Our president recently hit the late-night talk show scene, giving all a taste of the “Washington Bubble.” He’s not alone: Judging by the comments around the Interweb, every red-blooded American automotive journalist totally hearts the 2010 Taurus SHO. But does the journos’ wish for a reincarnated SHO jibe with the harsh reality of Ford’s market demographics? Or to paraphrase Norm MacDonald, “while the SHO may not prove anything, it certainly does nothing to disprove the theory that Volvo-based Fords are a waste of money.” Yeah, it takes brass balls to knock a car you’ve touched, but haven’t driven. But the circumstances around the all-new Taurus give me pause . . .
First off, how often to you hear about the regular Taurus? One key to the SHO model’s original success: The bread-and-butter version stood on its own for three years before the SHO’s arrival. But the average 2010 Taurus is almost old hat: We’ve seen this story unfold the past five years and nobody (with an open checkbook) cares one way or the other. Just like its 2005 counterpart, the latest version of the Taurus will be a respectable car. But this does nothing to disprove my theory that Volvo-based Fords are a waste of money.
Second, what makes lightning strike twice? Styling. Much of the first model’s interpretation of the Euro-Sierra worked. The 2010’s “kinetic” energy comes from the Mondeo. Only not so much. In pictures and in person, the Taurus fails to inspire. It’s no flying jellybean: There’s a Subaru-ish nose and a host of sheetmetal adaptations of the badass Ford Interceptor concept on the dorky hard points of the D3 chassis. Yet Peter Horbury, Ford’s North American design director, proclaims, “like the 1986 original, the new 2010 Taurus differentiates by combining style with substance.”
Too bad about that. There’s an obvious difference between a clean-sheet creation and a quickie conversion of a (failed) platform. Even worse, the 2010 Taurus redesign loses the previous model’s quarter window for black C-pillar trim, giving the illusion of a sleeker profile from a longer DLO (daylight opening). Which almost works—if you ignore the fat-assed beltline and tacky faux ventiports. No surprise, cash is tight and the basic badness of the D3 must remain intact.
The first two generations weighed around 3,300 lbs.; the engine put out torque-steer-free 220 hp; and there was a readily available manual transmission. The Taurus SHO was stupid fun in any dynamic event. Plus, the previous 100 percent American chassis scored safety ratings on par with Volvo sedans of the time.
The latest SHO is the Fat Elvis of sport sedans. The engine stumps up 365 hp, there’s mandatory all-wheel drive and automatic transmission, and a curb weight around 4,300 lbs. (300 lbs. over the Pontiac G8). The safety is stellar (because it is a Volvo). Given the feature creep of the Ford Flex, the SHO could sticker north of $35 large. With options, maybe over $40 grand. How great is that? I’ve voiced these concerns to pistonheads around the web and one answer comes back: Nobody pays sticker for a Ford, just wait for the discounts. So maybe this is a Taurus after all.
And if taking the Ford Taurus up to a dee-luxe apartment in the sky was bad enough, Ford didn’t learn from others’ mistakes. The Toyota Cressida/Avalon and Nissan Maxima prove that unique platforms for poser luxury sedans are out of the question. Mulally loves the Taurus, but he forgot its intrinsic appeal. The four-door was the go-getter working late nights in a cubicle, not an endowed trust-fund baby overdressed in a tuxedo at a garden party.
Not to mention the critics were proved right when calling out Ford’s decision to split the original Taurus’s market with two nameplates on two foreign chassis. It was a colossal falure in 2005. And 2008.
Come 2010, it will be three strikes against Ford’s great experiment. And even with the SHO’s halo, the market for Volvo-Fords over $30K is not promising. Which spells doom for the company spending millions (billions?) supporting a unique platform that’s yet to justify its existence to a fully leveraged Blue Oval. And with Volvo on the chopping block, what exactly does Ford expect to gain from billions of dollars in sunk cost?
If this “cut and run” attitude sounds unpatriotic, consider what Dearborn’s finest could’ve done with the money spent on the Taurus’s three generations of continuous improvements. With Mulally’s blessings, the Blue Oval Boyz could have used the money to make a Camry-killing sedan by now. But the saving grace now belongs to the Ford Fusion and its Hybrid halo. The writing is on the wall: Nobody gets a free ride. If the 2010 Taurus fails to SHO up with some cheddar, this dead weight has gotta go.
“Mulally loves the Taurus, but he forgot the intrinsic appeal. The four door was the go-getter working late nights in a cubicle, not an endowed trust fund baby at a garden party. That came overdressed in a tuxedo. ”
Ford already has a car that fits the first description, it’s called the Fusion.
I don’t get this editorial at all. You are bashing a car you haven’t driven yet — because the previous full size Taurus’ haven’t lived up to sales expectations. And your criticism of the the previous/current “Volvo-based” Taurus comes down to it has styling you don’t like.
I’ve driven the current Taurus and if I were in the market for such a large sedan, it would be near the top of my list. These cars are fundametally respectable large sedans, not perfect but not bad at all. I’d certainly have one over the current Chrysler or GM product. The problem Ford has with the current Taurus is largely one of poor marketing, something Ford has a problem with in general. That’s hardly worth condemnation of the sedan (that again, you haven’t driven yet….).
nobody pays sticker for a Ford, just wait for the discounts
Nobody but a moron pays sticker for ANY car.
While I’ve always been a fan of the Taurus, my family had an ’88, ’97, and ’02, you can definitely tell they lost the plot by the time we got the ’02.
The ’88 had a problem with stalling, and the A/C started to go, in the 10 years they had it. The ’97 had some issues with eating power door lock motors and a harsh transmission. While the ’02 had no major mechanical problems, it just wasn’t up to par with the previous two models. As much as the ’96 redesign was lambasted I really liked the ’97, it felt like a nicely built, substantial vehicle, and it handled and did most things well.
The ’96 models were expensive for Ford to produce though, and they started de-contenting them (i.e. no more rear disc brakes on sedans) and cheapening the materials and it showed. They really tried to take on the ’92 Camry when they designed the ’96 model and the costs were too high while the sales fell. So instead of improving it, the left it to rot while they feed off Explorer sales, and dropped the Taurus names when some moron decided that Fords should start with the letter F (I can think of some other words that start with F as well for this deicision, Ford = Fail).
I badly want Ford to succeed with the new Taurus though, and hope that it performs and sells well, and lives up to Mulally’s hype.
The ’96 design looks even worse now than when it came out. It’s aged horribly.
“the SHO could sticker north of 35-large. With options, maybe over 40 grand. How great is that?”
I remember when the first SHO came out and it was pricey then compared to a Camaro or Firebird. Now the SS Camaro 2010 is less than 35K-40K but really only seats 2.
wjo : I’ve driven the current Taurus and if I were in the market for such a large sedan, it would be near the top of my list.
Which is what I’ve been hearing on the Internet since 2005, when the Five Hundred hit the streets and landed with a thud. Bad things happen to good cars…
…and sooner or later Ford is gonna have to cut the cord.
The next gen Taurus is a looker no doubt, the SHO should be a good/great drivers car as well. However, Ford does not have a good track record with the Volvo based cars, most likely on a design basis. The Current Taurus, TaurusX, and Flex are relative flops. The Lincoln MKS is a relative success by comparison. Most imporant to the success of the Taurus will be price. I Believe it is slated to start around $25K and the SHO model will likey trend to the high $30K’s. It certainly isnt in the market sweet spot where the Fusion, Camry, Accord, etc live.
So, from the get go, the Taurus is playing in a low volume segment, but if it is executed well, it could be a relative hit. Ultimately, Ford’s B and C segment cars are more important, but the new Taurus could do much to revive the brand image and the Taurus nameplate regardless of sales.
When the original Taurus SHO came out in 1989, of which I’ve owned 2, it was less than $20,000 – and comparable to BMWs that were much more expensive.
Also – the original SHO was an accident, pure and simple. Ford ordered engines from Yamaha to put into a mid engine sports car. That car got canceled, but they had motors – so they put them in the Taurus, dressed it up with police interceptor tidbits, and called it the SHO.
This is not an SHO. This is Ford throwing some power into an overpriced Volvo and putting the SHO name on it in hopes of garnering sales. But, like you said, the original Taurus that the original SHO was based on was a good car all on it’s own – with or without a 220hp Yamaha 3.0 DOHC V6.
