2010 ford taurus

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by fordOwner

That looks like a morph between a mondeo a falcon and a territory.

My prediction is the Falcon will turn into something that looks like this then it will disappear and the Taurus will fill its spot like nothing ever happend.

It is a nice car tho, I like it.

At the moment, there's a design competition going on within Ford to present
designs for the next generation large sedan due in 2016 (not just Falcon, it's Taurus too)
The story goes that there will be only one vehicle chosen but I suspect that "One Ford"
is not that strict, FoA could be presenting next gen Falcon and Territory as a pidgeon pair
as alternatives to next Gen Taurus/Explorer, this will get really interesting come decision time.

[FgNewbie]

Not a fan of the shape. Won't buy a car with foot-parking-brake.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Not a fan of the shape. Won't buy a car with foot-parking-brake.

Not even a Mercedes? I actually prefer it. But then, I'd prefer an electronic parking brake. I just don't like having a big old fashioned lever that becomes a feature. But that's just me.

[FgNewbie]

chevypower, no thanks, not even a Merc. I've driven a few vehicles with a pedal over the years. Never liked them never will.

Not my primary reason, part of my dislike has been the brake coincidentally not holding well even after being adjusted. On a slippery boat ramp, I find a hand brake much easier too. Saves shuffling the feet.

Someone else may suggest that in a rare emergency a centrally located hand brake is a tool for a passenger or driver (especially if your kids are on Ls).

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Not my primary reason, part of my dislike has been the brake coincidentally not holding well even after being adjusted.

Never owned a BA then?

Mine lasted about 3 applications after adjustment for it to become absolutely useless.

[Ohio XB]

Sure the Yanks have some serious quality control issues...

Which ones are those, Jixel 78?



Steve

[jixel 78]

Now now dont get upset, I`m just talking from the point of view that what the enlightened top brass at FoMoCo USA deemed `a good idea` for marketing experiments in Australia. None of the American built cars sold in the Australian market from the Blue camp has been very sucessful.Ford is in a tricky situation. GM embraced the Holden platform for the much loved Camaro.(wicked car, as is new Mustang,why cant Australians buy damn coupes, performance utes really do suck eggs) Ford doesnt have that option. It needs to sweep out the Falcon and usher in its other RWD rubber master to Aus for the burnout brigade. Mustang in proper RHD. Now thats probably Ford Aus covering their *** with Falcon,(by not giving us `the good American stuff`) but holy moly the Exploder and Taurus that came here mid/late nineties were bloody horrible cars.(as was the Falcon when it kicked off here in 1960 it promptly fell to bits, as did the Explorer and Taurus) People will remember that stuff man. Nasty.

[Ohio XB]

Ok, perhaps I was thrown by you saying that "...the Yanks have some serious quality control issues.." This implies it is ongoing.

Now that you are referencing vehicles that were built in the 1990's, some 12 years ago or more, I will acknowledge the issues that Ford had then. That was a different company than what Ford is now.

In the latest J.D. Power survey Ford ranked #1 in quality among full line manufacturers in initial quality (3 months in service) with a rate of 93 TGW per 100 vehicles. It is the highest level of quality Ford has ever achieved, and I believe the highest achieved in the US industry, but don't quote me on that.

As for preferences of Ford's market decisions, I cannot comment on that as I know I don't know enough about it, between US and Oz and what cars, how, and why.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Ok, perhaps I was thrown by you saying that "...the Yanks have some serious quality control issues.." This implies it is ongoing.

Now that you are referencing vehicles that were built in the 1990's, some 12 years ago or more, I will acknowledge the issues that Ford had then. That was a different company than what Ford is now.

In the latest J.D. Power survey Ford ranked #1 in quality among full line manufacturers in initial quality (3 months in service) with a rate of 93 TGW per 100 vehicles. It is the highest level of quality Ford has ever achieved, and I believe the highest achieved in the US industry, but don't quote me on that.

As for preferences of Ford's market decisions, I cannot comment on that as I know I don't know enough about it, between US and Oz and what cars, how, and why.

Good post. It would be just as unfair to judge "Aussie" cars (Ford's and GM's) based on the quality of the EA Falcon.

[duaned]

Originally Posted by barra240t

Looks quite well put together, just as good or better than a Falcon? It actually doesn't look too bad either! I like it. Would this be Falcon or Mondeo size?

