Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison



  • Frankly, I am glad the new Taurus owners on this forum are pleased with their purchase. It's when a car you buy doesn't meet your expectations, that it's a problem. Avalon and Azera owners by and large seem very happy with the decisions they have made and speak well for the cars they purchased. I don't see what the problem is with an American manufacturer building a car that can sell and make its owners happy.

    While I am thrilled with my Azzy, I know newer models are coming out every year (in fact, I wish I had the Azzy that now has XM). So much of the Taurus (even besides the engine) is new from the 500, why would we expect it not to be a big improvement over the 500. I love to see the info in this forum about what the new owners are saying about their cars and why they love them. I get to think about what will be available in a few years when I get to consider a new model.

    I hope they are all well built, powerful, luxurious, sporty, economical and whatever other positive adjective there is. Now if they only could drop in price......
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    For what it's worth, I'll be getting my new Taurus soon. I can't figure out the argument that because Honda and Toyota resale are better you should buy them despite the fact they cost thousands more. Doesn't make sense to me. Besides I drive all my vehicles to 150,000 or more and resale has little relevance at that point. By the way I did buy a Honda minivan last fall, but the main reason for me doing that was I thought it was the best product out there.

    The Taurus has really impressed me with it's space and quiet ride. Power is good and the transmission pretty seamless. The engine runs smooth and again not sure why people are taking pot shots at it. It's a darn good car and that's the reason I'm buying it. ;)
  • Besides I drive all my vehicles to 150,000 or more and resale has little relevance at that point.

    Before you judge what I'm about to say, I like the Taurus - I've looked at it with my grandmother and think it serves its purpose very well. That being said, resale is impressive on a Honda. One of my best guy friends has a 1994 Accord (that's 14 years old) with 201k miles on the odo. Three weekends ago, he had his dad's truck to use for the weekend, so he set his Accord out on a busy road with a for sale sign. It's in good but not great shape; has been wrecked, etc... He asked $4,000 for it and got 5 calls in three days. He didn't sell the car; he had no intention to do so, but he wanted to have an idea of what he could get for it. He told me he felt confident that he could get $4k for it by asking $4,700 (his plan).

    Pretty darn good for a 14 year old car 4-cyl Auto if you ask me. The car is an EX (15" alloys, sunroof, Alpine CD added).
  • burlburl Posts: 40
    Smart Family Member
    As long as he only wants a "Very Good Driver" He will after come out :
    ...... say 30 cars at $10,000+- saving of $300,000 AFTER TAXES
    or some $500,000 of annual earning's

    Kind of hard to argue with him ........... particularly if we need to borrow some $$$$$$$

    When I was selling cars and quite likely now too............I truly thought the Tarus was 1 of the best used buys period: comfortable, decent shop record , somewhat roomy (people wanting a larger/smaller car could split the difference and come out way ahead) Safe, decent gas mileage, etc.

    I have not checked recently........... but you could buy a current year
    (07) !0,000/20,000 mile rental for about %50/60% of what it cost new......for 10.000/$15000 for a current year car doesn't get much better

    The Tarus has always been a Strong car I really liked them used

    But I never bought 1..........Go Figure

  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    Yeah $4,000 is a pretty good price for a 14 year Honda, but surly you could get at least $2,000 for a similar Ford or Chevy. Okay if the Honda cost $2,000 more to start with, where's the resale advantage? Also if you would have invested that $2,000 saved at 5% interest over 14 years, you'd have $4,157 in your pocket today.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 6,413
    He is a smart guy. You should hear his opinions on me leasing my cars. He also keeps them for a while. I guess to each his own. I want a new car every few years and don't put many miles so leasing is for me.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2017 Hyundai Elantra

  • If you liked the Honda or Toyota better to start with (and fourteen years ago I think I'd take an Accord over a Contour or Corsica), it basically means there wasn't the penalty for buying the Honda that many would lead you to believe.

    And trust me, I'd bet 99% of people buying cars don't pick a lower-cost model and invest the rest. In theory, its a great idea, but not very realistic I believe.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    You know a Lumina or Taurus would be better comps.

