Last post on Jan 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
What is this discussion about?
Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, Sedan
Jul 06, 2000 (10:56 pm)
you can't compare taurus+sable to "each and all GM somewhat close to midsize sedans" because
a) chevy and ford are direct competitors as mainstream basic autos. Chevy wants to beat ford. Can't beat ford when your model that directly competes with the taurus sells 1/3 of the taurus
b) even you did group all of gm's mid size offerings into one group and compared its sales to the taurus, the question would need to be asked "Why the hell does GM need to design and build 10 different models under six different brands to sell 500,000 midsize sedans when Ford can sell near that of just Taurus alone?" Is GM that friggin lame that they can't make one competing model that will outsell the Taurus? Do they really need to have ten different designs under so many different labels in that much more dealers to sell the same amount of cars? Certainly not very economical.
As for reliability, you are saying Taurus are unreliable basing it primarily on the older generation Taurus model before 96. They may have below average but the 96 on up Taurus' are actually quite good, and certainly equal or better than many GM models. I know of three people personally who have had 96-99 Taurus, and have a combined 250k miles on them that have been entirely trouble free. As for Fords in general, I just traded a Thunderbird with 73k miles on it that I spent a total of 300 dollars in repairs for fixes over a five year span. In contrast my fatherin laws 1998 Olds 88 blows a tranny with 40 k miles on it to the tune of a thousand bucks. Or my dad's Seville with 30k miles on it and blown struts in front the dealer says will cost hundreds to replace.
Fords are no Toyotas but you can't label them as all crap because they are actually pretty solid. Ford at least builds durable motors built with the latest in technology. And the cars themselves hold up better than Chevy's, Pontiacs, etc.
Jul 06, 2000 (10:59 pm)
mostly a response to yurakm
#231 of 3389 regfootball
Jul 07, 2000 (12:00 am)
Do they really need to have ten different designs under so many different labels in that much more dealers to sell the same amount of cars? Certainly not very economical.
Well, it depends on consumer demand.
If consumer is ready to pay (a bit) more for what he likes (somewhat) more - or simply for being different - than the more diversity, the better. In the opposite case, everybody would buy the same cars painted in the same black color.
And, to take it to the limit, everybody would wear the same clothes of the same practical colors. Or in three colors. As in China 35 years ago.
In reality we have something in-between. GM is producing six or seven models of basically the same car, with five variants of three different engines, and is selling them under four brands. Ford is producing three of four models (including wagons) with three variants of two engines, and is selling them under two brands.
Now, consumer can select between all of this makes and models - or buy Crysler, Honda, Mazda - even Kia, if he dare. And everybody around is happy enough.
Jul 07, 2000 (12:29 am)
Don't know where you are coming up with poor reliability for Fords and poor dealer service. I live in RI and we have two Ford dealers in this area that are outstanding. I bought a 97 Taurus GL in Jan 98. Put 30,000 on the car and the only thing I've had to do is fix an interior light switch. I understand this is a fairly common problem. Personally think the car is a great value and they seem to age well.
I also own a 1993 Ford Escort Wagon, 5 speed. Have a 118k on it and it still runs strong. Replaced water pump and radiator. Everything else is original, battery, exhaust etc. Of course it has been tuned up regularly.
I know of many other people who own Escorts and Tauruses and all have had good luck. One person had a 91 Accord, now drives a 97 Taurus with the Vulcan and finds the Taurus to be a much better car.
