|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
We get a color choice?
Oh, I'm excited now!
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can I get that Yugo in electric please? 
electric.. is that a color? 
Ohh Ohh Ohh,, electic Blue.......LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Can I drive down to .... Electric Avenue ....... ? 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Don't shame them, don't belittle them. Don't assume they are after only quarterly profits. They have a good business plan, and good products.
I didn't shame or belittle Ford in any way.
I know nothing about Ford. Read every post I've made on this thread. I've never said anything bad about Ford.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647 |
Quote:
BTW, I'm not loyal to one brand over another, but my dream car (right now) is a Corvette and I'm not totally picky about the year (really old, or really new - though I'm not a fan of the 'vettes from the 80s and 90s). LOVES me some Vettes!
why not the C4 vettes (1984-1996), brownsbabe? they were fast and generally reliable. they were cheaper than the european competition and just as fast for the most part, plus they were a beast on the autocross circuit.
The low-rpm punch of the L98 and the automatic made them a terror--anyone half-awake could hot lap like Goodyear with minimal training. The C4s, with their wide tires (255-series or wider, up to 315! on the ZR-1), were very forgiving.
However, they had cheap interiors, they lacked structural rigidity due to their birdcage structure and were not fuel sippers in the city (16-18 mpg). That being said, by '90 they got a 6-speed manual from ZF in West Germany that gave enough tall gearing to get you 31mpg on the highway. you could turn 70mph @1600rpm.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647 |
good post arch. I've always loved Taurii...our family had a '90 Wagon that was reliable--180k--then we gave it to my brother and he ruined it in '02 or so. We would have had another 5 years out of it. It had a supposedly trouble prone AOD 4sp. auto tranny, but ours was fine, and the 3.0L Vulcan V6...a very good 60-degree design, but not quite as good as GM's 3800. It was much better than the Essex V6, the Ford 3.8 liter used in the Taurus and later Windstar...the Essex tended to blow head gaskets. Nice to see Ford doing well. Neighbor works for Ford and brought home an F-150 SuperCrew Diesel!  A prototype. He also brought over a heavily modified X-type Jag and a 15-passenger Ford Transit (the big one; not the Transit Connect smaller one). The Transit usually is sold in Europe.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086 |
Quote:
Quote:
Phil can't seem to see that a company that is making a profit quarter after quarter might just be doing something right - no, he thinks they are milking the system.
I don't think that in the slightest.
My comments had zero to do with Ford. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Everything I said was directed at the mentality that good quarter profits = company is doing well. That line of thinking can be dangerous.
I said nothing about Ford. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on their business practices.
I understand what you are saying but when you are a publicly traded company, you are graded quarter-by-quarter. I'm not suggesting that is a good or bad thing, but it is how the markets work - what have you done for me lately.
Ford is showing that it can be a publicly traded company and operate a lean machine that produces good product. It's something we have not seen from the American auto makers in a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
In all honesty, however, my next car will probably be a BMW.
My dream car since I was about 10 was a BMW 7 series. I was finally at a point where I could purchase one, but when I test drove it (a 2007 740) I was not impressed due to the interior - it was very disappointing. The sales guy suggested I try an Audi A8 - I had never even considered purchasing an Audi - but after driving it I was sold. I've had the car for about 6 months now and it is amazing, plus I like the all wheel drive which isn't available on the 7 series (only on the 5 series and below) as I drive a lot for work.
Not sure what series BMW you are looking at, but if it is a 5 or a 7 I'd also check out an A6 and an A8. The 3 series BMW beats the A4 by a mile though. I'd purchase a Fusion over an A4.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642 |
Asain~Just really not a fan of the body styling of the C4's. that's the real reason I don't like them. Plunk a different body on them, and I'd be all over them! I know, purely aesthestics. But, like a man, I've got to be attracted to them before I can date them! 
