Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

quietpro

This is done by the use of knock sensors that 'hear' detonation that is detected before we can
hear it (you never will) and the computer 'adjusts' the timing by retarding the ignition timing.
When these higher compression ratios are used, this must be done, or someone would wind
up destroying his motor because of their use of the damaging lower octane fuel.

Agreed, that's how it's supposed to work and does but in some cases, the car just won't run. Case in point, my sister's '99 Olds Aurora requires premium fuel and if she even tries mid-grade, her car will not run consistently. While it doesn't knock audibly, it will not run as it should and stalls at stops. I don't know if it's just the lack of power that causes it to stall or self-protection but the point it, it's incapable of adjusting sufficiently to run properly on a slightly lower grade of fuel. So, I'll concede that we're both right to a degree although I'll venture that the 6.0L Cadillac you were driving is similar to the 5.3L Chevy I drive that is designed to adjust the timing to achieve the best performance. I think the older designs allowed for some tolerance but not nearly as wide a variation as with different octane ratings like today's engines.

I still hold that it's a waste of money to use a higher octane than is recommended. As for detergent properties of fuels, the majority of the major brands add it to all of their grades, not just premium. Bargain fuels are not a bargain since the 50 cents or so per fill up will be lost by the eventual loss of efficiency caused by the clogging of fuel injectors and carbon buildup.

Oh, and properly inflate your tires, don't do drugs, and stay in school.

quietpro

since some companies use different additives I get different performance and FE from my car.

That may not be the only difference. There's a bit of a scandal in my area right now where many local gas stations have intentionally set up their pumps to pass inspection but not pump the proper amount of fuel. Basically, the inspectors test for a set amount (10 gallons) which all stations pass but anything over that and the pump gives less than is indicated. So, you may be getting different amounts of fuel at different stations. Nice to know that they aren't making enough money legitimately, eh?

dodgeman07

Pat has such a pleasant demeanor. "Agree to disagree" is a nice way to put it. The torque vs. horsepower thing had this thread red hot for a few days.

Anyway my '06 Lucerne CX has been a wonderful car for me in the first two months of ownership. I haul four people in comfort, average 23mpg, and enjoy a quiet, comfortable ride with a 4yr/50,000mile warranty for $19K. The car had 18,600 miles on it when I bought it.

The trade in value of GM vehicles is getting better too. Just don't pay $30-33K for a new Lucerne CXL. They can be had now for $25-$26K. A good deal for a good car.

alexstore

I was suspecting this. OK i will be reporting this to local enforcement.

allmet33

I'm not sure I understand how a pump can distribute 10 gallons accurately and then start giving you less that it's supposed to.

I know a lot of folks don't account for the 9/10 that's added on to the price (at least here in MD/DC/VA area). So when you see gas prices...it's like this $3.05 9/10 (I don't know why they don't just round up and just make it an even $3.06 and call it a day.

Without having a guage that tells you specifically how much gas your car has received, there's no way to tell how much you've actually pumped into your car except for what's on the pump read out.

quietpro

I'm not sure I understand how a pump can distribute 10 gallons accurately and then start giving you less that it's supposed to.

The same way any gauge that's inaccurate has one point where it IS accurate. If you put the wrong size tires on your car, your speedometer will still read the correct speed at some point but will be off at all other speeds. The same principle applies and these unscrupulous station owners used this idea to cheat their customers. Since the inspectors always test for the set amount of 10 gallons, they set it up to be accurate at that point but to give progressively less fuel beyond that point.

bhmr59

If you really believe this is the case, just fill up when you'll take 10 gallons or less.

quietpro

Just passing along information, folks. I'm not concerned about it. I monitor my fuel consumption religiously, always fill up at the same few stations, and would notice any abrupt change. The issue I'm reporting was documented by the local news here in Charleston, SC and several gas stations were involved. Someone posted earlier that they got different mileage from different gas stations but I suggested it was more likely that they were getting differing amounts of fuel. Believe it, don't believe it, just putting it out there...it really didn't warrant this much space. :sick:

joe131

Do you mean with the wrong size tires your speedometer will still be correct at some point, and that point is ZERO miles per hour? I can't think of any other speed when it would be correct, that is assuming that it was accurate with the standard size tires.
Can you explain?

