Second, I don’t think the weight is good but, like the price, it’s not way out of line. I cut and pasted a bunch of specs from Yahoo! autos showing the SHO splits the difference between a mid-size (A6) and full size luxury car (750i) in many quantifiable areas such as front and rear passenger space, wheelbase, width, height, yes even weight and hp. Every car on there save the BMW 3 and the G37 are within 10% of the SHO’s curb weight. It’s a big, fancy car with good power/weight ratio, lots of toys and sharp looks. Obviously I’m biased, but the figures are clear and nostalgia is a hard fog to penetrate.

Finally, this Taurus will never sell like the ‘86-’95s. It’s not in a high-volume segment; as many have said, the Fusion works there. I think it’s good value compared to mid/large luxury vehicles and maybe I’ll buy one.

Someone wrote an article – so from memory the numbers are approximate – The Dodge Challenger V8 in 1970 was $3500. In inflation adjusted dollars it would be $15000.

—————————————–

Are you using the inflation rate that the Fed tries to brainwash you? I mean, there is real incentive that the Fed publish lower than real figures. (Think about public anger, and inflation adjusted obligations.)

When I look at inflation, I look at real estate and food (organic food please, for an apple to apple comparison).

In my city, the price of real estate has gone up 200% in the past 10 years. The price of a Camry stays the same, even though its size, hp, and equipment list grew by a lot.

I’m assuming you mean the later model Taurus (96-04), the ones that Hertz rental couldn’t wait to get out of their fleet. Although not a bad car, but who wanted to pay over $20K for a base model when a 2 yr old Camry was available?

I’d like to point out the 86-95 Taurus was the #1 selling car in America at the time and not just because of its rental fleet. It was a great car, one that Honda and Toyota both would compare their Accord and Camry to. Ford, like GM, gave up in the late 90s of making cars and forgot what it was like to be on top.

I think the new Taurus has potential. You have to remember, its the Ford flagship vehicle now as the LTD (sorry Grandpa) is going bye-bye. Its gonna run you a little for the nice one, which prices right near the base Lincoln.

I would have christened the Fusion with the Falcon nameplate, and the Taurus with the Galaxie nameplate. Leave the Focus with its current nameplate, along with the upcoming Fiesta.

And the Flex would have been named Fairlane.

matt51: Someone wrote an article – so from memory the numbers are approximate – The Dodge Challenger V8 in 1970 was $3500. In inflation adjusted dollars it would be $15000.

Not only does a typical new car have much more standard equipment than any 1970 car (when power windows and power seats on a car were still a big deal), but the new car is also safer, cleaner and far better built. Performance is much better, and the new car will last longer, too. A 2009 Civic EX sedan is a better car than a 1970 Cadillac Fleetwood, or a 1970 Mercedes.

A 1970 car was pretty much worn out by 100,000 miles; most 2009 cars can go 200,000 miles with proper care.

Pch101: I have my doubts that will work, though. Cars of this size are no longer popular.

I agree, but I have the feeling that Ford may be taking the old Crown Victoria approach to this segment – namely, as competitors either abandon this segment, or become so weak that customers stay away in fear that the parent company will no longer be around, the remaining customers will migrate to this Taurus. Which means it can rack up some respectable, but hardly outstanding, sales figures. It’s also noteworthy that Ford is not bringing out a Mercury version, so all of the sales will be concentrated on this Taurus.

For what it’s worth, there was a SHO version at the Carlisle All-Ford Nationals three weeks ago. It was attracting a fair amount of attention, and the most common comment was, “That’s a Taurus? Wow!”.

Per earlier post: 1970 Challenger price of $3,500 = $15,000 today is fairly close. May I suggest the B & B of TTAC use this inflation calculator to plug in different values and time for better comparisons:

http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppowerus/index.php

I doubt that they want to. The goal of this car is to create a halo in order to sell more of the regular models.

I have my doubts that will work, though. Cars of this size are no longer popular.

There may be a few old folks who would have previously bought a Buick who will now buy a Taurus, but I have my doubts that the public will get excited about any of the versions. Those buyers won’t care about the halo version.

I see the Taurus in my rental future. If I were at Ford, I would have invested this effort into the Fusion and a competitive Lincoln, not this.

Hertz stocks boatloads of Camrys and Previas without hurting Toyota resale values.

That “boatload” represents about 10-12% of the Camrys on the market, so the proportion going to fleet isn’t high, relatively speaking. If Camrys were going to rental at the same rates as have been the G6’s and Sebrings, Toyota would be in trouble, too.

Also, the Taurus, while once the most important model to Ford, is no longer. The F150 took that mantle long ago. There is also a fallacy in comparing this Taurus to the previous (pre 2008 model) cars, they compete in completely different market segments. The old Taurus was a midize, that car is now the Fusion, this Taurus is taking the place of the old Crown Vic as the full size in the lineup. If you want to look at a car to pave Ford’s future, the Fusion will always be designed to sell an order of magnitude above the Taurus.

