Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1121122124126127134

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I would not even consider a Tauras or Azera at the price of $21,000 and $22,000 when I just bought a Maxima SE for $23,000 and it has lots of standard options including one of the best engines ever built 10 years running....just my opinion.

    That's good, considering a Taurus has been advertised for under $20k in many areas for many months.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    would not even consider a Tauras or Azera at the price of $21,000 and $22,000

    You got such a great deal on your Max because the completely new model is due out in a few months. The Taurus and Azera are a different type of car much softer and roomier inside. Two different customers IMO.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    AKA Buick -itis and something that not even the Lucerne suffers that much from anymore

    The base and some of the CXL's w/o magnaride (or whatever they call it) still have plenty of "float" to them. You are right, the CXS is much tighter, similar to an Av Touring.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    There aren't many Taurus/Sable owners on this board. Would love to know, real world economy and such.

    We bought a Taurus for my wife last October and now have about 7000 miles on it. She is ecstatic with it and while I am much harder to please, I have concluded that it is an incredible car for the money. Over Memorial Day weekend, we drove from Minneapolis to Southern Iowa and back. Going down into a pretty stiff headwind, we got 29.6 MPG. Coming home, we got 31.4. This was 90% Interstate cruising at 75 - 80 MPH. We have taken a number of shorter trips on two-lane roads at lower speeds and gotten 33-34 MPG. On her daily commute of 50/50 city and freeway, grocery shopping, etc. it averages around 24-25 MPG. The tall overdrive in 6th gear really helps fuel economy on the highway. The engine is powerful enough to prevent unwanted downshifts on hills, too.

    I rent cars a lot for business (often Impalas, Camrys, Chrysler 300s) and I think the driving experience (ride/quiet/room/performance/interior) puts the Taurus far above those. I have not driven an Azera or late model Avalon. Since the Taurus is really a second car, we wanted to keep the price down. About my only complaint is the lack of a telescoping wheel - a strange omission on an otherwise very comfortable car.
  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    One week into Taurus ownership, and I got around 23mpg on the first tank, while the second is showing just over 20mpg per the trip computer. I've been puttering around town more on the second, and a miles/refill gallons calculation may return a different result.

    I'll second the impression that this is a tremendous car, and even more so for the $. It's a very crossover-like driving experience, but at many $thousands less than a similar vehicle with a liftgate instead of a trunk. It still baffles me that there is a premium attached to something called a crossover SUV, while a wagon is virtually unsellable. This vehicle is exceptionally roomy, very comfortable, has some get-up, a zillion bells & whistles, and a killer stereo. I like the looks, and the interior, and it seems to be pretty well screwed together, so I'm very pleased. It's actually pretty hard to go far wrong these days - most of the new cars are excellent.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    I agree with all of your points. I find the fit and finish and overall quality to be exceptionally good considering the price.

    I think you will see a significant mileage improvement after you accumulate some miles. As I recall, on the first tank, we only got around 20 or so. The first significant trip we took was at Christmas when the car had around 1,500 miles on it and we averaged about 26 - 27 on the trip to Iowa. It is now 3-4 MPG better. The acceleration has noticeably improved, too.
  • snaglepussnaglepus Member Posts: 160
    "Over Memorial Day weekend, we drove from Minneapolis to Southern Iowa and back. Going down into a pretty stiff headwind, we got 29.6 MPG. Coming home, we got 31.4. This was 90% Interstate cruising at 75 - 80 MPH. We have taken a number of shorter trips on two-lane roads at lower speeds and gotten 33-34 MPG. On her daily commute of 50/50 city and freeway, grocery shopping, etc. it averages around 24-25 MPG. The tall overdrive in 6th gear really helps fuel economy on the highway. The engine is powerful enough to prevent unwanted downshifts on hills, too."

    Really! You would try and have all of us believe that you have
    the one that got away and wasn't supposed to be sold.

    Better fuel economy than the EPA estimates by more than 6 mpg!
    Come on now. And at 75-80 mph no less.

