your assertion is not correct. many car makers have different hp ratings for regular and premium fuel. if the engine isn't design for premium fuel in the first place, then you're correct that you will not get increase horsepower (as badgerfan stated).
Yeah it is just manor facelift for 2004. It is the same car except of more squarish grille and new headlamps. Still looks bloated.
In the past they did new design every year. It was just keeping up with current fashion. Companies that couldn't do it just went out of business like Studebekker and Packard. Why American companies cannot just update style say every two years anymore.
yeah, that's a good question. Even the ballyhoed Saturn plastic body panels, which were supposed to allow frequent style changes....well.....they still never updated the car.
The Taurus has had the same front and rear passenger windows and cpillar windows since the 96 model and i think they have just become all too familiar for buyers.
"for a story on HORSEPOWER, i'm looking for a passenger car buyer, NOT AN SUV, VAN OR TRUCK BUYER. and, preferably, someone who bought A NEW VEHICLE in the last 6 months. the kicker here is i want that man or woman to have bought the car based on HP, 200 hp or MORE. the look of the vehicle, tho, is important, of course. but secondary to the kick-butt engine power. i think the wolf in sheep's clothing cars like a v6 ford taurus, nissan altima or the v-6 honda accord could be kind of fun. tho, hey, i'm not going to turn away a dodge viper buyer. but i do think the others would be more interesting."
If you fit the bill and care to share your story, please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com asap, no later than Wednesday, January 29, with your daytime contact info and a bit about your new car.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
My assertion IS CORRECT!!!! Please show me proof of your claim about the Honda engine and the variable Hp rating?! While Badgerfan is also partially correct in his counter to my post I was trying to simplify things down to the lowest possible denominator not explain all aspects of engines and octane ratings. Modern fuel management systems will compensate for variances in octane ratings but they are not designed to reduce horsepower numbers depending on the octane of a fuel. They are designed to reduce or limit pre-ignition or "knock" if a lower octane fuel is used on an engine that normally requires a higher octane due to higher compression. If an engine is designed to use a high octane fuel but equipped with a fuel management system that compensates for a lower octane by substantially retarding the timing enough to reduce horsepower then it really SHOULDN'T be using the lower octane gas! Thereby making sculldog33's original comment about increased operating costs correct; and your comparison that the Accord V6 can hang with the 87 octane users not so correct. It would appear that the Accord either really does need 91 octane or doesn't have a 10 hp gain by using it. The following are some interesting links for your reading pleasure.
Just thought I would let fellow Taurus owners know of a warranty extension notice I recently received in the mail from Ford on my 2000 SES Duratec. The warranty extension adds an additional 2 years/24000 miles on a specific part, the "Tube mounted EGR Pressure Sensor" which is a part in the cars emission control system. The warranty is listed as program number 02M01 and the sensor part number is 9J460.
There was nothing in the brochure indicating what the symptoms of a failure of this part was, so out of curiosity, I called the "Ford Customer Relationship Center" number. The Customer Service rep checked the database and read me the service information, which somewhat vaguely stated that the "malfunction indicator light" (I think this is the "Service Engine" or "Check Engine" light), and you may "experience hesitation and stall/restart".
I have not experienced any problems with mine, but if any of you have and did not get this warranty extension notice, you may want to keep this in mind.
no need to be sorry. honda recommends 87 octane fuel for the accord even though it has a high compression ratio engine that will deliver increased horsepower when using premium fuel. you either verify this or you don't.
A few dozen posts back, badgerfan said a Taurus SES with Duratec could be had for $17K or even less with the current $3000 rebate. According to current Edmunds info, Duratec is not available on SES, you have to get an SES Deluxe which has dealer invoice in my region (61821) of $21,119 including destination charge. So, I don't see how one can get a Duratec Taurus for $17K even with the $3000 rebate. Am I missing something, or is the Edmunds info incorrect?
I'm currently car shopping, and I do agree that Taurus is an excellent value.
No, you appear to be correct, as does Edmunds. I did a check at www.forddirect.com, where you can 'build your own' car. The SES Standard can't be ordered with a Duratec, and the SES Deluxe can. Ford has the invoice price listed the same as what you posted.
It's possible that the original post referred to 2002 Tauruses. If so, either of the 2 possibilities below would allow both of you to be correct:
1) the '02s were cheaper. Ford no lonnger lists the 2002 models at that website, but perhaps the 2002s were a bit cheaper (though it would have had to be a huge price increase between '02 and '03 to get the '02 price near $17k, since the '03 with rebate has an invoice of $18,119). I doubt, though, that it was that big of an increase--I think Ford held Taurus prices pretty close to the '02 levels.
2) Ford dropped the Duratec option from the SES Standard from the '03s when it was available on the '02s.
When I bought SES in 2000, there was a $1000 rebate going on. For the SES I bought, that had Duratec as an option plus floor mats, at that time the MSRP of the car was $19810+$55 floor mats + $695 Duratec +$600 destination charge, total MSRP was $21160. For this car, the invoice including destination was $18,680. By bargaining hard and including the $1000 rebate at the time, I bought the car for $18K not including tax title and license which varies from state to state. So, without the rebate, I would have paid $320 over invoice
Now, fast forward to the current model year, yes the option package mix has changed, and you have to buy the SES Deluxe with an MSRP of $22360+$660 shipping for an MSRP of $23020 and an Edmunds invoice of $20459+$660 Shipping=$21119. $21199+$320 over invoice -$3000 rebates=$18439. Ok, maybe I missed the $17k however, the SES Deluxe also has a few more standard features than my 2000 SES, a CD changer and the Duratec included in base price.
If I were you I would shoot for under $18K plus tax, title and license. Others have posted paying $18K for SELs, which have more base features, so I think under $18K is definitely feasible.
I also have seen recently ads for $500 owner loyalty rebates for current Ford owners, coupled with 0% financing. I do not know if you could get the current $3000 plus another $500 ownere loyalty if you do not finance. I do know that with the weak economy, it is a buyer's market.
My original $17K estimate may have been based on 2002 prices. Note, you may still find a leftover new 2002 Taurus out there also, which you could bargain very hard on and likely do very well.
