Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The Taurus on the other hand is a full-size FWD sedan that starts at $25K list and usually goes for less than sticker. It has a quiet cabin and enormous trunk. Standard equipment on the strippo includes 17-inch alloy wheels, automatic headlights, keyless entry, SecuriCode entry pad, full power accessories, cruise control, 6-way power driver seat, 60/40 split-folding rear seat, a tilt/telescoping steering column, steering wheel audio controls and 6-speaker stereo with CD/MP3 player and auxiliary audio jack. It gets better mpg than the little BMW (which requires premium fuel), and has a higher safety rating as well.
Now, you can compare and cross-shop any two models you want, but most people wouldn't see these two as competing on price alone, let alone class, intended use, capacity, etc. The Taurus will more often be cross-shopped with cars like the Avalon, the Chrysler 300, Chevy Impala, Buick Lacrosse and Lucerne.
Two things could be a bit problematic in heavy snow. The low front valance would become a snowplow in deep stuff or drifts - virtually any new passenger car would have that problem. Also, the way the lower doors are designed on the MKS and the Taurus leaves an indentation below the doors that trap snow and slush. If that freezes, opening the doors could be more difficult.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/22/ford-brags-about-largest-residual-value-incre- ase-in-industry/
And, of course, it is a projection for 3 years out. Projections are tricky, especially this early into the 2010 sales season.
This is certainly worth highlighting by Ford (any even suggestive good news should be trumpeted) but I doubt it is a reliable or even meaningful stat unless the adjustment for purchase price is factored in. Whether it is or not isn't stated in the article.
Predicting 2013 or 2016 values when it isn't even 2010 is a risky business.
However, resale is given more weight than it should have. If you pay far less at the beginning, of course the car will lose far more value as a percent of its list price (the way resale is usually calculated). But given that you paid less at the beginning, you SHOULD get less at sale or trade. Your actual cash outlay buy-to-sell is often no more with a car that has high resale v. low. Often, the buyer of a car with poor resale (if they caught all the front end discounts unavailable to the buyer of a conveyance with high resale) will come out money ahead. A high residual value is only important if you paid a BMW price in the first place. But car buyers don't get that, so the manufacturers will continue to crow about projected high residuals.
This is an entirely flawed analysis for the exact reason that "pod" identifies. Residual value is only meaningful as compared to initial purchase price. An increase in residiual value as a percentage of actual purchase price is what would be important here, or better yet, a comparison of the projected total cost of ownership over the first three years of the vehicle (assuming liquidation after year 3).
Unfortunately, this is fairly representative of the type of analysis conducted in these types of articles, which is to say there's a reason they were journalism majors and not finance majors.
There are high resale value cars like certain models of the Mini Cooper that sell over list. That is not figured in the "true cost of ownership" either. Bottom line, you more or less get what you pay for. If a model is in high demand or short supply, it will sell for at or near or even over list price. Used versions of it will sell for more as well. But since your outlay was more at the beginning, you damn well better get more at trade. However, if you buy a Lincoln Town Car for $12,000 off list price, you better expect it isn't going to be worth very much in three or five years. Usually, in the end you haven't lost anything, since your initial outlay was a bargain, compared to that Lexus that is now commanding $10,000 more five years later.
What some of the non-fanbois fail to realize is that this isn't the old Taurus fleet queen. It isn't competing against the Camry and the Accord. It's in a different market segment now with the Fusion doing the dirty work in the midsize arena.
So how did the Taurus fare against the Avalon last month? Or the 300C? Or the Buick LaCrosse/Lucerne? That is the competition.
Ok, Automobile says LaCrosse sales shot up an impressive 185 percent to 4246 vehicles. RTT News says sales of the Lexus ES350 was 2923 units, up 6.6% over January last year.
Better then the ES350 which it competes with on price just larger.
link title
Chrysler 300 was 1654 vs. 2200 a year ago.
Taurus seems to be holding its own against the direct competitors.
I suppose I would prefer it to a similarly equipped Chrysler 300 or even an Avalon but, as outlined in earlier posts, I am looking for a reliable basic car not a Luxoliner with electronic doo-dads. My Sable has given 138,000 essentially trouble free miles and I will examine the Fusion and the new Focus when it appears. If I had to buy right now I would lean toward the new Hyundai Sonata.
Who cares then if they are from Mars. It would be really hard to get then financed anyway!
Thank you tip the waiters I'm here all week...
I'm not talking about the average person on the street. I'm talking about someone who is seriously shopping for a new car. I just don't see someone walking into a Ford dealer, looking at the Taurus sticker, claiming that it's way too expensive and walking out without looking at a Fusion which is closer to the old Taurus than the new one.
Sorry if that comes across as chippy, but I can't stand it when people compare apples and oranges.
1) no major unexpected repair charges except a fuel pump at 100,000.
2) one brake job at 90,000 miles
3) no exhaust system issues except new oxygen sensors at 120,000. No need for pipe repair or replacement!
4) no electrical issues at all. No bulbs have even burned out.
5) not a spot of rust.
6) good fuel economy, even now 23 mixed and 31 highway with a V6.
7) no leaks of oil, ps fluid or any other fluid.
8) one battery replacement at about 100,000 miles
9) Still retains about 85% of its get up an go. No major loss of power. I would expect a 140,000 engine to have lost some compression, etc. I still have all I need.
10) no CV joint issues ever
Are there some minor issues with interior wear, etc. Sure. But it is a trooper and I want to give a ten year review as testimony to Ford's excellent reliability which I expect has improved even more during the decade since I bought this one. Do not be skeptical about Ford quality. It has been a much better car than my prior BMW320i and Toyota Supra.
There is a good portion of the population that will not buy a car without a sunroof. I know you may not see them but I do see them while selling cars. No hole in the roof means no sale.
A vehicle is worth what people will pay and a fair number of folks are paying current prices. Here is a question - what do you think is better for the same money or just as good for significantly less money? Or do you think all similar vehicles are overpriced?
Yes the price is high, but, in comparing the actual content, there is no other car below $50k or $60k that has the same available content. I've been following lots of media outlets and most say the competitor is the Acura TL, CTS, G8, 535i. But, in comparing those against the SHO, none of them have the same content, so, how can they say they are accurate competitors?
For instance, none of those competitors have heated/cooled front seats and heated rear seats. Neither offer seat massage. None can come close to the 365HP. None offer collision warning. None have powered rear shade. One don't even have a 6spd auto. I think one might offer DVD in headrest as accessory. Of course, then there's the whole Sync system and 911 assist from Ford.
Seems to me that the value alone for a loaded SHO exceeds all competition. Right?
With all this going for it, a limited production run (instead of flooded market of 90's & 2000's), seems the residual value would have to be higher than 'before'.
I'm also keeping my eyes out for those with 2010's with high mileage to see how they're holding up...
Thanks all,
Mark
:shades:
As far the Taurus, how is the Adaptive Cruise Control and the multi-counture massage seats? How does everyone like these functions?
Barry
Joe