Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
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
I am sure that accounted for some of the relative slowness and higher fuel consumption. No adverse weather conditions tested.
What I don't understand is that a car as wide as the Taurus doesn't offer at least 60" of shoulder room, nor why the Lacrosse and Avalon can offer more rear seat leg room, even though they are shorter cars. The Taurus, thankfully, has gone from a bloated-looking, non-descript design to something that is actually attractive. But why does a car that is still taller than most others in its class, and still longer (save the Buick Lucerne by 10ths of an inch), come out with less rear legroom and interior width than several nothing-special full-size cars that are physically smaller?
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1008_35000_full_size_sedans/index.ht- ml
I think with the Taurus's current presence and bulk that it should be practically the roomiest car on the road. It's trunk space is undeniably huge. But most of us don't ride in the trunk.
The legroom overall in the Taurus is a mere 0.6 inch more than in the Fusion (even though the Fusion is several inches shorter in wheelbase and also shorter in height), The Taurus only offers 0.5 inch more shoulder room than the Fusion. I am not saying the Taurus rear seat is not comfortable. I am saying that the car could have offered even more interior room--more commensurate with its bulk--if the interior had been better designed to offer more space.
Although if the reports are true that the Fusion/Mondeo and Taurus will use a shared CD4 platform (stretched for the Taurus much like the Avalon) then maybe it won't ever be that much bigger.
A guy at work had a 500 which took a huge broadside hit. His family walked away and he immediately bought another one.
Years ago, we had a big accident with our Expedition. Not only were we well protected, despite having the left front suspension knocked off, there was no damage to the drive train. Since it none of it extended below the frame, it suffered no damage.
BTW, after stopping to figure out what just happened, I drove it a ways down the road without a left front wheel to an overpass so my family wouldn't get wet when they got out of it.
My point is, sometimes safety takes precedence over some statistic.
The F150 is only 2.5" wider than the Taurus, but offers nearly 8 more inches of interior width. And it is not because the F150 has flimsy doors. I believe the 1990-97 Town Car offered about 64" shoulder room, and that had thick doors too. Anyway, Taurus is a roomy car, but could easily be roomier. One of those things they can work on for the next iteration.
Consider going to a Ford dealer and looking thru a Taurus brochure...I would bet somewhere in it they will state what is in it, since it would be an advertising point to say "Can now go over 5000 miles between oil changes" or something like that...
I like reading real reviews from people who have had these other cars, and have now switched back to the Taurus. I know that nobody wants to admit they made a bad choice when buying anything as expensive as a car, so there is some self-protection, but I am a firm believer in comments from people who have done the appropriate research and have changed car companies. No car has all of the specs and perks you want, given a reasonable price.
Have about 5,000 miles on it including a round trip from Houston to Chicago.
This is the first new car I have bought that has had NOTHING to 'fix'. I'm 78 and bought many new cars including Honda. (Yes, the Honda needed fixes)
BTW I own a loaded SEL i guess if i had the SHO i wouldn't care!! lol!!! :shades:
As for GM and Chrysler, they are also building excellent vehicles. The new Chevy Cruze and Jeep Grand Cherokee are world class. It seems kind of counterproductive, however, not to buy their vehicles if you want them to pay back their "government" funds more quickly.
Lack of torque down-low in the new 3.6L combined with a lackluster (by today's standards) 5-speed automatic makes the Grand Cherokee nothing but reasonably competitive. The JGC is vastly improved; so is everything else these days.
If you want more torque, go for the 5.7. And there is exactly nothing wrong with the 5-speed. It is tried and true and also quite reliable. There are exactly zero other vehicles with the new Jeep's combination of refinement, proven drive train, creature comforts, off-road ability and value. According to Car and Driver the vehicle is as quiet as a Rolls-Royce Ghost at highway speeds. There is no wind noise and precious little road noise. The 5.7's sounds are not intrusive and frankly quite delightful, the HEMI being one of Ward's 10 Best Engines on numerous occasions out of the last ten years or so.
I stand by my assessment that it is indeed world class.
I dare say to most folks having need of or use for this type of vehicle, whether it be Jeep or Ford, mileage is not the primary concern anyway. The point is that it is a very high quality vehicle, like the Taurus and many other recent-model Ford products.
Anyhow, back to the Taurus. No changes for 2011, I presume?
JGC has 2 rows of seating, same as Taurus, but Explorer has 3.
And not everyone is obsessed with having "three rows" of seats. Quite frankly, I would not buy a vehicle that wasted trunk space by adding a third row of seats which 1) I don't need and 2) would be, as a consequence of their tiny, cramped size, only barely functional for anyone but a midget anyway.
An Explorer can fit 7 in the same area used by a JGC.
If yo want bad mileage and an inefficient design, pick the JGC over the Explorer or the Taurus.