I fully agree. Everthing looks as if it fits well on this car. Panel gaps are uniform, all joins line up and interior looks of good quality, nothing that our local hero cars stand for. The only thing I didn't like was that silly foot operated hand brake. I would oversee this just to have one.

[jixel 78]

For sure. American Fords havent been sold in this country by the factory in justifiable numbers since then. The general motoring public only have those two cars to compare to, along with Cougar(!) and F Trucks. Seeing as somebody contemplating such a car(Taurus) might be inclined to compare the last lot of deals on wheels from the US.Surely that type of feedback to Ford Oz (early Taurus,Explorer) caused Falcon to lift a bit,(a little bit, BA can attest to that) and cant be ignored with a new Taurus in Australia. I dont believe the new Taurus is along the lines of those nineties cars either. I love the new Taurus, but being a little more informed, I can see its attributes.And where it might get some of its interior styling.(Mondeo,FG) Joe Blow getting out of his beloved clunking,knocking old Boss/Turbo Falcon may be more sceptical.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by chevypower

Good post. It would be just as unfair to judge "Aussie" cars (Ford's and GM's) based on the quality of the EA Falcon.

Some idiots still do. These same people think ford falcon has a 60yr old 6cyl and that the new S/C V8 is "aftermarket" and thus not a proper competitor to Holden V8's.
Back on topic, I think the current Taurus looks good, but this whole weight thing has thrown me. I never knew it was over 2tonne.

[jixel 78]

Who thinks the Harrop S/C is aftermarket? Garrett? Pff long bow to pull in regards to this topic champ. Falcon is a dying swan mate. Sad but true. And in regard to the Geelong 6 banger thats on life support powered by `enthusiasts`(and our taxes) the bloody bore spacing is the same as in 1960. It isn`t a `thought`. Its a direct relative. Nobody said it was a pig, just outdated.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by jixel 78

Who thinks the Harrop S/C is aftermarket? Garrett? Pff long bow to pull in regards to this topic champ. Falcon is a dying swan mate. Sad but true. And in regard to the Geelong 6 banger thats on life support powered by `enthusiasts`(and our taxes) the bloody bore spacing is the same as in 1960. It isn`t a `thought`. Its a direct relative. Nobody said it was a pig, just outdated.

I was talking about a fairly generic group of people who usually drive commodores. They think the falcons new v8 is fitted "aftermarket" with the charger, not from ford factory. The bore spacing might be the same but the ford 6 is light years in front of holdens 6. It's just ignorant bogans saying this rubbish. But try explaining the facts to them, you'd get a more positive responce from dried dog poo.

[CODSASR]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

I was talking about a fairly generic group of people who usually drive commodores. They think the falcons new v8 is fitted "aftermarket" with the charger, not from ford factory. The bore spacing might be the same but the ford 6 is light years in front of holdens 6. It's just ignorant bogans saying this rubbish. But try explaining the facts to them, you'd get a more positive responce from dried dog poo.

Plus the never ending "every bit of a Holden is aussie built thats why I have my aussie pride and southern cross stickers"

only a few weeks ago I asked a holden driver where the LS1 came from these are his exact words " devloped and built at HSV not used anywhere else in the world" yea right mate

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by jixel 78

(wicked car, as is new Mustang,why cant Australians buy damn coupes, performance utes really do suck eggs) .

i'm still waiting for Ford to bring the mustang out here for less that 100k.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by jixel 78

And in regard to the Geelong 6 banger thats on life support powered by `enthusiasts`(and our taxes) the bloody bore spacing is the same as in 1960. It isn`t a `thought`. Its a direct relative. Nobody said it was a pig, just outdated.

The Lamborghini Murcielago engine shares the same 88mm bore spacing as the Countach from the 70's.

I'm not sure I even get the relevance of that as a proof of anything. If any other modern engine shares bore spacing with an engine from the deep past, can we infer the same conclusion? Let's try it on.

"And in regard to the Italian 10 banger that's on life support powered by 'ferrari haters' the bloody bore spacing is the same as the 12 banger from the 1970's. It isn't a 'thought'. It's a direct relative."