    And in stop and go commuting, 24-25 mpg. Another unbelieveable figure considering
    that the EPA figures for that vehicle are 16 city and only 24 highway.

    I'm a native Californian, but when I read such tall tales, I say I'm from Misssouri . . Show me.
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    I bought my Taurus last October and have almost 14,000 miles on it. I've gotten in the upper 20's pushing 30 mpg on road trips, but any town driving kills the mileage and low to mid 20's seem to be the norm. Good, but not as good as the Chevy Impala I had before.

    However everything else about this car is a huge upgrade over my old Impala. It's got a ton of safety features, is very quiet on the road, and has lot of space particularly in the back seats and trunk. It has a lot of "soft surfaces" so my elbow doesn't get sore resting on the door. Wish I would have waited a few months and got the sync system as I have a buddy who has it and loves the hands free phone.

    Great car for the money and the only reason I can think sales aren't better is it's mundane exterior. Sounds like Ford is working on that and will be making some changes soon.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    Coming home, we got 31.4. This was 90% Interstate cruising at 75 - 80 MPH

    If those #s are accurate you are doing better than my '06 Avalon, on my last interstate run I got 28.8 at 75 - 85 with one pretty long traffic jam. My normal mileage is 21-22 as I am either in town or stuck on the highway in gridlock on the way home. Plus once in a while I can be a little heavy footed from a stoplight :blush:

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Are you sure brucelinc has an AWD model? If he has a FWD model, he only beat the estimates by a couple of MPG (18/28 for the FWD model). No biggie.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    It is amusing that someone asks about real world fuel economy and then others jump in to call the person who replies a liar! :sick:

    Mine is a FWD model and the ratings are 18/28. It is not at all uncommon to beat the highway number. My Lincoln LS gets about 26 on the same trip to Iowa and it is rated at 23 highway. The EPA number is calculated with the AC running and it includes a cold start if I recall correctly. Anyone who can't beat the highway number with steady cruising and AC off must not be a very smooth driver.

    At 75 MPH, the Taurus is turning about 1000 RPM slower than my Lincoln so I was not surprised with the mileage. As for the city number, I make no claim of getting better than the EPA rating in stop and go traffic. My wifes commute is 50% freeway cruising in the suburbs with only light traffic and the 24 -25 number is consistent from tank to tank.

    I see no reason for surprise or skepicism of my mileage report.
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Member Posts: 576
    The wallowing I and others are experiencing is way beyond what it should be regardless of what they "engineered." Hyundai corporate did talk to regional and the regional service manager is going to drive the car this time and I will take him to roads that demonstrate the excessive wallowing. Other than that the car is 10 and has more features than most $50,000 luxury cars.
    BTW, as the owner of a 1997 Mazda pick-up occasionally serviced at a Ford-Mazda dealership, I received an offer to get a $50 Targer card if I test drive a Ford car. They really must be deserate to sell cars.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I see no reason for surprise or skepicism of my mileage report.

    There's not one, as I beat EPA estimates on the highway quite regularly myself, typically about 4 MPG before Ethanol became prevailent; now I'm down to 2 MPG better.

    A little research (to find out what you are actually driving) goes a long way, especially before trying to discredit someone.
  • tonycdtonycd Member Posts: 223
    I’ve always been the kind of guy who wants to get $1.13 of content for his dollar (sometimes pathologically so). I’ve concluded that in this class, the only entrant that can reasonably give the Azera a run for its money in this department is the new Taurus, or if you prefer, the old 500. So off I went to my local Ford dealer.

    It should be noted that this is an exceptionally good Ford store: lounge for service customers, slime-free salespeople, everything quite impressive. I enjoyed my salesman, who interestingly had worked the service counter less than a year before at a crooked Hyundai dealership, and was delightfully low-key with me.

    I drove a front-drive SEL with tan cloth, then a black-leather Limited AWD. Their similarities vastly exceeded their differences, so I may as well report on them in tandem.

