Indeed.

“Ford wins on getting the point. GM wins on keeping GM buyers buying GM. They both lose because both Ford and GM are still bringing a NERF bat to a knife fight. ”

LOL!

“Could someone make sense of this for me. Wouldn’t Rear Wheel drive make sense for both of these guys? Some designs from down under for GM. Hummm maybe this is the vehicle to introduce Holdens new mount.
And Ford, you guys know how to do the RWD IRS thing pretty well.
Or maybe AWD for both. ”

American RWD iron is one of the last niche markets the domestics still have or could have a deathgrip of like fullsize trucks. Unfortunately, for years they’ve chosen to build essentially imitation Japanese FWD cars which are exactly what these are perceived as. Ford is the only one who has continued to make a fullsize traditional American sedan but has allowed it to wither on the vine and now dumped it in favor of Taurus. Chrysler woke up and realized this and has been selling LX platforms like hotcakes love it or hate it since 2005. GM cashed in the 1996 Impala nameplate slapping it on a reskinned Lumina and have milked it just about dry.

I’m not saying the domestics should try and compete in this market, but do it with a Malibu, and an actual MID-sized Taurus.

The Panthers already have everything that Ford is desperately trying to SELL to consumers with advertising, ecomony, safety, ride, durability, but they just don’t want to sell them.

As this site shows, cars are aspirational products. We want to be SEEN in our cars and want people to know us by what we drive. While this is not true for everyone, it’s true enough across a broad spectrum to hold value.

In the case of the 500, it was a dull, slow sedan that was aimed a the Crown Vic’s demographic, and guess what? They continued to buy CV’s. The anemic engine and boring looks didn’t help. Let’s face it, Grandpa’s had 3 CV’s already; he aint’ switchin’ to any newfangled FWD car. Not when he can have his V-8, thankyouverymuch.

Families go for SUV’s and minivans, so the traditional roomy 6-passenger car is out for them. At least it was, until gas went to $3/gallon.

With a new face and a decent powerplant, the Taurus is competitive. The question for Ford is whether they will be willing to market and update the car as needed to keep it on the radar.

The Big 2.3314 all face the same problems of trying to sell too many different versions of the same car. Ford has it a little better with only Ford and Mercury, but they’re in a deep fianacial hole, and they need to keep pushing trucks to keep the lights on.

Most importantly, Ford and GM have to overcome 30 years of bad product, poor service, and comsumer perceptions to try to lure shoppers back the their stores.

Fact is, most of us here at TTAC won’t even consider a domestic brand due to the horrors we’ve had and the stories we hear from our friends. Consumers have flocked to the CamCords because of engineering and value, and they aren’t coming back. Ford and GM face a decade of hard work to build products that convince us that they’re serious about engineering, value, and long-term reliability. It will take at least that long for the word to get around. Marketing won’t convince us, only the testimonials of our friends and family that their Taurus/Impala/300 is the most reliable, well-engineered car they’ve ever owned. Only then will the vast buying public darken the doors of their local domestic dealer.

When I grew up. my dad was a “Ford Man” for 30 years (at least until the local Ford Dealer screwed him), as was his father before him. He wouldn’t even consider GM.

Do you hear ANYONE say that anymore about Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, etc.?

My wife will proudly tell you that she’s a Honda (Wo)Man; she won’t look at anything else. That’s because our Honda products have all been insanely good. Toyota? Hmmmmm, maybe. Hyundai? When they prove themselves. Domestics? Never, EVER.

THAT is the battle the domestics face. They’ve lost a generation (or two) of buyers who won’t even consider their products, good, bad, or indifferent. Until they make compelling products that hold up for the long haul, they’re toast.

I don’t think they have enough time.

I don’t believe that’s a good thing…

Our company was buying the previous gen Taurus for our fleet use, then recently switched to Impalas. I wonder if we’ll go back to the new Taurus so I get to experience misery in all of its variants.

I drive a Crown Victoria and a Dakota. They’re domestic.

‘Nuff said.

I suspect most buyers of large family sedans are old enough to remember the Galaxie, even if they never owned one themselves. The name has some history, just like Impala does.

The AWD option makes sense to me, as many urban SUV drivers are attracted by superior traction on snowy roads. It’s AWD for people who’d never consider a Subaru.

I love my Panthers, (being a repeat buyer), but hate the new Sable. I’m sure on paper it is a great car, but all I see driving the Five Hundred/Taurus are old guys, just like the Grand Marquis.

The Taurus has the problem of competing in the “nerd car” market – the kind of risk adverse people who would buy something like a new Taurus will more likely get a Honda or a Toyota because that is what Consumer Reports says, plus their fellow nerd compatriots say as well.

At least the Grand Marquis is different, interesting, and is proven bulletproof. Everyone knows the Panther is classic Detroit iron, while everyone knows the Five Hundred is pretend Detroit iron riding on a 2nd hand Volvo design.

I’d take an Impala if nothing else because I know at least GM tried – Ford sold out and deferred to Volvo for an ugly car.

ejacobs: maybe I should have taken the stock car angle, not the boxing references. But I can’t remember if the 1st-gen Taurus in Days of Thunder won that street race or not.

Can either of these cars rise above rental-car status?

MX5bob: Considering my last rental was a Camry (the guy at the Hertz counter said it was a Taurus in the parking spot) and they seem to be in every rental lot at the airport, sure why not?

Although few if any noticed the 500 I think they will notice having not noticed this supposed Taurus and move on. It’s unfortunate too, because it’s actually a good car.

Guyincognito: too bad “good enough” is only acceptable for Toyota these days, no?

