By P.J. McCombs
December 21, 2007 -
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.
4 / 5 Stars | Ford Taurus X rating summary and performance review
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews69 Responses to “ Ford Taurus X Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
December 21st, 2007 at 8:15 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:58 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:16 am
dwford:
Oh, the irony! They did give it a good score (75/100) and a Recommend, if that’s any consolation.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:31 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:38 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:38 am
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
December 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:55 am
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.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:02 am
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.