Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2010 Ford Taurus

prigglypriggly Posts: 642
Anyone know anything about the new upcoming 2010 Ford Taurus, especially if there is to be an SHO variant?
«13456710

Comments

  • I read online that they are going to offer a new engine called eco-boost, and the new Taurus is going to have a SHO option. The new pictures shows a vast improvement over the 2009 Taurus with the inside looking very Accord like. I will definitely consider one when I buy my next car.
  • gmhellmangmhellman Posts: 121
    I have been a GM man most of my life. The one ford that I had bought was a 1990 Ford Ranger that burst into flames in a parking lot, turned out the hole in the firewall for the main wiring harness was still rough metal and did not have the protective barrier on it. Ford then tried to blame me when my ins company went to them for a reimbursement. I swore that I would never buy Ford again. This vehicle is so beautifal and so fulll on new technology that I am considering it for my next car. I own a 1994 olds 09 with 600000 miles on it. But, I am going to need a replacement soon, stuff is beginning to fall apart. I can't wait to sit in it and take it for a test drive. I am really interested in the ecoboost motor.
  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Posts: 1,289
    Wow! Good looking! This Taurus really has the chance to bring Ford back just like the original did in the late 1980's. The styling is all there, much better looking outside and in compared to most of it's competition. And especially better looking than both the Accord and Camry. Hope the interior materials are at least on par with those 2. And let's it hope it drives as good as it looks!
  • Both the Ford Taurus and Buick LaCrosse have done fantastic redesign this year. Can't wait to try them both out. I am comparing Taurus and LaCrosse A. Because there will be no Sable and B. The Current Chevy Impala is not close to this at all. Great job Ford!
  • With the new lower roof line, will the high "command seating" be gone, along with the easy entry and superior visibility?
  • I would expect the "Command Seating" will be retained. Entry and exit ease will not be a problem either.

    Visibility WILL be compromised. They've gone to a quasi-300C profile with a higher beltline. The look is sharp but outward visibility would have to be reduced to a degree. Only time behind the wheel will tell how much.

    This is a vast improvement over the current model any way you slice it.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The roofline is not significantly lower...like the Lincoln MKS, they restyled the same architecture to make it look less dumpy/dowdy. It is still a tall sedan.
  • asdf9asdf9 Posts: 26
    It's about time ford! Instead of your junk Ford Taurus X and the Ford 500, you should of built this first. Then you might not be in the financial disaster your facing now. Who ever designed it you should buy them a house. I like the look, the rear of the car I will have to get used too but it definitely is a start. But $25,995 MSRP? See that is why I bought a Subaru. My all wheel drive will still beat the car in gas mileage. I expect 18/28 for that Taurus.

    And when the Crown Victoria police interceptor is retired, expect to see this Taurus with big 18 inch black wheels, a lightbar and siren driving around perhaps your town. That big 20 cubic feet trunk, 202 inch length and Horsepower like the Crown Victoria screams, "FLEET SALES."
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Ford is just fine financially assuming the economy doesn't get any worse. Don't confuse Ford with GM and Chrysler.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    Yeah, I agree. And if Ford would build this Taurus in the first place they would be in trouble anyway. I mean, everyone suffers these days, including the Japanese manufacturers. So don't blame Ford. "It's the economy, stupid!"

    I think that all Fords have too big steering wheels. And all American cars, for that matter, The Imports have better designed steering wheels, smaller, and better integrated controls than Ford's design.

    Also the Taurus, and many recent Ford designs, have too busy dashboards with too many similar buttons. Recent Honda/Acura's does the same and they get a lot of critics. Remember, the simpler the better. More dials than buttons. And the buttons/dials should be big! Take the Toyota Highlander for an example. How beautiful interior!

    I also don't like the fonts (typefaces) Ford is using on their buttons and especially their gauges. But that is my personal taste.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    But $25,995 MSRP? See that is why I bought a Subaru. My all wheel drive will still beat the car in gas mileage. I expect 18/28 for that Taurus.

    Those things have nothing to do with each other. Did you buy the Subaru because of the price, the all-wheel drive, or the gas mileage? There's no competitor for the Taurus from Subaru.

