Howdy, Stranger!

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





2010 Ford Taurus

11112141617

Comments

  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Yes, they were a screaming deal.

    We bought a 2008 SEL new for around $19,000 just for my wife's work car/grocery getter. I was amazed that I enjoyed driving it more than the Lincoln LS that I had at the time. Even though outdated in appearance, it rides, drives and performs better than current Impalas, Chargers, etc. If we need to go somewhere with 3 other people, we leave the new MKS at home and take her Taurus due to the huge back seat and trunk.

    If we were to replace it today, we would look really hard at a Fusion, though.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The only demerit I see against the previous models (and the current ones) is that they feel as big as they are. Some vehicles "drive small" like the current, bloated Accord; the Taurus pitches and dives under heavy acceleration and braking, making it feel like more of a boat than it really is. Beyond that, the handling is secure if not fun.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Yes, I agree that the 2008s and 2009s were not great handlers. Part of the issue for me is the high seating position. It just feels top heavy and the soft suspension gives a lot of body roll.

    I think the 2010s handle quite a bit better. I have had a couple of them as rentals and they are tighter handling and the seating position seems lower. The '08s and '09s are nice interstate cruisers, though. Also the soft suspension on the olders ones does a nice job of soaking potholes and broken pavement.
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    Right now I am currently driving a 2010 Ford Taurus rental car. It's an SEL with leather, sunroof, etc. I'm very impressed with the way this Taurus drives. I never got to drive the 2008-2009 year model Taurus a/k/a Ford 500, so I have no comparisons to make. I did drive a few Taurus rental models from the generation before the 500. I never liked that generation model at all. In fact, I used to cringe when I would be given one for a rental car. Well, the 2010 is light years different! I'm amazed at how quiet the engine and the ride is! I used my iPod and the satellite radio for the whole seven-hour drive, and the stereo sounded great. It definitely seemed to make that seven-hour drive go a lot faster. Again, very impressed!
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    edited June 2010
    It depends, Allen, on what is viewed as competition. Certainly the Taurus excels if it is compared with the Chevy Impala (or even the Chrysler 300). However, the Taurus has aspired to move higher in the market, and its price points and equipment levels reflect that. Car and Driver did a comparison recently:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q2/buick_lacrosse_vs._ford_tau- - - rus_hyundai_genesis_lexus_es350-comparison_tests

    The Taurus Limited does fall in a similar price range to the Lacrosse CXS, the ES350 and the Genesis. Thus, sometimes they will be cross-shopped. Although the magazine did have some nice things to say about the Taurus, the analysis started off by saying:

    In this group, the Taurus is the longest car by far, the tallest by far, the widest by far, with the greatest front and rear tracks and the greatest weight. Jeez, this corn-fed bull is 368 pounds heavier than the Lexus. None of which is necessarily a deal breaker, except for this: its Duratec V-6 produces the least horsepower and torque. The Ford was thus slowest to 60 mph, was slowest in a rolling start to 60 mph, and—compared with, say, the Lexus—was hung out to dry in the left lane an extra 1.3 seconds during 50-to-70-mph passing maneuvers. All voters complained that the Taurus felt bulky, was reluctant to respond quickly, and was happy only when it was toeing a straight and not-so-narrow line. Nor did it help that the Taurus’s brake pedal was spongy. The steering was numb on-center and didn’t have much to report off-center, either. In addition, the V-6, abetted by road noise coming up through the Limited’s 19-inch Goodyear Eagle RS-As, coughed up the greatest racket at a 70-mph cruise.

    Now, we all should of course be applauding that they saw fit to compare the Taurus directly with the Genesis and Lexus; I don't think that would have happened with the 500 or the 08-09 Taurus. But as you say Allen, it is still a work in progress, and the next iteration should address some of the very things complained about in this comparison
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,741
    I don't understand it when people complain about the base engine being underpowered when the SHO is available. I'm also sure the SHO would have still been cheaper than the Genesis and the ES350 and would have outperformed them by a wide margin. The Buick would have still been the bargain of the bunch though.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Actually, when you look at the prices, an SHO would probably have been more expensive as delivered than the others in this comparo.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,741
    Nope - a similarly equipped SHO is $42K - same as the Genesis and the ES350. The Buick is cheaper.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    The base engine of the Taurus is not underpowered, unless one is a hot-rodder. The new base engine of the LaCrosse is underpowered: 2.4 4 cylinder. Also, if back seat comfort is important, the back seat of the Taurus is more comfortable. The trunk of the Lacrosse is puny, too. But it is a beautiful car. But then, so is the Taurus.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    True enough...the article was only saying that in this comparison, the Taurus was heavy and slower than the others...it is all relative. And the new base engine choice for the Lacrosse is wonderful. I hope soon that every manufacturer will offer us the choice of a reasonably powerful 4 cylinder for larger cars. As you say, not everyone is a hot-rodder, and the 4's available now have more hp than many of the V8s from the 90s. It wasn't too long ago that 200 hp from a V8 was considered more than adequate, even for a Cadillac. Now, the Buick 4 is almost that much and the Hyundai Sonata is 200 hp naturally aspirated (the turbo version is 274 hp).

