“Consumers increasingly are noticing that the Ford difference is our great products, our strong business and our leadership in quality, fuel efficiency, safety, smart technologies and value.” So sayeth Ken Czubay, Ford’s vice president of U.S. marketing sales and service. Am I reading too much into it, or is “strong business” a euphemism for non-teat-suckler? Anyway, the spin is the spin, and the facts are the facts. The Blue Oval Boyz report that sales of the new Ford Taurus rose a staggering 141 percent, from last October’s 2517 to this October’s 6076. A big ass one-month jump does not a runaway best-seller make. And these numbers aren’t all that spectacular for a mainstream automaker (especially compared to the original Taurus). But you can’t take that away from them. Or can you? What’s going on here? My guess: Ford’s getting a big lift from GM and Chrysler defectors. Or maybe the Taurus has simply hit the sweet spot, as SUVs continue to fall out of fashion. Fleet sales (hidden as retail, as Ford/Mazda is wont to do) may have a little something to do with it. Could be all three. What’s your take?
A mix between the “dead cat bounce,” decent product(s), and the apparent reluctance to accept bailout cash (retooling loans? what retooling loans…)
The domestic buying public is just so damn happy to have a good modern full sized sedan for the first time in forever?
A perfect storm:
– The belief that, having not taken government money, Ford will still be around in five years to take care of customers;
– Actual, real improvement in quality;
– The Taurus is a GOOD vehicle, and one that actually looks fresh and new;
– A variety of trim levels (basic transpo up to the stomping AWD SHO)
quality, fuel efficiency, safety, smart technologies and value.”
That’s it – that’s what Ford is. It’s not style, luxury, awd, power, etc. It’s “quality, fuel efficiency, safety, smart technologies and value.”
You could say Audi – style, interior quality, luxury, engineering Subaru – awd, quality, safety, enviro cred. BWM, presitge, power, driving pleasure, technology etc.
I think Ford leadership has figured out where they fit in the market.
Not to get too political, but it probably has a little bit to do with anti-Obama backlash. “I’m not going to buy a Government Motors vehicle, Ford didn’t take bailout money, etc.” It would be interesting to see stats on party affiliation among new Taurus purchasers. Also, did we really have that many Taurus’ around last year? Didn’t the 500 replace the Taurus, and there was just the Taurus X (which was discontinued)? These comparison numbers can’t be apples to apples.
6000 units for a car in the Taurus’s segment is actually pretty pitiful.
I remember when cars like the Taurus (and even the Taurus) sold 30,000 to 35,000 units a month.
Hell, the Honda Accord is as large inside or larger than the Taurus (depending on area of interior) and sells…what?….30,000 to 40,000 units per month?
The Taurus is a good option to people who are leaving SUVs. There is plenty of room for a family of 4 and their luggage, decent fuel economy and performance, and good build quality. Also not taking a bailout does not hurt them.
As I recall a year ago the Taurus was the rebadged 500 so it isn’t much of a comparison IMO.
I saw one in the wild exactly like the one pictured on my commute this morning. I’ve seen a few others out and about as well, product availability caveats notwithstanding.
I haven’t driven one, but from everything I’ve seen and read it appears to be a genuinely competent vehicle. Were I or anyone I know ever in the market for a large-ish sedan I’d recommend they consider it (but neither myself nor anyone I know would ever be in *that* market). I bet it’ll steal quite a few Buick/Cadillac customers.
Ford’s volume seller sedan is now the Fusion, whereas 20 years ago it was the Taurus. Today’s Taurus is upsized and upmarketed to a full sized luxury sedan, and by definition will sell in smaller quantities.
Our first SHO to previous Lexus owner, second SHO previous 4Runner owner. A couple of SEL’s one previous Taurs owner and second to previous Tahow owner.
I think it’s because it’s fresh, as compared the the long of tooth Impala, it has a much better interior than the Charger/300, and it is from a domestic company that from all appearnces will be around to fulfill its promises in the warranty.
Its a nice, big, Ameri-sized car that no body, especially GM or Chrysler has anything to compete with.
ohsnapback, it’s midsize vs fullsize. The Taurus compares to the likes of the Impala, the Avalon, and (to a lesser degree) the 300/Charger. In today’s market especially, fullsize sedans don’t sell as well as midsizes.
Despite the new Accord being classified as “fullsize”, I bet you if you ask every single Accord buyer, they’ll say they cross-shopped it against the Camry, Altima, Fusion, Malibu, etc, and not against a Taurus.
If the sales numbers hold up even after gas prices rise…then that will be a story…most large cars/trucks are doing better right now as the economy starts to recover while gas prices remain relatively low… even GM sold 7000+ Tahoes in oct
I think the Taurus’ success (so far) are based on a number of factors:
1. Styling- here is a vehicle that will appeal to a number of old-time Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car buyers. It looks large and in charge in a way that the old Taurus/Five Hundred never did.
2. Price Point- while more expensive than a Crown Vic or a Fusion, the Taurus has Lincoln-like levels of luxury… plus there is no facing Mercury unit and that means they may be attracting Merc/Lincoln buyers who still want a Ford product but have no Merc or find an MKS too expensive.
3. GM/Chrylser- a dearth of LaCrosses/300’s may be driving big car buyers into Ford showrooms.
4. It’s a damn fine car in its own right. It looks good, feels good and drives well even in SEL trim.
5. Fleet, Commercial (taxis/limos) are helping too I’ll bet.
Tiger –
That’s entirely possible, but it wouldn’t make a lot of sense if it were true. As RF pointed out, Ford got government money too, just through other means. Besides that, the GM/Chrysler bailouts started long before BO took office, and at that time it was more or less no strings. Besides, “I’ll show those Democrats, I’ll buy a Ford!” doesn’t exactly ring true.
