Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

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

1246711

Comments

  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Mercury Marmot??
  • It must be Friday!

    Seriously, I have always like cars named after neat places. Bonneville and Catalina were great names for Pontiac. "5th Avenue" sort of had cache for Chrysler, too. In the '50s Ford used the name "Sun Valley." Not all animals provide good names but Mustang, Cougar, Cobra, Viper are all good. Rodent names most likely should not be used.

    Somehow, "G8" or "MKwhatever" just doesn't excite me much.
  • heyjewelheyjewel Posts: 1,046
    Bruce, you misread me. I do not like furry varmints :>)

    Mercury Marmot is a crackup though. Ford Ferret. Luv it.

    BTW, not on topic here, but did y'all see that GM is taking to MB about buying Chrysler??? I know how I feel about that, but will keep it in. My next question though is, when will they make an offer on Ford?
  • I purposely misquoted you in jest! I read your furry varmint post earlier in the week and got a kick out of it!

    Ford would be quite a bit bigger fish to swallow than Chrysler.....I would think. I might be blasted for this but I would rather see a marriage between 2 of the original big 3 than a marriage with a Japanese brand. Mercedes and Chrysler made some sense to me - and really helped Chrysler in the short term. I guess I don't see how GM could do much better given the overlap of so many of their models.
  • heyjewelheyjewel Posts: 1,046
    Ah! Went right over my humor-impaired head.

    On the off topic - I'm still torqued that Chrysler bought AMC. Buyouts never help anyone AFAICS. Certainly not the workers more of whom will be jobless after a buyout.

    In the aforementioned buyout, the great Lee Iacocca swore on a stack o'bibles that he would not close the historic Kenosha Wisconsin AMC plant - the oldest surviving car plant in the country - afer the buyout. Of course the lying SO_B did exactly that a year later.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Taurus name had some value in the past. More so, when one threw in "SHO" with it. A lot of people still get excited about it.

    Then, there is the Interceptor Concept that was revealed recently. Well, why not just dismiss the idea of a large barge renamed from 500 to Taurus, and just bring the Interceptor to the market atop Fusion? If Taurus name must stay, heck, just call it a Taurus.

    That would be a worthy competitor to likes of 300C.
  • heyjewelheyjewel Posts: 1,046
    Give em 5 years for the Interceptor. Which will be called the Taurus I.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    And to me bringing back the name after you've killed the car is kinda like remarrying your ex-wife isn't it?

    I see your point here jewel - however you JUST got divorced, so it's like a divorce annullment, know what I mean? You have a NEW Taurus, or an ALL NEW Taurus, (like the ALL NEW G6) - I'm just saying I thought it was retarded to kill the Taurus brand with the broad-based equity it had as a Ford Brand - standing for a family sedan with value. Doesn't mean you can't improve it, and heaven knows, it needed re-doing.

    I just hope they do enough re-skinning of the 500 so that the Taurus-X pops a little.... There have been 07 Tauruses manufactured - so if they bring out a new 08 Taurus, it was never really murdered after all.....

    That's what I mean.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,176
    Yep - how many designs have ever been saved by desperate add-ons? I guess the fish-eye Taurus was made less offensive, but no band-aids will save the Taurus from being OK, average, but not exciting.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    I like to look at when RATIONAL people (like myself) actually sell
    Oh Please! Your not rational! Some might call you cheap. Than again, some might call those who call you cheap ill minded for spending that kind of money on a new car every 5 years. It's relativity. Just because you don't necessarily have the money to do something like this doesn't mean those who do aren't "rational."
  • Just because you don't necessarily have the money to do something like this doesn't mean those who do aren't "rational."

    Oh, I've got the money to do it. But I prefer to spend that money on OTHER things.

