Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison



  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    You're absolutely right!
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    And on that note, let's head back to the subject, 'kay? ;)
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Pat, I have a suggestion, why don't we turn this place into "Large Sedan Lounge" so the regulars here can talk about anything that's interesting in the large sedan market without a strict boundary? I have faith in the regulars here that we all respect each other (to a degree :P ) so we are fully capable of taking care ourselves without much of the "baby sitting" just like in the Luxury Lounge.

    What do you think?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Ford messed up when they changed the name to the 500 and folks weren't buying, so they changed it back to Taurus to give buyers something to recognize.
    Some of us are old enough to remember Galaxy 500s :cry: , not that I can recall anything remarkable about that particular car.

    but no matter

    they changed it back to Taurus to give buyers something to recognize.

    and then to their amazement they discovered that they had ruined that name as well - and it still doesn't sell. The Taurus was a pretty contemporary (and successful) car 20 years ago or so.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    BTW, I think you'll find that the current 500/Taurus isn't really related to the previous generations of Tauri at all (except for possibly that wonderful DT 3.0 ;) that (unfortunately) was reused). The current Taurus coming instead courtesy of a Volvo S80- perhaps the reason for the car's height, boxier proportions, and generally good safety ratings.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    If you noticed they also said direct injection to be used to increase power to equal the power of a V-8,

    Maybe their V8, not a BMW V8. :)
  • [the Taurus is really the same car as the old Five Hundred with the same basic engine but with 60 added horsies]

    I've heard this repeatedly now: "the Duratec 3.5L is just a bigger version of the old unrefined Duratec 3.0L."

    It actually takes a lot more than just bumping up displacement by 0.5L to get an additional 60 HP. Just like comparing the Lexus ES300 (210 HP) to the ES350 (272 HP). They had to do a lot more than just increase displacement to get that additional 62 HP.

    The fact that they kept the "Duratec" label means nothing. They've done it before: look at the first year of the "Triton" 5.4L V8 in the 1997 F-series. It made only 230 HP. The current "Triton" 5.4L makes 300 HP and provides better fuel economy. Both engines have the same label, but other than displacement, they have little in common internally.
  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444

    That's a good analysis of what happened. Trying to make Fords out of Jaguar. :shades:
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    Both engines have the same label, but other than displacement, they have little in common internally.

    The heads went from 2 to 3 valves and some sort of variable valve timing was introduced. The basic engine design and bottom end are very similar if not identical.

    You are right about the Toyota example though, the 3.0/3.3 have nothing in common with the 3.5.

    Ford's 3.5 is considered "all new" however, I do wonder how much of the "old" 3.0 was used. They share the same 60 degree architecture and similar valve layouts.

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    LOL Well...they didn't specify, but I would go along with that thought!
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The fact that they kept the "Duratec" label means nothing and
    they have little in common
    while I'll admit to know little about the specific components in Ford's DT engines, and generally will agree that a ~20% bump in displacement is hard pressed to yield a 30% increase in HP, my observations (in an Edge) are generally that the 3.5 is the same DT in terms of refinement as the anemic 3.0 was. This has generally been confirmed in many other reviews of this engine in multiple Ford products including the Taurus. Reference the current issue of CR where they road test/compare the new Accord along with things like the Amanti and Taurus, and you will see the same sort of comments along with a negative comment about the 'new' engine's FE. It does seem that Ford's 'new' DT3.5 while it does give the Taurus competitive power it does not really give it an overall competitive engine in terms of refinement. It may or may not be a simple bore/stroke job or it may or may not be a 'new' engine as Ford will certainly claim but the results are the same - a generally substandard engine IMO especially when you consider that it was 3 years late in coming (it was supposed to be in the original Five Hundred), and in relation to things like the Toyota 2GR, the Nissan VQ and even the Hyundai 3.3/3.8.
    I would be willing to bet that had Ford been able to get the production of the 3.5 up in time we would not be talking about the 'Taurus' today however - the 500 would still be alive and would have sold much better!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    When the Ford Taurus is second to only Toyota, I believe, in the power/mpg compromise. 263hp, 18/28 isn't what I'd call substandard. Substandard is the powertrain in the Lucerne, Impala, and base model Charger/300.

    The Duratec isn't as silky as the 2GR when you listen to it, but it's also TONS better than the GM pushrods, and certainly not loud or obnoxious enough to be offensive. The top of the class is the 2GR, but that doesn't make everything else bad; just not as "excellent" as the 'Yota.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    but it's also TONS better than the GM pushrods
    as almost any DOHC engine should be - but you also forgot to mention Ford's own 4 liter pushrod V6 - recently had the experience of driving one in a rental Mustang - that engine is the one that gets my nomination as the worst of the worst with all due 'respect' to the GM 3.8. And yes, the engines in my Avalon (and my wife's Altima) have definitely gotten me to expect more out of a V6 than simply some HP.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Yeah, the 3.8 (RIP) and 4.0 from the Mustang sound like they have 200k miles on them straight from the factory.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    in a car like the Mustang even the V6 version should be 'peppy' which it isn't and I guess because the engine would be less 'insulated' then say the 3.8 is in the Lucerne it is that much more bothersome. Pushrod engines may have a place in those big ole 'lazy' V8s but as far as smaller 4 and 6 cylinder engine are concerned - I agree, RIP
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    It could be worse, remember Ford's 3.8 from the Thunderbird/Winstar/early 90s Taurus?

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yeah, think they all must have been derivatives of the 3.0 Vulcan - soon to become the "Hertz' standard. ;)
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    I saw and sat in the "Lincoln" at the auto show. It's painfully obvious it's nothing but a tarted-up Taurus. They didn't even fix the parts of the interior that suck, like the hard flat door surfaces and the gap-toothed duo of gauges.

    Betcha they sell at least six of 'em. Hope they left a vacant space in the Ford museum next to the Blackwood.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If I'm not mistaken, the 3.8 from the last Windstar is the same engine from the Mustang.

    Back to the fullsizers?
  • I think it's pretty impressive that in the 2008 Taurus, the new 3.5L Duratec hooked up to the same 6-speed automatic gets 2 MPG better on the Highway, and 1 MPG better combined compared to the 2007 Five Hundred with the old 3.0L Duratec. I'd say Ford definitely refined the Duratec V6: 60 more HP *and* better fuel economy. This new engine pulls the Taurus to 60 MPH in 6.8 seconds, which is faster than most people even need.

    I think the Taurus is the best value in the class. Clean looks, roomy and comfortable, 28 MPG Highway (where most people do the majority of their driving), and you can get one nicely equipped for around $21,000. The only comparable car that comes close is the Azera GLS, which you can get for around $22,000. All others cost thousands more. Anyone who's in the market definitely needs to check out all the brands. Back in 1998 or 2000, I'd say stick with the Japanese brands. Today, in 2008, Hyundai and the 2 of the Big 3 have stepped it up to the point where they are definitely worth a look.
Sign In or Register to comment.