The fact that consumers are particularly rational actors is probably helping Ford out quite a bit re:GM & Chrysler defectors. My guess is that people are just uncomfortable buying from a bankrupt automaker, completely separate from ideological issues.
chinar :
November 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
If the sales numbers hold up even after gas prices rise…then that will be a story…most large cars/trucks are doing better right now as the economy starts to recover while gas prices remain relatively low… even GM sold 7000+ Tahoes in oct
It appears that nearly everyone is buying Ben BS Bernanke’s line that the economy is improving. Green shoots!
I guess I’d say the same thing if I were Ben, as I wouldn’t want consumers to act on reality (as that would cause a depression).
It looks good, rivals Toyota and Honda in quality, didn’t take bailout bucks, still honors their warranty (skip grinding axe story with GM) and makes me feel good to be an American. Or something like that. Smile.
Ford’s volume seller sedan is now the Fusion, whereas 20 years ago it was the Taurus.
Just because they call it a Taurus doesn’t mean it has that much to do with the 1980’s Taurus.
Much like the Honda – they kept bumping up the size of the vehicles until they eventually needed to launch Fit to fill the gap at the bottom. They could have just renamed the Accord the Legend, renamed the Civic the Accord and renamed the Fit the Civic.
The Ford Taurus is selling well because of a few things:
#1 name equity – alot of Taurus owners trusted the Taurus
#2 The Taurus SHO comes with more power and arguably more technology than the MKS does and costs less.
#3 The Taurus is a large, safe car – though that size comes at the expense of speed.
#4 aggressive marketing has Taurus commercials on TV all day long and they make it look faster than it is and more technologically advanced than it is when purchased as a base model.
At a base price way above A LOADED Honda Accord Ford’s gonna have a bitch of a time selling it though.
I was surprised the first time a new Taurus pulled up beside me on the road. I hadn’t realized how large they were. Seemed ok, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of them so far.
Not exactly off-topic, but did any of you catch Conan O’Brien comparing a new SHO to his ’92 SHO?
Funny stuff, if you like him:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/105484/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-taurus-vs-taurus#s-p1-sr-i1
CSJohnston :
1. Styling- looks too much like a cop car currently in service, but the LED lamps on the front and sharp rims help its appeal. The interior is nice too.
2. Price Point- way too expensive. This car is almost in Expedition territory. A better deal would be if it started like a 300 Touring in the low $30K’s.
3. I still think the 300C is a better car for the same money.
4. Its made very well, but the interior space SUCKS compared to smaller cars like the new E-class and the Chrysler 300. This car’s trunk swallows all its space. The trunk of a Taurus is larger than the trunk of a 204 inch S550.
5. Fleet, Commercial (taxis/limos) are helping too I’ll bet.
SHO police cars.
Taurus taxis.
It’s big, heavy, comfortable, ridiculously safe, and the fuel efficiency isn’t all that bad for a car of this size.
There are still lots of people out there that think this type of vehicle is automotive perfection.
Along with the reasons above, the new Taurus combines the market normally owned by both the Taurus and Sable. (The MKS is priced way up in the Continental’s old territory) Not that this month’s sales matter much, this improvement from last year is damning this product with faint praise.
And there was a time when the Sable sold as well (or better?) than the 2010 Taurus. Not that it means anything to Post-Nasser Ford, I just had to go there.
Given market segmentation (Avalon, Maxima, baseline models from premium brands) this is a win for Ford. For now: whether or not there’s long term (renewed) interest in specific American nameplates remains to be seen.
I wouldn’t compare this Taurus to the old one, it is much bigger. People have already said it, the Fusion is where Ford is going to have many more sedans sold.
You should compare this to the Avalon and Impala. When you do that, it is pretty obvious which one is the winner. While the Impala sells more copies, it isn’t nearly as nice as the Taurus. The Impala cost significantly less and has lots of fleet sales.
I really don’t but the Accord into the segment. People don’t view it as a large car even though by volume it is.
@ohsnapback
The Accord sells 20-25k a month but also cost much less. It is priced against the Fusion, Camry, and Malibu.
I had one pull up beside me. I must say it looks fresh and Ford got the styling proportions right.
If I was in the market for a large four door vehicle, I’d give the new Taurus a test drive.
Anybody seen the model sales breakdown figures? Curious to know how many SHO’s are being sold.
Ford is showing signs of being a viable Enterprise again and the Taurus, vis-Avis with all other Budget offerings in its class, Dollar for dollar, is as good a National car for the Thrifty consumer as any other one out there. So it Hertz to sell well.
I have no idea.
Full-size sedans seem kind of silly: if you need the room, you’re generally better-served with a crossover or minivan, and smaller sedans do the “normal car” thing just as well.
Is it really selling well, though? Last I saw, it’s selling as well as Maxima and more or less on level with the Avalon, neither of which are exactly setting the world on fire.
The Taurus is selling because it looks good and has a fit and finish that matches Toyota and Honda.
The Camry actually has a very cheap looking interior and not so exciting exterior
The Honda has nice interior and old-looking
exterior.
The problem facing Ford and GM- let’s just say Chrysler is a non-player, is pricing. Their
cars have to be a better value than Toyota and Honda. Price being equal, people will by the
Japanese car. Toyota really seems to be going down
the GM path though- no cool cars and going to cheaper interior components.
A guy who lives three houses down from me works for a large insurance company, and his new company fleet vehicle is a Ford Taurus. He had a bunch of coworkers over for an event a couple of weeks ago, and the street was full of Ford Taurus. Not all were 2010, but all were late model 2008 and later Taurus.
I’m not saying it is all fleet sales, but I’m guessing October is a good fleet purchase month.
6000 units for a car in the Taurus’s segment is actually pretty pitiful.
I remember when cars like the Taurus (and even the Taurus) sold 30,000 to 35,000 units a month.
