I just drove one last week and it overheated. I was stranded in the middle of nowhere with the battery of my cel phone kinda low and it was getting dark, scary experience. Oh and the Brakes were not as tight as you would want them to. Scary car, just scary. I’ll never make that mistake again, my company owns a Sebring too, so next time I’ll make sure to hop into the Chrysler instead of that Taurus thing.

Nightmare on Wheels man! Avoid it like the plague!

Shhhhhh!

People like you aren’t supposed to exist anymore!

I’ve tried them. Didn’t like them.

I’m not saying the 500/Taurus is a bad car, per se. I’m just saying that it’s no Crown Victoria replacement.

The car in no way carries itself in a manner which would lead one to believe that they are driving a vehicle of any proportion or presence. Some people like that. For me, I bought a big car because I…wait for it… wanted something that rode and felt like a big car.

I sat in one at the last Auto Show and saw the new Taurus on the turntable and was not impressed. Sitting in a Five Hundread didn’t help either. Acres of dash similiar to what was once hated in the 1991+ Caprices, instrusive center stack, acres or rear leg room but yet ridiculously narrow overal interior-wise. I’m talking Fusion narrow in a Crown Vic sized interior.

My problem with the Taurus is not that it exists, but that the Five Hundread/Taurus was brought into existence to replace the Panthers despite what Ford has said. And the D3s aren’t suited or sufficient to do that.

Not to mention the new Taurus’ front clip makes me think “blinged up Tempo”.

I don’t know why people like to dispise Ford and, in particular, this car. The new Taurus is a great car (I’m serious, go drive one yourself). Its one really lacking feature is a better nose and swept beltline for style. It could also use a better interior, but it wasn’t bad. My four days in the rental proved it was far quieter and more refined than the Camry I had last week or the 300 I had the week before that, and I averaged the same mileage as the Camry and much better than the 300.

Don’t get so hard on it before you actually try it out. I don’t believe this review does it justice.

Coincidence? I think not.”

Of course it is not. Ford has marketed the Five Hundread/Taurus as the Panther replacement from Day 1. Flagship sedan anyone? You can’t have TWO flagship sedans. Crown Vics were never advertised to say the least but when the Five Hundread debuted, Vics were no longer even stocked on Ford lots. My wife’s uncle went in last year looking for a new Crown Vic at a Ford dealer only to get shoved into a Five Hundread. They told him Crown Vics were no longer made and this was it!

As far as the new Taurus goes, it’s no Panther, plain and simple. Like it or not, there is a stigma to truly American cars, and this Taurus ain’t got it. The 300/Charger does, at least in looks, whilest not in underpinnings, and it’s selling like hotcakes. People who buy Camcords most often don’t have the slightest clue how to pull a dipstick out to check their oil….and/or because the neighbors have one.

Believe or not, there are some of us still out there who know the difference, and money invested in a 427/Continental concept inspired Panther would have gotten alot farther than a failed Five Hundread and now a rebadged facelifted Five Hundread. Just what the autobuying public needed, another Avalon wannabe and one less full-sized RWD V8 B-O-F domestic sedan. (Crown Vic for those playing from home)

When/if this new Taurus fails in two years, what then? Another nosejob? Cancel the Grand Marquis then? How much money will Ford throw at it to try and make people want it? That money would have been much better spent on the Panthers, period.

Coincidence? I think not.

There is no “All American” niche that others can’t exploit. Sure, there are those who will only buy an American made car, but increasingly there are fewer such buyers. The Japanese can make sports cars, and pony cars, and taxi/rental/cop cars too, if they put their mind to it. One thing we must recognize is that the Japanese can enter any market segment they choose.

And don’t think the Japanese are too proud to ask for help. A pony car with body work penned by an Italian design studio, and fitted with Japanese mechancials could reduce Mustang’s fortunes considerably. And since the Japanese are already leading in subcompact/compact/midsize cars, niche is where they’re going. Well, actually they are already there; Z, S-2000.

Quality (more precisely value – but that has a lot to do with quality, otherwise we’d still be snapping up Yugos) is where the D3 will live or die. IMHO.

There is a lot of talk about style, reliability, reputation,… and virtually every other adjective that can be thrown at an automobile. They’re all well and good… but from my expeiences the three most important criteria are…

1) Build Quality

For well over 20 years Toyota and Honda have built exceptionally well made vehicles for the NA market. It’s something that has been cumulative and continuous for both manufacturers.