    Yeah it's too bad more people don't pay attention to those details. It's one of the reasons I've accumulated more wealth at 40 than 95% of the people I walk by on the street.
  • Trust me, as the owner of a 1996 Accord it is pure compact. The EPA says so too. The Accord didn't offer a V6 in 1994 like the Taurus and Lumina, nor did it have the room of those vehicles.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    i can't figure out the argument that because Honda and Toyota resale are better you should buy them despite the fact they cost thousands more.
    this vis not an argument at all - let's sau you have 2 choices an Avalon XLS for $30k vs. an Azera Ltd. at $25k, lets further assume that you normally trade in your cars in 3 years and with low mileage that Avalon will get you $20k in trade-in and the Azera $15k. Simple math - both cars cost you $10,000 to drive over those three years, the Avalon, in this case, does not cost anymore to own than the Azera, except for the added cost of financing the additional principal ($400.00/year) of which the Avalon shoulod even pay some of that back as well, in savings at the gas pumps. This provides the basis of
    cost-to-own numbers available pretty much on any car and is why things like Avalons and Accords can actually be less expensive than other cars where the initial cost difference can be in the thousands. Use Edmund's or Intellichoice to help you make these kind of evaluatoions - but beware that these services can not always anticipate initial selling prices for any of these cars especially in these days of heavy rebates, 'free' financing, and mfgrs. that would seemingly rather get you into their car than make any mnoney selling it to you and therefore those 'cost-to-own' can skew in one direction or the other. IMO, if you are one of those 'usual' new car buyers that tend to keep a car for 5 years or less 'cost-to-own' figures are far more important and accurate measures of what any car truly costs than a price tag ever thought of being.
    You buy your new Ford for no other reason than you like it - but be aware that it may or may not be a cheaper car to own than let's say that Avalon which will certainly cost you thousands more to get out of the showroom. If you do get 150k relatively trouble free miles out of your Taurus - then it will certainly cost less than any Avalon as this would be the ultimate defendable justification for buying something like a Taurus (or an Azera) just like those Avalon buyers use resale values and the usually shorter ownership periods as defendable justifications for spending more money. Reliability/repair issues though they may come into play over the 150k you are talking about should largely be a non-issue with any of cars.
  • cxccxc Posts: 122
    Most people would rather die than think!
  • scbobscbob Posts: 167
    At some point, we all need to consider - Will I be happy with this car regardless of costs? I looked at the Avalon Limited and considered cost, but the biggest thing to me was that I did not like the exterior styling, the interior styling and the "doors" on the dashboard. I knew that every time I got in, I would have to look at all this.
    Happy with my Azera, but that's me. The $10,000 I saved and using regular fuel will go a long way toward my next car.
    Resale has never been a consideration for me when getting a car. If it was, I would probably keep driving what I had. I have owned some very expensive cars that depreciated enormously, quickly.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 6,413
    "and using regular fuel"

    The Avalon runs just fine with regular.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2017 Hyundai Elantra

  • chikoochikoo Posts: 3,008
    Hey Captain Morgan, quit the bottle.

    The new 3.5L is not part of the Duratec family, but rather an all new design. It was engineered from the beginning, however, to have the same height and width dimensions as the current 3.0L Duratec. from here - - six-speed/

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    not a function of a bottle of anything and really only a suspicion given Ford's history of making promkises they can't or have no intention of keeping. The 3.5 from its rudimentary VVT, its sound aqnd feel (smoothness), to those identical external size and appearance suspiciously sounds like a bored/stoked 3.0. And I guess that Ford calls it a Duratec because the engines aren't related? BTW sponsored awards and honors, articles/press releases ostensibly written by the mfgrs. etc etc. especially when the net result is the same - an engine 'new' or 'old' that lacks the refinement (and sophistication) of many of the others in this group. I'll stand behind my 'bottle' and contend that it really isn't until proven otherwise because of Ford's financial issues, the identical appearance, the similar rudimentary valvetrains and rough behavior when each is pushed.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    Who cares? The 3.0 from Ford is a very dependable engine. I have a brother with one that has 255,000 miles on the original engine and it still doesn't burn any oil.

    Refinement and sophistication are such a subjective words. People throw them around conversations to baffle people. Fortunately I can see through the B.S. Often time they've been used to refer to European makes, and it's well documented those vehicles give people more mechanical problems then most everything else on the world.

    I don't know much about the 3.5 yet, but I'll report back in a few years after I've logged some major miles.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 6,413
    After 15000 miles with a Toyota 2GR ('06 Avalon) I can tell you it is probably one of the smoothest engines I have ever experienced. From 4000 to 6000 RPM it is absolutely incredible. You can't tell the difference from redline to just cruising along at 2000RPM. I haven't driven anything with the Ford 3.5 so I can't compare I can only go by what I have read and the initial feeling is a lack of refinement compared to other v6s. Not that it won't be a trouble free or economical engine, just slightly behind the competition. Lets face it, Toyota has plenty of money to put into designing new engines, hybrid technology, etc, Ford doesn't. So they do the best they can within a given budget and pop out what they can. I do think they are in the right direction making the 3.5 the engine of choice in most of their vehicles over the next few years. Toyota and Nissan do very well doing that and Ford will too. It has to save money having the same powertrain across multiple lines.

    Which Ford 3.0 with 255K? The old Vulcan pushrod or the Duratec? The Vulcan is known to be a very reliable engine.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2017 Hyundai Elantra

  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    You know I don't know. It's in a late 90's Ford Ranger pickup. It's still running great.

    My other brother also has a 3.0 in a similar aged Taurus. That's one only in the 130,000 range, but again not one problem with it.

