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!

Have you recently purchased a new minivan? A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] by July 2 for more details.
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



  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    To have a 350+ horsepower vehicle that has no considerable mileage drop from its 263 horse counterpart is nothing to sneeze at, old technology or not.

    And no, I do not own, or plan to own in the near future, a Ford, lest I be accused of being biased or even working for them. :blush: I drive an import 30+ mpg 4-cylinder. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    It's the combination of twin turbos with Direct Injection and the ability to run on regular and get good fuel economy. If you check the reviews of the MKT Ecoboost vs. the import V8s - it had more power, better driveability AND better fuel economy.

    The game changer will be the 2.0L Ecoboost that will give 4 cylinder fuel economy with V6 power. It will debut next year in the new Explorer.
  • Name a twin turbo V6 from the 80s in a front wheel drive car. Oh and name one that has direct injection too. Most Turbo V6s from the 80s or even early 90s were single turbo and were rear wheel drive. I think even the Turbo 911 from the 80s was single turbo.

    I can't think of any off the top of my head.

    The combination of the technologies in the kind of volume Ford will pump out is what has changed.

    Audi has had direct injection Turbo engines for a while but not many of them were twin turbo, none of them ran on regular gas and none of them were made in the massive Volume ford is going to be making ecoboost engines in.
  • Why would anyone want a twin turbo anything in a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE, bloated sedan?
  • poodog13poodog13 Posts: 320
    Not defending the weight of the Taurus, but I hate when people blast FWD. I live in a very hilly area with moderate snowfall, and a RWD vehicle is not an option for me. I would not even be able to get off my own street on some days in RWD, even with snow tires.

    I understand that RWD is an superior setup in terms of overall performance, but this is mostly true only under conditions of extreme acceleration (off the line or turning while accelerating). Given that this type of driving is typically ill-advised in normal traffic conditions, I'll take the trade-off in performance to be able to get around reliably in the winter.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Why would anyone want a twin turbo anything in a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE, bloated sedan?

    I don't know because the ecoboost Taurus is AWD, not FWD and it can send 100% of the torque to the rear wheels if necessary.
  • Way to side step the question. First off if the AWD system is anything like the latest Haladex units in Volvos it can send a good bit of its power to the rear axle. Not enough to get tail happy obviously but enough to not fell like it is FWD biased.

    To answer your question though it is for packaging and economic reasons. You could never build a business case for the SHO unless it was based on the regular Taurus platform.

    You said twin turbo V6s have been around since the late 80s I said name one. You failed.

    Off the top of my head the Maserati Bi-Turbo was around in the 80s and everything else was single turbo.

    You had plenty of turbo SAABs but again single turbo only and 4 cylinders. The 911 was single turbo until the mid 90s.

    The first somewhat mass market Twin Turbo V6 I can think of was the Dodge Stealth RT Turbo/Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4. They first came out in 1990 and got about 290 hp out of a 3.0 liter twin turbo V6 and AWD. They got that engine up to 320 hp by 1997. Power and features stayed the same till the model was discontinued around 2001. It was a heavy beast though with nearly 3,800 lbs of curb weight. That turns out to be about 400 lbs lighter then a SHO Taurus that has more power, granted out of a somewhat larger engine, can seat four or five comfortably and gets better mileage. Mileage on the 3000GT is 16/22 according to the new test and the SHO is 17/25.

    3000GT Taurus SHO

    As for it being bloated compared to other sedans with similar equipment and features it weighs about the same.

