Howdy, Stranger!

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





2010 Ford Taurus

1679111217

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    I've looked in my mirrors, saw nothing, only to lookover my shoulder and prepare to merge when I see a motorcycle in my blind spot.

    Exactly - using your mirrors (properly adjusted) and glancing over your shoulder means you have no blind spot.

    I think BLIS is fine as an added safety measure - for those times when you forget to glance over your shoulder or you don't like having your mirrors adjusted that way. But I do not see it as a necessity or a huge safety improvement.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,676
    This is just a personal finding...I have installed on my outside mirrors a 3 inch adjustable blind spot mirror...so, on my drivers side I have the flat mirror plus 3" convex, and, with the 2 combined, I believe I have eliminated my blind spot...same on the passenger side, which has the stock convex and the additional "more convex" mirror...it works for me, and because they are adjustable ($4.00 each) I can move the mirror on the mirror any way I want...might be worth trying...
  • I have driven 100s of Volvos with BLISS and it does work well.

    There is a button on the dash to turn it off if you are getting a lot of false negatives in stop and go bumper to bumper traffic. It will pick up motorcycles and it does pick up a car a couple of car lengths before it enters your blind spot.

    With the size of the pillars in modern cars and the currently in style coupe like rear profile the back C pillar in a sedan can be quite large. One of the worst offenders of this is the new Lexus IS models. Go drive one of those and check out the enormous blind spot. Just backing one up is difficult with the huge rear pillars and enormous bangle butt trunk.

    I don't think Lexus offers a BLISS type system on that car but they do offer a backup camera and you need one.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,275
    Here's the thing though, Ford has models with or without these gadgets so it shouldn't really be a buyer concern.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    We have a 2010 Taurus SEL which we like very much. However, I wonder if anyone else has a negative opinion about the feel of the brake pedal: Mushy. Also, I notice that the rear wheels have more brake dust than the fronts. This reminds me of the situation with our Freestyle and wonder if we are going to have the same problems with the rear brakes.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,275
    The latest Consumer Reports put a don't recommend on the Lincoln MKS which is made in the Taurus plant. I wonder if that is a bad omen? I know its platform is based on a Volvo and those cars seem to have declined in quality over the past decade. The Taurus is newer than the MKS so I hope they fixed whatever issues led to the CR knock because it seems like a nice car.
  • Volvos have actually improved over the last decade.

    A 1999 or 2000 S80 or XC70 could be a very troublesome scary car.

    A 2005 or 2006 S80 or XC70 was usually fine.

    A 2007 of either one are great cars.

    The 2010s and up are fantastic too.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Not recommended doesn't mean unreliable. What was the reliability rating?
  • berriberri Posts: 4,275
    I know what you mean about other elements besides reliability affecting the CR rating. The Fusion is the only midsize with full red dots on all aspects, but it was rated below Camry and Accord. However, the Lincoln MKS is specifically noted about below average reliability. The Dec issue also notes declining reliabilty in the MKX which I think is the Lincoln version of Edge.
  • I don't know the basis for CR's rating for the 2009 MKS but I could venture an educated guess. Early models had a problem with rear doors unlocking and then locking again. They had to replace the cable mechanism with a different length cable. Also, some AWD MKSs had an oil leak in the power take off unit due to a bad batch of seals.