I just jumped over to the Ford dealer web site I bought mine from. They had about 8-10 SES deluxes with MSRP in the mid 23K range, and also had one leftover 2002 still new that had the Duratec. I believe you have lots of options out there, and if you live near in or near a large urban area, you can play the Ford dealer market. Good luck. If you buy, let us know how you did. The internet is great to peruse dealer inventory, they even let you view an image of the window sticker.
Check out the Mercury dealers as well. You might do as well or better getting the Taurus twin Sable, depending on how hungry the dealer is. I prefer the Taurus styling over Sable, but that is just personal preference. Under the skin they are the same car.
Any others out there that can report what they have paid recently?
I have had several Taurus '87, '96 and now the 2001 Sable. Rode the '87 into the ground. It was smokin and kickin til the end. The '96 is with my daughter at college. Just got the heater core unplugged. Heat works now. All elese is good with the '96..I guess. Now onto the '01 Sable Premium Loaded with everything. Bought in '02 it had 12200 miles on it..have 17500 now..Duratec 200HP motor runs very good. Starts like a rocket ship in this cold temps we have here in Salem,MA. No problems yet. Paid $13500. year old with 12200 mi. Could not touch anything else with this equipment for the price.
There are still some new 2002 Sable LS Premiums (loaded)available in the Boston area for $17K. A couple of dealers have them and are advertising at that price. One even includes an extended Ford 5/60k warranty for that price. In addition to the standard LS Prem features, these cars include leather, moonroof, ABS as regional "no additional charge" options. They all seem to be outfitted the same with the MSRP at $23,045. One of the reasons that these dealers can do this is Ford has extended the $4k rebate for 2002s till the end of March '03. I'm sure that there are other locals around the US that have these cars also.
..for the good info. $l8K plus TTL for an SES would be a great value. I haven't test driven a Taurus recently but plan to do so soon.
And yes, the dealer inventory listings on the web are great information. For example, I can see that all the SES's in my local dealer's inventory are equipped with sunroof. (Apparently there is some kind of "free sunroof" deal with the SES?) Being 6' 5" tall I generally don't want a car with sunroof due to headroom, but I'll have to see how it fits.
Finally, I too think Taurus is much better looking than Sable.
Subject: new sable wagon-6 seater- how is heat?? Date: 1/31/2003 8:24 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Heidi 929 Message-id: <20030131202454.17879.00030880@mbs-m04.aol.com>
I am trying to decide whether to buy an LS mercury sable wagon. How long does it take the car to warm up inside? There is 79 cubic feet to heat. Does the back seat get warm enough. The six seater does not have an A/C vent in the rear for the summer, either. If you own the car. please share your experience. I don't want to buy a car that is an icebox.I have related medical issues. I'd rather either get the sedan or spend more $$ and get the Saab wagon. Also would anyone have any qualms about buying a left over 2002 with 19 miles. The dealer received it in April 2002. It is now the end of Jan. 2003.Thanks in advance.
I personally bought 2002 Sable Premium with leather and moonroof for $17,700.
<<Finally, I too think Taurus is much better looking than Sable.>>
I like more Sables appearance, it is more conservative and more Jaguar like and looks more refined. When I first saw 2000 Sable from distance I thought what an ugly car. It never was on my shopping list until I saw it close on SF autoshow. I was astonished to find out that I really like this car. On the other hand I never liked 2000 Taurus because it was looking too bland except of rear design that is the best in the class.
Originally I was looking for the one year old used Sable premium with 20,000 miles but couldn't find one. And deals on new cars were so good that I just couldn't resist to go into buying a new car, who knows there never may be another opportunity to have such a good deal on a new car as last year during model year change.
I posted on #2074 about best price you might be able to negotiate for a Taurus SES deluxe which includes the Duratec: SES Deluxe with an MSRP of $22360+$660 shipping for an MSRP of $23020 and an Edmunds invoice of $20459+$660 Shipping=$21119.
I saw a newspaper ad for a dealer in my area advertising all new '03 Tauri at $3600 under invoice. That price would put the above SES at $21119-$3600=$17519. Quite a good price if actually attainable. I always tend to take the ads with a grain of salt, but it looks like this one is legit, there was not any fine print.
NO HEAT IN 94 SABLE UNTIL RPMS REACH 2000.THEN WHEN YOU DROP BELOW 2000 RPMS A SHORT TIME LATER THE AIR BLOWS COLD. REPLACED THERMOSTAT + RAD. CAP.DOES ANY ONE KNOW WHAT PROBLEM COULD BE.
to sound like a lot of the post on a Honda or Toyota board here. Some posters can't put anything on this board without mentioning Duratec. Let's list some facts:
Torque:
Vulcan - 185 at 3,900 Duratec - 200 at 4,400
Fuel Economy- Vulcan is rated 1 mpg higher highway. I'd say real world the advantage is probably 2 mpg better for the Vulcan for city and highway.
In everyday driving most people couldn't tell the difference. Both enginges use the same tranny.The torque which gets you off the line is not much different.
I've subcribed to Car and Driver for 19 years. Don't remember them or any other publication gushing over the Duratec. When you compare it to competitor's powerplants it isn't a standout. I'm not saying it isn't a good engine; but some here are a little zealous in their opinion of this power plant.To tell you the truth none of this family of engines, ZTEC, 2.5 Duratec has done much for Ford. None of them are particulary powerful and they aren't fuel misers either.
My '90 Taurus for 10 years and it was very adequate and never gave me a bit of trouble. It is not a bad base engine for Taurus, however it is outshined by the newer DOHC 4's in Camry and Honda, particularly from a mileage standpoint.
Also, Tauri with the Vulcan and the LX or SE versions can allow you to get into a very good midsize sedan for about $15-16k. Quite a bargain in my opinion.
