Topic: CD Article: 2008 Ford Taurus & Taurus X

[initial_D]

Most reviews are politically correct. Never driven the 500, Avalon, or the DC 300 ... but I wouldn't even touch a 300 just because of the interior. The Avalon I sat in had a cassette player, neat. 

[Mitlov]

Most reviews are politically correct.

What do you mean by that?  That everything about the car was crap and they just made up good stuff about it?

[Allen]

probably

[initial_D]

Most reviews are politically correct.

What do you mean by that?  That everything about the car was crap and they just made up good stuff about it?

Me wrote politically correct. Since when does that term mean BS and fake? 

[Julie]

Okay, I don't have a lot of automobile magazine experience, but I like to read them now and I don't think you can find a terrible review of any car.

They seem politically correct to me too... However, all of them seem that way. So I guess the comparisons would still be valid.

Just my two cents.

[Greg B.]

I just wanted to make a comment about so-called improved look of the new Taurus. Am I missing somthing? The Taurus X does have a improved look at the front but the Taurus front-end is just plain ugly (circa 1982). This is definately a step back in time for design. While Ford of Europe continues to inovate in terms of design and execution, Ford Motor Company in the US/Canada continue to produce lacklustre vehicles in every aspect. (Just look at the 2008 Ford Focus).

While GM and especially Saturn are trying to turn things around by giving us what we want, kind of, Ford will continue to fall behind. Ford has to do whatever it takes to win back buyers and that means just one thing. Fire the US designers at Ford take a leaf out of Ford of Europe's book.

I have to agree. The Five Hundred, while somewhat bland, actually looked better in the flesh than it does in photos, and in certain colors/trims was a very good-looking car. In the photos, the Taurus now has an ugly Ford cliche grille and it has been afflicted with the same ugly-taillight syndrome as the Fusion. What are they thinking?

Back when "bright trim" meant either polished stainless or a chrome-plated diecast metal part, it was impressive. But these days when you get vacuum-metalized aluminum over plastic that doesn't last if you accidentally get some car polish on it, it just looks cheap and overdone. The Saturn Aura and these Ford changes are good examples. Or look at the C-A-R-A-V-A-N letters on almost any Dodge Caravan tailgate from the last few years. Most of them have lost the shiny coating and are showing just gray plastic. Ugly.

[Mitlov]

Okay, I don't have a lot of automobile magazine experience, but I like to read them now and I don't think you can find a terrible review of any car.

They seem politically correct to me too... However, all of them seem that way. So I guess the comparisons would still be valid.

Just my two cents.

Edmunds admittely is not as harsh as others, in my epxerience.  The Titan comes out of this review a full step behind the Tundra and Silverado, but Edmunds doesn't go for the jugular:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=119281

For comparison, note the bruising the Pontiac G6 GTP takes in this C&D review:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10515/everyday-heroes.html

And how utterly uncompetitive the Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V sounds in this review:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12635/2007-volkswagen-gti-vs-2007-subaru-impreza-wrx-tr-vs-2007-mini-cooper-s-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-se-r-spec-v-vs-2007-mazdaspeed-3-grand-touring.html

[Charleydog]

I am totally disappointed in the new Taurus. I  have a 1998 Taurus wagon and I love it. The new design is just mediocre and actually a clone of many other mid-size cars on the road. The old Taurus had a distinctive look. I doubt if I will part with $30,000+ for the 2008 model. And no wagon?

[Charleydog]

I sympathize with the gentleman who had a bad experience with two Taurus cars.

I have a 1998 Taurus wagon with 160,000 km. I have not had any major problems with the car, only had to replace the alternator twice (the first after 8 years, and the second after 1 year). The car visits the Ford dealer every three months for regular maintenance and is oiled sprayed every fall. No rust, no rattles, no mechanical problems.

[mrthompson]

The Taurus X is the wagon isn't it?

Xactly.   

[MKII]

The Taurus X is the wagon isn't it?

Yes,
lots of pics here http://www.autoblog.com/photos/autoblog-garage-2008-ford-taurus-x/
and nice review "Just a week after production launched at the Chicago assembly plant, Taurus X serial number 70, a Limited AWD model with the new 3.5L V-6 and six-speed automatic was turned over to Autoblog for a week of evaluation."
Find out what it's like to live with the Taurus X after the jump
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/13/in-the-autoblog-garage-2008-ford-taurus-x-limited

[Julie]

Okay, I don't have a lot of automobile magazine experience, but I like to read them now and I don't think you can find a terrible review of any car.

They seem politically correct to me too... However, all of them seem that way. So I guess the comparisons would still be valid.

Just my two cents.

Edmunds admittely is not as harsh as others, in my epxerience.  The Titan comes out of this review a full step behind the Tundra and Silverado, but Edmunds doesn't go for the jugular:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=119281

For comparison, note the bruising the Pontiac G6 GTP takes in this C&D review:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10515/everyday-heroes.html

And how utterly uncompetitive the Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V sounds in this review:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12635/2007-volkswagen-gti-vs-2007-subaru-impreza-wrx-tr-vs-2007-mini-cooper-s-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-se-r-spec-v-vs-2007-mazdaspeed-3-grand-touring.html

Hmm, you're right, that's pretty brutal.

[Arthur Dent]

Okay, I don't have a lot of automobile magazine experience, but I like to read them now and I don't think you can find a terrible review of any car.

They seem politically correct to me too... However, all of them seem that way. So I guess the comparisons would still be valid.

Just my two cents.

Edmunds admittely is not as harsh as others, in my epxerience.  The Titan comes out of this review a full step behind the Tundra and Silverado, but Edmunds doesn't go for the jugular:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=119281

For comparison, note the bruising the Pontiac G6 GTP takes in this C&D review:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10515/everyday-heroes.html

And how utterly uncompetitive the Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V sounds in this review:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12635/2007-volkswagen-gti-vs-2007-subaru-impreza-wrx-tr-vs-2007-mini-cooper-s-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-se-r-spec-v-vs-2007-mazdaspeed-3-grand-touring.html

Hmm, you're right, that's pretty brutal.

If you ever get a chance read a R&T or something from the 70s - they savagly beat up anything sub-par. I have a 74 Subaru review that is pretty amusing in that regard.

[initial_D]

In a copmaro test, the weakness of the so-so car really shows, so says the editors; and words don't have to be as harsh in a single car review?

[Charleydog]

From what I can see, the Taurus X is a cross-over, not a true station wagon.

[Cord]

What would make it a true station wagon?

[mrthompson]

Faux woodgrain.   

[Charleydog]

A real station wagon doesn't look like it is on steroids. Have you seen a picture of the Taurus X? Since I am not allowed to post links, I cannot list the Web site but suffice it to say that if you go to autoblog.com and drill down to /2007/05/21/ford-prices-2008-taurus-x-from-27-365/ you will see it.

If I wanted an SUV, I would buy one.

[Mitlov]

A real station wagon doesn't look like it is on steroids. Have you seen a picture of the Taurus X? Since I am not allowed to post links, I cannot list the Web site but suffice it to say that if you go to autoblog.com and drill down to /2007/05/21/ford-prices-2008-taurus-x-from-27-365/ you will see it.

If I wanted an SUV, I would buy one.

I don't see steroids.  I see an uber-tame car with no more ground clearance than your typical passenger sedan (5.1 inches), but a lot more room in back than a sedan, and more of an emphasis on length, and less emphasis on width and height, than a typical SUV.  That's what I'd call a wagon.



I see steroids.  Is the Magnum not a wagon?



I see steroids.  Is the M5 Touring not a wagon?

[Julie]

Mitlov, you're funny with the pictures