    First, the walkaround. I discount the potshots at the Taurus’s exterior styling. To my eye, it’s clean and purposeful. (You’d maybe rather look at the molten ovoid that was the 2000 Taurus?) The trunk was Mafia-huge, just as advertised. Equally impressive, the huge space was unimpeded by hinges as Ford sprang (pun intended) for the costlier gas struts. The back seat was voluminous as well, the subjective equal in space of the Avalon’s, though toe space was lacking.

    You apparently can’t get a telescoping steering wheel on any Taurus, and it needs one. The wheel is too far away, and to make matters worse, you can’t lower the tilt mechanism far enough. The adjustable pedals on the Limited helped somewhat to compensate. The power driver’s seats have all the adjustments, yet are so shapeless and unsupportive that you always feel you’re sitting on rather than in them.

    The Taurus’s feature content is impressive. In this class, only Taurus offers the exterior-pushbuttons form of keyless entry. While some call this obsolete, I view it as the best on the market, because it’s the only system that’s truly keyless -- no key OR fob needed. To put this in practical terms, it’s the only car that lets you use it as a locker for its own key at the beach.

    Taurus also has a temporary class exclusive on the Sync system. I loathe Microsoft, but even I have to admit this system is impressive. Stash your iPod safely out of sight in the console (there’s even a mini USB jack in there), then run it from the radio head unit or with speech commands -- ditto for your Bluetooth phone and Sirius radio. Nice. And under the skin, Taurus has superb crashworthiness, plus the AWD option the two Asians lack.

    The maddening thing that confronts you over and over with the Taurus is that all the content, and even the quality, is there, but the visible cheapness of the interior is simply relentless in undermining the quality impression. The gauges look far cheesier than the newly downgraded units in the ’08 Accord, and can’t touch the neon-white showpieces in the Azera or Avalon. The console (which, like the Avalon’s, is inexplicably too damn close to my right knee) flexes embarrassingly under the slightest pressure. While the Azera’s curvy dash and doors surprise and delight, the Nebraska-flat plains throughout the Taurus cabin dismay and depress. Mind you, most of the surfaces are soft-touch, and the abundant fake wood is frankly a far more handsome and attractively reflective material than the Azera’s miserable maroon plastic. Yet there is an utter and inexplicable lack of contouring to virtually any interior element, right down to the seat cushions. It’s hard to tell whether this was a misguided style decision to highlight the vast spaciousness of the interior, or just a full-on cheapout, but there’s no question at all about the result—in this distinguished company, it’s a disaster. I’ve voiced that the Avalon interior contains several peculiar style decisions, but this interior just hasn’t got it.

    Again, more’s the pity, because the Taurus is more than competitive over the road. The new powertrain certainly can’t be called rough or crude. There’s no idle shake or harsh noises, and it never really puts a foot wrong. The idle is clearly more audible than its two Asian rivals, but this seems to be more a soundproofing issue than a powertrain flaw, and seems to fade away at speed.

    The best aspect of the Taurus is the suspension. The ride-handling compromise is better than either Avalon or Azera’s. It rides as comfortably as either, yet controls vertical motion better than Azera and body roll better than Avalon. Steering feel is decent, maybe even a tick better than the others. Hyundai in particular would improve its product by ripping off this road behavior.

    With its vast room, comfy ride, and low highway RPM from its 6-speed (thank God, no longer the old CVT) slushbox, I could see this as a really livable highway car. Problem is, the others are too, and they have better seats to boot.

    Which about sums up the dilemma that faces this car: What spoiled car buyers we are today! This car is blatantly the best popular-priced huge sedan ever to roll out of Dearborn. Depending on how you feel about the 300, maybe the best ever from Detroit. Five years ago, this car would have rocked the world. But Ford’s tarnished reputation, combined with the sheer unnatural excellence of the Avalon and Azera, makes it virtually impossible now for this virtuous but strangely sexless Taurus to stand out in the crowd.