quietpro

Again, way too much space on this subject. But, you got me, my example was a bad one and I can't think of a good one. I trust the source, I know it's possible. Like I said before, take it or leave it. It's been too long since my last math class.

derrelhgreen

Agreed, that's how it's supposed to work and does but in some cases, the car just won't run. Case in point, my sister's '99 Olds Aurora requires premium fuel and if she even tries mid-grade, her car will not run consistently. While it doesn't knock audibly, it will not run as it should and stalls at stops. I don't know if it's just the lack of power that causes it to stall or self-protection but the point it, it's incapable of adjusting sufficiently to run properly on a slightly lower grade of fuel. So, I'll concede that we're both right to a degree although I'll venture that the 6.0L Cadillac you were driving is similar to the 5.3L Chevy I drive that is designed to adjust the timing to achieve the best performance. I think the older designs allowed for some tolerance but not nearly as wide a variation as with different octane ratings like today's engines.

I still hold that it's a waste of money to use a higher octane than is recommended. As for detergent properties of fuels, the majority of the major brands add it to all of their grades, not just premium. Bargain fuels are not a bargain since the 50 cents or so per fill up will be lost by the eventual loss of efficiency caused by the clogging of fuel injectors and carbon build up.

Oh, and properly inflate your tires, don't do drugs, and stay in school.

Agreed on all three points!

Just as her older Olds Aurora (Northstar 4.0L V8) does, so also does my 2000 Ford Focus Kona. Mine must not have a knock sensor as it will ping like crazy on regular when I have it programmed with my handy dandy Xcalibrator SCT (www.scatflash.com) when using its' premium fuel program. It will even ping slightly when I install the regular fuel program, but not nearly as badly.

My point is that some of the older vehicles do not have the same set up equipment wise as many of the newer more modern vehicles do have. Because these more modern vehicles do have a better means of controlling spark advance, they can and do get away with' being able to run their higher compression ratios and yet be able to recommend regular grade fuel. Kind of like having your cake and yet being able to eat it too!

The only thing for anyone to do is to try and use different fuels and see what happens. If a car owner is told to run regular by the owners' manual, they may see some slight improvement in power and therefore a slight gain in fuel economy by using a higher octane fuel. I must stress that this is on a case-by-case basis depending on the particular brand.

I once accidently put a full tank of regular in my '96 LT4 'Vette. Ping is not the correct word here. The next morning, I thought I would not be able to get it started, and when it was cranked, I thought it tried to start in reverse rotation! When it finally did start, I drove it around in the lower gears (Second and third) as much as possible to hurry up and use up a much fuel as possible so I could add some 104 octane booster and some premium.

To keep this topic related, only those that are really savvy and know what to look for should perhaps try and use a full tank of premium and see if there is any difference in performance and fuel economy.
If there is, it will be very slight indeed, and I'm afraid that the average individual will not be able to tell!

Has anyone been able to determine what octane fuel was used by
the factory to get the horsepower rating Hyundia advertises?

quietpro

I can't imagine they would use anything other than what is recommended for everyday use. But, I don't know.

allmet33

Quietpro...the only time the speedo will give you the correct speed with tires that are not the right size is when the car is at a stand still.

A speedo is set to calculate speed based on the diameter of the tire. It's a fixed variable (to the speedo), when you change that variable, you change the end result.

The tires I have on my car are actually a fraction smaller in diameter than the factory tires and my speedo is off about -3 mph. So when my speedo reads 70 mph, I'm actually doing 67 mph.

So unless a gas pump changes something mid-pump...there's no way that it can just start giving you less and less after 10 gallons.

The best way to find out if your theory is correct is to find two 10 gallon gas containers and fill the first one until you hit 10 gallons on the nose. Then, switch to the 2nd container and fill it till you hit 20 gallons. Sit the two side by side and see if they have the same amount of gas in them.

A gallon is a gallon, but if you base it on the price of a gallon, you'll always be slightly off because nobody ever calculates the 9/10 (or whatever it is in any given area) extra they add on.

joe131

Nah, you don't want two ten gallon cans of gas. They'd be heavy and unwieldy. What are you going to do with them? It would take a long time to trickle them into your car tank.
Go to the gas station. Put 10 gallons into your car. Then fill a 2 gallon gas can and that you have pre-marked at exactly 2 gallons. Fill it to that line. If the pump now reads 12.000 gallons then it's ok. Or if you want to check it further, pour the gas out of the 2 gallon can into your car tank and pump another 2 gallons into your car until the pump reads 14.000 gallons. Then pump gas into the 2 gallon can again, up to the line. If the pump reads 16.000 then, don't worry about the pump being inaccurate.
Sleep well that night.

derrelhgreen

unless a gas pump changes something mid-pump . . . there's no way that it can just start giving you less and less after 10 gallons.

