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
#491 of 530 Five Hundred vs new Taurus FE
Dec 13, 2007 (11:04 am)
I saw that someone indicated the FE for the 500 was better than that of the new Taurus. I don't know if that was based on experience or the EPA numbers. If you convert the 2007 Five Hundred EPA numbers to the new 2008 numbers you get 19/26 and 21 overall. The original 2007 numbers are 21/29 and 24 overall. The 2008 Taurus numbers are 18/28 and 22 overall. The only EPA number that is higher for the 2007 Five Hundred is the city number, which is 1 mpg higher.
Can anyone that traded a Five Hundred for a 2008 Taurus comment on real life FE experience?
#492 of 530 Re: Five Hundred vs new Taurus FE [ronsmith38]
Dec 17, 2007 (8:08 pm)
I don't think many Ford buyers care much about the EPA. Otherwise they would buy Camry/Accord. Ford needs to build a better car both quality and engineering. Don't play the name game. I have a 99 Sable. The trade in value is so low that I would be better off getting a Camry/Accord for $5k more when buying new. It also got so many annoying little problems that I would never buy another Ford or GM for that matter. After losing so much money, I sure hope they learn their lessons and make sure "Quality is job one".
#493 of 530 Re: Five Hundred vs new Taurus FE [kaisu04]
Dec 18, 2007 (9:05 am)
Trade in values even for American iron are still far better than they used to be. When I was a kid in 1970, I bought a 62 Galaxie 500 for $100. The car was probably a bit less than $3000 when new. Now that was some awful depreciation, but back then an eight year old car was considered a tired machine.
Your 99 is 8 to 9 years old already. You likely got a nice chunk off the MSRP when you first purchased it. Your tradein is probably still worth $1800, and in some instances you might get more if the dealer is really anxious to sell you something. In other words, your car is still worth approximately 10% of what you paid after nine years. Not bad for a nondescript car that was never a big seller.
Now, had you bought a 99 Camry for 4 or 5K more, you'd now have a car with a tradein value anywhere from $3700 to $4300, depending on condition and equipment. So you would not be money ahead. Actually, you are better off financially having bought the Sable. (Of course, this does not figure in how much greater ownership satisfaction might have been worth to you...and only you can determine that.)
Resale on bread and butter mid-size cars is more or less based on the price paid at initial purchase. Heavily discounted cars with lots of rebates and incentives necessarily must have less resale value. But even with that, these cars are often the prudent purchase, because the better resale of an Accord or Camry just helps offset the higher price you paid on initial purchase. In most cases you are not actually money ahead just because your car has a higher resale value.
#494 of 530 Re: Five Hundred vs new Taurus FE [kaisu04]
Dec 19, 2007 (7:47 pm)
I have a 99 Sable. The trade in value is so low that I would be better off getting a Camry/Accord for $5k more when buying new.
I just tested that theory.
I priced out a 1999 Ford Taurus SE 4-dr sedan with the 3.0L V6, dark blue, with 100,000 miles on it, in average condition. Private Party Sale price from Edmunds was $1722
I then priced out a 1999 Toyota Camry XLE V6 4-dr sedan (3.0L engine), dark blue, with 100,000 miles on it, in average condition. Private Party Sale price from Edmunds was $4045
Difference = $2,323
#495 of 530 Re: Five Hundred vs new Taurus FE [barnstormer64]
Dec 20, 2007 (7:41 am)
Yes, and that's not nearly enough to offset the higher initial price for the Camry. So the Sable is the better financial deal. However, again, owner satisfaction is a factor too, but that is hard to quantify in dollars.
Jan 12, 2008 (2:42 pm)
Is anyone buying the Sable? Maybe it would be a mistake if Mercury is going the way of Plymouth and Oldsmobile. It seems if the Sables in my area are optioned more to my liking. It is hard to find a Taurus Limited around here without the moonroof or chrome wheels, and with the ESC feature. The largest Taurus dealer has about 50 in stock, but only 2 with ESC, both with options I don't want.
