silvrsvt Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) I ran across this posting on Autoblog.com Facebook site: If you're prone to sticker shock, stop reading now. This 2013 Ford Taurus 2.0L EcoBoost Limited is just a smidge under $42,000… with front-wheel drive… and no sunroof. Sure, it has niceties like navigation (with the full suite of MyFord Touch tech that is still no peach to use), heated and cooled leather seats, upgraded alloy wheels and a premium sound system, but so does the cheaper (and prettier) $36,000 Hyundai Azera. Just sayin'. My time with the Taurus wasn't exactly enjoyable, either. The 2.0-liter engine is perfectly adequate for highway cruising, and there's enough power on tap to get you around town, but during my weekend of mostly highway driving, I didn't see anything close to the 32 miles per gallon highway fuel economy rating that Ford claims. (I observed 25 mpg on average.) I also found the seats to be uncomfortable on long drives – there's a distinct lack of side bolstering and the bottom seat cushion is much too short, even for my five-foot, seven-inch frame. And that premium sound system? No matter how many times I adjusted the bass/middle/treble levels, my tunes still sounded flat. The whole interior feels cramped and compartmentalized, really not matching just how big this sedan looks from the outsize. The Taurus isn't a wholly bad car, but optioned like this, it makes a great argument for plenty of other big sedans on the market. ^SJE Anyways, this is the second time I've seen someone complain about the Taurus seats being too short on the bottom seat cushion. From what I understand, Ford went over two different seat frames for all there products to save $$$... Anyways...anyone else agree with this? I have a 06 Mustang GT and 2010 Escape XLT, and the seat cushions reach about 3/4 down my thigh (I'm 6'2 with a 34inch inseam) and I've never felt that the seat cushions where too short. I've driven a 2013 Focus ST and Titanium and took out a 2013 Taurus SHO for a short test drive and the seat length was similar...so I'm having a hard time believing that someone who is nearly 7 inches shorter then me is having length problems with the seats? Edited August 1, 2012 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 The Azera is prettier? Not in my book dude! Prettier because it's swoppy doopy with extra chrome? The Taurus interior is a problem, and much of it has to do with the platform. It's one of the reasons I rejected the MKS, it's not a friendly design for the long-legged. I do like the MKS much better primarily because of the nicer seats and more open interior. The Taurus design has two problems that make it feel claustrophobic, the dual-cowl dashboard and the GINORMOUS center console which encroaches on hip room and legroom in a big way. But tbh, I haven't spent enough time in those seats to know what's going on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 And to add, the bath-tub like, high window belt-line, high cowl line as well. Feels like Im in a tank with horrible site lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 And to add, the bath-tub like, high window belt-line, high cowl line as well. Feels like Im in a tank with horrible site lines. Taurus' design is almost too good for the platform on which its based... Automobile had an interesting take on the MCE'd 2013 model, essentially saying that the new version helps better deliver dynamically on the visual promises. The car has been a looker from day 1, but there are inherent packaging problems with a D3/4 based sedan that seemingly can't be addressed until a new generation is released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Taurus' design is almost too good for the platform on which its based... Automobile had an interesting take on the MCE'd 2013 model, essentially saying that the new version helps better deliver dynamically on the visual promises. The car has been a looker from day 1, but there are inherent packaging problems with a D3/4 based sedan that seemingly can't be addressed until a new generation is released. Agreed, Taurus is one of my favorite Ford designs and still is, but there are some major functional problems with the car that make it a no-go for me. If it wasn't for the leg-room issue, I would probably be an MKS owner right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 If it wasn't for the leg-room issue, I would probably be an MKS owner right now. You had leg room issues? I didn't when I drove the SHO... I do have agree about the sightlines....I had no issues seeing out of the car, but GF who is a foot shorter had problems seeing out of the car from the passenger seat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Anyways...anyone else agree with this? Yes. For me, thigh and lateral support was lacking for the driver despite the power adjustments, and the lumbar support mechanism wasn't well positioned either. Combine the uncomfortable seating with poor space utilization and restricted sightlines that BORG and ANTAUS mentioned, and the current generation Taurus is not particularly pleasant to drive. Highline models of the Azera and Avalon include a driver's seat cushion extender; if such a feature was offered on the Taurus it would ameliorate the thigh support problem though the other demerits would still make for a less than ideal driving experience. I think the Autoblog.com writer was too charitable in stating "The Taurus isn't a wholly bad car". If the issues he and others have described don't render the 2010+ Taurus "bad" (I think they do), they certainly make the car worse in most respects- other than powertrain and noise suppression- compared to the 2005-2009 Five Hundred/Taurus. (My experience above was with a 2010 MY Taurus SEL; I don't think the seating is significantly different in the 2013 model though). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think the Autoblog.com writer was too charitable in stating "The Taurus isn't a wholly bad car". If the issues he and others have described don't render the 2010+ Taurus "bad" (I think they do), they certainly make the car worse in most respects- other than powertrain and noise suppression- compared to the 2005-2009 Five Hundred/Taurus. I guess it all depends on what you want....I've driven a 2008 Sable and hated the seating position on it...I felt like I was driving the car with a highchair...I felt like I was sitting up too high in it, but I'm used to driving cars that are more sporty and have a lower driving position then normal cars. I pefered the 2013 Taurus to the 2013 Focus..the Focus interior was far more "tight" in the regards that it wrapped around you and I thought hip points where much more narrow. The Taurus was better in that regard and was more like my Mustang I currently have when it comes to driving position. I have plenty experience driving the Mustang long distances....I was doing a 2 hour commute to and from work twice a week...I'd like to be able to drive my next car two hours or so without being drained from the experience, and this even happens in Escape my GF has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 You had leg room issues? I didn't when I drove the SHO... Absolutely, it has a very shallow foot-well which is more noticeable on the passenger side. This encourages you to raise the seat to take up the slack...but I'm too tall for the car so I have to lean the seat all the way back so my head doesn't hit the ceiling. It's just an awkward arrangement, no room for my legs which then leaves me no room for my head, it's like a chopped SUV, it's really ridiculous if you're in the 6'+ category. And not surprisingly, the sight-lines are not an issue for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I rode to lunch in a rental ('13, I think) Taurus several times about two weeks ago. I was only in the passenger seat, so I can't comment on the driving, but the seat felt OK to me (and I'm kind of a big guy, at 6'2" and, well, quite heavy). I do agree about the interior packaging; it feels much smaller inside than it looks on the outside (and that ginormous center console--which looks much bigger than the one in my parents' '05 Freestyle--doesn't help). It's a beautiful design wrapped around a not-awesome chassis (from a packaging perspective), IMHO. I liked the car very much, it just felt more cramped than it should, and I think it was due to the hip room (the legroom and headroom were both fine). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Absolutely, it has a very shallow foot-well which is more noticeable on the passenger side. I agree with that...I've noticed that on ALL D3 products...but I had no issues on the drivers side. but we are drifting off course here...I'm curious as to what the heck the deal is with the seats themselves...not the interior packaging of the car that we know is flawed already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hahnk37 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I own a 2011 taurus and couldn't disagree more on the seating issues. To me the car is very comfortable (more than a fusion) and the seating position is great. I am about 6'-1". I love the closed in cockpit feel and the center console. I liked the taurus more than the fusion because of the unique dash layout and center console. Just felt more sporty, upscale and complete. I think they designed it to fit the majority and it falls short at the far ranges. Hard design a completely comfortable car for people ranging from 5 feet to 7 feet and keep everyone happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I am 6'2" and around 210lbs. Ive had my '10 Taurus SHO for 6 months now. I can't say that I agree with anyones statements of discomfort with the seating or console. Its far more comfortable then the '04 Marauder I used to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I have an MKS and I agree that the seat cushions are a bit too short. We have a 2008 Taurus and it measures 19.5 inches from seatback to the front of the seat cushion. The MKS is a hair under 19 inches. My Ranger is 20 inches. The benefit, I suppose, is that shorter seat bottoms make entry and exit a bit easier - more space between the front of the seat cushion and steering column. Although I think the cushions are too short, I find the seats quite comfortable with good lateral support. I thought my old Lincoln LS was comfortable - but the MKS better, regardless of the shorter seat bottoms. I have never really noticed shallow foot-wells - probably because I like to have the seats as low as possible so my legs are fairly straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The thing I hate about the D3/4s (I have a Flex) is the hump on the drivers side in front of the seat. Probably not an issue for shorter drivers, but with the seat back all the way it limits where I can put my left foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 I have never really noticed shallow foot-wells - probably because I like to have the seats as low as possible so my legs are fairly straight. They aren't really shallow per say...better way to put it is they aren't very wide at the deepest part of them. I've noticed in all the D3 cars I've been in (Sable, Flex and Explorer) that my feet felt like they where forced together and I couldn't spread them apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) They aren't really shallow per say...better way to put it is they aren't very wide at the deepest part of them. I've noticed in all the D3 cars I've been in (Sable, Flex and Explorer) that my feet felt like they where forced together and I couldn't spread them apart. The Explorer sits comfortable for me, but the narrow foot space is more noticeable in that application because it feels more cramped than my MKX/Edge. Actually, the Edge and MKX feel like giant open box by comparison to the tortured shape of the explorer floorpan. Edited August 2, 2012 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 The Explorer sits comfortable for me, but the narrow foot space is more noticeable in that application because it feels more cramped than my MKX/Edge. Actually, the Edge and MKX feel like giant open box by comparison to the tortured shape of the explorer floorpan. that I agree with also, but given if I get a SHO for my next car, I won't be spending much time in the passenger seat LOL. I'm just shocked at how bad the footwells are on the D3...I wonder what Volvo was thinking with that... 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.