Don’t believe the hype. The 1986 Taurus was not “the car that saved Ford.” Trucks saved Ford in the late Eighties and early Nineties, as consumer tastes moved away from the one-sedan-fits-nearly-all market in favor of the newly popular SUV. Nor can the 2010 Taurus save a Ford beset by problems on all sides. There are no longer enough potential mid-sized car buyers to make a huge impact on the company’s bottom line, and most of those buyers are really better candidates for the smaller, more affordable Fusion.
No, the Taurus is neither Ford’s savior nor the vanguard of an American sedan renaissance. Instead, it’s a return to that quaintest of quaint American ideals: that of the premium Ford, primus inter pares in the millions of tract homes and leafy streets in that oft-derided “flyover country.” The original Taurus was notable for its unabashed futurism; the 1996 model, for a tragically ovoid miscalculation of the importance of price versus product in the market. This Taurus is something new and old at the same time. It’s intended to be a car that people want to own.
Our exposure to the 2010 Taurus took the form of a press introduction in Knoxville, Tennessee, followed by a long drive to Asheville, North Carolina, in conditions that could best be described as “forty percent chance of loading pairs of animals into a homebuilt ark.” The particular vehicle we drove was a white front-wheel-drive Taurus Limited with a reasonable but not comprehensive selection of the available options. Although the Taurus SE starts at $25,995, same as its predecessor, expect real-world stickers to range between twenty-eight and thirty-four grand for “popularly equipped” lot stock.
The alert reader will note that this price range is not really “Camcord” territory. The vast majority of the Japanese-brand mid-sizers sold are automatic-transmission four-bangers which leave the lot for a price well south of the base Taurus. This is fine with Ford; those buyers will be shown a Fusion. Instead, the Taurus is aimed upmarket. The media kit mentions the Audi A6, Lexus GS350, Chrysler 300, and Toyota Avalon. The first two comparisons can be dismissed as fantasy, the third is likely to be increasingly irrelevant, but the fourth is critical. There are plenty of older people in America who like the idea of buying a large sedan with a few gadgets on it, and those people are very fond of Toyota’s big Camry derivative.
Towards that end, Ford’s made no fewer than ten killer-app gadgets available on the Taurus, including radar cruise control, a surprisingly effective blind-spot warning system that can also notify the driver of cars approaching from the side in a parking lot, and the Orwellian “MyKey” that allows a top speed to be set for the valet key. Presumably this last feature is aimed at overprotective parents.
The MyKey setting on our car was turned off, so we headed for the hills to engage in a little bit of the old ultraviolence. Seated behind the Ford corporate steering wheel and fiddling with SYNC to our hearts’ content, we mercilessly tortured the charmless Duratec 3.5 for every last pony. This is not a fast car by any means—the SHO (in a forthcoming review) will address this—but it can be driven very hard in lousy weather. Stability is outstanding, steering feel is usable, and the chassis provides a sound ride while preserving a modest ability to be turned in on the brakes, should some irresponsible Boomer try it.
Over space and time, the new Taurus proved itself to be a quiet, comfortable vehicle with plenty of useful features. The exterior styling is up for debate, but the interior really does satisfy, providing ninety-five percent of the Lincoln MKS experience for about sixty percent of the price. Lon Zaback, Ford’s Interior Design Manager, waxed eloquent to us on the terribly complex process by which the absolutely convincing-looking faux-stitched leather doors were produced. The doors deserve a story all by themselves, but for now just consider it emblematic of the effort put into the Taurus by all hands.
The last Ford sedan to have this kind of whole-hearted effort devoted to it was the 1996 Taurus, and we all know what happened to that well-intended but ultimately star-crossed effort. It was a premium product and design statement masquerading as a family car, but the 2010 suffers from no such mission confusion. Comparing this very competent and interesting big sedan to the aging Impala or Chrysler 300 is bringing a gun to a knife fight. Against the Maxima, Avalon, and Azera, the Taurus offers size, styling, unique features and perhaps the most focus on the driver to be found in the segment. Don’t expect it to save Ford, but don’t expect it to fail, either.
[Ford provided the vehicle reviewed, gas, insurance, transportation, lodging and food.]
