GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 40 of 107 Posts
markusername said:
The word Taurus to me means rental car hell. I actually think the name works against the car in most upper middle class and wealthier households.
Agreed. The Taurus name has been destroyed over the last ten years, and any equity with consumers that the name had has long since been eroded. In addition, the "new" Taurus looks like it wouldn't appeal to anyone under 65 - although I'm sure it is a fine car.

Ford could always resurrect the "Model T" name from its past and see if that works...
 
RamJet502 said:
Why would they expect changing the name would increase sales? Its the same car that people weren't buying before.
Fords original formula for success in this segment would probably be much harder to pull off today.

Anyone remember the original marketing campaign? I remember a bunch of silly commercials singing the name "Taurus" 100 times in 30 seconds.

Marketing got a brand new name out, but what sold the cars was the fact that Ford caught the rest of the segment completely off guard by selling a better product for its time.

Taurus had it all in the mid 80's. Styling, no traditional grill in the front end, the perfect size for american familys. The rest of the competition (especially Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) caught up and surpassed the Taurus in every way.

Restyles were focused in the wrong direction trying to get some of that old original magic back too much on styling a too little on quality and common sense...remember the qwerky oval back window and dash theme...yuck!


Now Ford is left with a great product in the new Taurus, but I am not sure if most people care anymore...they have been buying great product for years from their competitors!!! There is no wow! I have to have it sitting in my garage tomorrow type of attitude for the 500/Taurus.

It's tough to win back customers isn't it?
 
HawkeyeOC said:
Fords original formula for success in this segment would probably be much harder to pull off today.

Anyone remember the original marketing campaign? I remember a bunch of silly commercials singing the name "Taurus" 100 times in 30 seconds.

Marketing got a brand new name out, but what sold the cars was the fact that Ford caught the rest of the segment completely off guard by selling a better product for its time.

Taurus had it all in the mid 80's. Styling, no traditional grill in the front end, the perfect size for american familys. The rest of the competition (especially Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) caught up and surpassed the Taurus in every way.

Restyles were focused in the wrong direction trying to get some of that old original magic back too much on styling a too little on quality and common sense...remember the qwerky oval back window and dash theme...yuck!


Now Ford is left with a great product in the new Taurus, but I am not sure if most people care anymore...they have been buying great product for years from their competitors!!! There is no wow! I have to have it sitting in my garage tomorrow type of attitude for the 500/Taurus.

It's tough to win back customers isn't it?
One thing's for sure; Ford totally messed up the good thing they had going with the Taurus. Things would be a lot different now if they had been smart about the huge success they had on their hands with the Taurus.
 
CBECK said:
who puts the camry and the taurus in the same size class anyways?
You might be right... but then the question is why did Ford spend so much to design a car in a class size that doesn't sell in big volumes? They'd have been better of spending Fusion and 500 development dollars on one amazing Camry/Accord-sized competitor, no?
 
paul8488 said:
It might be true that the new Tarus is more car for the same money as an Accord or Camry... but it might be that people don't want that much car. It's really huge... looks unwieldly to me. Even if it rides and handles well, and has decent power, I can see many people thinking it's just too darn big.
If you have not driven the car you cannot make that statement. Since you said that "It looks unwieldy to me. Even if it rides and handles well, and has decent power" causes me to belive you may not. When I sold Fords ,the 500 was a car that people liked, except for the low power. The size,and handling, were not issues. The underpowered engine,and oddly, the name, were the factors that slowed the sales. I found the statment by customers "Is it as good as the Taurus" very funny.
So go drive the car. You will like it.
 
Michael_S said:
With the change from the Five Hundred to Taurus, they kept:
1. Class leading cabin space.
2. Class leading trunk space.
3. Competitive pricing for a large sedan.
4. Available All Wheel Drive.
5. Available DVD entertainment for rear seats.
6. Trunk pass-through for large objects.
7. Best crash ratings of any sedan on the road.

They added:
8. 60 horsepower.
9. Better fuel economy.
10. A quieter cabin (and the Five Hundred was not criticized for being noisy).

As far as I can tell, the only flaw this car has it boring styling. Even then, I'd say the Taurus is an improvement over the Five Hundred, just not enough of an improvement to really make people notice.

What improvement do you want?
Clearly, the exterior killed this car. Oddly, the styling was largely lifted from the previous generation Passat, which was widely praised for its appearance. But Ford managed to bland it down just enough that, when the Chrysler 300 rolled out at the same time, the Five Hundred got totally buried.

