Find Reviews by Make:
45 Comments on “New 2010 Ford Taurus: Can it Break D Curse?...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
The things that stood out to me were the bad mismatch between the taillights/reverse lights on the fender/deck lid – the ones on the deck lid look like NASCAR decals.
What’s with these “Batmobile” rear-sloping consoles? They destroy knee room for taller drivers, who end up resting their knees on the edge of the console. (At least put some padding on the thing). You’d think that Ford would let a couple Detroit Lions sit in the thing (since they’re not doing much else) to test ergonomics.
The steering wheel is “Meh” – lots of buttons, more “Batmobile” chic — maybe George Barris was a consultant?
Steering wheel looks fine to me. In fact, like the styling overall of this car. Certainly a big step up from previous models.
But why, oh why put those stupid chrome gills on your cars, Mr Mullally? Fake chrome gills are meant to be discount items at PepBoys stores, don’t belong on your new flagship sedan! Ugghh!
I’ve seen much worse steering wheels–though maybe they’ve died out now. Chrysler and Ford both had some hideous monstrosities in the 1980s and 1990s.
This car–looks much more upscale inside and out. But can’t say it leaves a distinct impression otherwise. Already backing off the Gilette front end? This grille could have come off of a 2005 Subaru Legacy.
At least it looks a lot better than the current Taurus inside and out. The exterior seems to be a mix of the old model and the Euro-Mondeo with some Lincoln styling cues here and there. Only thing I’m not so sure of is the C-pillar/rear window arrangement.
The interior looks good eventhough the materials used are hard to judge from these images. But I’m definitely liking the “Batmobile” rear-sloping console. Very Porsche 928…
Mr. Karesh’s comment on the grill was the first thing I noticed. kkop’s comment on the gills was the second. Having been a pretty big fan of the ’92-’95 design in large degree because of it’s clean, unadulterated look I was hoping it would be more like that. Overall not impressed but will reserve judgement until I can see one in person, perhaps in a different color.
I agree with the other commentators that there is nothing wrong with the steering wheel and, being 6’1″ I wonder about the console being in the way, though it looks fine. The shifter looks short but perhaps that will work out fine. I also noticed that the front seats, though apparently of decent quality, are quite flat and don’t look like much help in spirited driving (maybe we’ll NEED that console to hold the driver in place).
Well, ok. Everyone at Ford cross your fingers.
Wow, that inside does have a lot of 928 in it. I wouldn’t worry about legroom, the slope really only impacts the center stack.
What did you say that thing was? A Camrus? A Tory?
Who cares?
They are about to reveal the new Legacy, RF.
Looks like the standard issue steering wheel on most all Ford products to me. Steering wheel aside, at least the outside of it has some curb appeal. Maybe Ford can attract some new buyers with much improved design.
Why are they still calling it a Taurus???!!!
Ford needs to break with the old and give it a new name with numbers and letters like the T5, TS5, F5, or POS5.
If I were Truett Cathy, I’d be pissed. After buying what I thought would be the last Taurus ever–and making a big deal of it–and then Ford just keeps on going with it like a bunch of jerks.
Could this be the first Ford product on the D3 platform that actually sells?
Nice effort. Although I dislike the excess chrome and silver inside and out, at least it won’t be confused for a Camry from the rear (I’m looking at you, LaCrosse.) I hope they keep AWD, too. Here in the northern states, they’re cutting back on snow clearing, and often you have 1-lane tracks in neighborhoods. I hope it’s a great success for Ford. If it’s 75% as good as a Camry/Accord, I’d pick it over them; I don’t like to follow the nervous sheep so readily.
I have a few issues with it, but overall i like it. I’m not a fan of the grille, but it doesn’t offend me that much, same with the steering wheel. It’s not bad, but i’d rather see something sportier. Maybe in the SHO model. I do agree on the fender vents. If they’re fake, take em off. J. Mays won out on the Mustang with that fake shit. Too bad it hasn’t rolled over into other Fords.