A few things right off: my fuel mileage experience doesn’t match the 16 reported. It’s better, much better. Mixed driving with a preponderance of freeway is more in the neighborhood of 22, and I’ve seen as good as 29 on the slabs. Second, the SHO uses regular unleaded, as do all of Ford’s upcoming GTDI engines. Third, it weighs about 4300 equipped with AWD and twin turbos; FWD models weigh significantly less. Fourth, ANY difference in fuel mileage between the GTDI and the standard engine models can well be attributed to the way I drove them. An extra 90 hp for no fuel economy penalty is a pretty remarkable thing, IMO.

As far as the market positioning goes–I think it would be helpful to think of the Taurus as a four-door Thunderbird. There’s no market for big two-door coupes these days, and the midsize family sedan offering is ably covered by the Fusion. This is a car folks are going to buy because they want it, not because they need it–unless they are XL-sized people and need the extra room. It’s quiet, comfortable, sure-footed, and quick even with the base engine.

Oh yeah, Detroit is on the road to recovery for sure.

It is the high quality and numbers of college educated people applying for low wage jobs which is an indicator of economic problems, not the fact there are some low wage jobs. I doubt anyone making $9 would waste their money on a two year old Taurus. Sorry, but Ford cars suck when it comes to resale value compared to Japanese iron, and Kohl’s workers like my wife won’t keep the price up on them. This is not the economy we were in even two years ago. Unemployment in California 11.5%, unemployment in Indiana 10.5% and rising. Oh, but whats his name at Ford says we are going to have recovery this year. And he believes in the Easter Bunny.
People did not buy the Ford 500, they did not buy the current Taurus, and they are not going to buy this latest Taurus in any greater numbers. Not to say any of these were bad cars, they were not. BUT – this is not where the car Market is headed. The Market is a cold and cruel force, and the Market is making some severe adjustments at this time. Ford is screwed.

People making minimum wage at Kohl’s are not (or at least, should not) be buying new cars. You’re right, they won’t be buying a new 2010 Ford Taurus, but they may well buy a 3- or 4-year-old one.

Its going to be one hell of a sleeper though!!!!!

The Genesis is a niche halo vehicle, and sells nothing like the volumes the Taurus did in it’s day. Once upon a time the Taurus was the best selling car in America. Never again.

Now the Fusion and Taurus are competing for almost the same customers. Salespeople and other fleet buyers appreciate the bit of extra room a Taurus will provide. In that sense the Taurus is trying to pick up where the Crown Vic left off.

It will never again be a hot seller though.

In Ford’s case…yes. They are trying to sell Ecoboost to the greenies…hence the name change from Twin Force. That and a FWD, V6 performance car is like having Swine Flu.

And when there are 6.0 V8s and 375 HP V8s that get the same or better mileage…then why go with a high-strung, unproven V6? It makes no sense.

To those who think the Taurus (or Taurus SHO) is too expensive, how much should it be?

33K MAX…just like the G8. The SHO is priced where the Lincoln version of the Taurus should be priced. The MKTaurus should start at 38K and “Eco”Boost version should TOP at $45,400.

All new Fords (and Lincolns) are overpriced though. From the useless Flex to the Taurus and the MKFlex to the MKTaurus.

And what ever happened to Ford’s claim that “Eco”boost would be a $700 option? Oops.

The interior of the new model is not nice by any means, it’s hard, shiny and grey. It looks like plastic elephant skin. Nothing about it screams luxury or premium or desirable (it’s Lincoln twin isn’t any nicer inside either).

Yeah…at the auto show I found that the interior of the Lincoln Taurus was anything but luxurious. The bean counters still have a strong hold at Ford.

You brought up my name but I don’t know why. I was merely stating that damn near any car these days is launching with some kind of incentive, either specific to a vehicle or the natural incentives offered to an entire line. Lastly, many dealers are offering local incentives anyways despite new models. So the new Taurus having incentives shouldn’t be as newsworthy as TTAC, Autoblog and I think Jalopnik say it is.

At any rate, not charging according to the features and quality of the car is what’s helped fuck Detroit well and good. Lowering cost to help sell in volume is old Detroit think and we’ve all seen the results of it. That being said the SHO is perhaps the best overall full size sedan value on the planet. Only Ford/Domestic haters/brand~name snobs are finding reasons to hate on the car. Essentially, for what you get, 38k is a good price for the car.

TriShield – Since neither of us have actually seen a SHO in person, I am going to withold judgment until I do (preview models are making their rounds through dealers this coming week). With regard to the Lincoln, if you think the interior of the MKS is in anyway not top notch, you obviously haven’t been in one. High quality real leather seats, real wood trim, real leather on the dash (well, maybe that is leatherette, but if it is it feels real enough that one can’t tell the difference) high quality and easily legible gauges, comfortable and supportive seats, ergonomically laid out switch gear that feels good to the touch, and tastefully used chrome trim all are tributes of the MKS interior. After hearing so much about the Hyundai Genesis I made a trip to the local Hyundai dealer to check it out, and while nicer, very nice for a Hyundai, the interior in the Genesis can’t hold a candle to the MKS. Given that all of the reviews of both the new Taurus and the MKS praise the interior, you are in a very small minority if you feel they are low quality.