A disclosure: I debated about evaluating this Taurus. After a tumultuous five seconds of mental wrangling, I determined reporting on it may provide practical insight for those in the car market. While this is a 2011 model, the 2015 models are still highly related.
A second disclosure: The reason for my first disclosure is my parents own this particular car. This isn’t stopping me from being candid in my thoughts about it; in fact, their observations reflect living with it and are highly insightful. My opinionatedness on late model cars seems to run in my DNA.
When the article about the cars of my father ran in June, I concluded that his 2007 Ford Five Hundred had been a bit of a disappointment and speculated it would soon be going away. I was right; this is the car that soon replaced the Five Hundred.
Back in July, the older sister of Tom, a friend of my parents, died quite suddenly. An email one night from Tom stated he needed to sell this 2011 Taurus as part of his sister’s estate. A few days later it was parked in my folk’s garage. It had 26,000 miles on the odometer.
In other words, this Ford is much closer to new than is the typical five-year old Taurus.
Equipped in SEL trim, this Taurus is motived by the standard twenty-four valve 3.5 liter V6. For 2015, Ford’s website advertises it as having 288 horsepower.
Sitting on a 112.9″ wheelbase, the Taurus is not a small car. In fact, I recently took this picture of a similar Taurus sitting next to a Toyota pickup and noticed there wasn’t a great deal of difference in height between the two. While an interesting contrast, let’s just say the overall height of the Taurus is 60.7″.
As a comparison the height of a 1975 Ford LTD is 54.3″ and people typically think of it as being a rotund pig. This is just an observation.
Climbing inside I was presented with an item that I have oft criticized in newer cars. Why, I even took a picture of my leg next to this item to show maneuverability and the physical size of this item. While I had expected it to be as unpleasant and intrusive as a proctological exam, I quickly had a profound realization.
While the console (like many contemporary consoles) is an insidiously corpulent engulfment of interior real estate, Ford got this one right. I knew this console was only slightly smaller than, say, a 1975 Ford LTD, but this console is dished out to actually make room for one’s leg. I drove this Taurus all over town, up hills, around curves, at both high and low speeds. Never once did this console make any encroachments upon my person.
As far as consoles go, this one isn’t too bad. Who would have thought?
Driving this car is where it all comes together. The naturally aspirated 3.5 liter is a very good match for the 3,900 pounds of this Taurus. My father said he is truly appreciative of its low end torque as it rarely requires a downshift when climbing hills, especially at highway speeds – quite unlike the 3.0 liter in his old Five Hundred. Their fuel economy in this Taurus has been in the mid-20s and far superior to that of their now sold Five Hundred.
The ride is terrific regardless of pavement type or condition.
In writing reviews, I approach it from the standpoint of having to live with the subject car in ordinary everyday situations for five to seven years. How many g’s it can pull on a skidpad, the number of pistons in the brake calipers, and whether the SYNC system (as this Taurus is equipped) can bluetooth connect to my iPhone while tethered to my iPad so I can Skype Mrs. Jason are all rather pointless.
It’s the little things that can make or break one’s enjoyment of a car. With the ignition switch on the dash, it’s highly visible and easily accessible. It seems as if it’s becoming more common (Chevrolet had similar on the ’00 to ’05 Impala, and I’m wanting to say I’ve had a rental or two with it) and it’s a nice touch. My father likes the placement as it’s more conspicuous at night.
The only downside is his keys rub this crease. Some may find this an irritant; my father won’t care until the keys rub a hole in the plastic and short something out. Then he’ll sell it.
The interior of the Taurus is very comfortable and quite inviting. It’s understandable why my parents chose to buy the car. However, my father has experienced a repetitive issue with the design of the interior.
My father will be 72 in December and at 5’7″ he isn’t the tallest likely driver of a Taurus. Like me, he likes to adjust the seat toward the high end of its range; unlike me, age has started to interfere with his range of physical motion. With the seat adjusted to his preferences, it has prompted him to hit his head on the door frame multiple times upon exiting the car.
Getting into the driver’s seat of this Taurus was the first time in over a quarter-century I haven’t had to adjust a seat after my father vacated it. At my height of 5’11”, I had to slouch to prevent connecting my head with the top of the door jamb. Again, this is an issue that any prospective buyer will need to evaluate for themselves.
As a far-flung example on accessibility, my paternal grandmother is ninety-four. She refuses to sit up front if my mom and dad are together as she believes married people should be in the same seat. Having broken her hip this last May, navigating her legs around door frames, door sills, and body curvature for entry into the backseat is a convoluted affair for her. However, the overall height of the Taurus plays well to her physical limitations as plopping her posterior onto the seat cushion has been drama free.
It remains to be seen how well my mother does with ingress and egress after her knee replacement later in December. With my being able to pinpoint over a half-dozen extended relatives over age 90, this Taurus will be taxiing a lot of geriatrics.
My mother has only one complaint about the car. When asked about it, she said the inside rearview mirror, combined with the rake of the windshield, creates a blindspot in one’s viewing area. She said on a recent excursion she nearly hit a car that was hidden by the rearview mirror.
Mrs. Jason had the very same complaint about the rearview mirror in a Dodge Charger we once test drove, which completely killed her interest in the car.
Both my parents love the trunk with its twenty cubic feet of space. Opening the trunk did result in being reunited with that red and blue blanket which has likely been around since the late 1960s. I vividly remember napping on that blanket as a child and my sister habitually wrapping herself in it, claiming she was going to marry her Mr. Potato Head. It has since traveled many hundreds of thousands of miles in various car trunks. It’s made of some fabulous material which wears like iron.
Would I buy a Taurus? Had my budget been bigger last year when car shopping, I might have looked at a Taurus. Overall, it is very comfortable with decent power and respectable fuel economy. For my parents, it fits them better than did their Five Hundred and it is leagues better than the pile of rubbish 2001 Taurus I once owned. Overall, I’m glad to say I was woefully wrong with a few preconceived notions about the Taurus and I thoroughly enjoyed driving it. My daughter will be driving in a number of years, so I may have to ask myself the purchasing question again someday.