104 Comments on “Review: 2010 Ford Taurus...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
to engage in a little bit of the old ultraviolence
Great reference.
Glad to see FoMoCo style this thing up a bit. Won’t please everyone but at least it is no longer a blandmobile.
Good to hear that Ford is finding how to make good cars again. Any news regarding the European Fords? The Fiesta is on its way (even saw one yesterday), but the Mondeo was a bit iffy.
I’ve driven an 08 – Nice highway cruiser. Interior did need work, and it seems like Ford did it.
BTW, what’s up with no stars?!?
Ford is fantasizing to think people will cross shop the A6 or the ES350. The Maxima, Avalon, Azera and new LaCrosse are it’s more natural competitors.
I don’t see how this can’t crush the Lincoln MKS. For $10,000 less you get the same car. Only a true badge snob (for a Lincoln badge?!) would pay that difference.
I think it looks nice, and after all, if it’s middle aged/retirees they are aiming at, it’s not hard pleasing these people. just give them comfort and simplicity and the notion that they are not driving something severely outdated and they will say, where do i sign…..
Unlike GM it sounds like Ford is making an honest effort to bring cars to the table that may actually interest the mass market instead of rental car fleets.
Don’t believe the hype. The 1986 Taurus was not “the car that saved Ford.”
Perhaps the 1986 Taurus – the car itself – didn’t save Ford, but it could be argued that the product development process and many of its features did.
Probably one of the most trivial of the original Taurus’ features was the small, second sun visor that allowed the front seat occupants to pivot the main visor to the side, and still have the ability to block the sun from the top of the windshield. Minor, perhaps, but appreciated during a sunset drive on a curvy road.
Good review overall, although I wouldn’t call the Duratec 35 charmless, it’s a nice little engine even if a bit raucous at higher RPMs. You are spot on with where this sedan is being targeted though – the Fusion is the new volume seller, say hello to the replacement to the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, which it is, thankfully, better than in every way.
Aside from retirees and those who just like big cars (which aren’t insignificant chunks in the market) I see sedans like this becoming an alternative to big SUVs as gas prices climb again. For the CUV averse you get seating for a family of 4 or 5 in comfort, with rear seats big enough for big 6 footers, and a trunk big enough to hold a weeks worth of luggage for the entire group. With 18/28 mpg in FWD, mileage is very good for a car this big.
Having finally had a chance to see and play with one in person this could be a real competitor not only to the 300 and Avalon, but to the Lexus GS, Acura RL, and Infiniti M. No, I don’t think Lexus shoppers will put it on their list, but as most Lincoln Mercury dealers are also Ford dealers, and as the MKS is already stealing lots of sales from the mid-to-big segment Japanese luxury marks, quite a few might opt for the Taurus as a more economical option after coming in to initially look at an MKS.
I drive a Cadillac DTS for work. Its a fine car, I really like it, it has every imaginable creature comfort.
I have thought of buying a used one for myself, for long drives. The seats alone are worth the price of admission.
A used one a few years old runs around 35K or so, about the price of this car new. And this car seems to have all the trinkets that I am so fond of on the Caddy.
I beleive they are onto something here. I predict a success.
This will hugely cannabalize the MKS, but Ford cannot afford to sandbag the Taurus just to help that niche product.
North of $30K for a Taurus? Ford better keep production very low if it doesn’t want to see these massively discounted. If Ford gets anything near sticker I will take that as an indication that we have entered hyperinflation.
It is the best looking Ford, other than the retro Mustang and GT, in a VERY long time, and thank god Ford did NOT use the “Dave/Gillette” grille.
Actually, the Taurus did save Ford in the mid-80s. Trucks didn’t assume this role until the 1990s–the Explorer was introduced in 1990, the Expedition around 1995.
Two things strike me as notable about the new Taurus:
1. Compared to the 2008-2009, it’s larger on the outside–and heavier–but significantly tighter on the inside, especially in back. Ford has once again learned that function doesn’t sell.
