Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
What Are Your Thoughts on the Return of the Taurus/Sable?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Also, I choose to clarify something. By the term Super Duty Superiority, it has been the best-selling truck for the last, what, 30 years? I also read somewhere that the F-150 outsells the Tundra by about 8 to 1. It also outsells the Ridgeline by about 13 to 1 (I don't remember where I read this).
As for the Ranger, I'm telling you (Ford), KEEP THE NAME THIS TIME, redesign the truck, get rid of the two-door Supercab, and add a four-door. That's it. If I were designing a car for production, I would look at that market for a few years, take all of the good features, put them in, take the bad, improve them, and make one innovation.
Only time will tell what Ford will do. Let's take for example, the outdated Ford Freestar. I thought it was a DECENT minivan, but it lacked (in my opinion) two major features. Those were 2nd-row power windows and a split-folding third row. Moving a kid in college and only having one who does sports (soccer), the one-piece is livable. But, at least as an upgrade, a split should be forseen. As for the windows, that alone could steer me toward the Hyundai Entourage or almost new Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey. That alone WOULD DEFINITELY keep me from buying it, unless it has a rebate that made it only, $12000. I saw a loaded SEL 4.2L V6 (2006) with 21000 miles on it, for $14K.
I still think the Taurus is good, but the Freestyle only needed a better engine. At least it was fuel efficient. Why Taurus X? How about... oh, forget it. May as well call it Tempo or Escort. I mean, Ford Taurus X Limited SEL AWD has NO RING to it.
As for nobody knows about em - you're right about that. Our friend autoextremist said not long ago that GMs marketing dept was going to take Ford to school on how to introduce a new car with it's efforts for the new Malibu. It looks to me right now that he was right again. Has anyone NOT seen the ads for the 'car you can't ignore'? And the Malibu reviews are calling it 'better than GM says it is'. I've always been a Ford man, but that was because there was always reason to be. GM seems to really have it's act together now. We'll see when the data comes in. Ford doing well with reliability right now at least with the Mexican-made cars.
So, the Taurus ad was the first thing I saw.
Maybe they think like me? People will actually go TEST DRIVE vehicles, and discover FOR THEMSELVES which cars are great, and don't really NEED advertising? :P
The Fusion is a good car and is worthy of strong sales but I think the advertising campaign helped it - the one where they had people comparing Camrys, Accords and Fusions. I don't want to argue about the validity or the way the comparison was set up but it did draw attention to the Fusion. Likewise the Edge ads comparing it to Lexus and BMW drew favorable attention to the Edge. It is selling well.
I think that in a head to head comparison with a V6 Impala, Charger, or 300, the Taurus would kick their butts in every area except maybe styling. The Camry and Accord are in a bit different class but buyers should be persuaded to cross-shop a Taurus. I think many would be impressed with the driving experience and quality - not to mention the safety ratings and roominess.
Unlike you and I, many people will not bother test driving a Taurus because they are still thinking it is the old rental car version. Ford needs to enlighten them!
I think bringing back the Taurus was a great idea. My kid made a clock in wood fab saying, "Honor the Taurus, the Bull's Life is on Edge" with a last-gen Taurus wagon on it THE DAY BEFORE THEY BROUGHT THE TAURUS BACK. Wow. Ironic.
Geee, I wonder why they don't sell any? :P
I had a nice visit with the General Manager of the dealership and he admitted that he made a mistake by stocking so many loaded Limiteds. He thinks the price was just more than most buyers were willing to pay for a Taurus so many just dismissed it. I still think the Limited is a fine value for all you get but it is hard for a buyer who is thinking low to mid $20s to even consider jumping to a $30,000 plus vehicle.
As thegraduate said earlier, price is important in the 4-door family sedan class.
However, I don't like the so called "bling" that Ford has applied to the new Taurus. The clear tail light lens, and the chrome appliqué on the sides . . . I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really dislike clear tail light lenses - leave that baloney to the 20-something specialty tuners with their Hondas.