However, having driven both, considering I keep my cars a long time, the Duratec is definitely a better drive. I have to emphasize once again, you buy a Duratec Taurus for much less than you will buy a V-6 Camry, Accord, Passat, or Altima/Maxima. Yes Duratec doesn't quite match up in the current sedan HP wars, however it has plenty available power for almost any situation, (as does the Vulcan for that matter). For me, rather than HP/Liter ratio being the overiding requirement it is the HP/$ ratio, and here is where Taurus shines.
see. Driving tha Vulcan, a 97 which has only 170 for torque, at 73 MPH and I'm tacking 2,500. I can have it loaded up with Luggage and 4 people and get 30 MPG.So hey I get over 50. But I expected that kind of sophmoric response!
Reliability - haven't touched a thing in 83.5k. I haven't read anything that states the Vulcan is unreliable.Don't expect that Ford will discontinue this powerplant in the near future. I've read nothing that states a Duratec is more reliable. Heck it has only been out since the 96 model year.
The average driver would not notice the difference in daily driving. The average person doesn't even understand the differences in how they operate, nor do they care. Horsepower is over rated and in daily driving it is not needed to perform daily task beyond a certain base requirement.
heck, I just talked to someone who owned both engines and he stated little difference in daily driving.
I test drove both engines this past weekend and the superiority of Duratec in smoothness, noise level and mid-range pulling power was very obvious. The Taurus with Duratec is not a bad car and is a good value. A year old Taurus that has taken the huge first year depreciation hit is an even better value. But Taurus is not in the same league as Camry and Passat for refinement.
Taurus refinement is located in the nice "glove soft leather" of my wallet filled with the extra several thousand dollars of padding which I saved by buying it instead of a Camry or Passat.
Just take a look to this report from autosite.com: Dec 02 Dec 01 Tot02 Tot 01 Ford Taurus 32,243 16,901 332,690 353,560 Honda Accord 31,770 30,069 398,980 414,718 Toyota Camry 31,009 33,106 434,145 390,449
A friend of mine is moving and wants to give me his '88 Taurus LX. He hasn't driven it in a couple of years because the transmission is messed up. This car has the 3.8L V6.
Is the trans on a 3.8L different from the 3.0L or will I be trying to find a rare (expensive)transmission? Anything special I should know before I swap trannies?
The sentence doesn't address the differences. It addresses the buying public and their knowledge of engines. Most people (and I'll stick to that) don't care about pushrods and cams.
If you go back to my original premise you'll understand that I'm saying in everyday driving the differences aren't substantial. The Vulcan actually does some things better; for example fuel economy.
I just repaired the no heat in my '96 Taurus.The thermostat was replaced. No luck. The water pump must be working. You need to check it. Is the car temp ok otherwise? Over heating? The service station wanted to put in a new heater core $550. Remove whole dash. I think it's easier in the '94.The service station blew it out with air pressure. He said it did no good. I had a suggestion to run water through the heater core.It is ice cold here and all of my garden hoses are frozen solid. I ran a hose from my washing machine spigot to the car. Ran water both ways through the core. Both in and out until the water ran clear. It was brown. Blew the water out with my air pressure. I blew into it with my lungs.Put it back together & refilled with antifreeze. Heat is working now. Got soaked and frozen.
Here's the difference. 2 adults, 2 kids (age 16 & 8) and a trunk FULL of 2 weeks luggage. Put said car on I70 in Colorado at 6000 feet PLUS. The Duratec has no problem passing all those 4 banger Camcords, while they suffer from altitude sickness. Passing manuevers on 2-lane roads are easy for the Duratec. You'll need a MUCH bigger hole to pass with the Vulcan. I've owned both, an '86 Vulcan and a '96 Duratec. The Duratec is lightyears ahead of the Vulcan in real world power. Mileage is better in the Vulcan. My Vulcan could get just over 30mpg on a vacation trip. The best I've achieved with my Duratec is ~27mpg. I'll tell you what, the extra horses of the Duratec are worth the mileage penalty! Remember, horsepower isn't the number that's important. Torque is what counts and the Duratec has gobs more than the Vulcan. IIRC, the trannies are not the same. The Duratec uses the A4NS and the Duratec AXOD. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll play devil's advocate and ask if you've compared a '96 Vulcan and a '96 Duratec. That's more like apples and apples. There are a lot of fuel management and other changes (not the least of which is OBDII requirements) between those two years. Not saying you're wrong, just that the differences are perhaps not as great if you compare cars from the same year.
Second, the torque is not that different between the two engines--30 pound-feet or so (200 Duratech, 170-180 Vulcan, depending on year), with the Duratec's peak at higher RPMs. As I stated before, torque gets you moving, HP keeps you going (which is what you're pointing out for passing maneuvers). If you do a lot of stop-and-go, you probably will never notice the difference.
It's also no surprise that Duratecs run better at altitude. Generally, 4-valve-per-cylinder engines breathe better at higher RPMs, so in your example, the Duratec should do better at higher altitudes as well--more air equals more power, even though it's thinner air.
I think you're both right. And possibly both wrong. What it boils down to is an individual driver's route, driving preferences and needs, and so on. Test drive both cars on routes and roads you're familiar with and decide from that. It's the same type of decision as the one that makes someone buy a Taurus versus an Accord versus a Passat, or whatever. My decision and yours are both right for ourselves, but possibly very wrong for the other person. A decent test drive for your own conditions should be part of your research.
I'm not totally convinced that the Vulcan is as bad as it's been stated. Nor is the Duratec everyone's solution. I find my Vulcan is A-OK for what and where I drive. If I drove differently, maybe I'd think differently.
Ford does sell more Vulcans than Duratecs, but that could be because a) people don't know better, b) they don't want to pay more for the Duratec, c) most find the Vulcan adequate, d) something else entirely.
Oh, a couple more things. The Duratec seems to always get the AX4N transaxle. The Vulcan often (but not always) gets the AX4S (known previously as the AXOD-E). But some Vulcans, like mine, came with the AX4N. The difference in letter means something--the S is for synchronous. The AX4S synchronizes the moving of each gearset (one engages at the same time as the previous one disengages). The AX4N is non-synchronous, meaning one gearset can engage before the other is disengaged. The AX4N can therefore (in theory) shift more smoothly and handle more power. (This is a very simple explanation, and there's a lot more to it. But internally the two are quite different.)
