Ford Taurus
#21
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Oct 3 2009, 09:33 AM
And then compare MSRP. The Taurus gets pretty expensive loaded up like that SHO! You get a lot but you pay a lot as well.
Obviously, if you choose the SHO, yes, it will be alot more.. But lets compare apples with apples here.
#22
Registered User
Originally Posted by shyong,Oct 3 2009, 09:58 AM
My folks had a Taurus wagon which was bought new in 1988...car lasted all of 3 years before the tranny went bad, among numerous other problems. That was enough of a bad taste to never purchase another Ford, let alone another Taurus.
#23
Registered User
That website is well done!
I like the easy to read layout, and the content with video is compelling!
I watched just about all the videos and not only did I believe everyone one of them I watched but I also was impressed with what each said. Unlike Chrystler and GM, IMHO, Ford is doing the most to improve the quality of their vehicles. I just don't see it or feel it when I drive the GM or Chrystler vehicles. They seem like the same car that was produced many years ago. Ford on the other hand seems to have greatly distanced themselves from the previous generation vehicles (E.G. current gen taraus vs previous gen) in terms of design, quality, and more of that gotta have it factor.
My favorite lines from the videos...
Tanner: "Do you think it (SHO) can beat an Audi A6?"
Kid: "What's an Audi A6?"
Tanner: "mmm-Okay."
I like the easy to read layout, and the content with video is compelling!
I watched just about all the videos and not only did I believe everyone one of them I watched but I also was impressed with what each said. Unlike Chrystler and GM, IMHO, Ford is doing the most to improve the quality of their vehicles. I just don't see it or feel it when I drive the GM or Chrystler vehicles. They seem like the same car that was produced many years ago. Ford on the other hand seems to have greatly distanced themselves from the previous generation vehicles (E.G. current gen taraus vs previous gen) in terms of design, quality, and more of that gotta have it factor.
My favorite lines from the videos...
Tanner: "Do you think it (SHO) can beat an Audi A6?"
Kid: "What's an Audi A6?"
Tanner: "mmm-Okay."
#24
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 3 2009, 08:33 AM
What's ridiculous is yet another 4000 lb. step in the wrong direction.
Ford's on the wrong side of history with this one.
Ford's on the wrong side of history with this one.
#25
Certainly 3400 lb. shouldn't be too much (little) to expect.
The days of 4000+ lb. midrange sedans are *hopefully* going to be drawing to a close soon...
No, a Taurus shouldn't be a 4-door Elise. But it shouldn't be as big/heavy as it is.
The days of 4000+ lb. midrange sedans are *hopefully* going to be drawing to a close soon...
No, a Taurus shouldn't be a 4-door Elise. But it shouldn't be as big/heavy as it is.
#26
"We took both cars on a series of runs". There is nothing there to indicate that both cars took the same number of runs with the same size, quantity or distance from the gravel.
IMHO it is a neat video but there is no information of any substance in it. Someone should call Mythbusters.
IMHO it is a neat video but there is no information of any substance in it. Someone should call Mythbusters.
#27
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 3 2009, 01:00 PM
Certainly 3400 lb. shouldn't be too much (little) to expect.
The days of 4000+ lb. midrange sedans are *hopefully* going to be drawing to a close soon...
No, a Taurus shouldn't be a 4-door Elise. But it shouldn't be as big/heavy as it is.
The days of 4000+ lb. midrange sedans are *hopefully* going to be drawing to a close soon...
No, a Taurus shouldn't be a 4-door Elise. But it shouldn't be as big/heavy as it is.
It being heavy has absolutely no bearing what so ever on any of the factors buyers are looking for in a car like this besides possibly fuel economy. So take your useless complaint to a thread where it's relevant.
I don't get these S2000 owners like you who think they're 1990's Roadster is light for it's dimensions/time period (which it isn't by any means) yet have the balls to call a modern Family Sedan heavy.
#28
Originally Posted by Abdizzle,Oct 3 2009, 06:49 PM
It being heavy has absolutely no bearing what so ever on any of the factors buyers are looking for in a car like this besides possibly fuel economy. So take your useless complaint to a thread where it's relevant.
Relevant.
Put down the crack pipe.
#29
Keep complaining. In S2000 land every car must weigh <3000LBS, have Ferrari like steering feel and "stir ones soul." You can reply to me when you return to reality.
If you were never told it's weight your level of interest wouldn't change, it's your attitude toward cars that is dictating that, get real.
If you were never told it's weight your level of interest wouldn't change, it's your attitude toward cars that is dictating that, get real.
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winter Springs, Fl.
Posts: 6,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw an SHO earlier in the week. It's absolutely huge. The high beltline also somewhat reminds me of the Chrysler 300. The platform is getting a little long in the tooth, being essentially a chassis borrowed from Volvo.