A major styling overhaul gives the 2010 Ford Taurus a look of sophistication on par with the European-market Ford Mondeo. Underneath that bodywork, a reworked suspension and some leading-edge technology put some substance behind that first impression.
Yet, the Volvo-sourced platform architecture carries over from last year, so this is still a very big, very heavy sedan that doesn't fit neatly into the family sedan segment.
In our full test, Executive Editor Michael Jordan argues that it no longer makes sense to think of the Taurus as a mainstream nameplate. Instead, he says, this is a niche car for someone seeking a large measure of luxury in an American sedan doesn't get all soggy in the corners.
Do you agree with his argument? How does the future look for the Ford Taurus?
andy1102 says:
05:24 AM, 07/17/09
Yes ... this is heavy, and it is big ... it's a true full-size sedan.
Moving beyond all of that, the last paragraph above sums it up well.
This car fits nicely as the top of Ford's sedan lineup - Fiesta/Focus/Fusion/Taurus, especially with the Crown Vic going away to fleets. This is perfect for people who want a roomy, stylish and comfortable sedan with good handling and decent power.
fuhteng says:
06:04 AM, 07/17/09
+1 andy1102.
I would like to see a comparison test between this, the V6 Genesis, the top Malibu and other big family sedans which escape me right now. No RWD or V8s allowed (so I don't think there would be any Germans, but maybe a Volkswagen). While I appreciate the work it took to do the G37 vs Taurus SHO test, I still think that test was silly.
brn says:
06:43 AM, 07/17/09
Too big and heavy to be considered a family sedan? As the article indicates, it's intended to replace the SUV and it does it well. Seems like a good option as a family sedan.
Then there's this:
"At the same time, the Taurus is not quick. It gets to 60 mph from a standstill in 7.8 seconds (7.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip), and does the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds at 88.9 mph. If you had four passengers with you, a calendar would be the requisite measurement tool."
I keep reading how Americans need to get over their obsession with power. I put a big part of the blame on reviews like this. 7.8 seconds is pretty darned quick. 15 years ago, it would have been considered absurdly fast. Not only does this review call it slow, it throws in a calendar reference. Boo hiss.
dougtheeng says:
07:13 AM, 07/17/09
I'm going to agree that this car is many things, but its not slow. Only someone who has regular access to GT-R and EVO would call 7.8s slow. Its more then adequate. My 1992 Dodge Colt was slow.
arumage says:
07:52 AM, 07/17/09
My 2000 Dodge Intrepid ES took 8.2 seconds to get to 60. It had 225hp and only 3500 lbs or so to motivate. That makes me think that this engine does really well to motivate 4300 lbs to 60 in 7.8 seconds all while returning better gas mileage as well.
1487 says:
08:09 AM, 07/17/09
C&D got 7.1 secs which is more than acceptable. This article was more concerned about complaining about the car's size than anything else. Naturally no such concerns ever materialize when testing a Genesis, 7 series, A8, S class, LS460, Avalon, etc. Only the Taurus gets put down for being too big.
jederino says:
08:45 AM, 07/17/09
^^Magnum's Ferrari 308 was quick in the 80's at 0-60 in around 7 seconds. Now, Ferrari has a lot going for it besides acceleration times, but so does this Taurus. I think it is a wonderful transition vehicle for those suburbanites accustomed to $50K SUV's, who's off-road adventures are limited to hopping the curb at Target.
alman08 says:
09:05 AM, 07/17/09
in the article about the Ford Flex, edmunds claimed that 0-60 in 9.1 sec isn't disappointing and that the 3.5L in the 4600lb Flex was not underpowered, yet the same engine used in a 4000lbs Taurus with 0-60 time in the mid 7 secs is underpowered. once again, edmunds proved that they not capable in doing their job.
compliance says:
09:50 AM, 07/17/09
The effort put into the Taurus would have been better spend on the Fusion. Not just making an SHO version, but the Fusion's interior still needs help. This interior needs adapted into that car. As it is they are both flawed products for different reasons.
jays83gsl says:
01:09 PM, 07/17/09
Bringing the SHO back was a brilliant choice.
Not offering the SHO standard with the 'performance package' was a GM style of choice.
Overall, the Taurus is still a decent package. It's a true full size car that gets within a half second in the 1/4 mile of the previous SHO (I'm talking the base model here.)
It offers more luxury than most cars within two price / size brackets. It's actually WELL BUILT!
As posters above have said, you scold the Taurus for shortcomings that you praise in foreign cars.
Normally, I feel Edmunds is dead on with their opinions. Your obvious bias against the Taurus, though, is sad. If this were a GM you'd be oozing praises.
hondacura4 says:
02:19 PM, 07/17/09
"I would like to see a comparison test between this, the V6 Genesis, the top Malibu and other big family sedans which escape me right now. No RWD or V8s allowed."
Fuhteng, the Genesis is RWD and the Malibu is too small for a direct comparison.
The major problem with this car isn't its overall execution or size but rather the image that's attached or associated the Taurus name. Simply put, when people think of Taurus they don't imagine a $35-45K car.
Given the history of full size domestic cars, the Ford should have been RWD. That way Ford could better address both the basic trims of the car and the SHO could have been seen as a valid G8 GT/GXP, Chyrsler 300C/SRT-8 competitor.
1487 says:
06:49 AM, 07/20/09
Taurus starts at $26k, not $35k- bif difference. A $35k Taurus is a fully loaded non SHO model with more features than a TL. Stop thinking about the name and pay attention to whats offered for the money.