Nope, don't buy it,

So if the I6 just changed the bore spacing like Lamborghini is doing now, all will be well! Hooray!



lukeyson

[Bossxr8]

I may be wrong but IIRC the LS engines share the same bore spacings as the original small block Chev.

Yet every time the Falcon 6 is written about its mentioned, yet never mentioned about the LS.

[jixel 78]

Ignorant bogans are pretty much the entire sales list for FPV and HSV. As for Lambo, I seriously thought the line in the sand was `some idiots think`..and `Southern Cross stickers..` shame nobody except blue corner bogans wants the old lump 6 banger. Maybe Lambo can give us some tips on how to get people to buy it.KFC anyone?

[Ohio XB]

I know that many Aussies won't care for certain design aspects of the body. The Taurus was designed for the US market and current US market trends.

As for the foot operated parking brake, that is how cars have been designed here for decades. Most American cars were built that way long ago and it is a norm. My 1993 F-150 has the same pedal. Some cars along the way adopted the hand controlled parking brake, but the pedal is still common and is "usual" to Americans. Your leg has more strength than your arm, and without a handle for the brake it doesn't have to be "designed around" when designing a functional and appealing interior.

Of course it probably all comes down to what you are used to. My kids cannot figure out for the life of them why ANYONE would own a manual trans car. It's so archaic and requires you to do something that you don't have to. What's the point? ;)


Steve

[mik]

Originally Posted by jixel 78

Ignorant bogans are pretty much the entire sales list for FPV and HSV. As for Lambo, I seriously thought the line in the sand was `some idiots think`..and `Southern Cross stickers..` shame nobody except blue corner bogans wants the old lump 6 banger. Maybe Lambo can give us some tips on how to get people to buy it.KFC anyone?

4 posts along the same lines digging the boots in, i think you`ve made your point.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

I know that many Aussies won't care for certain design aspects of the body. The Taurus was designed for the US market and current US market trends.

As for the foot operated parking brake, that is how cars have been designed here for decades. Most American cars were built that way long ago and it is a norm. My 1993 F-150 has the same pedal. Some cars along the way adopted the hand controlled parking brake, but the pedal is still common and is "usual" to Americans. Your leg has more strength than your arm, and without a handle for the brake it doesn't have to be "designed around" when designing a functional and appealing interior.

Of course it probably all comes down to what you are used to. My kids cannot figure out for the life of them why ANYONE would own a manual trans car. It's so archaic and requires you to do something that you don't have to. What's the point? ;)


Steve

Nice one!

I spent a few years in Canada and the US owning and driving cars with foot operating park brakes. I just came back from watching STS-133 launch and had more experience with foot-operated braking on a Grand Marquis. It's really not that big of a deal.

The centre console handbrake is much better for manual transmissions and hill starts. But I think Manuals will likely be replaced by DSG style gearboxes soon anyway, and cars rolling out with 'hill start assist. The Handbrake could well be replaced by an automated electromechanical equivalent and it wouldn't make much difference anymore.

In Europe where fuel is 4 times the price of the US, traditionally the Manual Transmission has been the more fuel efficient choice - more gears, direct connection of the engine to the wheels etc. But with the intelligent 6, 7 and 8 speed gearboxes with lock-up converters these days the efficiency is swinging the other way. With the continued roll out of forced induction and the 'no need to lift' on changes, they are also gaining the performance edge.

So it's only the driving purists that are left. And I'm one of them to be honest, but even I am swinging towards a 6 speed auto with manual-shift capability on my next purchase.

The 6th Gen Taurus is a handsome looking car. There's no denying it. It has road presence. It's only real let down visually is the rear 3-quarter. And I'd question whether Australian tastes are really that different to US tastes. Our AU Falcon was all 'Oval Based' like the 3rd Gen Taurus - and it's sales tanked in the same way that that Taurus tanked. And it's THAT model that we remember when talking about Taurus since it was sold here.

I think an AWD Taurus/Falcon would succeed in replacing a RWD only Falcon in Oz IF there was significant enough Australian design and assembly involvement that we could claim some aspect of ownership in it's sales across the globe.


Lukeyson

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

I was talking about a fairly generic group of people who usually drive commodores. They think the falcons new v8 is fitted "aftermarket" with the charger, not from ford factory. The bore spacing might be the same but the ford 6 is light years in front of holdens 6. It's just ignorant bogans saying this rubbish. But try explaining the facts to them, you'd get a more positive response from dried dog poo.