Ford’s obsession with the D3 platform caused them to starve their real moneymaking, unique product – the Panther platform.
This unhealthy disfunction will, at the end of the day, lead to not only the death of the D3, but the Panther as well, and Ford’s loss of the large car market it has dominated for decades, as well as the police, taxi, and livery markets.
Not bad for a losing investment in Volvo, eh?
By the way – to compare to BMW…
The MSRP on a 335i Sedan (yes, smaller, I know) is 39k. This SHO is rumored to be at 35k.
The SHO has more power, but also more weight, and I doubt it’s Volvo chassis will be nearly as pleasing to the driver as a 335i.
Here’s the problem: in reality the new Taurus replaced the Crown Vic and the Fusion is the new Taurus. The CV never sold in Taurus like numbers, so trying to make the Taurus sell in Fusion like numbers is equally insane. The problem seems to be that many (including Ford) would like to see this new Taurus sell like the old one did just because they share the same name. I’m sorry, but the world has changed since then and so has the car. The car has a place in the world dealing with the likes of buyers thinking of an Avalon, or perhaps an Accord shopper that wants something bigger, but as a mass market sedan, I think it’s just too much car with a price tag to match. Where’s my stripper Taurus for 19,500? Seems like the mantra lately in the auto world has been to lux-everything. Who needs a luxury Taurus? Isn’t that what Lincoln / Mercury was supposed to be for??
It’s a nice car for cautious “belt-and-suspenders”
old folks who, though they rarely venture out in bad weather, know that the AWD means they could do so. They’ll probably get some conquest sales in the snow belt at the expense of Buick and Avalon which don’t offer AWD.
The smaller-engined versions, bought at discount after a stint with Hertz or Avis and equipped with some sort of “cold chip” limiting top speed, would make good cars for teens in that they would survive crashes much better than a Civic/Corolla/Hyundai and resist rollover better than a pickup or SUV.Young drivers need “training wheels”.
Yes I have to say, the failure of the 500 (oops, Five Hundred)/Taurus, and now the new Taurus is a bit of mystery to me. The first gen was maybe a little underpowered and I guess some people didn’t like the CVT. However, it seems to have a decent quality history, it was relatively good looking (at least not gimicky), was roomy and had great visibility.
Marketing faux pas didn’t help, i.e., there wasn’t any and name changes are usually disastrous, especially when you resurrect a used name that ‘implies’ a rather different, smaller vehicle. In other words, the Fusion should have been the Taurus. And this should have been the LTD or a new Crown Victoria or someting.
ANyway, these cars are smokin’ deals on the new car market.
taxman100: This unhealthy disfunction will, at the end of the day, lead to not only the death of the D3, but the Panther as well, and Ford’s loss of the large car market it has dominated for decades, as well as the police, taxi, and livery markets.
What large car market? It’s pretty much gone already. There isn’t much for Ford to dominate at this point.
The simple fact is that the majority of passenger car buyers no longer want a rear-wheel-drive, V-8 powered sedan with marginal interior space and spongy handling. The market has moved on, and Ford needs to move with it.
Really, the Fusion Sport is the “new” Taurus SHO. This thing will probably be academic.
Sanjeev –
By your argument, Ford should cut the cord on most of what it (isn’t) selling. There is nothing inherently wrong with the car or chassis — what is wrong is Ford marketing. It stinks so bad that it is laughable. If the current Taurus goes away, there will be no large car for Ford to sell, which means they are giving away that portion of the market. If the SHO gives the Taurus a bit of a halo effect, so much the better. It will be a low volume seller, but will bring people into the showroom — many of whom might buy a less pricy Taurus, or a Fusion if a little less room is desired.
It’s unfortunate that Ford and GM keep coming up with great new models that make terrible business sense. This car’s fate will be much like the new Camaro…it’s most likely best in class, but won’t do a bit of good for the company’s bottom line because the economics don’t make sense. and it’ll never sell in the volume it needs to be profitable. The Camaro’s got the Mustang beat, but the bread and butter customers buying V6s that keep that car selling well and making money are still going to compare V6 to V6 based on price. The few grand they save will make more of a difference than 90 horses. It wouldn’t to me or most of the people on this site, but it will to most customers.
And, similarly, the Taurus’ price point will knock it out of consideration for the mainstream volume segment that it hopes to split with the Fusion. Yeah, it’s a bit bigger than the other volume sedans but the Accord/Camry/Altima/Sonata/6 are all now either EPA large cars or plenty big enough for most families, eliminating the need and willingness for these customers to pay up for something bigger. Instead of half-assing Taurus and Fusion “re-designs” for 2010, a smart Ford would’ve invested the R&D into a phenomenal mainstream sedan to play with the profit for their manufacturers. It’s sad, because you know they can do it.
wjo: Yes, that’s my argument. There’s nothing wrong with the Taurus, or the chassis either.
wjo: If the current Taurus goes away, there will be no large car for Ford to sell, which means they are giving away that portion of the market.
I counter that this niche is small, and the D3 chassis is a black hole for the profits generated by this market. And if it goes away, Taurus buyers will have no qualms buying a Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. Minor upgrades (like a less thirsty 6-speed auto) would help, but the marketing is more important to this group.
I say that because the somewhat more classy Sable is already dead. I don’t believe that big Ford sedan buyers (retail) hate archaic RWD land yachts, and are not likely to cross shop similar sized imported vehicles. Ford’s audience with the D3 is their core base. They already blew the large FWD niche in 2005. Its gone.
And they better watch out, they are about to blow the RWD niche if the Genesis’ keeps its slow forward momentum.
More to the point, and probably not clearly discussed in the editorial: I see two problems and making the Taurus go away (ditto the odd Flex, lease-queen MKS, etc) helps with both of them.
1. Finance: Ford has tapped into their last line of credit and their burn rate combined with the continuing slump in car sales spells big trouble in the next 1-2 years. “Sign and Drive” events on the MKS aren’t likely to fare better than its application on previous Lincoln products.
2. Marketing/Branding: The D3 chassis makes for a nice, but expensive car. If people aren’t put off by the Taurus name (head gaskets, transmissions, rental car image) the asking price is way off with the Brand’s value. Who will pay over $30,000 for a Ford sedan or CUV? Unless its a Police car, the answer has been “no” for quite some time.
And the recession makes both points even worse. For the D3, not necessarily Ford.
The D3’s intended high volume, multiple assembly plants and other operational money suckers are not what makes a Ford.
Actually, cutting and running on models they haven’t been able to sell isn’t a bad idea. It is a solid business decision. Why continue to produce and try to sell what isn’t moving. Change the product so that sales are encouraged or create something that will sell. It is more complicated when you start talking about the level of investment to make a car, but the logic is still the same.
Which is what I’ve been hearing on the Internet since 2005, when the Five Hundred hit the streets and landed with a thud. Bad things happen to good cars…
Yes, that “bad thing” would be Ford’s marketing.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the D3 that, say, being sold by a company with more than two neurons in the entire marketing department would fix.
The problem this car has is so blindingly obvious: Ford has no clue how to sell it, it’s predecessors or it’s twin, the Flex. Either they’re assuming that if they build a good car, people will buy it (since the Impala outsells it, this obviously isn’t happening), or they’re just not thinking at all. Given this is the company that birthed the Blackwood, renamed the Zephyr after one year and thought that Taurus had any brand equity outside of Avis and Hertz, I’ll bet the latter.
And yes, we can talk about the Panther all day, but the D3s really are better cars for most people in every conceivable way. The whole point to the Panthers is that they’re cheap for fleets, and by coincidence suck for everyone else**. By improving them to the point where they don’t suck as daily drives they’d become, well, not cheap for fleets. Which is exactly what the D3 cars are.
** Except mechanically-astute enthusiasts. They like the Panthers for the same reason I like compile-from-source Linux distributions. But I wouldn’t inflict either Gentoo or a Crown Vic on a family member.
I doubt the SHO Taurus will ever be a volume seller. The regular Taurus, however, can compete with the Avalon and possibly some Buick offerings. Let’s face it, Ford needs a large sedan now that the Panther platform is dead and the Taurus is all they’ve got. But the marketing department is asleep at the wheel – the product is nearly invisible.
Call me bored and completely uninterested. This smells more like an AWD ES than anything I’d ever be interested in. Brilliant move using the SHO badge, if only because it provokes chatter for an ignored car.
