96towncarcartier Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 There are quite a few 2010 Taurus pics that are still floating around the internet, that haven't been discovered or taken down yet. From what I've seen, the 2010 Taurus has definite European flair, with rectangular style taillights and very sharp-looking lines. I DEFINITELY want one...though I'd be equally happy with a 2008 too. But until then... I'm happy with my 2003 Taurus. Sincere THANKS to everybody at Chicago Assembly Plant for the great job they did building my car...almost 100,000 wonderful miles and counting!! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I have a thread in the EcoBoost forum and the Ford person there talked about a 3.7EB motor. My user name there is desmo.Also, isn't the 2009 MKS starting out with a 3.7 natrually aspirated V6? there isn't an ecoboost 3.7, yes a 3.5 ecoboost with twin turbo's for the guy that asked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Can you confirm that the Taurus EcoBoost will be 3.5L and not the MKS 3.7L ? Will the Taurus EcoBoost have 1 or 2 turbos (MKS has 2) ? Thanks to the straight skinny ! :shades: 3.5 has 2 turbos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 There are quite a few 2010 Taurus pics that are still floating around the internet, that haven't been discovered or taken down yet. From what I've seen, the 2010 Taurus has definite European flair, with rectangular style taillights and very sharp-looking lines. I DEFINITELY want one...though I'd be equally happy with a 2008 too. But until then... I'm happy with my 2003 Taurus. Sincere THANKS to everybody at Chicago Assembly Plant for the great job they did building my car...almost 100,000 wonderful miles and counting!! Dave shhhhh....thats an excuse for some to put flashing lights atop the beast........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 You can keep your fins. I find them utterly ridiculous looking. Ferrari will be using them in F1 in Hungary this weekend they are high tech, your getting a bit out of touch Nick. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...729102557.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Ferrari will be using them in F1 in Hungary this weekend they are high tech, your getting a bit out of touch Nick.http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...729102557.shtml You are comparing fins on a purpose-built race car to the styling monstrosities adorning cars in the 1950's? I don't think I'm the one who's out of touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) You are comparing fins on a purpose-built race car to the styling monstrosities adorning cars in the 1950's? I don't think I'm the one who's out of touch. Your soooooooooooh yesterday Nick, yes its a new shark FIN Nick on a Ferrari and it will be giving their F1 car better stability this weekend for the first in the Hungary Grand Prix. Even the new Mercedes SLC will be using Gull wing doors and protruding rear light clusters you are so out of touch. Edited July 31, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Even the new Mercedes SLC will be using Gull wing doors and protruding rear light clusters you are so out of touch. That doesn't look a damn thing like anything built in the 1950's. Your idea of sexy is the Fiat 500, so we know who's in touch and who's not here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) That doesn't look a damn thing like anything built in the 1950's. Your idea of sexy is the Fiat 500, so we know who's in touch and who's not here. Its a FIN Nick, whats a Fiat 500 got to do with it other than Fiat are not posting huge losses every quarter. Why do you keep bringing up the 1950's, Americans still love them 50's classics today. Edited July 31, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Its a FIN Nick, whats a Fiat 500 got to do with it other than Fiat are not posting huge losses every quarter. Why do you keep bringing up the 1950's, Americans still love them 50's classics today. Toyota isn't posting any losses either. How many of their cars have fins? Most Americans who love cars from the 1950's were those who were alive in the 1950's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Most Americans who love cars from the 1950's were those who were alive in the 1950's. So why do you have them on your stamps today right yea pull the othe one Nick its got bells on? Edited July 31, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 So why do you have them on your stamps today right yea pull the othe one Nick its got bells on? Because people who were alive in the 1950's decide what our stamps will look like. At least I think that's the right response to your question. Your grammar was a bit lacking halfway through that sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Because people who were alive in the 1950's decide what our stamps will look like. Bullshit, if forward thinking Ferrari are using Fins this weekend and companies like Boeing have started fitting blended wingtip fins to old aircraft how can you say they are 1950's rubbish its you that is out of touch with FINS Nick. Boeing estimates that the blended winglets designed for the 767-300ER will save up to 6.5 percent on fuel consumption, by reducing the drag created by wingtip vortices. This would produce savings of more than 500,000 gallons of jet fuel per aircraft per year, just try telling BA or AA that fins are rubbish Nick http://www.aviation.com/technology/080722-...d-winglets.html Edited July 31, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Bullshit, if forward thinking Ferrari are using Fins this weekend and companies like Boeing have started fitting blended wingtip fins to old aircraft how can you say they are 1950's rubbish its you that is out of touch with FINS Nick. Boeing estimates that the blended winglets