Is ther mileage penalty of the Duratec from the engine itself or from the fact that you enjoy exercising the gas pedal? :-)
sums it up. I've been making the point about everyday driving and I pointed out the torque for both engines.
The post about driving at 6,000 feet is valid but how many of us are driving under those conditions?
I've taken my Vulcan from Northern New Hampshire to Delaware. The engine was more than up to those commutes with 4 people and luggage. I don't drive two lanes and have a need to pass; so it is not a requirement for me.
My old '90 Taurus with Vulcan may have gotten slightly better mileage maybe 1-2 mpg better on highway miles than my 2000 SES Duratec, but on my commute to work which consists of about 10 miles per day partly on lightly congested freeway and about 3 miles of city streets, it is a dead heat, with maybe a slight advantage to the Duratec. The only extended highway mileage test I have on the Duratec I got slightly over 27mpg with three people on board and three small suitcases. This was in slightly cold 30 F weather with a strong headwind on the first leg and the same temperature but little wind on the return. I could see pushing 1-3 mpg better under better conditions, which would make it about even with my old Vulcan. So, there is little if any mileage advantage or penalty between the two.
I've owned 2 Vulcan Tauruses, A V-6 Taurus SHO, a V-8 Taurus SHO, and a Duratec Taurus. It's my opinion that you'd have to be one seriously oblivious driver not to notice the difference between the Vulcan and Duratec powerplants.
I've long ago forgotten the torque and horsepower ratings, but there is a huge difference in real world seat-of-the-pants feel.
The Vulcan is a nice engine. The Duratec is a very nice engine. IMHO.
I recently helped my 70 year-old mother choose and buy an SES Duratec. At first it was hard for her to take off from a dead stop without burning rubber! Can't miss that power.
I also think the success of the Duratec killed the V-8 SHO. Who needed a SHO for thousands more when you could get an SE Duratec with similar performance?
I am sure the real gearheads out there will dispute your comparison of a Taurus Duratec with SHO Taurus. Other reasons for SHO being discontinued are likely because it is difficult to support a low volume engine like the SHO's and keep the car's price reasonable. If you want the high performance in a sedan package and want to stay with FoMoCo, your choice will likely be Lincoln LHS or Mercury Marauder.
Ahem... gearhead here - and current Marauder owner.
I should have said that the Duratec contributed to the death of the SHO. Ford certainly didn't help by pricing it in the stratosphere. Also, they were wickedly complicated and expensive to maintain and repair. Some would even say they were unreliable. <not me! not me!>
Salesman: "Here's a nice SHO. Last one on the lot. Sure to be a collector's item. 235 horses, 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. Only 30 grand! Now here's a nice SE V-6, 200 horses, 0-60 in 8 seconds. 24 grand nicely equipped."
The math ain't hard. The good news was, SHOs could be purchased slightly used for not much more than a song!
And, last but not least, the old V-6 SHO actually performed better than the V-8.
With being a gearhead! Yep, SHO price got out of hand. There are a lot of performance sedans out there when you start pushing the $30K price range.
Being a gearhead wannabe but without the inclination to sink a bunch of money into a depreciating asset, I am happy with my SES Duratec. I'd have to go used to get a performance car, and prefer to buy new and keep it a long long time so I have all the maintenance in my control from day 1.
again we need to correct some SHO information here.
the original v6 SHO MOTOR was not unreliable. The motor itself was BULLETPROOF. I have even heard of one SHO with over a half a million miles on it. The rest of the car was bad. The clutches were notoriously underdesigned.
As far as the V8 (which I currently own). First of all, the best 0-60 I have seen is 7.4 seconds from R/T mag. Much better than 7.9. Second of all, the v8 SHO is a 2.5litre v6 contour motor, enlarged to v8 and with Yamaha designed heads. The v8 SHO is a Duratec. Except for one flaw (which I will get to) this Duratec based motor shares all the traits as the v6 Duratec group. That being, bulletproof.
Where Ford goofed is that they should have made a v8 of the 3.0 litre version of the Duratec. That would have been a 4.0 litre v8 with around 270 hp. I cannot say totally but I have seen on the net where the 2.5 v6 and the 3.0 are the same size engine block basically. The 4.0 would have still fit the car.
Regarding power.....it is said the v8 version even at 3.4 litres could have been tuned for much more horsepower but that Ford did not have an automatic tranny that would handle the extra hp, so it was capped at 235. The 3.4 could be tuned much higher, imagine what a 4.0 v8 duratec could have achieved?
So anyways, this is why the 'power' of the v8 SHO was not as expected. Ford couldn't match a tranny to it that either shifted quickly and smoothly enough or could hold up to a higher hp.
But the other point to the v8, which is what a lot of traditional hot rod domestic car fans don't get is the level of refinement of the v8. "A marvel of compactness and smoothness" is what one magazine called it. A motor that is almost completely quiet and no vibration at all in the cabin yet cruising at 90mph. That is what you get. Plus the top end roll on accelration is wonderful. These are tremendous assets to this SHO that were never mentioned because all the typical idiots who are only concerned with 0-60.
The v8 SHO seriously you can cruise at over 100mph all day and the car will not feel as if it broke a sweat.
Re; cost. Yes, the MSRP's on SHO's with v8 were too high. But my brother in law bought his new for just over 24 thou from a sticker of close to 30. I bought mine with 6k on the odometer for around 20g. That's not that expensive considering the GM garbage that stickers around or over 30g.
My brother in law is up around 130k miles on his now and no issues, the engine is as tight as the day he bought it. Mines is at 50k and feels even newer than when I bought it.
The automatic tranny sucks though. I want a STICK!
Now for the one exception. One part on the v8 motor was not engineered or manufactured properly and this has led to costly repairs for more than just a few folks, which may be what previous poster may be alluding to when he says " Some would even say they were unreliable."
There is an issue with camshaft sprockets separating from the camshaft and the v8 is an interference design. For more info go to www.v8sho.com . There you can read about it and also see the class action lawsuit against Ford on this item.
I think that's why the v8 SHO died, because Ford found out it had a problem on its hands and just stopped marketing the car in hopes the problem would go away.
In recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (available on internet www.jsonline.com/wheels). Mark Savage usually gives pretty coherent, non-biased reviews, and I am not saying this because he likes Taurus!
On thing I might question is he stated there is no lumbar adjust. My 2000 SES, which had power drivers seat standard had a manual lumbar adjust knob near the front right edge of the seat cushion. Did Ford drop this, or did Mark Savage miss it?
Not sure if you were referring to my post or not, but no need to correct my info. I wasn't saying the SHO's were unreliable. Unfortunately, many others are. They seem to be getting that rep. I never had any trouble either.
I was making comparisons between different types of Tauruses. One point I tried to make: the V-6 SHO was awesome and in a class by itself. The V-8 SHO had only a marginal performance improvement over a stock Duratec Taurus for a whole lot more money.
And the prices I used were just ball-park MSRP for comparison. If your brother was able to buy a SHO for $24K then he probably could have had a Duratec Taurus for $20K or less (about what Mama paid.) Nobody pays sticker, do they?
Yeah, the V-8 SHO was a nice car. And some days I wish I'd kept mine. But past is past - and mini-vans now have 235 horsepower!
regfootball said "These are tremendous assets to this SHO that were never mentioned because all the typical idiots who are only concerned with 0-60."
Who are these people you're calling idiots? Never talked to anyone that was ONLY interested in 0-60 times in real life.
It's just a tool for comparison. Otherwise, you'd get junk like this:
Guy says, "My car is fast." Pretty fast, or very fast? "I dunno, but it's FAST!"
With 0-60 times you can compare:
Guy says, "My car is fast." How fast? "0-60 in 7.5 seconds." Mine goes 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. "Oh. Guess my car is PRETTY fast."
Yeah, you gotta look at the overall performance picture, but you gotta start somewhere. There's a reason the car mags post 0-60 times: it's a valid and useful statistic for comparison.
6.9 seconds? Geez, about a full second slower than a $22,000 Subaru WRX station wagon. Thought it was interesting that a top Ford exec just came out and said that the Camry was a better car than the taurus.
Well, you could buy a souped up go-kart that would go 0-60 faster than the Subaru WRX station wagon for a lot less than $22K also, but they are not the same size/type of vehicle. You are pushing a lot of iron with that Marauder, so the comparison is moot, in my opinion.
As far as Taurus vs Camry, no one on this board will likely dispute the Ford exec's statement(except for styling which I think is an area that Camry really falls flat) I by the way, own and am very happy with my 2000 Taurus SES Duratec.
However, for comparably equipped cars, you are paying a lot more for a Camry, so you should be getting something for that money. Well equipped Camrys with V-6's start to get pretty pricey, so when comparing cars, one also use price as a feature as well.
For example, If I wanted to buy a new well equipped mid-size sedan with good 0-60 time of maximum of about the 8.0-8.5 seconds range, and with an overhead cam V-6 and want to stay under $20K out the door price, how many choices are there? You would soon find youself narrowing your choices down to Taurus, and not much else.
So, you can go on and on about what Taurus is missing compared to the competition, such as variable valve technology, four wheel discs, navigation systems and slightly more luxurious "plastic", but beware all those little features add up to higher vehicle price.
thing is, you can drive the sub 20k Taurus and at least you can admit it. There's not any stigma that's bad about driving a Taurus aside from it being a rental. Its a nice rental.
But show up to the front door and be driving a Century or some other GM thing and there's not the same level of esteem.
It's car buying season...local Mercury dealer (same one I purchased from) has 20+ 2003 Sable LS Premium Touring Editions w/leather, ABS and moonroof, climate control, etc. for 18.5 after rebate. This is an incredible price -- a full $1000 less than I paid for my 2000, and it has at least one extra option in the "puddle lamps" that mine doesn't have. No matter what anyone has posted about Camry's, Accords and the like, this price is untouchable. Pick up an extended warranty out to 6-7 yrs to calm any reliablity worries, and you're still some 500-700 south of 20K.
With similarly loaded-to-the-gills V6 Camry's MSRPing at 30.5, I can't imagine buying the Camry. No financial argument you make (depreciation, repairs, etc.), can offset the upfront differential of roughly 7500. (eg: buy the Camry with MSRP of 31.5 for 27.5, which may not even be realistic.)
Bank the 7500 in an ING account(2.3%) or a long term CD and after you pay off the Sable(5yrs) you'll have a minimum of 8400 in the bank. Sable will have maybe 75K miles at that point, with a year to go on the extended warranty, and maybe things start to fail, but no way you'll spend 8400 on repairs. Hold her for another 5 years and the ING account is up to 9400. Figure maybe 2500 -3000K for repairs, and realize that interest rates will likely go higher over ten yrs, and you should still have maybe 6-7K. Nice little down payment for the next new car!!
No question that Taurus is cheaper than Camry, so if lowest cost is your top priority, Taurus is the way to go. On the other hand, many people feel it is worthwhile to invest $1000 more per year in a Camry so they can enjoy the hundreds of hours they spend in their cars each year in a vehicle that is more refined, more reliable, and which even Ford execs agree is better overall. You get what you pay for.
Comments
In the past they did new design every year. It was just keeping up with current fashion. Companies that couldn't do it just went out of business like Studebekker and Packard. Why American companies cannot just update style say every two years anymore.
The Taurus has had the same front and rear passenger windows and cpillar windows since the 96 model and i think they have just become all too familiar for buyers.