    I define my car, not the other way around.
  • heyjewelheyjewel Posts: 1,046
    Where've u been, H? The pix of the ALL-NEW Taurus X have been around for a couple of weeks:

    http://www.blueovalnews.com/index.php?categoryid=12&p2_articleid=484
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Oh, I've got the money to do it. But I prefer to spend that money on OTHER things.
    That's all you need to say. "TO every man his own." Som elike frequently driving new cars.
  • Som elike frequently driving new cars.

    Which is fine. But just don't go touting how much more ECONOMICAL it is do so (as they typically do).

    Or, to put it another way, THEIR CHOICE to continually drive new cars is what forces them to buy the imports . . so they can't turn around and say that the domestics are "no good", since they'll never ever try one because of their silly spending habits.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Well, on the record, I still approve of changing the 500 to the Taurus. I don't like the 3 chrome bar grille Ford has universally gone to now - it's ugly, looks like the Gillette Mach 3 Razor to me.... And the new Lincolns look like a Remington Electric shaver to me..... I'm seeing a trend here, something is fishy over at Ford design studios....

    Anyway, it's a fine car, it was as a 500, but nobody noticed. Maybe they will as a Taurus.... Way to go, ARM.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    :D
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    That's what makes the three bar grill and new Lincoln grills a "good move" (though still too small a change to change much): you hate them, and lots of people like 'em--even if the vehicles to which they are attached need work. They are polarizing. Ford needs lots more of it, if they are to survive at all. Ford needs to ramp it up, like the grill on the Interceptor and Super Chief.

    And I'm pretty pessimistic, like many others. You can't do it with grills alone. The 08 Super Duty is a 1999 Super Duty body with an even more gargantuan grill grafted on, and a better interior. Not a formula that is working too well for Ford. The comparisons to the Tonka concept are laughable, or pathetic, take your pick.

    Setting Ford's obvious "bonehead moves" aside a moment, there is the other problem of too many brands and models in the marketplace overall. Everyone is vying for the same customers. Kia is growing, Hyundai is growing, Mitsubishi is making a play ot come back, Audi intends to increase models and sales, Nissan has several new models just out or coming, Acura has expanded its range, Subaru has expanded its range, Volvo intends to build sales with its new models, Smart is coming, Saturn has increased its offerings, GMC is expanding into crossovers, etc., etc.

    In all this choice and model proliferation in every segment, some have to lose out. Look at all the new models Daimler Chrysler has issued in the past year. The Jeep line has more than doubled. They have a hit here and there (the Calibur is an out of the ballpark success, and the 300 still sells well for a car that has been around since 2004), but even with lots of new product (much of it good), they are stumbling.

    Shakeouts have to happen, and some brands may leave the US market. Ford isn't going to live unless it begins to incite some emotion in people again, and some segment standouts, as the original Taurus was, as the Mustang was (and to some degree still is), as the first Explorer was. The Edge and Fusion, as adequate to good as they are, are followers, not segment definers. It will be interesting to see if they are radical enough with the Fairlane to start a new wave. I'm not counting on it, but who knows?
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Good analysis, gregg - all true. Wondering why, though, you are betting on Ford to be the one to die? Now, if Bill were still in charge, I'd call the Hospice myself - but guys like Mulally don't fail - they don't blow up. He saved Boeing, he'll save Ford.....not sure what he will leave it, but it'll be alive a well, whatever it is that is left....don't count him out. I agree with you though - we are in a "consolidation needed" situation as models as well as brands are proliferating again. It's a cycle....
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I hope you are right and that Mulally is a miracle worker. The reasons I am pessimistic about Ford are several. They need a couple block busters and I cannot see where they will come from.

    Their moves to turn things around aren't doing much so far. The Fusion is a superior car to the current Malibu, but the Malibu still handily outsells it. The Edge is not s superior product, having been damned with faint praise on one end, or come in last in comparison tests on the other.

    The Taurus and Sable won't even be here until summer (the original plan was first quarter or spring). The Taurus X has been pushed off to late summer or fall. The 08 Focus isn't going to make big lines at the showrooms. The 08 Super Duty should do well with the new diesel, but Dodge and GM are issuing diesels with similar hp and torque in their 08 models, so there is no possibility of relying on that design for more than a couple years.