![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg) #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2010/07/harry_reid_auto_bailout_probab.htmlHarry Reid: 'Auto bailout' probably saved Ford Published: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 9:08 AM Updated: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 9:27 AM Jonathan Oosting Unlike its fellow Detroit-area automakers, Ford Motor Co. did not accept federal assistance in 2008. Instead, it preemptively leveraged it's assets, remaining afloat in exchange for debt. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) on Tuesday defended the so-called "auto bailout" from critics -- specifically Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- on the grounds that without it, Chrysler, GM and Ford may not exist today. "My friend says that we bailed out the auto industry," Reid said during a heated back-and-forth on job creation and retention. "Well, isn't it a good thing we did? Isn't it a good thing today in America we have an automobile manufacturing sector? If it had been up to them (Republicans), General Motors would be gone. If it were up to them, Ford Motor Company would probably be gone. Chrysler would definitely be gone. "We decided they needed help. ...We're making money on what we did in investing in Detroit's automobile industry." The statement proved fruitful fodder for a number of bloggers and GOP aides, who quickly accused Reid of ignorance and/or revisionist history. Doesn't he know "Ford didn't need a bailout because its management made better decisions than did those at GM and Chrysler"? Doesn't he realize that the government's own estimates of the rescue indicate it stands to lose billions in taxpayer funds? While Reid's assertions are misleading at face value, they actually make some sense. He specifically was speaking about jobs and more broadly about the entire auto sector. Had Chrysler and General Motors folded, many industry suppliers would have followed suit, leaving Ford with substantially less than a full deck. And even though automaker did not accept federal assistance, it told the Senate Banking Committee in 2008 that it was "critically important that loans are available to us and the domestic auto industry" should the downturn prove longer and deeper than anticipated. And while recent estimates suggest the federal government could lose $12 billion of its $86 billion investment, some have suggested that may be a bargain compared to the economic impact of an industry collapse. That said, while Reid may be right that the bailout saved some jobs and staved off an industry collapse, a watchdog group recently accused the Obama administration of rushing plans to close GM and Chrysler dealerships as part of their government-led bankruptcies, writing in a report that the decision resulted in "potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls." The White House said it strongly disagreed with the group's findings, arguing the companies may not have rebounded without necessary, painful sacrifices. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Gee ... maybe they saved jobs at McDonalds too? The grocery store?  Yeah ... sure ........ Ford would probably be gone. They took no federal funds ..... they reorganized without the need to go into bankruptcy ...... but they would "probably" be gone. I love this administration ......and this Congress ....... no matter what they do it "probably" ..... "created or saved jobs" ........ and companies ....... The bottom line is that we have lost an ungodly number of jobs, and they are trumpetting that they saved us. The government, as part of the bankruptcy plans for Chrysler and GM, closed thousands of dealerships, putting tens of thousands of people out of work. I guess that they'll claim that they "saved" the other jobs ....... These people really have no clue whatsoever. It would be funny if they weren't the ones in charge.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Do you think the other side has a clue?
Sure, let's keep the upper teir Bush tax cuts... that is worth over a trillion dollars of revenue in 10 years... then complain about the deficit.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Hey, I've already said: Cut spending, eliminate the Bush tax cuts completely, eliminate the child tax credit, eliminate the EITC ..... How much more can I cut or eliminate?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
It'd be a helluva start for GOV'T Motors to simply get a base hit.... or even a Walk.
CTS, Camaro, Regal, Lacrosse, Enclave, Acadia, Traverse, Malibu, Terrain, Equinox, Cruze...and plenty more coming.
ALL more than "walks or singles," some are full-out home runs (Lacrosse, Equinox/Terrain and Regal come to mind).
Where GM is really missing the mark is by keeping the decrepit Impala, DTS and Lucerne on the market. They desperately need replacements.
Otherwise, your argument against GENERAL Motors making poor vehicles is WAY off base.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Impala is currently getting a makeover..not sure when it is due...Would love it if it was RWD but I don't expect it to be...
The LaCrosse is basically replacing the Lucerne and the Lucerne is being phased out..(this may even be the last year)....
The STS and the DTS are being replaced with the XTS (It is a go, from what I have heard) and the CTS will grow very slightly to be more of a true 5 Series, E Class, A6 fighter while the ATS will take on the 3 Series, C Class, A4.
Concerning the Taurus from other parts of the thread...I have not gotten to drive the SHO...but the regular model is a good car. They do a good job on the interior. Especially in the front. Not sure what I think about the stadium seating...lol. The rear view window is VERY small. The car rides nice...but to be honest I liked the ride in the Cadillac STS that was 2 years older better. And that ride was slightly under the 3 year old BMW 550i. The Ford couldn't touch the used BMW. I am sure I would like the SHO better than the regular models...but I also think I might like the Lincon version better than the SHO...the MKS....just wish it had the same engine tuning as the SHO.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I'm sorry, but comparing a Taurus to a Cadillas STS and a BMW 550i
Why not compare a rowboat to a yacht?
Last edited by FloridaFan; 07/26/10 09:34 AM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Good for Ford, I believe they received little to no bailout money because as Daman mentioned they saw everything coming. It was also telling at the Detroit International Autoshow that they were really the only company that had good previous years and were looking optimistic at the future with the kind of booth they had on display compared to the rest of the companies.