    When Ford sinks to the point where they start to sell off the furniture, those who score a Taurus for thousands less than it’s worth will be serious winners. This isn’t some Chrysler that’s crap at any price. In the end, it’s like a Camry: the one you’d recommend to your friends, but somehow never quite choose for yourself. That’s not a compliment in a woman, nor in a car. For all its legitimate merits, something’s missing from the Taurus—and whatever it is, it’s probably fatal.
  • rpfingstenrpfingsten Member Posts: 154
    Brucelinc... I whole heartedly agree..I traded a caddy in on my avy, but I seem to remember that the numbers on tha old Northstar were 17/21 city / highway. I consistently got 25 mpg running that car around 75 mph with the air on.

    Roland
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    For all its legitimate merits, something’s missing from the Taurus—and whatever it is, it’s probably fatal.

    Hopefully with the redesign in 2010 they correct many of the shortcomings of the current car and can seriously compete. Like you noted though, for the money this car is a great deal. FE is great for a car of its size and I don't think any others in the class offer more trunk or interior space.

    In this class, only Taurus offers the exterior-pushbuttons form of keyless entry

    That feature alone makes me want to buy another Ford. I had it on two previous vehicles and cannot understand why other manufacturers won't install it on their cars. There are so many instances where I would just leave my keys in the car. I think the only other make ever to have it was Nissan on the late 80s Maximas.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • hjc1hjc1 Member Posts: 183
    Pro's and Con's on the push button issue............
    When it's raining I think the fob is hands down a better idea :=)
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    The Fords have a FOB in addition to the push buttons.
  • snaglepussnaglepus Member Posts: 160
    A little research you say?

    Well let's see. Currently we have a 2007 Azera SE Limited.
    Also a 2000 Ford Focus Kona model with a 5-speed. It is just barely broken in with
    less than 40K miles so I guess you might conclude that I haven't driven it
    far enough yet to know what mileages it might be capable of?

    On most of the 60 or more vehicles that I have owned over the last 60 years, I have
    "logged" what the expenses have been, especially concerning fuel economy.
    So I guess you might give me the benefit of the doubt when
    I say I do know a thing or two about fuel economy.

    Most reading this are not old enough to remember Socony-Vacuum and the Mobilgas
    Economy runs done annually. I am, and back then I was very interested
    as to what the various vehicles would do fuel economy wise.

    Now while I will agree that it is indeed possible to beat the EPA estimates, having
    done so myself, I will not allow as it is possible for anyone to better
    those figures to the extent that some insist on posting.
    There is one fellow over on another forum that "claims" he gets 35 mpg highway and 24
    mpg city with his Azera. The ratings on his car are 18 highway and 26 city.
    This fellow resides in the hot Azizona desert, so you know he is running his A/C, right?
    Do you see what I mean?

    Now I happen to have an Azera also and while I can get mileages
    in the low 30s, that is driving it at exactly 60 mph with no A/C.
    City mileage . . forget it! There are too many varibles to consider.
    Is your city strictly stop and go, never going out on the expressway or interstates or just
    driving in town where there are only a couple of stop signs and only one traffic light?

    For someone to try and tell me that they can drive their 2008 3.5L V6 Taurus
    and get well over 30 mpg at 75-80 mph just does not fly with me.
    Hell, I cannot do that with my 2.0L Kona Focus with a manual 5-speed and
    I have it tuned electronically myself. At those speed, I get below 30 mpg.

    Carry on and believe everything you read and all claims no matter what the subject.
  • alexstorealexstore Member Posts: 264
    I think its useless security wise. After few years of using it, it becomes visible so anyone will be able to figure your code.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    After few years of using it, it becomes visible so anyone will be able to figure your code

    Thats why you NEVER use the factory code and change your personal code every couple of months. It takes all of 20 seconds to change it right from the keypad.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    Tony - I agree with most of your points, but totally disagree with your opinion on the interior - as you might expect on something that is such a matter of personal taste. I find nothing particularly appealing in curves vs straight edges, and given the straight up choice of the Taurus interior or the Azera, I MUCH preferred the Taurus. The fake wood is actually pretty nice - it has the 3D effect of the sun reflecting out of the "grain". Will it hold up? I'll find out. As for the seats, I agree it's a different feeling, and I'm expecting them to loosen up a little - they are a little stiff right now. I just took a trip down to the very end of I35 in Laredo from Austin, which is a straight shot of freeway, 3.5hrs in each direction, and the seat proved to be great - no fatigue problems at all.