    The Super Duty, Escape, Explorer, Expedition, 500/Taurus re-do's have all been conservative efforts, and Ford ends up with vehicles that largely look like the old models. The F150 re-do is now pushed off to 2009. I am hoping it is not a change-the-front-clip-and-interior type-thing with engineering improvements underneath. This hiding new stuff under a bushel doesn't work.

    The next big thing from Ford is the Fairlane thing-y. The MKS will likely be summer of 2008, and we all know this won't salvage Lincoln by itself.

    Still no good news for Mercury, the last remaining brand that is completely badge engineered. Will they take it in Saturn's direction, or will they keep it as rebadged Fords to fill the Lincoln showroom? Mercury wasn't always badge engineered, and if Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep/Kia-Hyundau/Chevy-Pontiac-Buick-Saturn/Nissan-Infiniti, etc. can somehow find a way in very bad times to differentiate their lines more, why can't Ford? Lack of will and imagination more than anything.

    Yes, things could turn around for Ford. But the cards are not stacked in their favor right now.
  • ehaaseehaase Posts: 328
    The F150 re-do is now pushed off to 2009. I am hoping it is not a change-the-front-clip-and-interior type-thing with engineering improvements underneath.

    The insiders I respect on the other boards I visit say that the 2009 F150 update is nothing more than what you describe, with the new Hurricane V8's.

    The best thing in the world for both GM and Ford in North America may be for DCX to spin Chrysler off (probably keeping Jeep for itself) and let Chrysler liquidate. There's too much capacity, too many brands, and too many new vehicles. There have been predictions for 20 years that there will be consolidation and/or liquidation in the auto industry. Something has to give soon.
  • danielj6danielj6 Posts: 285
    Although the Taurus may be welcome by many, it will not be a breakthrough but only a smart move by Mulally to save Ford from the abyss. It will not be Avalon/300 killer, but if in some way is perceived as a quality, well equipped car it will attract buyers, even those who may be thinking about a Camry/Accord/Impala. I just hope that Ford does not cheapen the Taurus by offering killer cash rebates in the first year anyway.

    It is hoped that the car is marketed to appeal to different segments, but not as one size fits all. At one point in time the Taurus was the best selling sedan. Ford shot itself in the foot and let the competition surpass it.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    The insiders I respect on the other boards I visit say that the 2009 F150 update is nothing more than what you describe, with the new Hurricane V8's.

    That only seems to be a problem for Ford though -
    GM does that with their SUVs and trucks, and gets rave reviews - but if Ford doesn't redesign their truck from the wheels up - it's shameful! The truck platform is fully up to date, constantly improved, frame is stiffer, suspension is updated as technology improves. Reskin it, and put the Hurricane in it - sounds great to me. It's a great truck.
  • I just hope that Ford does not cheapen the Taurus by offering killer cash rebates in the first year anyway.

    You miss one of the GREAT reasons to buy a Ford Five Hundred instead of an Avalon . . you can get it a LOT cheaper . . especially if there are incentives on it.

    People need to quit paying attention to MSRP and pay attention to WHAT YOU HAVE TO PAY for the car.

    One has almost ALWAYS had to pay near MSRP for Toyotas, and could get Fords near invoice (less whatever incentives were out there . . usually 500 bucks or so).

    Sure, it'd be simpler if Ford just put the MSRP a lot closer to the true selling price, I suppose. But SMART people look at the bottom line, not at MSRP.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    GM does NOT do what Ford does. GM may in fact not update their vehicles as much underneath as Ford does at times, but they do give GM vehicles completely new skins, windshields, greenhouses, etc. with each update. How "new" they really are may be questionable, but Cadillac for example has had three completely different bodies for the Escalade...not a window, doorskin, nothing carried over.

