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



  • 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: 9,866
    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.)
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Posts: 228
    I see the 2009 Taurus is no longer listed in the car lineup on the Ford Cars home page.
  • jlcjlc Posts: 30
    I am looking at both cars but can't make up my mind. I have driven both. I thought the Traus SEL had a firmer ride and more tire noise? The buick was an CX. I was impressed with the interior of both, but the Lacrosse seemed to have a roomier feel. Any other feed back would be appreciated.
  • What tires were on the Taurus? The standard 235/55/18 or the optional 255/45/19.? The latter are stiffer and noisier. We have ordered a SEL with the standard tires. Drove a Limited with the 19" and found the ride too thumpy.
  • The pricing on the SHO is too high in my opinion, as well as a decently equiped non SHO model. Ford had the chance for a home run here. The Taurus will depreciate vs top German models of smaller size.
  • jlcjlc Posts: 30
    It had the 235/55's. But the sales gal said they just got the car. Makes me wonder if anybody check the tire presures? Thanks for the infoe.
  • jlcjlc Posts: 30
    I agree with you on the pricing for the SHO and non SHO, BUT I think you maybe able to deal or, it will defienetly put it out of reach for a lot of folks and up against a lot of imports.
  • A Taurus SEL with optional Leather, Sync (Single CD, but with USB who needs it? :)), 263hp and 18" Aluminum Wheels lists for $30,090, including Destination Charges.

    The most similar-in-price Avalon, what seems to be the benchmark here, that I could find on Toyota's site is an Avalon XL, cloth interior, 6CD, 16" Alloys. I'm in a 35--- zip code.

    Base $27,945
    Options $1,139
    Manuf, Delv, Proc & Hndlg $775
    Subtotal $29,859
    Dealer Fees $416
    Total $30,275

    Plus, you have to be seen driving the thing. The Avalon arguably has the better powertrain, but the Taurus has it all over the Avalon with style. Does the average driver of these two particular vehicles care which is quicker to 60 and gets better mileage (even though that is so close its anybody's game to me), or which looks better? Feel free to answer!

    Sorry, the pictures of the Avalon XL with the 16" wheels were tough to come by. These are the more expensive model's wheels.
  • I agree with you that the Avalon has a superior powertrain (especially motor) to the Taurus. I'd also argue that the Avalon has a superior ride, having driven both, and better fit and finish on the dash and other interior trim.

    Not only that, but the Hyundai Genesis, which has a base model option list that is way better than that of the Taurus, is a superior offering to the Taurus.

    If Ford thinks exterior sheet metal styling alone is going to trump quality and true refinement of the competitors, I think they've underestimated the intelligence of buyers in this segment.

    Also, the last gen Taurus actually has more interior room, a better ride, IMO, and the same motor and other important 'parts' as the "new" Taurus (both derived from the Volvo D3 platform) and is about 50% the price for a 18 month old, gently used one.
  • Kernick, what type of car do you drive? Why is 40k such a huge price tag to you? Have you actually taken an in person look at the SHO? I have. The Taurus is no longer "your grandmothers car." It's a real head turner. I usually research my next vehicle 3 to 6 months ahead of buying. I have driven this car. It was nicely put together. It has everything that I could want, except a heated steering wheel ( really cold, bad winters here). While researching vehicles with certain equipment the SHO easily filled the wish list. Nothing came close to filling the list at this price tag. If you have any bargaining skills to add to rebates, incentives, A-plan, etc., the vehicle drops below this price (up to 7,000). Most of the post I've read that down grade the SHO in comparison to other vehicles (mostly the foreign cars) don't consider what your getting dollar for dollar. Most of the foreign cars at the same price that out perform the SHO (in certain categories, NOT ALL) are stripped down. Start adding equipment and you will find that the price and weight goes up. This car does great in every category (interior quietness, space, comfort, style, speed, equipment, and price). Most cars lose that oomph after 80 mph. NOT THE SHO. I have driven this car at 70 mph, punched the gas and got to 120 mph in just a few seconds, before having to slow down due to traffic. I have no idea what the top speed of this car is. Always too much traffic during test drive times to find out. This year Ford has a vehicle in every category, to suit anyones taste or needs; I must say that each vehicle is also pretty sharp. I think you need to make a list of things you want in a car, and then go drive them. I think you will change your mind. I have tested a lot of cars, and the only car that came close to the SHO in most of the categories in the SAME price range was the Buick LaCrosse. But, you HAVE TO take the smaller, less powerful, engine (255 hp) to get AWD. Extremely disappointing in performance. I keep my options open down to the time of signing. If you know of a better vehicle in all those categories in the SAME price range please let me know. I would love to check it out.
  • "why is 40k such a huge price tag to you?"


    What universe do you live in where a bread and butter family sedan is anything but expensive at 40k?

    The 2010, completely redesigned Mercedes E-Class 350 can be had for 47k nicely equipped, and it's an outstanding car recalling MB solidity of the 80s, and there are plenty of cars as large and comfy as the Taurus for the low 20s.
Sign In or Register to comment.