Last post on Aug 22, 2008 at 11:00 PM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
What is this discussion about?
Ford Five Hundred, Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, Future Vehicle, Sedan, Wagon
#222 of 530 Re: Good Move [nvbanker]
Feb 22, 2007 (8:02 am)
Let's face it, image, and overinflated egos, are what sell many of the high line makes, and many SUVs here in the good old USA. Manufacturers love it, as they make substantially larger profits supplying what egocentrics "think" they need.
That being said I just bought a 2001 Sable LS Premium with 36,000 miles on the clock for my daughter who's in graduate school for $6,000. The car was never a rental, but was owned by "the proverbial old lady" since original purchase. A good find . . .
The Taurus and Sable are tremendous buys on the used market for the informed buyer, unconcerned about image, but very poor buys on the new market due to historically horrendous depreciation. Ford's marketing needs some serious help, and the first step would be to bring ALL of the European Fords to the USA ASAP. Renaming the Five Hundred and its Mercury counterpart, the Taurus/Sable respectively, is not one of Ford's more brilliant marketing moves.
Nothing wrong with Hyundai . . . I bought a 2006 Elantra for my wife in December 2005, and it's had absolutely no issues since purchase. The same can't be said about the last Honda Accord I owned, or for that matter, the last Camry I owned. Both had more warranty claims in the first six months of ownership than the Elantra in over a year (zero). The largest problem Hyundai has in this country is marketing perception, not the quality of their product. The ONLY person I have to impress is myself, I could care less of what others think.
#223 of 530 Re: Value vs Image [barnstormer64]
Feb 22, 2007 (10:28 am)
And yes, image does matter.
Not to those who believe in VALUE.
That's one opinion, but it's not necessarily the only one. I happen to think both can exist. They aren't mutually exclusive.
#224 of 530 Re: Good Move [w9cw]
Feb 22, 2007 (10:37 am)
Some people on this forum claim that style and image don’t matter, and that VALUE is king. Fine that is valid argument. What I claim is that Ford 500 is not a great value, and for sure it has no style or image. I am sure that most people here know that Ford 500 is based on the Volvo S80, the so called D3 platform. Well what is a D3 platform? According to web:
“Ford's D3 platform is slightly different from Volvo's original P2. For example, D3 features steel suspension arms, rather than aluminum, and other material cost-saving measures.”
This means that Ford 500/Taurus is based on a cost reduced platform which was introduced in 1999 (8 years old now) on a car that did not sell all that well and was not really known for any good attribute other then safety. I mean nobody claimed that Volvo S80 was a driver’s car. The best that can be said about Volvo S80 was that is was a safe car.
Now Ford takes that platform and applies “cost-saving” measures to it. What does cost saving measures mean? Steel was used instead of Aluminum for suspension, lower strength steel was used for the body, less brackets and reinforcements in the body. I don’t know exactly what was changed, but I do know that when manufacturer tries to save money, they cut corners.
The funny thing is that the new Volvo S80 no longer uses this platform. It is based on a new platform:
“The new S80 is based on the EUCD platform which was mainly developed by Volvo itself, also used for vehicles including Ford's S-MAX and Galaxy large MPVs”
The next problem with the “Value” question is the power train used in Ford 500. The 3.0l engine is weak, but its durable and reliable. The problem is with the transmission. Some of the cars came with CVT transmissions. FORD STOPED MAKING THEM. This “strange” transmission was only used on Ford 500 / Freestyle for 4 years, and then it was discontinued. I don’t know what the durability of this transmission is, but I know that it costs a fortune to replace if it fails. This means that if this transmission fails, the car is worth ZERO. It would cost more to replace the transmission then the car is worth.
So where is the VALUE in having that car that will be worth nothing if transmission fails? Where is the VALUE in driving a car based on cheapened 8 year old technology? Where is the VALUE in driving a car with no style or power? You want VALUE, buy a 2001 Sable for $6000.
The 1986 Ford Taurus was a revolutionary car based on a brand new platform with brand new style with brand new engine and transmission. It was not a 1980 Ford FAIRMONT with a new nose. (Which by the way is what the new 2008 Taurus is……………)
#225 of 530 Re: Good Move [bristol2]
Feb 22, 2007 (12:34 pm)
Any lawyer who drives a yaris would not be the guy I want representing me.
