Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Many people do not realize how the FS / Taurus X is designed. If you look at a Volvo C90, you will note that the sides are very thick on the outside. The T-Rex has a similar design, except that the sides are thicker on the inside. It has a very large window sill - about 3 inches. I enjoy putting my arm there while driving...
NOTE: I own a FS, not T-Rex, but I'm assuming the interior design hasn't changed.
But this is one area in which the FS loses some interior volume compared with a manufacturer who uses narrower doors.
Do I sense some sarcasm? :-)
Spend enough time in those threads and it may talk you out of a crossover entirely.
Where's that used Focus wagon with the PZEV 2.3l engine?
Aye, but only once, on a tank that was all freeway - and the freeways averaged a little over 60 MPH that day (varied between 55 and 70 MPH).
I generally get 26 MPG @ 80 MPH. In town is only around 20 MPG unless there is some mix with freeway miles. Most tanks are around 22 MPG for me (I do a lot of in-town). I think it is pretty good for a 4100 lb vehicle with a V6 engine... :shades:
2006 FS, FWD SEL.
You can't take the external dimensions and try to calculate the interior CuFt difference based on ground clearance and height.
And I didn't try to, maybe you will have to quote what could have led you to that misunderstanding.
For reference, that falls right between a Pilot and an Odyssey, but acceleration was slower than either.
Motorweek averaged 20mpg with theirs; Edmunds got 19mpg.
Pretty consistent numbers, 18-20mpg, less than 10% variance from one source to the other. "
What the heck was CR doing testing a FS, or did you mean T-Rex?
I achieve my numbers only by careful driving. Not to the extent of hybrid "hyper milers", but not "pedal to the metal" either. If I drive the FS hard it will get 17 in town.
It's not that I don't like any other CUV, I never said it was perfect for everyone and yet I see no reason for the 3.5l/6spd transmission as we can now see what it did to the epa figures regardless of new/old. I contend its a design that will age well and provides the best compromise of space/performance and value in the market. I have criticized its flaws as I see them as an owner and have reviewed the competition with interest to see what they brought to market 2 years after the FS showed up. My review of that leaves me wanting as I've said for less weight and better mpg because whats the point of a 300/350/400hp CUV that tows 5000-10000lbs, Oh been there done that, its called a SUV.
A large percentage of people buy SUV's for space and they never tow or go off road, that was the reason the CUV niche was created, that and an alternate to the mini. The minute you weigh as much/more than a SUV/mini, only improve mpg by 1 or 2 and argue ground clearance you are getting far afield of what the CUV was intended.
Keep the space, lose the weight, improve the mpg by 30-50% and keep the look and infuse it with competant handling and you have a CUV worth considering. The current direction with more, more, more the market demands in its wisdom is misguided. I won't buy a T-reX because it lost what I think was good and class leading in its segment all I believed it needed was an interior comparable to vw's, shouldn't be hard but apparantly it is.
Your thought's may vary...
And i say the lambdas are the best blend of design space performance and value (you do get the most CUV. Period). But that's totally beside the point. As for the drop in fuel economy due to the 3.5l, where are these numbers? And as for mpg improvment from SUV to CUV, most of these CUVs get much better ratings than comparably sized SUVs. I never thought the FS was in any way class leading, infact always behind some competitor, but what do you think is lost from FS to TX? All it does is add power. DO you think it lost it'ssense that it didn't need to be plastic and add more power because more power makes you better, cooler? It's not a 15 year girl. I thought the interior was nice when I sat in it a couple of weeks ago.
The direction the auto industry is going in is good. The sale of SUVs are going down as gas saving CUVs are becoming more popular. that's enough for me right now. That, and the Highlander Hybrid.
than why are the different manufacturers already talking about hp increases as opposed to mpg increases.
When a vehicle is truly underpowered (30+ lbs per hp) , a bigger engine may actually improve your mileage because it doesn't have to be revving north of 4000 rpm most of the time.
Now, the bigger engine should be tweaked for torque and not HP. Well, unless you are driving a Honda VTEC and can have both.