    Maybe it was happy hour? :blush:

    1.) The price is fully competitive with other full-size sedans on the market with this level of equipment.

    2.) The best Subaru on the market won't match the power/fuel economy balance that the Taurus has, thanks to its AWD. The closest economy comes from the Impreza AWD (20/27 vs. Taurus at 18/28) but is compact, and is down by 93 horsepower from the current Taurus.
  • richt5richt5 Posts: 43
    I like the looks of the new Taurus , but think its really over priced. I know its a big car , much bigger than the original Taurus. But the original car sold very well because of its value ( a lot of car for the money). Edmunds lists pricing starting at $32k and SHO version is said to start about $38k. There are too many really good proven cars-- entry level luxury type in this price range. A local Ford/Mercery dealer here in Florida is selling new crown vics/ Mercury Marquis for $17700 . A full sized car and better rear wheel drive. I know this is real old technology , but these cars go 200000 miles or more. What Im trying to show is how out of line the 2010 Taurus pricing is. Pricing at base of 23k- 25k would be more in line. I dont think Ford will sell many at its present offering. Too bad Its really a nice car. I almost think edmunds maybe wrong in its pricing.But they are usually right.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    What's out of line is your info. The 2010 Taurus will start at $25,995, last I checked.

    Edmunds got it wrong this time! :)
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The Taurus pricing structure is right in line with other large cars. It is a bargain compared to the Buick Lucerne for example, but it offers better, more updated tech and features. The original Taurus was what the Fusion is now, and Ford doesn't need two Fusions.

    People will be able in this market to pick up a well-equipped new Taurus for low to mid 20s. And the SHO is a bargain as well for any sedan with 365 hp. Makes me wonder why people would pay the extra for the Lincoln MKS.

    The Crown Vics (reliable as they may be) are so cheap because they are moving them out, because the tooling was paid for back in the dark ages, and because they are such old tech..solid rear axle, not particularly quiet, shuddery-juddery structure, inferior safety (no stability control, fewer airbags). Not to mention they are ugly and inefficient (huge overhangs with a relatively tight back seat), have huge seam gaps and cheapo interiors. On resale, they are worthless.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    This does open the door for the MKS to move a little further upmarket, although I'm not sure what more they can do on the current platform.

    It also points out that you don't need a Mercury model in between the Ford and Lincoln vehicles.
  • People will be able in this market to pick up a well-equipped new Taurus for low to mid 20s. And the SHO is a bargain as well for any sedan with 365 hp. Makes me wonder why people would pay the extra for the Lincoln MKS.

    The SHO and Ecoboost MKS have some things in common but there are important differences, too. The SHO will be positioned as a sportier, high performance model with firmer suspension, small spoiler, and sportier interior than the Taurus Limited model. OTOH, the Ecoboost package in the MKS really adds nothing particularly sporty to the base MKS - other than a lot more power. You can get an optional "appearance" package on the Ecoboost MKS that adds some sporty doo-dads but otherwise it is more luxury biased rather than sports sedan.

    If I were in the market for just a base MKS, I would certainly have to give the Taurus Limited some consideration, though.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    Look at it this way: The Taurus is an MKS wiith a $15,000 discount because the Lincoln emblems are not present.

    The Taurus is a large vehicle, so it should be compared with other large vehicles (Lucerne, DTS, S-Class, 7-Series, Genesis, Avalon, LS, and so forth). People who do not need a large vehicle will save money and save gas with one of the numerous mid-sized vehicle choices (Fusion, Camry, Accord, 6, 5-Series, C-Class, Altima/Maxima, Malibu/G6/Aura/9-3, LaCrosse, CTS, Passat, and on and on).
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    I think the pricing of the 2010 Taurus is appropriate. However, i am dismayed to see that they will put 45v tires on the Limited. that means the best ride and noise levels are on the SE and SEL where not all the desirable equipment is available. Kind of stupid. i would prefer the SEL because of the 55h series tires, but it has a one CD base player. If you want the Sony outfit, you must buy the unpleasant tires. I guess they figure you need a more powerful stereo to compensate for the increased road noise!!!
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Most dealers will swap them for you. You should wait and test drive both just to be safe - there might not be as much difference as you're expecting.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    Taurus at the Atlanta Auto Show today...looks impressive, esp next to the 2009 Taurus, which I drove as a loaner car and was mildly impressed with it...the 2010 was roped off on a pedestal, we could look but not touch or sit...is there a direct LIncoln version of the 2010, or will the MKS continue to look like the 2009 Taurus???
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Um, the MKS is the version of the 2010 Taurus I believe.

