Taurus vs. Malibu

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AstroVic:
I normally would shy away from ex-rentals, but how bad could the renters really ruin these cars in less than 10,000 miles?

---

My Rent-a-car (Hertz) 1999 Ford Taurus ate 2 sets of head Gaskets in 108k miles (once at 61k and then next set at 106k).

This is with a ALL IRON vulcan V6 driven highway miles once I bought it and had it's oil changed @ 4-5k since I bought it at 21k miles.

Ford did pay for the first set out of warrenty (that story is well told here on BITOG

) but the 2nd set Co$t me.

I drive a Toyota Corolla that I spent a little over $14k out the door now. Just went over 50k with NOTHING gone wrong... Never been back to the dealer.

I would NOT by a rent a car again. Esp after reading other BITOG members stating that they rev the motors to and past redline without the car in gear to see if it has a rev limiter...

(and these are folks who should care about motors and such..)

Just think of the average operator...

Take care, Bill

 

[tenderloin]

IMO the Taurus will serve you well, although I prefer the looks of it's Mercury twin, the Sable, better.

BTW I had two '89 Aerostars with the 3.0L Vulcan and each went over 300,000 hard miles without one problem. No oil needed between changes.

 

[kkreit01]

Both should be good cars. I'd shop around. $13K seems high compared to prices in the midwest. Carmax alwasy seems higher around here, but I here they have good service and warranties?

 

[01rangerxl]

Either car should serve you well.

Personally, I would take the Taurus. The Vulcan V6 is a very reliable engine. It is a bit tricky to do an oil change on due to how close the oil filter is to the exhaust and starter, but other than that it is a good engine. Also, I like the Taurus interior more. It looks and feels nicer, and has better storage.

 

[mikemc]

I can tell you from lots of personal experience that the 3.0 Ford vulcan is a tank. All iron OHV design that will last longer than the car if you do the basic maintenence. I also have a Ecotec in our Cavalier. At 57K I have been very impressed by this motor. Very good power, good mpg's and so far completely reliable. I'd say get the car with the better tranny.

 

[m2200b]

Still too early in July to know whether Ford and GM still could get forced to do employee pricing discounts like last year. Chrysler started them July 1 and it has to hurt GM/ Ford sales before they match. They used rental/ fleet Malibus/ Tauras will be around anyway and if GM Ford lowers new car prices you may do better new or the used price should also go down somemore.

Of course the price of your trade in if its a late model car is also at risk. July - September have been good times to buy.

 

[buster]

Michael, why would a 16 year old like you want a family man's car?

I still think your best bet is buying a new Civic/Corolla for $14-$15 NEW and have trouble free miles + a warranty. Just my opinion.

 

[AstroVic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
... your best bet is buying a new Civic/Corolla for $14-$15 NEW ...

---

You won't be getting any Corolla or Civic (especially) new for that price range! Not unless you're getting the most stripped-down, bare bones model they make.

More like $15k-$20k I think.

 

[The Critic]

Exactly. Besides, while I can get a Civic DX for about $14K, it has no A/C.

However, I have seen Corolla LEs with Auto, A/C, Pwr Windows/Locks for about $14K plus tax. No ABS though, plus the 1.8L engine is a dinosaur.

 

[buster]

I paid $16k new, full loaded Corolla Sport. Can't beat that. You'll end up spending the difference on repairs for the Ford and Chevy.

 

[ITSMR2U]

Had several Taurus Co cars, first was an '86 (1st year for Taurus). That car was a total lemon and I swore it was trying to kill me. Next was an '89 and it was a good car. Ford hadn't dumbed down the handling yet and it was fun to drive. Subsequent Taurus were good transportation, but handled and drove like a sack of potatos.
The fleets buy them cheap from Ford and then dump them after a year or two. They depreciate like a rock.
Cars from Florida may have been under water. Beware of "good deals".
My employer unloaded them at 80Kmi, and only allowed oil changes. We could buy them then for about $3000.
I personally wouldn't have one, and would certainly dump it (if I did) at 100Kmi.
My ¢

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I paid $16k new, full loaded Corolla Sport. Can't beat that. You'll end up spending the difference on repairs for the Ford and Chevy.

---

Won't the savings be wiped out by the routine timing belt change?

 

[JTK]

Critic, If you plan on keeping the car for a looong time and/or resale value is important to you, neither of these vehicles will meet your expectations. If you want a lot of comfortable, safe, nice sized car for ~5yrs/60Kmi of little/no money into it and no resale, either will work!

Joel

 

[01rangerxl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I paid $16k new, full loaded Corolla Sport. Can't beat that. You'll end up spending the difference on repairs for the Ford and Chevy.

---

Do you have any real evidence to back that up? I bought my Ford used in 2004 with 48K miles AND it had been a program (lease) vehicle. Total cost of repairs (not maintenence) since 2004...$10 for a tailgate handle.

 

[1sttruck]

We have a 93 Taurus with a bit over 200k miles, and a 99 with 100 miles. Both go thru parts on a regular basis, althugh the 93 was trouble free up to about 70k miles. We have two as they were the most affordable vehicle with a bench seat up front for 6 passenger seating.

 

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I paid $16k new, full loaded Corolla Sport. Can't beat that. You'll end up spending the difference on repairs for the Ford and Chevy.

---

Won't the savings be wiped out by the routine timing belt change?

---

Timing Chain

Bill

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Do you have any real evidence to back that up?

---

Yep. JD Powers, Consumer Reports and my uncle who had a Taurus and had nothing but problems with it. Now owns a Civic. I can't see spending $14k on a Taurus when you can get a more economical/reliable car like the Civic/Corolla for about $2k more. Ford transmissions are not that good at all. I put 180k miles on a 2001 Corolla. Ran like new when I traded it in.

 

[Buick92]

The Malibu and Taurus are bigger cars than the Corolla, you can't compare them, besides wait a couple years till Ford works out all the bugs in the Fusion and buy one of those. The Fusion is a nice car.

 

[m2200b]

I'm missing whether you need this size car.
NEW Focus and sentra both are below these prices with air-conditioning. They are also about the same as rental used cars with 7500 mi.

 

[1sttruck]

"I still think your best bet is buying a new Civic/Corolla for $14-$15 NEW and have trouble free miles"

A small car like a Civic might be good for one or two 'flat landers', but we only got 120k out of ours driving our growing family up and down the small hill that we live on, and using it as the 'lunch car' at work. It was blowing blue smoke at start up, down on compression in one cyclinder, etc., so we donated it. The little ultra reliable 1.5L 4 cyl just didn't hold up nearly as well as a crummy made in US 3.0 V6. A Taurus is an affordable family car with a big trunk, don't get one if your vehicle is supposed some sort of flashy image of who you are.