    Both of these issues have been corrected and should not impact the 2010 Taurus or 2010 MKS.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Actually, a car can be excellent in reliability but not be "recommended" by CR for other reasons (lousy acceleration, lacking certain safety equipment, etc).
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Most Ford vehicles have brakes that feel slightly mushy. Doesn't affect stopping power, just feel. Switching to stainless steel brake lines can help. I notice it but it doesn't bother me.
  • I purchased my SHO about a month ago. So far it's worked fine. I traded an '08 Sable. The Taurus has a much firmer suspension(SHO)It's much faster, with actually better mileage.You do need to use premium gas to get the "full" performance. The Sable did have better rear seat room, probably due to the higher roof line. The "Blis" warning system works fine, though I think if the light flashed it would get your attention better, especially in bright light. The Adaptive Cruise is great. It matches the car in front of you. Slows you down, then speeds you back up. There are 2 issues I've really seen. One is the headrests..They pretty much touch the back of your head. My partner didn't like it at first, but is now used to it. There have been complaints from some reviewers about it. Give yourself a little time. You get used to it pretty quick, it's really not that bad. The other is the lower seat back. I found it protruded somewhat into my lower back. Playing with the lumbar control seems to have cured that problem. I will say that after testing several cars.. I was down to the Pontiac G8 GXP,Cadillac CTS(premium) & the SHO. The CTS seats were without a doubt the most comfortable I ever sat in. I really like firm seats & these definately were "firm". The GXP had the performance I truely wanted.
    The Pontiac G8 GXP was my real choice, however I couldn't find any that weren't used as drag racers by "coked" out sales managers. Trust me I couldn't find any within 300 miles of me(New Hampshire)That had less than 5500K on them. It's true, the sales managers got them as their "own" demos & beat the crap out of them! If there had been any with low mileage(less than 500)The GXP would have been my final choice. I guess I could have done without all the "techno" goodies or the 25+ highway mph of the Taurus, but I think overall I made a damn good choice getting the SHO. It really gets compliments. People don't seem to know what it is!I guess there really ARE a lot of people out there who don't read auto magazines! :)
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I did see my first 2010 Taurus today, the only one at a ford dealership. It was weekend hours so no oportunity to sit in or drive. Initial impressions: very much more modern sheetmetal styling, not nearly as big as expected when I stood next to it, the rear end really comes up very high. Couldn't tell much about the interior but concerned that the "flowing center console" might crimp the space for the driver's R leg/foot. The console widens as it comes back and there doesn't seem much room for the R leg to drift to the right when using cruise control or at rest. Is this a problem for 2010 owners? Overall much improved car. Sticker was something in the 34K range which is over my head. I am thinking of subsidizing it by renting out space in the trunk to a tribe of gypsies.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    We have had our SEL awd for about two months. It'd cinnamon metallic with light stone interior. Everyone who has seen it is impressed. We avoided the 255/45/19 tires and have a better ride, but had to give up some items, but nothing important.It is a wonderful highway cruiser and gets better mileage than expected. As far as seating room in the front, it is true that the console is big. But unless you are huge or really fat, there shouldn't be a problem. We also did not order a sunroof and enjoy the head room. The Sync lady came on last night while driving and asking me if I wanted weather, turn-by-turn directions, or vehicle health report or cancel. Since I haven't set up Sync yet, I said cancel. The best value of the Taurus line is the SEL. Get leather and Sync with back up warning, and you have a nicely equipped vehicle at a decent price. We paid $28,700 with Costco pricing, early order rebate, standard rebate, and 0% financing for 36 months. What a deal for a sweet car.
  • One of the best ideas I ever got from my father-in-law was adding those stick on 2" parabolic mirrors to my R/L outside door mirrors. Once you get used to them you feel handicapped when you drive a car without them when it comes to blind spots. One glance tells you if there is anything in your blind spot. They help in parallel parking too because you can easily see the curb distance without adjusting mirrors. About $3 for two.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Or adjust your side mirrors so that you have no blind spot. There is no need to see the side of your own car when you look in the side mirror. What you need to see is the other car and other lane.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Try explaining that to the "modders" that went nuts and retro-fitted the new BLIS mirrors to their pre-2010 Edges. I [half] joked that my Edge didn't have any blind spots because I adjust my mirrors correctly and I always glance over my shoulder before changing lanes. They were trying to justify the mod claiming it was for safety instead of just installing a neat toy. To hear some of them talk it's a wonder I make it home without crashing because I don't have aftermarket HIDs and BLIS mirrors. Of course it's easy for me to recognize rationalization because I was a master at it for a long time.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Or adjust your side mirrors so that you have no blind spot. There is no need to see the side of your own car when you look in the side mirror. What you need to see is the other car and other lane.

    I've found in more than one car (my own daily commuter, for one) that the mirrors don't adjust far enough "out" for me to not see any of the car. I'm 6'5" and sit upright, but with the seat all the way back.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Ok, got me there.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, I'm not trying to be snide at all - its just something that vertical overachievers notice from time to time. :)

