What Are Your Thoughts on the Return of the Taurus/Sable?



  • jmn1jmn1 Member Posts: 26
    Ok, but it has the same lines as a Town Car and the chrome (I think...).

    Also, I choose to clarify something. By the term Super Duty Superiority, it has been the best-selling truck for the last, what, 30 years? I also read somewhere that the F-150 outsells the Tundra by about 8 to 1. It also outsells the Ridgeline by about 13 to 1 (I don't remember where I read this).

    As for the Ranger, I'm telling you (Ford), KEEP THE NAME THIS TIME, redesign the truck, get rid of the two-door Supercab, and add a four-door. That's it. If I were designing a car for production, I would look at that market for a few years, take all of the good features, put them in, take the bad, improve them, and make one innovation.

    Only time will tell what Ford will do. Let's take for example, the outdated Ford Freestar. I thought it was a DECENT minivan, but it lacked (in my opinion) two major features. Those were 2nd-row power windows and a split-folding third row. Moving a kid in college and only having one who does sports (soccer), the one-piece is livable. But, at least as an upgrade, a split should be forseen. As for the windows, that alone could steer me toward the Hyundai Entourage or almost new Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey. That alone WOULD DEFINITELY keep me from buying it, unless it has a rebate that made it only, $12000. I saw a loaded SEL 4.2L V6 (2006) with 21000 miles on it, for $14K.

    I still think the Taurus is good, but the Freestyle only needed a better engine. At least it was fuel efficient. Why Taurus X? How about... oh, forget it. May as well call it Tempo or Escort. I mean, Ford Taurus X Limited SEL AWD has NO RING to it.
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Member Posts: 490
    Bruce - I hope you're enjoying your Taurus. Sounds like you are. They are definitely competent vehicles for the money.

    As for nobody knows about em - you're right about that. Our friend autoextremist said not long ago that GMs marketing dept was going to take Ford to school on how to introduce a new car with it's efforts for the new Malibu. It looks to me right now that he was right again. Has anyone NOT seen the ads for the 'car you can't ignore'? And the Malibu reviews are calling it 'better than GM says it is'. I've always been a Ford man, but that was because there was always reason to be. GM seems to really have it's act together now. We'll see when the data comes in. Ford doing well with reliability right now at least with the Mexican-made cars.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    As I view this forum, what ads are displayed on the right side bar? Chevy Malibu on top, and the Ford Fusion on the bottom! Where are the Taurus ads? Probably not on the Malibu or Fusion forums.
  • jmn1jmn1 Member Posts: 26
    Good point. I get what you're at.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Well, to be fair, as I look at this page, the ad banner across the top is Ford Taurus Sedan. To the right of this box is the Malibu, and at the bottom, the Escape Hybrid.

    So, the Taurus ad was the first thing I saw.
  • jmn1jmn1 Member Posts: 26
    I have never seen a Taurus ad in this forum (its not showing up THIS second). Still the Malibu and Fusion.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I don't see it this time, but commonly see a Ford Taurus ad at the top of the page, in the white space to the right of the green carspace logo. The ad is very "blue" in its coloration, using an Ice Blue Taurus, as well.
  • jmn1jmn1 Member Posts: 26
    OK, now I see it. I didn't earlier.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The ads come and go.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    I see the Taurus ad at the top now. It was not there earlier when I made my 1st post.
  • jmn1jmn1 Member Posts: 26
    Makes sense.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    My point is, why the H*LL is Ford keeping this car a secret? Most of us agree that the styling is not gonna sell it so why don't they promote its real virtues?

    Maybe they think like me? People will actually go TEST DRIVE vehicles, and discover FOR THEMSELVES which cars are great, and don't really NEED advertising? :P
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Or maybe they just thought changing the name would do the trick - I don't know. They sold about 5000 in October plus another 3200 of the Taurus X. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the Impalas sold and just a drip compared to Camrys and Accords. They sold over 11,000 Fusions.