Test drove one once. Thought it was nice, if a bit floaty. Rear visibility left something to be desired, though.
I am also about 5’7″. I would never buy a car that I constantly hit my head on while entering or exiting. I hate the way modern car design has gone, with very high sills and slits for windows.
Sloped A pillar, too. I’m 5’5″ and can hit my head on Dad’s Equinox when the seat is set for him. And that angle hides traffic.
Hitting your head on entry when the car’s so tall! There’s something fundamentally wrong with the packaging.
Intrusive or not, I can’t look at that humongous console without thinking about how much space it wastes and how claustrophobic it makes the interior feel considering the size of the car. Where would my wife set her purse? Like Matthew when I looked at these I found visibility to be quite poor as well. And not a lot of legroom.
It’s a large car that feels like a small car inside. Personally, I don’t like that.
As I mentioned below, my partner has a 2013 Taurus SEL.
I have to disagree about the small car feel. If anything, it feels quite cavernous to me. From the driver’s chair, when I look back (I’m not used to the whole backup camera thing), the interior seems to just keep going and going. In the front, too, it feels like the interior keeps going. There’s tons and tons of shoulder room, plenty of hip and thigh room even with the wide console, and so much leg room I feel like a little kid when I stretch my legs out in front of me (which I can do without hitting the dash).
To me, it’s a big car and it feels like a big car inside.
Let me ask you this: Have you ever ridden or driven in full size pickups or full size cars from the 70’s and 80’s?
To me, large cars should have large open spaces inside. The huge console and high sills negate that feel for me. I am also 6’3″ and wear a 38″ inseam, and I found the Taurus to be merely adequate in terms of legroom.
But it’s not just my opinion that it feels like a smaller car inside. The interior is almost identical in size as the Fusion.
For comparison: 2015 Taurus/Fusion
Front Legroom: 44.2 / 44.3
Rear Legroom: 38.1 / 38.3
Front Shoulder: 57.9 / 57.8
Rear Shoulder: 56.9 / 56.9
Front Headroom: 39 / 39.2
Rear Headroom: 37.8 / 37.8
Front Hiproom: 56.3 / 55
Rear Hiproom: 55.8 / 54.4
Don’t get me wrong, they are nice cars, it’s just that I expect a roomier interior in a car that’s significantly larger, more expensive and less efficient than the class below it.
I feel very comfortable making commentary on big cars. I own a 1977 Ford Thunderbird Town Landau and a 1978 Lincoln Continental Town Coupe. My dad has a 2005 Chevy Silverado HD crew cab and before that has driven full-sized pickups since I was a kid, and my mom has a 2005 Chevy TrailBlazer. Amongst my past cars are a 1989 Bonneville and a 1995 LeSabre.
My 6’2″ partner with a 34″ inseam can put the driver’s chair in his ’13 far enough back that he can’t touch the pedals. I’m 5’10” with a 31″ inseam, and I can put the passenger chair back literally far enough I can stick my legs out like a little kid.
I drove a ’13 Fusion for a day, and I’ll say that it’s impressive what Ford did with the packaging. My partner had a ’12 Fusion SEL for just shy of a year before the Taurus. My best analogy is that Ford did the same sorts of things with the ’13 Fusion as GM and Ford did with their first downsizing (’77 Caprice/’79 LTD). The ’12 Fusion had enough room, sure, but it felt the same size inside and outside. The ’13 Fusion felt much larger inside than outside. The ’12 Fusion to the ’13 Taurus felt very much like he moved up a class in size and quality, despite the Fusion being loaded and the Taurus being mid-spec.
I’d say that’s less a flaw with the Taurus and more a compliment to the Fusion. Ford packaged the current Fusion very very well.
Well, if you think the space is comparable to a full size pickup, I’m not sure what to say, other than the difference in inseams between us obviously has a major impact on our opinions.
My in-laws have a ’14 Fusion, and while it is also quite nice, it also suffers from the “bunker” feeling of many new cars, with high cowl and sills, large console, and rather poor outward visibility.
Which explains why the Taurus sells very poorly (except to police departments). Just what does it do better than a Fusion?
The 500/previous Taurus at least had a unique selling proposition: unparalleled interior room, thanks to its tall roof. With the redesign, they destroyed that.
It may function ok, but I rather loathe these Taurii because the packaging sucks in relation to their size, weight and cost. And I strongly dislike the styling; a rather pathetic attempt to capture some of the Chrysler 300’s magic. Fail.
The previous Taurus (08-09) was an even poorer seller, and the Five Hundred sales weren’t far behind(35k cars in 2007 according to wiki). Otherwise I agree completely.
The Fusion / Taurus relationship is one of the stranger ones in autodom.
With essentially the same wheelbase and similar in most objective measurements, it is very odd to call the Fusion mid-size and the Taurus full-size. The Fusion tends to feel better subjectively, particularly in the back seat. The Taurus feels amazingly cramped for a big car. Even my Ford dealer made a similar comment.
I own the wagon version of the 500/Taurus, the 2005 Freestyle. My wife and I were flipping coins on whether to buy the sedan or wagon. The sedan was impressively roomy as Paul notes. With a house full of kids, the 7 passenger wagon won the toss.
The 500/Taurus didn’t sell well, the tall styling was probably part of it. Ford addressed this directly by lowering the roof in relationship to the beltline, creating the hunkered down look on this Taurus. As Paul indicates, this totally screwed up the interior dynamics.
I frequent Ford showrooms, and the Fusion is on my future prospect list. There had been talk of a new and truly spacious Taurus coming out soon, but I now understand that slumping sedan sales have Ford thinking they might just dump the Taurus.
Too bad, a truly full-size Taurus would be quite high on my shopping list.
The number you didn’t mention is wheelbase. They both share a 112.9 inch wheelbase.