Anyone know the torque split on the AWD system? If it’s front biased in a car this big, with that much power and no manual option, then this will not win a single honest comparison. Especially with that SHO badge promising performance goodness, or at least competence.
Why defend the 500? It had completely forgettable styling, a CVT sized cankersore and an underpowered engine. So, three strikes just for drivetrain and styling.
I flame Toyota all the time for making boring cars, but that aversion of mine was instilled by years of Ford, Chrysler and GM crap product (original Taurus emphatically included). Ford is just reminding us all that they DIDN’T hire someone with Lutz-ish tendencies to fix that particular mistake. If they had they’d be SHO’ing the Fusion instead.
(original Taurus emphatically included)…I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about where the old Taurus ended up. Jellybean styling and crap dynamics.
Interesting editorial as always Sajeev. As a loyal (for now) Panther owner, I am nevertheless interested in the new Taurus, and am anxious to see how it looks and sells. I agree with you that Ford can’t stand another round of crappy sales with the new Taurus, but I am willing to wait and see if sales won’t pick up. I am sure that poor marketing was part of the problem, as was the relative expense, but surely the plain jane looks did not help, especially when the Five Hundred debuted just as the new Chrysler 300 came out. Everybody loved or hated the 300; nobody thought about the Five Hundred. The new Taurus looks a lot better, from what I can tell from pictures, so maybe with better marketing (here’s hoping) Ford will improve sales. If not, then I agree; off with it’s head.
The appeal of the original SHO was that it looked, mostly, like a normal Taurus, but was fun as hell to drive, reasonably quick, and had a quirky high-revving Yamaha engine. Everything about it was situated around car nerds like us–AND it was affordable.
This is a weird Swedish mutant with AWD, a huge price tag, and it weighs (I can’t believe this) MORE than my 1994 Caprice 9C1. It’s absurd! Completely misses the point, I think.
tigeraid,
The problem is that the Taurus has a great deal more tech involved which adds weight, not to mention safety systems. Safety systems are probably the single biggest factor in the weight bloat, especially in a car pre-1997. More airbags than a mother-in-law convention, AWD, snazzy steel crash structures, etc all add up to a modern whale, er, car.
The thesis of the Taurus SHO failing because its too much Volvo and not enough Ford is compelling. However, if the SHO fails, I believe it will derive less from its platform roots and more to its lack of a mission statement. The 2010 Fusion Sport is the contender with the Camry and Accord, so said Ford’s marketing department, leaving the Taurus to wallow in the in-between of competing with the 300C, Buick Lucerne, and possibly the Maxima.
The problem with the Taurus goes back to 1996, with the horrifying oval restyling that was supposed to keep the Taurus as the #1 car sold in America (which it was for ten years). The 1998-99 SHO was an abject failure, not because of its willing 238 bhp Yamaha V-8, but more to its 4 speed automatic. One was supposed to row it themselves in an SHO, like you would in a true European sports sedan, as the SHO was originally marketed.
As I recall, the Nissan Maxima was the original “4 Door Sports Car” (any from 89-93 have 4DSC on the rear windows) and was the impetus for Ford to establish the SHO through its SVT skunkworks. It would be fitting if the Taurus SHO was to compete again against the Maxima.
I disagree with the proposition that the Five Hundred was slow. THe Five Hundred with the 3.0 liter engine and the CVT was capable of 0-60 number in the low 8 second range. That was better than the base 4 cylinder engines in the cam-cords etc, and it was similar to smaller cars with the same power but regular automatic transmissions. The car just FELT slow. The current Taurus with the 3.5 liter engine can do 0-60 in the 7s, which makes it just a tic slower than the Original Taurus SHO.
There’s a review posted to day on TTAC of the 2010 Fusion Sport. Same engine as the base Taurus, just a couple hundred lbs. less weight — a passenger, basically.
The Taurus is competitive for what it is, a family sedan with more room than a typical midsize. It’s more car than the average person needs, but if you need the room, it’s an excellent alternative.
The problem with the Taurus is that it’s a Taurus.
It’s a horribly tarnished nameplate. I understand that Mulally is trying to instill some marketing discipline within the company (choose a name, stick to it, build the brand) and I can’t fault him for trying, but the Taurus name was too badly broken to restore it now.
I’m not sure what I’d call it — the “Five Hundred” name wasn’t particularly good, either — but Taurus is a mistake. Nobody wants to pay these prices for a rental car.
Alex Dykes :
Yes but 4300 lbs?! That’s insane. And I *like* big cars. That’s approaching the weight of my ’94 Roadmaster Wagon. And I doubt it has 91 cubic feet of cargo space or seating for eight.
I would’ve guessed, looking at it, at something like 3800 lbs.
Great looking car.
Love the looks of this car. Hope Ford has a wagon version as well. It’s been a while since I’ve owned a Ford, but I will not buy a sedan – don’t want two cars when one wagon would do.
One concern I have is the center console angles from the floor _toward_ the driver. That means that the top of the console unnecessarily will present a sharp edge to your calf. You can see it in this picture:
http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2010/Ford/2010.ford.taurus.20267739-E.jpg
In principle, I am completely opposed to those useless plastic console boxes and idiotic on-the-floor automatic shifters. If you have no intention of selling the car with a manual, put that useless metal stick out of the way on the steering column somewhere, so my knee has more room. It’s so pretentious to put an automatic on the floor.
Wow – not sure where the hatchet job came from but this is extremely unfair on a car you have never driven and only seen on a motor show stand. The Taurus is a great looking car that really stands out in the market verses considerably more mundane offerings from both US and Japan.
Not sure on your qualifications from a design perspective, but your views are personal and therefore can be disregarded.
Performance will be stellar and will live up to the previous SHO vehicles. Witness the fact that the SHO websites are all buzzing about this car.
Finally, the D platform is a failure – how do you work that one out? It is a great success – already spawning Volvo’s, MKS, MKT, Flex and Taurus. You should be praising this remarkable flexibility in these times of limited cash – instead you criticise Ford for doing the right thing at the right time. This all seems like criticism for criticism’s sake rather than anything constructive.
Alex Dykes : Here’s the problem: in reality the new Taurus replaced the Crown Vic and the Fusion is the new Taurus. The CV never sold in Taurus like numbers, so trying to make the Taurus sell in Fusion like numbers is equally insane.
Except the Taurus barely outsells the CV every month, which is a fleet only vehicle. The difference would slim down even further if the CV was on dealer’s lots. Combine CV and Marquis sales and things get truly ugly for the Taurus.
The market is completely saturated. If that’s not proof that the market for big FWD Fords only exists in the minds of Ford product planners, I don’t know what does.
______________________________
psarhjinian : There’s nothing inherently wrong with the D3 that, say, being sold by a company with more than two neurons in the entire marketing department would fix.
Not that I completely disagree, but look at marketing from the BIG picture: aside from the strategic move in 2005 (two platforms/two nameplates) that was doomed from the start, Ford’s branding is an absolute mess. Naming everything with an “F”, boring styling from FWD chassis hardpoints, etc.
Maybe Ford thought there was a way to capitalize on the recent successes of Camry/Avalon or Malibu/Impala with their new CD3/D3 platforms, but it never made sense if the Blue Oval is the badge on the expensive model.
That’s because the Impala sells well on value, being on a W-body that was paid off years ago and has a loyal following (ask Mikey). The Avalon does well because Toyota’s Camry-based rep is bulletproof and the car didn’t suck too badly (at least before Consumer Reports shed some light on the matter).
Either way, GM and Toyota did okay. Ford can’t emulate that success with their platform infrastructure and lofty asking prices. This is Branding 101.
And since Ford’s been trying, it’s only right to mention how frickin’ expensive this proposition has been since the beginning. And that it’s gotta stop…especially if the Detroit meltdown sends them to the government’s begging bowl.
The price was already announced a while back. Base MSRP = $37,995.
I don’t see why the Taurus in its latest guise can’t be successful. The Impala has been a decent seller for Chevy, and it’s not all that different in concept. Large FWD car with loads of room and comfort, but not exactly the best driving dynamics in the world. The SHO would just complement the line with something different for the guy that likes the Taurus but wants that something extra, similar to the Impala SS. It’s not meant to be an M5, or a high volume seller, it’s just something else to offer buyers. I think it will be fine.