Hell, the Honda Accord is as large inside or larger than the Taurus (depending on area of interior) and sells…what?….30,000 to 40,000 units per month?
C’mon…
Honda – Civic>>Accord
Ford – Focus>>Fusion>>Taurus
Then again I’m sure you knew that. On top of that Accord sales (outside of August, read C4C) haven’t crested the 30K mark all year.
1. The floor was set low by previous Taurus.
2. Styling is very good compared to competitors. Camry and Accord are unbelievably ugly these days.
3. Very effective marketing.
4. It’s the product, stupid. Meaning, the new model is actually much better.
One month of data isn’t enough to judge, so I won’t even try to speculate. (Not that the sales number is going to set the world on fire.)
We’ll know within 6-12 months how well things are going with this new model. It’s too soon to tell now.
In September (sorry, Automotive News does not yet have the comprehensive October data) the full-size segment sales show:
– Chrysler 300: 3,411
– Dodge Charger: 7,507
Chrysler total: 10,918
– Ford Taurus: 5,077
– Lincoln MKS: 1,316
Ford total: 6,393
– Buick Lucerne: 4,324
– Cadillac DTS: 2,282
– Chevrolet Impala: 13,047
(Pontiac G8: 1,005)
GM total, excluding Pontiac: 19,653
So, yes, the Taurus sales are far better than in 2008. But compared to other domestic full-size nameplates, the numbers really are not that impressive. Somewhat higher than the Lucerne, but well below the Charger and Impala.
And the new MKS is badly outsold by the aging DTS …
As RF pointed out, Ford got government money too, just through other means.
It’s long past due to put this whining to rest. Chances are really strong that Ford would have crawled through the rubble on their own, unlike GM or Chrysler.
I’ve visited with a few Tauri – beautiful car, masterfully done, but a little overpriced in my opinion.
Buying a Japanese car is so status quo. Buy one and stand in line with everyone else. See who is driving Camrys and Accords? The folks who you used to see driving Oldsmobiles a generation ago. You want an Oldsmobile? Not me.
Toyota has been aware of this situation for a long time, hence Scion. They see old people driving Toyotas. They see old people pining for their “youth” oriented vehicles. My retired minister drives an Accord. Blah.
If you want to be seen driving something new, different and cool, buying American is now the way to go.
It’s a nice-looking car, that’s why.
And it’s not a GM or Chrysler.
Weren’t September Taurus sales numbers skewed by availability?
@mtymsi,
Yes, the Taurus October sales were 999 units higher than in September. But plug that 6,076 into my totals above, and it’s still 20% below the awful Charger, and less than half the figure for Impala.
If someone has time to hunt down the model data for October it’d be nice to do the same comparison, but I don’t have time at the moment …
call me crazy but………..based on what Ford put into the vehicle and what they expected…. the Taurus is hardly a success. A few of you are echoing my comments, and agree with me when I say that sales aren’t that grand.
I think the product is overpriced, over-hyped and too far reaching. The Taurus’ target market are not customers spending 35-40 large for a well optioned model. WTF?! Ford should be targeting the 24-32K range with the Taurus. Mercrapery or Lincoln should sit in the 35-40K range. Thus, I can say with some confidence that this models success will be limited. When Chevy and Chrysler roll out new models do you think they are going to ask 37K for a well optioned model in the class? I don’t think so. A well optioned Impala or 300 goes for about 32K…
Don’t get me wrong, I think Ford has a decent product, just not something that will have a measurable impact on the company. I know that Ford had already put quite a bit of energy into the Taurus revival prior to sept 08…. so naturally we now see the company pushing it. But the company would be better suited toward pushing the Lincoln models and better marketing the Fusion and Escape.
I hear the Fiesta is going to cost Ford way too much in this economy.. the weak dollar won’t help either. They can sell the Fiesta for over 20K in Europe… and they wont be able to do that here. i say its time for Ford to Focus on the Focus!!!!
Because GM refuses to sell a Chevrolet or Buick version of the WM Statesman in the US.
I’ve never owned a Ford. I’ve never even liked that many Fords over my many, many years.
However, I gotta say, that’s a very nice looking sedan.
I don’t follow the auto business nearly as closely as many of the TTAC readers, but I kinda get the general impression that Ford’s doing some good work lately.
th009:
That’s great that the Charger and Impala outsell the Taurus, but let’s be real we all know where the bulk of those cars end up. Granted we haven’t a clue in terms of where the Taurus is going (fleet or retail), I’d be willing to bet that most of those were retail purchases (considering that there is no cash on the hood, and transaction prices are pretty much at MSRP).
Here are sales numbers from October for the General:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/sales_prod/
cRacK hEaD aLLeY :
November 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Ford is showing signs of being a viable Enterprise again and the Taurus, vis-Avis with all other Budget offerings in its class, Dollar for dollar, is as good a National car for the Thrifty consumer as any other one out there. So it Hertz to sell well.
Funny… but I am traveling for work this week and had to rent a car. I reserved at Hertz hoping to find one so that I had a better idea how this car drove… I was told at Hertz that they were not buying Taurus… at least yet. Then they gave me a Camry… which they had 20+ of… so, who’s the rental queens now?
You’re kidding right? Most of the Taurus sales at MSRP?
Flashpoint
1. Styling- looks too much like a cop car currently in service, but the LED lamps on the front and sharp rims help its appeal. The interior is nice too. You’ll have to show me which cop car you’re talking about: Crown Vic? Charger? Impala? Is there a Taurus police variant?
2. Price Point- way too expensive. This car is almost in Expedition territory. A better deal would be if it started like a 300 Touring in the low $30K’s. Pricing for Taurus starts at $25170 (US), 300 starts at $28010 (US). C$ starts are roughly proportionate (not counting the huge incentives on 300’s)
3. I still think the 300C is a better car for the same money. You may be right but maybe not.
4. Its made very well, but the interior space SUCKS compared to smaller cars like the new E-class and the Chrysler 300. This car’s trunk swallows all its space. The trunk of a Taurus is larger than the trunk of a 204 inch S550. I am probably considered an average-sized guy and had no problems in the front or rear of the Taurus. I would suggest it is “roomy enough” even if it not class leading and a big trunk never hurts
5. Fleet, Commercial (taxis/limos) are helping too I’ll bet.
SHO police cars.
Taurus taxis.
th009: GM may move a lot more Impalas but how much money are they making on the transactions?
I bet Ford is making healthy margins on the 2010 Taurus (for now) while the Impala and 300 come loaded with profit eroding incentives.
When Chevy and Chrysler roll out new models do you think they are going to ask 37K for a well optioned model in the class? I don’t think so. A well optioned Impala or 300 goes for about 32K…
I hear the Fiesta is going to cost Ford way too much in this economy.. the weak dollar won’t help either. They can sell the Fiesta for over 20K in Europe… and they wont be able to do that here. i say its time for Ford to Focus on the Focus!!!!
A well optioned Taurus goes for 32K as well. The Fiesta will be built in Mexico and a new Focus is around the corner.
Wasn’t the Taurus of 2008 little more than a rebadged 500? Or has the current Taurus been out that long already?
It’s nice-looking, priced well, not under-powered, and fuel-efficient (for a full-sized sedan).
Great job Ford!
@PennSt8,
Without any numbers on fleet percentages for the Detroit 3, you could use your lotto pick numbers as well as any others and have the same accuracy. Simply don’t know what the fleet percentages are — but they’ll certainly be low for Buick, Cadillac and Lincoln.
@Porsche986,
I rent cars almost every week, mostly from Dollar. They used to be almost all Chrysler, but have added a lot of Fusions and Mustangs over the past few months (don’t know about Taurus as I never rent full-size) and are now getting Hyundais as well.
The car is credible player in the “comfortable car” segment, the land between mainstream sedans and luxury cars.
It is roomier and nicer looking than upper trimmed Accord and Camry with comparable performance, but it priced (low 30’s very well equipped) just a bit below Wal-Mart Luxury Acura TLs and Lexus ESs.
Sales around 6000 units is really very good in the comfortable car segment especially at the 10 million annual rate. The 2005 Acura TL was a wildly popular model in a similar spot and sold around 71K (a little over 6K a month) in a 16.9 million sales market.
If they can hold these numbers, the new Taurus is a solid success. If so, maybe a revisit of the “Taurus, Taurus, Taurus” Ford Death Watch is in order?
@carguy: GM may move a lot more Impalas but how much money are they making on the transactions?
An excellent question, though not directly related. However, we rarely get per-model profitability data from any manufacturer, so we really don’t know the margins on the Taurus, Impala or 300. So you can assume A is worse than B or better than C, but unless you have inside knowledge, all you will be doing is guessing.
carguy,
GM looses money on each one but they figure they can make it up in volume.
More than one person has told me they would prefer a Ford to a GM or Chrysler because they don’t appreciate being forced to buy a piece of GM & Chrysler cars through taxes.
It’s a good thing Taurus and Fusion are both well-reviewed (good quality & safety etc.) cars. Most people won’t go so far to make a point that they would buy a bad car!
selling under cost and making it up on volume is called the wolume program!!
How far are we from a day when IRS offers a tax credit on purchase of any Ford, GM or DCX product manufctured in North America?
NOT FAR, I would imagine….
It surpised me to hear that it is a best seller for Ford. I have yet to notice one in the Seattle area. Godawful expensive for me, anyway. Is this an oldster car? Is a bench seat an option? Most sales in FLA and AZ?
I had the opp to sit in one of these while the wife’s Edge was in for service. While the new Taurus is quite pleasing to the eye, this car has zero headroom for someone of my size- 6’1.. That totally turned me off to it. And yes, I did check the seat height and she was down all the way. I was thinking of a test drive but passed for the above mentioned reason.
this car has zero headroom for someone of my size- 6′1..
I’m 6’2″ with a 2008 GTI that has 39.3″ of headroom. The Taurus has 39″, I find it hard to believe that you could find a car with that much headroom has “zero headroom”.
Either:
A. You’re all torso.
B. The seat wouldn’t go all the way down.
I think the woes of the original Taurus are a distant memory in this model. Clearly it shares only the name and nothing else. For the past few years Fords mid size and compact cars have been reliable and affordable. Sure, the resale sucks but blame that on fleet sales and general anti-domestic bias from resellers and other merchants who set prices for trade ins.
Ford is following Hyundai’s lead of offering decent vehicles at a fair price. People today want a practical car, and Ford makes them again.
GM and FIAT Chrysler are still wondering what to do.
Just to let people know on a couple of questions coming up.
SHO is currently running at around 30% of sales. This is higher than we had anticipated which is good. It will stabilize with time of course.
Fleet verses retail – we don’t talk specifically about the %’s but I can assure you that the fleet element is very low by previous Taurus standards. We do get cars in to rental fleets over time as we find that this is a good way for customers to experience our products over an extended period of time before buying them. However as you know, we have drastically reduced rental sales over the last 2 years and this will not change.
On MSRP – currently Taurus is going out of the door at great prices. That is as it should be at the outset of sales so we will see how this progresses over time but initial response has been great.
Chicago plant is now up to full speed on Taurus so more vehicles will be arriving in dealerships soon.
Kind regards,
Jay Ward
Ford Communications
This car is aspirationally priced, so let’s see what happens over the long run. It would be a mistake to judge this car’s appeal after being released for such a short time.
Just ask the Challenger.
ohsnapback :
November 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
6000 units for a car in the Taurus’s segment is actually pretty pitiful.
I remember when cars like the Taurus (and even the Taurus) sold 30,000 to 35,000 units a month.
The current Taurus competes in a different segment. Ford’s comparable product today is the Fusion. Honda doesn’t have a car in the full size segment (though one of the Acuras may be crossshopped). The Taurus competes with the Avalon, not the Camry/Accord.
@jamie1,
Nice to see that you are able to visit TTAC in an official Ford capacity — hope you enjoy our debates!
@jmo,
Not all seat height (or back-and-forth, for that matter) adjustments have the same range. It’s quite possible that car A will be able to adjust the driver’s seat lower than car B.
Suddenly I’m seeing these new Tauruses all over the place here, perhaps 3 or 4 in the last week. They are really sharp looking in person, very upscale actually, and BIG. I love the new design… maybe it would be a good companion for my Flex?
Good styling improves sales. The new Taurus is a good looking car in a market segment full of ugly cars. The previous Taurus was at best inoffensive.
America has been waiting for a few years now for a full size car that won’t be bought up by the rappers and the gangstuhs.
@jaime1:
Fiesta or Focus ST with Ecoboost and a 6 speed stick please… My Fusion lease is up in March…
For my money, I’d say the Taurus is the best car in its segment. Only the Maxima comes close, IMHO, and it’s burdened with a CVT.
Great,
Now we get to read corporate spin from automakers’ marketing departments in the comment sections on TTAC.
@ohsnapback :
Great,
Now we get to read corporate spin from automakers’ marketing departments in the comment sections on TTAC.
At least he’s upfront about it. He could have a clever screen name and feign impartiality.
“It would be interesting to see stats on party affiliation among new Taurus purchasers.”
Ridiculous, no one buys a car because it’s a Republican or Democrat car, or because they are. Both parties participated in bail outs so I don’t buy the difference in the parties anyway. The difference is in the car; it’s good, it’s attractive, and Ford is seen as being strong and stable.
I saw in one of the other front page articles that the Prius sold like 13,000 units for the month of October. So I should expect to be seeing a 2:1 ratio of Prius’s to Taurus’s? Wouldn’t have expected that at all.
The Taurus is selling well because it is a great car for the money. For those looking for something nicer than the typical midsize Fucacortima but who don’t want to shell out the $50K plus it takes it get a full size or nearly full size luxury car, the Taurus makes for a great option.
It has all the features, technology, toys, and safety that customers expect, a good reliability record, and good fuel economy and performance.
At least at my dealership we are still supply limited – we could sell a lot more if we could get them, so I hope Jay is right about the plant stepping up to meet demand.
Sales mix so far at my dealership has been heavily weighted to the low $30K MSRP SELs and Limiteds, but we have a lot of older customers who value comfort and chrome more than performance, so I’m not surprised that the SHO is doing so well elsewhere. We have had customers coming out of everything from 300Cs to Lexus LS430s, as well as some trading down from SUVs.
Ford just rolled out some pretty aggressive lease deals for November. Right now you can get a well optioned SEL for around $350 a month on a 27 or 39 month lease, with just a couple thousand due at signing. That isn’t bad at all for a nearly $30K car.
I know the Ford Communications guys here will disagree with me but I really think the Taurus would have been better if Ford built it more like the Chrysler 300.
People buying this car want as much space as possible because its typically a family car. ford failed big time there. The door panels and gauntlet grips are ridiculously thick. Sure it will protect you in the event of a side collision with an SUV, but, it doesn’t have to be that thick…just look at the Chrysler 300 or Charger. They get excellent crash test ratings.
Frankly, The Taurus SHO is definitely a better buy than the MKS when you consider the material quality isn’t that far off… but when you gotta compete with loaded Accords for $32,000 the Taurus’ MSRP at $25,000 doesn’t do enough to convince a buyer who wants the $37,000 model he saw on the TV commercial.
Once again I’m saying ITS TOO EXPENSIVE.
http://www.epinions.com/review/2010_Ford_Taurus_epi/content_482591084164
Jamie 1
Do me a favor and tell Ford to stop making their cars so damned small.
The Camry has more space than a Fusion (and I don’t care what the specs claim cause I’ve been in it and I know better than that).
The Avalon sucks, but its larger inside than a Taurus.
The SHO is huge and bulky and looks like a cross between a Crown Vic, and an Impala.
STOP HOOKING 4000+ POUND CARS TO DINKY ENGINES WITH LESS THAN 300 HP.
If you really are here in official Ford capacity, I just want you to know that my family has been LOYAL TO FORD for decades and NOW, Ford is really starting to dissapoint them by releasing UNFINISHED PRODUCTS.
The MKS should have LAUNCHED with the ecoboost engine. You seriously want a luxury buyer to buy a car with a 3.7L V6 ?
TWIN TURBO OR NOTHIN.
And do yourself a favor and ABANDON those 3 letter naming strategies. You’re only hurting yourself.
I mention “MKT” to someone and they don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. They thought I meant the Lincoln pickup truck (which by the way sucked compared to the Escalade EXT).
You guys gotta stop screwing around.
I would have bought a SHO but it was too goddamned small. Instead I’d end up going for a more expensive E-class 350 which is smaller overall length but more spacious inside.
For the same reasons as any other car that sells well: it is handsome inside and out, it it is pretty pleasant to drive, and if you’re careful with the option list it is reasonably priced. The car business isn’t as complicated as a lot of unsuccessful companies have tried to make it.
Flashpoint – I agree with you fully that the MK(x) naming scheme should go, and I hear that from customers fairly regularly too. The MKZ should be the Zephyr, the MKS should be the Continental, the MKX should be the Aviator, and the MKT should be, well, something (perhaps the Cartographer to go along with the Ford/Lincoln exploration SUV/CUV naming scheme?).
As far as space in the cars goes though, I’m a big guy, and I fit fine inside of a Fusion, Taurus, and even a Focus. I do with you didn’t have to take a sunroof with certain options as all that does is eat up headroom, and I for one never use the one I have in my current car, but enough people want them that I guess it makes sense.
The Taurus may be smaller on paper than some of the other full size sedans on the market, but a lot of that is because it was designed to give the driver an eveloping ‘cockpit feel’, which a lot of buyers really seem to enjoy. The 3.5 V6 has plenty of power for the Taurus, you don’t need 300+ hp to move a family sedan even if it does weight 4000lbs. The 3.7 in the MKS is by far the most common engine choice, as is the V6 in the Mercedes E class – they sell a hell of a lot more E350s than E550s. And while yes, the E class is a little lighter than the MKS, the 3.7 in the MKS makes more HP and more torque to make up the difference. The 3.7 liter has plenty of power, is relatively smooth, and even has a pleasant sound to it.
Guzzi
I haven’t seen one here in Austin either. And I’m paying attention! Maybe it’s because I’m in a college town.
I’ve owned several new Fords over the years and this Taurus looks great. It’s just not my style, however. I look forward to seeing one on the road sometime.
@jamie1: Thanks for the information. I hope the Taurus continues to sell well.
By the way, what’s up with the low resolution banner ads I’ve been seeing for the Taurus online? They look terrible. I’m staring at one right now.
STOP HOOKING 4000+ POUND CARS TO DINKY ENGINES WITH LESS THAN 300 HP.
A lot of cars from the 50’s to 80’s were over 4000 pounds and had less than 300hp. A sixties Impala typically had a 327 with either 210hp or 260hp. An ad for a ’68 Bonneville said 0-60 in 8.7 seconds. Mediocre at best compared to today’s cars.
I test-sat one of these last week (didn’t have the time to drive it, and I’d already driven the ’09 Taurus). I was shocked at how nice it was. Even in the base model with no options whatsover, it had genuinely good seats, niceties like dual-zone climate control and satellite radio, plenty of space for four (really now, how often do you transport five?), and a trunk fit for two gangsters. Only the usual right-leg-killing console and some cheap interior plastics killed the deal for me. At $27 or $28K, I can easily see why people would buy one.
The Taurus is selling so well, because it is essentially a VW Phaeton.
Feature for feature, the top of the line Taurus’s spec sheet has an amazing amount of features in common with the VW Phaeton, except of course the 1000 lbs of high-strength that the Phaeton uses as torsional strengthening to achieve its amazing level of stiffness. That all comes at a significant cost in performance.
Sticker on a loaded 6 cylinder Taurus SHO exceeds sticker on a loaded 8 cylinder Hyundai Genesis.
Good luck with that.
Isn’t the SHO a nicer more capable car?
“Sticker on a loaded 6 cylinder Taurus SHO exceeds sticker on a loaded 8 cylinder Hyundai Genesis.
Good luck with that.”
I think the Taurus limited would be a better match up against the Genesis. And it comes in cheaper when u compare options and standard equipment.I’m comparing 6 cylinder versions of both. No the linited doesn’t have the power of the V8 genesis, but then the genesis has no sporty version like the SHO either.
The Taurus is selling so well, because it is essentially a VW Phaeton.
It just keeps getting sillier and sillier when coming across the incredible Ford hype of late…
…now the Taurus “is essentially a VW Phaeton.”
In reality, the “new” Taurus is a warmed over 2009 Taurus, with revised sheet metal.
It has the same motor, the same chassis, and essentially the same suspension.
This is closer to a typical mid-cycle refresh the Japanese would offer than an “all new car.”
I eagerly await more silly hype and accolades regarding the “new” Ford Taurus.
DW Ford: Fiesta or Focus ST with Ecoboost and a 6 speed stick please… My Fusion lease is up in March…
Nothing we can say on that specifically but you know that EcoBoost is central to our plans going forwards. We have already stated that 90% of our vehicles will have EcoBoost available by 2013. We started with V6’s, we have already announced the 2.0 liter and 1.6 liter versions as well so lets see what comes of that.
Jay Ward
Ohsnapback: Now we get to read corporate spin from automakers’ marketing departments in the comment sections on TTAC.
I am sorry you see it that way. I do not work in Marketing – I work in Public Affairs, nit that that really matters. I have been a registered member of TTAC for a great many years, as, like you I hope, I am a bona fide car nut. I just happen to have the good fortune to work for Ford.
As you know, Ford supports TTAC with vehicle loans when a great many other manufacturers do not. We also participate in the forums where we can – we get the opninions of real customers, and if appropriate, we can also give details behind some of the stories.
I am sorry you feel that my participation denigrates the forum. You do of course have the option of not reading what I write of course!
I know the Ford Communications guys here will disagree with me but I really think the Taurus would have been better if Ford built it more like the Chrysler 300.
You are quite right – I do disagree!
Jay
“Sticker on a loaded 6 cylinder Taurus SHO exceeds sticker on a loaded 8 cylinder Hyundai Genesis.
Good luck with that.”
I do not ever want a Hyundai because I will never take them seriously and I consider the Genesis to be a rip off of my S550 interior design as well as a wannabe LS460- but, I have to admit the loaded Genesis V8 offers more than the Taurus loaded and the MKS loaded and I’m not suprised when I see people buying them.
I’m not totally happy with the Genesis’ interior space either. I felt the roofline was too low and more space coulda been created in the hip area.
Of course, people under 6ft tall won’t notice.
The only car’s to really suprise me with inteior space have been the new CAMRY, the 300 and the E-class.
As for engine power, how bout Ford just goes no lower than 300HP so you can’t ever point to the car and call it slow? Or, give it even more low end torque.
The Taurus is selling so well, because it is essentially a VW Phaeton.
It just keeps getting sillier and sillier when coming across the incredible Ford hype of late…
…now the Taurus “is essentially a VW Phaeton.”
In reality, the “new” Taurus is a warmed over 2009 Taurus, with revised sheet metal.
It has the same motor, the same chassis, and essentially the same suspension.
This is closer to a typical mid-cycle refresh the Japanese would offer than an “all new car.”
I eagerly await more silly hype and accolades regarding the “new” Ford Taurus.
Don’t lose any sleep over it or let it bother you. Just don’t buy one if you don’t like it. I’m sure the cars you think are great might not be thought of that way by other people.
ohsnapback In reality, the “new” Taurus is a warmed over 2009 Taurus, with revised sheet metal.
Apologies, but we do need to clear that one up for the sake of accuracy. Firstly, not sure who came up with the Phaeton reference but is was not us at Ford.
As to your comment above, this is totally inaccurate. The 2010 Taurus is an all-new model. The only carry over item of note is the award-winning 3.5 liter V6. The rest is completely new from the ground up. You really cannot justify the comment that this is a mid-cycle refresh.
You may not like the car and that is fine, but please do keep your comments accurate.
Jay
——-…now the Taurus “is essentially a VW Phaeton.”
In reality, the “new” Taurus is a warmed over 2009 Taurus, with revised sheet metal.
It has the same motor, the same chassis, and essentially the same suspension.
———
I don’t believe that at all. The Taurus isn’t a VW Phaeton. Even though the technology might be similar, that’s only because it is a brand new car.
To make a Taurus a VW Phaeton, you’d have to take the SHO and artificially increase the price somehow to $60,000 or more.
How bout dropping a V12 into a Taurus and charging $100,000?
How bout dropping a Twin Turbo V8 into a Taurus and charging $70,000?
I believe the Phaeton failed because all though it offered alot, the price was too high considering it had the “VOLKSWAGON” badge on it.
I think Car and Driver said it best: “who would pay $80,000 for a VW?”
The Lincoln MKS however is closer to being a VW Phaeton than the Taurus is. That car is nearly $60,000 loaded with taxes. Frankly, I don’t think the “LINCOLN” name badge is worth that.
I’d rather own a CLS500 or a BMW6 at that price.
Its all about name equity.
So Ford is working hard to spin any good news in to a marketing tool. What car maker is not guily of that? Ford still has a long way to go to actually compete with all the import brands. Will Ford keep it’s eye on the prise , or will they become a another GM and just sit back and cry and blame everybody else when the numbers start to drop. Maybe the Ford family can actually save the company ?? History shows It happened before.
If you are trying to buy a large American Branded sedan, there is little to pick from. The CTS is nice, but not really roomy in trunk or rear seat. The 300? The Lucerne? Who in their right mind would chose either over a Taurus? Maybe the LaCrosse will share some customers but I really believe Buick has succeeded in aiming it in a different direction.
If you want big traditional, unless you forget the American brand thing and can stomach the styling of an Avalon, the Taurus seems like a good choice.
Flashpoint:
It’s all about name equity.
Flashpoint, I think everyone knows by now you drive a Mercedes S550. You mention it in well over half your posts. From that, we all know name equity is important to you.
I will refrain from delving into the psychological reasons why you choose to keep bringing it up in random spots like a Ford Taurus post.
Just know that we know, and it’s OK.
I agree that it’s multiple factors. To me though, the problem with Ford has always been unexciting cars that didn’t have proven reliability. People can stand boring cars if they are reliable (i.e. Toyota). Now that Ford has moved away from ultra conservative styling, the reliability thing isn’t as important for people who like the way the car looks. I suspect that there’s also a growing notion that Ford’s reliability is actually improving.
Cougar Red
I wonder why you don’t mention that I also bring up the Chrysler 300 all the time?
And if you think I’m annoying now, wait till I trade in for an S63 :P
On a related (and amusing) note:
The new Taurus is more affordable than everyone seems to think.
why is it selling so well??!!!
because ford did exactly what mr. farago has been preaching. they took a model that wasn’t distinctive and kept working it until they got it right:
1st gen – ford 500 – good quality bigger than the camcord – anemic drive train – boring sheet metal with off-trend big greenhouse.
2nd gen – taurus – better marketing – better drive train – warmed over rehash of same off-trend sheet metal
3rd gen – better marketing – sharp on-trend aggressive styling makes camcord look lame – buying american is cool again even on the coasts – quality improvements are starting to be accepted by the public
ford now has a brand identity – american competence and value.
imagine that…
@jamie1: The 2010 Taurus is an all-new model. The only carry over item of note is the award-winning 3.5 liter V6. The rest is completely new from the ground up.
Uhh, isn’t the 2010 Ford Taurus still built on the same D3 platform as the 2005 Ford Five Hundred (and the 1999 Volvo S80)?
It may be more than a facelift (I do agree that there are substantial changes), but using the same platform doesn’t make it “completely new from the ground up,” either.
jamie1 :
November 6th, 2009 at 10:43 am
ohsnapback In reality, the “new” Taurus is a warmed over 2009 Taurus, with revised sheet metal.
Apologies, but we do need to clear that one up for the sake of accuracy. Firstly, not sure who came up with the Phaeton reference but is was not us at Ford.
As to your comment above, this is totally inaccurate. The 2010 Taurus is an all-new model. The only carry over item of note is the award-winning 3.5 liter V6. The rest is completely new from the ground up. You really cannot justify the comment that this is a mid-cycle refresh.
You may not like the car and that is fine, but please do keep your comments accurate.
Jay
th009 already hit the nail on the head, but let me drive the nail in further:
Do you mean to tell me that the 2010 Taurus chassis/platform is significantly and materially different than that of the 2009 or 2008 Taurus, or 2007 or 2006 Five Hundred?
I don’t think you can even remotely, credibly claim it’s not the same chassis/platform.
Also, that “award winning” 3.5 liter has been roundly criticized in almost every review I’ve read as being less than stellar, granular, not nearly as refined or smooth as the most competitive V6s in the class, so I’d love to know what “awards” it has won. Moreover, it’s the same motor, period, as the 2009 and 2008 Taurus, right? Right.
As far as the suspension is concerned, I’m all ears (or eyes) as to what revisions/modifications/improvements have been made.
Thanks for any further clarifications.
Flashpoint, ohsnapback, and others you are gettting caught up in details. The Ford Taurus platform is great already and doesn’t need significant updates. It’s refined and offers some of the best crash protection. That being said Ford did make revisions like increasing the wheelbase, stretch the length and width and make suspension and handling differences.
I can think of several cars, both import and domestic that don’t significantly update the platform over generations. Take the G35->G37, platform has no major updates besides an engine and transmission change. And the 1998 S-Class to the 2005 S-Class. Both these models have been around for years and having changed significantly. And remember Mercedes still uses that old 5 speed transmission.
From a couple quick searches I’ve found the change from the 1998 S-Class to the 2005 S-Class is on par with the change from the 2005 Ford Five Hundred to the 2010 Ford Taurus. So Flashpoint, you are driving a car with a platform essentially from 1998.
See http://www.autozine.org/html/Mercedes/S_class.html
Ohsnapback, link to some reviews of the 3.5 V6 you mention or it didn’t happen. Most engines out there are Ward’s Auto World did choose the 3.5 for their best engines list:
http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/ford-gets-2-in-wards-auto-worlds-10best-engines-83586.html
ohsnapback, it would be nice if you could stop spreading misinformation and make the small effort to find the information yourself. The below is from a Ford press release:
http://jalopnik.com/5116508/2010-ford-taurus-more-hot-less-bull
“Chassis and suspension components are tuned to deliver on the sporty and aggressive design with optimized roll stiffness for cornering control, responsive steering with sharp turn-in and precision accuracy. This chassis tuning of the MacPherson front struts and multi-link rear suspension reflects Ford Global DNA, defined by responsive steering and handling, while maintaining a comfortable ride quality.
The 2010 Taurus features a new SR1 suspension configuration.
Named for its “one-to-one” rear shock absorber ratio, it provides a superior balance between cornering and handling while providing a stable baseline for fine tuning. The new SR1 enables the use of 19- and 20-inch wheels – and reduces vehicle weight, saving fuel.
“While driver engagement was a key objective for the new Taurus, we also put huge emphasis on creating a quiet environment,” said Chief Engineer Pete Reyes. “Wind tunnel development time was important to reduce noise, vibration and harshness, but it also helped with fuel economy.”
Also, that “award winning” 3.5 liter has been roundly criticized in almost every review I’ve read as being less than stellar, granular, not nearly as refined or smooth as the most competitive V6s in the class, so I’d love to know what “awards” it has won. Moreover, it’s the same motor, period, as the 2009 and 2008 Taurus, right? Right.
Wards 10 best engines 2007.
Okay, so the “new” 2010 Taurus does use the same chassis, motor, and with the exception of rear shock absorbers, suspension as the 2008 and 2009 “old” Ford Taurus.
Glad we cleared that up.
p.s. – Every automaker makes changes to stiffen chassis’ and to reduce NVH. This does not make a new platform.
p.s. x2 – Ward’s best is pretty much a giant running joke, but that’s just my opinion. I’d sure love to hear from those in the know how Ford’s Duratec 3.5l is better than Toyota, Nissan, Honda or BMW V6s.
“Ward’s best is pretty much a giant running joke, but that’s just my opinion.”
Your opinion is pretty much just a giant running joke, but tha’s just my opinion. See how stupid that sounds?
—-From a couple quick searches I’ve found the change from the 1998 S-Class to the 2005 S-Class is on par with the change from the 2005 Ford Five Hundred to the 2010 Ford Taurus. So Flashpoint, you are driving a car with a platform essentially from 1998.—–
The S550 chassis is spot on. besides making the drive more sporty – which I doubt they can considering the size and weight of the car, I don’t think they can improve it much more. Its tuned for comfort and quiet.
I nver knocked the Ford on its ride quality. My problem is its interior space isn’t as good as cars smaller than it. Even the Camry has better driver spacing. The Taurus cockpit style seating makes the position feel like an egg crate.
ohsnapback, you’re missing the point. The platform of the old Taurus was not its weak point. It was the boring styling and cheap look and feel of the old car. The new Taurus completely changes this and I see no major issue with the new Taurus.
First where are links to all those articles you claimed to have criticized the Ford 3.5 engine?
Second what makes an engine “better”? Fuel economy, power, refinement? Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan V6 engines all come vary close to one another in these respects and they are not different enough to choose a car based on the engine itself.
BMW does not make a V6 like you say. Their inline 6 is not a proper comparison, but I think a BMW V8 against the Ecoboost V6 makes more sense (both having similar power and fuel economy).
Flashpoint, I’m sure the S-Class chassis is great and there isn’t much to improve on. It’s much different now designing everything with complex software than it was 20 years ago. The improvement gains are going to be less and less as time goes on.
I agree with you Ford should not have picked their ways of styling over interior efficiency as much as they did. But I think they would only do so if there was something to gain from it.
The previous Taurus was slightly smaller on the outside but was slightly larger on the inside. Still, the Taurus has more total space than those other cars. I’m reminded of the Honda Accord trunk. It’s been the same size since 1998 even though the car has gotten significantly larger on the outside. The Taurus trunk is about 1 and a half times larger.