Also, I've never looked upon the Five Hundred or new Taurus as a behemoth. In fact, when you set it side-by-side to the new generation Accord or Camry, it's not overly large at all - the seating position is just higher - which is actually good for a lot of folks.
Since J Mays designed the VW Passat, and the Five Hundred, I like both profiles. In reality, Mays penned the Five Hundred as simply a larger scale Passat. Conservative, yes, but I like conservative . . . it never goes out of style, because it was never in style to begin with!
Fire the Marketing VPs
I haven't in months. Probably because the Five Hundred is no longer on sale.
Can anyone that traded a Five Hundred for a 2008 Taurus comment on real life FE experience?
Your 99 is 8 to 9 years old already. You likely got a nice chunk off the MSRP when you first purchased it. Your tradein is probably still worth $1800, and in some instances you might get more if the dealer is really anxious to sell you something. In other words, your car is still worth approximately 10% of what you paid after nine years. Not bad for a nondescript car that was never a big seller.
Now, had you bought a 99 Camry for 4 or 5K more, you'd now have a car with a tradein value anywhere from $3700 to $4300, depending on condition and equipment. So you would not be money ahead. Actually, you are better off financially having bought the Sable. (Of course, this does not figure in how much greater ownership satisfaction might have been worth to you...and only you can determine that.)
Resale on bread and butter mid-size cars is more or less based on the price paid at initial purchase. Heavily discounted cars with lots of rebates and incentives necessarily must have less resale value. But even with that, these cars are often the prudent purchase, because the better resale of an Accord or Camry just helps offset the higher price you paid on initial purchase. In most cases you are not actually money ahead just because your car has a higher resale value.
I just tested that theory.
I priced out a 1999 Ford Taurus SE 4-dr sedan with the 3.0L V6, dark blue, with 100,000 miles on it, in average condition. Private Party Sale price from Edmunds was $1722
I then priced out a 1999 Toyota Camry XLE V6 4-dr sedan (3.0L engine), dark blue, with 100,000 miles on it, in average condition. Private Party Sale price from Edmunds was $4045
Difference = $2,323
Since when is 5 miles per gallon "basically the same?"
(referring to the MGM) V8 vs V6 and probably a better ride. Possibly more reliable
Possibly less reliable. Speculation with no basis doesn't help anybody in reality. That V8 is slower and much more thirsty than the Sable's V6, making it a detriment, not an advantage.
Due to the ancient suspension and powertrain (well, the whole car is incredibly dated), I'd be willing to bet that the Taurus/Sable accelerate faster (they have more power and a better transmission to run through : 6 gears vs. 4), get better economy (the EPA found that the Grand Marquis got 3 MPG less than the Sable in town, 5 MPG less on the highway), and due to the independent suspension in the Sable, it's ride and handling are a lot better controlled and much less floaty than the old girl.
The Sable weighs 500 lbs less and is nearly a foot shorter in overall length (important for parking in length-restricted garages), yet manages to be more roomy.
The Grand Marquis is a big car, but the Sable/Taurus offers more combined legroom front and rear, as well as more trunk space. The dated interior design in the MGM is a tough sell against the Sable as well. There's a reason Mercury is dumping more than half of these vehicles to fleets - they just aren't competitive with anything these days.
If you are getting a Grand Marquis for $15k or so, it's probably a good buy. A Taurus can be had for less than $20k however, and is a much better vehicle overall.
Hold it; you're talking about a 2000 Sable - a COMPLETELY different car made to compete with the likes of Accord, Camry, Oldsmobile Intrigue, etc... the midsize players. It was not made to compete against the full sizers (at the time these included vehicles like the Buick Park Avenue) in power/ride/equipment. The 2008 Sable is a completely different animal - so much so that the old Sable (which was based off of a design that debuted in 1995 as a 1996 model) should not even be in the same sentence as the new one.
Also, keep in mind that the Town Car will have different tuning, therefore different ride and handling than the Grand Marquis. A Honda Accord and an Acura TL are on the same platform as well, but they drive like two very different cars.