If the CEO of my company shows up in a Civic, I'm not sure that suggests success.
Value oriented people hate this, and deny it, but it's reality. I'm one of those people for whom my ride must convey that I'm doing well, or my clients will run. Fact of life, like it or not.
#226 of 530 Re: Good Move [nvbanker]
Feb 22, 2007 (1:07 pm)
Though that still represents "value." Your more expensive vehicle nets you more business and income. Driving a Kia Rio for you would be "penny wise, pound foolish." Further, there are tax benefits to larger vehicles in some professions, and so on.
On the other hand, one could drive an Audi A8 (at $70,000) or a Bentley Flying Spur (at $170,000) and not see any payback for that extra $100,000. That choice is just personal preference, and how much extension of a personal appendage one thinks he needs to buy.
Another example: a guy can buy his daughter a Z4 or a Z8 to drive in college, but the guy who buys the Z4 is a bit more sensible. The parents who buy the 2001 loaded Sable for the kid are that much more sensible...and value oriented.
#227 of 530 Re: Image [barnstormer64]
Feb 22, 2007 (2:51 pm)
And then, of course, there are those who'll pay even MORE for a Lexus, to basically get some gold lettering for the car name on the back of the vehicle.
THey actually get a lot more comfort and technology in lexus than toyota, which is more than I can say for lincoln vs ford. But then again, the step from ford's short comings to toyota's refinement makes the step from toyo to lexus look miniscule.
#228 of 530 Re: Good Move [barnstormer64]
Feb 22, 2007 (3:16 pm)
I actually LIKE the 500's looks. And the 300? I would've only got it for the Hemi . . but the trunk is a lot smaller, and it's a real PITA to look out of. Visibility is very poor.
I would give up visibility (and I know that is a LLOT of itcompared to the huge 500 windows) for better quality build, features and luxury and style of the 300. SO looking at the 300 (not C, just touring) you actually are even, and if you do pay $500 less for your five hun. your buying a cheaper car-and I don't mean by monetary standards.
Back to looks. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so lets step to common ground. The 300 has a fresh new look. THe Five (man is that stupid how they spell it!) hundred is very old in style, comparable to that of the first taurus. Not good. image isn't really that important, and getting your money's worth is the main stream, but true value is geting the most for your money. Why buy a dollar cheeseburger from Mcdonalds when for 50 cents more, you can get a value menu with fries and a softdrink? YOu'll end up spending another dollar on a burger somewhere else, 'cause your still hungry!
#229 of 530 Re: Good Move [gregg_vw]
Feb 22, 2007 (5:22 pm)
Driving a Kia Rio for you would be "penny wise, pound foolish." Precisely. Besides, I've driven a Rio - the check engine light came on.
On the other hand, one could drive an Audi A8 (at $70,000) or a Bentley Flying Spur (at $170,000) and not see any payback for that extra $100,000. That choice is just personal preference, and how much extension of a personal appendage one thinks he needs to buy
The law of diminishing return applies here - In my case, the Lexus is just about the perfect car for my needs - it has the value proposition in the resale value, it has the image I need, without squandering money ( I actually don't have ) for a Bentley, which would only connote an obscene amount of ego in my case, not success.
For my kids - an Oldsmobile will do - if they want an image car, they can work for it. As a student - struggling, poor and practical is the image they SHOULD have..... I actually get disgusted when I pass the high school parking lot and see it full of BMWs..... Those kids are clearly headed for USC (The University of Spoiled Children).
#230 of 530 Re: Good Move [nvbanker]
Feb 22, 2007 (7:07 pm)
For my kids - an Oldsmobile will do - if they want an image car, they can work for it.
No kidding, you only get to worry about the image of the car you get to worry about making the payments on!
#231 of 530 Re: Good Move [bristol2]
Feb 22, 2007 (7:41 pm)
So I think that we all agree that the image of the car is important to most people. If image was not important to people, then why would they buy SUV's instead of minivans for their families. I own both a Ford Expedition and a Honda Minivan. Trust me, the Honda minivan is a more practical vehicle for a family with kids. Its even bigger inside than a Ford and gets better gas millage, and yet I prefer to drive the SUV because of minivan image.
But lets get back to discussing the name change from Ford 500 to Taurus. Does it change the image of this car? I don't think so. Ford needs to do something a lot more drastic than a name change to come back from the brink of bankruptcy.