>>

Bingo. You've hit on the answer!

The authorities caught several turkies out here that had such a scam going.

What these dishonest station owners were doing was putting an electrical devise in-line at the stations' computer that would alter the true amounts of fuel that was being pumped, but would
always show exactly ten (10) gallons when ten gallons was pumped,
but would deliver less that what the pump showed up to that point.

After the correct ten (10) gallon level was reached, the computer would go into
the inaccurate mode again, and be cheating the customer out of money
by recording more fuel than was actually being delivered!

When they were caught, it was discovered that the station operator had an electrical switch that he could throw anytime he wanted that would do this. In this manner, if he suspected that he was being tested,
he could take his cheating devise out-of-line and the fuel delivery would then be accurate.

That is why if you suspect anything is not right, you must measure your
delivery into a know container at different volumes to catch 'em!

These cheaters were caught by the authorities who were using an older car that had a dummy tank
that would only hold a certain amount of fuel, and these 'testers' would pull into a station just as a
normal customer would and buy gas, and when that their tank was full, read what the pump said,
and be able to catch the cheaters red-handed.

floridabob1

RE: 2196
While this is true that some owners of gas stations have taken illegal steps to cheat consumers on the quantity of fuel that sold, even by installing electronic devices to alter the registered amount of gas sold after 5 or 10 gallons, it has been much more common for them to blend 87 octane with the mid and premium fuel sold. Most cities spot check quantities of product sold by weight or liquid measure, but few, if any, have the ability or desire to check the octane.
That being said, I doubt that many stations intentionally cheat their customers in these manners.

allmet33

By pumping it into your car, you have no way of showing what the first 10 gallons looks like in a container. Having to of the same containers and filling them both would be the best visual method.

allmet33

Well...the only ones that mixing octanes would hurt are those with sport sedans and other vehicles that the manufacturer recommends using premium in. Won't affect me as my car is designed to run on 87.

joe131

Doesn't matter because his theory was that the 1st 10 gallons was accurate. He was only questioning if the gallons after the 1st 10 were accurately metered.

allmet33

Joe...exactly my point...his THEORY!!! If you want to make sure the 1st 10 gallons is accurate, then you need something of a way to SHOW it. Then you can accurately compare the 2nd 10 gallons.

He has no way of knowing the 1st 10 are accurate to begin with...he's only speculating it to be the case. How do you know the pump doesn't change up after 5 gallons?

Really...there's no point to this as nobody is really going to go through all that to see if a gas station is ripping them off. The best you can do is pay attention to how much it costs you to fill up from 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of a tank at any given price. Then later on, when you fill up from one of those points again at the same price per gallon...you should be paying close to what you paid before. There will be a discrepancy of maybe +/- $ .30 as you can't be perfectly accurate, but if you're off like + $1.00 or more...there's trouble!

joe131

Yeah?
Well then use two 2 gallon cans and separate their fillups with 8 gallons pumped into your car tank. What do you want to do with 2 heavy 10 gallon cans of gas?

allmet33

So...why would you want to keep filling a 2 gallon can (10 times) just to dump it in the gas tank?

You can do the same thing with 2 heavy 10 gallon cans as yo would with 10 2 gallon fill ups! :P

quietpro

Wow...like I said 20 posts ago...way too much space wasted on this subject. I guess this thread is all about anything BUT mainstream sedan comparisons. It should be labeled trivial arguments started on a whim. :P

joe131

You typed, "why would you want to keep filling a 2 gallon can (10 times) just to dump it in the gas tank?"

NO! I never said to do that!

Just fill the 2 gallon can 2 times total to test the meter accuracy during the 1st 10 gallons of pump use and to test the meter accuracy after the first 10 gallons of pump use. That was the question being posed originally, the accuracy of the pump.