    All in all the car is proving to be a great road tripper. My kid in back was able to pull the seat down to reach the cooler in the trunk, the stereo with Sirius was terrific, and the ride was great. It's still brand new, so I'm hoping fuel economy will improve - only 24mpg with the cruise at 83mph, but much better at 27.5mpg with the cruise at 76mph. It was hot as hell (100+ degrees), so the a/c was blasting, but South Texas could be described as flat.
  • tonycdtonycd Member Posts: 223
    Jontyrees, I agree with a lot of what you say. There's a reflective quality to the Taurus's polyester timber that's way more appealing than the Azera's shameless plastic or the Azera's obviously printed-on grain lines. And no doubt, my comments about interior aesthetics are 100% subjective. I'll just ask you to excuse my subjectivity with this question: Doesn't it drive you nuts when the car magazines and websites obviously pull the punch on what they really think?

    All that said, you've bought well. Happy motoring!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    agree with your points as I also believe that many times MPG claims are not a whole lot different than 'price paid' claims for many autos. An automotive equivalent of a fish story. In this particular example , the Taurus as tested by CR was noted for 'disappointing' FE (19 mpg overall) and in the same category as that other 'price leader' - the Azera. Not that this is particularily poor - both the Azera and now the Taurus are quite large cars that do get reasonable FE for both their size and their power.
    There usually is about a 15-20% FE penalty to drive 80 - as opposed to say 60 - and this type of difference will apply to not only Taurii but also to true 'economy' cars like let's say your Focus. It was this fact that became a central point in the adoption of the 55 mph speed limit not that long ago. Didn't exactly work out that way, of course - but for different reasons.
    I own an Avalon and will tell you that it is unquestionably the FE (and power) champ of this group as substantiated in any number of road and vehicle tests you might wish to reference - by credible publications AND by a good coupla mpg or so. But even IT WILL NOT get over 30 mpg at a constant 75 or 80 mph regardless of how flat the real estate. 28 or 29 perhaps - AND something closer to 21 around town as tjc78 reports. Will a Taurus (or any other car in this group ) out FE an Avalon? Not a chance. 30 mpg at 75-80? Must have been a 400 mile long downhill run from Pikes Peak to Death Valley and also at a lower speed than that 75-80!
    PS do remember those Mobil economy runs well and those drivers/cars that 'won' were those that could take proper advantage of elevation changes (ie coasting uphill AND downhill) something not practical (or safe) to do in everyday driving.
  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    30pmg at 75-80mph in a Taurus isn't completely out of the question. Mine's brand new and I had the a/c cranked, and was definitely getting 27.5mpg at 76mph on cruise control (I had just filled up and reset the computer). Give it another few thousand miles, pump the tires up and run it without the a/c on, and I could see hitting 30mpg. The 6-speed auto helps - the engine is only turning around 2k rpm at 80mph. I would expect the Avalon or Azera to get a little better mpg at higher speeds, as they look like they'd be more slippery, at least not as tall. Around town, there aren't any magic bullets for mpg - it's largely a function of weight and how hard you hit the gas pedal. All of these cars weigh somewhere around 3800lbs, so there isn't going to be much difference in gas mileage.