    The 1999 Navigator still uses the same body with fairly superficial front and rear modifications. The 1999 windshield will fit in the 2007 Navigator. The same front windows will fit. Under the thick chrome, it still uses the same exterior doorskins.

    Sure, some customers don't see it. But the vehicle ends up looking much the same year after year after year. I think the fact that Navigator, Expedition, Explorer, Ranger, Focus, Sport Trac, etc. all lost their sales leads speaks to the arrogance of a company that believed that they could fool most of the people and save money by recycling sheet metal for 8, 10 , 12 years or more.

    Yes RESKIN it as you say, and put the Hurricane in it. Great! Except it sounds like no reskin at all, but the Ford way of keeping the same body, changing the front clip, and doing some updates underneath. How many more years before they discover that GM's way actually sells more vehicles? The ony reason the F150 is still ahead is that the 2004 re-do was complete. Not one body part carried over.

    Now, the F150 has the new Silverado lapping at its heels. What happens with the 2008 model year? Even if it stays in front, that "new" 2009 will be at a big disadvantage if it has to carry the same greenhouse, etc. for another long model cycle.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    How many more years before they discover that GM's way actually sells more vehicles?

    It hasn't to me, and I'm not sure it has to the public either. I look well beyond the skin in a car - and I discovered that GM may change the windshield, but have the same old engine under that new hood they had in the 60's (ala the 3800, 231cid Buick engine still used with EFI). Pushrods and carburators were the technology for GM is the 80's and early 90's while Ford had fuel injection on all of their engines by 1986. While Ford had multi port FI on all of their engines and some OHC and DOHC engines on line in the early 90's, GM had throttle body fuel injection finally on all their old engines, oh, and the NOrthstar - in one line of cars, that had a severe oil consumption and carbonization problem.

    I could go on and on - but up until very recently, the past 2 years, GM was losing market share faster than Ford was, with their carryover doors and windshields, but air conditioned seats, independent rear suspension and rear seats that powerfold - something GM still can't make work in their SUVs, but hey - the windshields are new. :surprise:
  • pnewbypnewby Posts: 277
    And the '06/'07 Explorers have greatly improved handling and ride, along with standard stability control and tire pressure sensors. Picked up a drywall screw and the tire monitor did a good job of alerting me before I was on a stretch of highway away from anything. I also like the side airbags and curtains. Takes a best in class rating to something beyond that. If the press would quit beating up on Ford, maybe folks would find out how good they are. Sure they have problems, need some car guys (or gals) instead of the family gals in upper management, need to keep the bean counters at bay and let the ones that know about cars (ANT14 for example) put this place on the right path. Oh, and get some VPs more like good ole Jack Rogers (jrogers19) in place.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I don't disagree with you two! Ford has added some very significant improvements. I think I even said that. But GM's approach, like it or not, works pretty well. The Tahoe has overtaken the Expedition's lead. The Escalade has overtaken the Navigator's lead. Sales of the Explorer fell precipitously after the latest re-do, despite all the improvements made to it. That is too bad, and it is not just due to bad press.

    I could be wrong, but when people walk into a Ford dealership, they see showroom stuff that looks much like the units on the pre-owned side of the building. Ford has adopted a pattern of making their redesigns look like other companies mid-cycle freshening. Not changing the stuff people see first (the superficial outside shape and skin) may discourage some people from even trying the vehicle out, and thereby realizing there are substantial improvements underneath.

    There is a long tradition of sheetmetal change bringing people in for a look. It is ancient history of course, but just for an example take a look at the 1960 Galaxie and compare it to a 1961, then 62, then the 63 then the 64. These were all in the same product cycle, but each year they re-bent all the metal. Is it important, really? No. Except that it sold more cars.

    Ford neglects two things over and over: innovative styling and keeping up with the hp wars. I sometimes think they got so conservative styling-wise in the late 90's because of the strange 1996 Taurus. This car went past polarizing, and into wacko weird. Fear of stepping outside the lines has led to a careful recycling of bodies that used to sell well. But neither "wayout weird" nor conservative is doing it for Ford.

