I just compared a Taurus and Camry. I can get alot more equipment in the Taurus including Sync, ambient lighting, and a bunch of crap i wouldn't buy for 1000 less than a base model XLE Camry...

Obviously, if you choose the SHO, yes, it will be alot more.. But lets compare apples with apples here.

 

both sables my parent's had went over 190k miles and never had any major repairs so 2 out of 3 aint bad. anyone can come up with anecdotal stories good or bad for any car. the taurus was a reliable car and this one will be no different.

 

That website is well done!

I like the easy to read layout, and the content with video is compelling!

I watched just about all the videos and not only did I believe everyone one of them I watched but I also was impressed with what each said. Unlike Chrystler and GM, IMHO, Ford is doing the most to improve the quality of their vehicles. I just don't see it or feel it when I drive the GM or Chrystler vehicles. They seem like the same car that was produced many years ago. Ford on the other hand seems to have greatly distanced themselves from the previous generation vehicles (E.G. current gen taraus vs previous gen) in terms of design, quality, and more of that gotta have it factor.

My favorite lines from the videos...

Tanner: "Do you think it (SHO) can beat an Audi A6?"
Kid: "What's an Audi A6?"
Tanner: "mmm-Okay."

 

Just how stupid were you to expect the Taurus to be a light weight sport sedan? I mean... it's a Taurus FFS. Judging by the number of family sedans selling vs the number of closer to 3,000 than 4,000 lb sport sedans I'll go ahead and say wrong again. A comprehensive line of practical, reasonably priced cars is exactly what Ford needs. Not some four door Lotus Elise.

 

Certainly 3400 lb. shouldn't be too much (little) to expect.

The days of 4000+ lb. midrange sedans are *hopefully* going to be drawing to a close soon...

No, a Taurus shouldn't be a 4-door Elise. But it shouldn't be as big/heavy as it is.

 

"We took both cars on a series of runs". There is nothing there to indicate that both cars took the same number of runs with the same size, quantity or distance from the gravel.

IMHO it is a neat video but there is no information of any substance in it. Someone should call Mythbusters.

 

How does it being heavy affect you? I can't seem to understand what you're complaining about. Do prospective owners of these types of vehicles take them out on Canyon Runs or track sessions or do you have your audiences mixed up.

It being heavy has absolutely no bearing what so ever on any of the factors buyers are looking for in a car like this besides possibly fuel economy. So take your useless complaint to a thread where it's relevant.

I don't get these S2000 owners like you who think they're 1990's Roadster is light for it's dimensions/time period (which it isn't by any means) yet have the balls to call a modern Family Sedan heavy.

 

I'm a prospective buyer. If it was lighter I'd be much more interested.

Relevant.

Put down the crack pipe.

 

Keep complaining. In S2000 land every car must weigh <3000LBS, have Ferrari like steering feel and "stir ones soul." You can reply to me when you return to reality.

If you were never told it's weight your level of interest wouldn't change, it's your attitude toward cars that is dictating that, get real.

 

I saw an SHO earlier in the week. It's absolutely huge. The high beltline also somewhat reminds me of the Chrysler 300. The platform is getting a little long in the tooth, being essentially a chassis borrowed from Volvo.