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?



  • thegraduatethegraduate 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)?
  • 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 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 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 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 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 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.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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?
  • >>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.
  • 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 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 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?
  • 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.
  • g_alleng_allen 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.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    They aren't.

    Ironic that the Altima offers a really good CVT across the board now.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    You don't know what you are talking about in connection to the CVT. I have a Freestyle with it, and it is the most intelligent (knows what it is doing at all times) transmission I have ever owned. Like all CVTs, it is a bit slow at launch, but after that great. yes, the engine should have been more powerful. It was too expensive to build and has torque limitations, but it is nothing like "horrible". The new Ford 6 spd. is always searching for the right ratio and is less refined.
  • pahanapahana Posts: 1
    Has anyone had a problem with the 2008 Taurus Sel concerning power being drained from the battery. Vehicle has less than 100 miles on it. Dealer says the computer is bad. I have to wait two weeks for a new one. Why?
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Posts: 572
    Anybody who has owned a Grand Marquis knows they are by far the most reliable Ford product produced. By reliable, I don't mean what a 90 days of ownership survey indicates, I'm referring to a 5-10 year ownership experience. I don't need to be a guinea pig on Ford's "experiments" with building North American products off of ill-fitting foreign platforms with suspect drivetrains.

    Also, I've always done better than the EPA ratings on both of my Grand Marquis.

    I'll buy one more before Ford drops the old gal, and then I guess I'll join the masses who have abandoned Ford for other manufacturers. Ford has completely screwed up Mercury, to the point I don't think it is fixable.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The problem with the Grand Marquis and its sister ships is its ancient platform, not its reliability. When I drive or ride in one, the contrast with a modern luxury or near luxury sedan is greatest with the body stiffness. It's the same looseness that was common with all large cars until the mid-90's or so. Even when the GM is new and fairly rattle-free, it clunks and bangs and shudders over potholes and uneven pavement, heaving expansion joints and so on. Then as it ages, it develops squeaks and rattles that show up on sharp bumps that only add to the sense that it is not a quality chassis. In its time, it was competitive. That time has passed.

    The other glaring difference is in the interior: uneven gaps, too many cut lines, old style finishing that looks amateurish now compared to the competition. But like any proven product, you know what you are getting and if you can live without the improvements that are standard on just about any other car, its cheap and troublefree motoring.

    Most cars these days are reliable, compared to a few years ago. VW for example has mediocre reliability ratings, yet mine have been completely trouble free. Ford's current "experiments" are screwed together rather well.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    Gregg, I couldn't agree with you more. I have had numerous GMs, CVs, and TCs as rentals. Driving one is like going back in time - and not to a good time - for American cars. The seats are not comfortable, the ride is loose, there is too much engine noise, power is lacking, interior fit/finish is poor, and the rear seat room is horrible for cars that take up so much space.

    A Taurus or Sable is vastly superior in all of the areas noted above. You and I agree that the styling of the Taurus/Sable is a turn off to prospective buyers but otherwise they are excellent mainstream sedans.

    I have ridden in CV and TC cabs that have over 400,000 miles on them. I know they will last. If longevity is the primary purchasing decision, I suppose they have merit. I just couldn't tolerate one of the beasts long enough to put many miles on one.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It's easy to get the bugs worked out of a car when you have over ten years to do it. That old thing better be reliable - it has no excuse to be otherwise.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Try 30. The 1992 redesign used the same chassis introduced in 1978 as a 79 model. The updates since 1992 have improved the steering and handling a bit, but the bulk of the car has been the same since then. It's now like the Checker used to be, a new old car that is leagues behind what is sold now. But reliability is what its got, beside blue haired (or uniformed) drivers.
  • jmn1jmn1 Posts: 26
    Good point. The Ranger is in the same boat, it dates back to 1984.
  • But as a taxi it is pretty good. I had a ride lately in SF and it felt very comfortable.
This discussion has been closed.