RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 As of this instant, CNN's story (well, AOL autos, actually) on the 2010 Taurus is the 10th most popular article on their website. I am not a fan of how this thing looks, but it's drawing attention, and the AOL review of it does Ford a major service by ONLY discussing the Taurus. Absent are references to Ford's financial situation, the near cancellation of the Taurus in '06, the disastrous '96 redesign is barely alluded to, as is the years of neglect that followed. Quality concerns and recalls from the past and previously uncompetitive cars from Ford in general are left out of the discussion entirely. And not once does the writer say, "For years Ford relied on trucks and SUVs" or words like it. It's a wonderful bit of fresh air in the stagnant and pungent world of automotive journalism. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/0...ref=mpstoryview Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I turn 40 this year, so maybe that's why this caught my eye. One especially interesting option is what Ford is calling multi-contour front seats. These seats include six-way lumbar support and subtle rolling pattern massage. The minute but continuous movement stirs a change of muscular activation helping a driver avoid back pain and help reduce long-distance driving fatigue. We can't wait to log a few hundred miles sitting in these to see if they perform as promised. I don't recall hearing anything like this in a "mainstream" sedan. (probably common on cars beyond my price range) Is this like one of those massage chairs you see at Brookestone, or does it just adjust the lumbar and/or seatbottom periodically? My ranger has an airpump and cushions in the driver's seat and back that adjust lumbar and side bolsters. Does it work like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobu37 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 As of this instant, CNN's story (well, AOL autos, actually) on the 2010 Taurus is the 10th most popular article on their website. I am not a fan of how this thing looks, but it's drawing attention, and the AOL review of it does Ford a major service by ONLY discussing the Taurus. Absent are references to Ford's financial situation, the near cancellation of the Taurus in '06, the disastrous '96 redesign is barely alluded to, as is the years of neglect that followed. Quality concerns and recalls from the past and previously uncompetitive cars from Ford in general are left out of the discussion entirely. And not once does the writer say, "For years Ford relied on trucks and SUVs" or words like it. It's a wonderful bit of fresh air in the stagnant and pungent world of automotive journalism. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/0...ref=mpstoryview Perhaps we are at the beginning of tectonic shift in the bias that has existed amongst the automotive journalists for the last decade. First Dan Neil of the LA Times gushes over the Fusion Hybrid by bragging about beating the EPA estimate by 11 mpg and now a fact-driven review of the Taurus. What's next? Will a journalist actually put his job on the line by acknowledging the fact that the Focus is more than competitive with both the Corolla and Civic? Not everyone has gotten on board of course. Inside Line recently claimed that they were able to get better MPGs out of a Camry Hybrid than a Fusion Hybrid. Only at the end of their review do they acknowledge that the Camry was tested on a clear sunny day while the Fusion was tested on a rainy day with high winds. Using their keen insight into the various scientific variables that may have altered the performance of the two vehicles they determine it resulted in a only 2 or 3 mpg difference which still made the Camry look better. Even my neighbor Ed has changed his tune. Instead of writing in chalk on his driveway "Ford Sucks" as he has for the past three years he recently started writing "Ford isn't that good". Reviews like this one may actually start getting people into the showrooms and that is the only thing holding Ford back. Because once they are there the product will sell itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Nice article, but it got some of the facts wrong. The Lincoln doesn't use the same engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordworker Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 New Taurus will sell 150-200K easy. Ford can steal sales from the Edge/Fusion but it will steal alot more sales from the Camry and Accord and I think they could reach 250K sales next year. They sold about 52K in 08. So I expect Chicago to be hiring real soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobu37 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 New Taurus will sell 150-200K easy. Ford can steal sales from the Edge/Fusion but it will steal alot more sales from the Camry and Accord and I think they could reach 250K sales next year. They sold about 52K in 08. So I expect Chicago to be hiring real soon. I hope you're right but that is game changing jump in demand you are predicting considering the segment the Taurus is in has been dropping like a rock for the past few years. I guess it will have alot to do with how the car is perceived by the public. As just another land yacht or will they see it for what it is. A luxury appointed vehicle priced like a non-luxury vehicle. IIRC, Toyota is essentially pulling out of the full-size segment to a degree by axing the Avalon name and replacing it with Camry EL or something to that effect. That might work to Ford's favor by making it easier for the public to compare a Taurus to a Camry which is really no comparison once the new Taurus arrives. The final EPA ratings will have alot to do with that being a valid comparison since I would imagine at least half if not more of it's sales are of the 4-cylinder variety. Does anybody have insight on what the expected EPA rating is going to be on the Taurus? They said best in class in the press release so does that mean 30 mpg Hwy or better? As for Chicago, they have a long way to go before they need that second shift back and even if Taurus does move 150K in 2010 Chicago in theory will still have enough excess capacity for the upcoming FWD/AWD Explorer on a third shift. Unless the Explorer becomes a game changer too. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for 250K Taurses a year. Being forced to find another plant for Explorer production would be a nice position for Ford to be in for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I am not a fan of how this thing looks, but it's drawing attention, and the AOL review of it does Ford a major service by ONLY discussing the Taurus. In other words, maybe Ford has made Taurus far more appealing to a broader audience? I'm hoping this Taurus sells half as well as the 400,000/year Camry fridge mobile. A similar style for the Fusion wouldn't hurt either....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 In other words, maybe Ford has made Taurus far more appealing to a broader audience?I'm hoping this Taurus sells half as well as the 400,000/year Camry fridge mobile. Maybe between the Taurus and Fusion, Ford can match the Camry? Is the production capacity sufficient for that to be a possibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray101988 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Even my neighbor Ed has changed his tune. Instead of writing in chalk on his driveway "Ford Sucks" as he has for the past three years he recently started writing "Ford isn't that good". really? that was beautiful, I was reading and that just came out of no where lol. Edited January 18, 2009 by ray101988 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Is the production capacity sufficient for that to be a possibility? With a lot to spare. 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.