    The Fusion is a good car and is worthy of strong sales but I think the advertising campaign helped it - the one where they had people comparing Camrys, Accords and Fusions. I don't want to argue about the validity or the way the comparison was set up but it did draw attention to the Fusion. Likewise the Edge ads comparing it to Lexus and BMW drew favorable attention to the Edge. It is selling well.

    I think that in a head to head comparison with a V6 Impala, Charger, or 300, the Taurus would kick their butts in every area except maybe styling. The Camry and Accord are in a bit different class but buyers should be persuaded to cross-shop a Taurus. I think many would be impressed with the driving experience and quality - not to mention the safety ratings and roominess.

    Unlike you and I, many people will not bother test driving a Taurus because they are still thinking it is the old rental car version. Ford needs to enlighten them!
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Member Posts: 124
    I still think that Ford was nuts to take a "new" car and try to sell it under a name that is synonomous with rental and fleet in most consumer minds. They would have been better off to stay with 500 or revive the old Fairlane name. My salesman at the local dealer agrees. They don't even keep one on the showroom floor and I can see why. Looks too much like my wife's old 80's Tempo.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    Yes, I mentioned earlier in this discussion that "Fairlane 500" would have been a good name for this car.
  • jmn1jmn1 Member Posts: 26
    Yeah, but it begins with F (back to the Ford Fiasco). It is a good name. I wonder what would have happened if they named the Edge 'Fairline', the Taurus X 'Edge'. I still don't care for the name Taurus X. How about bringing back the Thunderbird, making a coupe just like the 97-01 (updated of course) called Thunderbird, and a racing convertible (two-seat since the Mustang is four), and call it 'Fairlane'? (FairLANE)

    I think bringing back the Taurus was a great idea. My kid made a clock in wood fab saying, "Honor the Taurus, the Bull's Life is on Edge" with a last-gen Taurus wagon on it THE DAY BEFORE THEY BROUGHT THE TAURUS BACK. Wow. Ironic.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    They don't even keep one on the showroom floor

    Geee, I wonder why they don't sell any? :P
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    When we bought ours a couple of weeks ago, the dealer had a red AWD Limited with chrome clad wheels, nav, and everything else you can imagine on the showroom floor. It was a pretty striking vehicle but the sticker price was around $33,000 if I recall - maybe more.

    I had a nice visit with the General Manager of the dealership and he admitted that he made a mistake by stocking so many loaded Limiteds. He thinks the price was just more than most buyers were willing to pay for a Taurus so many just dismissed it. I still think the Limited is a fine value for all you get but it is hard for a buyer who is thinking low to mid $20s to even consider jumping to a $30,000 plus vehicle.

    As thegraduate said earlier, price is important in the 4-door family sedan class.
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    I've rented the "new" Taurus a couple of times in the past 4 months, and really like the car. I almost bought the Five Hundred when it was first introduced, but was really put off by the dealer, and their inability to get one delivered with the side curtain airbag option (Safety Package Option, I believe it was called). I know this is standard with the new Taurus.

    However, I don't like the so called "bling" that Ford has applied to the new Taurus. The clear tail light lens, and the chrome appliqué on the sides . . . I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really dislike clear tail light lenses - leave that baloney to the 20-something specialty tuners with their Hondas.

    Also, I've never looked upon the Five Hundred or new Taurus as a behemoth. In fact, when you set it side-by-side to the new generation Accord or Camry, it's not overly large at all - the seating position is just higher - which is actually good for a lot of folks.