When I get into a typical early 90’s Toyota or Honda, I can still feel the overall build quality that it was given on the day it was built on the factory floor. Seats are usually firm (most older American cars resemble lumps around the 10 to 12 year mark.) The gaps are far more narrow between the panels, which gives their cars a more unified look as time goes on. And the OEM components are generally simple and of top quality. A 20 year old Toyota is still a rather common site in certain areas of metro-Atlanta…. as are Olds Cutlasses, Chevy Caprices, and… well… not much else domestic wise.

One forgotten reality that few point out. A lot of the durability and longevity for a given manufacturer has to do with the ‘quality’ of the initial owners. To this day, I’m still surprised that nobody really examines how important the demographics of an owner will be to a given car’s long-term quality. Rental fleets, generous financing terms, and market positioning all take their toll on a given brand’s perceived long term quality. Heck, a well-maintained 2005 Neon may actually be a good value. But you probably will never know it given how many of these cars end up in the wrong hands.

2) Value

The domestics have been the leaders in this segment until just recently. People in the States L-O-V-E having a loaded vehicle. Fortunately in the last ten years, a lot of the options in times yore have become standard even in the most lowly models. ABS, Cruise, Power Everything, Side Airbags, ‘Premium’ Sound w/ CD Players… you can get all of these features in virtually every compact and subcompact vehicle in today’s market. You can even get 0-60 times in the seven to eight second range in the near majority of affordable cars out there. 12 years ago these options would send you headlong in the 20k territory. Today, even with inflation you can get all of them for less from virtually any manufacturer out there.

For domestics in the ‘car’ side of the business, the value advantage has largely disappeared.The loaded vehicle has become standard.

3) Looks

Notice I say ‘looks’ instead of style. A 1990’s Pontiac Grand Am may not have been styled in a way that attracted a sports car enthusiast. But it LOOKED like a sporty car. That, and the value equation is what made it so popular with American car buyers.

Cars that are ’styled’ don’t always sell because they simply don’t have a good ‘look’ to them. B9’s, the current Focus, the Ion, Mazda 5’s, simply don’t look like anything obvious. They all have either a dowdiness or a blandness that doesn’t make it sell.

If American buyers can’t get a Ferrari, they still want something that ‘looks’ sporty. One of the reasons why cars like the Eclipse, Celica, and Integra were so popular during the 1990’s is because they all looked sporty. The style may not have been there, but the look was obvious. The buyer who gets that vehicle, knows what he’s getting.

With products like the Ford Five Hundred/Taurus there simply is no distinctive look. Is it an old person’s car? Maybe, but then why is the front so garish and the steering wheel buttons so numerous (12 in total?)

Is it a luxury car? If so, whay are most them offered with cheap plastic dashboards and hand-me-down bin components?

The Ford in this review simply has no look telling the buyer what it is. Some parts are nice, but you can’t sell a product by featuring a car that has a lukewarm 30 percent-ish niceness to it.

Correct, Dynamic. And to expect otherwise is rather foolish. But look at how the original Taurus “inspired” the rest of the Ford/Lincoln/Merc fleet both visually and in marketing tools, and how by 1987 they outsold GM and everyone else. Vettes and Mustangs (and Tauri) are supposed to influence an entire brand and impress people.

How many people want their father’s (grandfather’s) Ford ? OK, Cops/ Taxi co.s,/ Rental

Like the Vette/Mustang, it’s a niche player. In today’s global economy, even automakers should know better and support a highly profitable niche, not letting it die on the vine. Look at Scion: Toyota doesn’t need a niche player, but they nailed it…and they aren’t resting.

Oh, and search the model-specific forums and you’ll see a lot of kids with Panther chassis cars. Its not for old people alone, and don’t tell me these thousands of people wouldn’t want a fresh, up-to-date Panther when they finish college, have kids, etc.

Agreed. But you can’t expect the styling dept. to hit a home run every time. It’s hard to see the rise of the transplants having much to do with style – their cars are exceedingly dull to look at.

Home runs aren’t guaranteed, but when you platform share you run the risk of groupthink. It just doesn’t work if you’re an American company trying to out-Toyota your competition without the reputation for quality, low labor costs, etc.

What’s the key to differentiation? Styling and features/technology. That’s all Ford had in the 1980s (they were on the verge of govt. bailout, like Chrysler) and that’s what they desperately need RIGHT NOW.

People want value and reliability. It least it appears so to me. Otherwise it’s very hard to explain people driving Camcords.

The Taurus didn’t blow its 1985 competition out of the water with its reliability, far from it. (content-wise, it was a good value…still is)

Considering it took 5-ish years for the Camcord to take over the sales throne from the original Taurus, style is almost as important as reliability.

