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
#96 of 493 Re: Pricing [berri]
Sep 24, 2009 (11:10 am)
So basically everyone is complaining that they can't buy a new Taurus for the same rock bottom, huge rebate, fleet queen pricing as the 2005 Taurus.
In other words, you're looking for a bargain and Taurus ain't it. Too bad. Ford won't get profitable giving away cars. If you want a bargain go buy a Kia.
The Taurus looks to be the best car Ford has produced in a long time. It's not perfect but the complaints are minor at best. It is priced in line with similar vehicles from other manufacturers - period. They don't need to sell 200K a year either. Ford would rather have 4 vehicles on shared platforms that sell 100K than one that sells 400K. That's what got them into this mess - relying on one or two high volume models and ignoring the rest.
I'm sure Ford would rather sell 50K Tauri at a small profit than 200K at a loss.
#97 of 493 SHO needs its own thread
Sep 24, 2009 (2:36 pm)
Can the SHO get its own thread, it would clear up some confusion in this thread. I don't think some folks understand when you throw out the $40k figure you're talking the SHO variation of the Taurus.
Then, you get trolls who intentionally blur the difference between reg. Taurus and SHO version.
#98 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [akirby]
Sep 24, 2009 (3:00 pm)
Please explain to me how the Taurus is overpriced when it's cheaper and better than the Avalon?
that's an easy one - despite that the current Av is coming up on 5 years old, there is still no Ford product that is even in the same state as the Av, never mind the same zip code. It all starts under the hood and goes from there. Your 'better' contention is typical Ford fanboy PR garbage. The 2010 Taurus is a nicely restyled 09 Taurus (which couldn't have been any worse) with nothing more than a crappy substandard engine that they had to turbo so that they could put too many HP where it doesn't belong..
Other than that, they're getting better, I suppose. Not difficult when you've been down so long ....
#100 of 493 Re: Pricing [akirby]
Sep 24, 2009 (5:26 pm)
27 k for a Taurus. I wouldn't spend that. You can buy a Camray SE V6 at that price. No Fix Or Repair Daily for me.
Ford is doing well in Europe,but won't send their best cars over here.
#101 of 493 Re: Pricing [dodgeman07]
Sep 24, 2009 (5:42 pm)
thesis, anti thesis, equal synthesis,but you are a under grad wanting to pay 40 k for a ford
#102 of 493 The irony of it all....
Sep 24, 2009 (8:00 pm)
...is that I might well be driving a 2010 Taurus soon. I like the car. It's roomy, attractive and has more than adequate power.
The rarefied air that Ford is attempting to broach in one fell swoop is very tough in today's market. The game plan looked pretty good two years ago. Today it is a nearly impossible sell in most of the U.S. and that's not likely to change in the next 6 to 12 months.
There are Ford dealerships near me with Taurus Limiteds priced at $36K-$37K and SHOs at $42K-$43K. That is a sedan league Ford has NEVER been in and they're trying to get in under the worst possible economic conditions.
Personal preference notwithstanding - a very nice SEL is available for $28K but that's the low end of the range. Most new Taurus models fall between $30K-$34K MSRP as they sit today. The car may well be worth it but times are tough and Ford has not proven itself in this price range.
That said, I do expect to be able to locate a low mileage, used SEL next fall for $21K-$22K. At that price I'll be buying.
#103 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [bruneau1]
Sep 24, 2009 (8:09 pm)
That's a good price bruneau - especially with Leather and AWD! Stickers at $31,240 so you're getting $1,500 off sticker AND 0%; you're really buying the car for about $27,000.
Don't give up on the Taurus people! Deals like bruneau's will be available!
#104 of 493 Re: Taurus is WAY Overpriced [dodgeman07]
Sep 24, 2009 (9:09 pm)
17 city mpg doesn't cut it.
Does it cut it in the Mazda 6? Or the even smaller Chevy Malibu? Its down 2 mpg on the best of the midsize cometition, yet offers more space and a WHOLE lot more power, not to mention AWD. Not nitpicking here, but let's get a little more serious. Both of those are excellent choices, are an entire step down in "class" yet get similar mileage.
#105 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [akirby]
Sep 24, 2009 (9:14 pm)
I thought I saw a shadow under that bridge...
I'd like to know what people who say the Taurus is overpriced think the Taurus should be priced near. The old-tech, compact inside big outside Impala? That's a joke.