2. It’s sized and priced much like the Buick LaCrosse. Both have base curb weights around 4,000 pounds. For AWD add another 200. I posted a size and price comparison here:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=373
Reliability is a question mark. The Five Hundred and previous Taurus haven’t been bad cars, based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey. We don’t yet have enough responses for the more closely related MKS–maybe in August. J.D. Power’s IQS suggests that the MKS has been having many problems, but then many of their latest results appear odd to me.
TrueDelta hopes to have a quick initial reliability result for the new Taurus. All depends on how soon we get enough owners. If the sticker doesn’t scare people off, it should sell well, which would help.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Jack, thanks for the review. I like the looks of this car. Hopefully it will be reliable.
How well does the blind spot detection deal with motorcycles?
These are fairly attractive cars. I think maybe A.M. is doing something well. Is this a rebadged Mondeo? That’s a pretty decent looking car as well.
Last time I rode in a ford sedan about 2 years ago, the seating was terrible… I mean terrible. I take it this has improved a bit?
Last, this is not a meaningful price point for Ford. This is good price point for an entry level Lincoln. Tech is good for the young, and some aging baby boomers… not so much for the retired set that wants comfort, reliability, and a nice dealer experience.
I predict the abyss for this new Taurus.
Last, on the stars… I always loved the stars from way back, before they were gone and came back, when Farago was the principal reviewer. The review would be very opinionated and emotional. It would be centered around his particular wants and wishes for a car. The stars were like a step back to objectivity – they added to the review, not reinforced it or detracted from it.
The new Taurus is based on the previous Taurus, which was based on the Five Hundred, which was based (loosely) on the Volvo S80.
jerseydevil : A used one a few years old runs around 35K or so, about the price of this car new. And this car seems to have all the trinkets that I am so fond of on the Caddy.
You should be able to find that used DTS a few years old for low to mid $20k. Get it certified if you do buy one, lest you be stuck with repairing the “Northstar Leak” out of pocket.
It’s nice to see Ford use the equity in the name “Taurus” for something good. This looks like a really nice car, and seems that Ford is finally putting their cars on the priority list. I really hope this car is a success for FoMoCo.
wstansfi : Last, this is not a meaningful price point for Ford. This is good price point for an entry level Lincoln.
Lincoln? maybe Mercury. This shows that maybe Ford overdid it and this particular car should be rebadged as a mercury and Ford should sell a lower priced one.
That is a handsome car, and the grille treatment is much better on this Taurus than it is on the newly restyled Fusion. It may kill the MKS, but then again I doubt Ford expected to sell the MKS in any great numbers.
The 2010 Taurus is the first and only Ford I have considered in many, MANY, years.
The 2010 Taurus pricing sent me looking elsewhere…
Bill Wade, have you seen most of GM’s cars they’ve released the past few years? Hardly any of them are rental specials and have just as much effort put into them as the “new” refreshed “new” Taurus here. Like the upcoming 2010 LaCrosse which looks vastly better inside than this car.
Will the refreshed Taurus really compete with anything? At it’s price point I really don’t think so. I don’t see any real home run part of this car and I can’t see people paying this much money for a Taurus. It will sell just as badly as the renamed Ford Five Hundred model. Unless Ford rebates the crap out of it of course.
“Northstar leak?” I think the common headgasket durability problems with the Northstar were taken care of after the 2001 model year. The Deville/DTS is known for a host of other irritating problems, though.
The only real trouble I have, other than the loss of the Five Hundred’s packaging, is Ford’s new climate and radio controls. Like the Flex (and the Honda Accord, and the previous Maxima), they’re composed of a billion identical buttons strewn attractively across the dash and labeled with small script.
It looks good, but it’s not easy to pick out at speed. I suppose you get used to it, and it does look nicer than the big, rounded, somewhat infantile buttons in the Camry or Fit, but it’s not as easy to use.
Other than that, it’s a really nice car.
My family had an ‘88, ‘97, and ‘02 Taurus, and as we bought each successive model you could tell that there wasn’t as much thought put into the little details. Gone were the dual visors (though they re-appeared in ‘02), the bright yellow plastic cover to show you were the hood release was, the little covered storage on the rear parcel shelf.
