Len_A Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 The 2008 MPG ratings, for the '08 Taurus/Sable are out and it's a big surprise. Comparing the 2007 Five Hundred/Montego 3.0 liter V-6 vs. 2008 Taurus/Sable 3.5 liter V-6, Ford Motor Company was as good as their word: with the exception of front wheel drive city ratings (which is down one MPG), the rest of the ratings are either the same or up. The most impressive is the front wheel drive '08, which has all it's ratings up. Considering that the 2008's V-6 is quite a bit more powerful, that's impressive. I obtained the information from www.fueleconomy.gov, and then used the "Compare to OLD MPG" link. I printed them to PDF and converted them to JPG's, so we could view the results here. I post the results as follows: 2007 Ford Five Hundred 3.0 V-6 AWD 2008 Ford Taurus 3.5 V-6 AWD 2007 Ford Five Hundred 3.0 V-6 FWD 2008 Ford Taurus 3.5 V-6 FWD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 The 2008 MPG ratings, for the '08 Taurus/Sable are out and it's a big surprise. Comparing the 2007 Five Hundred/Montego 3.0 liter V-6 vs. 2008 Taurus/Sable 3.5 liter V-6, Ford Motor Company was as good as their word: with the exception of front wheel drive city ratings (which is down one MPG), the rest of the ratings are either the same or up. The most impressive is the front wheel drive '08, which has all it's ratings up. Considering that the 2008's V-6 is quite a bit more powerful, that's impressive. I obtained the information from www.fueleconomy.gov, and then used the "Compare to OLD MPG" link. I printed them to PDF and converted them to JPG's, so we could view the results here. I post the results as follows: 2007 Ford Five Hundred 3.0 V-6 AWD 2008 Ford Taurus 3.5 V-6 AWD 2007 Ford Five Hundred 3.0 V-6 FWD 2008 Ford Taurus 3.5 V-6 FWD Thanks for posting the information Len. I'm always anxious to see positive and encouraging news about Ford products! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Heck I was expecting 28mpg on the OLD ratings. I for one am quite happy -- go Ford! :party2: I guess that's where the other 5HP went, though... not that they'll be missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 and this is tested ratings. I have a feeling that the bigger engine will be working less hard with a full load doing 75mph (where the 3.0 mileage starts to drop off) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Heck I was expecting 28mpg on the OLD ratings. I for one am quite happy -- go Ford! :party2: I guess that's where the other 5HP went, though... not that they'll be missed. The Taurus gets 5 HP less because it is single exhuast vs dual in other applications. Part of the self leveling rear suspension on the AWD vehicles takes up the space where the other muffler would go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 this is very good news .. the Camry and Accord are just around 28mpg with the new ratings and the Taurus is bigger and safer and offers features not available on either one of them .. if Ford advertises the heck out of this thing, we might see a nice success story .. one the FH never was (mostly because of the engine and lack of ads). Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 (edited) Comparison Group: (MPG numbers posted as: City/Hwy/Combined) Taurus FWD V6 Auto6: 18/28/22 Accord V6 Auto5: 18/26/21 Camry V6 Auto6: 19/28/23 Avalon V6 Auto5: 20/28/23 Sonata V6 Auto5: 18/27/21 Azera V6 Auto5: 18/26/21 Impala 3.5l V6 Auto4: 18/28/22 Lucerne V6 Auto4: 17/26/20 Maxima V6 CVT: 19/25/21 Altima V6 CVT: 20/26/22 300 RWD, 3.5 V6, Auto5: 17/24/20 Not a bad comparison .. if yo ucan think of more competitors .. post them . All numbers are from fueleconomy.gov and are using the new testing method. Igor Edited May 29, 2007 by igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted May 30, 2007 Author Share Posted May 30, 2007 this is very good news .. the Camry and Accord are just around 28mpg with the new ratings and the Taurus is bigger and safer and offers features not available on either one of them .. if Ford advertises the heck out of this thing, we might see a nice success story .. one the FH never was (mostly because of the engine and lack of ads). Igor Agreed, 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I must say that I'm very proud of Ford for the hard work they've done on the new 3.5L. :stats: I hope to drive one soon to see how it does. Excellent job :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Thats good highway #. These are hiway cruisers for families, not meant to be city traffic cars. Can't see a family go on a long trip in a Prius. But OTOH, Ford would be wise to make a Hybird Taurus to stick it to the you know whos! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASword Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Thats good highway #. These are hiway cruisers for families, not meant to be city traffic cars. Can't see a family go on a long trip in a Prius. But OTOH, Ford would be wise to make a Hybird Taurus to stick it to the you know whos! Compared to all the Hummers, Navigators, Expeditions, etc. I see on the city streets the Freestyle/TaurusX is the perfect city family car. It also has enough space in it to actually carry stuff... either lots of little things in one trip (better mileage than a Prius if the Prius has to go twice!), or large items that simply won't fit in or on a smaller car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Comparison Group: (MPG numbers posted as: City/Hwy/Combined) Taurus FWD V6 Auto6: 18/28/22 Accord V6 Auto5: 18/26/21 Camry V6 Auto6: 19/28/23 Avalon V6 Auto5: 20/28/23 Sonata V6 Auto5: 18/27/21 Azera V6 Auto5: 18/26/21 Impala 3.5l V6 Auto4: 18/28/22 Lucerne V6 Auto4: 17/26/20 Maxima V6 CVT: 19/25/21 Altima V6 CVT: 20/26/22 300 RWD, 3.5 V6, Auto5: 17/24/20 Not a bad comparison .. if yo ucan think of more competitors .. post them . All numbers are from fueleconomy.gov and are using the new testing method. Igor The Chrysler 300 V6 model has crappy numbers especially for a car that was supposed to be so great. I wonder how the Hemi model will do under the new standards. Ouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASword Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 First mention of Taurus X mileage that I've seen here: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/08taurus.htm The Taurus X returns 12.8/8.4 L/100 km, city/highway (FWD), and 13.4/9.1 L/100 km, city/highway (AWD). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.