2010 Ford Taurus.

[gasoline]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/11/detroit-2009-ford-reveals-2010-taurus-party-like-its-1986/



















I bloody like it! It looks really, really, really good. I wish it would outsell the Camcord again just to shake up this moribund segment.

[Cookie Monster]

Meh.

I mean, it looks great up until the B-pillar. After that, IMO it falls apart. The rear side window looks way too stretched and blocky compared to the front side window and the rear overhang is too long.

And the rear doesn't look like a Taurus at all. It just looks odd.

Overall though, much better than the current, especially the interior.

[gasoline]

Meh.

I mean, it looks great up until the B-pillar. After that, IMO it falls apart. The rear side window looks way too stretched and blocky compared to the front side window and the rear overhang is too long.

And the rear doesn't look like a Taurus at all. It just looks odd.

Overall though, much better than the current, especially the interior.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. This thing works.









And look at the crease in that rear quarter panel! That's genius.

I forgot that is isn't in the Camry segment anymore though.

[Rich]

I'll take a black one with chrome wheels and 4 sexy ladies inside, thank you.

[2o6]

From some angles it's really hard to read. Looks good, though.

[Speed_Racer]

You know...that's not bad at all. From the front, it seems to take cues from the european Mondeo. From behind, perhaps a Lincoln.

[ifcar]

You know...that's not bad at all. From the front, it seems to take cues from the european Mondeo. From behind, perhaps a Lincoln.

To me, the rear is the old 427 concept that people were hoping would be the 2005 Taurus.

[MX793]

Like the front (looks a bit Legacy-ish), profile looks OK, interior looks great, rear is kind of meh.

[Northlands]

Overall I like the look of this car. I just wish the rear end didn't look so tallish.

[SVT666]

Overall I like the look of this car. I just wish the rear end didn't look so tallish.

It looks tall because the picture is being taken from the ground.

I love it.  I don't think I'll ever buy one simply because I would rather have the new Fusion or Mazda 6, but if it drives as good as it looks, it would be my top pick in the large sedan segment.

[SVT666]

To me, the rear is the old 427 concept that people were hoping would be the 2005 Taurus.

I agree.

[MX793]

It looks tall because the picture is being taken from the ground.

I love it.  I don't think I'll ever buy one simply because I would rather have the new Fusion or Mazda 6, but if it drives as good as it looks, it would be my top pick in the large sedan segment.

The back end is so tall and flat, it looks like it could house a Continental spare.

[ChrisV]

Not a bad overall design. And I really like the interior.

[ChrisV]

Meh.

I mean, it looks great up until the B-pillar. After that, IMO it falls apart. The rear side window looks way too stretched and blocky compared to the front side window and the rear overhang is too long.

I disagree. It's a 4 door sedan with room in the rear for both people AND cargo.

But then again, I'm used to older cars that had overhang long enough to house a Civic. Even my E38 is longer than this Taurus in the rear...

[TBR]

I prefer the current Taurus, both inside and out. The interior is nice, but not befitting of a large family sedan imho. You don't want a snug, cockpit like interior in a car as big as the Taurus.

[the Teuton]

I like it, but I think the rear design is overwrought.  I also think the interior is quasi-Avalon with some retro touches from the 1986 Taurus if you look closely enough. 

I give it a solid B+.

[Catman]

Looks great.     Love the layout of the interior.

[SVT666]

I prefer the current Taurus, both inside and out. The interior is nice, but not befitting of a large family sedan imho. You don't want a snug, cockpit like interior in a car as big as the Taurus.

Your taste in cars is now suspect and I don't think I can ever take you seriously again.

[Cookie Monster]

I disagree. It's a 4 door sedan with room in the rear for both people AND cargo.

But then again, I'm used to older cars that had overhang long enough to house a Civic. Even my E38 is longer than this Taurus in the rear...

It works on the E38, I just don't think the Taurus looks as good.

[Soup DeVille]

I see no real advantage to having ultra short overhangs on either side. It works and makes sense on a car like the Mini Cooper, but for a more normal sedan, why would I want to have my rear suspension in the trunk?

[Soup DeVille]

BTW: these are overhangs:



The Taurus barely qualifies as even having any.

[68_427]

To be honest, I like the current one better.

[Catman]

To be honest, I like the current one better.

[gasoline]

Indeed. Pure madness.

[Catman]

The body creases look pretty cool.  Makes the car very interesting to look at.

[Laconian]

I don't like the gas burners they jammed into the top and bottom of the grille. A single bar across the middle would look fine, but perhaps a little too Subaru.

[Tave]

I think the rear design is overwrought.

Besides the indent at the bottom of the trunk-lid, the rear is as clean as can be. I haven't seen that simple a design in years. No flamed surfaces, bend, kinks, lines, etc... It's a single flat plane, broken only by the logo, lights (which are clean as well), and the detail strip that connects the lights with the logo.

[Catman]

Besides the indent at the bottom of the trunk-lid, the rear is as clean as can be. I haven't seen that simple a design in years. No flamed surfaces, bend, kinks, lines, etc... It's a single flat plane, broken only by the logo, lights (which are clean as well), and the detail strip that connects the lights with the logo.

A stark contrast to the new Fusion.  Funny, the Fusion uses the same doors as the old one so there's nothing really going on with the sides but Ford decided to mess up the trunk pretty badly.   The Taurus here is super clean, you're right.  As clean as it is you'd think it would be boring but it's got enough going on to be interesting and that's good for this segment. 

[68_427]

IMO either the rear needs to be rounded off more, or the front needs to be more square.

[USA_Idol]

The Mazda 6 is smaller than the Taurus, but that doesn't change the fact that Taurus looks like a shapeless brick compared to the muscular sexiness of the Mazda 6. 

That said, the 2010 is definitely an improvement over the 2009 Taurus.