I currently drive a ford. I'm lucky to have parents that are willing to let me drive one of their vehicles to be wherever I need be. It's a really nice car. Only problems we've had the past seven years are the ball joints went but with all the trips we've taken in the car we weren't surprised. I do my regular oil changes and any other preventative maintenance issues that may come up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 76 |
Quote:
I'm sorry, but comparing a Taurus to a Cadillas STS and a BMW 550i
Therein lies one of the problems for Ford right now. A nicely equipped Taurus is easily comparable in content and performance to European luxury sedans, but is priced thousands less. People still view the Taurus badge as the old rental fleet staple cars. You can get a lot of good value in mid-lower levels Focuses and Tauruses right now. Of course, you can also load up and spend tens of thousands more.
The new explorer is being revealed today i think. It will be interesting to see how it has been designed and how it does in a down market for SUV's. That, and the Fiesta, will determine a lot of Ford's success for the next 3-5 years.
Full disclaimer: My wife has works for Ford and is going on 12 years with the company.
Brown's fan since 2004...the tradition continues. ![[Linked Image from i21.photobucket.com]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b272/presto247365/IMG_2561-1-1.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Ford introduces new - and untraditional - Explorer
8:24 A.M. — DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — The Ford Explorer, the hulking family-hauler that helped launch the SUV boom in the early 1990s, is back. And it hopes to define a new generation of more streamlined, fuel-efficient sport utility vehicles.
Ford begins a marketing campaign Monday for the 2011 Ford Explorer, which will be in dealerships this winter. It’s an important vehicle for the automaker. Ford says the Explorer is its best-known product after the Mustang.
“Explorer is really still the backbone of the brand,” Ford’s marketing chief Jim Farley said recently at a gathering to introduce the Explorer to the media.
The new Explorer has been completely redesigned. The most obvious difference: It’s built on a car platform, not a truck one, so it sits lower to the ground and has a smoother, more fuel-efficient ride.
Ford is taking a risk with customers who expect a truck-like SUV. The new Explorer will have less towing capacity than the outgoing model — 5,000 pounds, versus 7,115 pounds — and it won’t offer a V-8 engine.
“Ford’s challenge is to match the idea of the Explorer to this product,” said Aaron Bragman, an analyst with IHS Automotive. “It’s a good test for Ford to determine what an SUV is these days.”
Trends in the market suggest most buyers aren’t looking for the power of traditional SUVs and would prefer a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Ford’s top U.S. sales analyst George Pipas said that a decade ago, 85 percent of all SUVs sold were truck-based; last year, just 23 percent were.
Pipas said there is also a trend away from the McMansions and big vehicles of the 1990s, when people measured their wealth by home and car size.
“It’s a different world. People are much more thoughtful about their consumption, and the new Explorer is in line with that,” he said.
The new Explorer has a 2.0-liter, four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, which has the power of a V-6 — 237 horsepower — with better fuel economy. The government hasn’t issued fuel economy ratings, but Derrick Kuzak, head of global product development at Ford, said the engine would be similar to a 2010 Toyota Camry sedan with a V-6 engine. That Camry gets 19 miles per gallon in the city and 28 on the highway.
The Explorer also has a 3.7-liter V-6 that gets 290 horsepower — the same as the current V-8 — and 20 percent better fuel economy than the outgoing V-6.
The Explorer has some new safety features, including inflatable seat belts in the back seat that help protect occupants’ heads and chests in a crash. A curve control system helps keep the car on track when the driver goes too fast into a tight curve. And its MyFordTouch dashboard system allows drivers to change the temperature, make calls and hear text messages using voice commands.
Ford said the new Explorer is also a capable off-roader, with a terrain management system that lets drivers switch the SUV to various modes, whether they’re driving on sand, snow, rutted roads or downhill. The 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee, which was also redone for a more car-like ride, has a similar system.
Pipas said it’s unlikely the new Explorer will ever reach the sales heights of the old version. In 2000, its peak sales year, Ford sold 445,157 Explorers. By last year, sales had slipped to 52,190. That’s partly because there are more options in the market — Ford now makes the seven-passenger Flex, for example, that competes with the Explorer — and because of changing trends.
But Erich Merkle, president of consulting company Autoconomy.com, said Ford could easily double its current sales.
There’s at least one built-in fan base: Current Explorer owners. Because the Explorer was such a big seller, with 4 million of the 6 million sold still on the road, Ford sees 140,000 Explorer customers returning to its showrooms each year, Farley said.