I much prefer this grille to any of the other Gillette grilles currently or soon to be on Ford NA products. That said, the Euro ones are better still. Edmunds got it right when they said they’re reminded of the Sebring in the rear 3/4, but the whole back end reminds me of the Sebring. The front and back don’t go together at all. I’m still not a fan of fender vents, either. Ford is making great strides but they have got to do something about their steering wheels and the controls on them. They’re ugly, cheap, and unnecessarily numerous, and the same buttons and steering wheels appear on every one of their vehicles.
It’s not an ugly car. It’s not adventurous, either. All in all – an improvement on the current one.
sigh, like all Americans I want Detroit to succeed….but from what little I’ve seen this Taurus is merely enough to keep happy the buyers who don’t cross-shop against Accord/Camry/Avalon. Companies need a compelling product to gain market share.
Story of the last 30 years…..Detroit’s always one generation behind the competition.
And ya, why did Ford give up on the Gillette nose already?
Nice overall but not as Mondeo-ish as some had speculated. I like the grille better than other Ford shaver designs. At least this one looks like a nice Braun electric shaver and not a Bic. That steering wheel looks directly out of a 1990 Town Car. Fords been using those same, flat, featureless buttons forever now both on steering wheels and center stacks, and they really have to go. How about a nice thumbwheel or toggle? Hey Ford – it’s 2009.
It seems like Ford is going backwards with this car. The Five Hundred was hampered more by its powertrain than its looks. With the change to the Taurus, the Gillette grill doesn’t really fit with the rest of the car, but the powertrain has been improved. The 2010 looks like Ford got desperate and just started putting styling elements on at random.
The Taurus is inherently a good car. It is comfortable, and has a huge trunk. It has Volvo levels of safety. It gets reasonable fuel economy for its size, yet it still can do 0-60 in the low 7s. Ford just need to do something about the looks. This won’t do it.
Not so bad. If available in a liftback/hatchback version worth considering. But then I no longer see the point of sedans.
Domestic rear of the year, but the front end is a bit confused about what it wants to be when it grows up. It’s still better than the Accord or Avalon, but the new Maxima is drop-dead gorgeous.
The interior is very nice, though. I don’t see anything wrong with the steering wheel and provided the touch points are nice it looks like one of the best domestic interiors I’ve seen so far. The new LaCrosse that everyone was gushing over recently reeked of cheap by contrast. Seriously, just look at the door panels. The top half of the LaCrosse’s doors are one continuous sweep of the same poorly-grained, nasty-touch plastic found in the Aura and Malibu. The Taurus’s panels at least look like a fairly nice material and have enough shape in their design to provide some visual interest. I have no idea how it feels to the touch, but it can’t hardly be worse than the plastic GM is using. Where GM’s interiors look like they were designed with the primary goal of reducing the number of injection molds needed for production, the new Taurus interior actually appears to have been designed to look good.
Not bad…. I like the interior, but why do they insist on making the gauges so small? Detracts from the sportiness of the car.
In trying to come up with a new design language, it has some styling clumsiness and little-to-none is original. Much of it could pass for a Chinese Buick. It is very much up-market. It’s also very large.
Lots of speculation about a SHO model once those pics started to circulate the web… and it’s believable given the new EcoBoost engine that was also announced this weekend. Whether a 4150-pound 355-horse (note the poor power-to-weight ratio) SHO is worthwhile or not is very debatable… as an original Gen-1 and Gen-3 owner, I’d have to say that the Fusion and a naturally aspirated engine (with manual tranny, which is a part-bin operation for Ford on the Ford/Mazda hybrid platform) would have been a better choice as a platform.
Nevertheless, putting together everything we know so far, here’s a comparison of how the new SHO compares to the original three generations:
http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/special-reports/sho/sho-vs-sho-vs-sho/index.htm
My guess is that it will be announced in New York in April, but not delivered until late fall.
-Jeff
DrivingEnthusiast.net
Considering that I’m probably going to be driving one of these as a company car when my current one is replaced later this year, I’m delighted.
