TTAC gives Mondeo 5 stars

[RichardJensen]

Mondeo's same size as the Fusion.

[kevinb120]

Oh, that's real mature. What-seriously-is your qualification to speak with any knowledge of what went wrong with the Taurus?

 

I mean sure, you can look at what happened and say, "oo, that stank", but can you say WHY it happened?

 

 

Looks fine to me, it's nothing like that fine taxi cab styling though...

Edited January 26, 2008 by kevinb120

[regfootball]

mondeo is pleasant looking, but aero is not en vogue in the us right now. the interior is not that great either.

 

everyone thinks the modeo is the deal because its euro.

 

yet i think most folks would probably like to see the 09 fusion job before we anoint the mondeo the chosen one.

 

the euro focus does not have enough styling or feature set advantages to make it gotta have and neither does the mondeo, despite how nice a drive either of those cars may be.

 

if ford brought the mondeo here it would need a proper v6, and a whole new interior, (complete with sync).

 

As for TTAC, they are typically the automotive journalism equaivalent of what I left on the end of the driveway this morning, for the guys in the truck to pickup.

[danup]

And look at how Ford NA screwed that [96 Taurus] up.

 

Rampant de-contenting and a transmission that remained absurdly bad? The Taurus received some pretty good contemporary reviews for its exterior; it's only after Ford began fleeting the crap out of them and they proved to be as unreliable as the Tauruses before them that it became this huge joke. The 96-97 Taurus is a really attractive car, and it looked miles ahead of the 97 Camry, which rivals the 97 Malibu on the all-time dullness scale. (I'm not a fan of the 98-99 front-end refresh, which left it with a completely random bump on the nose where the badge used to be.)

 

 

 

As for the Mondeo, it's a very attractive car, especially the hatch, but on [exterior] looks alone I like the Fusion a little more. Personal preference relating to my love of high beltlines and squared-off greenhouses. (I'm sure the Mondeo drives better, but it's not like driving dynamics are the Fusion's problem right now.)

Edited January 26, 2008 by danup

[MERKURXR4Ti]

Rampant de-contenting and a transmission that remained absurdly bad? The Taurus received some pretty good contemporary reviews for its exterior; it's only after Ford began fleeting the crap out of them and they proved to be as unreliable as the Tauruses before them that it became this huge joke. The 96-97 Taurus is a really attractive car, and it looked miles ahead of the 97 Camry, which rivals the 97 Malibu on the all-time dullness scale. (I'm not a fan of the 98-99 front-end refresh, which left it with a completely random bump on the nose where the badge used to be.)

 

As for the Mondeo, it's a very attractive car, especially the hatch, but on [exterior] looks alone I like the Fusion a little more. Personal preference relating to my love of high beltlines and squared-off greenhouses. (I'm sure the Mondeo drives better, but it's not like driving dynamics are the Fusion's problem right now.)

 

Good to see another late nighter...

 

I fully agree, my father owned a 96 sable, and while the rear was Very unpleasant, that was a nice car...180k, sold before any major mech probs

Edited January 26, 2008 by MERKURXR4Ti

[danup]

Yeah, I like the thick c pillar on the gen-3 Sables but the rear treatment was... uh, interesting, to say the least.

[MERKURXR4Ti]

You were 11 years old when that thing hit the market. On what authority do you have your opinions about anything that happened with it?

 

Hate to challenge you here RJ but the car I base my auto knowledge on (and have owned 3) ranged from when I was a fetus to 4 years old... and I have many opinions... age doesn't always matter.

Edited January 26, 2008 by MERKURXR4Ti

[MERKURXR4Ti]

Yeah, I like the thick c pillar on the gen-3 Sables but the rear treatment was... uh, interesting, to say the least.

 

Brutal to say the best. But lets hope the taurus gets sexy, and the Mondeo with its 5-stars will eventually treat America's fusion well

[jpd80]

Mondeo's same size as the Fusion.

Richard,

In one of your previous posts, you described it as a 'tweener - I think that a better description.

As American chat rooms are forever demanding proof of outlandish statements, I decided to

research all of the available dimensions, do all the conversions to imperial and compare the two.

 

what I found was this:

- Outside the Mondeo sedan is same as Fusion but on the inside it's a different story.

- Except for front/rear seat travel and slightly less shoulder room, Mondeo's inside is closer to Taurus!

I'll show you:

 

Taurus (Mondeo Sedan)

Length: 200.7 (190.7) - 10" less and more like Fusion

Width: 74.5 (74.3) - Same width

Height: 60.4 (59.1) - Slightly lower roof line

Wheelbase: 112.9 (112.2) - very close

Track Front: 64.6 (62.2) - less and more like Fusion

Track Rear: 65 (62.8) - less and more like Fusion

 

Taurus (Mondeo Sedan)

Leg Room Front: 41.2 (44.6) - 3.4" more than Taurus!!!