designed for the 767-300ER will save up to 6.5 percent on fuel consumption, by reducing the drag created by wingtip vortices. This would produce savings of more than 500,000 gallons of jet fuel per aircraft per year, just try telling BA or AA that fins are rubbish Nick http://www.aviation.com/technology/080722-...d-winglets.html several fins in F1...but the two most important are Kimi and Heiki..........hey BMW races with a Pole???????........... Edited July 31, 2008 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Bullshit, if forward thinking Ferrari are using Fins this weekend and companies like Boeing have started fitting blended wingtip fins to old aircraft how can you say they are 1950's rubbish its you that is out of touch with FINS Nick. Boeing estimates that the blended winglets designed for the 767-300ER will save up to 6.5 percent on fuel consumption, by reducing the drag created by wingtip vortices. This would produce savings of more than 500,000 gallons of jet fuel per aircraft per year, just try telling BA or AA that fins are rubbish Nick Holy....crap. FINS that actually SERVE A PURPOSE are fine. The fins on the wings of a 767 aren't there to look pretty. They make the aircraft perform better. The fins on a Ferrari are not there to look pretty. They make the car perform better. The FINS on 1950's Cadillacs and Chryslers served ZERO PURPOSE whatsoever other than to look gaudy as hell. Fins as a STYLING ELEMENT look ridiculous and they likely HINDERED performance moreso than they enhanced it. See the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Holy....crap. FINS that actually SERVE A PURPOSE are fine. The fins on the wings of a 767 aren't there to look pretty. They make the aircraft perform better. The fins on a Ferrari are not there to look pretty. They make the car perform better. The FINS on 1950's Cadillacs and Chryslers served ZERO PURPOSE whatsoever other than to look gaudy as hell. Fins as a STYLING ELEMENT look ridiculous and they likely HINDERED performance moreso than they enhanced it. See the difference? Bit like the bullshit jellymould shapes on most of FOE cars Aerodynamics dont do a lot for a car below about 120 MPH wish Ford would ditch the dull boring bland design its not needed. Most of the traffic in London only averages about 11 MPH, l would rather have more comfort and more space of a boxy shaped car like the 97 MPG Citreon Cactus than have it all chopped away in some very boring bland dull jellymould that serves no purpose like fins of the 50's both are the same thing bullshiting. Mini Clubman Diesel Brick http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/09/detroit...tion-to-the-us/ 67 mpg (US) highway 50 mpg (US) city 60 mpg (US) combined Edited August 1, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Bit like the bullshit jellymould shapes on most of FOE cars Aerodynamics dont do a lot for a car below about 120 MPH wish Ford would ditch the dull boring bland design its not needed. Dull and boring is a matter of opinion. Are some FoE designs bland? Yes. But others aren't. Besides, aerodynamics helps at ALL speeds, not just 120 mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Dull and boring is a matter of opinion. Are some FoE designs bland? Yes. But others aren't. Besides, aerodynamics helps at ALL speeds, not just 120 mph. All cars even 1950's car have pretty good aerodynamics Nick weight and size and having a small frontal area, and frugal econetic type engine design are far more important. You can streamline a F-Series like an aerofoil shape but it will never get more MPG than a brick shaped Mini. Up to 100 MPH their is only a negligible difference thats why l can't stand pretentious Jellymould shapes they are no different to fins on cars you could stick a econetic diesel engine in and old anglia or Mk1 escort fit and with some low resistant tires and you would get better MPG than a brand spanking new Mondeo ever would because they are lighter cars. Getting a Ford Focus RS to do 150 MPH is not all that hard, but any greater speeds than that does need a lot more HP and very good aerodynamics do start to get very important. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANct6Vd0ryA...feature=related A 1950's Citroen 2CV that has the aerodynamics of a snail returned 50 MPG over 50 years ago, gotta say despite all your bullshiting claims of better aerodynamics and low drag numbers average US CAFE MPG has still not reached more than a DINOSAUR 27 MPG so 0.3 drag jellymould low drag coefficient is total bullshit just like fins and means nothing if it returns less MPG than a dinosour 50 MPG 2CV from the 1950's. You can poke your 0.3 Cd dull boring bland generic functionless jellymould bullshit appliance with all the charisma of a fridge right up your arse Nick l am not interested Edited August 1, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 All cars even 1950's car have pretty good aerodynamics By all means, find me a car from the 1950's (aside from a race car) that has a Cd under 0.30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 By all means, find me a car from the 1950's (aside from a race car) that has a Cd under 0.30. The fins on the all the 1950 cars above are better than that Nick, so Jellymould cars must also serve NO PURPOSE as you have already said above then Nick. Fords Classic F-150 has all the aerodynamics of a brick wall Nick but it is the best selling vehicle Stateside. SALES should matter the most, and if Ford jellymoulded its Classic F-150 and watched its sales drop off to 4100 like the present Taurus had in July would you think having a low drag jellymould design is the way forward? Gotta say l like the new Taurus its a step in the right direct Nick, its not so dull, bland and boring they have put a few creases in right places at the front end that give it a bit