    The trunk of the Lacrosse IS puny. A car that size could easily have a 16 or 17 cubic ft trunk without being any longer than it is. The shorter 2011 Regal has a bigger trunk than the Lacrosse. If Buick had engineered it a bit differently with a slightly bigger trunk, the Lacrosse would be considered full-size by the EPA, and have as much or more room than the Taurus (the Lacrosse back seat is already bigger than that in the Taurus), even with its trimmer length, width and height. On the other hand, with no magic, a car the size of the Taurus should be able to have a ginormous interior to match its trunk (still don't know why all that bulk doesn't translate into more interior room than the Lacrosse).
  • c2c35c2c35 Posts: 37
    I think all that car and driver's got is good pic's!!! They test all the other top of the line models except for the taurus SHO! DUH!!! :confuse: You know I actually saw one of those La crosse's sitting right next to both a fusion and a taurus at the dealership I bought my taurus and, i actually thought that buick was gonna try to take on the fusion this year! the lacrosse is more the size of the fusion than the taurus! I really don't know where the info is coming from that the new 2010 taurus is a "led sled" Mine corners on railes and with the paddle shifters and even with just leaving it in auto it boogies like crazy! I get nothing but compliments from people with bmw's ect askin bout it. When i went to buy my new car I actually went to get a fusion sport awd v-6, until i saw my taurus and drove her first and it was all over! All I have to tell all of ya's out there that are sceptics about the 2010 taurus you have to drive one for your self!!!! Don't listen to some one else complain about it. I betcha youll fall in love with it!!! :)
  • c2c35c2c35 Posts: 37
    I just read in a motor trend ( i believe mag) well any way it was saying that the 2012 taurus should come out with the 4 cyl turbo! I guess the days of the v 8's are goin bye bye! Too bad Dodge! Speaking of Dodge, it looks like Dodge is going to loose out on the police package cop cars here soon! Did anyone see the Concept police intercepter taurus? (ITS BAD)
  • c2c35c2c35 Posts: 37
    Ya know your absolutely right!!! I definitely can't argue with that at all! Expecially someone who goes out to by a stripped SE or no badge, compared to a loaded SEL or LTD to SHO. The rim size come down to what kind of driving you want to do. If you like the overall car but not the rim package due to the stiffer ride your salesman should be able to do something about that for you. You can also ask the dealership to put a touring tire on the rim to get a better ride quality instead of a all weather high speed rated tire. It's worth a shot.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    Test drove and SEL and an SHO. Vast improvement over the last Taurus. This car has features found on cars costing thousands more. The SHO was a blast to drive. This car handled like it was on rails. Out of the gate acceleration was strong and consistent. Quiet, comfortable. Taurus will be a winner for Ford.
  • esfoadesfoad Posts: 210
    It's already a winner, at least in my book. My SHO has 12000 miles and has been flawless.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,930
    I read the article a while back and the Taurus tested was an AWD model, while others were FWD.
    I am sure that accounted for some of the relative slowness and higher fuel consumption. No adverse weather conditions tested.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Of course that accounts for the difference.

    What I don't understand is that a car as wide as the Taurus doesn't offer at least 60" of shoulder room, nor why the Lacrosse and Avalon can offer more rear seat leg room, even though they are shorter cars. The Taurus, thankfully, has gone from a bloated-looking, non-descript design to something that is actually attractive. But why does a car that is still taller than most others in its class, and still longer (save the Buick Lucerne by 10ths of an inch), come out with less rear legroom and interior width than several nothing-special full-size cars that are physically smaller?

    http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1008_35000_full_size_sedans/index.ht- ml

    I think with the Taurus's current presence and bulk that it should be practically the roomiest car on the road. It's trunk space is undeniably huge. But most of us don't ride in the trunk.
  • Leg room is not everything in determining back seat comfort. Even though the Lacrosse has a little more, its seat is not as well made or shaped. Go sit in them both and then make some comments. I have. The Taurus is more comfortable in the back. And the puny trunk of the Lacrosse does matter when taking a trip.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,930
    I agree, but I usually don't sit in the back seat. My Fusion seems to have a roomier rear seat area.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    It is the interior width that seems most odd to me. The Taurus is very wide, but doesn't seem to offer any more side to side space than cars the Fusion.

