Ford likes SUVs so much that they build five platforms for ‘em, many of which fight amongst themselves for sales in overlapping segments. Yet the most competitive, the most relevant of Ford’s sport-utilities is also the one no one— not even Ford marketing— seems to know exists: the Taurus X, née Freestyle. Question: if a terrific CUV falls in the sales charts and nobody in Dearborn notices, does it exist?
In 2005, while Ford’s PR team was busy blowing smoke about “Bold Moves,” the Freestyle slipped quietly into dealerships with a C.V. as impressive as a certain ex-Boeing exec’s. Sub-Highlander height? Check. Super-Highlander interior space? Check. Agile, rock-solid chassis derived from the previous-gen Volvo S80’s? Ja, that too.
So what’s caused this clever crossover to languish on dealer lots? Two little words: no marketing. Two years after its “soft launch,” the Freestyle was abandoned for the Next Big Thing (a.k.a. the Edge). As the Freestyle had less name recognition than the Explorer (or, for that matter, the Donkervoort S8AT), CEO Alan Mulally felt free to rename the model a Taurus X. By then the Freestyle was so far under the radar Ford could have called it the F-Up and no one would have noticed.
And yet, as TTAC proclaimed last time ’round, Ford’s crossover is well worth a second look. Despite a hasty application of Ford’s new Norelco nose, the Taurus X wears tidy, tallish proportions topped with a tastefully anonymous greenhouse. Call it a hemmed-out Outback, or a slim-fit Explorer. You could also call it anodyne. Narcoleptic or not, the Taurus X avoids the bulbous look blighting many vehicles in its class.
The X’s cabin exhibits similar restraint. It’s an easy step into the wide, elevated driver’s seat. The raised helmspot combines with thin pillars and a generous glass area to provide a widescreen windscreen. The no-nonsense dash is clean and conservatively curved, comprised of barely-pliable plastics and parts-bin switchgear. A thick, rubberized grab bar perches atop the glovebox, perfect for panicky co-pilots who brace themselves for every lane change (you know who you are).
Prefer to banish those passengers to the back? They won’t need much convincing. The Taurus X’s low, flat floor and tall ceiling provide van-like space in the second row, with two properly propped-up “captain’s chairs” ready to quell complaints on long trips. A cavernous console bin with two deep cupholders separates these comfy thrones; a conventional three-across bench seat is a no-cost option.
Then there’s Taurus X’s piece de resistance: the third-row seat. Okay, this isn’t the sort of thing that gets pistonheads’ blood pumping. But the X’s “way-back” is a packaging marvel that offers a wide, easy step-through to a mini-bench sized for real, live humans. Even teenagers (who share over 99 percent of their DNA with humans) will find knee clearance uncontestable, with surplus space overhead for carefully-groomed manes and coifs.
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of a decent third row, as anyone who’s done much crossover cross-shopping can attest. In this class, only GM’s Lambda triplets offer such magnanimous space for seven, and the Enclave, Acadia and Outlook are nearly one thousand pounds porkier– each– than the Taurus X. The Toyota Highlander’s third row, by comparison, is a nicely-trimmed tuna can.
The Ford and Toyota go tit for tat when it comes to hauling familial detritus. Each offers huge floor space in back; the Toyota offers a bit more of it, while the Ford boasts a lower liftover. The Highlander shames the X’s weak 2,000 lbs, tow rating; the Ford busts a can of fold-ass on the front passenger’s seat.
Here’s another X feature that’s missing from the Toyota: steering feel! Now, don’t get too excited here. While offering more feedback than most of its rivals, the Taurus X’s power assisted helm still feels gummy and a touch light around the straight-ahead. But it carves linear, reassuring arcs in curves. And that means the X drives smoothly, easily, and, well, no differently than the four-door Taurus. It ought to, considering that the X sits only six inches taller than its sedan stablemate, with the same driver eyepoint.
Performance? Yes, there’s some of that, too, as the Freestyle’s badge and grille weren’t the only things Ford swapped out for 2008. There’s also a new 3.5-liter V6, weighing in at 263 horsepower, mated to a six-speed automatic. This combination provides a steady, seamless supply of oomph; albeit delivered in that distant, detached manner endemic to quiet, high-riding vehicles. The auto occasionally dithers when asked to downshift, magnifying the impression. But then, no three-row crossover is a street scorcher.
