Last post on Oct 05, 2011 at 8:37 PM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
What is this discussion about?
Ford Taurus, Automotive News, Future Vehicle, Sedan
#46 of 493 weight and SHO
May 06, 2009 (10:34 am)
I found the weight quotes just by goggling the 2010 model for weight and HP and agree that the 3109 sounds too low. The point stands however tht the SHO is going to be 600-700 pounds more than the Accord which is now rated as a full size sedan (no longer qualifies as mid-sized). I have read that AWD adds about 200 pounds.
The points about torque are well taken and I had not considered them. The SHO should have more mid-rpm zest for sure and that is a big plus.
I like the car and the idea and will certainly shop it when it is available. There is no question that it is a significant improvement over the Homer Simpson taurus (Mullaney's own words) that bored so many people in the past. I liked that version as a good value and wasn't bored at all so imagine my anticipation of the new model.
The taurus and sable have been great values for about 6 years and the mercury version has consistently finished at or near the top in initial customer satisfaction. After 130,000 miles in my 2000 Sable I am still impressed at how reliable and powerful it is after ten years and there have been no major surprises at all. (the spark coils and tie-rods were weak points in the 2000 version but were corrected later.
I firmly believe that the taurus and sable (if it survives) will continue to represent great value for people who intend to keep their cars for a long time. The rapid depreciation is unlikely to change for years even if the quality continues to shine.
Ford has done a very good job on these cars for the typical family car. Sports enthusiasts should look elsewhere----although maybe the SHO will change that. I wonder how much it will cost? If it goes over $30K (and it seems it will have to) then the market may shrink since there are true sporty cars starting to appear at that price.
#47 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [pod]
May 06, 2009 (12:08 pm)
The 2010 SHO has a MSRP of around $38,000 to start, IIRC. The Ford Vehicles website has the prices, standard & optional equipment, colors, etc.
#48 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [brucelinc]
May 06, 2009 (12:47 pm)
So the typical SHO will be over $40K? That's a lot of money for a Ford, that doesn't have a Shelby emblem.
That sort of price means there are very few people who will consider it seriously, no matter how nice it is.
If I were Ford, I would be concentrating more on vehicles like the Fiesta and an inexpensive small pickup/SUV.
#49 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [kernick]
May 06, 2009 (1:30 pm)
I agree it sounds high but if you want a higher performance sedan with decent luxury equipment and lots of room, what else is there in that price range? Pontiac G8 will soon be dead. Chrysler 300C and Charger R/T have an iffy future. I don't know what foreign nameplate offers the same combination of size, luxury, and performance for less.
No doubt, the Taurus is moving up-market. Some people might go to a Ford showroom interested in the SHO but drive out in a Fusion Sport, instead. That would still be good for Ford. They haven't had anything interesting to draw much of a crowd for quite some time. Some good press and some interesting cars like the SHO could generate lots more showroom traffic.
#50 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [kernick]
May 06, 2009 (1:40 pm)
So the typical SHO will be over $40K? That's a lot of money for a Ford,
It's also a lot more car than any previous Ford sedan - way more. Show me a full size sedan with the same features and power and I guarantee it will cost at least that much and probably way more. An Audi A6 Quattro starts at $62K (and it's smaller).
A fully optioned Accord or Camry goes for $32K (with a lot less power and without AWD). Perhaps you haven't looked at new car prices in a while?
#51 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [pod]
May 06, 2009 (8:03 pm)
Let's stop comparing to Accord here (although I'd welcome a comparison forum if someone else would like, I'd be happy to set it up, just let me know. The Sonata is more of a full-size car than the Accord (the latter of which is only full-size when not equipped with a moonroof, which all V6 models are).
You'd do better to compare to vehicles such as the 300C. Similarly equipped with AWD and the big 5.7, the Chrysler weighs in at 4,280 lbs.
#52 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [akirby]
May 27, 2009 (5:39 pm)
Excellent comment. In fact I bought a new '94 SHO and sold it in 2001 with 108,000 miles. I bought a new 2001 A-6 2.7T w/6-speed. If I could have bought another 1994 SHO at the time I would have been all over it. I paid $46K for the Audi and I still drive it. 103K miles, no door dings, no rust, serviced every 5K miles at the dealer and hardly anyone ever rides in the back seat. I did take it to the Audi dealer last year to talk trade but I can't see paying $62K to replace this car. In 1994 I paid about $27K for my SHO. $40K-$42K for a 2009 is right in line with what I would expect to pay. There may be some discounting. But if this model is anywhere close to the 1994 this will be a great value. (Interestingly I did a lot of thinking in 2001 becuase the Acura TL was almost exactly the same dimensions as the A-6 and $10K less. But the Acura then was far short of the Audi I bought and the SHO I sold.)
#53 of 493 Is the 2010 Taurus in showrooms yet?
Jun 17, 2009 (6:33 am)
I see the 2009 Taurus is no longer listed in the car lineup on the Ford Cars home page.
#54 of 493 2010 Tarus vs 2010 Lacrosse
Sep 11, 2009 (8:27 am)
I am looking at both cars but can't make up my mind. I have driven both. I thought the Traus SEL had a firmer ride and more tire noise? The buick was an CX. I was impressed with the interior of both, but the Lacrosse seemed to have a roomier feel. Any other feed back would be appreciated.
#55 of 493 Re: 2010 Tarus vs 2010 Lacrosse [jlc]
Sep 11, 2009 (10:12 am)
What tires were on the Taurus? The standard 235/55/18 or the optional 255/45/19.? The latter are stiffer and noisier. We have ordered a SEL with the standard tires. Drove a Limited with the 19" and found the ride too thumpy.