Howdy, Stranger!

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





What Are Your Thoughts on the Return of the Taurus/Sable?

11214161718

Comments

  • jmn1jmn1 Posts: 26
    Ok, I get it.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I think Ford would have nailed it if they had put a decent powertrain in that car the first time. Now, most perspective buyers know that car as being underpowered and uncompetitive, when in reality it is not.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Why is the RAV4 in this discussion again? I missed that one apparently.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    IMHO, Ford would have missed the mark whether they had offered the 3.0 or the 3.5. The car is not just plain. It has awkward proportions. From some angles, it looks fat and dumpy. It looks like an old man's car. I saw it at several auto shows, and almost no one gathered around to look at it. I don't know how Ford managed to take the Audi design genre and remove all the grace from it, but they did.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If the Ford lost sales from the fact that it is plain (it is a conservative design) then any Camry from the last 20 years would have sold about 9 cars.

    It's conservative, yes. I still haven't found something about it that would keep me from buying it like I have on the Altima (16 year-old's Altezza taillamps) or Camry (wart on its nose, looks too puffy). It's a clean design.

    Truthfully, if its target audience (the old Taurus/Crown Vic crowd) cared so much about exterior design, why does the slab-sided yawn-box Avalon sell so well? Why do I see loads of rounded LeSabres loading the roadways?

    People aren't looking for an "exciting, groundbreaking" design in their large cars most of the time. Those type of designs get dated quickly, like the 300 has to me.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    Agree with all that you say...except you miss my point. I did NOT say the 500/Taurus' problem was that it is plain.

    Its problem is that it is worse than plain. It is both anonymous and odd-looking. The slab sided Avalon sells so well because the current iteration, definitely not groundbreaking or exciting, is tasteful and looks like understated luxury. There is nothing luxurious looking about the Taurus, but it is ostensibly competing in a group of cars that purport to offer a bit more than your average Sonata.

    But the plain jane Sonata look is less off-putting than that of the Taurus. It just doesn't hang together as a either plain car or an understated aspirational car. Even the blue hair crowd, so enamored of Buicks, isn't flocking to the thing.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I guess the very odd-looking (to me) head and taillamps are more awkward to me than anything is on the Taurus.

    image
    image
    image
    image

    To me, the Taurus is actually the classier looking car. The Avalon just comes off as awkward.

    I'm not knocking you for your view, just presenting mine. Thanks for actually having a decent conversation as opposed to beating me in the head with your views (a common occurance here these days!)
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    I don't seem to have your head in close enough proximity to beat on. ;)

    Well of course some people will like (or not like) any styling out there. But I think the marketplace has spoken on the Taurus/500. I don't have a big problem with the headlights or tail lights. Its the way the whole thing comes together. The side view and 3/4 rear view especially don't flow well. The rear window is clumsily drawn and placed. The wheelbase looks too short for the height of the car and the long front and rear overhangs. The interior isn't a standout in any way. Like I said, plain is one thing, but adding awkward to anonymous is a real skill! It isn't the attention grabber like the truly awful Pontiac Aztec for example, but it does have vestiges of that: plain shapes drawn less balanced than they easily could have been.

    Anyway, you like it. Most people don't. Consequently, Ford is not going to be able to market good numbers of Tauri until they do more than mess around with the front and back. It is the MIDDLE that crosses it off most people's list.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The best part of the car is that it offers full size room and (finally) decent V6 power for 4-cylinder midsize money.

    I'm not pricing them for myself, but instead my grandmother. A front-wheel drive SEL model is looking to be $22k AFTER all fees, taxes, and destination. That's Accord LX/Camry LE money.

    I see what you mean by the tall but not long look, makes it kind of tipsy looking. But, at the heart of it is a very good car (not OUTSTANDING) at an even better price. It makes a very good value propsition, if more people knew it had the upgraded engine and interior trim over the 500 I think it'd sell marginally better.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    OK, I can agree with that.
  • Now, most perspective buyers know that car as being underpowered and uncompetitive, when in reality it is not.

    And never really WAS, either.

    People just don't know how to drive one, that's all.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    I don't have any problem with the Taurus looks. The interior is really sweet. Nice car and I'm confident sales will improve with the new engine and drivetrain.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    In a class of 250-270hp V6 engines, 203 was relatively underpowered. It's the reason the Amanti went from 195 to 260+. The Buick Lucerne is still underpowered in V6 form due to its ancient 3800 with less than 200 horses. The Ford was near the back of the pack in power with the old 3.0L.

    Sure, it had enough beans to be safe, but it wasn't competitive with the majority of the class. Shoot, the cheaper Impala had a 230+ engine, with available 303hp V8; Ford needed to at least match that with its top engine. When you add power AND economy, its a win-win, as in Ford's case.
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Front end is good. I especially love the headlights on the Sable with standard projector style headlamps.

    Its the tail lights that bother me, they just seem to busy.

    Also the Taurus looks completely different than anything else on the road. The Passet similarities are now pretty vague. The Avalon on the other hand looks like a Camry.

    One thing I don't like is the 2 tone interiors. I especially hate the Fake yellow plastic that is suppose to pass for wood on the Sables. It looks like something from a kids play set.

    I just can't understand why Ford is afraid of offering an All black interior. That is all we sell really on the Mustang and its descently popular on the Fusion and the Edge.

    Pretty much all Nissans offer a Charcoal or black interior.

    Maybe its just to sporty looking for the old folkes at Ford design.