    The lesson is that the first Taurus did have groundbreaking style. Unlike the 96, it wasn't weird or different just to be different. It saved the company then. They need a couple vehicles like that now.
  • bristol2bristol2 Posts: 736
    This is off-topic for the Taurus theme but it seems pretty clear that the next F-150 is key.
    The latest editions of the Expedition and the Explorer are both great vehicles but came out at the moment that gas got up to $2.50 - $3.00 a gallon. That sucked all the air out of those releases. I think the real shame there is that Ford continues to drag on bringing a diesel to these vehicles. If you could get an Expedition that got 25-30mpg, they could call the 500 what ever they felt like.

    With the F-150 there is real brand equity and they cannot afford to make a mistake there.

    How would they rebrand that one?
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Ford neglects two things over and over: innovative styling and keeping up with the hp wars.

    Can't argue with ya there, gregg - GM seems to be able to do it more efficiently, their HP is bigger, and economy a little better most places in the line. Ford also neglects advertising, and the advertising they do is "lifestyle" ads - if I were ARM, I'd fire their agency, and whichever Ford family member works there, and get someone in there that will show THE CAR in the ads for a change!! Surfboards and cute girls are fine, but I never saw the car! C'mon!!
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I agree. Lifestyle ads aren't cutting it. Talk up the features lauded here. Even the lux brands like Lexus (showing the new one parallel parking itself) and Maserati (talking about their new automatic) don't rely on lifetyle ads. And the Edge ads with it always on the edge of two wheels is pretty stupid too.

    Taurus and Sable ads should definitely emphasize the power, the room and the quiet. Forget the "all new" horse puckey and brag about what's real. (Of course it doesn't matter much what they do in ads for Sable, since the company apparently has already decided mercury is a goner.)
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    I personally don't like the Sable name, and wish they'd forget about it. Montego is better now or forever to me, but the Taurus brand shouldn't die, it should be re-invigorated, hopefully that's what they are doing. They really need to advertise the crap out of it though - and the Edge - I guess that's just not for my generation...
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Which is fine. But just don't go touting how much more ECONOMICAL it is do so (as they typically do).

    Yeah-I heard this guy going off on everyone who drives a car for more than four years because they are too expensive. NObody says this! Everyone knows it's personal prefence. Driving new cars has nothing to do with people getting imports. THey just choose them because they like them. No one is out to get ford. You're over reacting a little bit. And no one says domestics are no good. THey just say "in their oppinion" LExus has better quality than Lincoln-justifying their purchase. It DOES seem though, that a lot of people have been talking about how much better their Freestyle is than other crossovers.
  • danielj6danielj6 Posts: 285
    Before you put me in a position of justifying purchasing an Avalon over a 500, my point was in the context that giving incentives in the form of cash rebates defeats the image that Ford wants to project for the new Taurus, namely competitive quality to fight buyers' perception about Avalon.

    I don't want to get off topic, but I usually look at what I get for my money and keep in mind that if there is a substantial price difference between two brands there must be a reason for it. To me the bottom line is not related to price difference alone.
  • and keep in mind that if there is a substantial price difference between two brands there must be a reason for it

    You sound like my wife.

    Fortunately, some of us realize that it's just not always true. It really IS possible to pay more for less. :surprise:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    A car is worth what the market will pay for it. In Ford's case, the Taurundred is worth less than the Avalon, because people won't pay Avalon prices for it. It's a business thing.

    The market is simply saying it won't pay the same price for a Taurundred as it would an Avalon, because it doesn't deem it to be worth the price.