[url=http://www.news-press.com/article/20100726/BUSINESS/100726009/1002/RSS01[/url]
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Well the new Ford certainly cost more than the STS...and came in just under the BMW....so if you are out shopping then yes I think it IS fair to compare them. Not to mention all of the other new vs. used advantages and disavantages....
What got me was when the salesman was touting features in the Ford as if they have never been put in a car before and they had been in the Caddy for going on 5 years....
But don't get me wrong. The Taurus is a good car...the cabin can be a little isolating for the front passengers as the center console is a little high and really separates the passengers...but the styling is very nice. The materials(if you opt for the leather, etc) are very nice. The layout for the driver works quite well. I enjoyed my drive in the Ford quite a bit.
I just liked the older STS better...It had a firmer suspension, the cockpit while not as stylish had a better layout and it wasn't isolating...It had just as many options and a few more the Ford did not...(definite benefit of the high end used of course) The Ford had a much more sophisticated and user friendly interface for the Radio, Navigation, etc...(definite benefit of being new)
When it comes down to it...if you have a specific amoutn of money to spend...do you buy the New Ford or the Used STS...I think it is very valid to compare the 2 and IMO I choose the STS ...but I am not everyone...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
I always buy used as I can get a whole lot more car for my money, but it is completely unfair to compare a new car vs. a used car. What is offered in it's NEW price range, while it was available on a luxury car 5 years ago, is quite a good price. Things always start in the luxury segment and work their way to the other segments below it. Heated/cooled seats, air bags, ABS, disc brakes, the list goes on and on of options that started in the luxury segment and trickled down.
I am a veins run blue Ford guy, and I test drove the SHO as I was in the market for a new car. It is an amazing car, but 48k for a Taurus? I had a real hard time with that. I got a 3 year old Audi A8 with 20k miles and an extended warranty to 5 years/100k miles for the same price. It would be completely unfair to compare the Taurus and Audi.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
It would be completely unfair to compare the Taurus and Audi.
Why not??????...you did....and you chose the Audi.....It is not an indictment of the Taurus.....In reality...the fact that we are comparing it with those cars is probably an indication of how far the car has come...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Show me sticker prices on these cars. I looked up the STS it starts at 46k, the 550i starts at 60k, fully loaded Taurus SHO is 44k
And that is the SHO, which is a specialty. 99% of the Taurus' sold will not be SHO. Take the SHO off the equation and the car drops in price by 6-10k with all the same features.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 07/26/10 12:49 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
That isn't what I meant; it would be fair to compare the same model year Audi to the same model year Taurus - and in that case the Taurus would have won as I could not afford a brand new Audi A8 and the Taurus is very nice. I would have liked the Audi more but 80k (no options) for a car is out of my price range. You cannot make fair comparisons to a new and used car that are in completely different classes. The reason that I even compared the two was that if I was going to spend the mid-40's on a Taurus I figured I could step up to a very nice luxury car for the same price so long as it was used.
The A8 should not even be compared to a Taurus as they are completely different markets. Maybe an A6 or BMW 5 series of the same year but even then a loaded Taurus is going to be much less than a loaded one of those - and that comparison would still be pushing it. Step up to one of the Lincoln models and those would possibly be fair comparisons.
Do you ever see Motor trend, Car and Driver, etc compare an Audi A8 to a Taurus? I haven't as they are not valid comparisons due to the price difference.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Do you ever see Motor trend, Car and Driver, etc compare an Audi A8 to a Taurus?
Yes...I have seen similar comparisons...and it is usually Titled "The Best Car for under $X0,000".
My point is that I have x amount of dollars that I am going to spend on a car. And the new Taurus was good enough for me to compare with the other luxury cars for me to consider buying it new. In the end, after all things considered, I am probably not going to do that.
Florida...did you read the part about being 2 years old??? or the BMW being 3 years old??? I can find you PLENTY of 2008-2009 Cadillac STS' that come in under the Taurus' price point. To get a Taurus with Navigation (a requirement for my next car) you have to get the Limited (can't get it on the SE or SEL models) and with navigation it starts at $36,445. I can find you a plethora of STS's that fall under that. V6, V8, even a V8 AWD that I have my eyes on. But again we are talking used. I am comparing pricing points. And again I am not taking anything away from the Taurus. Because I did look at them as an option for me...that in its own right shows that they should be reckoned with.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Yes...I have seen similar comparisons...and it is usually Titled "The Best Car for under $X0,000".