If you fit the bill and care to share your story, please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com asap, no later than Wednesday, January 29, with your daytime contact info and a bit about your new car.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
My assertion IS CORRECT!!!! Please show me proof of your claim about the Honda engine and the variable Hp rating?! While Badgerfan is also partially correct in his counter to my post I was trying to simplify things down to the lowest possible denominator not explain all aspects of engines and octane ratings. Modern fuel management systems will compensate for variances in octane ratings but they are not designed to reduce horsepower numbers depending on the octane of a fuel. They are designed to reduce or limit pre-ignition or "knock" if a lower octane fuel is used on an engine that normally requires a higher octane due to higher compression. If an engine is designed to use a high octane fuel but equipped with a fuel management system that compensates for a lower octane by substantially retarding the timing enough to reduce horsepower then it really SHOULDN'T be using the lower octane gas! Thereby making sculldog33's original comment about increased operating costs correct; and your comparison that the Accord V6 can hang with the 87 octane users not so correct. It would appear that the Accord either really does need 91 octane or doesn't have a 10 hp gain by using it. The following are some interesting links for your reading pleasure.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/octane.htm
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/
http://www.theserviceadvisor.com/octane.htm
There was nothing in the brochure indicating what the symptoms of a failure of this part was, so out of curiosity, I called the "Ford Customer Relationship Center" number. The Customer Service rep checked the database and read me the service information, which somewhat vaguely stated that the "malfunction indicator light" (I think this is the "Service Engine" or "Check Engine" light), and you may "experience hesitation and stall/restart".
I have not experienced any problems with mine, but if any of you have and did not get this warranty extension notice, you may want to keep this in mind.
I'm currently car shopping, and I do agree that Taurus is an excellent value.
It's possible that the original post referred to 2002 Tauruses. If so, either of the 2 possibilities below would allow both of you to be correct:
1) the '02s were cheaper. Ford no lonnger lists the 2002 models at that website, but perhaps the 2002s were a bit cheaper (though it would have had to be a huge price increase between '02 and '03 to get the '02 price near $17k, since the '03 with rebate has an invoice of $18,119). I doubt, though, that it was that big of an increase--I think Ford held Taurus prices pretty close to the '02 levels.
2) Ford dropped the Duratec option from the SES Standard from the '03s when it was available on the '02s.
When I bought SES in 2000, there was a $1000 rebate going on. For the SES I bought, that had Duratec as an option plus floor mats, at that time the MSRP of the car was $19810+$55 floor mats + $695 Duratec +$600 destination charge, total MSRP was $21160. For this car, the invoice including destination was $18,680. By bargaining hard and including the $1000 rebate at the time, I bought the car for $18K not including tax title and license which varies from state to state. So, without the rebate, I would have paid $320 over invoice
Now, fast forward to the current model year, yes the option package mix has changed, and you have to buy the SES Deluxe with an MSRP of $22360+$660 shipping for an MSRP of $23020 and an Edmunds invoice of $20459+$660 Shipping=$21119. $21199+$320 over invoice -$3000 rebates=$18439. Ok, maybe I missed the $17k however, the SES Deluxe also has a few more standard features than my 2000 SES, a CD changer and the Duratec included in base price.
If I were you I would shoot for under $18K plus tax, title and license. Others have posted paying $18K for SELs, which have more base features, so I think under $18K is definitely feasible.
I also have seen recently ads for $500 owner loyalty rebates for current Ford owners, coupled with 0% financing. I do not know if you could get the current $3000 plus another $500 ownere loyalty if you do not finance. I do know that with the weak economy, it is a buyer's market.
My original $17K estimate may have been based on 2002 prices. Note, you may still find a leftover new 2002 Taurus out there also, which you could bargain very hard on and likely do very well.
The internet is great to peruse dealer inventory, they even let you view an image of the window sticker.
Check out the Mercury dealers as well. You might do as well or better getting the Taurus twin Sable, depending on how hungry the dealer is. I prefer the Taurus styling over Sable, but that is just personal preference. Under the skin they are the same car.
Any others out there that can report what they have paid recently?
And yes, the dealer inventory listings on the web are great information. For example, I can see that all the SES's in my local dealer's inventory are equipped with sunroof. (Apparently there is some kind of "free sunroof" deal with the SES?) Being 6' 5" tall I generally don't want a car with sunroof due to headroom, but I'll have to see how it fits.
Finally, I too think Taurus is much better looking than Sable.
Date: 1/31/2003 8:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Heidi 929
Message-id: <20030131202454.17879.00030880@mbs-m04.aol.com>
I am trying to decide whether to buy an LS mercury sable wagon. How long does it take the car to warm up inside? There is 79 cubic feet to heat. Does the back seat get warm enough. The six seater does not have an A/C vent in the rear for the summer, either.
If you own the car. please share your experience. I don't want to buy a car that is an icebox.I have related medical issues. I'd rather either get the sedan or spend more $$ and get the Saab wagon. Also would anyone have any qualms about buying a left over 2002 with 19 miles. The dealer received it in April 2002. It is now the end of Jan. 2003.Thanks in advance.
<<Finally, I too think Taurus is much better looking than Sable.>>
I like more Sables appearance, it is more conservative and more Jaguar like and looks more refined. When I first saw 2000 Sable from distance I thought what an ugly car. It never was on my shopping list until I saw it close on SF autoshow. I was astonished to find out that I really like this car. On the other hand I never liked 2000 Taurus because it was looking too bland except of rear design that is the best in the class.
Originally I was looking for the one year old used Sable premium with 20,000 miles but couldn't find one. And deals on new cars were so good that I just couldn't resist to go into buying a new car, who knows there never may be another opportunity to have such a good deal on a new car as last year during model year change.
I saw a newspaper ad for a dealer in my area advertising all new '03 Tauri at $3600 under invoice. That price would put the above SES at $21119-$3600=$17519. Quite a good price if actually attainable. I always tend to take the ads with a grain of salt, but it looks like this one is legit, there was not any fine print.
Torque:
Vulcan - 185 at 3,900
Duratec - 200 at 4,400
Fuel Economy- Vulcan is rated 1 mpg higher highway. I'd say real world the advantage is probably 2 mpg better for the Vulcan for city and highway.
In everyday driving most people couldn't tell the difference. Both enginges use the same tranny.The torque which gets you off the line is not much different.
I've subcribed to Car and Driver for 19 years. Don't remember them or any other publication gushing over the Duratec. When you compare it to competitor's powerplants it isn't a standout. I'm not saying it isn't a good engine; but some here are a little zealous in their opinion of this power plant.To tell you the truth none of this family of engines, ZTEC, 2.5 Duratec has done much for Ford. None of them are particulary powerful and they aren't fuel misers either.