#497 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [ronsmith38]
Jan 12, 2008 (5:21 pm)
I was roaming around the local L/M new car lot. I was looking at the sticker prices and the mpg. The GM seems to be a better deal than a Sable. V8 vs V6 and probably a better ride. Possibly more reliable. Basically same mpg. I was more intersted in the Sable, but when I looked at the diffreences, the GM won out in my opinion.
#498 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [izaclown1]
Jan 12, 2008 (5:58 pm)
Basically same mpg.
Since when is 5 miles per gallon "basically the same?"
(referring to the MGM) V8 vs V6 and probably a better ride. Possibly more reliable
Possibly less reliable. Speculation with no basis doesn't help anybody in reality. That V8 is slower and much more thirsty than the Sable's V6, making it a detriment, not an advantage.
Due to the ancient suspension and powertrain (well, the whole car is incredibly dated), I'd be willing to bet that the Taurus/Sable accelerate faster (they have more power and a better transmission to run through : 6 gears vs. 4), get better economy (the EPA found that the Grand Marquis got 3 MPG less than the Sable in town, 5 MPG less on the highway), and due to the independent suspension in the Sable, it's ride and handling are a lot better controlled and much less floaty than the old girl.
The Sable weighs 500 lbs less and is nearly a foot shorter in overall length (important for parking in length-restricted garages), yet manages to be more roomy.
The Grand Marquis is a big car, but the Sable/Taurus offers more combined legroom front and rear, as well as more trunk space. The dated interior design in the MGM is a tough sell against the Sable as well. There's a reason Mercury is dumping more than half of these vehicles to fleets - they just aren't competitive with anything these days.
If you are getting a Grand Marquis for $15k or so, it's probably a good buy. A Taurus can be had for less than $20k however, and is a much better vehicle overall.
#499 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [thegraduate]
Jan 13, 2008 (6:06 pm)
There is the space difference. The stickers had listed the same gas mileage 28 highway. I have not tried to get in the new ones, but my TC (longer wheel length than GM) was much better ride and everything than our 2000 Sable. But, I guess I am partial to the bigger cars... How many Sables and GM do you see in the services bays for major problems compared to the other models of cars L/M puts out? The Sables and GM are usually in for oil changes and regular maintenance. The others had so may electrical and other problems. Based on sticker price the GM is less money for the Sable for the same equipment.
#500 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [izaclown1]
Jan 13, 2008 (7:33 pm)
The stickers had listed the same gas mileage 28 highway. I have not tried to get in the new ones, but my TC (longer wheel length than GM) was much better ride and everything than our 2000 Sable.
Hold it; you're talking about a 2000 Sable - a COMPLETELY different car made to compete with the likes of Accord, Camry, Oldsmobile Intrigue, etc... the midsize players. It was not made to compete against the full sizers (at the time these included vehicles like the Buick Park Avenue) in power/ride/equipment. The 2008 Sable is a completely different animal - so much so that the old Sable (which was based off of a design that debuted in 1995 as a 1996 model) should not even be in the same sentence as the new one.
Also, keep in mind that the Town Car will have different tuning, therefore different ride and handling than the Grand Marquis. A Honda Accord and an Acura TL are on the same platform as well, but they drive like two very different cars.
Based on sticker price the GM is less money for the Sable for the same equipment.
If all a car is to you is a list of equipment and a price, then the GM is all yours. I've already listed the ways in which the Sable beats the Grand Marquis at its own game - power, economy, room, smaller exterior, technology, driving experience in general. Even on paper, the Sable excels in most areas. The only thing the GM has going for it is price and a dated design which people who hate change deem as a "safe" choice - because its the same technology and design that's been around forever.
Does the Grand Marquis offer 6 airbags or Stability Control (not talking about traction control - that's a different thing)?