Good example, the bigger engine on the 08 CX-9 picked up 1mpg city with more hp than before. That is, if you accept Mazda's numbers.
can't argue there you get the most weight and pay one of the bigger entry prices for the privilege, I see no "value" in that. You can't tell me ANYONE has gone out and bought a loaded top of the line lambda for $28k hence the value part of the equation as I've seen FS's go for.
I would contend that if ford developed the 3.0 they could have seen gains in power and economy producing an engine that would have not suffered a 3mpg hit from the old epa to the new.
"I never thought the FS was in any way class leading, infact always behind some competitor"
That's your opinion, I'd argue in the mpg dept it was as well as the only one that offered the cvt which is accepted in a nissan application and feigned in ford's, that almost makes sense. And until the lambda's showed up it had the most comfortable 3rd row and most space behind it of the CUV crowd.
not sure what sense you tried to make of this statement
"DO you think it lost it'ssense that it didn't need to be plastic and add more power because more power makes you better, cooler? It's not a 15 year girl."
so alas we'll continue to be protagonists, you for wretched excess and me for rational design where appropos.
let mediocrity rise to the top as it always does because right now that's all anyone is going to get...
that's patently incorrect, torque is a function of displacement and vtec is about getting more power out of smaller displacement motors. vtec motors are by no means known for being torque monsters.
"When a vehicle is truly underpowered (30+ lbs per hp) , a bigger engine may actually improve your mileage because it doesn't have to be revving north of 4000 rpm most of the time"
we're not talking about this at all as none of these are close to your underpowered figure so your point is again lost.
You may want to read up on VTEC engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTEC
They use different camshaft profiles for optimized operation on both low and high rpm. Contrary to what you suggest, you can have two engines with the *same* displacement and different torque numbers.
A VTEC torque curve also tends to be flatter than on a comparably sized engine without the technology.
"When a vehicle is truly underpowered (30+ lbs per hp) , a bigger engine may actually improve your mileage because it doesn't have to be revving north of 4000 rpm most of the time"
I didn't want to use 25+ lbs per hp because some people could do the math and figure it was the weight-to-power ratio of a fully loaded FS.
Ford did tune the 3.0 V6 in the fusion/ Mazda 6. i was hoping I could explain the whole behind competitors thing. Interior space wise, It was always behind the Buick Rendezvous with THE LARGEST THIRD ROW IN ITS CLASS. Power wise, too. The same with others like the Honda Pilot-except for the third row. Protagonist? Youre a poet too? Well different strokes for different folks. Every man is superman in his own right.
And the bar of mediocrity continues to rise.
All they have to do for me is improve third row size.
FS FWD 3959 / 203 = 19.5
torque 207 = 19.1
enclave fwd 4780 / 275 = 17.3
torque 251 = 19.0
with that kind of hp advantage I'd think you'd me more than a tenth or 2 faster off the line but when you look at torque its a dead heat hence no real acceleration advantage despite your big hp advantage that marketing people love to sell to people who don't know the difference... you didn't think I'd come up with that one did you.
So in the end I have a smaller displacemeent motor with the ability to get better real world mpg and still beat you in the stop light grand prix.
And when we're racing for pinks on TV at the grudge match I can more than make up that difference at the light so at the end of the day its a wash.
"you can have two engines with the *same* displacement and different torque numbers."
I didn't argue that but it's a small increase as opposed to the incrementally larger gains that are seen on the hp side. The intent of vtec was to produce more hp, the small increase in TQ was byproduct of higher efficiency. So while you see an improvement with vtec its not like because of it you can have your cake and eat it to when it comes to torque figures.
You ain't dragged me yet :P
If I'm off the line quicker in a lambda (cuz hp is power off the line) and my acceleration is slightly better, doesn't that mean you'll be left in the dust?
you were right about the rendevous being a class leader, found this little tidbit on another forum.
"Forbes analyzed crash test results, fatality statistics, safety equipment and Consumer Reports' accident avoidance ratings to come up with their top 20 list. Standard safety equipment was one of the priorities in the ratings.