    2010 SHO Vs. A6 3.2 A6 4.2 and M45X

    Those cars are all smaller by seven to ten inches, all have less horse power and only one gets better mileage. They all weigh within 200 lbs of a SHO.
  • No one have mention the unique feature in the 2010 Taurus atleast with the nav system been able to read out your text messages when paired with certain phones. I have a motorola Z9 and I was able to have it read and reply to my messages. A good thing when you are alone but if you have company better to turn it off .
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    That feature has been available for several years with Sync in all Sync equipped vehicles (even the Focus). You just need the right type of phone.
  • well that tells you I have not paid any attention to any Sync vehicles until I got the SHO, my lexus did not have that feature.
  • mp685mp685 Posts: 2
    Ford doesn't need to get down on it's hands and knees and beg and plead with American consumers to buy their products. Americans are buying Fords without a cheap marketing gimmick like GM has had to resort to. Look at the swing in market share. Ford is not even in the same class as GM and Chrysler anymore. Ford has taken market share away from Toyota and Nissan, let alone GM and Chrysler. How's that 'GM Guarantee' working out? Obama should've let GM and Chrysler sink. Ford doesn't need a life vest.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The thing is, GM is now increasing its market share, and it is already well above Ford''s. Ford did some good, creative things after practically committing suicide a few years ago. Then GM went into an even worse skid. But right now, GM has some good 2010 products out there now (Equinox, Camaro, Terrain, SRX, Lacrosse, and they are beginning to sell well. GM dumped a lot of debt, with the government's help. Ford got a bump in sales by not taking a handout. But people's memories are short, and for all the new product in the Ford pipeline, GM has similar plans. It will be good to see the domestics reborn.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    But are they increasing market share with increased incentives and more fleet dumping? Ford is increasing retail market share almost every month while at the same time reducing incentives and fleet dumping and they seem to have costs and production capacity under control.

    Are you sure GM is gaining RETAIL market share?
  • No one is dumping units into rental fleets right now. Well maybe Kia but that is it. One of the reasons the prices of late model used cars have gone up so much is because the supply of ex-rentals has dried up. The big rental lot kings at GM over the past couple of years were Pontiac and they aren't making new Pontiacs anymore.
  • gregagrega Posts: 31
    The GM guarantee is a SCAM and it would cost you thousands of $$$ to get out of one of their cars between day 31-60 of owernship, where you pay for wear-n-tear, taxes, fees, etc.

    As far as marketshare, GM is gaining overall share because they are dumping Chevy Impalas, Malibus and Cobalts all over the rental car companies, more than the Koreans.

    Ford is gaining retail marketshare because they have a better business plan and are using (19) "Whiz kids" (PhD's) to analyze pricing models and have already yielded $1.9 Billion in net sales increase in the first half of this year alone. I expect Ford to post a real surprise profit for Q3 next week.

    Also, consider the following improvements to Ford products that will drive increase retail marketshare:
    - F150 trucks - (2) new V8 engines - 5.0 and 6.2 by Q2
    - 2011 SuperDuty trucks with new 6.2 V8 and 6.7 Ford Diesel, plus 6-speed trans
    - Mustang gets 3.5 V6 and 5.0 V8 with 400 HP in Q2
    - Transit Connect small commercial van with electric in 2010
    - Fiesta "B" segment small car - over 50,000 interested buyers already
    - 2.0L I4 EcoBoost engine (250HP) with 6-speed dual-dry clutch trans
    - Upgraded Edge, MKX CUVs by Q2 and awesome new Explorer by yearend
    - All new Focus in late 2010 with electric in 2011
    - 3.5 V6 EcoBoost in F150 by yearend with superior 24+ MPG (400ft-lbs torque)
    - and a few surprises....
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Those are all great products coming, and I applaud Ford for it. I always root for Ford, even though they made so many bonehead decisions in the early and mid-2000's. For now Ford appears on a roll (though Lincoln and Mercury sales remain on life support). Ford will need those surprises you refer to in order to continue to improve market share.

    GM is not sitting on its heels. The number of new products--just here, coming and proposed--is a long list. They are more focused as well, having dispensed with Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, and Opel. Chevy's 2010 Equinox has leapfrogged the very good Escape (roomier, quieter, more economical, better styled). Chevrolet has a bew subcompact and full-size sedans coming, and the already good Malibu will be replaced again in 2012. GMC is revamping things. The Buick Enclave and 2010 Lacrosse are great vehicles in their segments, and the coming Regal will be even better. Cadillac already has rear drive platforms and is expanding their RWD offerings by several more models, including one to compete with the BMW 3 series. The new FWD-based SRX is selling very well.

