Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
6844 messages, Last post on Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: bassmax (May 28, 2008 11:00 am) You got such a great deal on your Max because the completely new model is due out in a few months. The Taurus and Azera are a different type of car much softer and roomier inside. Two different customers IMO. |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (May 27, 2008 12:00 pm) The base and some of the CXL's w/o magnaride (or whatever they call it) still have plenty of "float" to them. You are right, the CXS is much tighter, similar to an Av Touring. |
|
|
Replying to: tjc78 (May 24, 2008 5:59 am) We bought a Taurus for my wife last October and now have about 7000 miles on it. She is ecstatic with it and while I am much harder to please, I have concluded that it is an incredible car for the money. Over Memorial Day weekend, we drove from Minneapolis to Southern Iowa and back. Going down into a pretty stiff headwind, we got 29.6 MPG. Coming home, we got 31.4. This was 90% Interstate cruising at 75 - 80 MPH. We have taken a number of shorter trips on two-lane roads at lower speeds and gotten 33-34 MPG. On her daily commute of 50/50 city and freeway, grocery shopping, etc. it averages around 24-25 MPG. The tall overdrive in 6th gear really helps fuel economy on the highway. The engine is powerful enough to prevent unwanted downshifts on hills, too. I rent cars a lot for business (often Impalas, Camrys, Chrysler 300s) and I think the driving experience (ride/quiet/room/performance/interior) puts the Taurus far above those. I have not driven an Azera or late model Avalon. Since the Taurus is really a second car, we wanted to keep the price down. About my only complaint is the lack of a telescoping wheel - a strange omission on an otherwise very comfortable car. |
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (May 29, 2008 5:28 am) I'll second the impression that this is a tremendous car, and even more so for the $. It's a very crossover-like driving experience, but at many $thousands less than a similar vehicle with a liftgate instead of a trunk. It still baffles me that there is a premium attached to something called a crossover SUV, while a wagon is virtually unsellable. This vehicle is exceptionally roomy, very comfortable, has some get-up, a zillion bells & whistles, and a killer stereo. I like the looks, and the interior, and it seems to be pretty well screwed together, so I'm very pleased. It's actually pretty hard to go far wrong these days - most of the new cars are excellent.
|
|
|
Replying to: jontyrees (May 29, 2008 12:07 pm) I think you will see a significant mileage improvement after you accumulate some miles. As I recall, on the first tank, we only got around 20 or so. The first significant trip we took was at Christmas when the car had around 1,500 miles on it and we averaged about 26 - 27 on the trip to Iowa. It is now 3-4 MPG better. The acceleration has noticeably improved, too.
|
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (May 29, 2008 5:28 am) Really! You would try and have all of us believe that you have the one that got away and wasn't supposed to be sold. Better fuel economy than the EPA estimates by more than 6 mpg! Come on now. And at 75-80 mph no less. And in stop and go commuting, 24-25 mpg. Another unbelieveable figure considering that the EPA figures for that vehicle are 16 city and only 24 highway. I'm a native Californian, but when I read such tall tales, I say I'm from Misssouri . . Show me.
|
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (May 29, 2008 1:24 pm) However everything else about this car is a huge upgrade over my old Impala. It's got a ton of safety features, is very quiet on the road, and has lot of space particularly in the back seats and trunk. It has a lot of "soft surfaces" so my elbow doesn't get sore resting on the door. Wish I would have waited a few months and got the sync system as I have a buddy who has it and loves the hands free phone. Great car for the money and the only reason I can think sales aren't better is it's mundane exterior. Sounds like Ford is working on that and will be making some changes soon. |
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (May 29, 2008 5:28 am) If those #s are accurate you are doing better than my '06 Avalon, on my last interstate run I got 28.8 at 75 - 85 with one pretty long traffic jam. My normal mileage is 21-22 as I am either in town or stuck on the highway in gridlock on the way home. Plus once in a while I can be a little heavy footed from a stoplight 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: snaglepus (May 29, 2008 4:00 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (May 29, 2008 7:50 pm)  Mine is a FWD model and the ratings are 18/28. It is not at all uncommon to beat the highway number. My Lincoln LS gets about 26 on the same trip to Iowa and it is rated at 23 highway. The EPA number is calculated with the AC running and it includes a cold start if I recall correctly. Anyone who can't beat the highway number with steady cruising and AC off must not be a very smooth driver. At 75 MPH, the Taurus is turning about 1000 RPM slower than my Lincoln so I was not surprised with the mileage. As for the city number, I make no claim of getting better than the EPA rating in stop and go traffic. My wifes commute is 50% freeway cruising in the suburbs with only light traffic and the 24 -25 number is consistent from tank to tank. I see no reason for surprise or skepicism of my mileage report.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Buick Lucerne
2010 Chevrolet Impala
2011 Dodge Charger
2010 Ford Taurus
2010 Hyundai Azera
2010 Toyota Avalon
2010 Nissan Maxima
2009 Pontiac G8
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