Sajeev,
You see, that’s part of my point. They are still selling two full size cars. The Taurus and CV have about the same interior dimensions and the Taurus beats it in trunk space. If they want the volume on the Taurus, the CV will need to die. Otherwise, it’s just business as usual. Problem is, the CV is no doubt profitable due to the production costs long since paid for…
Is the Volvo based Taurus a waste of money for buyers or Ford?
It’s a great car, the Five Hundred was a great car.
It didn’t sell because buyers are stupid.
I think this so called SHO is another half-assed attempt from Ford.
It does NOT have a Yamaha engine
It is NOT affordable.
It does NOT offer a manual
It is NOT the groundbreaking car the 1989 SHO was
You MUST have AWD (the correct way would have been RWD)
And it is NOT efficient. The G8 GT has V8 power from it’s V8 powerplant, and gets the SAME mileage as the V6 powered SHO. Ford is dreaming if they think that this silly Ecoboost nonsense is efficient. It simply is not.
GM has more efficient pushrod engines…
The 4300 lbs. is for the turbocharged all-wheel driver SHO. The more standard Front Wheel Drive SEL model has a curb wt. of 3930 lbs. per Motor Trend.
Of course, I’m not saying that’s light. That’s just a ham sandwich lighter than my 1998 Mercury Villager minivan, and it’s heavier than GM minivans of the 1990s.
Sajeev: your editorial looks, acts, and smells like an uninformed nasty gram. You don’t have to be nasty to get readers, that’s not what TTAC is all about. But, you do have to be informed.
You’ve never driven the 4th-gen SHO and you’ve obviously never driven the original SHOs either (of which I’ve owned two, and put over 125k miles on them). “Torque-steer-free”? None of them were. “Stupid fun”? Not the 3rd gen. “Good for over 140 MPH” – oh, you forgot that part. I can verify it for the first three gens.
And what would be wrong with a Volvo chassis? Even the 500 was an evolution of that… now it’s been updated with a totally redesigned rear suspension. Borrowing the chassis from Volvo (and Mazda for the Fusion) has kept Ford on the road today – and they would be in as sorry shape as GM and Chrysler if they hadn’t. And the chassis tech is good.
So lets get the facts straight here before you try again.
-JWFisher
DrivingEnthusiast.net
(Website and Blog, SHO and lots more)
Why doesn’t the SHO offer the Yamaha 4.4L V8 like the S80?
That would give the new SHO a nod to the past. Not to mention, it’s an absolute peach of a motor, and I think it would be a better fit against the HEMI and L76, even with the power disadvantage.
I’m just really not that excited about the EcoBoost system. If it sounds like an angry vacuum cleaner and doesn’t get better mileage than the Chrysler, GM, and Hyundai V8s- then what’s the point?
Why doesn’t the SHO offer the Yamaha 4.4L V8 like the S80?
Fuel economy, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, all automakers are going to be putting smaller FI motors in place of bigger n/a units. We might as well get used to it. Of course, with a good tune, these new era blown wundermotors will outpower and out-mpg their predecessors…at the risk of voiding your warranty!
jamie: Finally, the D platform is a failure – how do you work that one out? It is a great success – already spawning Volvo’s, MKS, MKT, Flex and Taurus.
Because all of them are sales turkeys. There have been numerous production cutbacks ever since the beginning, back when credit was easy and people could buy these if they wanted to.
Weak sales = failure.
Lets be fair here. Most critics are claiming this car to be a world beater. In the styling department it has already won. I just hope it is not another Mazda or Ford of Europe rebadge. If it is then it’s doomed to failure.
Still, it looks miles better than the camcord.
“the engine put out torque-steer-free 220 hp”
I had at least 5 old SHO’s as company cars but to say they were torque free is 180 degrees erroneous. The wild torque steer was half the fun.
Your point about the Volvo platformed Fords is true. They PLOW, feel heavy and are unrefined vs the competition.
While the new Taurus is a looker, once someone drives one and still has that 90% of the weight in the front Volvo feel to it, forget it.
A SHO for $39k? stupid
Value propositions are all a matter of perspective. I look at the 2010 Taurus SHO at $40K and think, “Wow! That’s $15K cheaper than if I bought the V8 four wheel drive Volvo S80, with 20% less power and a dealer network ten times smaller than Ford’s”. But with all the safety of the Volvo.
Sign me up.
I don’t get this review. Is it that the car appears to be so good that people are making up random stuff in their minds as to why it’s not? To romanticize the first generation SHO is ludicrous. It was good for an early 90s sport sedan, but it was a rattletrap. The “all American” chassis contained a 220hp non-100% American Yamaha engine that would be considered feeble by modern standards. The original SHO was nothing more than a niche vehicle that eventually failed in the marketplace. As for price, it was in the low 20k range, which is much more than the ~35-38k range of the upcoming SHO in todays dollars. To poo poo a good looking AWD sedan with 365hp that, on paper, could compete with Audi, BMW and Mercedes for half the price is simply being closed minded. At least wait to get your hands on one first.
@gaycorvette:
Well, the engine note on the S80 V8 makes the G8 GT sound like a Prius by comparison. Its powertrain is very very good. So it does have that going for it.
And there’s always the heartbeat detector.
ajla:
But how is the handling on the S80 V8?
But how is the handling on the S80 V8?
I didn’t think it’s was bad as the buff books led on.
Unfortunately, my comparative group is pretty small. I haven’t driven many European cars.
It handled much better than a 1996 Roadmaster sedan, 2000 Park Avenue Ultra, 2008 Taurus, or 2007 Avalon. It floated more than a Bonneville GXP, but OTOH it didn’t crash around like the Pontiac.
It was pretty similar to a 2003 Jaguar XJ8. I would guess it handles noticeably better than a MKS AWD.
Given the feature creep of the Ford Flex, the SHO could sticker north of $35-large. With options, maybe over $40 grand. How great is that? I’ve voiced these concerns to pistonheads around the web and one answer comes back: nobody pays sticker for a Ford, just wait for the discounts. So maybe this is a Taurus after all.
I lol’d at the sad truth of this.
Ford’s obsession with the D3 platform caused them to starve their real moneymaking, unique product – the Panther platform.
This unhealthy disfunction will, at the end of the day, lead to not only the death of the D3, but the Panther as well, and Ford’s loss of the large car market it has dominated for decades, as well as the police, taxi, and livery markets.
Not bad for a losing investment in Volvo, eh?
I’ve said for a while that Ford or GM should update the RWD BOF Sedan concept. It would probably serve them better than trying to compete in the overcrowded FWD Unibody market.
The first generation SHO most emphatically did NOT put out 220 torque steer free horsepower. 220 hp., yes. Without torque steer? Big no. Lotsa torque steer in the first model, the 1989. And a clutch made of paper that died every 15,000 miles. The second generation – that baby was sweet. Yamaha engine, but much better steering – a damn near perfect car in every way. Nimble, too. The steering in the first gen car was just dead.
What the original SHO had was revs – wild and easy revs. It had a lousy, balky long-throw tranny and the seating wasn’t all that great.
Truth is, the second gen with the automatic was a much better car.
If Ford hadn’t made the Taurus fat and then simply neglected it, they might still be a player today.
But, there’s a basic flaw with SHO-type vehicles – and that’s that they’re hot rodded from something not designed for the power or stress from the start. So, it always takes a few years and a few owners to get the flaws exposed.
And, of course, Ford in those days had more than its share of flaws, if not owners.
the engine put out torque-steer-free 220 hp
Regarding the price, I own a 93 SHO. I have the window sticker. 28 grand, every option other than the automatic. These were never cheap cars, and they still managed to move 100,000 units over 10 years of production. Are they high volume sellers? Not really. But what would you have Ford be doing otherwise? They could shoot directly at the CamCord market which, basically they’ve already done with the Fusion, especially the latest generation. They could build a vanilla-mobile to directly combat cars like the Avalon which, frankly, was not entirely unsuccessfully with the original D3 Taurus/500 (and, FYI, the Avalon is far from cheap.) Or they could try to differentiate themselves from the ho-hum competition by doing justice to a nameplate made popular by owners who actually give a shit about cars. I suppose you could argue that the Fusion would be a better SHO choice (see the review right above yours for the answer to that question) but to argue that the D3 platform is unworthy or that the current SHO is too expensive is just plain lazy journalism. Completely ignoring the performance potential of this car, the current SHO offers luxury features like adaptive cruise control and even ventilated seats which are rarely found in the 40k range. Go drive an older SHO in good condition and have an honest look at the current competition and the resources that Ford probably had to commit to develop this car, then maybe people who know what they’re talking about will be able to take your review on a car that is entirely foreign to you seriously.
