You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable 2010 Ford Taurus

2010 Ford Taurus

275 messages,  Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 12:07 PM

You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Ford Taurus, Automotive News, Future Vehicle, Sedan

Messages Page 5 of 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 29 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#34 of 275 Re: Limited or SHO? [rhawk] by gregg_vw Mar 27, 2009 (5:22 am)
Replying to: rhawk (Mar 26, 2009 3:16 pm) You looked at some terrific vehicles. Sounds like you want/need a big car (the Taurus is way bigger than any of the ones you have tried so far). Replies to this message: rhawk (Mar 27, 2009 7:45 am)
#35 of 275 Re: Limited or SHO? [gregg_vw] by rhawk Mar 27, 2009 (7:45 am)
Replying to: gregg_vw (Mar 27, 2009 5:22 am) My wife want's luxury, I want fun to drive. She drives a small car, I drive a truck. Bigger is better for me(I need the room). I think the SHO is what I'm looking for. I'll know more after a test drive.
#36 of 275 Hope resale values rise with these by nomoreford2 Apr 07, 2009 (4:27 pm)
Very nice car from what i saw at the autoshow, but i dont think i could put down $26-27k for a car that will be worth $10k less in a year and your $5k upside down after a yr. Hope this model will shake the rental image the taurus became.
#37 of 275 2010 sho is a porker! why?? by pod May 05, 2009 (9:29 am)
Today's edmunds "first drive" variant on the SHO claims a weight of 4368 pounds. Why in the world would it weigh so much. My 2000 Sable (Taurus cousin) weighs 3600; the first montego/500 series weighed about 3900. Why the incessant journey to morbid obesity? The new engine with 365 horses will be performance strapped trying to push all this lard about. Where is the extra weight and why? The SHO sounds like a great new direction for Ford but where are the weight police. The weight gain will cancel out most of the other gains with respect to acceleration, fuel economy and tossability. My god it's getting up to SUV weight. WHY? Replies to this message: akirby (May 05, 2009 10:03 am) berri (May 05, 2009 4:40 pm) brucelinc (May 06, 2009 4:44 am)
#38 of 275 Re: 2010 sho is a porker! why?? [pod] by akirby May 05, 2009 (10:03 am)
Replying to: pod (May 05, 2009 9:29 am) Safety (air bags, door braces, etc.), turbos and AWD. It's also a larger vehicle than the old Taurus/Sable. Replies to this message: berri (May 05, 2009 4:40 pm) brucelinc (May 06, 2009 4:44 am)
#39 of 275 Re: 2010 sho is a porker! why?? [akirby] by berri May 05, 2009 (4:40 pm)
Replying to: akirby (May 05, 2009 10:03 am) I wonder why they are only offering the SHO in AWD? Replies to this message: brucelinc (May 06, 2009 4:44 am)
#40 of 275 Re: 2010 sho is a porker! why?? [berri] by brucelinc May 06, 2009 (4:44 am)
Replying to: berri (May 05, 2009 4:40 pm) That much power to the front wheels would cause all kinds of drivability issues - torque steer, loss of traction on quick take-offs, front end plowing when putting the power down in the middle of a turn, etc.
#41 of 275 weight numbers for SHO by pod May 06, 2009 (4:50 am)
I was able to find the numbers. A 2000 Merecury Sabkle (Ford Taurus) weighed 3325 and had 200 hp for a weigh to hp ratio of 16.6. the SHO is advertised in this story as 4365 pounds and 365 hp for a weight/hp ratio of 11.9, so it should move better than the earlier generation of Tauruses. Still imagine if they had held the weight down to 3500 then the weight to hp ratio would be less than ten and the thing would move. All Wheel drive and the size increase and the heavier engine must be the difference. As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO. What I fear is that the enormous weight rise will water down the new engine so as to make the SHO just another large sized sedan compared to the top of the line V6 competition (Honda, Toyota, etc).   However you slice it the Ford is Porky compared to its peers and about 80 horses are tied up trying to move that extra weight. In the end it will perform like a 280 HP lighter competitor. That is a huge advance over the prior Taurus/Sable models but hardly a new champion in the sector. Why can't they shed some of these pounds? Replies to this message: akirby (May 06, 2009 6:06 am) brucelinc (May 06, 2009 6:47 am) akirby (May 06, 2009 7:12 am) thegraduate (May 06, 2009 8:33 am)
#42 of 275 Re: weight numbers for SHO [pod] by akirby May 06, 2009 (6:06 am)
Replying to: pod (May 06, 2009 4:50 am) Go compare the torque curves of those engines and you'll find that the Taurus produces WAY more torque at low RPM (say 1500) than the Accord. The Accord's V6 is a peak HP engine designed to rev high. The Taurus eb 3.5L is a torque monster - putting out 350 lb/ft starting at 1500 rpm or so. And it's a bigger car than the Accord which is in between the Fusion and the Taurus.   Mfrs are always looking to reduce weight because it helps with fuel economy. They don't make them Porky on purpose. AWD, turbos, airbags, door reinforcments, moonroofs and gadgets all add weight.
#43 of 275 Re: weight numbers for SHO [pod] by brucelinc May 06, 2009 (6:47 am)
Replying to: pod (May 06, 2009 4:50 am) As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO.   That weight you quote for the Honda sounds way low. I think the curb weight for a well equipped Accord V6 is closer to 3700 pounds. Where did you get the 3109 number? Replies to this message: akirby (May 06, 2009 7:12 am)

Messages Page 5 of 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 29 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable 2010 Ford Taurus