Here's how to do it.
Pump 2 gallons into the 2 gallon can to the line which is exactly 2 gallons. Now, look at the pump meter. If it reads 2 gallons, then you know the first 2 gallons out of the pump is accurate.
Next, pour the 2 gallons out of the can into your car.
Then, pump 8 gallons from the pump into your car. The pump meter now reads 10 gallons because you stopped pumping when the meter read 10 gallons, ok?
Then pump gas into the 2 gallon can again, up to the line. The pump meter should now read 12 gallons. If the meter reads 12 gallons, then don't worry about it. If it doesn't read 12 gallons, then you know that those 2 gallons just pumped (which are gallons 11 and 12 of the total pumped) are together not equal to 2 gallons. In that case, someone is being cheated, either the gas buyer or the station.
The dumb thing is filling up 2 ten gallon cans with gas. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH TWO GIANT CANS OF GASOLINE? THEY ARE HEAVY AND UNWIELDY AS I SAID LONG AGO.

This test is easily done to check suspect pumps. Your test is not easily done.

You changed the theory being tested. Why?

joe131

Your test:
"The best way to find out if your theory is correct is to find two 10 gallon gas containers and fill the first one until you hit 10 gallons on the nose. Then, switch to the 2nd container and fill it till you hit 20 gallons. Sit the two side by side and see if they have the same amount of gas in them..."
will not tell you if even one of the 20 gallons is a full gallon. All it tells you is that the pump is consistent for the first 10 registered gallons and the second 10 registered gallons.
You may be getting only 9/10 of a gallon for each one of all 20 gallons on the meter!

jaxs1

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/4288.html

I think this is so great!

When your Taurus spins out of control during an emergency maneuver on a slick road and either hits a tree or goes into oncoming traffic due to its lack of stability control, you can always hope for and expect minimal injuries.

barnstormer64

If you need stability control on a sedan, you've got issues. Seek out a driving school immediately.

PS: The combination of AWD and Traction Control is a pretty good alternative to stability control in a sedan, IMO.

cobrazera

IMO, once your tires are slipping, the only way AWD does you any good is if you get on the gas - very few people would do that.
AWD and 4 wheel drive is effective at acceleration in low traction conditions and nowhere else. Check out the ditches in snow and ice conditions and see how they're filled with trucks and sport utes with AWD and 4 wheel drive. Fact is, such vehicles brake and turn worse than they would with only 2 wheel drive in low traction conditions due to their increased weight.
Stability control will automatically brake only one wheel to reduce a skid - not even a highly skilled driver can do that.

tjc78

"If you need stability control on a sedan, you've got issues. Seek out a driving school immediately"

Maybe, if you drove all alone on the roads. I feel that I am a good enough driver not to need it too, however it is nice to know that if someone else spins out of control or does something that causes you to swerve or otherwise do something that you may not want to at highway speed it can help you out especially in wet or snow/ice.

I believe that in a few years it will be mandatory on all cars sold.

alexstore

Ok, lets return to mainstream large sedan comparison. When almost 2 years ago I was on a market shopping for a new car, very few cars had stability control. Contrary to many of you, calling themselves "professional drivers", I believe that a car must have all reasonable safety features. You never know but once it can save your life and lives your passengers.
Maxima had it as an option and while I had a choice either car with navigation or a car with stability for the same price , but call me crazy, I chose stability. Guess what, it actually saved me from a spin on an icy road(a fire hydrant was leaking and the weather was below freezing). My car begun braking even before i realized i was losing control. I was able to stop but thanks for the small price I paid for this feature, it saved me from thousands $ if I hit other cars and totaled my car.

tjc78

No way do I consider myself a professional driver, I just feel confident. Anyway, my '06 Avalon has it and I would probably have done exactly what you did and pick it over a NAV system. The only problem with SC is that some people think it allows them to drive faster in poor conditions. Kinda like those SUV drivers flying by you in a snow storm.

jaxs1

I just saw an announcement from Ford stating stability control will now be optional on the 2008 Taurus.
So, some of them should be safer to drive.

tjc78

It will probably only make it into fully loaded models as is typical of most manufacturers. Why not just make it standard on all models and bump the price slightly. Would be nice to say on an ad "Only family car under 23K with standard SC, ABS and a 5 star crash rating"... Nah this is Ford that would make too much sense.

alexstore

of course it will be another thing that they will need to fix or repair daily

barnstormer64

The only problem with SC is that some people think it allows them to drive faster in poor conditions. Kinda like those SUV drivers flying by you in a snow storm.