Leg Room Rear: 41.9 (37.4) - 4.5" less and more like Fusion

Shoulder Room Front: 57.8 (57.0) - 0.8" less

Shoulder Room Rear: 57.6 (56.4) - 1.2" less

Head Room Front: 39.4 (39.2) - similar

Head Room Rear: 38.6 (38.4) - similar

Hip Room Front: 53.7 (54.4) - similar

Hip Room Rear: 53.6 (53.3) - similar

Trunk Space 21 (18.9) - 2 cu ft less.

 

 

The problem is a 'tweener like this would not be accepted by American buyers.

Those expecting an externally larger car wouldn't give it a second glance and

those expecting a Fusion Interior capacity would ask to see a smaller vehicle.

Edited January 26, 2008 by jpd80

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Does anybody have any information on sales numbers for the Ford Contour & Mercury Mystique which was Ford's last attempt at selling a rebadged/renamed Mondeo in the US, l was just interested to see how well it sold in the States last time around.

[StevenCaylor]

People say they want diesels. People say they want the Mondeo here.

 

Do they realize that a 10.6 second 0-60 time comes along with the deal?

 

The US and European markets are very different.

 

And that's with a manual transmission. With an automatic, that would be 0-60 in what, like 11.5 seconds.

 

IIRC, the biggest complaint about the Contour/Mystique when it was introduced was that the back seat was so small. Most reviewers loved the SVT version.

Edited January 26, 2008 by StevenCaylor

[LSFan00]

Terrific review.

 

So what is the Mondeo? We could quote Germany's famously chauvinistic Auto,Motor & Sport, who said the Ford family sedan is better than the C-Class Mercedes. But let's just say it's a lower-profile, less-roomy Ford S-Max with slightly better handling and somewhat better fuel economy.

 

But more than that, the Ford Mondeo is exactly what its American admirers believe it to be: four-wheeled proof that Ford can build a world-class, value-priced car that satisfies both practical and emotional desires. So why haven’t they? That’s a discussion for another time.

 

Aside from the typical pompous, irrational review-haters, you have to love a car that wins converts left and right to a mid-size Ford sedan.

[RichardJensen]

The problem is a 'tweener like this would not be accepted by American buyers.

Those expecting an externally larger car wouldn't give it a second glance and

those expecting a Fusion Interior capacity would ask to see a smaller vehicle.

You should perhaps look at Fusion vs. Taurus numbers too.

[jpd80]

And that's with a manual transmission. With an automatic, that would be 0-60 in what, like 11.5 seconds.

No, the reviewer got it wrong!

2.0 TCDI Auto 0-60 = 10.6 seconds

2.0 TCDI Manual 0-60 = 9.2 seconds

http://www2.fordconnection.com/

 

For a car that gives a worst of 29 USmpg when driven hard and returns 35 mpg easily, it's not bad.

 

Read the internal dimensions comparison between Taurus and Mondeo in my post above,

you'll be astonished to see what they achieved in a car 10" shorter.

Edited January 26, 2008 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Read the internal dimensions comparison between Taurus and Mondeo in my post above,

you'll be astonished to see what they acheived in a car 10" shorter.

And I'm telling =you= that linear dimensions in the Fusion & Taurus are not -that- different, save for rear seat leg room.

[jpd80]

You should perhaps look at Fusion vs. Taurus numbers too.

Agreed a few inches make a difference but a lot to do with front seat travel.

I'm not saying Mondeo is anyways right of US markets

but it points the direction with internal packaging.

Will post comparison between Fusion and Mondeo shortly.

Edited January 26, 2008 by jpd80

[jpd80]

I see your point Richard, Fusion and Mondeo are pretty close

except Mondeo has 2" more front seat travel and 3 cu ft bigger trunk.

Also shows why Taurus isn't selling all that well - internal size is too close to Fusion (and Mondeo)

 

In all honesty, I think a reworked Fusion would be just as good the other two.

 

Fusion (Mondeo)

Length: 191 (190.7)

Width: 72.2 (74.3)

Height: 57 (59.1)

Wheelbase: 107.4 (112.2)

Track Front: 61.6 (62.2)

Track Rear: 61.3 (62.8)

Leg Room Front: 42.3 (44.6)

Leg Room Rear: 37 (37.4)

Shoulder Room Front: 57.4 (57.0)

Shoulder Room Rear: 56.5 (56.4)

Head Room Front: 38.7 (39.2)

Head Room Rear: 37.8 (38.4)

Hip Room Front: 54.4 (54.4)

Hip Room Rear: 53.3 (53.3)

Trunk Space 15.8 (18.9)

Edited January 26, 2008 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Agreed a few inches make a difference but a lot to do with front seat travel.

I'm not saying Mondeo is anyways right of US markets

but it points the direction with internal packaging.