    Sing with me! One of these things is not like the other...

    image
    image
    image
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The photos show that the MKS bears a lot more relationship with the 2010 Taurus than the 2009 Taurus. However, it is too bad that the proportions and shapes and lines of the MKS are not actually more like the 2010 Taurus. The MKS added to the front overhang and deleted some cabin space, and for what? It is not an outstanding design--though it is better than the 2009 Taurus/Montego, It is not as balanced and fresh as the 2010 Taurus. They were stuck with it, as it was far along in development, before Ford realized the depth of the trouble they were in. It is selling ok for what it is, and thank goodness Lincoln at least has this model to market now. Hopefully, more innovative stuff, like the Concept C (even if you hate it, it is a new direction and shows real creativity) is in the pipeline...cuz the MKS doesn't have any long-term staying power.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Yep - the only thing they had time to change on the MKS was the nose. I expect a mid cycle refresh to clean up the rest like they did on the Taurus. But I wouldn't expect it to look just like the Taurus body. In fact I'm sure it won't share ANY sheetmetal. Now when's the last time you could have predicted that about a Lincoln sharing a Ford platform?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    You have to go back to the Crown Vic and Town Car. The TC got its own wheelbase, body panels, interior...even a different windshield. About time Ford-Lincoln returns to that sort of differentiation. Good to see.
  • fdcapt2fdcapt2 Posts: 122
    :) I've been doing lots of research on the SHO, as well as the Limited. They seem to be well designed cars, and the interior is very nice. I'm having a tough time thinking about what I might miss on my '06 Passat V6. This car has everything, and then some. Prior to 2003, all my cars were either Ford or Mercury products. I really don't have many complaints on the VW, or the car before it, a '03 Acura TL. I always preached buy American, and now it looks like I might do just that, again. Anyone with some input, feel free to give me your thoughts. Thanks.....

    John
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    I understand your position. Tha last American car I owned was a 73 Pontiac Grand Am. Swore I'd never buy another Big 3 product after my many expensive problems with it; and the crappiest service I've ever experienced. There's been 15 new cars since that time, all Japanese; & they've all run 150 - 200,000 miles without a problem.