Loaded out at $40K? That’s still a better value than the best-guesstimate for the [supposed] Volt. Of which GM will sell exactly zero, aside from gov’t agencies. Which would you rather have – Volt or SHO?
Solid reliability, 360+ horse and seating for five plus all their crap. Any word on a MT? Get the price point to $30-32K, and I’m there.
As I mentioned in a previos post, around ’97 I bought a used 93 SHO w/100k, new tranny. Included in the paprework from the original owner was the original window sticker. It was over $29k. So, all things being equal I think that $35k for a new one now seems very much in line. I’m pretty sure the orignal owner of the 93 almost certainly didn’t pay $29k. As a buyer (after the first few) won’t pay $35k and very likely just under 30k. In the various comparisons to other cars above this fact changes those comparisons.
But I must agree that it is hard to see much of a market for a large performance sedan.
If the new Taurus flops, Ford should not develop a next generation. Instead, the next generation Fusion should be slightly larger and roomier, and the D3 platform should be used for the MKS (because Lincoln does need a large sedan and Ford doesn’t have a modern RWD platform), MKT, and one Ford crossover only (probably the new Explorer). The Avalon and Lucerne don’t sell well, the Impala mostly sells to fleets, and I don’t think there is a market for large sedans anymore.
Mr. Mehta, lest you forget, the main reason why the D3 cars have failed so spectacularly is because they were given some of the shittiest marketing that I have ever seen.
The Five Hundred had come out in late 2004, and it and the Freestyle had respectable marketing campaigns, but midway in 2005, when Ford launched the Fusion and started the (horrible) “BOLD MOVES” marketing campaign, they just pushed the Five Hundred into a corner, to make room for them to shove the Fusion and F-150 in our faces. My dad loved the Five Hundred, and when he went to the Ford stand at the 2006 auto show, he asked about the Five Hundred and they just shoved the Fusion in his face. He went to a Ford dealer to learn more about the Five Hundred, and they did the same thing. They just tried to steer him to the Fusion.
So I guess you can draw two conclusions from this: There was some real cannibalism going on there, and the Five Hundred was killed by the Fusion. Or at the time a nutless monkey could have done a better job marketing/supporting its products than Ford.
The 08 Taurus was the same story. They only made ONE commercial for it which I ocassionally saw during the Tonight Show, and ONE print ad I saw in Motor Trend. (Of which I now have a copy up on my wall next to an autographed picture of Tori Amos. Don’t ask me why, because that ad was lame and totally sucked. It doesn’t deserve to share the wall space with the talented Mrs. Amos.) After two months, Ford did the same thing, and just swept the Taurus under the rug so they could shove the F-150 in our face. And they must have forgotten that they were building the Taurus X, because it didn’t get any marketing AT ALL.
So that is why they flopped. Nobody knew what the fuck the Five Hundred was. When they changed it to the Taurus, nobody knew because Ford never told anyone, and everyone remembered the media circus over Ford killing the Taurus, as it had become a symbol of how Detroit had lost the plot. You could come up to anyone on the street and the conversation would like this:
“What do you think of the Ford Taurus?”
“Its a shame that they killed it, because it was such a popular car.”
“They brought it back. They got a new Taurus on sale.”
“Oh, I didn’t know.”
The Lincoln MKS is selling in respectible numbers because Ford is giving it something called a “marketing campaign”, and the Flex has been a non starter because it is a luxurious blingmobile that was launched in the middle of a recession. No surprise there.
Hopefully Ford will get it right this time. The Taurus could be successful as long as Ford does a better job marketing it than the piss poor job they have done the last two times.
(original Taurus emphatically included)…I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about where the old Taurus ended up. Jellybean styling and crap dynamics.…
Crap dynamics? I guess you never drove an original SHO…
This is one of the better designs I’ve seen from Ford. It’s great Ford is getting its act together and I hope we see more of this. And if it drives up to its looks, Ford could have a real winner on its hands, notwithstanding all the whines above. Sheesh, let’s pile on before anyone drives the damn thing.
What was that car in the photo?
“The MSRP on a 335i Sedan (yes, smaller, I know) is 39k. This SHO is rumored to be at 35k.”
The SHO is more the size of a 7-series BMW, not a 3-series, so why compare it to BMW’s compact car? Have you ever tried to spend much time in the back seat of a 335i?
BTW, the original SHO was a marketplace dud in its own right. Sure there are fanboys, but the thing was a sales dud. The later V-8 cam failure problem didn’t help the brand either.
golden2husky
“Crap dynamics? I guess you never drove an original SHO…”
I was trying to exempt the original SHO, and even the earlier Tauri in general with that clarification. Been in an old SHO but haven’t driven it, and I was impressed (but I was also pretty young at the time to be honest).
A friend of mine in college went through a series of used jelly-bean era white Tauri though, and those were bizarrely uncompetitive. I just didn’t see a single positive reason to buy one…until that is, he revealed how cheap he was picking them up as used rentals.
blue adidas : To poo poo a good looking AWD sedan with 365hp that, on paper, could compete with Audi, BMW and Mercedes for half the price is simply being closed minded.
If it didn’t work with the Lincoln LS, do you really think people will line up for a Ford sedan for $40,000? I am not a badge snob, but I’ve seen how often I am a minority in this regard. Again, more bad news following the stuff we’ve experienced since 2005.
———————————-
Packard : The second generation – that baby was sweet. Yamaha engine, but much better steering – a damn near perfect car in every way. Nimble, too.
I drove a 1992 and 1990 model, both used but clean. Neither had torque steer in a straight line, and very little in a corner.
———————————-
NRTrackStar : but to argue that the D3 platform is unworthy or that the current SHO is too expensive is just plain lazy journalism.
Oh please, the pattern’s been set, and its rearing its ugly head again. The improved 2010 Taurus (not just the SHO) has an uphill battle to put it mildly.
If the Pontiac G8 and G8 GT (arguably better cars) doesn’t sell well (discounts, huge inventories, etc) I don’t see how a competitor with AWD+300 lbs and the same fuel economy from a V6 will fare any better. Ford badges don’t sell at this price point, just like Pontiacs.
———————————-
MM : Solid reliability, 360+ horse and seating for five plus all their crap. Any word on a MT? Get the price point to $30-32K, and I’m there.
From what I’ve seen, there’s no manual transaxle in Ford’s arsenal designed for that kind of power. $30k will get you a loaded (regular) Taurus, so there’s no way they’ll make a SHO for that price.
And if they lowered the base price of the Taurus anymore, they’d have the same cluster-NSFW when the Five Hundred and Fusion battled at the $22-25k price point. Not to mention the nicer interior materials (cost) alone of the new Taurus make that almost impossible.
———————————-
ehaase : The Avalon and Lucerne don’t sell well, the Impala mostly sells to fleets, and I don’t think there is a market for large sedans anymore.
Well put. But considering the Town Car had to consolidate its operations with the CV/Marquis factory, your comment about making the D3 a Lincoln-only chassis probably won’t work on the balance sheet.
———————————-
Runfromcheney : The Lincoln MKS is selling in respectable numbers because Ford is giving it something called a “marketing campaign”, and the Flex has been a non starter because it is a luxurious blingmobile that was launched in the middle of a recession. No surprise there.
Both the Flex and MKS have decent marketing, IMO.
But no, the MKS is doing well (relative to the Acura RL, not the Cadillac CTS) because its marketing comes with a “Sign And Drive” lease event with pre-credit crunch levels of sweetness offered. Repeat Lincoln customers are offered a lower monthly payment on the MKS’ vs. Town Car, and I betcha that’s the reason why the MKS is selling better than the other D3s. At the expense of profit: and expect the same for the SHO.
When the sign/drive event ends, don’t expect the MKS to fare much better than the Acura RL.
http://www.lincoln.com/shoptool/special_offers.asp
———————————-
Dr. No : And if it drives up to its looks, Ford could have a real winner on its hands, notwithstanding all the whines above. Sheesh, let’s pile on before anyone drives the damn thing.