Based on sticker price the GM is less money for the Sable for the same equipment.
If all a car is to you is a list of equipment and a price, then the GM is all yours. I've already listed the ways in which the Sable beats the Grand Marquis at its own game - power, economy, room, smaller exterior, technology, driving experience in general. Even on paper, the Sable excels in most areas. The only thing the GM has going for it is price and a dated design which people who hate change deem as a "safe" choice - because its the same technology and design that's been around forever.
Does the Grand Marquis offer 6 airbags or Stability Control (not talking about traction control - that's a different thing)?
Another reason the name change from Montego was STOOPID.
- If you're a woman (that's their target demographic).
- or you like the Mercury grille better.
Else, they're exactly the same. Makes one wonder what IS the reason for Mercury.
1) Exterior styling differences that are obvious (grilles, fake side vents on Taurus, none on Sable). I think the Sable has the edge here.
2) The fake wood on the Sable is a "colder" color than on the Taurus. I prefer the warmer feel of the Taurus interior.
3) Sable comes with the analog clock. Base Taurus does not. Edge to Sable.
4) Sable steering wheel spokes are silvery metal-like stuff. Taurus spokes are leather covered. A draw as far as I'm concerned; our son liked the Sable steering wheel better.
5) The interior convenience group on the Sable is $100 less than on the Taurus, and it includes power pedals. However, the price of the base Sable is a few hundred dollars more than the Taurus. Depending on how you equip the cars, the Taurus and the Sable can cost almost exactly the same.
The differences are pretty minor. We ended up getting a Taurus mainly because we found one equipped exactly how we wanted it (base model with ESC only), and I didn't like the colder feel of the Sable interior.
I have that awful analog clock on my Five Hundred (but not on my Freestyle). I hate the stupid thing, and I certainly don't need it since the radio has a clock. It's cheap-looking.
I say, Advantage Taurus!
Another clear Taurus victory. Who the heck wnats silvery metal-like steering wheels?
You're right, of course, Gregg. The differences are very minor. The purpose of my post simply was to highlight those minor differences in case anyone was interested.
I still love my 500. I like my local dealership. I don't much care for Ford corporate these days though. Their dumb decisions have affected me and all other owners. Pretty much resale is down the drain. Not because it's a bad car. But because of bad decisions made at a corporate level.
Accord as "very good" and that of the 2008 Taurus as "good". You should be able to get the Taurus now at a very good price, at least $4k off MSRP after rebates. I recently bought a Mercury Sable, a clone of the Taurus and got a very good deal. http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f166af7/23
Now Ford. The name change thing. This is just an indication that Ford really has no idea what they are doing anymore. Ford thinks they still create markets and set standards for others to follow. They are lying to themselves and worse...believing it! Case in point, a few years ago I was talking with a Ford company official and we were talking about the 500. She was proud as a peacock about Ford's new sedan and its "revolutionary" CVT transmission. I politely said to her "I'm glad to hear Ford is exploring new ideas and designs, but the 500 is already outclassed before it even goes on sale." She replied "What do you mean?" I said "Well, since 2002 for example, Nissan has had a 250 hp sedan with some flashy styling that drives really well and gets good mileage and is available with an automatic or a manual transmission which allows them to cover the market more broadly. I'm not convinced a 200 hp sedan with a CVT transmission will be seen as a serious competitor" She said "What car is that?" At this point I was thinking to myself "Oh my God, what rock have you been hiding under?" The Nissan Altima, you know, the one that has been getting Car of the Year awards, etc. Apparently, Ford is not aware of their competitors because they believe they have none. At times I think they feel as though if they do have competitors, they are only Chrysler and GM. Therefore, as long as their garbage is at least as good as the other's garbage then all is well in Detroit. The really crazy part is Ford has dropped their horrible CVT and the competitors they didn't think they had are building CVT's that are everything Ford wished it's could have been. Nice job Ford. Henry would be proud.
Ford, you're getting what you deserve unfortunately. I hope you are reading this.