    That said, I'm looking forward to seriously evaluating the 10 Fusion & Taurus, Lincoln MKZ; & the New Buick Lacrosse - If GM is still around. Timing is right for me; the 06 Avalon is coming up on 150,000 in a couple of months & if any of these cars are as good as they appear to be I might just give the big 2 - forget Chrysler - another chance.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Why not buy American? The cars are just as good and the prices are often better.Sure, American cars were crappier in the 1970s (30 to 40 years ago...how is that relevant now?), and even into the 1980s and early 1990s. But there is no reason to believe you will have a better experience buyiing a Mazda6 over a Fusion or an ES350 over a 2010 LaCrosse. The 2010 Taurus should be a reliable winner as well.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Posts: 136
    I am definitely looking forward to checking out the new SHO. I sold my '94 SHO in 2001 w/108K miles. I really liked that car. Unfortunately there was not much else around that was American made that would compare. So I bought a 2001 Audi A6 2.7T w/6-speed. I'm holding on to the Audi until I can drive the SHO. If its as good as the write-ups seem to suggest I'll buy American again.
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    That's exactly why I"m willing to give them a close look this time. I drive 40-50,000 miles a year; and a car is just another business expense to me. It has to be safe, dependable, comfortable, economical - which includes purchase price, operating expense & depreciation cost- as well as reasonably enjoyable to drive on all kinds of roads. Brand is immaterial to me; & in the last 30 years or so the foreign Mfrs. especially the Japanese, have simply done a better job of meeting my needs.
  • rhawkrhawk Posts: 4
    I've been looking to buy for about a year now. I just can't find what I want. I've looked at Infiniti G37(nice car), Lincoln MKZ, V.W.CC, Cadillac CTS, Pontiac G8, but I think the Taurus will be my next car. Now whitch one, Limited or SHO?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    You looked at some terrific vehicles. Sounds like you want/need a big car (the Taurus is way bigger than any of the ones you have tried so far).
  • rhawkrhawk Posts: 4
    My wife want's luxury, I want fun to drive. She drives a small car, I drive a truck. Bigger is better for me(I need the room). I think the SHO is what I'm looking for. I'll know more after a test drive.
  • Very nice car from what i saw at the autoshow, but i dont think i could put down $26-27k for a car that will be worth $10k less in a year and your $5k upside down after a yr. Hope this model will shake the rental image the taurus became.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Today's edmunds "first drive" variant on the SHO claims a weight of 4368 pounds.
    Why in the world would it weigh so much. My 2000 Sable (Taurus cousin) weighs 3600; the first montego/500 series weighed about 3900. Why the incessant journey to morbid obesity? The new engine with 365 horses will be performance strapped trying to push all this lard about. Where is the extra weight and why? The SHO sounds like a great new direction for Ford but where are the weight police. The weight gain will cancel out most of the other gains with respect to acceleration, fuel economy and tossability. My god it's getting up to SUV weight. WHY?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Safety (air bags, door braces, etc.), turbos and AWD. It's also a larger vehicle than the old Taurus/Sable.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    I wonder why they are only offering the SHO in AWD?
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    That much power to the front wheels would cause all kinds of drivability issues - torque steer, loss of traction on quick take-offs, front end plowing when putting the power down in the middle of a turn, etc.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I was able to find the numbers. A 2000 Merecury Sabkle (Ford Taurus) weighed 3325 and had 200 hp for a weigh to hp ratio of 16.6.
    the SHO is advertised in this story as 4365 pounds and 365 hp for a weight/hp ratio of 11.9, so it should move better than the earlier generation of Tauruses. Still imagine if they had held the weight down to 3500 then the weight to hp ratio would be less than ten and the thing would move. All Wheel drive and the size increase and the heavier engine must be the difference.
    As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO.
    What I fear is that the enormous weight rise will water down the new engine so as to make the SHO just another large sized sedan compared to the top of the line V6 competition (Honda, Toyota, etc).

    However you slice it the Ford is Porky compared to its peers and about 80 horses are tied up trying to move that extra weight. In the end it will perform like a 280 HP lighter competitor. That is a huge advance over the prior Taurus/Sable models but hardly a new champion in the sector. Why can't they shed some of these pounds?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Go compare the torque curves of those engines and you'll find that the Taurus produces WAY more torque at low RPM (say 1500) than the Accord. The Accord's V6 is a peak HP engine designed to rev high. The Taurus eb 3.5L is a torque monster - putting out 350 lb/ft starting at 1500 rpm or so. And it's a bigger car than the Accord which is in between the Fusion and the Taurus.

    Mfrs are always looking to reduce weight because it helps with fuel economy. They don't make them Porky on purpose. AWD, turbos, airbags, door reinforcments, moonroofs and gadgets all add weight.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO.

    That weight you quote for the Honda sounds way low. I think the curb weight for a well equipped Accord V6 is closer to 3700 pounds. Where did you get the 3109 number?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    3600 for a loaded Accord according to KBB. Torque for the Accord is 254 compared to 350 for the Taurus. There will be a big difference.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    3230 / 3289 (LX) 3236 / 3298 (LX-P) 3349 / 3408 (EX) 3373 / 3433 (EX-L) NA / 3567 (EX-V-6) NA / 3600 (EX-L V-6)

    Accord numbers (5MT/5AT) for 2009, straight from their website.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I found the weight quotes just by goggling the 2010 model for weight and HP and agree that the 3109 sounds too low. The point stands however tht the SHO is going to be 600-700 pounds more than the Accord which is now rated as a full size sedan (no longer qualifies as mid-sized). I have read that AWD adds about 200 pounds.