The handling isn't so hot, but there's no arguing with the power, roominess, efficiency, etc. Aside from resale value, it's a very rational choice.
 
I really do wish more people would look at this car. It's beautiful, spacious and comfortable. No, it's not "exiting", but neither is the Camry.
 
The Taurus looks good to me. We all know it as an extremely good family sedan value, maybe the best out there, bu I am reading a lot of negative remarks regarding it's styling. I honestly don't know which car in it's class looks better. I like some styling elements better than others, but overall, looks very classy-yet-functional to me. I would love sitting above everyone else in a sedan as I look down on them too:p:

Image


Image


Image
 
CBECK said:
who puts the camry and the taurus in the same size class anyways?
Exactly. Why was the author so persistent in comparing the fullsize Taurus to the midsize Camry? Maybe because he's a douchebag, but I don't know for sure.

In addition, he said one of the bad points was the lack of a hybrid version. He lends so-called creedence to this by mentioning that the Camry does. Once again, the Cmary is a frickin' midsize! What fullsize car, I ask you Thane Peterson, offers a hybrid version? The Lucerne, 300, Charger, Azera, Amanti, Maxima, and Avalon do not. I would love to see a hybrid version of the Taurus, but criticizing it for not offering such a powertrain is akin to criticizing dogs for barking when cats do not.

I get fired up when discussing opinions on the 500/Taurus, because I feel they recieve an undeserved bum rap.
 
dindak said:
The new Taurus is a dull looking car, I would take a Fusion over it any day.

Despite its damaged reputation, I think that the Tarus name could have been better restored if it was done on the Fusion.

I think that Ford marketing screwed it up royaly when they chose to name it the fusion, instead of calling it the new Tarus, and the 500 was to replace the crown vic. This should have happened originally, except some body thought that it would be cool if the entire lineup and names starting with 'F'.
 
paul8488 said:
You might be right... but then the question is why did Ford spend so much to design a car in a class size that doesn't sell in big volumes? They'd have been better of spending Fusion and 500 development dollars on one amazing Camry/Accord-sized competitor, no?
Which begs the question of why there needs to be separate platforms for these cars...whereas the Camry and Avalon have the same underpinnings, the Fusion and Taurus are unrelated and, as you note, it probably cost a pretty penny to do it that way. It is these kinds of inefficiencies (keep in mind also that the Fusion and Taurus continue to have unrelated V6 motors, one of which is obsolete, while Camry and Avalon share a V6) that keep Ford from performing as it should-the development dollars that went into the Taurus could have been well-spent elsewhere (new Escape, Ranger, RWD sedan, etc.)
 
Ach said:
Which begs the question of why there needs to be separate platforms for these cars...whereas the Camry and Avalon have the same underpinnings, the Fusion and Taurus are unrelated and, as you note, it probably cost a pretty penny to do it that way. It is these kinds of inefficiencies (keep in mind also that the Fusion and Taurus continue to have unrelated V6 motors, one of which is obsolete, while Camry and Avalon share a V6) that keep Ford from performing as it should-the development dollars that went into the Taurus could have been well-spent elsewhere (new Escape, Ranger, RWD sedan, etc.)
Ford offers (2) different size sedans and takes advantage of those very different classes, by making one more sleek and sporty and the other roomy and comfortable with tall seating. The Camry and Avalon differ mostly in length. Width and height are very similar. The Taurus is far roomier than the Fusion, because it is wider and much taller. I guess you can't have it all. The public benefits by having this choice.
 
blank disk said:
Ford offers (2) different size sedans and takes advantage of those very different classes, by making one more sleek and sporty and the other roomy and comfortable with tall seating. The Camry and Avalon differ mostly in length. Width and height are very similar. The Taurus is far roomier than the Fusion, because it is wider and much taller. I guess you can't have it all. The public benefits by having this choice.
...but Ford doesn't when they spend significant development dollars on a low-volume product (100K units is good for this class, excepting the 300 which is one of a kind-even the Avalon only moves 80-85K annually), thereby losing the benefits of economies of scale, while other key vehicles in their lineup languish. Maybe the Fusion platform is not as flexible as the Camry's, that I don't know. Regardless, given the Taurus's sales performance (and the inherent limitations of the large FWD sedan market) it is hard to justify the cost of the different platforms.
 
21 - 40 of 107 Posts