    The world has changed. Every manufacturer will have to scramble and improve each and every year, or they will eventually fail. Those who issue a new model here and there (Volvo, Saab, Suzuki, Chrysler, etc.) are struggling more. The high end marques are losing market share as well. Meanwhile, companies like Kia, Hyundai and Subaru quietly increase their market share even in this recession.

    Practically everything on the market these days is a good car...practically all the crap is gone. But being good is no longer enough. Ford knows that now. But GM does too. They have no more illusions that dumping cars in fleets will help them solve their problems. Consequently, we are going to see a lot of game-changing stuff, from surprising places at times. It will be even more fun for buyers.
  • Umhh are you sure you replied to the right person.

    I didn't mention anything about the GM 60 day return policy and honestly haven't read the details of the program. I wouldn't even try to debate if it is a scam or not because I don't know anything about it. I haven't bothered to read any of the details.

    Maybe you should take a look at what I was talking about, Fleet sales and rental dumping, and see if has anything to do with what you wrote about.

    Maybe I should ask you how my cell phone can pay for itself free. now that sounds like a scam
  • I ordered a 2010 Taurus Limited and was disappointed to discover that while heated seats are standard on the Fusion SEL and the Taurus SEL with leather, the Limited leather seats do NOT come with heat. It's unbelievable!! You have to pay $1000. extra MSRP to get the heat. I think this is due to Ford's whiz kids trickery and it is NOT a treat!
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    Look like another "satisfied" Ford customer...
  • I've had the car for three weeks and love it. I just wish they would include heat with the leather seats on the Limited as they have in the past. I don't like the games.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    I know I am in a minority (but it is probably a 15-20% minority so not a lunatic fringe) but I regret the decade long tendency to add unnecessary and, in some cases, expensive doodads and gismoes to the basic car. I long for a simple, basic car that would cost about $20K.
    Examples of such "advances" I could live without include but are not limited to:
    1) BLIS (I have a neck that rotates and rearview mirrors)
    2) Superintense exotic gas headlights (the old one were just fine and much less expensive). These new lamps often are alimed improperly and blind on-coming drivers.
    3) Headlights that point around the corner as you turn. Again I use my neck and eyes. The more moving parts a car has the more potential for expensive repairs.
    4) Adaptive cruise control. So even less attention can be paid to the changes occuring before you? What's next? Autopilot?
    5) Fog lights. These do absolutely nothing to enhance forward vision in fog or rain (check it out, it's true) and are simply a decoration that some think says "sporty", I say stupid. Turn them off except when rain or fog so others will not have to deal with all the lumens.
    6) Exotic Sound Systems. Give me the basic under $500 system. A car is not a concert hall and the acoustics are very compromised by the small space. Make the Levinson and other systems optional as an upgrade. I don't care about MP3, iPod or Blackberry connections, make them optional.
    7) Larger tires. Nowadays the trend is toward 19" and 20" tires and wheels. Paying more for a more punishing ride. Leave these to the true sport cars or the pimp cars. Now a set of tires costs >$800. 16 or 17" just fine for me.
    8) motorized drivers' (and passengers' seats). Probably $900 and 160 pounds of unnecessary junk. If you are so lazy you can pull a lever to adjust position, you are pathetic. As an option=okay. Don't ask me to pay for it.
    9) Power trunk opening or closing. Again how lazy are you?
    10) Navigation systems and touch screens that print incoming phone calls. How many ways do you want to be distracted?
    11) Elegant, soft touch interiors with pretty buttons. It's a fricking car not a living room. I drive it from place to place I don't live in it. I'll put the money into my house.
    12) Shifting paddles on Steering wheel. In most cars this is a form of delusion that you are a good driver and the car is a sportscar that would benefit from a few milliseconds faster shifts. Just more to break.

    And, lest I be thought a complete curmudgeon, let me suggest a feature I would like to see. A rain sensor that closes all ports if no one is in the car (windows, moonroof). I can turn on the wipers if I need them but I can't close up the car if a sudden storm comes around when I am on the back nine.