    The points about torque are well taken and I had not considered them. The SHO should have more mid-rpm zest for sure and that is a big plus.

    I like the car and the idea and will certainly shop it when it is available. There is no question that it is a significant improvement over the Homer Simpson taurus (Mullaney's own words) that bored so many people in the past. I liked that version as a good value and wasn't bored at all so imagine my anticipation of the new model.

    The taurus and sable have been great values for about 6 years and the mercury version has consistently finished at or near the top in initial customer satisfaction. After 130,000 miles in my 2000 Sable I am still impressed at how reliable and powerful it is after ten years and there have been no major surprises at all. (the spark coils and tie-rods were weak points in the 2000 version but were corrected later.

    I firmly believe that the taurus and sable (if it survives) will continue to represent great value for people who intend to keep their cars for a long time. The rapid depreciation is unlikely to change for years even if the quality continues to shine.

    Ford has done a very good job on these cars for the typical family car. Sports enthusiasts should look elsewhere----although maybe the SHO will change that. I wonder how much it will cost? If it goes over $30K (and it seems it will have to) then the market may shrink since there are true sporty cars starting to appear at that price.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    The 2010 SHO has a MSRP of around $38,000 to start, IIRC. The Ford Vehicles website has the prices, standard & optional equipment, colors, etc.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    So the typical SHO will be over $40K? That's a lot of money for a Ford, that doesn't have a Shelby emblem.

    That sort of price means there are very few people who will consider it seriously, no matter how nice it is.

    If I were Ford, I would be concentrating more on vehicles like the Fiesta and an inexpensive small pickup/SUV.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    I agree it sounds high but if you want a higher performance sedan with decent luxury equipment and lots of room, what else is there in that price range? Pontiac G8 will soon be dead. Chrysler 300C and Charger R/T have an iffy future. I don't know what foreign nameplate offers the same combination of size, luxury, and performance for less.

    No doubt, the Taurus is moving up-market. Some people might go to a Ford showroom interested in the SHO but drive out in a Fusion Sport, instead. That would still be good for Ford. They haven't had anything interesting to draw much of a crowd for quite some time. Some good press and some interesting cars like the SHO could generate lots more showroom traffic.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    So the typical SHO will be over $40K? That's a lot of money for a Ford,

    It's also a lot more car than any previous Ford sedan - way more. Show me a full size sedan with the same features and power and I guarantee it will cost at least that much and probably way more. An Audi A6 Quattro starts at $62K (and it's smaller).

    A fully optioned Accord or Camry goes for $32K (with a lot less power and without AWD). Perhaps you haven't looked at new car prices in a while?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Let's stop comparing to Accord here (although I'd welcome a comparison forum if someone else would like, I'd be happy to set it up, just let me know. The Sonata is more of a full-size car than the Accord (the latter of which is only full-size when not equipped with a moonroof, which all V6 models are).

    You'd do better to compare to vehicles such as the 300C. Similarly equipped with AWD and the big 5.7, the Chrysler weighs in at 4,280 lbs.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Posts: 136
    Excellent comment. In fact I bought a new '94 SHO and sold it in 2001 with 108,000 miles. I bought a new 2001 A-6 2.7T w/6-speed. If I could have bought another 1994 SHO at the time I would have been all over it. I paid $46K for the Audi and I still drive it. 103K miles, no door dings, no rust, serviced every 5K miles at the dealer and hardly anyone ever rides in the back seat. I did take it to the Audi dealer last year to talk trade but I can't see paying $62K to replace this car. In 1994 I paid about $27K for my SHO. $40K-$42K for a 2009 is right in line with what I would expect to pay. There may be some discounting. But if this model is anywhere close to the 1994 this will be a great value. (Interestingly I did a lot of thinking in 2001 becuase the Acura TL was almost exactly the same dimensions as the A-6 and $10K less. But the Acura then was far short of the Audi I bought and the SHO I sold.)
Sign In or Register to comment.