Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1156157159161162333

Comments

  • I can tell you that the 500 and Taurus couldn't be further apart in terms of ride. Interior is similar, but that's about it.
  • "I have owned 2 Town Cars and a Grand Marquis. If the Taurus's handling is only a bit better than a TC I am running away fast. I like those old boats, but not for my daily drive."

    That was probably a bad example. That's why I said I can't explain it. Go test drive a Taurus and see for yourself.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    "IMO the Avalon does not beat out the Taurus in any area"

    One thing that is not subjective is that the Avalon will have better resale value than your Taurus. You will pay more now for the Av but will be worth more later. It seems as if you really did you homework in choosing a car. I don't agree and do feel the Avalon is a better car, but, I can say that with the rebates and attractive sticker price the Taurus may take the Azera's spot as the best value in a large car.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • scbobscbob Posts: 167
    One reason I did not get an Avalon was the dash. Who wants doors that you have to open to see things. If you leave them open, you have the lip sticking out. I noticed when I take my RAV in for service, every Avalon on the sales lot has the dash doors open.
    Azera is "too snug" compared to a Ford Taurus? Need to adjust the seats, pedals, steering wheel, et. al. It's bigger!
    If you get a Taurus or an Azera, take the savings, place it in a CD or other investment and in 3-5 years, you will have more than made what you "lose" on resale compared to an Avalon.
  • I hear you and you're right. Luckily, I leased the car for that very reason. That is until Ford's reputation take a turn for the better.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Take a E350 over twisty roads and sharply corners and do the same with your Taurus then you'll know what I am talking about.

    You probably value ride comfort much higher than driving experience and that's perfectly fine. To each of his own. However, that doesn't mean that the Taurus is a better car (for you maybe) or the E-class is not worth it. I think beside performance, just the fit-n-finish and material quality alone the E350 will get my vote.
  • dborthdborth Posts: 474
    "just the fit-n-finish and material quality alone the E350 will get my vote."

    Fit & finish at 20 grand minimum over any car listed in this "Mainstream" forum may be worth it to you, but I doubt to the majority.
  • What were your lease terms, if you don't mind sharing?
  • If my memory serves me correctly, it was turning around 1,700RPM at a constant 70MPH. BTW . . . the 28.8MPG combined over the 1,400 miles was with highway speeds above 70 - generally around 75 average. During one section of open rural, and very unpopulated, interstate I did take it up to over three digits just for grins, but for only a few miles. The 25% city driving was truly city driving - stop and go, stoplight to stoplight in 106 degree ambient temps. The A/C was used during the entire 1,400 mile trip. One thing I forgot to mention, the car's trunk and back seat were loaded to the brim, thus I was approaching the GVW of the vehicle.

    I'd driven a Five Hundred when introduced in 2005, and the 2008 Taurus is a huge improvement. My biggest complaint, however, still remains: the front seats seem quite narrow as compared to its competitors, and not terribly comfortable. The 2008 Taurus I drove was an SEL FWD model, and was very quiet on the highway, and extremely stable and solid, even while driving in the wet. I was impressed with the improvement over the Five Hundred.

    As for being basically the same appearance as the Five Hundred, yes, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Five Hundred and the new Taurus appear to be a previous generation VW Passat on steroids, and I've always like the appearance of that generation Passat. Remember, designer J Mays indirectly had his hands in both designs - the Passat and the Five Hundred - so, heck, they should look similar!