    You may differ from the market; many do. For people who would have bought the Ford over the Toyota, the rebate cash is a bonus. To the rest of the world, its a condition of the sale.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    A car is worth what the market will pay for it. In Ford's case, the Taurundred is worth less than the Avalon, because people won't pay Avalon prices for it. It's a business thing.
    Exactly my point. Ford doesn't give anyone any reason to. otherwise, Ford wouln't be introuble would they? SOrry to continually come back to this, but no one wants to pay 35g for a Taurus X (freestyle).
    For people who would have bought the Ford over the Toyota, the rebate cash is a bonus. To the rest of the world, its a condition of the sale.
    NOt necessarily true. Many have traded in Bimmer %'s for Acura TL's just to save money. But money doesn't always make up for inconvinience.
  • The market is simply saying it won't pay the same price for a Taurundred as it would an Avalon, because it doesn't deem it to be worth the price.

    Markets are notoriously efficient, and notoriously wrong. That's why there's marketing folks out there, don't ya know. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    So, a Five Hundred/Taurus, priced and equipped equally to an Avalon, is worth the same? Would Ford not be charging the same rate as Avalon if they could make a profit that way?
  • So, a Five Hundred/Taurus, priced and equipped equally to an Avalon, is worth the same?

    To me? The Five Hundred is a MUCH better value.

    It's just like buying stocks . . you win (make money) by buying what everybody else thinks is worth less than its true value.

    But if EVERYBODY knew this, then the car (or stock) would be priced higher, now wouldn't it?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Hard to compare a car to stock, as it will not increase in value. If everybody felt the Five Hundred was a superior car overall, it would be selling at a higher price than the Avalon.

    I will grant you this, the Five Haurus probably loses out in large part due to brand identity and known resale value. With a Toyota badge, the Tundred would probably sell at a higher price (sad but probably true). It would also likely hold its value better (also sad, but true).

    Sorry, I'm still playing with names for this car, its kind of entertaining to me. You make good points, but I still stand by the "if it was valued better than the Avalon, it would sell at a higher price than the Avalon" statement. It may be wrong to some, but its my honest opinion, something each poster is entitled to. Good night all!

    TheGrad
  • gteegtee Posts: 179
    I think that there is also some social stigma associated with driving a Ford car. Its like you are poor and cannot afford a better car. Ford trucks don't seem to suffer from the same stigma, but Ford cars do. It seems to me that right now Hyundai and Kia have better image then Ford. People by cars not only for their utility/transportation value, but also for the statement it makes about them.

    What statement does driving Ford Taurus make?
    1. Traveling salesman in a company car.
    2. Lost tourist driving a rental car.

    What statement does driving Ford Focus make?
    1. Poor student who could not afford a Civic.

    What statement does driving Ford Crown Vic make?
    1. Under cover cop / homicide detective.

    What statement does driving Lincoln Town Car make?
    1. On your way to airport to pick up your next customer.

    What statement does driving a Mercury Grand Marquis make?
    1. On your way to Florida for winter.

    What statement does driving a Ford 500 make?
    1. Love those rebates.

    You see what I mean about a bad image Ford cars have right now. That image translates into lower demand for cars. Lower demand for cars translates into lower selling prices because there is an imbalance between supply of cars and demand for cars.

    I for one don't care how good Ford 500 is or how much it costs or if they change the name to Taurus. The car just does not have the same image as Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. It might even be a better car then Honda or Toyota. I don't know because I never even bothered to take a test drive. What I am pretty sure about is that changing a name from 500 to Taurus will change anything.
  • danielj6danielj6 Posts: 285
    "I for one don't care how good Ford 500 is or how much it costs or if they change the name to Taurus. The car just does not have the same image as Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. It might even be a better car then Honda or Toyota. I don't know because I never even bothered to take a test drive. What I am pretty sure about is that changing a name from 500 to Taurus will change anything."

    The rebadged Taurus supposedly will be competing with the Avalon and 300 not with the Accord/Camry. A very tall order considering buyers' perception of quality and reliability from Toyota. But if the Taurus does not work for Ford the second time around, Ford might go the way of Chrysler or worse. Even in the truck department Ford faces stiff competition which may knock off the F150. What's left?
  • Image is great for people interested in it. Today, however due to the very close and closing quality gap between Ford and Toyota, image is just that, image. An informed consumer can decide whether or not its worth paying an extra 5 or so thousand for a badge.