The Duratec is rock solid reliable and very smooth.
Its a cheap upgrade over the Vulcan.
The fuel mileage ain't great, but only GM cars maybe get better mileage on average.
A good DOHC 4 cylinder is a more worthy powerplant at this point. Sorry Vulcan owners but its time the Vulcan either got replaced or heavily updated.
Also, Tauri with the Vulcan and the LX or SE versions can allow you to get into a very good midsize sedan for about $15-16k. Quite a bargain in my opinion.
However, having driven both, considering I keep my cars a long time, the Duratec is definitely a better drive. I have to emphasize once again, you buy a Duratec Taurus for much less than you will buy a V-6 Camry, Accord, Passat, or Altima/Maxima. Yes Duratec doesn't quite match up in the current sedan HP wars, however it has plenty available power for almost any situation, (as does the Vulcan for that matter). For me, rather than HP/Liter ratio being the overiding requirement it is the HP/$ ratio, and here is where Taurus shines.
Reliability - haven't touched a thing in 83.5k. I haven't read anything that states the Vulcan is unreliable.Don't expect that Ford will discontinue this powerplant in the near future. I've read nothing that states a Duratec is more reliable. Heck it has only been out since the 96 model year.
The average driver would not notice the difference in daily driving. The average person doesn't even understand the differences in how they operate, nor do they care. Horsepower is over rated and in daily driving it is not needed to perform daily task beyond a certain base requirement.
heck, I just talked to someone who owned both engines and he stated little difference in daily driving.
Dec 02 Dec 01 Tot02 Tot 01
Ford Taurus 32,243 16,901 332,690 353,560
Honda Accord 31,770 30,069 398,980 414,718
Toyota Camry 31,009 33,106 434,145 390,449
Add up Sable sales to have a full picture:
Mercury Sable 5,553 5,206 98,998 102,646
Is the trans on a 3.8L different from the 3.0L or will I be trying to find a rare (expensive)transmission? Anything special I should know before I swap trannies?
Any other caveats would be welcome.
AGAIN, not true. There is a huge difference.
The sentence doesn't address the differences. It addresses the buying public and their knowledge of engines. Most people (and I'll stick to that) don't care about pushrods and cams.
If you go back to my original premise you'll understand that I'm saying in everyday driving the differences aren't substantial. The Vulcan actually does some things better; for example fuel economy.
Second, the torque is not that different between the two engines--30 pound-feet or so (200 Duratech, 170-180 Vulcan, depending on year), with the Duratec's peak at higher RPMs. As I stated before, torque gets you moving, HP keeps you going (which is what you're pointing out for passing maneuvers). If you do a lot of stop-and-go, you probably will never notice the difference.
It's also no surprise that Duratecs run better at altitude. Generally, 4-valve-per-cylinder engines breathe better at higher RPMs, so in your example, the Duratec should do better at higher altitudes as well--more air equals more power, even though it's thinner air.
I think you're both right. And possibly both wrong. What it boils down to is an individual driver's route, driving preferences and needs, and so on. Test drive both cars on routes and roads you're familiar with and decide from that. It's the same type of decision as the one that makes someone buy a Taurus versus an Accord versus a Passat, or whatever. My decision and yours are both right for ourselves, but possibly very wrong for the other person. A decent test drive for your own conditions should be part of your research.
I'm not totally convinced that the Vulcan is as bad as it's been stated. Nor is the Duratec everyone's solution. I find my Vulcan is A-OK for what and where I drive. If I drove differently, maybe I'd think differently.
Ford does sell more Vulcans than Duratecs, but that could be because a) people don't know better, b) they don't want to pay more for the Duratec, c) most find the Vulcan adequate, d) something else entirely.
Oh, a couple more things. The Duratec seems to always get the AX4N transaxle. The Vulcan often (but not always) gets the AX4S (known previously as the AXOD-E). But some Vulcans, like mine, came with the AX4N. The difference in letter means something--the S is for synchronous. The AX4S synchronizes the moving of each gearset (one engages at the same time as the previous one disengages). The AX4N is non-synchronous, meaning one gearset can engage before the other is disengaged. The AX4N can therefore (in theory) shift more smoothly and handle more power. (This is a very simple explanation, and there's a lot more to it. But internally the two are quite different.)
Is ther mileage penalty of the Duratec from the engine itself or from the fact that you enjoy exercising the gas pedal? :-)
The post about driving at 6,000 feet is valid but how many of us are driving under those conditions?
I've taken my Vulcan from Northern New Hampshire to Delaware. The engine was more than up to those commutes with 4 people and luggage. I don't drive two lanes and have a need to pass; so it is not a requirement for me.
I've long ago forgotten the torque and horsepower ratings, but there is a huge difference in real world seat-of-the-pants feel.
The Vulcan is a nice engine. The Duratec is a very nice engine. IMHO.
I recently helped my 70 year-old mother choose and buy an SES Duratec. At first it was hard for her to take off from a dead stop without burning rubber! Can't miss that power.
I also think the success of the Duratec killed the V-8 SHO. Who needed a SHO for thousands more when you could get an SE Duratec with similar performance?
Again, just IMHO.
I should have said that the Duratec contributed to the death of the SHO. Ford certainly didn't help by pricing it in the stratosphere. Also, they were wickedly complicated and expensive to maintain and repair. Some would even say they were unreliable. <not me! not me!>
Salesman: "Here's a nice SHO. Last one on the lot. Sure to be a collector's item. 235 horses, 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. Only 30 grand! Now here's a nice SE V-6, 200 horses, 0-60 in 8 seconds. 24 grand nicely equipped."
The math ain't hard. The good news was, SHOs could be purchased slightly used for not much more than a song!
And, last but not least, the old V-6 SHO actually performed better than the V-8.
The SHO died a quiet death. May it rest in peace.
Being a gearhead wannabe but without the inclination to sink a bunch of money into a depreciating asset, I am happy with my SES Duratec. I'd have to go used to get a performance car, and prefer to buy new and keep it a long long time so I have all the maintenance in my control from day 1.
the original v6 SHO MOTOR was not unreliable. The motor itself was BULLETPROOF. I have even heard of one SHO with over a half a million miles on it. The rest of the car was bad. The clutches were notoriously underdesigned.
