rental car. It's an SEL with leather, sunroof, etc. I'm very impressed with the way this Taurus drives. I never got to drive the 2008-2009 year model Taurus a/k/a Ford 500, so I have no comparisons to make. I did drive a few Taurus rental models from the generation before the 500. I never liked that generation model at all. In fact, I used to cringe when I would be given one for a rental car. Well, the 2010 is light years different! I'm amazed at how quiet the engine and the ride is! I used my iPod and the satellite radio for the whole seven-hour drive, and the stereo sounded great. It definitely seemed to make that seven-hour drive go a lot faster. Again, very impressed!
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    edited June 2010
    It depends, Allen, on what is viewed as competition. Certainly the Taurus excels if it is compared with the Chevy Impala (or even the Chrysler 300). However, the Taurus has aspired to move higher in the market, and its price points and equipment levels reflect that. Car and Driver did a comparison recently:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q2/buick_lacrosse_vs._ford_tau- - - rus_hyundai_genesis_lexus_es350-comparison_tests

    The Taurus Limited does fall in a similar price range to the Lacrosse CXS, the ES350 and the Genesis. Thus, sometimes they will be cross-shopped. Although the magazine did have some nice things to say about the Taurus, the analysis started off by saying:

    In this group, the Taurus is the longest car by far, the tallest by far, the widest by far, with the greatest front and rear tracks and the greatest weight. Jeez, this corn-fed bull is 368 pounds heavier than the Lexus. None of which is necessarily a deal breaker, except for this: its Duratec V-6 produces the least horsepower and torque. The Ford was thus slowest to 60 mph, was slowest in a rolling start to 60 mph, and—compared with, say, the Lexus—was hung out to dry in the left lane an extra 1.3 seconds during 50-to-70-mph passing maneuvers. All voters complained that the Taurus felt bulky, was reluctant to respond quickly, and was happy only when it was toeing a straight and not-so-narrow line. Nor did it help that the Taurus’s brake pedal was spongy. The steering was numb on-center and didn’t have much to report off-center, either. In addition, the V-6, abetted by road noise coming up through the Limited’s 19-inch Goodyear Eagle RS-As, coughed up the greatest racket at a 70-mph cruise.

    Now, we all should of course be applauding that they saw fit to compare the Taurus directly with the Genesis and Lexus; I don't think that would have happened with the 500 or the 08-09 Taurus. But as you say Allen, it is still a work in progress, and the next iteration should address some of the very things complained about in this comparison
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    I don't understand it when people complain about the base engine being underpowered when the SHO is available. I'm also sure the SHO would have still been cheaper than the Genesis and the ES350 and would have outperformed them by a wide margin. The Buick would have still been the bargain of the bunch though.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Actually, when you look at the prices, an SHO would probably have been more expensive as delivered than the others in this comparo.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Nope - a similarly equipped SHO is $42K - same as the Genesis and the ES350. The Buick is cheaper.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    The base engine of the Taurus is not underpowered, unless one is a hot-rodder. The new base engine of the LaCrosse is underpowered: 2.4 4 cylinder. Also, if back seat comfort is important, the back seat of the Taurus is more comfortable. The trunk of the Lacrosse is puny, too. But it is a beautiful car. But then, so is the Taurus.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    True enough...the article was only saying that in this comparison, the Taurus was heavy and slower than the others...it is all relative. And the new base engine choice for the Lacrosse is wonderful. I hope soon that every manufacturer will offer us the choice of a reasonably powerful 4 cylinder for larger cars. As you say, not everyone is a hot-rodder, and the 4's available now have more hp than many of the V8s from the 90s. It wasn't too long ago that 200 hp from a V8 was considered more than adequate, even for a Cadillac. Now, the Buick 4 is almost that much and the Hyundai Sonata is 200 hp naturally aspirated (the turbo version is 274 hp).

    The trunk of the Lacrosse IS puny. A car that size could easily have a 16 or 17 cubic ft trunk without being any longer than it is. The shorter 2011 Regal has a bigger trunk than the Lacrosse. If Buick had engineered it a bit differently with a slightly bigger trunk, the Lacrosse would be considered full-size by the EPA, and have as much or more room than the Taurus (the Lacrosse back seat is already bigger than that in the Taurus), even with its trimmer length, width and height. On the other hand, with no magic, a car the size of the Taurus should be able to have a ginormous interior to match its trunk (still don't know why all that bulk doesn't translate into more interior room than the Lacrosse).
Sign In or Register to comment.