Ain't that the truth.

And the real reason that I needed anti-lock brakes (besides the fac that they simply became standard) was because of all the idiots who decided that since they had ABS, they should start slamming on the brakes as hard as they could every single time they needed to brake. They rarely thought about the drivers behind them, who probably couldn't stop as fast.

barnstormer64

of course it will need another thing that they will need to fix or repair daily

Funny, haha . . and maybe applicable to many of Ford's vehicles over 20 years ago.

Have you driven a Ford lately? :P

tjc78

The 500 hasn't been that unreliable and Ford seems to be doing alot better in that department, just look at the Fusion. I really think that the Taurhundred is a nice car, roomy, reasonably priced and now has a real engine. I would think it still isn't as quick as a Max or Av but it has to be a whole lot better.

alexstore

Sorry guys,
I am GM, Nissan, Toyota and Honda guy. In my family only one person drives a ford product and in his case its a town car. It is reliable and big, but it lacks what we expect from a large car today.

barnstormer64

So, you really haven't driven a Ford lately. At least not one of the new ones.

I've had GREAT luck with the Tauri that I've owned, and so far so good with the Freestyle and Five Hundred, as well.

My brothers drive Toyotas and Hondas, and there's have been reliable, too. But no more so than my vehicles.

quietpro

Have you driven a Ford lately?

Actually, no, but I drove a Ford 19, 16, and 12 - 5 yrs. ago before switching to GM and had extremely few problems with mine. As a matter of fact, the only problems I did have were with my last one, a '94 Cougar that made it to 135K miles before I slipped five feet too far into an intersection (you can guess how that ended). That car was notorious for front brake rotors but otherwise had only only one real non-maintenance issue in the eight years I owned it; the engine management computer decided that one of the injectors should remain open at all times. The non-Ford tech that diagnosed it and the Ford parts guy that sold me the replacement part both had their doubts because it was such an odd failure but it was the correct call. $350 and user replaceable behind a plastic kick panel. I somehow doubt any Asian-branded vehicles could be repaired so reasonably.
Currently, I love my GM (Chevy to be specific) but Ford is making great strives as well. Anyone would be foolish to sell them short. I think GM and Ford will both be back leaner and meaner...not too sure about Chrysler. :sick: I just saw a report that Dodge was releasing a "redesigned" Magnum...new grill and hood...after 5+ years. Are they kidding? Daimler really sucked the life out of that company.

batista

I just saw a report that Dodge was releasing a "redesigned" Magnum...new grill and hood...after 5+ years. Are they kidding? Daimler really sucked the life out of that company.

The Magnum was released in late 2004 as a 2005 model.
It's not 5+ years old but 3 years old.

fordenvy

I'm in the car market as the best bang for the dollar, and I have come to a conclusion. Taurus v. Avalon. Sticker price difference between the two is about $3,000. The gas mileage difference for the same amount of horsepower is about three MPG. That is a difference of three hundred dollars a year you'll pay more for gas in the taurus. It would take ten years at 15000 miles a year and $3.30 gas to break even with the Avalons premium sticker price over the taurus. So essentially the gas mileage difference is not a factor to saving money between the two cars.
Avalon - 20/28/23
Taurus - 18/26/21 (that is the 08 taurus, using the old method you would get 20/28 with the 3.5L).
MPG's based on new 08 EPA estimates.

Let me add to that though, if your in the car market for a different reason (i.e. global climate change, putting american workers out of a job) then this reasoning would not work for you.

tjc78

The Avalon is a great car, powerful , comfortable and has a lot of nice touches. However, the new Taurus seems to offer a lot for the money too, especially now with a competitive powerplant. Just for curiousity, which Avalon model are you comparing the Taurus to? I would guess that a fully loaded Taurus would compare to the XLS model in equipment level. I don't know much about the Ford 3.5, but maybe you should check the Lincoln MKZ fourms to see what people are saying about the motor and their observed FE, that may give you a better idea. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Avalon will have a much better resale value which will help recoup the higher upfront cost, unless your planning on keeping it for a very long time.

algee

and why are you following so close? The old 1 car lengthfor every 10 mph would keep youfrom hitting them.

plekto

I'd ignore the gas mileage entirely, though and go for price.