    Since J Mays designed the VW Passat, and the Five Hundred, I like both profiles. In reality, Mays penned the Five Hundred as simply a larger scale Passat. Conservative, yes, but I like conservative . . . it never goes out of style, because it was never in style to begin with!
  • mikeffmikeff Member Posts: 1
    Why take a new brand that had some style and recreate an image of a car that was most often known for fleet sales. Also when have you seen an add for the 500

    Fire the Marketing VPs
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    . Also when have you seen an add for the 500

    I haven't in months. Probably because the Five Hundred is no longer on sale.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    I saw that someone indicated the FE for the 500 was better than that of the new Taurus. I don't know if that was based on experience or the EPA numbers. If you convert the 2007 Five Hundred EPA numbers to the new 2008 numbers you get 19/26 and 21 overall. The original 2007 numbers are 21/29 and 24 overall. The 2008 Taurus numbers are 18/28 and 22 overall. The only EPA number that is higher for the 2007 Five Hundred is the city number, which is 1 mpg higher.
    Can anyone that traded a Five Hundred for a 2008 Taurus comment on real life FE experience?
  • kaisu04kaisu04 Member Posts: 6
    I don't think many Ford buyers care much about the EPA. Otherwise they would buy Camry/Accord. Ford needs to build a better car both quality and engineering. Don't play the name game. I have a 99 Sable. The trade in value is so low that I would be better off getting a Camry/Accord for $5k more when buying new. It also got so many annoying little problems that I would never buy another Ford or GM for that matter. After losing so much money, I sure hope they learn their lessons and make sure "Quality is job one".
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Member Posts: 2,437
    Trade in values even for American iron are still far better than they used to be. When I was a kid in 1970, I bought a 62 Galaxie 500 for $100. The car was probably a bit less than $3000 when new. Now that was some awful depreciation, but back then an eight year old car was considered a tired machine.

    Your 99 is 8 to 9 years old already. You likely got a nice chunk off the MSRP when you first purchased it. Your tradein is probably still worth $1800, and in some instances you might get more if the dealer is really anxious to sell you something. In other words, your car is still worth approximately 10% of what you paid after nine years. Not bad for a nondescript car that was never a big seller.

    Now, had you bought a 99 Camry for 4 or 5K more, you'd now have a car with a tradein value anywhere from $3700 to $4300, depending on condition and equipment. So you would not be money ahead. Actually, you are better off financially having bought the Sable. (Of course, this does not figure in how much greater ownership satisfaction might have been worth to you...and only you can determine that.)

    Resale on bread and butter mid-size cars is more or less based on the price paid at initial purchase. Heavily discounted cars with lots of rebates and incentives necessarily must have less resale value. But even with that, these cars are often the prudent purchase, because the better resale of an Accord or Camry just helps offset the higher price you paid on initial purchase. In most cases you are not actually money ahead just because your car has a higher resale value.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    I have a 99 Sable. The trade in value is so low that I would be better off getting a Camry/Accord for $5k more when buying new.

    I just tested that theory.

    I priced out a 1999 Ford Taurus SE 4-dr sedan with the 3.0L V6, dark blue, with 100,000 miles on it, in average condition. Private Party Sale price from Edmunds was $1722

    I then priced out a 1999 Toyota Camry XLE V6 4-dr sedan (3.0L engine), dark blue, with 100,000 miles on it, in average condition. Private Party Sale price from Edmunds was $4045

    Difference = $2,323
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Member Posts: 2,437
    Yes, and that's not nearly enough to offset the higher initial price for the Camry. So the Sable is the better financial deal. However, again, owner satisfaction is a factor too, but that is hard to quantify in dollars.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    Is anyone buying the Sable? Maybe it would be a mistake if Mercury is going the way of Plymouth and Oldsmobile. It seems if the Sables in my area are optioned more to my liking. It is hard to find a Taurus Limited around here without the moonroof or chrome wheels, and with the ESC feature. The largest Taurus dealer has about 50 in stock, but only 2 with ESC, both with options I don't want.
  • izaclown1izaclown1 Member Posts: 118
    I was roaming around the local L/M new car lot. I was looking at the sticker prices and the mpg. The GM seems to be a better deal than a Sable. V8 vs V6 and probably a better ride. Possibly more reliable. Basically same mpg. I was more intersted in the Sable, but when I looked at the diffreences, the GM won out in my opinion.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Basically same mpg.
    Since when is 5 miles per gallon "basically the same?"

    (referring to the MGM) V8 vs V6 and probably a better ride. Possibly more reliable

    Possibly less reliable. Speculation with no basis doesn't help anybody in reality. That V8 is slower and much more thirsty than the Sable's V6, making it a detriment, not an advantage.

    Due to the ancient suspension and powertrain (well, the whole car is incredibly dated), I'd be willing to bet that the Taurus/Sable accelerate faster (they have more power and a better transmission to run through : 6 gears vs. 4), get better economy (the EPA found that the Grand Marquis got 3 MPG less than the Sable in town, 5 MPG less on the highway), and due to the independent suspension in the Sable, it's ride and handling are a lot better controlled and much less floaty than the old girl.

    The Sable weighs 500 lbs less and is nearly a foot shorter in overall length (important for parking in length-restricted garages), yet manages to be more roomy.

    The Grand Marquis is a big car, but the Sable/Taurus offers more combined legroom front and rear, as well as more trunk space. The dated interior design in the MGM is a tough sell against the Sable as well. There's a reason Mercury is dumping more than half of these vehicles to fleets - they just aren't competitive with anything these days.

    If you are getting a Grand Marquis for $15k or so, it's probably a good buy. A Taurus can be had for less than $20k however, and is a much better vehicle overall.
  • izaclown1izaclown1 Member Posts: 118
    There is the space difference. The stickers had listed the same gas mileage 28 highway. I have not tried to get in the new ones, but my TC (longer wheel length than GM) was much better ride and everything than our 2000 Sable. But, I guess I am partial to the bigger cars... How many Sables and GM do you see in the services bays for major problems compared to the other models of cars L/M puts out? The Sables and GM are usually in for oil changes and regular maintenance. The others had so may electrical and other problems. Based on sticker price the GM is less money for the Sable for the same equipment.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The stickers had listed the same gas mileage 28 highway. I have not tried to get in the new ones, but my TC (longer wheel length than GM) was much better ride and everything than our 2000 Sable.

    Hold it; you're talking about a 2000 Sable - a COMPLETELY different car made to compete with the likes of Accord, Camry, Oldsmobile Intrigue, etc... the midsize players. It was not made to compete against the full sizers (at the time these included vehicles like the Buick Park Avenue) in power/ride/equipment. The 2008 Sable is a completely different animal - so much so that the old Sable (which was based off of a design that debuted in 1995 as a 1996 model) should not even be in the same sentence as the new one.

    Also, keep in mind that the Town Car will have different tuning, therefore different ride and handling than the Grand Marquis. A Honda Accord and an Acura TL are on the same platform as well, but they drive like two very different cars.

    Based on sticker price the GM is less money for the Sable for the same equipment.

    If all a car is to you is a list of equipment and a price, then the GM is all yours. I've already listed the ways in which the Sable beats the Grand Marquis at its own game - power, economy, room, smaller exterior, technology, driving experience in general. Even on paper, the Sable excels in most areas. The only thing the GM has going for it is price and a dated design which people who hate change deem as a "safe" choice - because its the same technology and design that's been around forever.

    Does the Grand Marquis offer 6 airbags or Stability Control (not talking about traction control - that's a different thing)?
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    My original post was to inquire if there was any difference between the 2008 Taurus and the 2008 Sable, and any advantage of buying one over the other.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I saw that and understand that. Since I can't tell too much difference in them, I didn't respond to your post. I responded to the post below yours, which was on a different topic (although for some reason it was "replying" to yours).
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Other than minor styling differences, they are the same car. Mercury is not selling well and there are pretty persistent rumors that the marque will go the way of Oldsmobile. For that reason, I would (and did) go with the Taurus. There are some awesome deals out there on it, too.
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Member Posts: 490
    "The 2008 Sable is a completely different animal - so much so that the old Sable (which was based off of a design that debuted in 1995 as a 1996 model) should not even be in the same sentence as the new one."