Would I buy one? Well, that’s another story…
It is not bad really. I see lots of fleet sales. I would not be horrified if they handed me the keys to one of these at the rental counter. Unlike the feeling everyone gets when they have the keys to any Chrysler handed to them.
The committee responsible for this seems to have assembled all of Ford’s current styling cues and then distributed them liberally over an oddly customized 500. Desperation on wheels.
The styling is conservative but handsome. It looks (and is) HUGE, which is probably a good thing as it should appeal to former Crown Vic and Grand Marquis owners.
Let’s face it, the Taurus is an old person’s car. As such, I hope it comes with a bench seat option so that old people will buy lots of them and help move Ford into the black.
I was kind of looking forward to this car and ready to be impressed, but I am not. Disappointed actually. I expected it to look like an American sized Mondeo and it doesn’t.
Autoblog is running live shots of the car inside and out and I noted that the trunk lid doesn’t line up with the rear quarter panel on the passenger side. It’s also hard, shiny and grey inside with slippery banana-peel American leather all over everything. There’s also a huge gap between the hood lid and the front of the car.
I don’t see the “new” Taurus changing any fortunes for Ford.
This is the Taurus they “should have built”? I’m underwhelmed. The styling lacks harmony and proportion, the front half is curvy and the back half is angular. How many cooks were in the design kitchen here? The rear end is hideous, it reminds me of an early ’90s Impala. This car looks like it’s trying to be all things to all people. Sure, it’s an improvement over the previous Taurus… but not by much.
Full disclosure: I own, and like, my 2008 Taurus Limited. I just took the family on a 2000 mile road trip, and it was comfortable and felt safe (this is a priority). I am not yet 40, so I do not fit the typical Crown Vic demo.
Anyway, I like the 2010 Taurus. I get the criticism here: it does not knock one’s socks off. Then again, I am not sure how important that is to sales. After all, the Camry is popular as hell, and even I find it ugly. I also find the Camry too small.
In the end, I think that how it drives and its price will determine its success. It is a definite improvement on the current model, which has narcotic styling (I say that, and I own one . . . obviously, styling was not a huge priority for me). Although the car is quiet, they could improve on tire growl a bit, methinks.
My one concern: leg room for the front seat folks?
The rear especially tells me they were trying for some Interceptor Concept cues, but this doesn’t translate well to a FWD platform.
It wouldn’t break my heart for the gunslit-window design to die, either.
Thumbs up for getting rid of the disposable razor grille.
Thumbs down for the fender vent. Whether it’s functional or not, it’s out of place.
Thumbs up to the interior, nice to see recessed gauges make a comeback.
Thumbs up to staying away from ‘Altezza’ style tail lights.
Not bad. With a push button start has me smiling, especially with Synch.
Problem for D is that people have been burned by them. All the people I know who buy Detroit metal do it either because they worked for a Detroit company or subsidiary (pro-america bunch) OR they noticed they get more bang for the buck on some particular Detroit model. For instance the Saturn Aura, 6 speed transmission 252 hp, and all the nice interior additions came in about a thousand less than a Camry or accord.
Detroit has to sell bang for buck. Their quality and depreciation question areas have to be made up for. I can’t spend 30K on a car that when it rolls off the lot is now worth 22-24k, or the interior is falling apart after the initial quality surveys are over.
I basically wouldn’t buy a new car period unless it was a honda/toyota. they are the only cars I know I can buy and sell at reasonable prices. This car though? Well Taurus is not sporty enough for a 26 yr old. But yes for a SHO with turboboost (+350 horses) and AWD (i.e. help with torque steer) and a sporty suspension. Why not, I can have the sport and gas mileage of a FWD with the ability to throw my kid in the back. Other than that for sport, Infiniti g35/Genesis/Pontiac GT G8… (F the german cars, everything breaks on them, doors, locks, sunroof, etc. piles of $$$ junk)
This won’t sell even if it were the best car in the world.
