|
 |
comparision test: family sedans
Ford's all-new $2.8-billion Taurus faces its five best-selling competitors.
BY PATRICK BEDARD
Success. How should we measure it? By sales volume? Against that yardstick,
the Ford Taurus is the most successful car in America--the best seller
every year since it bumped the Honda Accord out of the top spot in 1992.
For 1996, Ford is rolling out an all-new and greatly improved Taurus.
Sounds like the best is getting better, doesn't it? Hurray for the
customers, tough bounce for the other brands! The giant sucking sound we'll
all be hearing will be the steady pull of customers into Ford stores to
grab a Taurus, right?
That's the obvious prediction. Will it happen? To get you a better
insight--let's call it a leading indicator--we've staged this comparison
test before dawn of the new model year, six weeks before the Taurus's
official showroom date. We've faced off an early-production uplevel Taurus
LX against the five best-selling competitors as of summer 1995. In order of
popularity, they are: Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Chevrolet Lumina, Dodge
Intrepid, and Nissan Maxima.
If the Taurus can whup these proven favorites, expect it to run up a huge
score in the market.
Remember, though, that "best seller" is merely one indication of success.
Ford shouldered the Taurus ahead of the Accord in 1992 with the help of
sweet deals to fleet buyers and big rebates at retail. In fact, for several
years now, about half of Taurus sales have gone to fleets. To that market,
price is everything, which means that roughly half the Taurus buyers care
more about the deal than the car.
Truth to tell, the old Taurus was obsolete several years ago. We didn't
even include it in our 1994 family-sedan comparison after it finished fifth
out of six entries in our July 1993 face-off.
Big sales don't carry any water in our comparisons. We care about comfort
and room, quality and performance. And not to be overlooked, we care about
driving pleasure. Why should hauling the family be a multi-year sentence to
automotive bread and water?
Which is another way of saying that Ford has had plenty of work to do if
the goal is getting the Taurus back into shape so it can sell on merit
instead of the deal.
With driving pleasure in mind, we set a $24,000 price ceiling for this test
group, high enough to allow the most muscular engine option, athletic tires
(when offered), and a decent sound system. All of the test cars have
24-valve V-6 engines and four-speed automatic transmissions.
You'll notice the mix includes three American brands, two made-in-the-U.S.
Japanese brands, and the made-in-Japan Maxima. Generally, the Japanese
brands ended up with fewer features, simply because the weak dollar buys
less on a car built wholly, or partly, with yen. For example, all of the
Japanese brands had steel wheels and manual-adjust seats while the American
cars had cast alloys and power seats.
Currency exchange rates don't tell the whole story though. Even though the
Lumina was facelifted last year, Chevrolet finds that car in somewhat the
same position as the old Taurus--it needs lean pricing to move. Our test
Lumina, at $21,368, falls well below our ceiling and, amazingly, there
aren't enough options on Chevy's list to puff it up to $24,000.
The early timing of this test means accepting a few compromises. The three
Japanese models are 1995s (no significant changes are expected for 1996,
and we've used 1996 prices, so the comparison remains valid). The only
Intrepid available was a 1995. Changes for 1996 are expected to quiet the
interior, so we've withheld judgment about the car's sound level. And we
ignored the leather trim, which lifts its price above our ceiling.
None of these compromises, however, will get in the way of answering our
central question: Does this new Taurus, after five years of engineering and
a $2.8-billion investment, have what it takes to beat all comers on merit?
---------------------------------------------------
Sixth Place: Chevrolet Lumina LS
---------------------------------------------------
This car reminds us of those all-you-can-eat places where the patrons get a
bellyful for $5.95 and they never mention the taste. At $21,368, the
Lumina's as-tested price is lowest of the group, but we're hard-pressed to
find a single aspect of this car that excels.
You get a lot--six passenger accommodations, for example (all three
Detroiters here offer seats and belts for six--none of the Japanese cars
do). But the rear seat never delivers the comfort you'd expect of a car
this big, mostly because this Eighties-design body doesn't put space in the
right places for adults. Interestingly, the center position in back was
best of the bunch, but that's because there's no fold-down center armrest
to feel like a knee in the back of the third passenger.
Driver comfort trails all of the others, too. The Lumina has sink-in front
buckets--they're unsupportive--and there is no left footrest. The lack of a
pass-through to the trunk limits cargo flexibility, trunk liftover is
highest of the group, and the trunk holds less than any other in our
beer-case test.
The interior upholstery looks like it was put together out of a
factory-outlet remnant bin. The randomly scattered brown on the blue seat
coverings looks very much like tea stains. And the door-panel fabric on the
upper section is only sort of like the lower material--neither mix nor
match. Maybe an accident?
