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: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (May 27, 2008 12:00 pm) BTW, as the owner of a 1997 Mazda pick-up occasionally serviced at a Ford-Mazda dealership, I received an offer to get a $50 Targer card if I test drive a Ford car. They really must be deserate to sell cars. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (May 30, 2008 5:37 am) There's not one, as I beat EPA estimates on the highway quite regularly myself, typically about 4 MPG before Ethanol became prevailent; now I'm down to 2 MPG better. A little research (to find out what you are actually driving) goes a long way, especially before trying to discredit someone.
|
|
|
I’ve always been the kind of guy who wants to get $1.13 of content for his dollar (sometimes pathologically so). I’ve concluded that in this class, the only entrant that can reasonably give the Azera a run for its money in this department is the new Taurus, or if you prefer, the old 500. So off I went to my local Ford dealer. It should be noted that this is an exceptionally good Ford store: lounge for service customers, slime-free salespeople, everything quite impressive. I enjoyed my salesman, who interestingly had worked the service counter less than a year before at a crooked Hyundai dealership, and was delightfully low-key with me. I drove a front-drive SEL with tan cloth, then a black-leather Limited AWD. Their similarities vastly exceeded their differences, so I may as well report on them in tandem. First, the walkaround. I discount the potshots at the Taurus’s exterior styling. To my eye, it’s clean and purposeful. (You’d maybe rather look at the molten ovoid that was the 2000 Taurus?) The trunk was Mafia-huge, just as advertised. Equally impressive, the huge space was unimpeded by hinges as Ford sprang (pun intended) for the costlier gas struts. The back seat was voluminous as well, the subjective equal in space of the Avalon’s, though toe space was lacking. You apparently can’t get a telescoping steering wheel on any Taurus, and it needs one. The wheel is too far away, and to make matters worse, you can’t lower the tilt mechanism far enough. The adjustable pedals on the Limited helped somewhat to compensate. The power driver’s seats have all the adjustments, yet are so shapeless and unsupportive that you always feel you’re sitting on rather than in them. The Taurus’s feature content is impressive. In this class, only Taurus offers the exterior-pushbuttons form of keyless entry. While some call this obsolete, I view it as the best on the market, because it’s the only system that’s truly keyless -- no key OR fob needed. To put this in practical terms, it’s the only car that lets you use it as a locker for its own key at the beach. Taurus also has a temporary class exclusive on the Sync system. I loathe Microsoft, but even I have to admit this system is impressive. Stash your iPod safely out of sight in the console (there’s even a mini USB jack in there), then run it from the radio head unit or with speech commands -- ditto for your Bluetooth phone and Sirius radio. Nice. And under the skin, Taurus has superb crashworthiness, plus the AWD option the two Asians lack. The maddening thing that confronts you over and over with the Taurus is that all the content, and even the quality, is there, but the visible cheapness of the interior is simply relentless in undermining the quality impression. The gauges look far cheesier than the newly downgraded units in the ’08 Accord, and can’t touch the neon-white showpieces in the Azera or Avalon. The console (which, like the Avalon’s, is inexplicably too damn close to my right knee) flexes embarrassingly under the slightest pressure. While the Azera’s curvy dash and doors surprise and delight, the Nebraska-flat plains throughout the Taurus cabin dismay and depress. Mind you, most of the surfaces are soft-touch, and the abundant fake wood is frankly a far more handsome and attractively reflective material than the Azera’s miserable maroon plastic. Yet there is an utter and inexplicable lack of contouring to virtually any interior element, right down to the seat cushions. It’s hard to tell whether this was a misguided style decision to highlight the vast spaciousness of the interior, or just a full-on cheapout, but there’s no question at all about the result—in this distinguished company, it’s a disaster. I’ve voiced that the Avalon interior contains several peculiar style decisions, but this interior just hasn’t got it. Again, more’s the pity, because the Taurus is more than competitive over the road. The new powertrain certainly can’t be called rough or crude. There’s no idle shake or harsh noises, and it never really puts a foot wrong. The idle is clearly more audible than its two Asian rivals, but this seems to be more a soundproofing issue than a powertrain flaw, and seems to fade away at speed. The best aspect of the Taurus is the suspension. The ride-handling compromise is better than either Avalon or Azera’s. It rides as comfortably as either, yet controls vertical motion better than Azera and body roll better than Avalon. Steering feel is decent, maybe even a tick better than the others. Hyundai in particular would improve its product by ripping off this road behavior. With its vast room, comfy ride, and low highway RPM from its 6-speed (thank God, no longer the old CVT) slushbox, I could see this as a really livable highway car. Problem is, the others are too, and they have better seats to boot. Which about sums up the dilemma that faces this car: What spoiled car buyers we are today! This car is blatantly the best popular-priced huge sedan ever to roll out of Dearborn. Depending on how you feel about the 300, maybe the best ever from Detroit. Five years ago, this car would have rocked the world. But Ford’s tarnished reputation, combined with the sheer unnatural excellence of the Avalon and Azera, makes it virtually impossible now for this virtuous but strangely sexless Taurus to stand out in the crowd. When Ford sinks to the point where they start to sell off the furniture, those who score a Taurus for thousands less than it’s worth will be serious winners. This isn’t some Chrysler that’s crap at any price. In the end, it’s like a Camry: the one you’d recommend to your friends, but somehow never quite choose for yourself. That’s not a compliment in a woman, nor in a car. For all its legitimate merits, something’s missing from the Taurus—and whatever it is, it’s probably fatal. |
|
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