    Another reason the name change from Montego was STOOPID.
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Member Posts: 490
    Only 2 possible reasons to buy the Mercury:

    - If you're a woman (that's their target demographic).
    - or you like the Mercury grille better.

    Else, they're exactly the same. Makes one wonder what IS the reason for Mercury.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Member Posts: 2,437
    It's a real shame, but truly there isn't any reason to buy a Mercury. The public has figured that out and the remaining dismal sales reflect that knowledge. The boneheads responsible for the direction of Mercury these past few years should be forced to repay their salaries and bonuses and be shown the way outa town.
  • capellacapella Member Posts: 20
    Here are the differences I could find between the base 2008 Taurus (SEL with no options) and the base 2008 Sable:

    1) Exterior styling differences that are obvious (grilles, fake side vents on Taurus, none on Sable). I think the Sable has the edge here.
    2) The fake wood on the Sable is a "colder" color than on the Taurus. I prefer the warmer feel of the Taurus interior.
    3) Sable comes with the analog clock. Base Taurus does not. Edge to Sable.
    4) Sable steering wheel spokes are silvery metal-like stuff. Taurus spokes are leather covered. A draw as far as I'm concerned; our son liked the Sable steering wheel better.
    5) The interior convenience group on the Sable is $100 less than on the Taurus, and it includes power pedals. However, the price of the base Sable is a few hundred dollars more than the Taurus. Depending on how you equip the cars, the Taurus and the Sable can cost almost exactly the same.

    The differences are pretty minor. We ended up getting a Taurus mainly because we found one equipped exactly how we wanted it (base model with ESC only), and I didn't like the colder feel of the Sable interior.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Member Posts: 2,437
    What you found is that they are the same vehicle. There's no more difference between the Taurus and Sable now than there is for example between an Explorer Eddie Bauer and an Explorer Limited. No one pretends the Explorer models are different brands, just because the grills, side trim and interior appointments are a bit different. As I said before, whoever brought Mercury so low should have gotten their walking papers long ago.
  • kringwoodkringwood Member Posts: 8
    They renamed it do move from the weak 3.0 duratc engine,now they can promote the 3.5 duratec that it comes with as well as side markers,a few minor redesigns etc. The best deal is to get it 2 years old,youll get it half price,look for a lease return. FMC is doing a major remix,its the last year for the Lincoln Town Car (stupid move) and there phasing out the Grand Marquis.
  • kringwoodkringwood Member Posts: 8
    I agree,the Taurus name was a big winner for 5-6 years after it came out beating Camry as best selling mid-Size but Camry's far ahead of any Ford.
  • kringwoodkringwood Member Posts: 8
    These cars are great deals when the come off lease with under 30k miles with remainder of factory miles,the previous owner got the bugs out and usally a leaser uses FMC Garages only as not to void the warranty
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    Sable comes with the analog clock. Base Taurus does not. Edge to Sable.

    I have that awful analog clock on my Five Hundred (but not on my Freestyle). I hate the stupid thing, and I certainly don't need it since the radio has a clock. It's cheap-looking.

    I say, Advantage Taurus! :D
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    Sable steering wheel spokes are silvery metal-like stuff. Taurus spokes are leather covered.