    ..and yes, I hate it when reviewers pull punches, or just go along with the common wisdom. So often they seem to be reviewing the nameplate, not the actual vehicle.
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Member Posts: 576
    Rambler/AMC generally won the Mobil economy runs year in and year out and we know what happened to those great little cars. Very good cars, but before their time. Will Americans tire of economy cars and return to the big power, big size as they have so often in the past?
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    All of these cars weigh somewhere around 3800lbs, so there isn't going to be much difference in gas mileage.
    actually you are a couple hundred pounds lighter (3594) in the Avalon not to mention several degrees more of engine sophistication (the i part of CVVTi as well as the variable timing on the exhaust valves as well as the intakes). The Azera has been listed at 3600 lbs. as well as at numbers approaching 3800 - but given the acceleration abilities of that particular car it would seem more likely to also weigh a good bit less than the Taurus.
    The Avalon turns 2100 rpm at 70, 2000 at 80 is down in V8 territory and is a lot of difference making me wonder if Ford isn't stretching the engine too far off its torque curve in the interest of FE - much like GM has historically abused the 3.8.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    you know that's funny - had a Rambler American long ago when they sold new for under $2 grand - 3 on the column manual (and a flathead straight 6?) but remember nothing especially remarkable about the car other than what a piece of crappola it was. Was in college at the time and appreciated the fold down seats though ;) the only memorable 'feature'.
    The American manufacturers IMO have NEVER made a 'good' economy car and have always attacked their inability to manufacture competitive smaller engines with displacement - not engineering sophistication. This has been this way for 40-50 years although thinking about it I'm inclined to give some of those Corvair engines at least a nod for effort.
    Case in point - of the cars in this group - having to pay (at the gas pumps) for a Northstar V8 in the Lucerne, and V8 in the Impala, the Hemi all to get something that will keep up with cars like the Avalon/Maxima/Azera.
  • jontyreesjontyrees Member Posts: 160
    I think "several degrees more of engine sophistication" may be stretching it. The Ford engine has VVT, although I don't know if that is applied to both intake and exhaust. The listed weights for all of them are all over the map, but you're probably right that the Ford is a 100lbs or so heavier. I didn't test drive the Avalon, as it would have been several $k more expensive, but I'm sure it's an excellent car. It's clearly what Hyundai was trying to replicate - just look at the design of the console.
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Member Posts: 576
    I looked real hard at an Avalon, but got turned off by the interior and exterior design. IMO, the Azera console, dash and so forth are very superior to the Avalon in design, funtion and so forth. I had a Camry XLE that was a great car and have a RAV4 now. Not to mention the extra 750 for Southeastern Toyota and the 700 "ToyoGuard" fabric and exterior protection, as well as no real dealing on prices for a Toyota owner!
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    MPG claims are not a whole lot different than 'price paid' claims for many autos. An automotive equivalent of a fish story. You should see the one that got away! ;)

    Seriously, folks, it is amazing to me and just a bit irritating that many of you think I am stretching the truth about the fuel economy on our recent weekend trip. Here are a few other points that you can accuse me of lying about:

    The Taurus has a 3.16 axle ratio and a .74 OD for a final drive of 2.34. At 75 MPH, it is turning around 2000 RPM. The Ford 3.5 has VVT on the intake only but overall cam timing and head design is calibrated for a sweet spot in the 1500 - 2500 RPM range. They could have gone to more expensive VVT on both intake and exhaust or recalibrated the cam and head design for more HP and more refinement at high RPM but chose not to. The point is that the Taurus gets very good fuel economy in its sweet spot - better than Ford's own 3.0 and likely better than many competitors. The Ford 3.0 will get these enhancements soon and will have HP bump to 240 and better MPG.

    The good highway mileage is nothing more exotic than a very high final drive and an engine tuned for good mileage in its sweet spot, and near perfect conditions. Keep in mind that the EPA highway mileage estimate now includes segments with speeds up to 80 MPH, AC usage, and maximum acceleration. The Taurus and Avalon are both rated at 28 highway on this cycle.

    On my weekend drive, it was 55-60 degrees so AC was not used. Traffic was light and there are no hills to speak of. Under similar conditions, for business trips to Des Moines, I have gotten 31 MPG with a rental Impala and 34.5 with a 4 Cylinder Camry. My wife's old 3.0 Duratec Taurus would get about 28.5. My Lincoln LS V8 will get 26. I repeat: Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style.

