Ford Taurus
10-04-2009, 01:24 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpudRacer,Oct 4 2009, 01:12 PM
Agree about the 7 series to a point. It is just as oversized, overweight, and IMHO as irrelevant as a Taurus. But....it is a more balanced rear drive platform and it's not marketed as a performance car as Ford attempts to do with the SHO version of the Taurus family sedan. BMW markets the 7 series as a luxo barge to well heeled old farts who crave a certain image. They market the 5 and 3 series to a performance crowd.
As far as the transverse engine layout, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The NSX and any number of other (rear) midengine cars mount the engine transversely for packaging efficiency and weight distribution. But in Ford's case they not only turned the engine sideways, they also placed it out over the front axle along with a transaxle thereby creating a nose heavy design prone to understeer and nosedive. Lot's of family sedans use FWD/transverse layouts. It's the most space efficient design and can free up lots of cabin space. But, in a barge like the Taurus (or 7 series) packaging efficiency shouldn't be that much of a concern. And it most definitely states that the design team chose to trade off performance for space efficiency. So how can it be considered a sports sedan?
Anyway, I find it hard to applaud Ford for doing what they've been doing in Detroit for the past 40 years. Take a mediocre family sedan, stuff in a powerful engine plus some badging, and sell the thing as a "performance" model. It's called perfuming the pig. And in your case it appears to work. I wish you the best of luck and much motoring enjoyment with your new $45K Taurus. I'll try not to point and laugh when you drive by.
As far as the transverse engine layout, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The NSX and any number of other (rear) midengine cars mount the engine transversely for packaging efficiency and weight distribution. But in Ford's case they not only turned the engine sideways, they also placed it out over the front axle along with a transaxle thereby creating a nose heavy design prone to understeer and nosedive. Lot's of family sedans use FWD/transverse layouts. It's the most space efficient design and can free up lots of cabin space. But, in a barge like the Taurus (or 7 series) packaging efficiency shouldn't be that much of a concern. And it most definitely states that the design team chose to trade off performance for space efficiency. So how can it be considered a sports sedan?
Anyway, I find it hard to applaud Ford for doing what they've been doing in Detroit for the past 40 years. Take a mediocre family sedan, stuff in a powerful engine plus some badging, and sell the thing as a "performance" model. It's called perfuming the pig. And in your case it appears to work. I wish you the best of luck and much motoring enjoyment with your new $45K Taurus. I'll try not to point and laugh when you drive by.
Anyway everything you just said in a condescending tone toward Ford is perfectly applicable to Honda. It just happens that we have the Honda hero fanboys on this forum who completely ignore how pathetic Honda's offerings have been in recent times.
I can guarantee you half the people on this site would never own anything in Honda's line up besides their current S2000 or the almighty NSX. Everything else is junk. It's not OK for other manufacturers to produce FWD cars but having one from Honda in your garage is OK because it's not American! Bias FTW!
10-04-2009, 01:39 PM
#52
I do not think it is sane for Ford to think that a 4100-4300 lb. sedan is the way forward. The way forward is to accomplish the same amount of luxury, performance, and customer satisfaction in a package that is more space-efficient, fuel-efficient, and cost-efficient.
Instead of investing in the future, they've pinned their hopes on a bigger/heavier version of a design inherited from a company they bought out (but are now trying to sell).
Having the same level of satisfaction in a smaller-on-the-outside car with similar usable space that weighs less, costs less, performs the same, and gets better fuel economy does mean something to moms and pops buying sedans for purely utilitarian purposes.
The new Taurus' "pile-it-on" approach is IMO misguided...
Instead of investing in the future, they've pinned their hopes on a bigger/heavier version of a design inherited from a company they bought out (but are now trying to sell).
Having the same level of satisfaction in a smaller-on-the-outside car with similar usable space that weighs less, costs less, performs the same, and gets better fuel economy does mean something to moms and pops buying sedans for purely utilitarian purposes.