    You will not be surpirsed to find that I am from New England and I am thrifty. Not the norm but not alone either (I hope).
  • Very good point. But, Ford followed that example in years past by just providing basic cars. All the while the other brands provided the bells and whistles. The only thing Ford ended up with was being known for making cheap rental cars. Now that Ford has moved on, the other companies are stepping up to provide that basic transportation. Check out Kia or Suzuki.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    steve: " I don't like the games."...I see your point, I was just in a razzing mood...:):):)

    pod: I see your point, but I think there comes a point where it becomes cheaper to manufacture if options become standard...back in the 60s and 70s, there was a time when power steering, power brakes and air conditioning were optional, but as time progressed, they became standard items because a vast majority of buyers wanted, as Honda and Toyota were growing in the 80s and 90s, it was them who made just a few packages (example: Accord DX, LX, EX) where ease of manufacture was the norm for them...DX was relatively stripped, LX was moderately equipped for most, and EX had all the bells and whistles...

    I think at one time someone figured it out that GM could make something like 1.5 million variations of a given model (or maybe all models combined) by adding or subtracting an option here or there...

    Out of your entire list, I agree with most except Xenon headlights (wish I had them, properly adjusted, of course), motorized seats (set 'em once and forget 'em, but gives short folks like me the ability to alter any angle, "average" settings simply do not fit me)...and, one item you omitted...adjustable pedals...we have them on our Crown Vic and Ram 1500, and it is nice not to have the steering wheel in our chest so we can reach the pedals...if you are of average height or taller, you would not understand, but if you are short, movable pedals (3 inches of movement) are better than round tires and wheels... ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I think I have the car for you...


    I jest ;)

    But if I may, I'd like to reply to some of your points...

    1.) BLIS: It isn't to replace looking over your shoulder, it's there to do what it said; alert you to a car in your blind spot. I've looked over my shoulder and not seen right away a car in the blind spot. At 70 MPH, I don't want to spend 2-3 seconds looking the opposite direction that my car is moving, and BLIS would provide an extra set of eyes.

    2.) High-Intensity Headlamps: They're brighter, and when properly adjusted, provide a wider spray of light without blinding people. They are more expensive to replace, however.

    3.) Adaptive Headlamps: Your neck and eyes can't shine light into a turn. Do you drive with a flashlight? As someone who turns left into a dark, hard-to-see wooded driveway everytime I drop off my girlfriend, I'd welcome the feature. I don't take that many curvy roads at night though, so maybe I'm more interested in cornering lamps than adaptive ones. I dunno... :)

    4.) Adaptive Cruise: I agree. If traffic is such that you can't maintain a speed with normal cruise, you should be using your foot anyway.

    5.) Fog Lamps: Great when used properly (I've used them in my parents '08 Taurus). When dark, and driving on their road (on the beach) used with parking lamps or low beams, they're great, because they shine the light from a much lower place on the front of the car, preventing glare from the cloud.

    6.) Great Sound-Systems: Make 'em optional. Not everybody wants to listen to talk or AM radio; give me good sound if I'm already paying $20k+

    7.) Larger Tires: On the Taurus, it looks silly with anything smaller than 17 or 18. It's simply too large.

    8.) Power Seats: My grandmother is 74, 5'1", and struggles to reach the lever between her legs to pull the seat UP the track to a more forward positon. I don't have a problem with it.

    9.)Power openings: Never really seen these much on a car, but in a van, power doors and hatch are great when your hands are full, especially in the rain.

    10.) Navigation: The Ford system is voice-guided, and reads your messages to you. You can even place a call with it and never have your hands leave the wheel.

    11.) Nice Interior: See the second photo I posted. If you don't expect a nice interior for your $30,000 car, well, you should. I expect good tactile quality from my television remote, I sure expect it from my car. Why not?