    One last thing: I make no claim that the Taurus fuel economy is stellar under all conditions. It is geared pretty deep in the first 3 gears and can suck up fuel if you put your foot in it. Stop and go traffic could easily be in the teens although I have never checked it.

    OK, sock it to me again!
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    Not to mention the extra 750 for Southeastern Toyota and the 700 "ToyoGuard" fabric and exterior protection

    I am so glad I am not in a SET area. My Yota dealer adds nothing to the price that you don't want and I leased mine ('06 Av XLS) about $500 over invoice. Not stellar but they did have to get the car from 300 miles away.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm still with ya bruce.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Thanks, Grad! This is not rocket science but old perceptions are sometimes hard for people to abandon.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style.
    no reason to get irritated at all - it is not this statement I question - heck it was even possible to better the old EPA ratings never mind those lower 'new' ones. The disbelief comes from your mileage claims at 75-80mph specifically- given that there is a significant hit (FE wise) any car will take at those speeds. Would be interested to know for sure what that engine speed actually is at 75 or 80 - one poster reports 2000 at 75, the other 2000 at 80 - even that is a significant difference, never mind that is also less than even the Toyota engine/6 speed which does have that greater flexibility allowed by that extra sophistication in the valvetrain, as you note.
    And yes, if I drive my Avalon at a constant 60 or even 65 I will see FE in the low or even mid 30s - just not at 75 or 80 - and down here in Texas - I'd be getting run over if I tried to poke along at a mere 60 mph on most of our highways ;)
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    No, I am not really irritated. I keep coming back for more!

    Specifically, the Taurus with the standard 17 inch wheels goes 37.1 MPH per 1000 RPM. That would be 74.2 MPH at 2000 RPM and 2,156 RPM at 80 - a difference of a tach needle width. I agree that those speeds take a toll versus 60. Even 80 takes quite a toll over 75. I didn't pay attention to our average speed for the trip but I usually can avoid speeding tickets on this route if I run around 76 -78 - give or take a couple of MPH. The posted limit is 70.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Running at 75, I routinely beat the OLD EPA numbers for my vehicle by 2-3 mpg, the new estimates by 6-7. I drive an off topic sedan, but I say this to say that it really IS possible as long as you aren't gunning it regularly to pass a truck or something.
  • jaymagicjaymagic Member Posts: 309
    Claim could easily be true. I am currently getting 25.8 mpg on my Azera for the last about 3500 miles (just turned over 30,000 total). This is 70/30 hwy/city and mostly between 65 and 75 MPH on the highway. I have checked (the old method) not the computer and have gotten easily between 29mpg and 31 mpg on 200 plus mile drives at 75-80 mph several times.

    When my wife used the car consistently, she was more like 60/40 city/hwy, the average dropped to about 23.6 mpg, as an average.

    I tend to drive fast, but not jack rabbit starts to get to speed.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I routinely beat the OLD EPA numbers for my vehicle by 2-3 mpg, the new estimates by 6-7
    since I know you are one of our younger posters here - I would suggest that you might also be the only '20 something' that can make this claim. ;)
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I have checked (the old method) not the computer
    which in itself can lead to inaccurate results
    These new high speed vapor recovery gas pumps will almost always shutoff well before your fuel tank is full - in the case of my Avalon 2 gallons or more - out of 18.5. So therefore if I start with a truly full tank and then 'fill up' with some quantity of fuel 2 gallons less, my calculated FE will necessarily be way high (approx. 10%) . The only way anymore to get an accurate FE calculation is to make sure that the tank is 'topped off' everytime - something that they (and the pumps) don't want us to do for obvious reasons. I really think that the trip computers in our cars may be more accurate :confuse: on a tank-by-tank basis.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    I would suggest that you might also be the only '20 something' that can make this claim.