No, you have not seen those magazines compare a Taurus to an A8, or BMW 7 series, or Porsche Panamera because it is a ridiculous comparison. The A8 is double, possibly triple, the price depending upon the options. If they did comparisons of a new Taurus to a used high end luxury vehicle that was about the same price that would be interesting but I've never seen it done before as it would not be all that useful of an article.
Quote:
My point is that I have x amount of dollars that I am going to spend on a car. And the new Taurus was good enough for me to compare with the other luxury cars for me to consider buying it new. In the end, after all things considered, I am probably not going to do that.
It wasn't good enough to compare. The A8 is light years, and I mean light years, ahead of the new Taurus. And it's 3 years old. I am not taking anything away from the Taurus either - my parents are likely going to buy one and they've driven Honda's for years. For a sedan under 40k that has all of the bells and whistles, it is very nice.
Quote:
Florida...did you read the part about being 2 years old??? or the BMW being 3 years old??? I can find you PLENTY of 2008-2009 Cadillac STS' that come in under the Taurus' price point. To get a Taurus with Navigation (a requirement for my next car) you have to get the Limited (can't get it on the SE or SEL models) and with navigation it starts at $36,445. I can find you a plethora of STS's that fall under that. V6, V8, even a V8 AWD that I have my eyes on. But again we are talking used. I am comparing pricing points. And again I am not taking anything away from the Taurus. Because I did look at them as an option for me...that in its own right shows that they should be reckoned with.
It is not a fair comparison to look at something 3 years old vs. something brand new. The cars you are comparing to the Taurus were MUCH more than the Taurus was when purchased new. I agree with you that most would probably take an STS over a Taurus (I wouldn't, but that's just because I'm about as anti-GM as arch is anti-Ford  ) - it's a nicer car in a different class. Which is why I always buy used vehicles; I can get a nicer car for my money. The Taurus should be compared to the Accord, Impala, Altima, Avenger, etc because that is it's competition.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I'm not arguing the STS is not a better car, I would love to get a CTS but it just isn't in the budget. But your post Quote:
The car rides nice...but to be honest I liked the ride in the Cadillac STS that was 2 years older better. And that ride was slightly under the 3 year old BMW 550i. The Ford couldn't touch the used BMW. I am sure I would like the SHO better than the regular models...but I also think I might like the Lincon version better than the SHO...the MKS....just wish it had the same engine tuning as the SHO.
The Caddy and BMW were designed with ride comfort as a primary objective, the Taurus most likely was not. It is still a 20k car with add-ns no matter how much the dealership want's to claim it's a high end car based on the price fo the SHO. It was still designed on the same platform and chassis as the cheapest Taurus.
SHO will probably account for 2% or less of all Taurus sales. Much like the Mustang V6 account for 78% of all Mustang sales. People with 45k+ to spend on a car will most likely be looking at something else.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Please do not mention the Panamera again.
Thank you.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Not a fan? I'm assuming you don't like the Cayenne then either as you must be a traditionalist when it comes to Porsche. Though I could never afford one, it isn't a bad vehicle - the interior, in traditional Porsche fashion, is excellent however the 4 door design is a little awkward for the Porsche brand. I would purchase an Audi S8 or A8 W12 or BMW Alpina B7 before the car you do not want me to ever mention again
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
No, you have not seen those magazines compare a Taurus to an A8, or BMW 7 series, or Porsche Panamera because it is a ridiculous comparison. The A8 is double, possibly triple, the price depending upon the options. If they did comparisons of a new Taurus to a used high end luxury vehicle that was about the same price that would be interesting but I've never seen it done before as it would not be all that useful of an article.
I have seen plenty of articles where they say they best car for 5K, 10K, 20K or the best car for 40K, whatever your dollar amount. And I have seen 7 series BMWs compared withat Toyota Camry's, Chevy Corvettes, and Honda Civics. Now I will admit that mostly all the cars are for the most part used...but they will make comments in the 10 to 15 cars that they find and many times those comments point back to new production vehicles.
Quote:
The Taurus should be compared to the Accord, Impala, Altima, Avenger, etc because that is it's competition.
Not the Altima....the Maxima. The Altima is too small. Not the Avenger, the Charger the Avenger is too small. I get it you are doing a class copmparison...I always got it....But I am doing a price comparison as I will be spending the money so I might as well get the most for my money and get what I want......and those cars fell in the same price range....Therefore they make the comparison......What????? You don't think the Ford has anything to offer???
