Topic: Test Drive: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO

[Autos_Editor]

The all-wheel drive Taurus SHO proved to be the perfect match for a 1,300-kilometre drive in the middle of winter, reports Managing Editor, Grant Yoxon.  Powerful and comfortable, its standard equipment would embarrass some luxury car makers, he says.

Read More...

[flowave]

I find that front and back doesnt match..

[roscoe]

Good writeup, but for an extra $1K I can get my hands on a BMW 335i xDrive. For another $500 or so, an Audi S4. Sorry, Ford, but the value proposition just isn't there.

[Shnak]

Filling up near Toronto, fuel consumption was just shade under 10 litres/100 km.

10L/100km is horrible for a sedan, no matter how much HP it has; you're still only about the same number of HP cruising at ~120kph than any other sedan with about half the actual HP.

Saying a vehicle's fuel econonmy is great considering its weight is a flawed argument. What should be said is that the vehicle weighs way too much and needs to be made lighter; fuel econonmy would naturally be improved.

[tpl]

Good writeup, but for an extra $1K I can get my hands on a BMW 335i xDrive. For another $500 or so, an Audi S4. Sorry, Ford, but the value proposition just isn't there.

I wouldn't want to do 1300 km in a day in the back seat of either of those.

[Calvin]

"Good writeup, but for an extra $1K I can get my hands on a BMW 335i xDrive. For another $500 or so, an Audi S4. Sorry, Ford, but the value proposition just isn't there."

And so we wait 2-3 years for depreciation to take its toll and then it'll be a better deal than a BMW or Audi (plus cheaper to service no doubt).  I personally like this car.  It's the hottest looking Taurus they've ever made, and I wouldn't be a bit embarassed to drive one.  

As for mileage...that works out to 28 mpg.  I'm sorry, for a 365 hp car that aint bad.  I drive a 2000 aTaurus...and I barely get that in summer and I'm only down what...210-220 hp from the SHO?   Me thinks I'd be happy to trade up for the power with cmoparable mileage.  If you want better, with same or better power, buy a Chevy.  Vettes get mid 30's, but you can't fit your hockey equipment and the whole family in it.  Hmmm...might not be a bad idea after all...LOL

[Tim]

Good writeup, but for an extra $1K I can get my hands on a BMW 335i xDrive. For another $500 or so, an Audi S4. Sorry, Ford, but the value proposition just isn't there.

No, you can't.

Check actual numbers prior to claiming such things, and make sure you're comparing reasonably, with similar levels of equipment, etc.

The S4 Starts at $52,500 prior to freight, Pdi, taxes, or options courtesy of Audi.ca, and the 335i x drive will run you $52,000 while giving up 65hp courtesy of BMW.ca.  Honestly, the constant lack of misinformation presented about this car because people are somehow offended that Ford would release a car that runs near $50,000 is unbelievable. The car starts at $48,000, prior to anything. So it's already $4000 cheaper than the models you've posited as competition. And yet you give up, for example, the 65hp in the BMW and 32 hp in the Audi.


The one thing I don't really understand about this car is the lack of HID lighting which really ought to be standard in this price bracket and competition. Other than that, this car DOES represent a value proposition.

[CanuckS2K]

Filling up near Toronto, fuel consumption was just shade under 10 litres/100 km.

10L/100km is horrible for a sedan, no matter how much HP it has; you're still only about the same number of HP cruising at ~120kph than any other sedan with about half the actual HP.

Saying a vehicle's fuel econonmy is great considering its weight is a flawed argument. What should be said is that the vehicle weighs way too much and needs to be made lighter; fuel econonmy would naturally be improved.

Personally, I find that to be very respectable fuel economy given it has 365hp, AWD, weighs over 4300lbs, and it's winter.  I hardly think that discussing fuel economy relative to the car's weight is a flawed argument as you suggest.   

[taurus-scotologist]

Congratulations on a well written report. 

This car is a great highway cruiser. Four people can cruise in style, including 4 Golf bags and luggage.  The trunk is huge!   I took it on some twisty roads and was surprised by how nimble it was.  The suspension is tight enough for spirited driving yet comfortable overall.  I have a BMW as well and my wife and I decided it will be the SHO that goes on the next Appalachian run. It's a sporty sedan with a high driving position and enormous trunk, not a true sports sedan that is light, super nimble (and a tiny trunk).

People should be aware that the car can be a gas guzzler in city driving.  Frequent stops and starts can easily drop the gas mileage to 12 MPG in the winter.  The same as any other heavy AWD vehicle.  Highway cruising easily gets 24-28MPG on REGULAR.