    Overall, I agree with your argument. In my '06 Accord, I have no problem; its mirror range is plenty broad enough. The only two cars I've driven (out of probably 20 in my life) that I couldn't adjust perfectly were my '96 Accord sedan and my girlfriend's old Saturn SC1.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I have been an occasional poster in this forum largely because I am very satisfied with my 2000 Sable and figured to stay with a good thing. My posts, however, have lamented: (1) weight, (2) gadgetry, (3) cost and (4) fuel economy of the 2010 non-SHO taurus. Rebuttals have been civilized and credible. I finally realized that I was looking in the wrong place. I am still stuck on the notion of a midsized sedan which represents good value. The larger taurus is neither midsized nor a good value for me. My best alternative so far (don't laugh too loud) is the Mazda 3i series. Comparing the base 3i to the base SE (2010 models) the mazda is about $8500 less, about 1000 pounds less, has a thrifty 4 cylinder engine which still gets to 60 only one second behind the SE, has a five speed auto which can be manually shifted (no paddles, a shifter!), and sports FE of 25/33. The nice thing about the 3i series is that you can effectively choose a minimalist base model or gussie it up with all the options. The more features, the wider the spread between the Taurus and the Mazda cost-wise.
    Even though it is listed as a compact, the interior dimensions are not hugely different.
    I know the comparison will be panned as apples and oranges and I admit they are different animals. The Mazda 3 series is what the pre-2008 Tauruses and Sables were mid-sized, great value, working-man's car for about $20K. Actually the base 3I is in the 18K range. They are universally described as being more athletic and fun to drive than the non-SHO Taurus. I really don't care that much about performance outside the 0-75 mph range or electronic wizardry so I have redirected my gaze, downward and seem to have found a better match.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    You should take a look at the new Focus which I think is debuting next year. It's based on the Euro focus and should get better fuel mileage than the 3i (just a guess based on recent performance) and look a lot better, too.
  • poodog13poodog13 Posts: 320
    I'd buy the Mazda6 as a mid-size, but the Mazda3 is a roller skate (tiny). I recommended it as an option to my single, 20-something sister in law a year ago only to actually get in the thing and realize that at 5'9'', it was far to small for her.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I would have thought that the 3i would be cramped given that the 3i is listed as a "compact" car, not even a midsized. However (go figure) the 3i matches the 2010 Taurus ( categorized as a large car) in front headroom and legroom and in rear headroom.
    The Taurus has much more shoulder room (3" difference) but I wonder how the flowing center console crimps the drivers body position to the left effectively reducing the shoulder room advantage.
    Isn't it startling how close the interior dimensions of a compact and large can converge?
    Re: the ford focus. I did consider that but drum rear brakes, no tele/tilt/, lesser fuel economy, generally agreed that focus has less "feel and performance", and its lame duck status (to be discontiued after 2010) give me pause.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Why wouldn't you consider the Fusion? The Volkswagen CC 4 cylinder? The Suzuki Kizashi? Subaru Legacy? Even the 4 cylinder 2010 Lacrosse? They are all more compact than your Sable but with at least as much interior space. That way, you are not jumping all the way down from a full-size (at least on the outside) to a compact.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I did look at the Fusion but the cost for similar base models is about $6500-7000 more. At least I think I found the base Fusion, a 2.5L I4 with about 30 more HP than the 3i (but almost 2 seconds slower to 60 mph?). The fusion has a 6 speed while the mazda is 5 speed. Again it is remarkable but the interior dimensions of the Fusion and the 3i are almost identical (from edmunds data) except for shoulder room. The Fusion has fog lights which I consider decoration and it has "leather seats" which seemed strange for the base model. I prefer cloth. Maybe it is "leatherette" like my Sable. The only thing I would miss on the 3i is cruise control (which isn't even optional on that model). Mazda is 400 pounds lighter and thus 3-4 mpg better, and it does have the option of manual shifting the automatic.
    I expect I am more of a minimalist than most car buyers, wanting a basic, reliable, comfortable means of transportation that will get me to speed promptly and be quiet on the road.
    I think the VW is quite more expensive (didn't research b/o their reliability issues and the new model risks). Subaru is a player. I'll take a look at the LaCrosse but expect it will be more expensive than the Fusion.
    At this point in my search the Mazda seems to offer remarkable value for $18-19K. Surprisingly most of the car magazines rate it as very satisfying with respect to performance, most ranking it as best in class. I like Honda Civic but very noisy on the road even when new (tire and road noise).
    Thanks for your suggestions. I'll keep an open mind and continue to mull options. I hope to squeeze another 30K miles out of the Sable (now @ 140,000 miles without any issues which amazes me). I do have confidence in Ford products based on that experience and other reviews.
    I'll lurk on this forum but don't want to monopolize or change the topic which is the Taurus. My summary is that the Taurus is a very good car but no longer a value for my money.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I expect I am more of a minimalist than most car buyers, wanting a basic, reliable, comfortable means of transportation that will get me to speed promptly and be quiet on the road.

    Interesting; because those virtues aren't Mazda-like at all. Mazda's are more visceral than the quiet appliance you describe. Mazdas are louder and ride rougher than "basic, reliable, comfortable" transportation. They're also a lot of fun to drive.

    It sounds like you'd be more suited to something with a quieter interior and a softer ride. The Hyundai Elantra and Toyota Corolla come to mind for your situation, but the Taurus is also quiet and comfortable, but by no means basic.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Mazda 3's are reliable and provide a truly basic model for as little as $15.5K. Even the top of the line model with the 2.5 engine and all amenities comes in under 25K. I am looking at the low middle probably.
    You may well be right about the comfort. Sports suspensions are tuned to give feedback about the road. Feedback is fine but I don't want to feel and hear every dimple in the road. NVH also is an issue. Hondas, as an example, are notorious for road noise despite their otherwise excellent reviews
    Coming from a family of Lincoln buyers I don't want the floaty "land yacht" feeling that the older Lincolns provided. Maybe the Mazda 3 will come in somewhere in between. Between 0 and 75 mph (the world I live in) the Mazda's are graded performance wise at the top for 4 cylinder sedan. The Mazdaspeed variants are racer boy cars, not my cup of tea. As a former BMW and Toyota Supra owner I wouldn't mind good steering feedback and good brakes (both rated high in Mazda and criticized in the Taurus). You are right though if the ride seems harsh and noisy the marriage will be called off. Given the remarkable pricing of the Mazda line I might even look into the cost of softening the ride (aftermarket) before I call the caterer to cancel. Thanks.
  • Consumer Reports came out and gave a less than stellar review of the "new" Taurus in this month's magazine.
Sign In or Register to comment.