I said the exact same things about the Mercury Montego when I drove it, a few months before it died. Because it drove beautifully for a large car. But market doesn’t exist back then or now. Doesn’t matter how great “we” think it is. So now we shall see if I am a bad fortune teller for the 2010 SHO.
———————————-
John Horner : The SHO is more the size of a 7-series BMW, not a 3-series, so why compare it to BMW’s compact car?
Because that’s what we’ve always done since the Lincoln LS came out: its priced like a 3-series but gives you a car like the 5-series!
Why that value proposition never works is beyond me, but maybe if Detroit made more cars like the 3-series there’d be less demand for the Infiniti G.
Why doesn’t the SHO offer the Yamaha 4.4L V8 like the S80?
Because Ford does not have the first clue on how to make an efficient engine. GM gets the same gas mileage out of a 6.0 V8, that Ford does out of a 3.5 V6.
My loaded crew cab Silverado with the 5.3 and 3.42 rear gears gets the same mileage as my previous Ford Crown Vic with a 4.6 V8 and 3.27 rear gears.
There is ZERO reason as to why the Lincoln MKTaurus and new (faux) SHO do not have V8s.
Whoops, I forgot to comment on these points:
—————-
Alex Dykes : If they want the volume on the Taurus, the CV will need to die. Otherwise, it’s just business as usual. Problem is, the CV is no doubt profitable due to the production costs long since paid for…
Actually the problem is, if Ford kills the CV they are not guaranteed to own the fleet market like they do right now. I reckon the Chevy Impala (proven in fleet usage) will take the vast majority of Ford’s market. Not to mention Ford would need to make a special service Taurus to compete with the Impala…and that’s not cheap.
Alex, sometimes business as usual isn’t a bad thing. Especially when it makes money.
————————————–
jwfisher : Borrowing the chassis from Volvo (and Mazda for the Fusion) has kept Ford on the road today – and they would be in as sorry shape as GM and Chrysler if they hadn’t.
Wrong. Tell me how the D3 has kept the company afloat, nobody is buying them! The amount of money spent on the platform, facilities and constant production cutbacks make for a big black hole in my book.
I counter that Ford would be in MUCH better shape if they never even considered the D3 platform, and the sales vs. forecast have proven it.
This will be a great car, maybe the best Taurus ever. But that still doesn’t mean the market for the entire platform has dried up to almost nothing. Just like the Crown Vic.
Sajeev Mehta :
Because that’s what we’ve always done since the Lincoln LS came out: its priced like a 3-series but gives you a car like the 5-series!
Why that value proposition never works is beyond me
Because… if you want something like a 3-series and like the compact, tossable feel, you won’t look at larger cars as competitors.
I’ll continue to wear L t-shirts, even if I could have XXXXL for the same kind of money.
Sajeev – The MKS has been selling well from day 1, the 0 down sign and drive event just recently started. While Ford is offering extra rebates to RCL customers coming off lease, we have been selling quite a few MKSs to ‘conquest buyers’ people coming out of Buicks, Caddies, Lexuses, Toyotas, etc. Also, the MKS competes with the STS, not the CTS, the MKZ is the CTS fighter, which, admittedly, it hasn’t done very well. Hopefully the 2010 refresh will help it out there.
EDIT, an addition –
With regards to fuel economy on Ford V8s – I have plenty of customers swear to me that they are getting 28 mpg or so on the highway in their Town Cars, and the new F150 SFE ties the Chevy XFE for the best fuel economy from a non-hybrid truck, so, Ford apparently can build a fuel efficient V8. The Ecoboost V6 AWD gets the same fuel economy as the NA 6 in AWD, that is pretty impressive for a massive addition in power.
As to anybody spending 37K on a performance Ford, Mustang GT Convertibles routinely sticker in the mid to upper 30s, and Shelbys in the upper 40s to 50s, so, yes, there are people willing to pay.
The MKS does well because it has–wait for it–an ad campaign!
I see plenty of ads for the MKS on TV, whens the last time anyone saw a Taurus ad (I mean aside from local dealer ads)? I’m thinking sometime during the Clinton administration.
The Ecoboost V6 AWD gets the same fuel economy as the NA 6 in AWD, that is pretty impressive for a massive addition in power.
That’s true, but V8s aren’t nearly as inefficient compared to a V6 as they used to be. The Taurus microsite lists the SHO’s MPG as 15/25. For its competition (just looking at weight, power, and driven wheels):
STS-4 Northstar: 15/22
E550 4matic: 13/19
A6 4.2 Quattro: 16/23
Charger R/T AWD: 16/23
So I’m guessing that the SHO isn’t going to have a big real-world mileage advantage even when going AWD to AWD.
BTW, if you compare the SHO to the RWD Charger, STS, and Genesis the SHO’s mileage advantage disappears.
Aija – you make a good point, but also worth noting is that the Ecoboost V6 makes more horsepower than all but the Mercedes and the Charger, costs many thousands less than all but the Charger, makes peak torque at a much lower RPM than the rest, and is the only one (other than the Charger) that is fine running regular octane gas.
@ Sajeev Mehta:
Your analysis is spot on.
My Dad had several SHO’s and they were awesome, but this D3 SHO is neither a Tuarus nor a SHO, discuss…
What I don’t understand, and clearly I am not alone, is why anyone would want a car so large that only seats 5. How often do people normally transport adults in the rear seats of their cars for long periods of time? Even if you did desire a huge car would you want it to have a twin turbo V6 and sport suspension? These attributes seem diametrically apposed to me.
I loved the previous SHO’s, but I think this one has lost the plot and will be one more mark of failure on the sad D3 platform. We are now up to what 6 failed vehicles just from the Ford/Mercury/Lincoln versions of the D3. It is time to call it quits and go in a new direction.
This is all very silly. Why are folks calling a car that isn’t for sale yet a failure? Sanjeev, what makes a Volvo-based Taurus more of a waste of money than, say, a Camry-based Avalon or an Altima-based Maxima? And can you really attribute the shortcomings of the Five Hundred/current Taurus to the platform? The Five Hundred was actually a very competent handler with tons of room and (IMO) understated, elegant good looks. It was let down by a grossly inadequate and unrefined powertrain (relative to the competition). With the current Taurus, Ford fixed the powertrain problem but made it quite ugly and dumbed down the suspension. Marketing in all cases ranged from lackluster to nonexistent. None of this has anything to do with the platform.
NulloModo : Also, the MKS competes with the STS, not the CTS, the MKZ is the CTS fighter, which, admittedly, it hasn’t done very well.
That is true, but it kinda damns the MKS with faint praise. Even a RWD junkie like me wouldn’t touch an STS with a five foot pole. The conquest sales to other brands are good to hear, though I wish I’d stop hearing it outsells the Infiniti M and Acura RL. Those aren’t the power players, and they should also die a quick death (a la the D3).
———————–
Ach: Sanjeev, what makes a Volvo-based Taurus more of a waste of money than, say, a Camry-based Avalon or an Altima-based Maxima?
Altimas and Camrys are not a unique chassis with unique parts. Maximas and Avalons aren’t bigger cash drains from supporting unique components. There’d be a lot less to worry about if the new Taurus was a long wheelbase Fusion.
Toyota could afford to make the Avalon on a unique platform, but they aren’t that stupid. They learned that lesson years ago, and Ford is so broke it Hertz. Bad, bad, bad business decisions.
You don’t have to take my word for it (even though I did say that back in 2005 on Blue Oval News) because even the big names like Jerry Flint said this Mazda/Volvo platform idea was a bad idea.
_______________
ajla : That’s true, but V8s aren’t nearly as inefficient compared to a V6 as they used to be.
Interesting perspective. I’ll expect the same thing when the direct injected 5.0 V8 finds its way into a Mustang. For thousands less. And all of a sudden the EcoBoost V6’s will turn into a flavor of the month.
where is the stripped down SHO with a manual? Hmmmm.
stripped down Taurus 23K AWD+ecoBoost (+$750) +6 speed manual transmission outsourced (+1,000) = ~$25,000 fun car that every male without a wife on the lot will spring for. With a 35K entry price and an automatic = Pontiac GT G8 competitor. SHO sales only peaked at 15,000 a year and the Pontiac GT G8 is selling about 30,000 units a year for 25-33K a piece. Which is a performance bargain and a reason I want it. At 35-42K the SHO is probably going to ween some sales from Pontiac but it’s a niche car still only intended to move 10-15k units most likely. I for one wouldn’t move up to it. It may save gas but the price difference is too great, besides it’s an AWD setup, not RWD anyways. How many enthusiasts will spring that much for a modified FWD car?
