Ungainly-looking thing, but a good design for a large sedan.I think Fords suck, but I give them credit for not dumping the Taurus name after spending millions promoting it for 20 years.Shows how stupid Ford almost was before somebody with brains brought a proud, model name back.Ford has a history of dumping (and sometimes resurrecting) names:Falcon, Thunderbird, Maverick, Escort, Festiva, Galaxy, Contour, Fairlane, etc.Did Ford really need to come up with the dumb, "Fusion" name when there were better and more familiar choices?
Its a modern relic. They should be putting it up in some auto museum somewhere.
The front end looks, well, a bit drowsey. Every other angle looks okay though.
Photographed at Southfork ranch? LOL! Who thought up this idiocy? Southfork = oil culture. Ford = SUV gas-hog profit makers. $3.25+ per gallon of gas = the corporate raping of America.Regardless, the name change is absurd, but I'll be the first to eat crow if actual sales figures prove the renaming increases demand. And I'm not talking fleet sales.Old Volvo technology with a new grill and taillights does not mean smart thinking. It's lazy, inept thinking.
Looks better than the five hundred, not that it says much. That looks like "South Fork" just outside of Dallas, Texas...doesn't it?
From the rear: Ford Accord!If this were 15-22K, yeah... starting 23-25K? If I was gonna waste that kind of money, I'd go for the Azera....at least get a better warranty, faster 0-60( edmunds siad 6.5 seconds, or was it motorweek.org?) and similar MPG.
Let me see. A "Taurus" for 23K, or a Prius Hybrid for same cash? Hmmmmm, gas 3+ per gallon... Prius wins!
what gives? just read ford fiesta, in 09 or 2010? Gas is 3+ per gallon NOW! Now wonder they lose so many sales.... No Diesels in the Taurus, No Hybrids? No Thanks!
Not bad for a car that is designed for mass appeal.The powertrain upgrade should help it sell.
BLACKLASER..... LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE HERE HATE THE NEW TAURUS, YOU NOW WHAT? I AM ONE OF THEM. THE CAMRY IS FOR THE MASS, AND IT HAVE SOUL, SPIRIT, CLASS, EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW. THE NEW, AND OLD(AT THE SAME TIME),TAURUS IS A PERFECT CAR OUTSIDE FOR THE YEAR 1989. AND NOT TODAY 2007. WHAT HAPPEN FORD??? THIS IS A PIECE OF CRAP. HOW MUCH THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY PAY TO THE DESIGNER?? $9.00 PER HOUR? THIS IS WHY THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MAKE SOMETHING BETTER??? THE BACK LOOKS LIKE OLD PASSAT. AND THE FRONT? THE FRONT, JUST MAKE ME ME CRY. IT KILLS MY SIGN OF INSPIRATION...MAKE ME FEEL ANGRY. I LOOK LIKE A LION INSIDE THE CAGE, EVERY TIME I SEE THE CAR...FORD MY ADVICE, ABORT (EVERY CAR),BEFORE THEY ARRIVE TO THE WORLD. IT SHOULD BE ILEGAL..
Ugly, like every cars Ford design... They amaze me every time I see a car from Ford. Yes ugly is the word!
Sometimes it seems ford stays with bad ideas too long. And what they present to the market is not quite ready. This for example would have been a huge hit, if it followed the original taurus (not the strange oval one), but, that was 10years ago. Ford also released it with a lame engine, for a car of this size. Will the public go for it? I don't think in any large numbers. On another note, whats up with the Ranger? Who is thinking at this company?
To me, this is a car that has real potential. It's got a nice and roomy interior, a 6spd auto, all wheel drive(opt.), and FINALLY a decent engine. As far as the exterior goes...the back is ok (the trunk should be a little higher to give the car a sportier stance), the side is eeeehhhhalright I guess, but I'd rather be poked in the eye than look at that front end. I don't know maybe it'll grow on me. If Ford would stop putting so much money int crossovers and suv's and put a couple of extra bucks in the "500/Taurus", they'd have a real contender here. Make it look a little better, make a hybrid version and make a luxury version AND AN ALL WHEEL DRIVE DIRECT INJECTED SVT VERSION. Oh yeah...and get rid of the old and tired Taurus name, keep it named the 500 and MAKE IT recognizable instead of taking a back seat to trucks and suv's. It's too bad Ford does't realize how much potential and flexibility this one car has. Oh yeah and NOBODY else would have anything to compete with it on this level which means they would kinda have a monopoly on this type of car. Which means they WOULD MAKE MONEY ON IT!!!! COME ON FORD...HOW HARD IS THIS?!?!JM
The owners of this estate wouldn't be caught dead in a Taurus. Must be for the cleaning lady.
1. Is this a rebadged 500 , if not whats the difference?2. Why didn't ford just make a larger more luxorious fusion?
Is it just me, or does this look old, tired and dull?
the back looks like the previous Euro Ford Mondeo...not looking new!
american cars are so behind the times. amongst other design touches this brick even sports the naff analogue clock in the centre exactly like the previous gen mondeo which came out 7 years ago
Wow, what a great looking car. Way to go Ford!!
New lipstick..... same pig.
To 12:29,Your name would'nt happen to be Bill jr. would it? I'm just kidding, if you like the car then I think that's great. OK guys...that's one who likes it. Is there a second out there...anyone...anyone....anyone at all...Beuller....Beuller....................Beuller?JM
Good enough. This will hold Ford over until bankruptcy. Ford should just get out of the US market.
I'm amazed at the vitriol, bias, and misinformation here. I feel the need to defend this car, because I want to buy one, in about 6 months' time. The styling is fine -- especially those who have seen it in person agree it looks much better than the photographs let on. But I don't care about that. My priorities are a) Safety above all, b) Space, c) Power. It can't be beat for safety. To get something roomier you'd have to get an SUV or Crossover, something I don't want to do (large drop-off in fuel economy). And you can't get better power without huge fuel economy sacrifices either. This car may not be a beauty queen, but it's hardly ugly -- unlike the Camry whose bulges only remind me of warts on an old hag. The Taurus at least has Dignity. "Old Volvo technology"? It's the same platform used on Volvo's current S80. Ragging on the fuel economy? On the old EPA standards, it achieves 31 MPG Highway, matching the Avalon/Camry, and besting others in the category. "If this were 15-22K, yeah..."? Remember this is a V6; You don't get a V6 any cheaper. "I'd go for the Azera..."? You'd be getting a much smaller car with 10% lower fuel economy and 30 fewer horsepower for $2000 extra. Plus you'd be getting a car with much lower resale value, less trunk space, worse emissions, worse reliability. I've sat in an Azera; it's just an Elantra (my current car) with leather. There's a reason this car just ain't selling."Prius"... Again, comparing a car to something it doesn't compete with? If you're looking to buy a Prius, you probably don't need a family-sized car."no diesels, no hybrids": It's a bummer about the diesels, yes. Fortunately there is at best 1 competitor offering one, so they're hardly behind the times. The Hybrid is coming, though. "Lame engine"? A 263-HP 3.5L V6 that was voted one of Ward Automotive's 10 Best? I've never liked the analog clock either, but for some reason other people I know like it. Go figure. Eh can't think of anything else I'm eager to reply to.
Post a Comment