The Lumina is mostly a mid-pack performer, except in its weak braking--it
required 202 feet to stop from 70 mph, barely edging out the Intrepid to
rank fifth. The Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires have very good grip, as shown by
the 0.80 g on the skidpad, yet handling is unsatisfying. Turning into a
corner brings an annoying two-step response--first the body rolls, then the
nose swings to its new path. On the straights, the steering makes your lane
feel narrow. The car weaves constantly. After enough miles, we noticed a
pattern--open the throttle a little and the nose moves right, back off and
it moves left. So the miles become a tedious series of steering corrections
to compensate for power adjustments as you try to maintain speed. That's
for small power changes. Big ones--when you're passing, for example--are
the most exciting moves this Chevy makes.
Yes, the 3400cc V-6 is powerful and the transmission is well-behaved, but
this is 1996 and every car has a good powertrain. Every car has good
pavement grip too, and a reasonably silent interior. It's as if Chevy quit
at lunchtime and said "good enough for what it costs."
We disagree.
------------------------------------------------
Fifth Place: Nissan Maxima GXE
------------------------------------------------
Just five points separate the top five cars in this face-off, which shows
how competitive this group really is. We tried to keep the Maxima's
troubling external appearance from swaying our judgment but, frankly, looks
count. "It's ugly in the way the 2002 was--nobody cared," said the most
charitable of the testers.
Every tester commented as well on the eager, bearish growl of the Maxima's
four-cam, 2988cc V-6. At 8.1 seconds, this is the quickest of the bunch
from 0 to 60 mph, although its governor held it to just 108 mph, the lowest
top speed.
Like the other Japanese models, the Maxima's seats are firm and supportive
in the European way, a style strongly favored by those of us with back
discomforts. This is nearly the tallest car of the group, with clearly the
most "sit-up" driving position, up where you can easily see all around. The
cockpit feels roomy too, with one notable exception--drivers long of thigh
will find the lower dash rubs against their right knee.
We judged the rear-seat room of this car to be average, but comfort for
three adults was low, primarily because the firm cushion has its butt
pockets positioned for two across. Three feel out of place. The trunk,
under its high decklid, is quite roomy, with a low liftover, but as the
only Japanese model without a fold-down rear seat (a ski pass-through slot
is provided), cargo flexibility is limited.
Maximum cornering grip is lowest of the six here--0.75 g compared with 0.76
g in the Taurus--but the driver would not suspect that from the on-road
behavior, where the tires respond quickly to steering inputs, very much the
way performance tires behave. The steering effort is low, and this car
turns into corners just a bit quicker than we'd expect. While that creates
a sporting feel, the high body-roll angle says tourer. The overall
suggestion to the driver is mixed, quite unlike the firm, controlled stride
that makes the Maxima SE one of our favorites.
This unfocused GXE personality shows in the interior appointments, too.
While the quality of the materials is unquestionably high, the overall
impression is noncommittal. The exception is the instrument cluster, where
the large, round dials, long needles, and minimalist markings will delight
the classicist. What the classicist will think about the exterior, however,
is another matter.
------------------------------------------------
Fourth Place: Honda Accord LX V-6
------------------------------------------------
Honda enthusiasts are surely asking about the V-6 Accord, "Whose engine is
this? Where's the Honda verve, the zing, the zest?"
This is a post-lobotomy Accord. Performance is mid-pack--in acceleration
from rest, in passing, in fuel economy. The V-rated tires permit the Accord
to run to an ungoverned 131-mph top speed--the only show of power. The V-6
is smooth rather than powerful, quiet rather than enthusiastic, competent
rather than entertaining. Honda's four-cylinder engines are never so
apathetic.
The V-6 is unhappy with its transmission, too. When you ask for go-power,
downshifts come late and with a lurch. The drivetrain simply doesn't know
how a Honda is supposed to act.
Fortunately, everything outside the engine room is pure Accord. This body
has a tightly constructed, jewel-box feel to it that even the new Taurus,
with its heavy emphasis on structural integrity, mostly can't match. The
Accord's rear compartment is a bit boomy, like a subwoofer, but creaks and
squeaks are nowhere to be heard. The ride quality is good.
Drivers love the way they fit in this car, the way the seat holds in the
twisties (and supports in the straights), the way the perfectly positioned
left footrest adds to their comfort, the way the controls are just the
right reach away, the way the low beltline and vast windshield open up the
view beyond. The controls are precisely accurate and the trusty response to
your inputs makes driving fun. Well-damped ride motions and minimum body
roll add to the poise. Road grip, at 0.79 g, is mid-pack, but you can use
more of it with less effort than with any other car here.