If it was a 25,000 fun car stripped off all the technological gizmos I’d see it doubled that 10-15k units they may sell.
I’d buy a SHO with my own money, no questions asked, except for the fact that I just bought a Flex AWD Limited with my own money, no questions asked, and I only really need one family car.
The SHO is likely to be one of the best affordable big sedans in history. It’s unlikely to outpace a 335xi but it’s cheaper, it’s bigger, it’s nicer inside (heresy, I know, but true), it has better telematics, it will return equal real-world fuel mileage or better, and it’s better-looking to some eyes.
Sajeev is literate and logical concerning the styling shortcomings of the new Taurus, but compared to anything else in the market segment it might as well be an Alfa 8C.
This is the right car, at the right price. Only it needs to change nameplates with the Fusion.
Mulally really screwed up when he decided to bring back the Taurus nameplate in the form of the Five Hundred…he should’ve waited for the new generation of the Fusion to come out and call THAT the Taurus.
“But this does nothing to disprove my theory that Volvo-based Fords are a waste of money.”
True enough but I doubt that Ford builds cars just to prove or disprove blogger’s theories.
“Which spells doom for the company spending millions (billions?) supporting a unique platform ”
Funny how other sites get mercilessly bagged for mistaking millions and billions. Big clue, a billion is a thousand million. I’m not too sure why the esteemed writer thinks that it costs a billion to support a unique platform, that is quite a lot of money, even these days. I rather think he is being duplicitous and knows that it can’t really be a billion dollars, but the insinuation is supposed to be funny.
Greg: About millions or billions…this is no mistake, nobody knows how much was spent:
1) Designing this platform from the Volvo
2) Redesigning it for the Freestyle/Taurus X
3) Retooling two plants, the Chicago plant alone was hundreds of millions alone in 2004
4) Making the 2008/2010 Taurus
5) Making the Flex
6) Making the MKS
7) Stocking parts at dealers, etc.
Add it all up, and fix my fuzzy math. If you have some financials to back it up, we’d all love to know how much Ford spent on this proposition.
Because all I see is money being poured out, production cuts (for the Five Hundred, Taurus, Flex) and weaker than forecasted sales for several years and a commitment to reduce fleet sales and incentives (back in 2005) that never happened.
That’s the wrong way of looking at it. The money that was spent was committed (and largely spent) pre financial crisis. If you think ‘they’ should have seen that coming fair enough, hopefully you hold everybody else to that standard of crystal ball gazing, including of course, yourself.
The money that was spent is gone, it no longer matters for any decision making. So what they were left with was a marketing strategy, already worked out, a car that was largely paid for in terms of development and tooling, and just needs building and selling. That ain’t a billion.
A good source for ballpark program costs is “The Machine that Changed the World”. These days a billion buys you a new top-hat on an old platform for a high volume product, or a complete new low volume low technology platform. $100 million buys you a bit of tarting up and retuning so that the buff-books can call it a new model.
That’s the wrong way of looking at it. The money that was spent was committed (and largely spent) pre financial crisis. If you think ‘they’ should have seen that coming fair enough, hopefully you hold everybody else to that standard of crystal ball gazing, including of course, yourself.
I mentioned this platform is a sunk cost, which is fine for the accountants. But I disagree with you, I think its a (necessary) reality check to mention much money has been spent since 2005 to determine the ROI. Right now, the ROI doesn’t look good.
And now that the 2010 Taurus (not just the SHO) is going further upmarket in asking price and features while the market shrinks further into a recession, and while the Flex lowered production, what conclusion do you gather from this?
And this story isn’t about crystal ballin’ (even if I was a detractor of the CD3/D3 business model back in 2004) because Ford’s gotta stop the bleeding…of course, if someone from Ford has some facts on the D3’s ROI that blows my theory out of the water, you can contact RF and make your point.
Earlier, one of the posters called this a review, and several folks have given Sajeev grief for criticizing a car he hasn’t yet driven. I think it would be a good idea to remember that this is not a review, it’s an editorial – an editorial about business decisions Ford has made and is making that affect the company’s role in a vital market segment, and a sub-segment that is especially interesting to gearheads like us.
A couple of years ago, a Mustang magazine asked Lee Iacocca about Ford’s re-styling of the Mustang for 1967, which made it larger, heavier, and more muscular-looking. I remember him answering the question by saying that he went along with what the marketing people suggested, but that he personally thought they’d turned his clean little car into a “fat, ugly pig.” That’s exactly how I felt after seeing the new SHO in person two weeks ago.
First of all, I should say that I believe Sajeev’s point about the basic low-buck goodness of the base Taurus hits the nail on the head. A right-sized, ergonomically superior and decently fun-to-drive sedan (such as my wife’s 190,000-mile ’95 Taurus GL) is a mandatory foundation for any performance variant to be successful (and profitable).
Second, I’ve driven plenty of 1st and 2nd generation Taurus SHO’s (back when they were new). Yeah, they weren’t perfect, but from a utility point of view they gave up nothing to their direct competitors, from a fun-to-drive perspective they were almost comparable to BMW’s of the day, and when you look at value, no better bang-for-the-buck could be found anywhere in the affordable sedan segment (and yes, that includes the Dodge Spirit R/T even though it was faster…who wants to aim an angry K-car at innocent women and children, anyway?).
The D3 just doesn’t cut it for what the market wants. It’s big, it’s heavy, and it’s safe. Personally, I love all three of those (my daily driver is a Panther, okay?).
But Ford’s decision to a) make the Taurus a full-size car, and b) do so by using an expensive, overwrought (for its purpose) platform has not worked well so far (neither financially nor for Ford’s reputation).
Upping the ante by introducing a sporting variant without altering the misguided basic formula of “more features, more technology, more power, more inches, more pounds” seems like a bad move. Butching up a sedan everyone thinks is boring with 345 horses and a tuned chassis wasn’t the original SHO recipe in the first place (the public didn’t think the original base Taurus was boring).
Ford wants this SHO to compete with some serious hardware, yet in the minds of consumers (due to no/bad marketing) it will probably only compete with the Impala SS, the Charger R/T, or maybe the Pontiac G8 (if Ford is lucky).
The non-D3 alternative? A slightly smaller, lighter, less expensive, more Honda-like FWD Taurus SHO. A car like this, had it been done right, could clean up in the (struggling) segment described above. Even if that would be the only segment it did well in, Ford’s ROI would probably not be any worse than what this D3-based SHO will likely net.
Nonetheless, the D3 is what Ford has, and right now, they’re forced to use what they have as best they can. I hope they’ve made a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but I doubt they’ve made a raging bull out of any D3-based Taurus.
This new refresh of the Taurus fixes one of the major problems of the last two generations of the D3 chassis, bland genric plain tall ungaily styling. Ford fixed the other of the four problems with the Taurus redesign in 2008 by making the larger and much better 263 HP 3.5 std mated to the 6F automatic tranny which got rid of the shuddering noisy CVT mess in the Five Hundred. Time and at the wheel driving experience will tell if Ford fixed the tall ungainly driving experience and the noisy engine at WOT. The other issue I have with the current Taurus is that there is not a sporty bone it it’s genes, improved engine power aside. Driving one is akin to driving a Toyota, okay but do I really enjoy driving this thing. My 2008 Impala 3900 with dual exhaust, firm sport suspension, rear spoiler and more svelte looks feels far sportier, enough so that several friends and fellow co-workers went out and bought the same car and are really enjoying them. And we know that the Impala is hardly a car that is endorced on this site so imagine how the current Taurus fares. The 2010 model can’t come soon enough even if the SHO is an overpriced halo car.
“I mentioned this platform is a sunk cost, which is fine for the accountants. But I disagree with you, I think its a (necessary) reality check to mention much money has been spent since 2005 to determine the ROI. Right now, the ROI doesn’t look good. ”
If it is a sunk cost then ROI is irrelevant.
It is a sunk cost.
Well, if the whole platform is a sunk cost and ROI calculations are irrelevant, why the heck are they throwing good money after bad?
Or put another way, how many times do they have to lose on this horse before it goes to the glue factory???