Even as Ford’s SUV stable swells to bursting, the mpg Taurus X is the best of the bunch: reasonably frugal, perfectly practical, wonderfully comfortable and thoroughly modern. But Ford’s stunning lack of situational and self-awareness condemns the Taurus X to obscurity. Thus the mighty have fallen.
72 Comments on “Review: 2008 Ford Taurus X...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
It’s a crime that Ford lets this car go unnoticed. We have 5 on the lot and have sold only 1 since launch – to Consumer Reports no less! No one, I mean NO ONE comes in asking about it.
It’s also a shame Ford sees fit to charge a $5000 premium over the equivalent Taurus sedan, but Ford does that on the Edge as well.
The only flaw it has inside, besides the marginal plastics quality, is that the rear seat headrests are too low. They wrap over the top of the seat back when lowered, and they dig right into an adults back. You have to raise them up all the way for them to be useful.
The problem is that the slightly used versions of the Freestyle are so underappreciated that they make great used car bargains. Who’s going to go pay $25-$30k for a new one, when used versions are so inexpensive. For most families, the additional HP isn’t that important in a family vehicle to justify the additional cost over what is already a pretty good vehicle.
this car is truly an excellent station wagon, complete with all the inherent advantages of that design as well as the associated stigma. it has floundered because of boring styling and the wagon personna. it also suffers with an EPA rating for the AWD version of 15/22, compared with the 17/23 for the new 4WD highlander (fueleconomy.gov). Hell, my E63 is rated 14/20, so Ford and the other manufacturers have a long way to go. the wonderfulness of the 30+ mpg mercedes/bmw/audi diesel wagons will eventually filter into other less costly vehicles (that are 50 state clean) and i truly believe diesel will be the next “big thing” in the US auto scene. A Ford TaurusX with a sweet 200 hp/300 torque 30+ mpg diesel would be a superb utility vehicle.
dwford:
Oh, the irony! They did give it a good score (75/100) and a Recommend, if that’s any consolation.
I considered this vehicle about 3 years ago before our first son was born. Let me repeat that only "I" considered it and my wife gave it a big fat "NO".
Her primary reason was that it was a Ford and it "looked" like a wagon. Of course she was stuck on the Denver, CO suburban requirement to own a SUV. I was looking at it prior to it being introduced. Once saw it in person I was shocked by it's size (too large for my liking).
But without a doubt this vehicle is absolutely perfect for many families and is a much better alternative then say a Ford Expedition or Chevy Tahoe. It has great features and room and is very well thought out. The mpg's aren't that good and that is it's one drawback and of course when it was intro'd it was powerless and had the CV that I hated. Alas it is a TRUE CUV not like many of these other "CUV's".
Not sure why Ford chose to ignore but it is typical of how they've handled many things. I'm sure the $5k premium over it's obvious sibling sedan doesn't help matters when it looks like a wagon (SUV/CUV's sell for a premium for some ridiculous reason and THAT is probably the reason for it being ignored by Ford – same reason we won't get the new Mazda 6 wagon/hatch because they're protecting high-margin CX-7 and CX-9).
Finally, my wife and I bought a wagon anyway – Subaru Legacy GT LTD.
I think phil is on to something. Every time I look at this vehicle, I view it not as a CUV, but as a minivan – simply a successor to the Windstar. I wonder how many potential customers make the same connection, and considering how stellar the Windstar was, won’t touch it without a full hazmat suit.
dwford :“The only flaw it has inside, besides the marginal plastics quality, is that the rear seat headrests are too low. They wrap over the top of the seat back when lowered, and they dig right into an adults back. You have to raise them up all the way for them to be useful.”
They do this in the VW Rabbit too. It’s done for two reasons;
1) to increase visibility out the back window
2) to encourage rear passengers to adjust their headrest
I wish car makers would just start making station wagon versions of sedans again and end this CUV madness. What most American families want is a simple station wagon type car that gets decent mileage and can hold a fair amount of goods when necessary.
a guy i work with has one – it is completely without bling – what a releif – no pretentions of rock climbing, real or imagined. Just a clean design and no pretense. It is kinda elegant in a past european sorta way. I like it. If i needed such a vehicle, i would buy this one.
Also, if they just lowered it so it was closer to the ground, the mileage would improve.
I think Phil is on to one of the main reasons the Freestyle/Taurus X struggles: it looks like a wagon. I do not understand the aversion to wagons but the average consumer would rather be caught driving an H2 in a Polar Bear coat than in one of these. Boo! Bad consumer! Bad!