    The legroom overall in the Taurus is a mere 0.6 inch more than in the Fusion (even though the Fusion is several inches shorter in wheelbase and also shorter in height), The Taurus only offers 0.5 inch more shoulder room than the Fusion. I am not saying the Taurus rear seat is not comfortable. I am saying that the car could have offered even more interior room--more commensurate with its bulk--if the interior had been better designed to offer more space.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,741
    I think they just let the stylists have their way with the vehicle to make a bold visual statement (as much as possible with a 4 door family sedan) without much time to figure out a compromise to offer style and interior room/functionality. If you remember they did a whole new tophat and interior in just 24 months, start to finish. I just don't think they had time.

    Although if the reports are true that the Fusion/Mondeo and Taurus will use a shared CD4 platform (stretched for the Taurus much like the Avalon) then maybe it won't ever be that much bigger.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,930
    edited September 2010
    One thing that can't be easily measured is how much of a tank the the Taurus is.
    A guy at work had a 500 which took a huge broadside hit. His family walked away and he immediately bought another one.
    Years ago, we had a big accident with our Expedition. Not only were we well protected, despite having the left front suspension knocked off, there was no damage to the drive train. Since it none of it extended below the frame, it suffered no damage.
    BTW, after stopping to figure out what just happened, I drove it a ways down the road without a left front wheel to an overpass so my family wouldn't get wet when they got out of it.
    My point is, sometimes safety takes precedence over some statistic.
  • c2c35c2c35 Posts: 37
    i dont know about the fusion being almost comparable to the taurus. Before i bought my taurus sel i took out a fusion awd sport w the leather. it just felt like a small car all the way around. dont get me wrong it deffinitely had more snot than any other car in it's class!! but as soon as i sat in the taurus's "cockpit" It just fit perfect! I used to have an 05 500 ltd awd and i do know what yur sayn about the back seat roomyness. Just last week my SEL went into the shop and they gave me a fusion se as a loaner. All i have to say is THANK GOD I BOUGHT MY TAURUS!!! LOL!! No one was comfortable in the fusion. Oh well! I still think that Ford hit a home run with the Taurus! Except i don't think that if you buy a SE taurus or a stripped Taurus there should be a less powerfull motor package just like the fusion. So the one's like us who spent the money for the LTD's and SEL's can defintely stand out.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Yes, Allen, I suspect that is what happened. Plus, the architecture that underlies the Taurus/MKS/Flex just seems to have been designed a bit narrow inside overall, as compared to exterior width.

    The F150 is only 2.5" wider than the Taurus, but offers nearly 8 more inches of interior width. And it is not because the F150 has flimsy doors. I believe the 1990-97 Town Car offered about 64" shoulder room, and that had thick doors too. Anyway, Taurus is a roomy car, but could easily be roomier. One of those things they can work on for the next iteration.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,741
    I believe this may be why Ford is considering ditching D3 for cars and going with a stretched (and maybe widened) CD4 platform. That's what they did to the Mazda platform to get the CD3 platform so it shouldn't be that hard and should produce a better product with lower overall costs. D3/D4 should still work fine for CUVs and SUVs.
  • I agree with what you say. The Fusion is a very good car, but it feels like a step down when cruising on the freeway. The Taurus is much more solid feeling and quieter. The previous Taurus was very roomy, but everyone knocked its bland styling. Well, the styling was fixed and, yes, some room was lost. In town, i would rather drive the smaller Fusion, but the Taurus is better looking inside and out and is very comfortable. So, folks, SET YOUR PRIORITIES, test drive, and choose..
  • podpod Posts: 176
    The major issue I had when sitting in the new Taurus was the "center console" which extended from the dash to seatback plane and was wide as well. My right leg wished it wasn't there. It is so big and awkward that it reminded me of a bad construction job where they "boxed in" plumbing or air ducts. The other aspects of the car were coherent but the center console looked like someone had jammed an undersized black coffin between the front seats. It was obtrusive and, for the most part, full of empty space.
  • We live up in the frozen north, and my daughter took her new 2010 Taurus to the dealer for a change of oil to synthetic blend. They told her that the car shipped with the blend already in it. How likely is this? They were adamant.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,676
    I am under the impression that a good number of automakers now fill their new cars with synthetic oil from Day 1...cannot speak for the Taurus per se, but the concept of the manufacturer using synthetic in the new car is not out of the ordinary...

    Consider going to a Ford dealer and looking thru a Taurus brochure...I would bet somewhere in it they will state what is in it, since it would be an advertising point to say "Can now go over 5000 miles between oil changes" or something like that...
  • My 2008 Sable (Taurus twin) came with the synthetic blend. The Ford/Mercury dealers use synthetic blend for changes. They set the oil life monitor for 5000 miles/six months.
Sign In or Register to comment.