Here are the vehicles that made the list (2007 Models In Order):
-Buick Rendevous
-Ford Ranger/ Mazda B-Series Truck
-Nissan Frontier
-Ford Escape/ Mercury Mariner (2007 Model)
-Toyota Yaris
-Hyundai Accent
-Toyota Matrix/ Pontiac Vibe
-Kia Rio
-Chevrolet Aveo
-Suzuki Forenza/ Reno
-Ford Focus
-Jeep Liberty
-Dodge Dakota
-Chevrolet Cobalt/ Pontiac G5
-Nissan Xterra
-Saturn Ion
-Chrysler PT Cruiser
-Honda S2000
-Toyota Scion tC
-Mazda3"
This was the number one reason I bought our FS, it had 5 stars all around, full curtains and lead the pack(tied with pacifica) in roll over testing. So you can keep you class leading 3rd row seat as I'd like to live to see my days out.
There's too many posts, so you'll have to figure it out. I think I've explained the CuFt difference plenty of times, and so have a few others posts.
Come on now, which has the better 0-60 times? Mhmmm.
I'm confused about that list. Are you saying those are the highest fatality vehicles?
I didn't say it was the safest (If I was talking about that, I'd show you to the Honda Pilot of the model year your FS came out). I was simply saying that you didn't get the most passenger/ cargo space that was offered in CUVs at the time. And at 186in. Rendezvous makes your FS look like a Suburban.
Incorrect on the pilot statistics, sort of, they both have five star rating and the driver side numbers on the pilot are better and the passenger side numbers for the FS are better if I'm reading them correctly. At worse its vice versa if I misread the numbers. Call it a wash there with those numbers. There is no debate about the pilot is more likely to roll over and doesn't have full side curtain airbags.
thanks for the rendevous deathtrap headsup
nhtsa
"Safety Concern:During the side impact test, the driver door became unlatched and swung open. The Rendezvous is equipped with standard Automatic Door Locks (ADL). NHTSA test protocol disables ADL during testing. A General Motors test showed that the door remained closed under similar test conditions when the ADL was activated. A door opening during a side impact crash increases the likelihood of occupant ejection. "
3 stars/4 stars/5 stars/5 stars with no rollover rating and no side curtains. I wouldn't put my family in one with that kind of crash performance and I wouldn't want to see you put your family in that lack of stars performer either.
keep trying...
The Mazda CX9?
www.forbes.com/2007/07/26/cars-dangerous-twenty-forbeslife-cx_bh_0726cars.html
The intent of vtec was to produce more hp
The intent of VTEC is to allow multiple points of optimization for the same engine. It controls the valve lift and opening times. Open them too much, and the engine loses torque at low-rpm, open them too little, and the engine can't breath at high-rpm.
VTEC allows you to have different opening times at different rpm ranges. I believe the Honda 3.5 V6 has three different settings as in the 3.0 engine, but I may be wrong. The difference is not as noticeable on peak numbers as it is in the overall torque curve, but I may be getting too technical.
Since you seem to have taken an interest on numbers and funny drag contests this time around, I would like to point out that you cannot smoke my Outlook for an obvious reason: I don't own one. But if you ever feel lucky while looking up at a stop light, you may also want to remember that the GM V6 will achieve its peak torque considerably faster, at 3200 rpm, and will reach 0-60 one second faster (MT numbers.)
But the really interesting part of that match and your math exercise would be to watch two empty brutes ripping through the pavement without drivers or cargo.
Ford Edge - 12470
Toyota Highlander (2007) - 11253
GMC Acadia & Saturn Outlook - 10875 (combined)
Honda Pilot - 10371
DrFill
I couldn't find it, or at least none that made sense. There was someone trying to explain it with the shape of the roof and someone else arguing GM was cooking the numbers.
But let's just leave it at that.
I think the new Taurus X is on sale- at least I heard someone say they saw it on this site. But maybe that's just a test vehicle.
Something isn't right. You should get at least over 20. Have you had the dealer check it out? Is it a 2005, with the early AWD?
Also, the recent discovery that brake pads swelled could be causing drag. How often have your brakes been replaced?
I think the new Taurus X is on sale- at least I heard someone say they saw it on this site. But maybe that's just a test vehicle.