You’d have to know more than I do to say whether, as of this moment, it is worth running production for a given car. If you ignore the cost of its development (as it is is sunk money it does not factor into calculations any more) then the variable cost of each car is cost of parts plus labor plus factory running cost plus marketing, etc. If they can get more back from the dealer than that lot, then they have positive cashflow from that model. Since the sunk cost of a car is quite significant (of the order of $2-5000 for a low volume car (20000 units pa) where I work, I don’t know how big the SHO program was or what its predicted sales volume was), removing that from the equation makes a big difference to the sums. Remember, the program is costed assuming it has to pay for development and tooling, but once the car is developed, that money is gone, it no longer affects decisions for that model.
I think you need to get straight the difference between sunk costs, variable costs, and RoI, these words have precise meanings, which you seem to be ignoring.
I think I know the differences, even if I wasn’t a finance/accounting major in college. This editorial and subsequent blog posting has gone all over the map when it comes analyzing how and why this platform could be considered a failure. And we’ve used different terms to cover those angles.
The basic message has been presented (ad nauseum) and whatever doubt there was to cast has been done.
Now we wait and see how well the Taurus fares…and future CUVs like the Explorer.
Sajeev Mehta :
March 30th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Now we wait and see how well the Taurus fares…and future CUVs like the Explorer.
A bit off topic (this could probably be an editorial unto itself) but I see no reason for the Explorer to live as a CUV. Speaking as a Ford salesman, the only people who buy Explorers are people who had old Explorers and want another, and people who don’t want something as big as an Expedition, but still need to tow fairly heavy loads.
There is already an Explorer sized crossover, it’s called the Edge. We have a hard enough time trying to explain to people the fine line of differences between the Escape, Edge, Explorer, and Flex as it is, and if the Explorer becomes another crossover it will be hopeless. The Explorer as a model name is hopelessly damaged from the whole firestone fiasco, and certain Uhaul places in the area still won’t rent trailers to Explorer owners, even though the new models are no more likely to rollover than any other midsize SUV.
The Edge has been sucessfull, and is gaining a good reputation. The Sport-Trac half truck model should evolve and stay a RWD body on frame vehicle for those who need something between a Ranger and an F150, but I’d rather see the Explorer name retired than converted to CUV duty.
NulloModo: I’m glad you said that and not me. I thought taking the Taurus name up to Avalon/Maxima territory was a bad idea, but it looks brilliant compared to the Explorer. They have way, way too many CUVs: you didn’t even mention the Taurus X in your statement above.
I understand the need to kill this BOF platform, I am sure the profits aren’t there anymore. I think the name should die and maybe (like the good old days) become a trim level again on a future pickup.
I am a first time viewer of this site and I am very imperssed by the editorial comments, analyzations and speculations. Very good stuff from one and all IMO. I just had to take a moment to throw a competely different idea into this topic just because I thought it would inspire some other conversations about performance automobiles.
Here is how I view the SHO from a personal point of view. Let me start with a little personal history of automobile ownership. I grew up owning the usual mix of muscle cars (66 GTO, 69 Z/28, 70′ 440 six pak Cuda, 87 Buick Grand National etc) and I’m no stranger to the modern foreign luxury automobiles either. I currently own a Mercedes Benz GL450, before that a Lexus and BMW. By far my most trouble free cars for me over the years have always been Fords though. Imagine that huh? The Lexus went through 2 drive shafts and a constant vibration that could never be fixed. The Benz has had so many trips to the dealer for repairs that I will never own another one. The BMW…. a similar experience.
I am a family man and I need the room so I was intrigued by the new Taurus SHO since the lease will finally be up on the Benz this year and I am in the market for a replacement. Being that I grew up with high performance vehicles, it is in my blood and I long for the thrill of substantial performance, safety, reliability and room. Now here’s where I believe I am a little, shall we say different towards the SHO than the rest of the posters on this forum. I intend to buy a SHO as soon as they come out (as long as the test drive is as good as it looks on paper) for some good reasons.
Of all of the cars I’ve ever owned, the Buick Grand National was by far the most fun. It was similar to the SHO in that to the average driver, it appeared to be nothing more than a grocery getter. Ironically it was the fastest performance car I’ve ever owned! That lil turbo V6 motor with about $3,000 worth of mods was rediculous fast and would get groceries with the a/c on and run as quiet as an alter boy in church. There is nothing like the linear power that you feel in the acceleration of a turbo car! I can’t tell you how many unsuspecting hot rodders I shamed into embarrasment with the greatest of ease. Too much fun when you can walk away from the boys with the high dollar exotics in what appears to be nothing more than a rental car! Now back to the SHO. It has all of the ingredients to be the Buick GN of 2009. It is unassuming in appearance, has a great powerplant to work with (turbo motors are so cheap to make faster) and is built by a car manufacturer who has something to prove.
I love the idea of having a car with the room, comfort, technology and performance potential of this car. Sure out of the box there are plenty of other cars on the market that for the same or more money have a little better performance numbers ( G8, SRT, BMWs, Corvettes etc) but they all look like they’re supposed to go fast and honestly none of those cars have the same comfort or tech that the SHO will have.
Personally I don’t really care about the ROI, the incorrect platforms, the past reputation or the poor marketing. Give me a car that will haul ass ( both the car and my family’s ass) with a few bucks of upgrades (500+ hp from Hennesey they say) and a history of reliability and comfort for my family and I’m all over it. To be honest I would be pleased if the SHO failed after the first year! There would be that many fewer on the road to spoil my fun, lol. Before you rip me for the Hennesey comment let me remind you that I have a good idea of what 500+ hp is gonna cost but in comaparison I priced out a similarly equipped BMW 535i (not even all wheel drive) and it came to $72,300. I’m sure exhaust, boost mods, computer flash and turbo mods won’t put me anywhere NEAR $72 large not mention that the SHO still won’t look like it’s supposed to be a fast car when I’m done with it like the BMW.
You can call me selfish, irresponsibile, or uneducated but for the sheer fun of driving a substantial performance sedan with a ton of room for the family, high scores on safety for the family, reliability and quality scores on par with the Japanese Gods of automobile manufacturers, and all of the best technology available in a car today, I can’t wait!
Maybe I’m old and senile but I’m thinkin $38,000 for a Ford Taurus sounds like a lot of fun! Destined for rental car status….who cares?
Sleeper: Now back to the SHO. It has all of the ingredients to be the Buick GN of 2009. It is unassuming in appearance, has a great powerplant to work with (turbo motors are so cheap to make faster) and is built by a car manufacturer who has something to prove.
Welcome! You have a great perspective to offer.
While Ford has been quiet on the subject, you might be overlooking the transmission in your analysis. Or in this case, transaxle. The GN’s 200-4R was a weak spot that saw plenty of aftermarket upgrades from other trannies in the GM family.
You can boost the hell out of a new SHO (don’t bother with Hennessey, just get an SCT tune and whatever exhaust shows up in the aftermarket) but like any AWD car on a FWD platform, the rest of the powertrain will not approve.
Good luck with your eventual purchase and tell us how it goes.
I never had a transmission issue with my GN but I was not a hardcore drag racer by any means. What are your thoughts on the mods Ford made to the 6F-50 (now the 6F-55) transmission http://www.thefordstory.com/green/new-six-speed-selectshift/ . I am hoping that Ford made these mods because they are smart enough to realize that performance buyers are apt to play with “tuning” turbo cars and wanted to minimize some of the potential driveline failures associated with monster torque motors. I am also assuming that Ford intends to use this same trans in their F-150 for towing applications not to mention the traditional racer boy thrashing that is inevitable when this power train hits the Mustang. So call it wishful thinking but I’m hopeful that Ford will at least make this drivetrain good enough for about 500 horses. We’ll see.
Sleeper: this trans won’t be used in a Mustang or F150 because its based on a FWD transaxle and comes the limitations we’ve all seen in the world of Turbo Hondas. They already have a great 6-speed in the trucks and Explorer/Expedition, too.
In theory, a transaxle is a terrible idea for high boost applications, but since Ford actually took the time to upgrade this one, we shall see if they learned from their mistakes with the 1995-2002 Lincoln Continentals.
My problem with the Taurus is it’s too tall. It’s basically a CUV with a sedan body. I like a car that is low to the ground and has a low center of gravity.