Less financed, less to insure, less on registration and taxes, and yes, the Ford will cost a huge amount less to actually fix, even though it breaks down a lot more(Totoya repairs are Mercedes level priced lately in case you've not noticed). And of course, less money tied up, a slightly smaller monthly payment, and lastly, less credit owed/right side up on the loan a few months faster.

If the car is $3K less, you'll take almost twenty years to break even with such a small difference in gas mileage. Shoot, you'll save $2-300 on taxes and registration alone in most states the first week you own it.

Of course, this gets me back to the problem I have with Toyotas of late. They are nice and all, but honestly, the prices are no longer the bargains they once were. You now get a car that's 10-20% better than a Ford or GM for 30% more money in some cases. It'm just not wired to pay tons of money for a badge on the hood for basic transportation.(something like a 350Z or Cayman aside - heh)

As for my recommendation for a larger car, I have to that come to mind:
1: A Lucerne CXS in three months. This way you can get a 2007 model a year old(used) for about $24-25K, and get the remainder of the 100K mile drivetrain warranty. This is a superb car that you'll never regret owning. The trick, though, is to get a 1-3 year old one and let some other fool eat the depreciation. I'm likely going to get a 2006 for 18-20K this fall. It's an amazing amount of car for the money.

2:Go cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. What's the lowest-cost large sedan on the market?

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USB70MEC021A0&restor- - - e=false
(Pasadena, CA.)

Yes, it's big, yes it's stodgy, and yes, its unrefined and all that. But it's a good ride, dirt cheap to fix and repair, and gosh - someone at Ford must be smoking some good stuff because it's being sold for less that it probably cost them to make the thing.

Gas mileage is poor, but ~$6K buys an enormous amount of gas (and of course frees up your monthly expenses a lot as well payment wise) The GM also gets 17/25(old data - figure 15/22), so it's not great, but not miserable like a SUV, either.

I got a quote for fun last week from my agent - State Farm - and they quoted me less than $500 a year more for comprehensive and collision on a new one(as opposed to my old truck with has basic coverage only). Seriouly cheap.

A 2006 Lucerne CXS was $615 in extra coverage. 250 comp/500 collision). An Avalon... more like $800. That's your $300 in gas per year right there - in insurance you save.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USB70MEC021B0&restor- - e=false
The LS is only a little more expensive. That includes delivery as well, and isn't as low as you could haggle, either. But the real gem is the base model, IMO.

derrelhgreen

The choice between the Avalon and the Taurus. Isn't the Azera Limited in the picture? If not, why not?

Will you be satisified with a less powerful 3.0L motor in the Taurus? I wouldn't be!

Out here I'm sure I cannot buy a fully loaded Pearl Powder White Limited Azera with XM for less than a Ford 500 come Taurus, but personally I think the Azera is not only a better value, but so much more car for a little more money.
I think the Azera is a better vehicle.

'Course, if you are one of those individuals that trades every few years, you'll probably be dollars ahead
if you get the Avalon now, but remember, you've got to live with whatever in the mean time.

Good luck. I hope you make the correct choice.

Enjoy.

allmet33

Take a spin in an Azera, I bet you'll be pretty amazed at what you experience, not to mention what you'll get for the money.

tjc78

"Will you be satisified with a less powerful 3.0L motor in the Taurus? I wouldn't be! "

The '08 Taurus will no longer have the 3.0 it will have the 3.5 with 260 HP. IMO that makes the car a competitor.

derrelhgreen

"The '08 Taurus will no longer have the 3.0L.
It will have the 3.5 with 260 HP. IMO that makes the car a competitor."

I had heard that, and it's about time.
Many will not consider the Five Hundred come Taurus any different as shall be shown by Fords' terrible sales figures.
Changing the motor and the brand name is too little too late IMHO.

The information I was using is for the currently available '07 as supplied by Edmunds.

Who knows if the horsepower ratings will not be raised on the '08 Azeras.

Try the Azera; You'll like it!

allmet33

As a current Azera owner, I would say the upgraded 3.5 engine in the 500/Taurus will definitely make it a more viable option. One of the reasons I chose the Azera over the 500 at the time was the lack of hp available in the 500. Other than that...the car has a cavernous cabin and trunk to match. Considering it's a Ford product, it's actually a pretty stylish car, having a slight Euro flair to it. The only other thing I wasn't wild about was the interior styling...too many straight lines and hard looking edges...it just didn't seem to flow with the exterior of the car.