I actually liked the look and feel of the ovoid ‘97 model, but the details let it down. They were all reliable vehicles though. Engine stalling on the ‘88 and an A/C refresh, the auto trans in the ‘97 was a bit finicky, but the ‘02 with the DOHC engine never gave us much trouble.
I do think that the ‘86 Taurus and Sable saved Ford at the time. As Mr. Karesh mentioned, trucks did not come into vogue until the ‘90. The ‘86 Taurus and Sable (don’t discount the Sable, it was a big seller too) were definitely game changes at the time.
As you can probably tell, I’m a Taurus fan and am glad to see the name attached to a great vehicle once again.
Most importantly… Ford needs to keep all their vehicles on the Japanese method of model refreshes. Subtle revisions 3 years in, and a new model every 5 years. It’s going to be hard for Ford (or any domestic manufacturer) but they need to get new, high quality models to market quicker.
Lastly, Ford really went all out with Tech. toys on the new car, and I’m glad to see them pushing hard in this are. Ford’s navigation system is among the best in the business.
Someone should tell Ford that just because the car looks like it is always driving down hill, does not mean the fuel economy will improve.
And the windows are too small.
“Northstar leak?” I think the common headgasket durability problems with the Northstar were taken care of after the 2001 model year.
Head gasket issues are no longer a problem, but lower crankcase oil leaks still are. If you make it past 60k without oil leaks on a Northstar consider yourself lucky. But that’s another story for another day. That does underline, however, what got GM in trouble, and what Ford has seemingly avoided. GM’s known for years about issues with the Northstar —as well as loads of issues with other products— and has done little or nothing to correct them. Ford doesn’t seem to have the same problem, at least from what I’ve seen. One more reason I hope to see Ford do well.
Last, this is not a meaningful price point for Ford. This is good price point for an entry level Lincoln.
Well…all Lincolns are entry level luxury cars, or “near-luxury”
And you are correct…This is Lincoln money for a Ford Taurus…which makes the Lincoln rebadged of this car even more outrageously priced.
But it seems of late, Ford has a very bad habit of overpricing their cars. 33K for a Fusion, 28K for a Fusion hybrid, 45K for a silly Flex, 45K for a Taurus, 50K+ for a MKS with TwinForce.
Thanks freaking God. I really don’t want to have to get a CUV, but I need something roomy (for me) and for hauling camping and beach gear around (marry someone from South America and you will understand what ‘beach gear’ means. I had less ’stuff’ in my old apartment).
A biggish sedan, with decent looks and reasonably economy has always been my preference. This looks to fit the bill (and is infinitely better looking than the Avalon, which Toyota uglified as only Toyota can). Geez, I sound like Ford PR.
P71_CrownVic :
Someone should tell Ford that just because the car looks like it is always driving down hill, does not mean the fuel economy will improve.
And the windows are too small.</em
Thanks for telling us. The fuel economy is just fine – nothing in the competitive set that beats either the regular V6 or the EcoBoost on the highway.
And the windows are fine thanks.
Those of you complaining about the pricing do not understand the market the Taurus is targeting. It is priced fine for competing against the Avalon and 300.
It is just too expensive. Avalon will at least have manageable depreciation. By the time the 2010 Taurus owner will be ready to trade it in, they might be in for a very nasty financial hit. Besides, I think the intended audience would be better served by a Lucerne.
Ford has one feature that I have no idea why no one else has implemented: keypad entry. I know Nissan had it on Maximas for a while, but it’s long disappeared from them. That is great feature, at the beach or on a bike ride you don’t need to lug your keys around, never in danger of getting locked out.
Call me bland but IMO the last Five Hundred was the best styled Ford in recent times. I hate excess chrome and decorative geegaws like those fake vents in the front quarter panel.
I would be in the market for this type of car, I currently drive a 1998 Lexus LS and I see this car as equivalent to that. It’s good to see that Ford has possibly caught up to a 1998 Lexus, in 2009. Unfortunately for Ford my Lexus is still so comfortable and reliable that I am not looking to replace it in the foreseeable future. But if I was in the future, a 2-3 year old example of this car would get serious consideration.
This is a refreshing change – a full size sedan that doesn’t look like it was designed by an AARP focus group. As far as competition goes I would say that its mainly the Maxima which is the only other car in this class that is endowed with even a hint of desirability.
Ford is garbage, period.
Is there a chance the police would want to use this car as a new cruiser?
a surprisingly effective blind-spot warning system that can also notify the driver of cars approaching from the side in a parking lot,
Okay, there’s a new gadget that actually sounds cool and usefull to me. Good to hear that you thought the car was a good effort by Ford and a good competitor in the full-size sedan market.
i’m pretty sure the police are not gonna want to jump a $30k+ FWD sedan over a median strip any time soon
psarhjinian :
The only real trouble I have, other than the loss of the Five Hundred’s packaging, is Ford’s new climate and radio controls. Like the Flex (and the Honda Accord, and the previous Maxima), they’re composed of a billion identical buttons strewn attractively across the dash and labeled with small script.
Actually, the Flex controls look worse than they are. They’re pretty easy to pickup. Unlike Honda that seems to randomly arrange buttons (I owned an 05 TL), the buttons are grouped in bands by function. Also, there are four sizeable knobs for volume, tuning, cabin temp, and passenger temp.
The automatic climate control works well enough that you never need the manual adjustment buttons (in 9 months, I’ve used them once), so all you need to change are the temp knobs. The radio is the easiest I’ve ever had. The presets have their own row at the top of the stack. Volume and tuning have their own knobs with the media source buttons in between. Plus, Sync takes up any other slack.
xyzzy, I couldn’t agree more about the keypad. It’s the only true method of “keyless entry” — no fobs, no batteries, no keys. Lock your stuff in the car and go jump in the ocean. (Just make sure you change the code every year or two so you don’t wear in a permanent visual clue of what your code is.)
The ‘98 Lexus is an unfair comparison, though. They could go hog-wild on the luxury cues like real wood and finer leather, because they didn’t have to hit this price point. Also, RWD is all but useless in the great snowy North where I live.
Michael Karesh : Actually, the Taurus did save Ford in the mid-80s. Trucks didn’t assume this role until the 1990s–the Explorer was introduced in 1990, the Expedition around 1995.
Beat me to it. No need to believe the hype, just look at the profits trending upward from 1981-1990.
What could be said is that trucks and the Panther chassis kept Ford afloat while they were making the Taurus…kinda like right now.
But this isn’t 1986, and the new Taurus is playing in a pool far too deep and dangerous. Either this car needs to be capped at $30k, or the MKS needs to go. Ford’s branding is so bad they’ll actually make a Ford that costs the same or more than a Lincoln!
@ tauronmaikar
Thanks for providing constructive critique that adds to the intelligent discourse here at TTAC.
I recently ran across 3 Taurus SHOs being driven around mid-Michigan by what I have to assume were journalists based on the beaten-down look of road wear they each sported, and the Taurii were very nice looking vehicles.
Ford needed this Taurus to be svelte on the outside, classy on the inside, and drenched in quality and reliability in order to continue their path to respectability.
Check and check…awaiting word on the third part of the equation.
Nice job so far Mr. Mullaly.
Svelte? This is a big car that looks like a big car.
Sajeev:
I haven’t yet run a price comparison between the Taurus and the MKS, but easily enough done…
…adjusted for feature differences, the MKS appears to be priced about $6,000 higher. So the Ford isn’t quite priced like a Lincoln.
I don’t have 2009 MKS prices in the database yet. 2010 to 2010, the difference might be a little larger.
http://www.truedelta.com/prices.php
Regarding police use, a number of departments already use fwd impalas and intrepeds, so, a fwd taurus wouldn’t be a bad thing. Plus, AWD is availible, and for a SE with fleet pricing it would come in far below 30K.
Regarding the MKS, Lincoln is as much of a real luxury brand as Lexus, Infiniti, or Cadillac. While the badge might not draw the same snob appeal as Mercedes or BMW yet, it does add value for certain customers. The MKS for 2010 will add a couple exclusive features, such as the ability to self park. The MKS is a big seller now, and while the taurus might eat some of that, it won’t take too much.