    Again, and I'm not a Ford aficionado, if people would give the new Taurus an objective look, and drive, they'd come away quite impressed. The new engine and transmission totally change the character of this car. Although I like the Avalon, at least the Taurus isn't saddled with that bloody awful blond-colored faux wood used in the center console and stack of the Avalon.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    for those more technically challenged, as you put it, rest assured that new DT3.5 is still well behind similar engines in Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, and even that Azera you were so unimpressed with - you don't need to to know why, only a decent set of ears and some nerve endings in the seat of your pants. And incidentally, I don't ever remember anybody calling the 500 anything but a well designed car that many of us beat up mercilessly for its crappy powertrain. Te car itself has been softened up(to make up for the loss of the Crown Vic?) which is good or bad depending on personal preference, the car now should have enough power to get out of its own way but is is still well down the list in this particular group - there are some genuinely good cars listed above. IT may indeed be what the 500 should have been in the first place, but it's now 3 years too late and too little - as is typical for Ford these days. It's not altogether their fault, they don't have the money or possibly the inclination to do any better.
    Happy for you that you like it though - if we're spending 20 or 30 something, we all deserve at least that ;)
  • I just want to make clear to everyone, if I had been shooting for a performance vehicle, I would have opted to go with my original choice. Impala SS.

    The argument that continues to be made here is that the new engine in the Taurus is really not new at all. That is fine by me. It's still 263 HP and has PLENTY of pickup. I disagree that the other large sedans have anything substantially better. (And I get it, some people may prefer the sound and feel of an import or the grunt of a V8)

    This might be "3 years to late" but what other brand new engines have been made available from the competitors? With the exception of the SS, it's still just as good or close to any of the other Avalon, Azera, Maxima, etc. in terms of HP.

    PS - I drove an Acura before I dare took the domestic route. First time in my life.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    you are missing the point - 'better' just might have something to do with how an engine sounds and feels, and how willingly and transparently these engines can get their rated 260-270 hp.
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Posts: 124
    Although I like the Avalon, at least the Taurus isn't saddled with that bloody awful blond-colored faux wood used in the center console and stack of the Avalon.

    Definitely agree about the blond-colored faux wood - happily for 2008 I understand that it is changing to a sort of cherry-colored faux wood, which to my eyes certainly looks better. :)
  • burlburl Posts: 40
    Ok Ok Ok Ok

    You have convinced Me and probably everyone in here of your love for, admiration of, validity of your analytical Abilities, and why I will look at the Tarus next time I buy a car.

    That's of course if Ford manages to stay in business

    You win , we give up.
    Thank you for your information it was interesting
    Thank you again
    Burl............Hope to see you next year......
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    what other brand new engines have been made available from the competitors
    guess you really didn't do much research did you? The 3.5 in the Avalon and the 3.8 in the Azera were both truly new ground up engines 3 and 2 years ago respectively and since you also mentioned the Maxima - no, that engine is almost as old as what you are calling the 'new' Ford engine, only that it remains a standard (kinda like the SOHC HondaV6) by which all engines of this size and type should be judged. And BTW all three of those cars you mentioned will leave your Taurus (but not your abandoned SS)in the dust.
  • joel0622joel0622 Posts: 3,302
    Sounds like a wash to me.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    Spoken like a true Ford salesman! ;) Of course it depends how long you keep it. Two or three years and the Avalon wins 5-6+ your right a wash.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • joel0622joel0622 Posts: 3,302
    Unless you are in the market for a 2 year old pre owned then you are a big winner. :D

    I honestly think that the trend of the Honda holding its value will continue. The Toyota as they continue to try to be #1 every month will see values slip, the laws of supply and demand will catch up. That and the fact that they have in a way ruined there mystic of being able to brag about not needing big incentives with the Tundra. They jumped in with both feet there with the big rebates and low rates. If the race for #1 continues and the Sedan market gets competitive again they may follow.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    "at least the Taurus isn't saddled with that bloody awful blond-colored faux wood"

    The Graphite (dark grey) interior of the 05-07 Avalons had darker wood. Not quite as nice as the '08s but not as bad as the blond wood (IMO). I actually went against my normal beige interior for this reason.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    "Unless you are in the market for a 2 year old pre owned then you are a big winner"

    I have a family member who always preaches: "a 2 year old car is the best value on the road" The guy is pushing 80 and never bought a brand new car.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

Sign In or Register to comment.