    Another clear Taurus victory. Who the heck wnats silvery metal-like steering wheels?
  • capellacapella Member Posts: 20
    >>What you found is that they are the same vehicle. There's no more difference between the Taurus and Sable now than there is for example between an Explorer Eddie Bauer and an Explorer Limited. <<

    You're right, of course, Gregg. The differences are very minor. The purpose of my post simply was to highlight those minor differences in case anyone was interested.
  • kinkyangelkinkyangel Member Posts: 12
    They should have never "renamed" the 500 the Taurus. Yes the Taurus had more name recognition but it also had quite a bit of negative connotation. It was well known to be the rental car and fleet market whore. Of course even with the name change they maybe could have salvaged something. The biggest problem from beginning to end was lack of advertising. They sure advertised the Edge and Fusion enough. They only advertised the 500 early in the beginning like back in late 04 and early 05. Then nothing except the occasional magazine ad that I saw. Even with the rename there was no advertising to speak of. Someone just expected everyone to know Ford and know the Taurus and buy it. That didn't happen. Then in the process they just ticked off and irked many already 500/Montego owners.

    I still love my 500. I like my local dealership. I don't much care for Ford corporate these days though. Their dumb decisions have affected me and all other owners. Pretty much resale is down the drain. Not because it's a bad car. But because of bad decisions made at a corporate level.
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Member Posts: 124
    Your right and its a damn shame. Even GM with all their screw-ups does better than this. Ford makes some pretty good cars that nobody wants to buy. I drive an '04 company Taurus and while at the dealership recently took a look at the new one. Reminded me of my wife's 80's Tempo. And Mercury is "Dead Man Walking".
  • redvwredvw Member Posts: 40
    I am looking for a new car and I am considering an Accord, or Taurus. One of my concerns is the long term reliability, and repair costs. How do you think the Taurus will compare to the Accord in the above criteria?
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    The April issue of Consumers Report rates the reliability of the
    Accord as "very good" and that of the 2008 Taurus as "good". You should be able to get the Taurus now at a very good price, at least $4k off MSRP after rebates. I recently bought a Mercury Sable, a clone of the Taurus and got a very good deal. http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f166af7/23
  • g_alleng_allen Member Posts: 15
    You know, it's sad. I have lived in Michigan all my life so I have first hand experience watching our once great auto industry slowly lose its competitive edge to the foreign companies. For years, Ford GM, and Chrylser have rested on their laurels assuming they would always be the kings of the automotive castle. While Chrysler Corp. has had some recent success with its 300/Charger/Magnum, SRT products, and likely with the upcoming Challenger, they continue to struggle to outshine their competitors. GM has been hard at work revamping all of their product lines and their hard work continues and is beginning to pay off....big time. Though GM struggles for overall profitability, their future looks bright as a result of fresh, innovative, and attractive product that is reaching new buyers and retaining current owners.

    Now Ford. The name change thing. This is just an indication that Ford really has no idea what they are doing anymore. Ford thinks they still create markets and set standards for others to follow. They are lying to themselves and worse...believing it! Case in point, a few years ago I was talking with a Ford company official and we were talking about the 500. She was proud as a peacock about Ford's new sedan and its "revolutionary" CVT transmission. I politely said to her "I'm glad to hear Ford is exploring new ideas and designs, but the 500 is already outclassed before it even goes on sale." She replied "What do you mean?" I said "Well, since 2002 for example, Nissan has had a 250 hp sedan with some flashy styling that drives really well and gets good mileage and is available with an automatic or a manual transmission which allows them to cover the market more broadly. I'm not convinced a 200 hp sedan with a CVT transmission will be seen as a serious competitor" She said "What car is that?" At this point I was thinking to myself "Oh my God, what rock have you been hiding under?" The Nissan Altima, you know, the one that has been getting Car of the Year awards, etc. Apparently, Ford is not aware of their competitors because they believe they have none. At times I think they feel as though if they do have competitors, they are only Chrysler and GM. Therefore, as long as their garbage is at least as good as the other's garbage then all is well in Detroit. The really crazy part is Ford has dropped their horrible CVT and the competitors they didn't think they had are building CVT's that are everything Ford wished it's could have been. Nice job Ford. Henry would be proud.

    Ford, you're getting what you deserve unfortunately. I hope you are reading this.
This discussion has been closed.