This is the shortest car of the bunch, about one inch shorter than the
Toyota and Nissan, and the resulting interior space seems to be missing
entirely from the rear seat. It's tight for adult males back there,
tightest of the group. Comfort for three across rates above the Camry and
Maxima, however, thanks to agreeable shaping of the seat. The 1996 models
will have a larger trunk opening and minor appearance adjustments.
More than any other attribute, our drivers commented on the pleasing mood
of the Accord's interior. The hues are rich chocolate and mocha, the
textures everywhere delight the discriminating eye, dash and door-panel
shapes are deeply sculptured, the instrument markings are in impeccable
taste, and there is an intricate exactness about the fits of all the
separate pieces that says "quality." Having a million bucks in the bank
couldn't be more reassuring than the way the details come together inside
this car (we checked this with a few ballplayers).
We keep wondering, though, "Whose engine is this?"
------------------------------------------------
Third Place: Ford Taurus LX
------------------------------------------------
This Taurus has lost ground compared with our preview sample (September
1995) in two significant categories. Rear-seat headroom has
shrunk--probably because the production seats are trimming a bit higher
than the bench in our pre-production sample. "My hair feels the headliner,"
several our testers complained. Three-across seating forces the outboard
passengers outward, into the rounded roof line, increasing their
irritation.
Performance has also weakened--slower by a half-second from 0 to 60 mph
(now 8.9 seconds); six percent less grip on the skidpad (now 0.76 g).
Clearly, Ford is counting on styling to give this new car an edge in the
market. Compared with the previous Taurus, both rear headroom and head
clearance on entry have been sacrificed, along with considerable trunk room
(down from 18 to 16 cubic feet). Some of us like the new car's looks a lot,
but we like the Intrepid's too, and it has much more room.
Apart from the styling, Ford has chosen a low-risk path toward satisfying
the multitudes. The interior is hushed--no Honda-like mechanical presence
that might be "noise" to some; the seat feel is rather too plush--none of
the supportive firmness that might be regarded as "hard." There's much to
like--the structure is notably solid, handling is without bad habits, fit
of interior parts is very good (except for those unfortunate speaker
grilles in the A-pillars), and cargo-hauling flexibility tops the
Detroiters, thanks to the fold-forward rear seat.
At the same time, this car maintains its distance from our hearts. The
interior--the door trim especially--has an industrial feel about it: too
one-piece-molded, too Rubbermaid. The V-6 has just as many valves and cams
as the Camry, but it never makes music and it performs at or near the back
of the pack in most of our acceleration tests. The tires carefully filter
out noise and road feel, but they squeal more readily than all the others
here when you hustle.
Nothing about performance distinguishes either--in every test, the Taurus
scored within the envelope established by the others in this group.
Certain details are clever. The center seat-cushion arrangement between the
front buckets in this six-passenger version will flip over, turning itself
into a storage console with cupholders. We like the new layout of the
sound-system controls, too. But we have nagging concerns. Above 70 mph, the
wind howled through the right-front door seal like waxed paper on a comb.
And for all the work on structure, the Taurus's steering column still
shakes noticeably more than the Accord's. And why no door pockets?
The pros outweigh the cons, lifting the Taurus into the top half of its
class, but competition keeps raising the bar.
------------------------------------------------
Second Place: Dodge Intrepid ES
------------------------------------------------
This big guy is outstanding for its vast interior space and for its
athletic stride over the road, two virtues almost never found in the same
car. It's a hauler that's fun to drive.
Rear-seat space exceeded all others in this group, with excellent room for
heads and knees. And the seat cushion provides especially good support for
thighs, too. The trunk is huge. That it didn't top our What-Fits-in-Back
evaluation shows, mostly, the limitations of testing with large boxes--a
row of four more were blocked only by the torsion spring which holds up the
decklid.
The driving fun comes from the taut, well-damped ride motions, the husky
3.5-liter V-6, the quick-to-find-the-right-gear automatic, and the optional
Michelin XGT V4 225/60VR-16 tires that tighten steering response. Together,
these attributes make the Intrepid feel smaller, quicker, and more agile
than you'd expect from its bulk. They make it feel sporty--more like the
Honda, less like the Taurus.
We are reserving judgment about noise because this is not a 1996 model.
Historically, though, the high level of road noise in this car and the firm
ride were consistent with its athletic personality, and the combination was
agreeable to most drivers.
At the track, skidpad grip topped all others at 0.81 g, a very good showing
for such a big car. Yet braking was poorest at 205 feet from 70 mph. Fuel
economy was 19 mpg for our 750-mile trip, tied with the Lumina at the back
of the pack.