It is important to understand timeline in which Taurus exists. When Alan Mullaly took over Ford, one of his first public pronouncements was his amazement that Ford discontinued the Taurus nameplate, a name he felt had great brand equity. He thus renamed 500 (zero brand equity) to Taurus. At that time (2010), Ford’s Fusion was the earlier generation, which was smaller. The 2013 new design Fusion was a winning car for Ford, even better reviewed than its highly praised predecessor. So, the new Fusion was a hit, and Taurus was an earlier design that Ford decided to let soldier on despite is portly appearance, increased thirst, and almost identical dimensions. Taurus is the step child, and Fusion is the gifted favorite son.
Sorry, the way these comments nest gets confusing. Are we still talking about the Taurus vs. the Fusion for sharing the same 112.9″ WB? If so, not quite. The Fusion is at 112.2″, as is the new Edge (which essentially is the Fusion wagon). I know, .7″, what a difference. The Fusion is the upper bound for what can comfortably be called a mid-size car in 2015 (for those of us who still categorize car sizes by WB, which is a less reliable thing to do every year). The almost-overlap is what you get when you put a brand-new platform up against a 10-year-old one.
> To me, large cars should have large open spaces inside. The huge console and high sills negate that feel for me.
I can’t comment on the interiors of the Taurus or Fusion as I have never sat in either of them, but I agree with this 100%.
Phil, you’re on to something here. I’ve rented quite a few Tauri and Fusions and find that I have just as much room in the Fusion as the Taurus. The Taurus feels cramped for such a large car, with poor visibility due to those tiny windows. I know this problem is not unique to Ford (300 and Charger are also terrible) but why do designers insist on gun slit windows in large family cars? It’s not like these are cross-shopped with Camaro and Challenger. Shouldn’t the larger, more expensive model have a more spacious and airy interior?
The Taurus is well-appointed and finished, with smooth power. Ford just should have done a better job with the interior packaging.
I’m still driving a Gen3 Taurus; when I park next to one of these, they really do look “bulked up”–but I’d probably be very happy as owner of one. My 3.0 Duratec has “only” 200hp (but never disappoints), so it’s hard to imagine having twice as much under the hood; what’s the top speed (limited or otherwise) on these?
I rented one for business a year or so ago and liked it. Nice interior,good acceleration. I also like the position of the ignition – it kept the key out of the way and away from my knee. I hate when keys hit my leg – one of my pet peeves. If I needed a used car I would look at one of these – a Certified Used Car only. Good extended warranty and usually depreciated to the point where they are a good value. Might even look at an SHO model with AWD!
I have a 2011 Taurus SEL as well. I traded in my 2011 Veloster on it in 2013. The Taurus is everything my Veloster was not. Quiet, comfortable, reliable, and lots of room for my kids and their stuff.
I cross shopped it with a 2012 3.6L Impala. Once I had a chance to drive both, the Impala just seemed ancient compared to the Ford. The new Impala seems a lot more impressive, however.
I only have two complaints:
– The projector headlights are really bad. I find myself choosing our truck when night driving is required.
– Rear visibility is horrible. I don’t have the optional back up camera, but this seems to be a common problem with newer cars.
I wondered what the nose of these reminded me of, the banners worked in my favor today!
So I definitely have some thoughts on this. My partner’s daily driver is a 2013 Taurus SEL, and we’ve put 16,000 miles on it since he bought it in June. He had a 2012 Fusion before that, and after less than a year he was specifically looking for a Taurus.
My thoughts, having driving it across several states now:
The strongest suit of this Taurus is the ride. It’s nearly as smooth as was the ’97 Town Car Mr. X dailied for two years and he regretted trading away for the Fusion, but it’s much more composed. On the test drive, I took it up to 100 on a side road then slammed on the brakes. I found it to be shockingly composed and I felt very confident in the rate at which it slowed, even over the frost-thaw cracks in the concrete. On long drives, it is a delight to not feel every single damned bump in the road.
Handling is pretty good generally, and shockingly good for a car that size. I mentioned the braking. About two miles after that, I made the left onto the freeway on-ramp at speeds approaching what I’d do with my Fiesta ST (thing rides so smooth I didn’t realize I was going that fast!). It spooked me pretty good, but I’ll be damned if the thing didn’t hold the turn and take it in fine form! Since then we’ve both given it a good go, and it handles better than a 4,100 pound car has any business handling.
Power is great. The engine’s a great match for the transmission, and it never feels lacking for power. If it was lacking, I surely would have heard about it by now, since Mr. X wastes no time getting to the speed limit. It has good power at all speeds, and it never feels like it’s struggling to find that power. That was one of the reasons he hated the Fusion-it had some serious lag time between punching the gas and having the car go.
Interior is very comfortable, and like Mr. Shafer, I find the scalloped console a lovely touch. Mr. X is 6’2 and I’m 5′ 10, and neither of us lack for space or have any troubles getting in or out.
Frankly, I think the current Taurus is an unsung hero of the Ford lineup. I was a little unsure of his plan to get rid of the Fusion so quickly, but then we test drove the Taurus. It’s a great road trip car, still has a “big car” feel in terms of size and presence and comfort, but it handles better than all the big cars with which I’m familiar.
Future CC indeed! It’s really pretty hard to come up with a modern take on the classic American car, and I think the current Taurus is a fine example of it.
“Frankly, I think the current Taurus is an unsung hero of the Ford lineup. ”
Agreed!
For all the hamster-wheel, sub 2.0 liter, ecoboost garbage Ford is putting out, with reliability sucking badly nearly across their lineup, the Taurus is actually a rock-solid, attractive, reliable, comfortable & quiet cruiser in the form of a modernized (stiffer chassis, much better crash protection, ESC, more modern powertrain, relatively modern if simple interior) Crown Vic or Cutlass.
In terms of refinement, build quality, solidity, power, etc. this era Taurus is a MUCH better value proposition than many imports, including the Toyota Avalon or Nissan Maxima, and it’s one of the few Fords that I’d consider owning.
And it has a proper V6 and reliable transmission!
I believe Ford’s recent “reliability” issues are due mainly to the MyFord Touch system, which was fairly terrible and mostly replaced now in the 2016 models. My mom just bought a 2015 Edge with the new twin-scroll 2.0 Ecoboost and I am impressed with its combination of power and efficiency.