    The Ford, especially in taurus form, will solve the only real issue with the car, and that is the power. Once that is done what else is there? For practical purposes, this really is a good if not better car. Both the 500/Taurus and Avalon are excellent cars, and IMO the only two in the segment, the rest are pretenders.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I think that someone shopping for an Avalon or 08 Taurus could also conceivably look at the Azera and the Lucerne. And the Sable may be a dumb name and the same car, but it has a better looking front and rear end than the Taurus, and a more sparkly interior.
  • But here's the real difference. I have a 2006 Five Hundred Limited with about 17K miles. It's worth about $16K in trade. The same dealer, when I asked, indicated that were it a 2006 Avalon XL (about the same stick price as my Five Hundred was originally), it would be worth about $22.5K. Why anyone would consider a Taurus / Five Hundred going forward is beyond me -- I will certainly NEVER make the same error.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    That's only applicable if you're trading in your cars often. If you keep your car for 7-8 years, or just lease, resale value doesn't make a difference.

    The Avalon still have some better stuff than 500/Taurus. The interior design is about 10 times as nice, and so is the steering wheel and gauges. Reclining rear seats; push button remote start; rain-sensing wipers, and many more small features are available on the Avalon. This makes the Avalon feel like a Lexus.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    To me? The Five Hundred is a MUCH better value.
    Value isn't as simple as that. An Acura MDX might cost the same as an Expllorer. That desn't mean that they are eqaull in quality. But enough of that endless circle of oppinion. Let's talk about why you would buy this car. Ford sells it on interior space and comfort ()It's only benefits for the time being) But room in competitors like the 300/ Charger and Avalom, and Lucerne are just as as good. So is trunk space- not as good, but close. Luxury ain't great in upscale brother -Montego (believe me, I know! And it looks boring and awkward. Why get something that you don't like to look at- And i hate that ugly bubble top!-whn you can have good looking like the 300? I'd say why not spend the same amount on an Avalon, get a nicer beter lookking car than the 500 (and it's dumb that they spell it!) and actually get some money back when you trade the car in?!
  • gteegtee Posts: 179
    I think that some people on this discussion board under appreciate the power of Brand Image. The only difference between a Timex watch and a Rolex watch is image. I am sure that they both keep very accurate time, but one costs 100 times more then the other. Why? Because of Image. Right now Ford cars have a "Poor Man's car" Image. Why buy a Timex (Ford 500) when for just 20% more price, you can get a Rolex (Toyota Avalon).

    As far as Ford 500 competing with Avalon or Lucerne or 300, I just don't see how that is possible. The 500 is in entirely lower price class then these cars. I can see comparing 500 with Chevy Impala. In fact I always thought that 500 was Ford's answer to Impala.

    Just take a look at resale prices. I compared Edmund's trade in values for 500, Impala, Toyota Camry and Avalon and Honda Accord for 2005 model year.

    2005 Ford 500 Limited = $13999 trade in
    2005 Chevy Impala SS = $13555 trade in
    2005 Toyota Avalon XLS = $17371 trade in
    2005 Toyota Camry XLE = $16400 trade in
    2005 Honda Accord EXV6 = $18029 trade in

    So just based on prices of 1/2 year old models, I would say that Ford 500 competes with Impala, its definitely not in the same price class as Camry/Accord/Avalon on the used car lot. I guess its that image thing again which contributes to low resale values.
  • Hard to compare a car to stock, as it will not increase in value

    But things don't have to increase in value to "make money".

    I feel I'm paying LESS for a car of equal (actually, better) value to me. That saves me money. Just as if I'd made it in the stock market.
  • People by cars not only for their utility/transportation value, but also for the statement it makes about them.

    Not smart people. ;)
This discussion has been closed.