Other than that one thing, this car should be one of Ford’s darlings, it does everything a family wants it to and very well. It is most certainly on our list next time around… provided it is still around. Ford graces us with the Flex next year making the Taurus X completely irrelevant.
I really like this vehicle too, but, as P.J. said, the marketing was sorely lacking.
Even worse was the branding. Remember when the Freestyle came out it was meant to be perceived as a close sibling to the Freestar, a wretched excuse of a minivan. Then the Ford designers put the 2-tone vaguely-Explorer-like cladding on it as the Explorer sales started declining. They ran ads showing the Freestyle, Freestar, and Explorer side-by-side, as if they all came from the same genetic material, instead of highlighting the Freestyle’s Volvo roots.
I wonder if the lack of marketing and poor branding were due to the Edge, a direct competitor to this vehicle despite what Ford says. Actually, I’m wondering if the Taurus X is a superior vehicle to the Edge, as some reviews have suggested.
there is a new Jetta Sport Wagon on its way shortly that will have there new TDI 2.0l engine in it. looks pretty good.
There’s a part of me that would love to get this vehicle for my wife. She loves a higher seating position, it’s built on one of the best chassis foundations anywhere, and it wouldn’t pose too much of a risk to other vehicles on the road if an accident took place. That’s one of my pet peeves regarding today’s ‘height race’. Metal is meant to hit metal in an accident… Not glass.
Overall though, I see this vehicle as too plump and too cheap interior wise. A well maintained Volvo V70 wagon would offer a far more luxurious environment with a comparable level of safety. It’s also a bit more sporting as well. Then you have the Subaru Outback, the Audi A6 Avant, a Passat Wagon, or even a classic Mercedes 124. All of these vehicles offer a far greater bang for the buck than the Freestyle/X.
If you could price it new at the same level as the Taurus, I could see the value. But Ford choose otherwise and that means it will probably end up in a lot of rental fleets and fleet lease programs before the core customer base will reconsider it as a used car. For the family wagon it’s pretty good. But there are far better choices out there. As an enthusiast, I would even be willing to take the age hit for the other vehicles and I’m sure many consumers will think likewise.
Then again, if you simply look at cars as an appliance the Freestyle/X is a fine choice… as a used car.
The X is built off a Volvo platform. How is it a CUV and not just a wagon version of the Taurus/500? Because it looks like a wagon and I don’t understand why it is called the X??
The car doesn’t have a identity and looks to separate it from all of the competition and other Fords.
It’s just another Ford.
crossover???! This thing is a station wagon. Lets quit using marketing speak!!!
CSJohnston: I think the Taurus X goes away when the Flex arrives; the Flex will be heavily marketed and it will be Farley’s first big launch. Also, Chicago Assembly is getting the new Lincoln MKS—-so dumping the Taurus X will not hurt capacity and utilization rates.
I think that the “X” will go the way of the Pacifica; people who want a station wagon generally want a lower-profile vehicle that gets reasonable fuel mileage (Subie)– the “X” is OK for what it is, but 3-buck gas is going to hurt its sales.
Even though I like its understatement and overall packaging, the proportions and styling are a huge dud with everyone who wants a CUV. Just like all its D3 chassis stablemates in their respective markets.
Kind of a shame, but maybe the Flex will do better with its unique style…and that idiotic name.
Those rear head rests look like they’re straight out of a Saab.
Looks like they vaulted the roof in the rear just a touch to give the 3rd row inoccupants a bit of headroom. Had they kept the roof-line flat, nobody could call this a CUV, it would be a wagon. I have little use for the CUV genre of cars, but I could see myself having lots of use for this. I like it and I echo the statements above that it is under-marketed. If Ford could, and they can, keep this kind of design mentality in cars, then they could easily bounce back. Will they? Who knows… If they do, will they market it correctly? It is critical to Blue Oval salvation that they do.
Why, if they gave this car no marketing support, and didn’t want it to compete with its similar siblings, did Ford spend the money to update it?
Gee, Ford makes a vehicle that works well, is practical, roomy, comfortable and indeed rivals if not betters the competition. Ford then sees fit to not advertise said vehicle, and pretend it doesn’t exist, until it ceases to be, due to little sales, due to little (or no) advertising. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Crown Vic/Grand Marquis anyone?
Unless they changed some seating configuration from the Freestyle to the Taurus X I wasn’t exactly impressed by rows 2 and 3. My wife and I rode in one for a fairly long road trip and would prefer never to sit in one again.