As far as the V8 (which I currently own). First of all, the best 0-60 I have seen is 7.4 seconds from R/T mag. Much better than 7.9. Second of all, the v8 SHO is a 2.5litre v6 contour motor, enlarged to v8 and with Yamaha designed heads. The v8 SHO is a Duratec. Except for one flaw (which I will get to) this Duratec based motor shares all the traits as the v6 Duratec group. That being, bulletproof.
Where Ford goofed is that they should have made a v8 of the 3.0 litre version of the Duratec. That would have been a 4.0 litre v8 with around 270 hp. I cannot say totally but I have seen on the net where the 2.5 v6 and the 3.0 are the same size engine block basically. The 4.0 would have still fit the car.
Regarding power.....it is said the v8 version even at 3.4 litres could have been tuned for much more horsepower but that Ford did not have an automatic tranny that would handle the extra hp, so it was capped at 235. The 3.4 could be tuned much higher, imagine what a 4.0 v8 duratec could have achieved?
So anyways, this is why the 'power' of the v8 SHO was not as expected. Ford couldn't match a tranny to it that either shifted quickly and smoothly enough or could hold up to a higher hp.
But the other point to the v8, which is what a lot of traditional hot rod domestic car fans don't get is the level of refinement of the v8. "A marvel of compactness and smoothness" is what one magazine called it. A motor that is almost completely quiet and no vibration at all in the cabin yet cruising at 90mph. That is what you get. Plus the top end roll on accelration is wonderful. These are tremendous assets to this SHO that were never mentioned because all the typical idiots who are only concerned with 0-60.
The v8 SHO seriously you can cruise at over 100mph all day and the car will not feel as if it broke a sweat.
Re; cost. Yes, the MSRP's on SHO's with v8 were too high. But my brother in law bought his new for just over 24 thou from a sticker of close to 30. I bought mine with 6k on the odometer for around 20g. That's not that expensive considering the GM garbage that stickers around or over 30g.
My brother in law is up around 130k miles on his now and no issues, the engine is as tight as the day he bought it. Mines is at 50k and feels even newer than when I bought it.
The automatic tranny sucks though. I want a STICK!
Now for the one exception. One part on the v8 motor was not engineered or manufactured properly and this has led to costly repairs for more than just a few folks, which may be what previous poster may be alluding to when he says " Some would even say they were unreliable."
There is an issue with camshaft sprockets separating from the camshaft and the v8 is an interference design. For more info go to www.v8sho.com . There you can read about it and also see the class action lawsuit against Ford on this item.
I think that's why the v8 SHO died, because Ford found out it had a problem on its hands and just stopped marketing the car in hopes the problem would go away.
On thing I might question is he stated there is no lumbar adjust. My 2000 SES, which had power drivers seat standard had a manual lumbar adjust knob near the front right edge of the seat cushion. Did Ford drop this, or did Mark Savage miss it?
I was making comparisons between different types of Tauruses. One point I tried to make: the V-6 SHO was awesome and in a class by itself. The V-8 SHO had only a marginal performance improvement over a stock Duratec Taurus for a whole lot more money.
And the prices I used were just ball-park MSRP for comparison. If your brother was able to buy a SHO for $24K then he probably could have had a Duratec Taurus for $20K or less (about what Mama paid.) Nobody pays sticker, do they?
Yeah, the V-8 SHO was a nice car. And some days I wish I'd kept mine. But past is past - and mini-vans now have 235 horsepower!
Who are these people you're calling idiots? Never talked to anyone that was ONLY interested in 0-60 times in real life.
It's just a tool for comparison. Otherwise, you'd get junk like this:
Guy says, "My car is fast."
Pretty fast, or very fast?
"I dunno, but it's FAST!"
With 0-60 times you can compare:
Guy says, "My car is fast."
How fast?
"0-60 in 7.5 seconds."
Mine goes 0-60 in 6.9 seconds.
"Oh. Guess my car is PRETTY fast."
Yeah, you gotta look at the overall performance picture, but you gotta start somewhere. There's a reason the car mags post 0-60 times: it's a valid and useful statistic for comparison.
(source: Motor Trend)
As far as Taurus vs Camry, no one on this board will likely dispute the Ford exec's statement(except for styling which I think is an area that Camry really falls flat) I by the way, own and am very happy with my 2000 Taurus SES Duratec.
However, for comparably equipped cars, you are paying a lot more for a Camry, so you should be getting something for that money. Well equipped Camrys with V-6's start to get pretty pricey, so when comparing cars, one also use price as a feature as well.
For example, If I wanted to buy a new well equipped mid-size sedan with good 0-60 time of maximum of about the 8.0-8.5 seconds range, and with an overhead cam V-6 and want to stay under $20K out the door price, how many choices are there? You would soon find youself narrowing your choices down to Taurus, and not much else.
So, you can go on and on about what Taurus is missing compared to the competition, such as variable valve technology, four wheel discs, navigation systems and slightly more luxurious "plastic", but beware all those little features add up to higher vehicle price.
But show up to the front door and be driving a Century or some other GM thing and there's not the same level of esteem.
With similarly loaded-to-the-gills V6 Camry's MSRPing at 30.5, I can't imagine buying the Camry. No financial argument you make (depreciation, repairs, etc.), can offset the upfront differential of roughly 7500. (eg: buy the Camry with MSRP of 31.5 for 27.5, which may not even be realistic.)
Bank the 7500 in an ING account(2.3%) or a long term CD and after you pay off the Sable(5yrs) you'll have a minimum of 8400 in the bank. Sable will have maybe 75K miles at that point, with a year to go on the extended warranty, and maybe things start to fail, but no way you'll spend 8400 on repairs. Hold her for another 5 years and the ING account is up to 9400. Figure maybe 2500 -3000K for repairs, and realize that interest rates will likely go higher over ten yrs, and you should still have maybe 6-7K. Nice little down payment for the next new car!!
It's my plan anyway, 2 1/2 yrs in, no problems...