It also has interior packaging issues though, again with an intrusive console that offers little storage and that is so long it hinders the ability to fit 3 people in the back seat. All around it’s a nice package, just not appropriate for families of 5, which is a shame for a vehicle of that size. In fact, it seems most new 5-passenger cars aren’t really designed for 5 people, which really irked me and drove me to buy another minivan.
I couldn’t figure out what was in the foreground of your picture until I clicked on it. Nice T-Bird! That’s the car I’d really like to see in more detail. Is it a ’78 Diamond Jubilee?
’77 Town Landau in Champagne Metallic. Got it from my great-aunt two years ago when she decided to sell her place up north. She pretty much parked it after my great-uncle passed in 2001/2002. Mr. X and I watched it roll 80,000 original miles on the way home with it.
And thank you! It’s a great car!
Beautiful! I love the wheels too. And the Lincoln in the background!
What a beautiful pair of 70’s luxury liners. An optioned-up T-bird *and* a Town Coupe? Magnificent! There is a gorgeous Town Coupe of that generation that made periodic appearances in my old neighborhood (I think it was normally garaged), very similar, but I think more of an aqua than a green.
Also did I catch that your daily is a Fiesta ST? Everything these two are not. Sounds like you’ve got both ends of the spectrum covered–very nice.
That console is ridiculous, regardless of whether or not the knee comes in contact with it. If they have to dish it out to make room for the driver’s right leg, it’s too big to begin with.
A couple notes about the ignition location: By 2013, in at least the mid-spec SEL and high-spec Limited, that key switch is replaced by a button. It’s a fine place for a button.
With the button, it also reveals this Taurus is sold in both left-and right-hand drive markets. Directly opposite the Start/Stop button on the other side of the stack is the trunk release button. The interior is also perfectly symetrical in design. It’s a very attractive design in my view, and one that the average person would never notice has a functional purpose to it.
On an unrelated topic, the 2013 Taurus, amongst other things, has a specific holder for lip balm in the center console.
I don’t think it is sold in RHD
I dunno. Ford Etis, for Mr. X’s VIN, shows these possible SEL versions, minused out because his is not so equipped:
SEL Version
(-) GVMT Service Administration
(-)”CDN”
(-)”GU”
(-)”BRN”
(-)”BZ”
(-)”ATG”
(-)”KOR”
(-)”AW”
I have no idea what most of those are, but there you go, anyway.
“insidiously corpulent engulfment of interior real estate”…a brilliant laugh out loud piece of prose Jason, made my morning! 😀
+1, for an evening laugh
That car has a butt bigger than Kim Kardashian’s (and not nearly as good looking).
Pass.
Definitely the only offender today but definitely in contention for the ugliest.
Err, can’t edit, I meant: definitely NOT the only*
I test drove a Taurus for a week and while the ride was good I grew tired of the small windows, poor rear visibility and an interior design that made me feel closed in. My wife had the same complaint. I accept the fact this generation of Taurus was conceived when smallish windows were the latest styling trend (looking at you Chrysler 300).
Acceleration and fuel economy were okay, but it’s just not a Ford model that I can recommend.
Jason, you’re having a problem with the roof height because Ford cut that all down in the 2010 restyle. You probably didn’t have this problem with the Five Hundred, and you wouldn’t have had it with a 2008 or 2009 Taurus (the Five Hundred’s body, with this 2011’s drivetrain.) Frankly I think that short-lived generation was a better car than what came both before and after it.
As for your mother and her knee replacement, good luck. But also, with the car – my mother in law can’t get into my ’09 Taurus because of the very wide door sill. It’s too big of a step for her to move her leg to get into the car. When we have to drive her we take the Durango, which has running boards close to the ground and she just pulls herself up into the front passenger seat with the grab handle.
I considered one of these recently. My 75 year old grandmother drives a first year Five Hundred. While I’ve never driven that car close to its limits, it seemed fine in acceleration and handling. My big complaint was the horribly obtrusive center console. I drive pickups and I love a huge console…when the car is wide enough to handle it. If you’ve got hips (I’m a woman) or a few extra pounds, expect the female end of the seatbelt to forcibly join with you by osmosis. I dinged my head getting in and out twice in the dozen times I ran her around in the Five Hundred and, while I’m relatively tall at 5’8″, I’m still shorter than much of the target demographic for Ford. My grandmother is 4’9″ and at least she likes the seating. Where we both agree is on the terrible rearward visibility. The new Taurus is close enough in design to give me pause. I’m old fashioned in liking the Crown Vic over other designs used by police and that’s definitely the case here. Can we get a grass roots campaign going to improve visibility back to early 90s standards? Some of these rides are ridiculous and being unable to see is going to cause more accidents than are worth the airbags. Things are supposed to improve with time. My seventies sedan and 90s ranger should not be easier to merge safely with.
Engineers have the ideas to put as many cameras and sensors as possible.
Ergonomically speaking the 75 LTD is apt, both rooflines are too damn low. I’m 5’9″ and on the occasion I drive or occupy one of these I always rub my head on ingress/egress if I don’t think about it. I’ve never done that in my MUCH lower cougar, which was 52″ stock and is probably 50″ now with the lowering springs on it, as well as many other low slung cars modern society deems “impractical”. I’d rather have creaky knees than brain damage, thank you.
I don’t criticize the console so much for it’s placement in the normal static driving position, but it absolutely sucks on a long highway trip when I want to stretch out a bit with cruise on – I felt utterly trapped in it, even as a passenger – The whole interior design is cocooning like that. And in terms of materials, just look at the plastic around the ignition switch, it’s as hard and lumpy as it looks and every single surface except for the seats, arm rest, and steering wheel are made out of it, not that it matters much because the sills are too frigging high to rest my arm out the window and on the door card. Ford’s overall surfaces were better in the 80s/90s, even if those designs themselves were uninspired.
And I don’t understand the ignition on the dash thing. Wasn’t there a mandate requiring it to be on the column? Wasn’t that the reason the 1970 Falcon became a Torino midyear? It seems like such an anachronism to me, and the fact that the keys rub and scuff that lumpy plastic would utterly drive me nuts if I owned one. Then again, my keychain is car key – trunk key – house key – fob. I never had issues with my dangling keys rubbing my leg like some people with locksmith sets do
This is just a guess, but I don’t think there was ever any kind of mandate as to ignition key placement. It was due more to steering wheel interlock regulations which required the steering wheel to lock when the key was removed, and the mechanism was completely mechanical. So, beginning in 1970, the key switch ended up on the column, and it’s remained there for half a century.
But in today’s world where everything is electrically controlled (including the steering wheel lock), the ignition switch can now be placed anywhere, so it’s going back on the dash.
I think the main reason for dashboard ignitions today is push-button start. Which when paired with touch entry is perhaps my favorite modern feature in new cars. It’s much like going from a physical door key to a remote fob was IMO.
An interesting review, particularly about the console. I sat in one of these a couple of years ago, and felt downright claustrophobic from the huge console and the high sills. Interesting that in actual driving, you did not find it so. Perhaps the light color interior helps, I sat in one with black interior in an auto-show environment.
Perhaps it is my age, but I love newer cars that put the ignition key on the dash instead of on the steering column. I was halfway through college before I owned a car with a column-mounted ignition, so the dash key is so much more natural for me. My Sedona has a key on the dash, and it makes me happy every time I turn the key.
Everyone else is too polite to ask, but we really have to know – did your sister ever marry Mr. Potato Head? 🙂
No, she’s 40 and never married. However, I’m sure she’s waiting for the right spud to come along.
so after 20 years, they replace the Vic with a car you can’t see out of, most likely won’t hold up as long…and gets 3 MPG more on the freeway. looks worse, too, but I’ll admit that’s subjective. 🙂
But but but you don’t understand, you just don’t get it, the Panther was old so, it was no good, change is always better, new is always better.
Managed to snag one of the dwindling number of Crown Vic taxis in Manhattan back to my apartment last night. It was so nice to be able to stretch out instead of bashing my knees on the credit card swiper. If only I could be made to understand that Camry sedans and Escape SUVs are just soo much better…
It would have been interesting if they had begun to offer the Crown Vic with the current Taurus V-6, the 5.0 V-8 and a six speed auto box. Ford had the parts to improve gas mileage and modernize the Crown Vic, but just didn’t do it.
Throw in a fresh body once every 25 years and they might have had an interesting car again.
It would have been too expensive to equip with stability control, and while it was an exceptionally safe car in an accident given the age of the design (still mostly five star ratings if I’m not mistaken) they probably also would have had problems meeting more stringent regulations as they came along.
Plus, let’s be real here. I’m not a Panther hater–I’ve had three of them, and one is my current DD. But there was no market for these cars any more except for police, taxis, and old folks. Shut out of the NYC taxi market, there went the taxi purpose. And as police cars, while they were exceptionally durable, they were hopelessly outclassed in every performance aspect by the Charger and Caprice (or whatever it’s called in Police trim). They survived too long as it was.
Also, consider this. What if they made a new generation Crown Vic after all? Gave it stability control, restyled it, updated the old 4.6 with the 3V heads used in the 2005-2011 Mustang. Heck, make the Coyote 5.0 optional for pursuit. I guarantee you–GUARANTEE–that it wouldn’t have looked anything like the old one. It would have been criticized for poor visibility, poor space utilization, and poor fuel economy. And it would have been a failure. The time for cars like the old Panthers has passed, like it or not.
Is this Taurus the best answer possible instead? Probably not. But it seems like a decent effort (I’ve never driven one). I wonder if Ford is following Dodge/Plymouth’s path–going from a dominant police cruiser (the M-body) to being out of the market a few years later?
If it wouldn’t have looked like the old one that is the designer’s problem and not mine.
The time for many things, including Panthers, print literature, seems to be passing. I don’t consider my disapproval to be short-sighted or erroneous on my part, but rather conclusive evidence of others’ deficiencies in taste.
People do forget that when the first generation Ford Five Hundred later becoming Taurus and the current second generation Ford Taurus which still shared its same chassis courtesy of Volvo were Volvo sourced cars even though Volvo is no longer affiliated with Ford in any way, shape or form. The Ford Fusion might still be based from the previous and NOT the current Mazda 6 since Ford also had a similar working arrangements with Mazda prior to both companies also going their separate ways as well.
These are probably the last full sized Ford sedans, even if they are off an old Volvo platform. In their last year, to keep in touch with heritage, it would be nice if a retail model was named LTD, had the best cloth interior that was possible, and was quieter than an LS460. Engineers get to work.
Thanks Jason for an interesting review.
OOI, for us mere Europeans you have to consider a Mondeo/Fusion as a full size Ford, is the Taurus the largest conventional saloon Ford now available? If so, its 112 inch wheelbase makes an interesting comparison with the Dodge Coronet Paul posted yesterday, with a 120 in wheelbase and longitudinal engine location.
The styling does look a bit “Big Honda/Acura” to me, and the interior looks great. The key location would not suit me though, as I have so many key ring tags on my keys!
Exterior wise, it is the biggest Ford car sold in the US. Interior wise, it is way too comparable with the Mondeo/Fusion.
Having driven a Mondeo/Fusion some time ago, and being squeezed into a in utero-like trance due to that damnable console, this Taurus (subjectively) felt roomier from the driver’s seat.
Ironic that Toyota’s Avalon (a stretched Camry) has effectively replaced the Panther & B-body as the Yank Tank.
That’s only true of the current generation Mondeo/Fusion, though. My partner had a 2012 Fusion, now has a 2013 Taurus. The Taurus feels gigantic and cavernous compared to the 2012 Fusion.
Ford did a great job packaging the current Fusion. That really shows when comparing it to the current Taurus, which has been around in various Ford guise since 2005 and lived life as a Volvo before that.
Same out this way we have the Mondeo/Fusion which is wider than the current Falcon so the Mondeo is our big Ford the Falcon will be extinct shortly anyhow so FWD will be the new way to drive for die hard Ford buyers, they could be in for a nice surprise.
Is that your van in the last picture? I rented one of these Taureses (Taurii?) a few years ago and while I agree that the console didn’t so much get in the way, I would still say it was massive (and tall) and in general took up too much space in what is a pretty large car on the outside but felt a little constricted inside. Kind of like if you wore baggy pants with a set of skinny jeans sewn into the inside. Pretty much the opposite of the Civic Wagon from the other day that is tiny on the outside and huge on the inside.
And that blanket was undoubtedly woven using the yarn of a space age polymer.
I’m finding that as I age I seem to more often nowadays either pinch some kind of nerve or pull some kind of muscle that limits my back/neck/head movement at times, the exact movements that are required to get into a standard sedan can be excruciatingly painful especially if it involves scrunching my head down a bit.
That is indeed the van in the background of the last picture. Since we bought this house, it’s been banished to the lower driveway; with three garage bays, it didn’t make the cut.
The console is tall enough to double as an armrest. Overall, I wound up liking the car more than I suspected I would. It has its faults without a doubt, but not as glaring as some other cars I have reviewed.
Just as my 5-speed F-150 is safe from being carjacked by those who are clutch challenged, Taurus owners can rest assured a good portion of the populace will never steal their cars. I don’t see how a 6′ person can drive the thing. When I’ve tried getting my 6’5″ body into one, my leg is pressed between the console and wheel to the point the wheel can not move. I think Ford has missed the boat.
“Just as my 5-speed F-150 is safe from being carjacked by those who are clutch challenged, ”
Reminds me of a funny news story from years ago when a Saab 900 was carjacked. The carjacker fled after a few minutes when he couldn’t find the ignition (which was on the floor to the right of the driver).
Your take on the 2010-Current Taurus was a very good read.
I however agree with the folks that state the 2008-2009 was a better car room wise. I had a 2008 Taurus for a few months until a drunk driver in a pick up slammed into me from the rear going 60(the car was destroyed but I walked away with no wear) and my folks bought a 2009 Taurus SE brand new in fall of 2009. They like theirs alot and got it for $19,000 after taxes, tags and all that other happy horse crap. This was due to it being the start of the 2010 MY (with the new 2010 redesigned Taurus)and the dealer wanted all 2009 vehicles out of there and also because nobody else wanted it since it was not loaded with bells and whistles(it had power locks/windows/CD player and remote entry but no navi/sunroof/leather etc)
The car has been mostly trouble free over the 6 years they have owned it(It needed a blend door actuator but that was only $30 and 5 mins of me replacing it)
next time you see the car Jason, take a peak at the springs on the front struts, there are some of the biggest ones I have seen on a FWD car(I suspect it is from Volvo)
The 3.5l Duretec V6 is much more powerful then the old 3.0l from the Five Hundred(and indeed more powerful then the V8 in that year’s Town car) but it does suffer from one dumb engineering mistake. The waterpump is located in with the timing chain so that if it goes it is a real b*i*ch to change. (it is one think if it was a timing belt car because you would change out the WP and the belt at the same time and it was easy to access it(such as Honda) but with a timing chain, the timing chain cover is a royal pain to remove on this car.
My daily driver is a 2005 Five Hundred, but a few attributes apply to both cars. It will not get stolen, it has that old school, big, heavy car feel, the trunk is huge, and you will not be the car that gets pulled over for a ticket when the cop has a choice of cars to pull over.
It is a car that your teenagers will be relatively safe in, and is boring enough that they are less likely to do stupid driving tricks.
While I cannot vouch for the Taurus, when people run into the front or the back of my Five Hundred at anything less than warp speed, they bounce off. The bumpers get a bit scratched up, but that is another thing about them, they are disposable commuting devices, not cherished works of automotive art or desire. I do not weep when the car comes out of the contretemps a bit worse for wear. It does nothing perfectly, but everything decently well. And as I like to buy my cars a couple of years old, not new, the extreme early depreciation in the Blue Book value is a huge bonus.
> It is a car that your teenagers will be relatively safe in, and is boring enough that they are less likely to do stupid driving tricks.
Don’t count on the second part of your sentence. I speak from experience. My first car was a VW Rabbit diesel. 🙂
You get an idea of how bulky and especially high the current Taurus is, if you spot one of the Police Interceptor versions parked next to its Ford predecessor the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. I noted just that in San Francisco, one morning.
The Taurus’s bulk also goes a ways toward explaining why the Ford Police Interceptor Utility outsells it handily. They’re about as big but the Utility can carry a lot more.
I also was introduced to the Taurus’s too-low front door opening. I looked one over at the Ford dealer. I bumped my head, too…and I am not tall.
I thought the Fusion should have been named “Taurus” but Ford’s F-Fetish of the time would not allow it.
My parents bought a gently used Taurus last winter as their (4th) winter car. It’s their first ever Ford. My mother likes smooth power (her favorite cars in her lifetime have been a 79 caprice classic coupe and her Chrysler 300). Although she now drives a 9-3 convertible, she likes a big American car typically. They chose the Taurus because of the room in the trunk for runs to the nursery in the spring / summer and the AWD in the winter. It’s a 6 body trunk for sure. The newest fusion is, dare I say, hideous. I want to throw that fish back in every time I see its gaping mouth, and hate that they ruined the mustang with too similar a face.
It’s very typical of Ford to model all its other cars after its most profitable/halo model. Notice how by the late ’70s, nearly every car had a Thunderbird/Continental-style grille, or in the late ’80s, when they all looked like the Taurus.
That’s by design. When I was there, they talked a lot about “Ford DNA.” The cars and the trucks/utilities were meant to look and feel like “a Ford.” They had a design theme (I arrived between the end of New Edge and the beginning of Kinetic, right as this article’s feature car’s predecessor was about to go to market), and Ford was doing a big push to consolidate suppliers and avoid duplication of efforts with regard to switch gear, sun visors, and the like.
Basically, they come up with a design language, then fit that language to each model. Aero styling in the ’80s (started with the Thunderbird, Tempo, and Sierra, popularized by the Taurus), the New Edge styling of the late ’90s, Kinetic styling in the late ’00s/early ’10s, whatever they’re calling the Aston Martin look they’re doing now-these were all active efforts to maintain a brand DNA.
One can actually tell when Ford has an idea and it either doesn’t go as well as they’d like or it gets surpassed by a newer idea. You’ll see a few “dead-ends” in the Ford family tree. The most recent one that comes to mind is the Mk7 Fiesta (2010-2013 in the U.S.). Ford talked a lot about the dragon’s eye headlights that added a flair and dynamism to the look. Notice, though, they toned down the dragon’s eye look for Mk7.5 and never fitted any other Ford with dragon’s eye headlights.
The only down side to the 2010 Taurus we have is I have to duck my head to get in it. Other than that we’ve put just over 100,000 trouble free miles on it. And with all the low end torque I’m sure not afraid to pull out into traffic with it.
I’m finding myself strangely interested in buying one of these as a low mileage used car to replace my Civic. I bemoan the loss of the original Five Hundred’s excellent tall and airy greenhouse and rear legroom, but hey what can you do. As has already been mentioned, I think these are quite the “sleeper” in terms of an excellent used car value. I’m seeing low mileage 1 and 2 year old SEL models with heated leather seats go for $15-17k. I had the opportunity to have dinner at St. Elmo’s last night, a high end steakhouse in downtown Indianapolis. As we were walking in I saw one of these Tauri pull up, a well dressed older couple get out and hand it off to the valet. The Taurus definitely did not look out of place. It feels so right to pull up to a high end downtown restaurant in a Midwestern city in a large American sedan, and then go gorge yourself on a perfectly cooked 14oz New York strip steak. It made me want one even more! Us whippersnappers walked back to the Civic, which was in the parking garage across the street. It was an interesting contrast.
” It feels so right to pull up to a high end downtown restaurant in a Midwestern city in a large American sedan, and then go gorge yourself on a perfectly cooked 14oz New York strip steak.”
HaHaHa, you made my morning. You are so right! And wow, have not been to St. Elmo’s in years. I need to do something about that.
You definitely do! It was my first visit and it absolutely met and exceeded expectations. Very old school vibe, with properly cooked, traditionally served food. Not some sort of zany “fusion” with tiny portions and sauce spattered over the plate like some modern art masterpiece. Just a huge juicy steak with a massive serving of the creamiest mashed potatoes I’ve ever had, fantastic shrimp cocktail, a good quality beer, and a massive slice of rich chocolate cake.
“Since 1902” says it all. 🙂
This car is where you compare to a similar year Chevy W-body.
A co-worker had one of these, and compared to my 2012 Impala, it felt very cramped – no excuse for such a large car. The cowl was huge and you felt you were in a bunker by comparison.
I’ll take my Chevy any day, regardless of how “out-dated” they were/are!
I will say just this one positive note: The Taurus is a nice-looking car, just poorly packaged.
Zackman, I love the final W-bodies for their no-nonsense layout, but every time I drive one, the lack of rigidity in the chassis and all of the vibrations/impacts that it lets through really takes away from the appeal of that excellent 3.6L V6, and the straightforward interior and exterior (I prefer it to the Taurus). The Ford with its decade newer Volvo-derived platform is a much more modern driving vehicle by comparison, and smothers the road while maintaining good high speed stability and road manners.
That’s the frustrating thing though…why should there be such major compromises?
I’ve sat in the new Impalas and although they are very nice and roomier than the Taurus, they still have the same kind of bunker-like feel with poor visibility and large console. I much prefer the older interiors.
The Taurus Chassis is indeed rigid but judging my friends 2014 AWD 19″ tire Taurus against my 2013 17″ tire FWD Impala sees the Ford as having a far busier and more thumpy ride. My Impala LT rides more smoothly and handles more than competent enough. There are no vibrations to speak of it just feels like an older model which of course it is. I’ll take a little older feel over a busier thump clump ride, super expensive to replace tires, that ridiculous center console that does nothing but get in the way, poor visibility and those narrow front seats that have both our legs hanging off the edges. And I’m not even going to get into the banging my head thing when entering and exiting the Ford!
My 2012 Impala is an LTZ version, and is a very solid car, easily twice the car of my old 2004 Impala.
I’d prefer a little more styling to the interior, however, as it is a bit plain except for the dash. Overall though, it’s been a great car. 3+1/2 years old, just turned 80,000 miles. This baby will most likely have about 115,000 before I retire in 15 months. That’s what a nearly-100-mile-round-trip commute does to you.
Your Impala and that Taurus have something in common, both use variations of the same transmission. Ford and GM got together and designed a new 6 speed transmission to be used in their cars. Ford’s are denoted with 6F and GM 6T.
The back six spark plugs look like fun to change. Leon pointed out that the water pump is driven off the timing chain. That sounds like a stupid design, as timing chains should be good for the life of the engine, but water pumps usually have to be replaced at least once. Unless this engine has a timing chain tensioner and nylon sliders, which wear out and also have to be replaced. Don’t skimp on scheduled oil or coolant changes!
Similar to your picture, I have a key ring with ONLY car keys on it, so I don’t have a huge mass of keys dangling and jingling as I drive. I would find the keys rubbing on the dashboard to be annoying as well. The marks are especially noticeable since the dashboard trim is such a light colour. I’d probably get irritated by the scratching noises that they probably make too. Xequar pointed out that the newer models have a pushbutton start in the same location. That would alleviate the key rubbing problem, but then I’d complain about the keyless ignition.
The car is almost as tall as a pickup truck, and yet someone under 6 feet tall hits their head on the door frame getting in and out? That seems wrong somehow.
I wish I could find another car blanket like the one your parents have. It seems like today you can’t buy such a car blanket, at least not that I can find. My parents somehow found one for me several years ago that usually lives in the backseat of my convertible. It serves as a seat cover, pillow or blanket depending on the occasion. With only one though, the kids fight over it.
The car blanket is a lost tradition. I’ve always had one because as a kid we always had them. I remember when we ordered our new Astro van we had to go shopping for a blanket for the back that would match the color. I still remember the hideous 1990 geometric printed thing in shades of burgundy and blue.
I keep an olive drab wool army blanket in the trunk of my car year ’round.
That’s exactly what we had. There’s still one in the back of my Malibu, though it’s been parked for almost 15 years now. If moths haven’t gotten at it, it’s probably still serviceable, if musty. The thing is considerably older than me, dating back to my great-uncle’s military service.
Oddly enough the rear spark plugs are not too much of a pain in the back end. If you compare this engine to the 3.0 Duratec that was in the Five Hundred, it is downright roomy in that engine bay of the Taurus.
That water pump job is not one I am going to do myself if/when it is needed as you ether need a lift or small hands of to yank the engine out and replace it on an engine stand.
You must remove the engine from the car to do this job? Blech! I predict many Taurii will wind-up in the scrapyard with bad water pumps after their owners find out that the garage charge to replace it will exceed the value of the car.
No you don’t have to remove the engine to change do this job but it will take longer to do it. Book time is 10 labor hours to do the job and that is with the engine still in the car. If you drop the engine cradle and remove the engine then even with the removal and installation of the engine and trans you still halve the time to do the job.
Of course to replace the oil pan it also requires the engine to be removed and the timing cover to be removed(food for thought so you don’t go all Hercules on the oil drain plug or let a quick lube place do it)
Modern engineering at its finest. Not that Ford is the only company to do this.
Impressions of my friends 2014 AWD blue Taurus that I have driven and rode in multiple times.
Handling and steering are very good. This car can be driven well past legal speeds and is very stable and handles quite well for it’s porky weight problem. His car is listed as weighting in at 4430 LBS. The 3.5 V6 provides enough power when needed and is a refreshing change from today’s tiny turbo lag 4 cylinder motors. It’s never noisy but does make itself heard.
Road noise was quite loud initially. Turned out both his front wheel bearings were on there way out. By 55k they were howling pretty bad. The massive over sized 19″ Good year tires were also quite annoying at times. Every bump and road imperfection were felt and tire roar was still pronounced even with the new wheel bearings in place. Hopefully a change in tire companies will help with this.
A mentioned interior packaging is a nightmare, especially after sitting in a Panther or B-body like my 1996 Caprice. Those cars have so much more space inside for shoulders, stretching out and storing things and are far easier to see out of and get in and out of. The one area the Taurus has gained is total rear seat legroom but it’s not all that much better.
Radio- this top of the line Limited 40K car has a sound system one would expect of a 20K cheaper compact. Ford used to put really nice sound systems in there top end cars. Not so with this Taurus. The SYNC and bluetooth pairing work pretty well even though it sometimes doesn’t understand our commands. What is annoying as hell is having to go into several menus just to get heat to the seats. Why?
Fuel mileage has been okay at around low 20’s on average with about 70% highway travel. It’s pretty hard to get the 26 highway rating but that is not surprising considering the weight and massive 19′ tires with AWD.
It’s a good thing this car has a rear view camera because trying to see out of that super sloped rear window or those dime sized side rear windows is a fruitless exercise. The trunk is huge and very useful.
Remote start used to be a hard to find dealer installed item not so long ago on Fords. This Limited came with it standard so that was a big plus.
It will be interesting to see how the AWD goes through the snow when it does decide to get here. Judging by his past 2009 Taurus it should be quite good.
And now for the big question. Would I buy a Taurus? No. The terrible interior packaging, visibility issues, ride quality and degraded sound system were rather off putting. As CR says other better full size cars exist starting with the new Impala and the Cadenza but those choices lack AWD which might be an issue for some.
I have trouble coming to grips with the Taurus. I wish I liked it more. Arguably, the new Fusion should have been named Taurus, since Ford’s bull started life as a mid size offering anyway. This Taurus strikes me as a mid size car masquerading as a full size car, so it seems bigger but not necessarily better than the current generation Fusion from 2013.
With the newly released 2016 Malibu growing bigger, I predict Chevy will have the exact same problem with the Impala that Ford has with the Taurus. Why pick the bigger, bulkier sedan when the mid size offering provides plenty of room and arguably better value?
For me, the car that comes closest to the traditional “big” American sedan is still the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger.
“For me, the car that comes closest to the traditional “big” American sedan is still the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger.”
Yeah, unfortunately complete with poor winter traction with RWD. It almost forces a person to buy the AWD version around here.
I see tons of these at the auctions because the base to mid-level models simply don’t have any demand.
For starters, the cloth seats on these vehicles are just plain terrible. They remind me of the cheaped out cloth Ford used on their sport models 15 years ago. The seats almost feel like burlap and have the color of a rotting green olive. I’m not kidding. They really do look and feel hideous.
The ergonomics on the center console are well done. However the expanses of cheap plastic on the dashboards borders on the criminal assuming that the vehicle actually sells north of $30,000. I can’t think of anything else that looks cheaper in today’s market. Since that seat and dashboard alone are going to form a big bulk of the driving environment (no pun intended), I could never recommend these to anyone.
I’m sure the SEL models have a far better interior package than the ones I see on an all too frequent basis. At the auctions, these cars usually go cheaper than the current generation Fusions. Between everyone’s comments on the ergonomics and my own experiences with the low-quality interiors, I just can’t see these models offering the enduring traits that make a car worth keeping.
However, I know exactly where Jason is coming from. As I got older I would always put on my rose colored glasses whenever my Dad came by in his 1987 Lincoln Continental. Sajeev Mehta and I are probably the only two people in this entire business who have given glowing reviews on that decrepit Lincoln. The love of my Dad seemed to always cloud out all the static of being surrounded by fake wood appliques and shiny chrome touches that would dull out well before the five year window that he used it as his daily driver.