Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Freestyle - Taurus X

7481 messages,  Last post on Apr 25, 2013 at 10:28 AM

You are in the Ford Freestyle Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Freestyle, Ford Taurus X, SUV

Messages Page 679 of 749

#6772 of 7481 Re: Taurus X [tidester] by mmccloskey

Feb 11, 2007 (5:02 pm)

Replying to: tidester (Feb 11, 2007 4:32 pm)
There was an article in the local Sunday paper's business section about this topic. Allen Mullaly was instrumental in getting the name changed due to customers who liked the Taurus and didn't want it to go away. Will consumers who remember the 'old' Taurus take to the 'new' Taurus as Ford is hoping? A name change alone may not be enough - Ford had better advertise/promote these renamed/updated vehicles far better than they did (didn't!) with the 2005-2007 models. As the current owner of a 2005 FS I can't say I approve of the name change, but the improvements made to the 2008 Taurus X (Freestyle!) may persuade me to upgrade.
 
Regards -
 
M.J. McCloskey

#6773 of 7481 Re: Taurus X [tidester] by barnstormer64

Feb 11, 2007 (5:21 pm)

Replying to: tidester (Feb 11, 2007 4:32 pm)
Just curious - what do supppose was Ford's motivation for the name changes in the first place?
 
Marketing . . I think they believe that the name change will at least get people to THINK about trying the vehicle.
 
It's hard to want to try a vehicle if you haven't heard of it. And a lot of people don't research EVERY car.
 
But, to AVOID (or PICK) a car largely because of the name, that seems a bit ridiculous.

#6774 of 7481 Re: New Taurus Variants [coldcranker] by stevedebi

Feb 11, 2007 (6:06 pm)

Replying to: coldcranker (Feb 10, 2007 7:23 pm)
"The Edge has the same tranny/engine as the new TaurusX, and the Edge gets worse MPG compared to the current Freestyle. Also the Mazda CX9 is worse with the same engine. Adding the HP/torque/displacement probably means MPG goes down."
 
Let me quote you "MPG probably goes down". Translation: you don't know.
 
Ford used the 3.0 because it was the best fit at the time, when paired with a CVT. It would have been hopeless with a 4 or 5 speed at the FS weight and size.
 
Often having a larger engine that does less work due to more gears results in an increase in MPG. Additionally, the Edge is around 400 lbs heavier than the FS.
 
My father has a Lincoln with a V8 engine that gets 20 / 27 (real world, not EPA) MPG. If they could do that in 2001, why not now?

#6775 of 7481 Re: Taurus X [tidester] by stevedebi

Feb 11, 2007 (6:10 pm)

Replying to: tidester (Feb 11, 2007 4:32 pm)
"Just curious - what do supppose was Ford's motivation for the name changes in the first place? "
 
Tidester, the 500 and FS overlapped production of the Taurus. They could not have used the Taurus name.

#6776 of 7481 Re: Taurus X [stevedebi] by tidester

Feb 11, 2007 (8:48 pm)

Replying to: stevedebi (Feb 11, 2007 6:10 pm)
Thanks to all for your replies. I am just a little amused by barnstormer's contention that it seems a "bit ridiculous" for anyone to consider the name of a vehicle "to pick or avoid" one. (I happen to agree with him, btw!) What I find humorous is that Ford appears to be banking on it.
 
tidester, host

#6777 of 7481 Re: New Taurus Variants [stevedebi] by coldcranker

Feb 11, 2007 (10:03 pm)

Replying to: stevedebi (Feb 11, 2007 6:06 pm)
stevedebi, Translation: "Probably" means "Probably". Get it? The numbers will be out with the new EPA MPG test. Don't bet on the new 3.5L being more fuel efficient than the current 3.0L, despite your amusing anecdote about the Lincoln.
 
Let me quote you: "Additionally, the Edge is around 400 lbs heavier than the FS." Wrong again. The Edge is 200 lbs heavier than a Freestyle with no panoramic roof, not significant.
 
You also said "Often having a larger engine that does less work due to more gears results in an increase in MPG." Wrong again. The 6-speed has more gears than a CVT? LOL... The truth is that the reversal in the displacment-to-fuel-flow-rate curve you are referring to doesn't occur until somewhere around 1.6L, nowhere near 3.0L. Nice try.

#6778 of 7481 Re: New Taurus Variants [coldcranker] by pnewby

Feb 12, 2007 (6:26 am)

Replying to: coldcranker (Feb 11, 2007 10:03 pm)
You may be right and you may be wrong, but I really don't understand why posters have to visit forums to only bash and nit-pick. Wait for real world results and EPA numbers, and keep in mind that all of the "knowledgeable" automotive journalists kept crying out "underpowered", which IMHO is a crock. Traded a V8 LS on the FS-TX and have not missed it for a minute. The LS was a great car, the FS is a great wagon/SUV/Crossover.

#6779 of 7481 Re: Taurus X [barnstormer64] by xnappo

Feb 12, 2007 (8:29 am)

Replying to: barnstormer64 (Feb 11, 2007 3:24 pm)
So you would be fine buying a Pinto if you liked the car otherwise?
xnappo

#6780 of 7481 Re: New Taurus Variants [coldcranker] by stevedebi

Feb 12, 2007 (4:56 pm)

Replying to: coldcranker (Feb 11, 2007 10:03 pm)
No, probably means you don't know but think this might be true.
 
I was basing my Edge weights on the review posed on "another site". It was a loaded AWD. The comparison value was a loaded FS AWD. The difference was 400 lbs.
 
RE: More gears, I wasn't directly referring to the CVT vs 6 speed (I was thinking of other upgrades from 4 or 5 to 6 speeds), although technically the 6 speed does have more gears, since the CVT has only the one gear, while the new one has six. But that is moot, since the CVT is continuously variable. That part of the post was not clearly worded. FWIW, I like the CVT and will be sorry to see it go.
 
The point is that if the smaller 3.0 / CVT has to work harder than the 3.5 / 6 speed at a similar speed, the 3.5 / 6 speed may very well get better mileage, due to lower RPMs. As I recall, the Ford 500 got similar (or better) MPG with the 3.5 / 6 Speed than with the CVT.
 
I stand by my statement, the 2008 FS will probably (sorry, couldn't resist) have comparable MPG to the 2007.

#6781 of 7481 Re: Taurus X [tidester] by barnstormer64

Feb 12, 2007 (8:20 pm)

Replying to: tidester (Feb 11, 2007 8:48 pm)
I am just a little amused by barnstormer's contention that it seems a "bit ridiculous" for anyone to consider the name of a vehicle "to pick or avoid" one. (I happen to agree with him, btw!)
 
Now I'm confused . . you're amused by my comment, yet you agree with it?

Messages Page 679 of 749

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement