My road trip in the beige 2010 Ford Taurus Limited ends at 11:45 p.m. on Day 3. I've driven 2,667 miles.
I've used 122.5 gallons of fuel, mostly 93 or 91. The owner's manual in our Taurus says you should put 87 octane in your vehicle, but then it concedes "using premium fuel will provide improved performance." We'll take the "improved" every time.
I've averaged 22.2 mpg against an expected 18 mpg city/28 mpg highway rating for the front-drive 2010 Ford Taurus. Remember that I was driving against the clock a bit during this trip. A more relaxed pace would likely have netted mid-20s.
My best tank was 25.4 mpg. My worst tank was 19.1 mpg. My longest tank was 368.3 miles, after which I put in 17.348 gallons of fuel into the big Ford's 19-gallon tank for an average of 21.2 mpg.
I've added zero quarts of 5W20 to our 2010 Taurus Limited during or since the trip. I topped off the tires at trip's end, adding 2-3 psi to each tire. The only repair concern was the autodimming mirror housing.
More photos and final thoughts after the jump.
On the whole, this 2010 Ford Taurus Limited has all the makings of a fine road trip car:
o A comfortable but controlled ride
o A quiet and spacious cabin with ample storage
o Respectable if not exactly brisk acceleration
o Good cruising range
o Seats that hold up under a full day of driving
But there are a few small details I wish Ford had handled differently. I've mentioned the tricky-to-read, individual gauge binnacles, the lack of a true accessory mode, and the oddly designed shifter and foot-operated parking brake. Another minor annoyance is the cruise control's lack of a "cancel" button -- other than turning the system completely off, the only way to cancel is to tap the brakes.
And then there's Sync. It works great with my iPod, but using it for navigational help via my cell phone signal is far less effective. Still, the Sync Services app was useful in Phoenix where I entered a specific address for a restaurant. This eliminated the need to consult my Google Maps printout and allowed me to concentrate on not getting nabbed by the 10 or so speed cameras I encountered on I-10.
But there's another issue about the 2010 Ford Taurus that Dan alluded to in our first drive: Unlike the Flex, the Taurus doesn't have a strong personality, at least in non-SHO form. It does everything competently, but there's nothing that stands out. It doesn't, for example, offer significantly more usable space than the bigger midsize sedans like the Honda Accord and Mazda 6. And its excessive weight will limit its appeal for true car guys.
Still, the 2010 Ford Taurus is a night-and-day improvement over the Five Hundred/Taurus, and though it doesn't pique my enthusiasm, our Limited tester earns my respect.
Erin Riches, Senior Editor @ 2,667 miles
mrryte says:
06:53 AM, 06/26/09
"The owner's manual in our Taurus says you should put 87 octane in your vehicle, but then it concedes "using premium fuel will provide improved performance." We'll take the "improved" every time."
Did you try it with 87 octane?
How'd it perform?
bkapps says:
07:05 AM, 06/26/09
Im getting ready to move out to Pasadena from Nashville,TN in a month and Im really glad I got to see all these pictures and follow you along this great journey. I hope you provide all the great stops you had as well. Also, is it just me or in that picture above, with the Taurus at a stop sign with the sunset, that car has a great looking rear end! hahhaha
fuhteng says:
07:46 AM, 06/26/09
Good write-up, thanks Erin. But why in the heck were you up at 4 am doing this?
Sadly, what I get from your review is that the car isn't any better than the slightly smaller Accord or 6 so... why would someone buy the Ford? Maybe it is just this trim level, but it seems like a waste to me.
throwback says:
07:55 AM, 06/26/09
Erin, thanks for a great road trip. I'll ride with you anytime. The questions is, Would you recommend this car to your parents? As a car gal, I know it's not for you.
bc1960 says:
09:01 AM, 06/26/09
The passenger compartment dimensions are comparable, but I'd say 20.1 ft^3 of cargo volume is "significantly" more than the Mazda6's 16.6 or the Accords utterly pitiful 14--those passengers would have to leave 30% of their luggage at home and might as well be in a Kia Forte.
Why do people buy Avalons (14.4 ft^3, BTW, astonishing) rather than Camrys? Presumably because they prefer the look and feel. It's not like you win a prize for choosing the car other people think is the "right" one.
canadia says:
09:03 AM, 06/26/09
fuhteng said:
"Sadly, what I get from your review is that the car isn't any better than the slightly smaller Accord or 6 so... why would someone buy the Ford? Maybe it is just this trim level, but it seems like a waste to me."
Simply because the Taurus can't trump the can-do-no-wrong Accord or Mazda doesn't mean that it's not a significant improvement over the previous, abominable Taurus/500 (as Ms. Riches has pointed out). This new Taurus is a *good* car, which is definitely a step in the right direction for Ford.
