Last post on Aug 22, 2008 at 10:00 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
#277 of 530 Re: Good Move [danielj6]
Mar 03, 2007 (7:42 pm)
The Taurus name is a good move...to draw attention to a car that can stand out no other way. It's anonymous and it's boring, even if it performs just fine in a field of cars that do the same. Bottom line, it ain't gonna save Ford.
I agree that the 1986 to 1995 Sable wagon had a certain understated je n'ai ce quoi, even though at the same time, it stood out. The 1996 on was awkwardly styled, even goofy. The weirdness of it eventually killed sales. The 2008 is understated again, but this time almost to the point of anonymity. Ford's in trouble, yet all they seem to be able to bring to the table are more yawns.
#278 of 530 Re: Ok, so I was wrong.... [albook]
Mar 04, 2007 (9:03 am)
In defense of the barnstormer, the Freestyle and the Five Hundred may be a little on the Camry-dull side, but I have great admiration and regard for both vehicles. Rather than being Mazda 6 underneath, these two cars are Volvo S-80 under there, which is a fine machine, and ergo; these two vehicles handle extremely well, are comfortable to sit in, and should be excellent long term cars, plus, they are as roomy and useful as they come. I think the barnstormer is practical and wise, if not a little on the dull side....
Heck, excitement is overrated anyway....
#279 of 530 Re: Ok, so I was wrong.... [nvbanker]
Mar 04, 2007 (11:03 am)
Well, of course Barnstormer made a good decision and is happy with his choice. The problem for Ford is most buyers are not nearly as practical as he. It doesn't matter how good a vehicle might be, if there are factors that make it less than a good seller.
Ford needs something to sell really well...not just in numbers that might be profitable for that nameplate (like Fusion), but a real blockbuster, or a series of them. It is the only way the company is going to recover from the slide into oblivion that Bill and the board began several years ago.
#280 of 530 Re: Style points [donl1]
Mar 05, 2007 (9:39 am)
Wow, going from the AWD Five Hundred to an AWD 300C is like going from a horse & buggy to the starship Enterprise in terms of power. What are your thoughts regarding the power in the upcoming Taurus AWD with the 263 HP engine? I am certain that you are paying a mileage penalty going from the 200 HP 6 in the Five Hundred to the 340HP 8 in the 300C.
#281 of 530 Re: Style points [hardhawk]
Mar 05, 2007 (10:41 am)
As the owner of a Freestyle, I don't really care what they call it, it is simply a great vehicle. And the main reason I purchased is for the AWD and 5 star ratings from all test sources.
Are all 300Cs with AWD (didn't even know they had that), V8s? Didn't see anything in the post stating that. It would seem that too much power on a vehicle that had a low ground clearance, would be counter productive. It would only need that much power for serious off road or towing capabilities. And I don't think anyone would argue that the 500, Freestyle, Taurus or 300C are either of the above.
#282 of 530 300 is more than Five Hundred
Mar 05, 2007 (10:49 am)
Smiles per gallon offset the mpg difference. The Five Hundred was a disappointment mileage wise. Most of the time less than 25 in the summer and too many tanks of 17 to 18 mpg in the winter with the Ford. 23 is about the best I've ever seen with the Chrysler but it's hard to stay out of the gas pedal with the Hemi. The 300 is just a much better all around car...IMO. Absolutely no interest in the new "Taurus" with the 3.5. I'm afraid the Five Hundred soured me on Ford's for the immediate future. And I've purchased more new Fords in the past than any other brand.
#283 of 530 300C AWD
Mar 05, 2007 (10:54 am)
The 300 with AWD came with either the 3.5 V-6 or the 5.7 V-8. As far as too much power...I've yet to experience that with any vehicle I've ever owned.