People don’t like large sedans anymore
Citizens:
We were a bit concerned after seeing new, for them, styling cues on forthcoming GM cars but now, after seeing the exterior of new Ford Taurus all we can say is … thanks, thanks for our new police cruisers.
The cord pile was getting little low.
Your Local Police Department
It’s okay in a mainstream sort of way – it has the requisite gimmicky extras like push button start and Sync that automakers think people want, and I’m sure all the car reviewers will like.
However, I hate the gun slit windows that new cars have, and I’m sure it will have a bunch of features and options I have no interest in paying for, or maintaining.
Coming from a multiple Mercury Grand Marquis owner, I’d still buy a used Grand Marquis first and drive it 200,000 or more miles.
Rear wheel drive and body on frame is still the best – it just costs more to build, so marketing is used to convince you cheaper is somehow better.
A variation of the FG G6 Falcon. I agree with he mix of signals, old world 3 ring circus dash with a blend of the euro kinetic design. Or I am looking at the new ford falcon (Oz) in 2012 when the current Oz only rwd falcon dies.
like trishield, i noticed that the tail lights and trunk trim don’t quite match up, but i assume they are supposed to (would be a wacky design if not). but hell, i’ve seen this on current accords, too; i.e., the 2 level trunk edge one one side or the other may not quite match up with the quarter panel, a bit to high by a millimeter on one side. i can see why GM went with the tail light design it did on the current malibu: sure it looks like a passat rip-off, but at least if the trunk is misaligned by a millimeter or 2, it’s not obvious. otherwise, the ’10 taurus looks pretty good and interesting, but the butt’s to big. overall, the design reminds me of a big 2nd generation altima.
ronald: “… I own, and like, my 2008 Taurus Limited. I just took the family on a 2000 mile road trip, and it was comfortable and felt safe (this is a priority)… Anyway, I like the 2010 Taurus. … My one concern: leg room for the front seat folks?”
Are you referring to the complaints others have made of the Five Hundred/Taurus’ tight quarters in the footwells? Maybe the provision for 4WD required extra room for mechanical gear. My impression is that this would be uncomfortable on a long trip.
This puts a nail in the coffin of the MKS. For $10k less you get the same car, minus 7 hp and cooled seats. Hope the MCE for the MKS is spectacular.
The Taurus will offer cooled seats – look for the blue seat logo in the dashboard pics.
Agree on the MKS… what’s the point.
If you’ve seen the MKS, this car ought not to come as a surprise. The basic shape, and certain dails, like the headlamp shape, is very similar.
What’s with these “Batmobile” rear-sloping consoles? They destroy knee room for taller drivers,
Amen. I tried to fit in a 2009 Fit (I own an 08) and can’t because of the goddamn console.
50merc:
I have noticed the narrow footwell in my Taurus (I thought it was due to some peculiarity of the Volvo-derived frame . . .. I could easily be wrong). I am used to it now, and it was not an issue on my long trip.
My concern is with the angling of the dashboard in combination with the huge center console (in combination, perhaps, with the aforementioned narrow footwell), one could end up feeling rather confined in the 2010 Taurus.
50merc : re you referring to the complaints others have made of the Five Hundred/Taurus’ tight quarters in the footwells? Maybe the provision for 4WD required extra room for mechanical gear. My impression is that this would be uncomfortable on a long trip.
I’m not sure what ronald is referring to, but I hear lots of complaints from tall drivers that they hit their knees against the sides of the center console.
Some clumsiness in the design (that C pillar, that bifurcated character line), and I’m not a fan of the new lower roof/higher beltline. That said, look at what the new Taurus is squaring off against: Maxima (clumsy), Impala (way clumsy), Avalon (way way clumsy).
Still, this was a chance to be a knockout. Looking good–in this shrinking segment, in this dead market–may not be good enough.
Nice looking car. From certain angles it has a real presence. I actually like the rear end best. The interior looks really nice.
I can’t wait to see it in person.