P71 – That is a mix of base, mirange, and loaded prices you came up with. The fact is the Fusion, Flex, Taurus, MKS, and the rest of the lineup are priced equally or below competitors from Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc, for the same size and class and options. Yes you can go buy a car from a BK Chrysler or GM cheaper, but who wants to do that?
And the windows are too small.
I think Ford is reacting to the boring but functional Five Hundred having it’s ass handed to it by the very stylized Chrysler 300 back in ‘05.
IIRC, Mullaly about a year ago (when this model was first glimpsed out in the wild during testing) has said more or less this is the car they should have released back in ‘05.
Kudos to Ford. This is a great looking car with a strong drivetrain and hopefully excellent reliability. Overpriced? Well, once the market settles down I would expect $3-4k discounts, and since the car is already well-equipped, unless you have to have all the toys it will be reasonably priced I believe.
All I would want is a sunroof, SYNC, HIDs, perimeter alarm, and maybe heated seats. For around $32k, this would be a lot of car.
Neither Cadillac nor Linoln is a “real luxury brand.” They’re second tier, like Acura and Volvo. Infiniti is on the edge–depends on what they do to replace the flagging M.
Michael: I wasn’t just talking about the MKS (though SHO vs. MKS Turbo would be good to know) because the MKZ starts in the mid 30s.
Ford has too many sedans in the near luxury 25-40k price point. And if there’s one vehicle that shouldn’t be there, its either the Taurus or the MKZ. Either Ford goes upscale or Lincoln goes cheap…not both.
Don’t believe the hype. The 1986 Taurus was not “the car that saved Ford.”
Sorry but I have to take umbarage with this statement. Trucks may have saved Ford in the early to late 90’s, but in the mid-80’s the Taurus is what shook the money-maker. From wikipedia; “Replacing the Ford LTD, the front wheel drive Taurus introduced a much rounder and more organic design…described as “jelly bean” shaped, the design proved successful and helped to launch Ford into a new era of prosperity”.
During the time between ‘87-96, the Taurus was the best-selling car in the United States, losing the title in 1997. The Ford F-150 however, then gained the country’s best-selling vehicle title, leading sales along with several other vehicles not classified as “cars”.
Over 5 million were sold in that time frame. It was one of the most successful cars Ford ever sold and broke the styling mold of big, boxy cars.
P71_Crownvic:
But it seems of late, Ford has a very bad habit of overpricing their cars. 33K for a Fusion, 28K for a Fusion hybrid, 45K for a silly Flex, 45K for a Taurus, 50K+ for a MKS with TwinForce.
That’s not a fair comparison as you have those vehicles listed with every single option available and you’re still higher than reality even at that. You can take any vehicle, option it up and it’ll will be priced higher than nicer vehicles a class up or what it theoretically should be.
Just so you know, I paid $31K for my Flex OTD including leather and every option available other than Nav or DVD. Much less than a similarly equipped Odyssey or Sienna and right on par with the Lambdas and what other competitors are priced at. I see no problem with their pricing structure or their target audience to be honest.
BTW, I love my keypad too. Nothing like keeping the car cool while you get your big gulp or keeping it warm while fetching your coffee.
It looks to me like the biggest problem with this car is its name.
There is (despite Ford’s best efforts) some brand equity left in Taurus. But if you say “Ford Taurus” to most people, they think “mid-priced sedan”, not “Avalon competitor”. When I think of a Taurus, I think of something like the role the Ford Fusion has in their lineup – the standard mid-grade, average Joe, high-volume sedan, like a Camry or Accord.
The 2010 Taurus might be a worthy competitor to the Avalon, but why call it a “Taurus”? It’s like GM introducing a new upscale Buick Cavalier, or Toyota releasing a Lexus Corolla. The name Taurus is placed and defined – trying to push it upscale doesn’t make sense to me.
And I agree the windows are too small ;-)
Infiniti is definitely second tier. The brand is carried and defined by the G. Everything else they offer has tepid sales and isn’t very popular.
My wife and I looked at the new Taurus last weekend (AWD Limited, in Cherry Red). It was an impressive car. We didn’t get to drive it, but it sounds from the review that it drives pretty well, for a non-sports car. I don’t know if it will be a “hit” but it is a great car, and a lot of people are going to want one.