I might be in the minority (the numbers prove it) but I have to say the 500 looked pretty classy, a dignified daily driver…the Impala just doesn’t do it for me, but as the driver of a milquetoast 2001 Lumina I’ve got provenly poor taste (I blame the wife).

Kazoomaloo: well if ’01 Lumina drivers read this site, I guess we should be nicer to the 500…but we won’t. :-)

Therein lies the crux of the argument. It won’t be a real Ford vs. Chevy matchup until they start building American cars again.

86er: Amen to that!

Ford, there’s a reason we stopped buying Tauruses and if you think you’ll sell on name recognition, you’re crazy.

Factotum: the new one has nothing on the remarkable styling of your old 1st-gen Sable (that car was trick), but its still worth looking at because the hardware is finally class-competitive. (I like the 3.5 Dura-torque I sampled in the Lincoln-Mazda thingies)

I am sure you can lay your hands on these two chariots if you turn on (up) your charm and show up at your local Ford and Chevy dealers? So, c’mon on, drive these two against each other and let’s have the results!

Tsofting: we haven’t done comparo tests before (little hard without press cars) since a back-to-back evaluation is rather difficult when you can’t park one car next to the other. But at the least, you’ll have a Taurus review published soon enough.

Ford would probably have better chances if they would wrap the 427 concept sheetmetal over their Panther platform, add a slightly better tuned v8…

Tms1999: you just had to bring up the 427, hmm? Be still my beating heart, seeing that concept made me 16 again and I was staring at my ‘65 Ford Galaxie. That and the 2002 Continental were the American sedans Ford was supposed to build.

For the new trim they’ll offer you a bunch of extras that will once again prompt TTAC to write an article questioning why you would ever buy a Mercury.

RGS920: you never know, that insane turbo-V6 in the Lincoln MKS might make it over to a Taurus SHO with all-wheel drive. And then TTAC might very well say 1989 is here again the Blue Oval is back.

I have not driven the new Taurus yet—but I think there is no reason to believe the drivetrain changes won’t greatly improve performance (the 500 was a pretty low bar).

Umterp85: it better drive, um…better. The 500 had decent road manners (cough, Volvo) for something so tall and huge, it just lacked a gutsy engine. The 6-speed was always nice for a sedan, and after my time in the 3.5L Lincolns I expect the Taurus will perform nicely. Nicely provided you don’t set foot in a V6 Honda Accord.

Sajeev did NOT pass go and went straight to Tone Loc.

Socsndaisy: oh yes he just did! But that’s what happens when W-bodies start slappin’…from doin’ the fleet thaaaang.

The Taurus 3.5, on the other hand seems better equipped on paper to sustain the comparison. It has very similar numbers indeed. I read somewhere else that it did not show as much “refinement” as the reviewer expected. I just don’t remember where I read that.

Tms1999: the 3.5 Duratec is nice, Ford engineers did a great job, but the motor came out too late to save the 500/Montego. There’s no shortage of torque below 3000rpm, decent high-revving power and it runs on regular. May not be as smoother at 6000rpm as the imported V6s, but you don’t need to rev the thing so much in the first place to get authoritative acceleration. But if you really want a smooth engine, don’t consider a V6…they all pale in comparison to the current V8 offerings.

Ford is still a messed up company in many ways, but their Volvo-Fords are pretty good vehicles for the price they actually sell for, especially 1-2 year old used ones!

P.S. We got our 1st 08 Sable in. Looks cleaner, slightly updated interior (chrome rings on the buttons), drives much nicer with the new engine, but still not fast. FWD, 265hp and still gets 18/28 mileage.

We have plenty of low, raked, cramped, car styles already to choose from. Can’t we have a large, roomy, tall sedan with a 20+ cubic foot trunk? Please?

And I like the grill of the Ford Five Hundred better then the Taurus. That fat chrome three-bar thing such is going to become a shiny morgue for the bug-world.

I was comparing the numbers of the Impala drivetrain vs the Toyota v6 3.5.

The bigger Chevy engine can’t match the smaller Toyota engine. And the 3.5 is even worse.

(I agree, the High Feature 3.6 v6 looks better. It certainly has been perceived so by GM as it was only available for Cadillac and Buick. Now it is founding its way downmarket to the lambda suvs, the Aura XR, some pontiac, and soon a malibu if I remember correctly.)

The Taurus 3.5, on the other hand seems better equipped on paper to sustain the comparison. It has very similar numbers indeed.

I read somewhere else that it did not show as much “refinement” as the reviewer expected. I just don’t remember where I read that.

I’ll keep in mind that in a Taurus, Camry, Impala, the NVH when the tach is tickling the red line is pretty irrelevant. Those family cars are tuned to be driven under 2,500 RPM 98% of the time, and in those conditions I bet none of them is significantly better.

The Taurus has a much better looking sheetmetal (for those who thought the previous gen Passat was a very elegant car) than the Impala (which the last refresh has been made to look like a Cobalt)

I have a question isn’t the Impala’s 3.5 & 3.9 V6 a bored out slightly updated version of the 3.1 that came out in the early 80’s. Or is this an all new design and I’m just confused?

http://members.shaw.ca/betterthanyoutoo/60degreetree/60degreetree.htm

The new fuel regs bill that just passed the Senate is sure to kill the Detroit 3 if made into law. I think the new standards kick in in 2012? It takes 5 years to develop a new powertrain. They needed to start yesterday.

You’ve got to be kidding me. 35 MPG average by 2035?? If Detroit can’t make that goal, they deserve to die. Congress ought to raise the average to 60 MPG by 2035.