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?



  • wayne21wayne21 Posts: 198
    Although we really wanted a taurus and the backup car was the fusion we opted to buy neither of these. I had never been in a hyundai, but drove a sonata over the weekend. I found it to be a better car than the taurus or fusion and on par with our accord. We would have bought an accord, but after having transmission problems and learning that this has been an issue for honda for years we opted not to do that. Really wanted to buy a car made by union workers, but will buy a sonata.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Good for you. There is a reason Hyundai is growing so fast. Supporting American manufacturers simply because they are American (or union) got us into this mess in the first place. I'd like to see American cars at the top of the heap, but they won't get there with slogans and false patriotism. Build the best and buyers will follow.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    You know somehow I don't think you'll find a similar thought process in Japan, Germany, or Korea.....

    I agree with some of your thoughts, but most recent quality rating have the American stuff on par with their competitors.

    And by the way I do own a Ford and a Honda, so I own both.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    With a few exceptions, like Americans, citizens of other countries are patriotic and root for the home team. Even the old East German Trabant had a certain following that was not simply a result of being coerced.

    There are American vehicles on a par with anything else in terms of quality, and that's good. But that quality came as a result of some people realizing that they could get a better product elsewhere, and so they did.

    Now, American manufacturers are fighting to get their reputations back. There is good quality out there...and there are still models with serious quality problems. It goes beyond quality of course. Features, engine choices, mileage, resale are a few of the other things people look at.

    The Taurus offers one engine. Competitors provide a choice of two or three. Why didn't they continue to offer the 3.0 liter and the gearing setup for those who want better mileage? Why doesn't the Fusion offer a sport suspension or a version with the 3.5 liter (which is becoming standard for the class anyway)?

    You can get a decent and reliable ride with the Fusion. However, some people won't buy the Fusion, because unlike its competition, it does not offer traction control. Ford also skimped on sound deadening for the Fusion. The prop rod issue has been beaten to death. The point is that you can have stellar quality, but if you don't offer the features of the competition, you lose sales anyway.

    I have owned more American iron than any other kind, but after 27 vehicles, I have also owned stuff from Honda, Subaru, Toyota, Mazda, Isuzu, VW, and Audi. Everything I have owned since the late 80's has been completely reliable, except for one really awful Oldsmobile, and minor irritations with a Mazda.

    I would love for example to buy a new Ranger. I owned three of them and every one gave me great service, one to 177,000 miles when I sold it to a neighbor who continued to use it for years. Unfortunately, Ford doesn't make a new Ranger. They are selling an old one for new offering the same stuff my 98 had.
  • jmn1jmn1 Posts: 26
    The Ranger, in my opinion, is good. I think Ford should make a crew cab, but don't try to tell me the stuff about the Explorer Sport Trac.

    Here is a link to what I am picturing:

    I also think that they should ditch the two-door Supercab, because, I don't see why anyone would want it. In my opinion, Ford should make a Crew Cab and a Crew Cab extended (like the Dodge Ram Mega Cab) for more cab room, but have the Super Cab for guys who don't want to spend so much on their truck.

    As for the Taurus, I think it looks cool as it is very comfortable and spacious. Comparing specs between the Five Hundred and Freestar minivan, the Five Hundred had 129 cubic feet of cargo space, and the Freestar, 130.5. But, for 08, the Taurus contends with four other new players: the NEW 08 Honda Accord, the NEW O8 Subuaru Outback/Legacy (Outback= off-road station wagon, Legacy= all-wheel drive sport sedan) , the Toyota Camry, and the new Chevy Malibu. I have yet to sit in a Malibu. I don't overly care for Subaru, I had a 92 Silverado that blew chunks, so I will never buy a Chevy (not necessarily a GM) again, the Camry was nice, but I have brand loyalty to Ford.

    And what about the Taurus X, people?
  • izaclown1izaclown1 Posts: 116
    "The Ranger, in my opinion, is good. I think Ford should make a crew cab, but don't try to tell me the stuff about the Explorer Sport Trac."

    I looked at the Expo vs. F150. No comparison! F150 lot less money bigger engine and bigger towing capability. But, I digress...
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Toyota does the min. necessary to produce a profitable vehicle.

    The 08 Corolla will be largely a reskin and the Civic will still have better powertrain and dynamics.

    The Rav4? You obviously haven't opened up the back of a Rav lately if you belive that this is a "best effort" The spare tire is STILL mounted to the hatch and the hatch still swings out to the passenger side. That might be great in right drive Japan but in the US it opens to the curb/sidewalk and creates a barrier. Plus the weight of the tire is annoying. That is so 1990.

    (imagine paralle parking and you can't open the back hatch cause it will swing into the car behind yours.)

  • jmn1jmn1 Posts: 26
    OK, if I HAD to have a swing-out, I would make it so it opened toward the street, making a barrier for kids and stuff to not go in the street. I would also have a release (similar to the 2000-2004 Isuzu Trooper to get it to shut, but for opening it 180 degrees.

    I still think that the Taurus is a good family sedan, but, I'm not seeing your point.
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    It does open toward the street in Japan and other Right hand drive countries. Toyota apparently doesn't think enough of US consumers to put a minor change in for cars headed to the US.

    My point is that people seem to assume that Toyota is some kind of charity out to make the "best" cars in the world. In reality, Toyota does not make the "best" in class in any segment it compets in.

    Toyota makes the auto equivalent of Vanilla ice cream.

  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Which is the most popular ice cream. Can't fault Toyota for having a formula that sells. It's not easy to come up with good vanilla. I think Ford tried that route with the 500/Taurua, but instead they totally missed the mark.
  • 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: 2,419
    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: 2,419
    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.


    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: 2,419
    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: 2,419
    OK, I can agree with that.
This discussion has been closed.