Reliability being a newer car is less of an issue. Warranties, styling, options, value retention. There are plenty of things to compare. And just becuase the other cars have some advantages in certain areas...it doesn't mean that the Ford loses every battle.
It doesn't matter if it was a BMW, a Bentley, a Ford, or a Yugo...if in the end you are spending the money...and they are all in the same price range.....regardless of year...you check them out and compare them and make judgements on which car you would most like to have. Perhaps someone else would have driven the A8 but like the driving dynamics of the SHO better and decided on the SHO.....that is still a comparison.....
My wife compared a 08 Sante Fe with almost no miles on it...with an absolutely Loaded VW Toureg that was a little older and a few more miles on it......She liked the Sante Fe because of how it drove...now the Toureg new would have cost almost TWICE what the Sante Fe cost if both were brand new....but she liked the Sante Fe and is Happier than can be. That was a comparison.
I am NOT wrong in saying I liked the ride of the older STS better. I do. It might also give people who have ridden in either car some insight into the other...and thought about checking out one or the other...If you don't like a very firm suspension...you might want to check out the Ford....If you liked the Ford...maybe my comments might make lyou consider the used Caddy...
It is a valid comparison.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Actually the STS and the BMW had a MUCH Firmer, sportier suspension setup (which is why I mentioned that I would like the SHO better then the regular models They stiffen the suspension some and you can add a Track Pack) that felt alot more planted. The Taurus was crisp and capable, but did not inspire as much confidence as the other 2. The Taurus has a "hell" of a lot better suspension set up than my Aurora.....LOL
The STS and BMW are still comfortable but were geared more fore sport...where I think the Taurus is just the opposite...the Taurus can still be sporty(very sporty actually) but designed more for comfort.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Not a fan? I'm assuming you don't like the Cayenne then either as you must be a traditionalist when it comes to Porsche. Though I could never afford one, it isn't a bad vehicle - the interior, in traditional Porsche fashion, is excellent however the 4 door design is a little awkward for the Porsche brand. I would purchase an Audi S8 or A8 W12 or BMW Alpina B7 before the car you do not want me to ever mention again
I actually own a Cayenne S (and a 911). Want to get a Boxster next.
The automobile in question is, to put in the words of Jeremy Clarkson, "hideous looking even compared to a genital wart."
Now, the A8 is a car. 
We now resume our Ford programming. How about a nice GT?
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
This is funny because we are debating and agree with each other, lol I just disagree that it is truly a fair comparison. I am trying to think of something else to compare - maybe a 2 year old top of the line laptop vs. a brand new bottom of the barrel one. Both will cost the same, but the top of the line laptop from 2 years ago will still have a better and larger screen, probably more memory, larger hard drives, possibly better processor (but doubtful). If I could get the same warranty on the old laptop as the new bottom of the barrel one like I can on a car I am buying the old one. Quote:
I have seen plenty of articles where they say they best car for 5K, 10K, 20K or the best car for 40K, whatever your dollar amount. And I have seen 7 series BMWs compared withat Toyota Camry's, Chevy Corvettes, and Honda Civics. Now I will admit that mostly all the cars are for the most part used...but they will make comments in the 10 to 15 cars that they find and many times those comments point back to new production vehicles.
You've seen 7 series BMW's compared to Civics and Corvettes? I do not even see how those can be compared. I understand the best car for X dollars, but those articles, at least the ones I read, are for new cars in that price range not used vs. new.
And to touch on the Ford piece - I love Ford, always have and always will. I have 3 other vehicles and all are Fords or Ford powered - the Cobra, a 93 Mustang Cobra, and a 2000 Diesel Excursion. The Audi is the first non-Ford I have ever owned. I also compared by price - the SHO intrigued me enough to check it out but couldn't handle paying that much for a Taurus. It showed my why I always buy used vehicles and will likely continue to do so.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
We have an Altima and it is not a small car, it seats 5 adults comfortably. And the trunk will carry 10 bags of mulch, I know from personal experience, more if you toss 3-4 up farther.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
I didn't mean it was a compact car. I meant it was too small for a class comparison to the full size Taurus. The Maxima is in the same class as the Taurus. The Altima is in the same class as the Fusion.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Then they increase the Taurus, the ones I knew of in the 90's we're smaller than our Altima.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
The Taurus is a pretty big car now. The Maxima is a better comparison for size sake.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ford makes $2.6 billion quarterly
profit
|
|
![[Linked Image from i45.tinypic.com]](http://i45.tinypic.com/adhq2o.gif)