Some reasons why one might prefer a Taurus over some of the competition:
1. There are people out there that just prefer big cars
2. The thing looks good (imo), save for the tacky chrome wheels
3. Brand loyalty / domestic preference
And tangengially: The Taurus' fuel economy should only improve after the engine is broken in a little more. Notwithstanding, 25 mpg is a pretty respectable best tank considering the size of both the car and the engine.
fuhteng says:
09:44 AM, 06/26/09
Great name canadia - and I expect you're right. It is a big car, and I like how it looks, and the brand loyalty. But most importantly, it is a good car so it proves Ford can do what GM did with the new Malibu.
What I'm more interested in is how the update of the Fusion unfolds. I think about everyone who read the review of the Taurus SHO wants that power plant in the Fusion. If the Fusion can become as 'good' as the Taurus, Ford will be right back in the thick of things.
canadia says:
10:30 AM, 06/26/09
"it is a good car so it proves Ford can do what GM did with the new Malibu."
You're spot on. And I find this reassuring... hopefully they'll continue the trend. Personally, I can't wait for the Fiesta.
P.S.: I spell reel gud in my first post.
zegerman says:
11:59 AM, 06/26/09
Does anyone else feel, like me, that the Fusion should have been the Taurus (from the Fusion's beginning), and the "new" Taurus should be re-badged as something else altogether?
alman08 says:
12:07 PM, 06/26/09
just my opinion... they're just names.
eriches says:
03:55 PM, 06/26/09
@throwback: Thanks for reading! Alas, I would not recommend the Taurus to my parents. Our Limited tester (w/o navigation) stickers at $35,190; my parents would be better off with an Accord EX-L V6 Navi that comes in around 30K.
compliance says:
04:34 PM, 06/26/09
The Taurus really ended up being a lot of hype over nothing. Oh well...
gdmstrb says:
01:47 AM, 06/27/09
Erin, why do you continue to compare the Honda Accord to the Taurus? If you are going by EPA class you do realize that only Accords without a moonroof are classified as "large". The dimensions provided by your own website are a lot closer to that of the Fusion and not the Taurus (and even then the trunk is still smaller in the Accord).
I've said it once and I will say it again, the Taurus was not designed nor engineered to compete directly against the Accord. That's what the Fusion is for. No offense but I expect the motoring press (such as Edmunds) to understand that and cascade information to the public in that manner.
The mere fact that the Taurus exists should be indicative that we will not have to deal with a plus sized Fusion. An issue that most "car guys" have with the new Accord and 6.
gdmstrb says:
01:49 AM, 06/27/09
Erin, why do you continue to compare the Honda Accord to the Taurus? If you are going by EPA class you do realize that only Accords without a moonroof are classified as "large". The dimensions provided by your own website are a lot closer to that of the Fusion and not the Taurus (and even then the trunk is still smaller in the Accord).
I've said it once and I will say it again, the Taurus was not designed nor engineered to compete directly against the Accord. That's what the Fusion is for. No offense but I expect the motoring press (such as Edmunds) to understand that and cascade information to the public in that manner.
The mere fact that the Taurus exists should be indicative that we will not have to deal with a plus sized Fusion. An issue that most "car guys" have with the new Accord and 6.
ne1butu2 says:
07:46 AM, 06/27/09
Based on looks and having driven an Accord, I think I'd take this over an Accord any day.
ocramida says:
08:01 AM, 06/28/09
Based on looks alone I'd choose the Ford over the Accord or Camry. Price wise it is a bit high. It is however nice to see Ford building some nice cars again.
Bottom line is I would choose a Mazda6 s GT over all those. The Mazda has a ton of personality, practicality, reliability and with the V6- zoom-zoom.
crouse99 says:
09:20 AM, 06/30/09
Thanks for the account of the road trip. Sounds like the Taurus is aimed at buyers like me. As I have topped 50, I find I want a comfortable riding, quiet car -- with the emphasis on quiet. I love my Acura TL, but my next purchase will reflect my increasingly lighter right foot and need for fewer stimuli in this increasingly loud world. I too don't know why the Taurus is being compared to Accords and Mazdas. It seems to me its natural competitors are the Totota Avalon, Buick Lucerne and Hyundai Azera. With its large size and huge trunk, it may even tempt some who otherwise would be looking at SUVs and crossovers.
whoosierdaddy says:
12:02 PM, 06/30/09
Erin's parents must be hard of hearing if she wants to put them in an Accord with it's high level of road noise. There are better choices for older folks, with selling prices well under $30K.
madlock says:
12:22 AM, 08/ 7/09
Ironically, though the Flex is based on the same powerplant, its owners manual recommends 87, counseling that higher octane fuels may result in rough or decreased performance in certain circumstances. Go figure.
saranghae1314 says:
03:36 PM, 10/28/09
This is sooooo cool~