Jul 07, 2000 (6:26 am)
I have read through all the posts here and thought I would jump in. I bought my 2000 Taurus SE on Memorial Day and already have about 3500 miles on it. I am really enjoying the car and have no major complaints. In my search, I looked at the Impala, Malibu, Focus, and Protege in addition to the Taurus. I test drove all but the Impala - I am wary of first year cars and figured it would be impossible to get a good deal on a new model. I did have an "emotional attraction" to the car as I learned to drive on a '59 Impala. The Focus and Protege were too small for a family of five. I liked the malibu pretty well. Why did I buy the Taurus? I was able to get a good trade in for my 1998 F-150 Supercab from the Ford dealer and a great price on the Taurus as well. While the price on the Malibu was reasonable, the Chevy dealer was insulting in their offer for my F-150 and refused to budge. In retrospect, I am glad I got the Taurus - a slightly larger, better equipped and more stylish car than the base Malibu I was looking at. I believe performance is better as well. As far as the styling of these cars, the Taurus, much like the F-150, grows on you and looks better and better with time. The Impala is a good looking car, but the attraction seems to fade with time. Let me adress a few things mentioned on the forum:
1) price: I felt my skin crawl when someone said the paid MSRP for a Taurus! You should never pay anywhere near MSRP for a car - you should strive to pay something really close to dealer cost, not retail. My personal rule is I never pay more than MSRP - $3000. As with most cars, the best deals are found in middle of the line option packages. I originally looked at a Taurus LX for $15,900; I decided I couldn't live without a cassette player and I didn't really like the console or hubcaps on the LX, so I offered $450 more for an SE that included a six passenger set up with a power drivers seat in addition to the standard SE options. So I bought the SE for $16350, roughly $1000 less than dealer cost, thanks to a rebate. I'm sure the dealer had holdbacks as well because I know he didn't lose any money. I also got a very good price for my trade in.
2) Engine: I'm sure the Duratec is a pleasure to drive(but not worth the extra dough considering you have to buy a higher priced model) , but I don't have any complaints about the Vulcan - it's no muscle car, but the mid level acceleration is great and I have caught myself passing cars on the interstate at 95 mph. I have the FFV version of the Vulcan because it was a no cost option. I initially had reservations about performance but research showed no difference in performance between the two. Someone in another post said performance would be better running ethanol, but I believe it is the opposite - degraded performance w/ ethanol. I don't really have any intentions of runing ethanol in it. The automatic transmission is great - I've never been a fan of automatics, but the 98 F-150 and this car changed my mind. Automatics have improved by leaps and bounds over the past ten years.
3) CD Changer: someone asked about after-market cd changers compatible with the cd-ready am/fm/cassette - try crutchfield www.crutchfield.com . I am almost certain they have one for around $250. The dealer will charge you about $600 to install one.
Jul 08, 2000 (2:24 am)
I have to admit its been a lot of fun watching the Impala drivers go thru such gymnatics to try to justify their purchases on a Taurus Board no less. Meanwhile, the 2000 Taurus sales have been going thru the roof, even surpassing the Accord and closing in on the Camry.
#235 of 3389 Traction
Jul 08, 2000 (2:29 am)
Well, the exact opposite could also be true, don't you think?
Jul 08, 2000 (4:15 am)
I have a couple of questions for those who own a 2000 Taurus:
1) When filling up with gas, I have a hard time getting the tank full - if I follow the owners manual advice and quit after the pump "clicks off" 3 times, I'm about an 1/8 of a tank shy of full. Is anyone else having this problem?
2) I normally do my own oil changes. Has anyone done their own oil change on a 2000 Taurus yet? I'm curious as to how easy it was to get the filter out of the tight spot that it is in (and if you were able to do it w/o third degree burns)!
#237 of 3389 owner of 2000 Taurus & 1994 Impala
Jul 08, 2000 (4:39 am)
As an owner of Ford and Chevy products, all I can say is both cars are wonderful in their own way.
The Impala has alot more room and a very smooth ride. It handles better than any car that I have owned or driven. The Impala is very sleek and impressive looking. As for speed, try to beat it.
My new Taurus is 24v with all the extras. I love the new look. It handles well and is also very roomy.
As for repairs, thew Impala parts are alot more expensive and to find a service department that knows what they are doing, for get it.
On the other hand, my ford service department is wonderful. They are pleasant, kind, and never question my judgement when I tell them something is wrong with my car. As for the cost of parts, I don't have any idea of this car yet.
Jul 08, 2000 (4:52 pm)
This may not be the right board for this question, but was hoping someone could give me advice. I purchased a Taurus from the dealer a couple of months back, and just happened to be looking at the sticker again. The sticker shows that 5-spk aluminum wheels should have been standard equipment on the SE that I got. Well, in the optional equipment part, it shows that locking wheelcovers were optional (at No Charge). These are plastic covers over steel rims. My question is, is it a legitimate gripe to get the dealer to swap me back my aluminum wheels, which I happen to prefer? Or since I drove it off the lot, keep what I got? Replies appreciated.