Ford Taurus 2010

[XabbaRus]

I was reaing an article on the BBC about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249530.stm

This is onething tha made me curious

The Taurus 2010 will average 17mpg in the city and 25mpg on the motorway, on a par with the competition, according to the consumer auto site Edmund.com.

Can anyone tell me how that is good? and is that for the V6 option. For a V6 that could be realistic but if that is supposed to be the fuel economy for the average normal engined one then that is shocking.

[Sledgehammer427]

First thing that caught my eye was
"hey, it's not butt-ugly anymore"

as for the MPG, I think that's the V-6 model.
they might aslo put in that cylinder selector thing where it shuts off all of the cylinders you don't need, i.e. neighborhood driving, 4 cyl,
if for some odd reason you need to GO you put the hammer down and it kicks in the other 2. cool idea

The first thing which caught my eye was that it was a Ford..........not GM/Chrysler. Henry's legacy lives on!!!!

Any color you'd like as long as its black.

[XabbaRus]

I thought that would be for the V6 but still I know people with V6 saloons here and they get better mileage.

I must admit the cylinder switch thing is clever.

My car is only a 3 cylinder 1 litre thing. Economy is great but overtaking is a no-no unless you plan it and have a good run. What I need on my car is a selectable turbo that I can engage just for power boosts.

Can anyone tell me how that is good?

It is good if compared with other vehicles produced for the US market.
Its crap fuel efficiency compared with vehicles produced for other markets.

[DeerHunter UK]

You also have to remember that a US gallon is smaller (15% if memory serves) than an Imperial gallon.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by DeerHunter UK

You also have to remember that a US gallon is smaller (15% if memory serves) than an Imperial gallon.

Doesn't matter it's still terrible.

[TFatseas]

Hmm... I had a 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis with a 302 V8 that pulled the about same mileage as that.

Makes me wonder.

That being said I would still like one.

[CaptainHaplo]

Schroeder - not when you consider a mile is longer than the European kilometer. The combination of distance difference and "gallon size" difference make it fairly decent.

To put it in European terms - it gets 32.82 kpg city, and 48.276 on the highway/motorway.

[Schroeder]

I know Haplo and it is still terrible compared to European/Asian cars.

1 US gallon = 3.785 litres
1 (UK) mile = 1.6 km

My 17 year old car can run 100km in a city consuming 7.5 litres of gas.
That gives it a mileage of 31,3 miles/gallon in a city (if I didn't screw up the math).

On a Autobahn it consumes 6.5 litres at a speed of 140 km/h that is ca. 36.25 miles per gallon at a speed of 87 mph.

Remember that thing is 17 years old.
Sure it has a lot less power than the Taurus but on an American public road I'm just as fast as the Taurus (because of the speed limit) and have a much better gas mileage.

[XabbaRus]

Well I get 10 miles to the litre with my car and it has a 40 litre tank.

On a good long run on the motorway I can get better than that.

[AVGWarhawk]

That is about average for a V6 particularly if the curb weight is very high. This vehicle is upwards of 3500#? Or more?

Schroeder - not when you consider a mile is longer than the European kilometer. The combination of distance difference and "gallon size" difference make it fairly decent.

To put it in European terms - it gets 32.82 kpg city, and 48.276 on the highway/motorway.

The problem there is that the figures you are putting down as KPG are what people are used to getting as MPG(or better)

That is about average for a V6 particularly if the curb weight is very high. This vehicle is upwards of 3500#? Or more?

Thats a problem with the local market and local regulations, if you have a big lump of metal like that in other countries the manufacturers would ship it with a turbo diesel instead of a petrol engine.
Take Fords best selling American van and their best selling European van for examples, both can take the same loads but one gives both better performance and lower fuel consumption.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The problem there is that the figures you are putting down as KPG are what people are used to getting as MPG(or better)


Thats a problem with the local market and local regulations, if you have a big lump of metal like that in other countries the manufacturers would ship it with a turbo diesel instead of a petrol engine.
Take Fords best selling American van and their best selling European van for examples, both can take the same loads but one gives both better performance and lower fuel consumption.

I do not believe America is really ready to accept a diesel openly at present. There are a few certainly. Mostly pick up trucks and to be honest the early attempts at American diesels for cars were not the greatest from what I recall. If it did not pull a tractor trailer the diesel was not that great utilized in a car. I remember the first Rabbit diesels by VW. Darn thing made a racket but it chugged along for hundreds of thousand of miles. Hell, the car body would rust out around the motor and that motor would keep on turning. I do think with todays tech in diesels and specifically VW's version Americans would grow to like them. The Jetta TDI is a great car. Yet we can not get the Passat TDI here in the state. Makes no sense. I do not object to diesels but for every one of my there is 20 others who do not want a diesel. They say the engine smells. So does the fuel and exhaust. The engine sounds like a sewing machine, etc. To some extend they are correct.

[XabbaRus]

Diesel engines are so much better now. Infact you can't always tell if it is a diesel or not.

My dad has a Discovery 3 with a V6 TD engine. Seriously when you rev it it sounds more like a V8 than a V6 diesel.

You Americans should give them a go. You can also get V8 diesels like in the Range Rover sport that give a good bang and no tick tick noise.