    12.) It's not to make it shift faster; its to make it driver-controlled. Great for engine braking, etc, and it doesn't even require removing your hands from the high quality steering wheel. :D

    Not trying to pick a fight, but rather explain the other side of why people find these features handy. Personally, I drive two midsize, middle-trim-level 4-cylinder cars. My folks have an 08 Taurus SEL with Sync, Leather, Convenience Package, Sirius SatRad that I helped them find and purchase.

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    adjustable pedals...we have them on our Crown Vic and Ram 1500, and it is nice not to have the steering wheel in our chest so we can reach the pedals...if you are of average height or taller, you would not understand,
    I'm 6'5" and get it. :) I'd love to be able to slide them back further so that I could actually stretch my legs a bit.
  • alman08alman08 Posts: 282
    standard on SEL but not on the Limited?? that sucks!
  • Gonna take a wild guess and say you drive an old Volvo right?

    160 lbs for power seats are you serious? Try like 10 lbs tops. How much do you think that little electric motor weighs? Everything else is the same as the manual seats. All the tracks still have to be there but the power seats give you more adjustment typically and the controls are lighter. Two or three little buttons weight less then three or four large levers and knobs. The whole driver seat weighs 50 or 60 lbs even with all the air bags and heating elements in them.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Rover: you are correct my estimate for the weight of the power seat feature was way too high. I looked it up and it adds about 12 pounds per seat (there are three and sometimes four motors in the assemblies). The tracks are different slightly. I was conservative in the cost side it appears.
    Graduate: I disagree about the blind spot. The correct positioning of the side mirrors should show none of your car in the side mirror when your head is vertical. A tilt to the right should then show the slightest bit of the car and a tilt to the left likewise. This eliminates the blind spot and also prevents the lights of trailing vehicles from adding to the eye load when in the neutral position. It is not a shoulder turn (that's why the mirrors are there); it is a head tilt. A shoulder turn helps confirm the mirrors info but doesn't involve the mirrors and when set this way is unnecessary (I do it from instinct and habit).
    What does the BLIS system do in stop and go traffic? It just seems unnecessary to me and if it is integrated into a greater safety logic algorithm it may be a disaster if (in a few years) there is a wandering ground or some wire pinched outside the harness.
    I agree that many of the points are simply a matter of taste and subjective. I want the lightest simplest car c/w safety and economy.
    I do also disagree about the fog lights. Except when crawling slowly along an unlit country road (as you describe) they shed no useful light. At twenty mph you are outrunning them. I did engage in a long discussion about this here in the edmunds forums (probably under lights or accessories) more than a year ago and most agreed. Indeed some argued they are for other cars to see you better in the fog--others argued that special colored lights were optimal. Most agreed that they were simply sporty decorations under most driving conditions. In most states it is against the law to have them on unless it is raining or foggy.
    Thank you gentlemen for the opportunity to engage in a discussion about these points. I am a minimalist and did look at the Graduate's little red car with some longing....not enough...but still.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'm on my iPod touch, so I'll be less of a blowhard this time, ;)...

    We can agree to disagree about BLIS. I feel it has merit if only for two long-shot reasons:

    1.) I'm 6'5", and can't adjust my mirrors perfectly in all cars. I have no problem in most, but in my '96 Accord, I reach the edge of the adjustment level just before I have them right. I still see a bit of car.

    2.) Vehicles in the mirror aren't necessarily moving at your speed. I've looked in my mirrors, saw nothing, only to lookover my shoulder and prepare to merge when I see a motorcycle in my blind spot. Apparently, he was managing to stay out of view as I adjusted myself to check whether or not the lane was clear. It's only been one instance, but while it rattled me, I bet he or she on the bike needed new underwear!

    I agree about the foglamps in general, but they do have their place for a select few. I would want to pay for them here in Birmingham.

    Thanks for some great talking points here!

  • mp685mp685 Posts: 2
    From Sept. 2008 to Sept. 2009, Ford's market share increased 2.6%, while GM's market share decreased 8.3% (Market Data Center -WSJ Online, October 29th 2009) We do agree, it will be nice to see the domestics reborn.
Sign In or Register to comment.