The new Taurus' "pile-it-on" approach is IMO misguided...
10-04-2009, 01:58 PM
#54
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abdizzle,Oct 4 2009, 01:24 PM
I'm not buying it. I have no need for a car that big given my life style but acknowledge it's size with out crying and whining like everyone else here.
Anyway everything you just said in a condescending tone toward Ford is perfectly applicable to Honda. It just happens that we have the Honda hero fanboys on this forum who completely ignore how pathetic Honda's offerings have been in recent times.
I can guarantee you half the people on this site would never own anything in Honda's line up besides their current S2000 or the almighty NSX. Everything else is junk. It's not OK for other manufacturers to produce FWD cars but having one from Honda in your garage is OK because it's not American! Bias FTW!
Anyway everything you just said in a condescending tone toward Ford is perfectly applicable to Honda. It just happens that we have the Honda hero fanboys on this forum who completely ignore how pathetic Honda's offerings have been in recent times.
I can guarantee you half the people on this site would never own anything in Honda's line up besides their current S2000 or the almighty NSX. Everything else is junk. It's not OK for other manufacturers to produce FWD cars but having one from Honda in your garage is OK because it's not American! Bias FTW!
Speaking of weight.. I always laugh when people talk about how lightweight the S is and how is superior because of this.. My question is.. Do the individuals driving the car offset this because they are fat asses??
10-04-2009, 02:16 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 4 2009, 01:39 PM
I do not think it is sane for Ford to think that a 4100-4300 lb. sedan is the way forward. The way forward is to accomplish the same amount of luxury, performance, and customer satisfaction in a package that is more space-efficient, fuel-efficient, and cost-efficient.
Instead of investing in the future, they've pinned their hopes on a bigger/heavier version of a design inherited from a company they bought out (but are now trying to sell).
Having the same level of satisfaction in a smaller-on-the-outside car with similar usable space that weighs less, costs less, performs the same, and gets better fuel economy does mean something to moms and pops buying sedans for purely utilitarian purposes.
The new Taurus' "pile-it-on" approach is IMO misguided...
Instead of investing in the future, they've pinned their hopes on a bigger/heavier version of a design inherited from a company they bought out (but are now trying to sell).
Having the same level of satisfaction in a smaller-on-the-outside car with similar usable space that weighs less, costs less, performs the same, and gets better fuel economy does mean something to moms and pops buying sedans for purely utilitarian purposes.
The new Taurus' "pile-it-on" approach is IMO misguided...
10-04-2009, 04:31 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ZDan,Oct 4 2009, 10:10 AM] The original Taurus wasn't anything like as big as the BIG 4-doors of its day.
BTW, Avalon and Maxima are a good 500-800 lb. lighter than the new Taurus
That cars have been getting ever bigger/heavier with each iteration for the past 20 years does NOT mean that that MUST ALWAYS be the case.
BTW, Avalon and Maxima are a good 500-800 lb. lighter than the new Taurus
That cars have been getting ever bigger/heavier with each iteration for the past 20 years does NOT mean that that MUST ALWAYS be the case.
10-04-2009, 06:12 PM
#58
Originally Posted by Abdizzle,Oct 4 2009, 02:16 PM
I am sure it being lighter would raise the price proportionally.
10-04-2009, 06:24 PM
#59
Originally Posted by Malloric,Oct 4 2009, 04:31 PM
Nope, sorry. The Taurus is just over 4,000 lbs while the Maxima and Avalon are just over 3,700. Last time I checked that was 300ish pounds, not 800.
10-04-2009, 06:28 PM
#60
Originally Posted by Abdizzle,Oct 4 2009, 01:24 PM
Anyway everything you just said in a condescending tone toward Ford is perfectly applicable to Honda. It just happens that we have the Honda hero fanboys on this forum who completely ignore how pathetic Honda's offerings have been in recent times.
Now that the S2000 is gone, there are no Hondas that really appeal to me.