Taurus (Mondeo Sedan) (Fusion sedan)

Leg Room Front: 41.2 (44.6) (42.3)

Leg Room Rear: 41.9 (37.4) (37.0)

Shoulder Room Front: 57.8 (57.0) (57.4)

Shoulder Room Rear: 57.6 (56.4) (56.5)

Head Room Front: 39.4 (39.2) (38.7)

Head Room Rear: 38.6 (38.4) (37.8)

Hip Room Front: 53.7 (54.4) (54.0)

Hip Room Rear: 53.6 (53.3) (53.4)

Trunk Space: 21 (18.9) (16)

 

Passenger volume: 108 cu. ft. Taurus, vs. 100 cu.ft Fusion. Mondeo specs unavailable.

 

Linear dimensions do not give the full 'flavor' of an interior's size. As you can see, apart from rear legroom and trunk space, the Taurus/Fusion/Mondeo are all well within hooting distance of each other, but the Taurus has 8% more interior volume than the Fusion.

 

Does that mean That Ford is using its space inefficiently in the Taurus? It could be asserted so. It, on the other hand, could be asserted that there is much more to determining interior spaciousness than straight line measurements from point to point in an interior.

Edited January 26, 2008 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Does that mean That Ford is using its space inefficiently in the Taurus? It could be asserted so. It, on the other hand, could be asserted that there is much more to determining interior spaciousness than straight line measurements from point to point in an interior.

I think height would be another dertemining factor towards an airy cabin.

Taurus with 60", Fusion 57, and Mondeo 59" - can see FoE have tried hard to get the big car feel.

 

Our Falcon interior is like Fusion with 2" more width and that is a marked difference

in a side by side comparison with a Mondeo.

[P71_CrownVic]

Oh, that's real mature. What-seriously-is your qualification to speak with any knowledge of what went wrong with the Taurus?

I already told you...I am no more qualified than you are. Don't you drive a Mini?

 

 

Looks fine to me, it's nothing like that fine taxi cab styling though...

 

There it is boys...yet another thread where they are brought up.

[suv_guy_19]

I already told you...I am no more qualified than you are. Don't you drive a Mini?

 

There it is boys...yet another thread where they are brought up.

 

Richard drives a Mercury Sable.

[RichardJensen]

I already told you...I am no more qualified than you are. Don't you drive a Mini?

No. I drive a DN101 Sable. In other words, I drive one of those cars.

 

And I can tell you what Ford got right, and what they screwed up from first hand experience.

 

But that's not what I am going to do.

 

Rather, it would behoove you to read "CAR: The making of the 1996 Taurus", to discover what happened, and draw your own conclusions.

 

See, my qualifications don't come from what I've seen, but from what others saw as well.

[P71_CrownVic]

No. I drive a DN101 Sable. In other words, I drive one of those cars.

 

And I can tell you what Ford got right, and what they screwed up from first hand experience.

 

But that's not what I am going to do.

 

Rather, it would behoove you to read "CAR: The making of the 1996 Taurus", to discover what happened, and draw your own conclusions.

 

See, my qualifications don't come from what I've seen, but from what others saw as well.

 

All I know is that when it came to replacing my grandpa's 1989 SHO, he flat out refused to buy a 1996+ because of how horrid they were (good thing too because he would have been fucked over by Ford and their denial of the cam shaft sprocket issue).

 

He said that the 1996 Taurus/Sable is a perfect example of what happens when you let women design a car (No wonder why it went from 1st place to 3rd place).

Edited January 27, 2008 by P71_CrownVic

[danup]

Rather, it would behoove you to read "CAR: The making of the 1996 Taurus", to discover what happened, and draw your own conclusions.

 

This really is a great book, it gave me a different perspective on the gen-2 and 3 Tauruses. It may seem in hindsight like gen-2 Taurus was a hit and gen-3 was a mess, but if we had the same things happening now people would freak. Imagine if:

 

Ford had a megahit mid-size sedan, which was coming up on six years old. Instead of building a new one they basically give it an 08 Focus/Escape refresh that makes the car look (in my opinion) less substantial. It finally overtakes the Accord and becomes the best-selling car in America, thanks to a significant amount of fleeting, and with the new Taurus on the horizon (after nine years) they fleet-dump it even more to maintain the sales crown.

 

Finally the new Taurus comes out, and it is thoroughly benchmarked and built to compete with the current top dog, build-wise. It's bigger than the Camry, with a longer wheelbase; it's got a better (and brand new) engine; and--as we fret about all the time here--its looks are meant to polarize, not to anesthetize.

 

But Ford doesn't fix the failure-prone transmission and, instead of sticking to its guns when the more-expensive Taurus doesn't sell as well as its fleeted older brother, de-contents it so much they create an even lower trim level for it. Over the next two or three years they take even more stuff out and up the fleet percentages, the end.

 

The 96 Taurus might have been a failure, but at least started out a noble one.

[rmc523]

People say they want diesels. People say they want the Mondeo here.

 

Do they realize that a 10.6 second 0-60 time comes along with the deal?

 

The US and European markets are very different.

 

The Mondeo would get picked apart by auto magazines here.