My negatives are the lack of HID lights and the waste of space with the large central shifter console.  A few storage cubbies should be built into this.  The key FOB is extremely cheap looking as well.  Visibility could be better but its not bad. Cross traffic alert and rear-view camera make up for it.

As far as the price whining goes, NOTHING comes close for the $$ if you truly compare the HP, AWD, level of luxury equipment and size (especially rear seat comfort and trunk). 

A great sleeper car

[Shnak]

Filling up near Toronto, fuel consumption was just shade under 10 litres/100 km.

10L/100km is horrible for a sedan, no matter how much HP it has; you're still only about the same number of HP cruising at ~120kph than any other sedan with about half the actual HP.

Saying a vehicle's fuel econonmy is great considering its weight is a flawed argument. What should be said is that the vehicle weighs way too much and needs to be made lighter; fuel econonmy would naturally be improved.

Personally, I find that to be very respectable fuel economy given it has 365hp, AWD, weighs over 4300lbs, and it's winter.  I hardly think that discussing fuel economy relative to the car's weight is a flawed argument as you suggest.   

In that case, the Hummer H2 delivers GREAT fuel econonmy. So does the Suburban. Oh, and those limos are incredible too!

Weight it the single biggest enemy of vehicles. Ford should work on trimming 400-500 pounds from its Taurus instead of putting bigger engine, brakes and suspensions parts to counter it.

A BMW 535xi weighs around 4100 pounds. Where are those extra 300 pounds coming from on the Taurus? Is it because of lack of ability to manage a vehicle's weight properly, pure laziness or cost-cutting? Either way, it's simply not acceptable.

Wasn't it Porsche that said they'd work on lower the weight of their vehicles instead of putting in bigger and bigger engines from now on? Might not be Porsche, but someone said that recently. And that's the right approach.

[CanuckS2K]

I am not talking about how much the Taurus SHOULD weigh, that's a completely different topic.  I am just saying that for the weight/power of this car and considering it was February driving, L/100km in the high 9 is respectable. 

[Jaeger]

Another SHO thread.  Yay.  I wonder how the black compares to the red?  Maybe next week someone will test drive a third colour - just to make sure we leave no stone unturned.

Jaeger

[Winterpeg]

The car has the looks, performance and interior space (including crown vic size trunk)...bravo!!!
But that weight HAS to come down....I'll say it again, hope Ford has Jenny Craig on speedial...  
Grant, did you do any night driving? I heard from one of the other editors that the lighting is just horrible....for the price tag HID should be standard indeed.    

[Shnak]

Another SHO thread.  Yay.  I wonder how the black compares to the red?  Maybe next week someone will test drive a third colour - just to make sure we leave no stone unturned.

Jaeger

Well red cars are supposedly faster, we should have someone at Canadian Driver confirm this for sure... 

[Erik]

Filling up near Toronto, fuel consumption was just shade under 10 litres/100 km.

10L/100km is horrible for a sedan, no matter how much HP it has; you're still only about the same number of HP cruising at ~120kph than any other sedan with about half the actual HP.

Saying a vehicle's fuel econonmy is great considering its weight is a flawed argument. What should be said is that the vehicle weighs way too much and needs to be made lighter; fuel econonmy would naturally be improved.

Personally, I find that to be very respectable fuel economy given it has 365hp, AWD, weighs over 4300lbs, and it's winter.  I hardly think that discussing fuel economy relative to the car's weight is a flawed argument as you suggest.   

In that case, the Hummer H2 delivers GREAT fuel econonmy. So does the Suburban. Oh, and those limos are incredible too!

Weight it the single biggest enemy of vehicles. Ford should work on trimming 400-500 pounds from its Taurus instead of putting bigger engine, brakes and suspensions parts to counter it.

A BMW 535xi weighs around 4100 pounds. Where are those extra 300 pounds coming from on the Taurus? Is it because of lack of ability to manage a vehicle's weight properly, pure laziness or cost-cutting? Either way, it's simply not acceptable.

Wasn't it Porsche that said they'd work on lower the weight of their vehicles instead of putting in bigger and bigger engines from now on? Might not be Porsche, but someone said that recently. And that's the right approach.

Another silly comparison.
The car is almost a foot longer than the 535xi. A more fair comparison is the 7 series or the Audi A8. Compared to either of those, the Taurus weight is very competitive.

This is a FULL SIZE CAR. Ford has a mid size car (the Fusion) in that size class.

Are you going to be bashing BMW for the 7 series weighing more than a Golf?

[Shnak]

Filling up near Toronto, fuel consumption was just shade under 10 litres/100 km.

10L/100km is horrible for a sedan, no matter how much HP it has; you're still only about the same number of HP cruising at ~120kph than any other sedan with about half the actual HP.

Saying a vehicle's fuel econonmy is great considering its weight is a flawed argument. What should be said is that the vehicle weighs way too much and needs to be made lighter; fuel econonmy would naturally be improved.

Personally, I find that to be very respectable fuel economy given it has 365hp, AWD, weighs over 4300lbs, and it's winter.  I hardly think that discussing fuel economy relative to the car's weight is a flawed argument as you suggest.   

In that case, the Hummer H2 delivers GREAT fuel econonmy. So does the Suburban. Oh, and those limos are incredible too!

Weight it the single biggest enemy of vehicles. Ford should work on trimming 400-500 pounds from its Taurus instead of putting bigger engine, brakes and suspensions parts to counter it.

A BMW 535xi weighs around 4100 pounds. Where are those extra 300 pounds coming from on the Taurus? Is it because of lack of ability to manage a vehicle's weight properly, pure laziness or cost-cutting? Either way, it's simply not acceptable.

Wasn't it Porsche that said they'd work on lower the weight of their vehicles instead of putting in bigger and bigger engines from now on? Might not be Porsche, but someone said that recently. And that's the right approach.

Another silly comparison.
The car is almost a foot longer than the 535xi. A more fair comparison is the 7 series or the Audi A8. Compared to either of those, the Taurus weight is very competitive.

This is a FULL SIZE CAR. Ford has a mid size car (the Fusion) in that size class.

Are you going to be bashing BMW for the 7 series weighing more than a Golf?

Interior volume:
Taurus - 102.3 cubic inch
535 - 99.1 cubic inch

You know how big 3.2 cubic inch is? About the size of a clementine.

EDIT: Whoooweeee! Forget what I'm saying as I was obviously under the influence of something. What'd they put in that muffin I ate this morning? 

[Erik]

Filling up near Toronto, fuel consumption was just shade under 10 litres/100 km.

10L/100km is horrible for a sedan, no matter how much HP it has; you're still only about the same number of HP cruising at ~120kph than any other sedan with about half the actual HP.

Saying a vehicle's fuel econonmy is great considering its weight is a flawed argument. What should be said is that the vehicle weighs way too much and needs to be made lighter; fuel econonmy would naturally be improved.

Personally, I find that to be very respectable fuel economy given it has 365hp, AWD, weighs over 4300lbs, and it's winter.  I hardly think that discussing fuel economy relative to the car's weight is a flawed argument as you suggest.   

In that case, the Hummer H2 delivers GREAT fuel econonmy. So does the Suburban. Oh, and those limos are incredible too!

Weight it the single biggest enemy of vehicles. Ford should work on trimming 400-500 pounds from its Taurus instead of putting bigger engine, brakes and suspensions parts to counter it.

A BMW 535xi weighs around 4100 pounds. Where are those extra 300 pounds coming from on the Taurus? Is it because of lack of ability to manage a vehicle's weight properly, pure laziness or cost-cutting? Either way, it's simply not acceptable.

Wasn't it Porsche that said they'd work on lower the weight of their vehicles instead of putting in bigger and bigger engines from now on? Might not be Porsche, but someone said that recently. And that's the right approach.

Another silly comparison.
The car is almost a foot longer than the 535xi. A more fair comparison is the 7 series or the Audi A8. Compared to either of those, the Taurus weight is very competitive.

This is a FULL SIZE CAR. Ford has a mid size car (the Fusion) in that size class.

Are you going to be bashing BMW for the 7 series weighing more than a Golf?

Interior volume:
Taurus - 102.3 cubic inch
535 - 99.1 cubic inch

You know how big 3.2 cubic inch is? About the size of a clementine.

So either car is about the size of a box of clementines inside?

[Erik]

Interior volume:
Taurus - 102.3 cubic inch
535 - 99.1 cubic inch

You know how big 3.2 cubic inch is? About the size of a clementine.

I am guessing you are talking about cubic feet.

Anyhow, the 300 lb heavier, RWD 7 Series is 106 cubic feet. No difference, right?

[safristi]

..CHEE_CAR_GO is a toddlin' town..........so Grant how woz the City MILEAGE?.......and see U un_believers Grant agrees!!!?? ALL SEASONS RULE...even in Winter... .....

[chrischasescars]

A BMW 535xi weighs around 4100 pounds. Where are those extra 300 pounds coming from on the Taurus? Is it because of lack of ability to manage a vehicle's weight properly, pure laziness or cost-cutting? Either way, it's simply not acceptable.

It's been a while since I last drove a 5 series (late 2007, I think), but the Taurus feels larger inside than the 5er, esp. in the back seat.

The 535 is the better driver's car, no argument, but as a sporty sedan, I think the Taurus is a better overall package when value and practicality are factored in.