@phil
“A Ford TaurusX with a sweet 200 hp/300 torque 30+ mpg diesel would be a superb utility vehicle.”
Ford has such an engine – the 2.7 diesel V-6 co-developed with PSA. It’s in Jaguars, Land Rovers, Peugeots and Citroens and gets nothing but praise.
I think Ford would have sold more of these if they had just called it a Taurus wagon. Wagons are back in vogue to some degree, but the X misses selling on that trend while having proportions no CUV or SUV owner would accept. And no marketing. Somehow Ford really let the ball drop on the 500 and its derivatives. They are fine big cars, among the best American cars in 20 years, yet Ford let them get an image as slow (they really aren’t) and dull to drive (they are better than many). Hope they do better with the Flex…though the name is pretty awful.
Here’s one problem, it’s ugly. I know many people in the key 25-40 year demographic that are considering the Edge because it has head turning style. The Taurus X is an ugly dud. I’d rather buy an old ‘95 Taurus wagon. At least that I could excuse on price alone.
Guyincognito: “Why, if they gave this car no marketing support, and didn’t want it to compete with its similar siblings, did Ford spend the money to update it?”
Good question…I think they saw a need to keep a 3 row CUV alternative around until the Flex arrives and utilize capacity in Chicago until the MKS arrives.
Sajeev—-if it is in fact you that gets one of the two TTAC NAIAS passes—-PLEASE PLEASE ask Ford why they need the Flex name….launch with Fairlane ! There has got to be some way to get their attention on this error.
At least Ford has a working Hybrid Car out in the market today.
Nice review P.J. but but no comment about trucks
I don’t like them.
How can you say that a wagon is “what most American families want” when wagon sales are dismal compared to CUVs and SUVs? The clearest indication of what people want is what they buy, as people generally do not buy things they don’t want.
I’m as much of a wagon lover as anyone here on TTAC, but the harsh reality is that a huge segment of the population has a visceral and irrational dislike of them, hence the popularity of CUVs and SUVs. Does it make sense? No, not really but the choices people make in the marketplace often don’t make sense, they are driven by intangible factors like fashion and taste.
I know of at least two other reasons why the previous Free(was it star or style, I always get them confused?)style didn’t take off in the marketplace:
1. Underpowered, wheezy old 3.0 litre V6 that made it feel underpowered.
2. CVT transmission that was supposed to mask the engine’s lack of power.
Now that those things have been fixed the new Taurus X deserves a place on people’s shopping list. If only Ford would let people know.
It’s amazing how often I hear this. A few months back the GF and I were looking at cars to replace her old Chevy Lumina and I recommended she look at a Subaru Outback Wagon. She immediately wrinkled her nose at it and shook her head: “Looks too much like a wagon.” She also turned her nose up at other wagon-like vehicles, in favor of CUVs like the Rav4, the CR-V, and the Subaru Forester and SUVs like the Nissan Pathfinder and the Toyota 4Runner.
I realize it’s a sweeping generalization to say that women are behind the SUV/CUV craze, but the more I hear this, the more I start to wonder. Is it the height of CUVs/SUVs that offers the perception of safety? Or is it the stodgy “mom-mobile” rep of the wagon that is a turn-off. I truly don’t know.
Martin:
Quote from High and Mighty about the psyche of SUV owners
My wife wants to own an SUV, but luckily she trusts my judgement on automobiles.
We will be a minivan family – love the sliding doors.
The Freestyle / Pacifica / Cadillac SRX is all about compromise. Compromise too much and you don’t please anybody.
Let’s assume that most moms don’t care about the performance of a car. Saying a wagon handles better than an SUV/CUV doesn’t mean anything to them. If they don’t make the money in the family the price of gas may be a non-factor as well.
Doesn’t Ford do any research on what kind of demographic actually ends up buying this? Men with three kids or more that want car-like characteristics? Isn’t that a compromise as well?
And how are its sales compared to plain old wagons?
Heck, my local Ford dealer only has 500’s ON THE SHOWROOM FLOOR!!!
And you wonder why no one is buying any version of the Taurus/X!
/p
I agree with others – this might be a good used car purchase – but to plunk down serious cash on a quickly depreciating vehicle just for the sake of…the Ford purchase “experience”?
I wonder if the previous models with CVT aren’t even less valuable now that a conventional tranny can be had?
Plus, what is it with Ford and the two tone paint jobs they’re slapping on most of these? Ugh.