No, not compared to Holden's V6 but what about the Duratecs?

The 3.7 now puts out 305 hp and pretty much the same torque as the I-6
while the F150 Ecoboost 3.5 V6 puts out 270 Kw@5000 and a fairly flat lined 567 nm.

Not saying the I-6 is bad, it's just showing its age and lack of versatility
where as the new V6 can go in FWD as well as RWD vehicles just as easily...

And for what it's worth, I don't believe team red supporters really give a fig about Ford,
they still manage to buy 12,000 V8 car last year and are totally indifferent to other makes.

[TC200six]

I don't mind the look of the new Taurus. I saw them on the streets when I went to America and they look good in the flesh.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Nice one!

I spent a few years in Canada and the US owning and driving cars with foot operating park brakes. I just came back from watching STS-133 launch and had more experience with foot-operated braking on a Grand Marquis. It's really not that big of a deal.

Falcons had the foot operated parking brake on column shift models and all the Toyota Avalons had it as well.

[chevypower]

I think it's time that park brakes are electric powered. Touch button for manual operation, and automatic when the transmission is in Park. Even put hill start assist in regular 2wd cars.

[kircher]

What is the issue with a foot operated park brake? Your leg has much more strength than your arm. My mother has trouble operating a handbrake, as do many females I know, especially after a male has put it on firmly. The click off nature of foot operated park brakes is a great idea for them, and I prefer it too. Plus, any experienced manual driver should be able to take off even on steep hills without need for shuffling the handbrake and clutch. I haven't done that since my Ls and with most cars being automatic, that's a bit of a non-issue anyway. All you have to do is put your right foot on the brake, take the park brake off with your left foot, stick the thing in drive, and drive away. Easy.

As far as towing goes I thought it was best to tow with an auto. No need for shuffling clutches, gears, park-brakes and throttles simultaneously. Just press the throttle and go, or left foot brake if necessary. Torque multiplication is a wonderful thing.

Then there are the secondary advantages such as freeing up valuable centre console real estate for storage and cup holders, and moving the potentially unsightly lever away from view.

So unless I've missed something obvious, I think it's pretty darn ignorant, or just stubborn to say "I'd never own a car with a foot operated park brake". It's so trivial. It annoys me even more when motoring journos list them as a con in the pros and cons list. Why???

I'll admit, that it makes it nigh-on impossible to do a handbrake turn gracefully though ;)

Edit: As for electronically operated park brakes, I'm sceptical of taking the direct mechanical link out on safety devices such as park brakes, steering and brakes, unless there is a back-up to take over in the event of a failure of one of the systems. Others are welcome to disagree, but if we take anything from air-safety, backup systems are very important.

[mrbaxr6t]

the honeycomb panelling used in the lower grille section in the front should have been used in the upper one, with maybe a little dash of the silver used in the front bar inserts and a Ford blue oval, I cannot move past the grille

and the chrome slash across its rear end, what were they thinking, overall not a bad looker, just needs some tweaking to its aesthetics

<<edit>> are THREE cup holder spots in the center console really needed, are they expecting the passenger seat to have two people in it?

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by kircher

Plus, any experienced manual driver should be able to take off even on steep hills without need for shuffling the handbrake and clutch.

I'm fairly sure thats quite bad for the clutch though. Ie. using the handbrake makes the clutch last longer.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by prasac

Mustang weighs about 3700lbs, SHO weighs 4300lbs
Taurus SHO vs 2011 5.0 Mustang

Weird watching a Commodore rear end following the Taurus and Stang at the end of the vid lol. Just doesn't look right.

Apart from the hefty weight I'd have no problem buying a Taurus as the next Falcon. But I'd be thinking that if it does end up happening there may be some styling tweaks for Australian sold models.

As for the pedal park brake, better than the push button job on the current Suby Liberty IMO.

As for American build quality, lets face it, the fit and finish on the B series wasn't exactly world class, especially the interior (sorry but I'm currently bloody suffering from the common BA drivers seat squeak/creak and it's annoying the hell out of me. The car isn't old enough to suffer from a broken seat already IMO. I love the 5.4 3V though, for the same reasons Ohio XB likes and dislikes his - a V8 should be torquey from a standstill and vocal).