    Mark.
    Mark
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    I don't have any problem with the Taurus looks. The interior is really sweet. Nice car and I'm confident sales will improve with the new engine and drivetrain.

    Well, it is good someone is confident. However, the 2008 Taurus has been on sale since last summer, and the numbers have not picked up yet. Oftentimes, you will see an immediate spike in sales with redesigns. Taurus can't seem to pull that off, even after months of availability.

    I sure don't know much, but it still seems to me it has to be the bulbous sort of tippy look that a new grill and tail lights could not address.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    With that "tippy" look comes a seating position close to that of vans and SUVs, without the mileage penalty. That is what was appealing to my grandmother. She can't climb up into an SUV easily, and getting in her Accord is getting harder daily. The Taurus was close to my aunt's Odyssey, which is a good thing to her, heightwise (she's 5'1" and 72 years old).
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    Well of course. But if people bought cars for rational reasons, there would be relatively few SUVs and CUVs on the road, and a lot more minivans!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    AMen to that.

    My grandmother has her first dime though, so looking at the Taurus is a sensible thing to do! :)
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    Just a point of clarification. I am 40 with 3 small children, so we are a young family and not an older one. We do own a Honda Odyssey and it definitely sits higher than the Ford Taurus.

    For us we liked the combination of safety, space, economy, and price with the Ford Taurus. The exterior styling is average, but that is probably #10 on the list of things that are important to us. The interior is good and it's a nice car to drive. Throw in the fact it's an American brand; why not buy it if you're looking for the things we are?

    Some people will bring up resale and reliability, but every car I've driven has been driven to at least 150,000 miles so that argument is mute for me. JD Powers is saying Ford is making more reliable vehicles and I've got a brother with a Ford Ranger with 260,000 trouble free miles, so I'm not afraid to gamble with a new Taurus.
  • In a class of 250-270hp V6 engines, 203 was relatively underpowered

    In a class where 200hp is plenty (when paired with an awesome transmission like the CVT), the other engines are simply over-powered. Especially since nobody uses the power. :P

    Given that the new 3.5L hasn't helped sales (seems to have hurt it, actually), I can't say that power is what people were after.

    On the other hand, if I ever see a new "powerful Taurus", I'll be sure to outrun it, just to demonstrate that it's the DRIVER that matters, not the engine.

    99% of those buying that vehicle don't know what to do with the 200hp it has, much less 240+ hp
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    Yeah but 99% of the buyers will go with the bigger engine if they can get similar mileage. Nice try, but I don't think you'll get too far barking up that tree.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Lucky for buyers, mileage improved with the 30% power increase.
  • Unfortunately, they lost the smoothness of the CVT . . . at least the OPTION to get a CVT on the vehicle.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    Bottom line, it's a good buy for those who actually see a car for what it is: an appliance. It's an even better buy if you wait for certified used. However, it's a dud in the marketplace and will remain so until they dump the dumpiness.
  • jmn1jmn1 Posts: 26
    The Taurus is still good in my book. The RAV-4 needs work, however. If only America's favorite SUV were more reliable, but, lost its 16-year best sales status to the Honda CR-V.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'm still confused about where the RAV is coming from in this convo?
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Is an example of how Toyota can sell loads of vehicles based on their name alone. The Corolla is another.

    The RAV4 is a packaging nightmare compared to the CRV and the Nissan Rogue. Toyota gets away with this cause people give Toyota the "benefit of the doubt"

    My question is what has Toyota done lately to continue to deserve this "benefit of the doubt"

    Mark
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    Regardless of whether it is deserved or not, Toyota has established a reputation that sells cars. If their products do not continue to measure up, over time people will gravitate to other manufacturers (you can fool all of the people some of the time, but not all of the time...). Sort of like when Chevrolet sat on top of the world back in the day, even though the mom, apple pie and Chevrolet stuff was largely undeserved. Of course now Chevy is clawing its way back...and doing a better job of it than Ford seems to be able to figure out right now.

    By the way, you can get a fuel efficent 268 hp RAV4, which smacks the hell out of the power offered by the Rogue and CRV. Seems people like that combination of fuel efficiency and remarkable power. Explains some of the Avalon's success too...better fuel efficiency than a 4 cylinder Fusion out of 268 hp, not to mention a well-trimmed, well-optioned interior and full-size room in a package smaller than the Taurus.

    If Toyota did anything wrong, it was by expanding too fast and allowing their stellar quality to sink on some models. My money is betting that they fix these obvious flaws soon. They didn't kick [non-permissible content removed] with Chevy and Ford by being stupid. Of course other manufacturers who once had the tiger by the tail (e.g., Ford) got really stupid. Toyota could do that too. I just wouldn't bet on it.
  • Seems people like that combination of fuel efficiency and remarkable power.

    If oil prices keep going up, these folks are gonna wish that the car manufacturers had re-engineered SMALLER engines to get even MORE fuel efficiency, rather than "wasting" the re-design to get more (unneeded) power and only a bit more fuel efficiency.

    But what should I care? As the oil prices go up, so does my salary!
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    Diesels are coming, diesels are coming! Modern European diesels are clean, powerful and fuel efficient. With oil moving above $100 a barrel, you are going to see more of those, plugin hybrids, electric cars, and turbo-supercharged small 4's coming to market. The Taurus could pick up sales, dumpy body or not, by offering a unique powertrain. After all, not too many cars look as bad as a Prius, but the darn thing sells.
This discussion has been closed.