Maybe I’d buy a used, monochrome, 2008 model…in 2010…
Ford actually had two products, FiveHundred and Freestyle that could have worked IF Ford had not screwed them up buy releasing them to market before they were ready. I have rented a 500 or two and can attest that these are rather nice, BUT COULD DO WITH SOME IMPROVEMENT. The one thing that did make me seriously dislike the car was the crappy underpowered engine and totally confused CVT.
Simply put both of these vehicles entered production without a proper engine. The 3.0l Duratec was NOT up to the job and Ford would have been better off holding back on the release rather shipping out ANOTHER half-assed product to the dealers.
Now that Ford has the engine right they go off and screw up the styling and change the name to something that the majority of American car buyers now associate with “el cheapo rento”.
I LIKE MANY OTHER FOLKS WILL NEVER BUY A FORD TAURUS, PERIOD! The name alone means product DEATH! The Taurus name does not imply anything good like the names Camry and Accord. In all honesty “Taurus” is the anti-thesis of Accord!
Today when I look at Fords entire lineup I get the impression that they are just throwing products out there without much thought.
Explorer: Big and Doofy, much wasted $$$$ on IRS for a product that aint selling anymore! Styling is tooooo conservative, looks like modern day County Squire. “Hey Griswald we have a car for your next family vacation!”
Edge: too small, yet jacked-up off the ground so it doesn’t handle well. Can’t enough carry people or stuff, but still sucks as a “personal” vehicle.
TaurusX: perfect size, but looks like a Explorer dropped to the ground. WTF is with this played out Eddie Bauer styling? Aint too many folks out here that want to look like Ned Flanders while driving to work!
So exactly who are these vehicles designed to appeal to? What focus group is still telling Ford that people desire tan plastic body cladding on their SUVs?
This car currently sits at the top of my new car list to replace my aging Subaru Outback. It’s a great vehicle for a family of 4 who carry LOTS of stuff. The Tribeca and Edge are too small and get the same or less MPG for the same money.
Now when Ford starts offering some decent incentives to move these guys…
–Dave
Now if only they would take off the stilts and give it the same stance as a Taurus and call in a Taurus wagon I would be interested.
I don’t need all wheel drive, and propping a car up on stilts is all wrong for wind resistance, handling and fuel economy.
If this was a flop, why is Ford so lathered up about the “Flex”?
“I considered this vehicle about 3 years ago before our first son was born. Let me repeat that only “I” considered it and my wife gave it a big fat “NO”.”
I don’t understand why the majority of women in the US want nothing to do with a wagon. I guess it is true that even moms today don’t want anyone to know they are ….. a mom!
Amen. Despite its glowing attributes, the Freestyle has been one of the most underrated (and misunderstood) cars since its launch, and in usual Ford fashion, marketing put it out to pasture to die 6 months after launch.
Now with an adequate powertrain and a touch-up of the [penny-pinched] interior materials, the X finally has the chops to compete. Unfortunately, it’s 3 years late and launched with less hoopla than LG employs on a new dorm refrigerator. I fear the X will meet an untimely and unfortunate demise (plans for Lincoln/Merc spinoffs have already been scrapped).
Shame… especially so since I helped launch it.
It’s clear that GM realizes that there is only one opportunity to introduce a new vehicle. If they botch the launch, then it’s going to be very difficult to get people to consider it in the future, even if it improves greatly.
But Ford doesn’t realize this yet. They’ve botched the launch of the Freestyle/Taurus X, the MKZ/Zephyr, the Five-Hundred/Taurus, the Focus and all the others. A product introduction is when there is real marketing $ to spend, and that’s what people remember. The Taurus X a four year old car now, and it matured too late for it to be a success.
I don’t understand why the majority of women in the US want nothing to do with a wagon. I guess it is true that even moms today don’t want anyone to know they are ….. a mom!
Quite simply the big 2.8 spent the better part of 3 decades reducing the traditional Aemrican Station Wagoon into an object of scorn with stupid fake wood and other vestigal design queues. I guess popular culture and the movie Nation Lampoon Vacation also had a hand in the wagons demise in the USA.
In all honesty the American Station Wagon just went the way of the traditional American car back int he 1970s, Nowhere! This was the time when Volvo, Peugoet, & MB, entered the US market with new mordern alternatives that were than right sized to fit the shrinking American family. Add into this mix a host of hatchbacks from just about every automaker and fuel crisis and you can see why the full-sized “Plywood Plymouth” went the way of the dodo.