    Captain, were you trying to fish me out? ;)

    Last time I took my IS350 on a trip I set the cruise at 85 mph and I got around 28 to 29 mpg. I have no doubt that if I slow down for just another 10 mph (75) I would have no problem brreaking the 30 mpg barrier. That's not too shabby for a 300+ hp car if you ask me...

    For your info, the new EPA estimate for my car is 19/26/21 and old estimate was 21/28/24.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    just so brucelinc doesn't feel alone - I find this hard to believe as well - 28mpg at 85mph????. The IS not a particularly light car that is further 'burdened' (from a FE perspective) by the RWD? And I think you know what I think about the FSE version of the 2GR - even more of the best! Apologies, of course, to the VQ!
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    The whole trip averaged out to be 27.8 mpg and keep in mind that's including going through I-10 in LA and bunch of traffics before I can set my cruise at 85 mph. According to the mpg meter when I was at the cruising speed it was constantly hovering around 27 to 32 mpg.

    The 2GR is phenomenal on highway both in terms of FE and performance. I don't know about the regular 2GR but the only time that my 2GR-FSE doesn't return good FE is in the city with my lead foot. I average about 19.5 mpg for my everyday driving and that's about 85% city and 15% highway.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    always thought that the direct injection on the FSE was for the extra 30 hp and if anything would hurt FE slightly - much like the latest variants of the GM 3.6 primarily in the CTS. The Avalon really doesn't need the 300 hp IMO, unlike the IS which certainly puts it to good use
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Member Posts: 576
    I agree. I checked my mileage using the computer and the old fill it till it almost overflows method. Used same station and same pump. Computer under estimated MPG by about a mile.
    Also, travelling I-40 in eastern Tennessee with cruise on 65-70, got 32 MPG per computer.
    My understanding is that EPA highway estimate is for mixture of roads with stops included, not straight interstate.
    Regardless, I have a Ford Ranger piece of junk and had a Ford Taurus. Traded the Taurus for a Camry when the tranny fell out just over 100,000 miles. Used trany would cost more than a car in very good condition was valued.
    I'll keep my Azera over any Ford product out there now, but will look at MKS - not expecting much though.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Well Captain, the 2GR is a much better engine than the Hyundai 3.8 and I can assure you that I've seen between 27-28 mpg cruising at 75. Mind you...that's resetting the FE calculator once I've reached speed. If I reset it before I start and check it when I come to a stop, overall...the FE is at about 24-25 mpg.

    Personally, I've NEVER heard of a Ford vehicle bettering a Honda or Toyota vehicle in terms of FE...NEVER.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    always thought that the direct injection on the FSE was for the extra 30 hp and if anything would hurt FE slightly

    No Captain, The FSE has dual inject, meaning it combines gasoline direct injection with traditional port injection. Using direct injection and port injection simultaneously facilitates more precise mixing of air and fuel under low and medium load conditions for greater efficiency, while high load conditions dictate the use of direct injection alone for maximum power.

    Source: Toyota GR Engine

    As far as I know currently the 2GR-FSE is the only engine to incorporate this technology, that really shows Toyota's dedication for both performance and FE.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Ha, this is likely true. But, as a twenty-something, I'm not rolling in cash, so it makes a difference.

    And yes, most of my friends say I drive like "paw-paw," but they always line up to ride with me instead of going with someone else. I guess there's something to be said for safe driving.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,856
    I average about 19.5 mpg for my everyday driving

    I don't feel that bad about my 21 - 22 in my Avalon. FWIW I tend to have a lead foot too. The 2GR is just so sweet above 3500 RPM I just can't resist when I have an open lane!

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    Re Toyota prices, etc
    Yeah, it seems that the Southeastern Toyota conglomorate or whatever it is insists on ripping off the public by establishing those REQUIRED EXTRAS and they don't like being forced to admit it. As long as they insist on stealing that money from the public, I for one will never consider another Toyota, regardless of their offerings. Also I have found out local Pensacola dealer to not be the most gracious of service departments either. At one time our family had 4 Toyotas, now NONE.
Sign In or Register to comment.