Howdy, Stranger!

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

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



  • jmn1jmn1 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 Let's take for example, the outdated Ford Freestar.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 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.
  • 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 Posts: 26
    Good point. I get what you're at.
  • thegraduatethegraduate 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 Posts: 26
    I have never seen a Taurus ad in this forum (its not showing up THIS second). Still the Malibu and Fusion.
  • thegraduatethegraduate 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 Posts: 26
    OK, now I see it. I didn't earlier.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The ads come and go.
  • I see the Taurus ad at the top now. It was not there earlier when I made my 1st post.
  • 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
  • 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 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.
  • Yes, I mentioned earlier in this discussion that "Fairlane 500" would have been a good name for this car.
  • jmn1jmn1 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.
  • They don't even keep one on the showroom floor

    Geee, I wonder why they don't sell any? :P
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • 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 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.
  • 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?
  • 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 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.
  • 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 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.
  • 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 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 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 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.
This discussion has been closed.