Not in numbers that make up for the loss of market share overall. GM and Ford will become very small companies if they just sell ‘Vettes and Mustangs. GM used to have half the NA market, and Ford/Chrysler split most of the other half. These “Wow!” cars havn’t stopped the slide.

“2. The true believers in American Iron remain. (body on frame Crown Vic)”

How many people want their father’s (grandfather’s) Ford ? OK, Cops/ Taxi co.s,/ Rental co.s,

3. Sitting on your laurels is financial suicide. (old Taurus)

Agreed. But you can’t expect the stylling dept. to hit a home run every time. It’s hard to see the rise of the transplants having much to do with style – their cars are exceedingly dull to look at.

All the Corvettes and Camaros havn’t kept GM at 50% market share – that’s all I’m saying. Same goes for Ford and Chrysler. Only so many people want a Mustang or a Viper. (or can afford one)

People want value and reliability. It least it appears so to me. Otherwise it’s very hard to explain people driving Camcords.

Well I’d like to think that styling is both a method of attracting customers and promoting your brand and national heritage. Take Porsche; they do a damn fine job at it, IMO.

I mean, Ford had the Taurus for many years (and it was only a class leader for a few years)

The failure of the Taurus coincides with its dumping into rental fleets, which coincides with its design (both style and engineering) getting stale. Quality too, but let’s not go there for now.

Chevy has had the ‘Vette for over half a century.

Even during the 12 year run of the C4, its been an absolute home run for the General. One reason, American styling, American performance and (somewhat) frequent updates.

Ford has the retro Mustang, and has had the retro T-Bird, and of course it’s police cruisers.

The Mustang is a winner, for similar reasons to the vette. The Tbird was cost-engineered retro (i.e. kinda strange looking with Lincoln LS hard points) too expensive for its market, looked dated by the time it hit the streets and…once again…had infrequent updates that failed to keep the momentum.

Chrysler did it’s LH cars, and almost w/o a doubt will be offering hybrid powertrains on most of it’s cars in the near future (as will all automakers)

The LH design had the legs to succeed, but the engineering and customer retention wasn’t there. And Hybrids aren’t necessarily a critical part of American style.

And yet, despite the existance of cars with that look “American”, that look sexy, that look the way an enthusiast thinks a car should look, the B3 continue to loose market share.

But the D3 (not B3) is none of the above. From your examples above, its easy to see why:

1. Real American cars (Mustang, Vette) succeed.
2. The true believers in American Iron remain. (body on frame Crown Vic)
3. Sitting on your laurels is financial suicide. (old Taurus)

…and…

4. Why the poseurs (Ford D3 chassis) fail miserably. It doesn’t look good for the latest D3 Taurus, but I wish it the best of luck. Its not a bad car.

Back to your original point: yes, I think there’s reason to believe.

Respctfully, is there any reason to believe this, or is it mostly a last ditch hope that “All American” stylling could save the B3?

I mean, Ford had the Taurus for many years (and it was only a class leader for a few years) Chevy has had the ‘Vette for over half a century. Ford has the retro Mustang, and has had the retro T-Bird, and of course it’s police cruisers. Chrysler did it’s LH cars, and almost w/o a doubt will be offering hybrid powertrains on most of it’s cars in the near future (as will all automakers) And yet, despite the existance of cars with that look “American”, that look sexy, that look the way an enthusiast thinks a car should look, the B3 continue to loose market share.

I don’t know that fashion is the way to go. First because there is really no assurance that we can design a more “American” looking car than the Japanese. Second, because the Japanese do shorter product development than the B3, any styling advantage could be short lived. Third, it just looks to me as if most people are quite satisfied with plain cars, as long as they actually work. Swinging for the fence everytime you’re up to bat isn’t a good strategy for winning ball games.

Problem is America needs something revolutionary like the original Taurus or Chrysler LH cars, something overtly American like the Crown Vic or a hybrid like the Chrysler 300.

There is plenty of room for American creativity, when Detroit sets the budget for it. Its just a shame that J Mays pens the same sedan for every company he works for…

Otherwise, I think the Taurus is a fine family car. I used to be partial to big Ford sedans before the acquisition of 3 stepkids put me into a Plymouth minivan.

I tried the RWD Aerostar ( at the time, Ford had yet to develop a front-wheel-drive minivan) and didn’t like how it handled on snow and ice.

So I got out of the Ford car habit,though still owning Ford pickups.

I like both of my present vehicles,and don’t want another payment but if something happened that totalled either vehicle, I’d check out Ford.

Will I own one of these? Highly doubtful. My current and past history with Ford leaves me little hope for them and even less desire to own another one.