more keeeeeeerb appeal l hope it sells well for Ford and starts to eat into Camry sales a bit, 4100 Taurus sales were letting Ford down a bit last month, and its low drag numbers don't always mean high sales numbers Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 The fins on the all the 1950 cars above are better than that Nick, so Jellymould cars must also serve NO PURPOSE as you have already said above then Nick. What are you even talking about here? The shape of vehicles today is DIRECTLY influenced by aerodynamics. The styling elements like fins found on cars in the past were simply to give the IMPRESSION of aerodynamics. They rarely ever accomplished anything and quite likely often had the OPPOSITE effect. Fords Classic F-150 has all the aerodynamics of a brick wall Nick but it is the best selling vehicle Stateside. I would venture to guess that even the current F-150 has a better Cd than several finned and rocket-lamped fullsizers from the 1950's, and is undoubtedly a huge improvement over previous pickup trucks in that regard. Apples to apples here. SALES should matter the most, and if Ford jellymoulded its Classic F-150 and watched its sales drop off to 4100 like the present Taurus had in July would you think having a low drag jellymould design is the way forward? Compared to what the F-150 was decades ago, it has "jellymoulded" a LOT -- almost entirely in the name of aerodynamic improvement. Gotta say l like the new Taurus its a step in the right direct Nick, its not so dull, bland and boring they have put a few creases in right places at the front end that give it a bit more keeeeeeerb appeal l hope it sells well for Ford and starts to eat into Camry sales a bit, 4100 Taurus sales were letting Ford down a bit last month, and its low drag numbers don't always mean high sales numbers Nick. Drag numbers don't equate to much of anything. One of Ford's best-selling vehicles in the history of the marque was the decidedly most-jellymould car ever: the 1996 Taurus. You can have an aerodynamic vehicle that doesn't look like a bubble: witness the '10 Taurus. However, the current Taurus's lack of sales has much less to do with its lack of creases as it does with its dullness. The 1996 Taurus had NO creases. I don't think anyone would call it dull. Ugly as sin maybe, but not dull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) F-150 is a aerodynamic brick Nick compared the those 50's cars. Ford will also try to make this vehicular brick more aerodynamic; and yet keep the big, bold look that F-150 customers love—surely a challenge if ever there was one http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008...ford-f-150.html Just watch those truck sales plunge in 2012 Edited August 6, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 F-150 is a aerodynamic brick Nick compared the those 50's cars. Ford will also try to make this vehicular brick more aerodynamic; and yet keep the big, bold look that F-150 customers love—surely a challenge if ever there was one http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008...ford-f-150.html Just watch those truck sales plunge in 2012 that's just one guys opinion and you're basing off of this as what???? I thought this was a taurus thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 F-150 is a aerodynamic brick Nick compared the those 50's cars. Ford will also try to make this vehicular brick more aerodynamic; and yet keep the big, bold look that F-150 customers love—surely a challenge if ever there was one http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008...ford-f-150.html Just watch those truck sales plunge in 2012 Source 1: "Car Cd values have typically declined from 0.5 in the 1950s, to 0.42 in the 1970s, to 0.32 today." http://books.google.com/books?id=XcFbEX-de...1&ct=result Source 2: Current F150's Cd: 0.431; next F150: "lower". http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...0,1753627.story FJ, the nice thing about having you around is, whenever you argue about something, I know the other side is right. I should un-ignore you and read more of your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Source 1: "Car Cd values have typically declined from 0.5 in the 1950s, to 0.42 in the 1970s, to 0.32 today." http://books.google.com/books?id=XcFbEX-de...1&ct=result Source 2: Current F150's Cd: 0.431; next F150: "lower". http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...0,1753627.story FJ, the nice thing about having you around is, whenever you argue about something, I know the other side is right. I should un-ignore you and read more of your posts. Well thank you for that Noah l am so glad you have started to read my posts again l guess you must of missed them, its great to see Ford Jellymould cars are showing the rest how its done these days, its not hard see why the 4,100 Taurus sales in July had Toyota shitting bricks because when all cars look the same it all comes down to reliability when making the choice of boredom so Ford hand all their sales to Toyota and they win, l hope Ford don't do the same to their truck sales in 2012. I hope in 2012 the F-Series is made smaller, lighter, hybrid and downsizes engine sizes to give it more MPG, and l hope Ford don't destroy sales with F-150 Jellymould bullshit as it will do absolutely nothing to improve MPG what so ever just like low drag fin bullshit. It sure is great to see Ford cars showing Toyota the door in the July sales top 10, the F Series truck with its brick aerodynamic shape could do better? 1. Ford F-Series: 44,829 2. Toyota Camry: 42,131 3. Honda Accord: 41,382 4. Toyota Corolla/Matrix: 34,438 5. Chevy Silverado: 32,989 6. Honda Civic: 29,125 7. Nissan Altima: 24,429 8. Dodge Ram: 21,328 9. Honda CR-V: 17,419 10. Chevy Malibu: 16,637 Edited August 6, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.