Some of the Intrepid's design compromises are beginning to appear outdated.
The lofty trunk liftover is within a fraction of the Lumina. There's no
passage between trunk and rear seat. The top of the console between the
front buckets slopes down to the left, so anything you put on it
immediately falls off. Other things we don't like: the door armrests feel
as hard as the Michelins and the alignment of certain interior panels harks
back to Detroit's bad old days.
On the plus side, the Intrepid is the only car here with HVAC vents in the
center console for the rear seats. Like the Taurus, it has sun visors
capable of shading the windshield and side windows at the same time. And
like the Taurus and Maxima, the driver's seat has an adjustable lumbar
support.
Whether you measure by the linear foot or by the blur of the scenery past
the windows, this is a lot of car for the money.
------------------------------------------------
First Place: Toyota Camry LE V-6
------------------------------------------------
There are two kinds of plush in the car world: the novocaine sort of plush
that masks every sensation--the Taurus tries to do this--and the Lexus kind
of plush that hardwires your nerve endings into the most subtle and
exquisite tingles. This Camry graduated from the Lexus school.
Toe down into the power at any sensible-citizen speed. In less than an
eyeblink the automatic has seamlessly blended into a lower gear and the
alloy V-6 is soaring toward the redline with the sound of ripping silk.
Talk about exquisite tingles! It's electric-smooth. It denies the rude
stops and starts of reciprocation. It's pluperfectly exhilarating.
It hauls ass, too: highest speed in the quarter-mile (87 mph),
second-highest top speed (129 mph), shortest times for passing. It seems
not to know that it's rated at only 188 hp, behind all but the Honda. Yet
the thrust doesn't diminish fuel economy, which at 22 mpg for our trip is
second only to the Maxima.
Braking distance is shortest of the group too, with good pedal feel.
It's as if Toyota found some way to eliminate friction. The controls move
easily and just the amount you intended, like precise lab instruments. The
ride is smooth and very quiet, and it stays that way right up to felony
speeds. This Camry gives none of the usual signals of a handling kind of
car, yet its composure doesn't fade when the chase gets serious. It's so
manageable, so willing, so understated.
Yes, that's it: the Camry is understated to the point that no one notices
you're passing, maybe even to the point you forget what you're driving. All
you notice is that you're enjoying the trip immensely.
Same for the passengers. Back-seat room is somewhat less than in the
Intrepid--three's a crowd--but two will be more comfortable in the back of
the Camry than in any of the others, just because the seat is shaped
exactly right.
The Camry tied or topped every rating category except features and
amenities (the weak dollar keeps this list short), styling (the outside is
forgettable, the dash is fussier than Ann Landers), value (the weak dollar
again), and cargo utility (where the Taurus swallowed a bit more stuff more
easily).
This is a firm-seat sort of car, but definitely not hard. The driving
position is chair-like, great for the long hauls. A minority commented that
the armrest between the front buckets is a bit high.
We notice the Camry tends to fall off road crowns a bit more than the
others. Otherwise, it's our top choice, the only session of exquisite
tingles we'd dare enjoy in front of the kids.
VERDICTS:
Chevrolet Lumina LS
Highs: Lusty 24-valve V-6, budget price, and, ahem, a door armrest that's
sinfully cushy.
Lows: Disconnected steering feel, upholstery that looks tea-stained,
orange-peel paint.
The Verdict: Attention, Kmart shoppers.
Nissan Maxima GXE
Highs: Best combination of power and fuel economy, beautifully simple
instruments, firmly supportive seats.
Lows: Eye-watering exterior design from every angle.
The Verdict: The sport-tuned Maxima SE is vastly more rewarding.
Honda Accord LX V-6
Highs: Tastiest interior of the bunch, go-get-'em handling, fine driving
position, solid structure.
Lows: V-6 never comes alive, ill-mannered transmission, tight interior
dimensions.
The Verdict: Happier as a lower-priced four-cylinder.
Ford Taurus LX
Highs: Exterior style (some say), slick-shifting transmission, quiet
interior, features for the money.
Lows: Exterior style (some say), monochromatic Rubbermaid door panels, rear
headroom.
The Verdict: Nice, very nice, and carefully devoid of spirit.
Dodge Intrepid ES
Highs: Poised and athletic, born to run; a cavernous interior.
Lows: Fit of interior panels a bit casual, dash design is overwrought.
The Verdict: A big guy that knows how to have fun.
Toyota Camry LE V-6
Highs: A magic motor, tremendous space efficiency, reassuring manners at
all times.
Lows: Aggressively bland appearance, perfect for undercover work.
The Verdict: Lexus refinement without the stigma of an uppity label.
|