    Toyota obviously is doing things well. However,I'm not writing off Ford or GM for that matter. They're still doing a fair amount of R&D and let's face it most of the manufactures copy what everybody else is doing anyway.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 6,413
    If its in the Ranger its the Vulcan... still being used to this day I believe. The Taurus could be either one depending on the model.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2017 Hyundai Elantra

  • Yep, the Ranger uses a 2.3L, the 3.0L FlexFuel Vulcan (148 hp I think), and the 4.0L from the Explorer.
  • scbobscbob Posts: 167
    Not what Toyota says.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    You know my brother bought that Ranger with 119,000 miles on it and only paid $3,500. He puts 136,000 miles on it with very few repairs and the thing still looks and runs great. Beat that value! :P

    He did the same thing with a BMW car before that. He's never paid much more then $5,000 for a car. Probably helps he's an engineer and is fairly handy, but from what I can gather just minor repairs on both vehicles and routine oil changes and maintenance seems to be the key.

    His big premise is that most vehicles are a heck of lot more advanced then the generation before them and generally better. For instance the Ranger has nearly all the same technology or better than his 80's vintage BMW had.
  • chikoochikoo Posts: 3,008
    I will agree with you on this.

    The Duratec is a dependaple engine, and if the vehicle is loaded, i.e. 2 persons or more, the engine feels very smooth.
    What I am saying is that Ford engines are probably designed to be smooth revving under load. Under light loads, it is not damped well enough. That said, I have driven the Toyota 3.0L (in a ES300, RX300) and also the 2.5L on the IS250. The 3.0L is smooth, but it is also very detached from the driver. So much so that I could not even hear the belt screeching while seated inside the car. I was lucky my nephew who was standing outside told me to come out with the engine running to ear the sound. What does that mean? It means that the toyota engines are not necessarily more smoother. It is "felt" smoother due to the lack of any sound/vibration transmission to the driver. :sick:
  • chikoochikoo Posts: 3,008
    The Duratec is a dependaple engine
    should read "dependable". sorry about that.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    full throttlr engine sound and vibration levels in 3.0 DT Ford 500 and Fusions has been measured to be significantly higher than correspondent V6 engines from all the other mfgrs. all the way 'down' to The Chrysler V6 (which turns out not to be so bad after all. Granted that especially with the extra HP most driversd will rarelyif ever find the need to 'wind' the engine out that far - but in thew case of two of the engines that I do have experience with, the Toyota 2GR and the Nissan VQ, either engine is equally willing (and able) to spend all day in the 4-6000 rpm range without any 'racket'. This not really subjective as you note, a decibel is a decibel, but it does seem as one poster noted that it just might be possible for someone to like this lack of balance and isolation. The 3.5 has been reviewed by a number of auto pubs to share many of those same 'refinement' issues in the Lincoln MKX and Z as well as the Edge, which remains my only basis (along with a similar and simplier VVT) to suspect the 3.5 is 'only' a 'bored/stroked' 3.0 which in itself dated to the smaller 2.5s that proceeded it. Kind of like biting into GMs ludricrous claims that its old 231/3.8/3800 over its multiple incarnations is not still basically the same ole ironblock pushrod. And sure, both those engines, the GM3.8 and the DT ultimately became what they are now - reliable if nothing else.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    Okay. Reliability is what I'm after.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 6,413
    "It is "felt" smoother due to the lack of any sound/vibration transmission to the driver"

    No, it IS smoother and that is why the sound/vibration isn't carried through the driveline. We could have this argument all day, but as far as NVH goes the 2 GR and the VQ are at the top of the class. The old Yota 3.0 wasn't too bad either.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2017 Hyundai Elantra

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    if that's what you want, reliability, than sign up for the Maxima, that VQ is without a doubt the most 'bulletproof' V6 that perhaps has ever been built - the Toyota 2GR while it has displayed no mechanical problems to date, is the new kid on the block , only 3 years old since appearring first in the Avalon and folowed quickly in several Toyota/Lexus vehicles. The point, howeever, is, if you can have both a smooth and refined (and efficient) engine as well as a reliable one - why not? decently maintained all these engines should provide 150-200k relatively troublefree service.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    You know I think we're splitting hairs on this. If you scroll up you'll see how many reliable miles some of my family has gotten out of the Ford engines.

    It's kind of like comparing fan bases for USC,LSU, Florida, Nebraska, and Texas. Okay one polling service says Texas fans are the "best" while another says something else. In reality they're all good, and that's the way I view most engines.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    don't believe it's 'splitting hairs' at all - I personally would spend my money on a 'bad' car with a superior engine before a 'good' car with something less than that. Back a few years back that is why I spent a spent several thousand more on my Avalon than the Five Hundred - a car that I really kinda liked until I turned the key. Don't know if it would be the same today with the 260 hp Taurus, although I'm not a big fan of razor blades and overly 'soft' suspensions.
Sign In or Register to comment.