The Freestyle/Taurus X is a great primer on how NOT to sell a vehicle:
1) Ford introduced it with almost no marketing support so it wouldn’t cannibalize Exploder sales. What marketing they did was lame. Remember the “Divorced dad hands over the kids” ad for this?
2) Ford brought it out with the underpowered 3.0V6/CVT combination that seemed to be designed to perform well on EPA tests but poorly in the real world. Slow, wheezy, and with the CVT, it whined like a stuck pig.
3) Faced with a dog, they changed the name to Taurus X. What the heck? They destroyed what little name recognition it had and saddled it with a nameplate that had lost any luster it once may have had.
4) After making sure the market hated the vehicle, Ford finally improved it with a 3.5 V-6/6-speed auto like it should have had from the beginning. By now, it was on no one’s shopping list, so all that investment in improved hardware is down the tubes.
5) Finally a competitive vehicle, Ford has yet to commit a significant marketing budget to it, in favor of the Edge CUV, which occupies the same price point as the X and Explorer.
6) And for the final nail, they are introducing the Flex, YET ANOTHER SUV/CUV in the same price range. They now have Edge, Explorer, Taurus X, stripped Expeditions, and soon the Flex, all in the same 25-35K price range.
The bland styling has never been a help, but at least it’s inoffensive. This is a very good, competitive vehicle now. Unfortunately, it’s damaged goods in the market, and will slowly fade out.
How many millions did Ford waste on this? Ford’s product planning has been all trucks/SUVs/CUVs for the past ten years. With the exception of the Fusion, Ford has ZERO competitive automobiles. The Mustang is fading, Crown Vic is being euthanized, and we can’t buy a good Focus. And even the Fusion is doing only OK, and with a new Accord, a new, very competitive Malibu, not to mention the Camry, it’s barely holding it’s own.
At least Ford is finally getting rid of Jaguar/Land Rover, and moving to kill Mercury.
Maybe Big Al can put some effort to reviving the Ford brand.
@whatdoiknow
I don’t think the Edge belongs in the group. It sells better than most everything, and is right up there with the Highlander.
CarShark: You are totally on point with the Edge. They launched it with a good deal of marketing support and have continued to support it. The sales numbers have been very good.
Zarba: As far as Ford’s SUV / CUV overlap—-it is no more than Toyota’s (do you really need a highlander, RAV 4, and 4 Runner ?). I think all manufacturers are hedging their bets until the whole mix between SUV and CUV settles a bit more.
This much I do know—there is no need for the Taurus X when the Flex arrives.
We have a 2005 Freestyle. I bought it despite the fact that I’m a GM guy and have always driven GM. I can’t say that I’ve been thrilled with the Ford dealership, but the Freestyle/X is a good package for the average family. The extra two seats come in handy when grandparents are visiting or we have one of the kids’ friends in tow. We’ve had the thing camping to Yosemite and driven it comfortably cross country with the dog in the back. Even with a car top carrier I was getting 24 mpg at highway speeds with the car completely loaded. We have the Duratec with the CVT and it’s really not a bad powertrain. People complained it’s underpowered. No – it’s perfectly fine for what most people need. But, but, but…..but nothing. It’s not unsafe for merging, passing, or any other traffic situation. My daily driver is a Corvette so I understand that my Freestyle is not a sports car. I don’t know why the Freestyle didn’t take off, but my guess is that it’s pretty simple – people don’t find it “cool.” That’s fine I suppose. It works for us.
I can remember in 2004 when the Ford buyer assigned to my company was “negotiating” (OK, back then, Ford didn’t negotiate….they dictated. Another story for another time.) Anyway, this poor misguided soul tried to convince me that Ford would be selling 305,000 units of the Freestyle/Five Hundred line. In their wildest fantasy, no doubt. I told him they wouldn’t sell more than 140k in any year tops.
Wonder what he did with his buyout?
Nice to read that it is a decent car…but at the price point, and without a scintilla of marketing support…..doom.
You can get a nice certified preowned 2 year old one for under 20 grand. At that price it’s really worth looking at. New? Not really.
umterp85: Each of the cars you named has a distinctly different personality and target customer. The Rav4 and Highlander are very different in size, and the 4Runner is very different from both in terms of off-road ability.
Of course, they do all get purchased by suburban soccer moms who ignore their actual automotive needs and practicality. They also buy Benzes, but you’re not going to say a G-wagen is the same as a M-class, are you?