Ask and you shall receive.
FS June 2007 sales - 2,457 (19,788 YTD)
Taurus X June 2007 sales - 0 but they are on sale now. They hit the lots in July.
Another one to note is the Escape. Ford classifies it as an SUV but it is a unibody and should really be considered a CUV IMO.
June 2007 Esape sales - 19,147
Ford is planning to update the drivetrain in the Escape soon accoring to sources on Ford forums and with sales like that they should!
Due to short supply, our local dealer is asking sticker price for a Buick Enclave. We are looking into the CXL FWD model, but the CXL AWD goes for $37K. A comparably equipped Saturn Outlook also goes for $37K (minus $1K of incentives.)
$5K is not small change but...it is a Benz.
The Buick/GMC dealer is right in front of it, and the Acadias are moving much faster. As for the Enclave, they are begging buyers to let the cars one or two extra days on display.
Ford gave it a shot and called one wrong again. The FS is a good vehicle (and the best one for certain buyers), but not the one that most of the marketplace is looking for. The Taurus X should be able to hold its own a bit better, but the delay of the Flex is going to cost Ford, as the pressure on the market will be off by the time it is out. The Lambdas will be plentiful by then (both in buyers hands and on dealers lots). The Flex styling will sell it to some, and the legroom to others, but it isn't here to catch the wave now. Too bad for Ford.
Things have changed. When Taurus ruled and Explorer ruled, there weren't that many comparable choices. F150 does well with good design, marketing and promotions--and the fact that there are just not that many full-size truck choices out there. Every manufacturer has a CUV or two or three now. Choice in the market is very wide, and it means that many very good vehicles are going to see just so-so sales.
One huge benefit has come out of the outcome of these CUV sales. If the Saturn is doing the worst, then maybe GM will scrap any plans for a Chevy lambda.
That is a difficult situation for GM. In as much as they want to keep their Saturn loyal fan base with the whole "no dicker, pay sticker" policy, I think it will ultimately hurt the entire brand.
They either have to lower the Saturn Outlook price through incentives, causing people to expect the same from the GMC/Buick dealers across the street, or stick to their guns, making the Outlooks sit on the lot while people buy similarly priced Enclaves or cheaper Acadias.
While researching some more, the IIHS website lists the Pacifica as a death-trap on a rear end crash: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55
edited down for post full link here
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19569300/
http://www.greatcarstv.com/index.php/content/view/277/247/
"The test results released Tuesday found several SUVs had improved protections against whiplash injuries but gave poor marks to vehicles made by several leading automakers, including BMW AG, DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said the simulated rear crashes at 20 miles per hour showed that many large vehicles fall short in protecting against neck injuries, which lead to 2 million insurance claims a year costing at least $8.5 billion.
Several SUVs made progress — 17 of 59 SUVs from the 2007 model year received top ratings in the testing, compared with six of 44 SUVs tested in 2006.
The best performers among 2007 SUVs included: Acura MDX and RDX; Lincoln MKX, Ford Edge and Ford Freestyle; Honda CR-V, Element and Pilot; Hyundai Santa Fe; Jeep Grand Cherokee; Kia Sorento; Land Rover LR3; Mercedes M Class; Mitsubishi Outlander; Subaru B9 Tribeca and Forester, and Volvo XC90.
SUVs from the 2007 model year rated poorly were: BMW X3 and X5; Buick Rainier, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Isuzu Ascender; Cadillac SRX; Chrysler Pacifica; Dodge Nitro; Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer; Mitsubishi Endeavor; Hummer H3; Hyundai Tucson; Jeep Liberty; Kia Sportage; Lexus GX470 and RX; Nissan Xterra; Saab 9-7X; Suzuki XL7; Toyota 4Runner and Highlander."
Just that "death trap" was a little dramatic given what the tests measure.
So I wouldn't say they are quite measuring crash test safety, rather they are only testing the seat itself, and the headrest.
The entire vehicle is excluded, along with any energy it may be able to absorb prior to that energy reaching the seat.
They should re-do these tests with the seat in the car.