Ford Taurus vs Crown vic (speed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nick R

Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
11,196
Location
NY Capital District
Subscribed to mpgomatic, and had the Taurus 3.5L NA. So, I know it isn't very interesting, but lets compare the crown vic against both versions of the Taurus (IE the NA taurus is AWD, not FWD) Though I know that speed isn't everything.. I would imagine that the Taurus will be alot more comfortable to sit in for extended periods of time, and the whole reliability thing. I can't believe that police would pass it up because "FWD is inferior to RWD". If that was true, the vast majority of cars wouldn't be FWD now would they? Anyway, here you go.

Taurus Ecoboost 3.5L (About 5.2 seconds 0-60)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_zcWyafk8o

Taurus 3.5L NA AWD (7.7 seconds 0-60)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfTkTvewqFA&feature=sub

2006 Ford Crown Victoria PI (8.8 Seconds 0-60)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKbPmihZPWk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
original SHO with a manual>Marauder>EcoboostSHO>Crown Vic>3.5 Taurus

thats my opinion of Ford sedans..... I do like the durability and ease of service on the Crown Vic's compared to the original SHO's...... but the SHO is defintely the most fun to drive, followed closely by the Marauder
 
Last edited:
FWD is great for economy cars. Most cars come with conventional oil so that proves conventional oil is superior to syn oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
FWD is great for economy cars. Most cars come with conventional oil so that proves conventional oil is superior to syn oil.


How is FWD bad in anything BUT economy cars? Several performance cars, or at least sporty cars, use FWD with no issues. FWD is cheaper, weighs less, is more compact.... Maybe we should give the FWD Taurus a chance before we start throwing knives at it. There are plenty of FWD cars out there with several hundred thousand miles on the original transaxle. Just like there are lots of RWD cars that have been through at least one transmission. I would bet that the failure rate is probably about even between the two.
 
Originally Posted By: silverrat
How much rear seat space does the Taurus have compared to the Crown Victoria?


Who really cares? The backseat is going to be where the law violators sit. I think Ford should do what GM is doing, make the backseat an impromptu jail cell of sorts, more resistant to puking and all that other stuff.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieJ
FWD = Fail Wheel Drive


Well my DD is a FWD car, and the other 3 we own are all RWD, and I honestly cannot tell a difference between them driving (beyond the obvious differences in driving a Cavalier, an Expedition, a lifted jeep, and a Mustang), except in winter. Some people defend their manual transmissions, some people defend their choice of parts store.. I will defend FWD and Automatics till the end of time. En garde my friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My daily driver is FWD as well, I am reminded of that everytime I press the accelerator...
 
Last edited:
Ok so I want one person to sit here and honestly tell me that in everyday driving, unless you literally drive with your foot to the floor every single second, that you can tell a difference in driving... Between a FWD car, and a RWD car. Because you know what? I can't tell a darn thing different. Tell me why FWD is the devil? Is it less reliable? No. Can you get better performance out of a FWD car than some RWD ones? Yes. Heck in games like Forza 2,3 (you know, the good ones that actually make an effort to put forth some realistic phsyics) I HATE the RWD cars, I stick with FWD and AWD if I can, because they just control better. To quote my favorite game critic, "they control like (insert swear word meaning rear end here)! A fat one to be precise, on stilts with rollerskates on the ends" translates into real life, but I'm willing to bet it's someone on the mark.

If you have 2 drivers of equal ability, and one drove a RWD car, and one drove a FWD car in a race, I would bet they would be evenly matched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can tell the difference even in everyday driving and I am very easy on the accelerator. However, for most people, in most driving situations FWD is fine. My DD is FWD and auto. My fun car is RWD and manual. I am not bashing FWD or autos, I just prefer a rear wheel drive and a manual trans.
19.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CharlieJ
I can tell the difference even in everyday driving and I am very easy on the accelerator. However, for most people, in most driving situations FWD is fine. My DD is FWB and auto. My fun car is RWD and manual. I am not bashing FWD or autos, I just prefer a rear wheel drive and a manual trans.
19.gif



And I can respect that you like RWD and manual, but calling FWD Fail wheel drive is a bit over the top. I don't think either is intrinsically better than the other in every category. I think they each have their strengths, and I think that if done right, FWD can make a sporty/sports car just as well as a RWD one, maybe better.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Originally Posted By: Steve S
FWD is great for economy cars. Most cars come with conventional oil so that proves conventional oil is superior to syn oil.


How is FWD bad in anything BUT economy cars? Several performance cars, or at least sporty cars, use FWD with no issues. FWD is cheaper, weighs less, is more compact.... Maybe we should give the FWD Taurus a chance before we start throwing knives at it. There are plenty of FWD cars out there with several hundred thousand miles on the original transaxle. Just like there are lots of RWD cars that have been through at least one transmission. I would bet that the failure rate is probably about even between the two.
Trans failures are from cheap parts FWD or RWD. I do not drive in a way to care one way or the other. But RWD is the way to go for performance.
 
Can I still say my Mazda3 has Fail Wheel Drive? That's actually what I call it. Everyone else can call their own car whatever they want.
happy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieJ
Can I still say my Mazda3 has Fail Wheel Drive? That's actually what I call it. Everyone else can call their own car whatever they want.
happy2.gif



To each their own I suppose. I test drove a Mazda3 and I fell in love. As of this moment, the ONLY "Foreign car" (besides a few BMWs) I would ever buy new. Thought it handles nicely, and it was great off the line.
 
The performance is a big difference between the two. Not counting the all wheel drive.

It will be interesting how it turns out. I hope the Taurus does well. It would be a fun car to own.
 
the crown vic's are comfortable and they are very reliable and they are strong cars they are also fast but not as fast as the new taurus w/the turbo
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Ok so I want one person to sit here and honestly tell me that in everyday driving, unless you literally drive with your foot to the floor every single second, that you can tell a difference in driving... Between a FWD car, and a RWD car. Because you know what? I can't tell a darn thing different. Tell me why FWD is the devil?



First of all, I think most of the "Fail wheel drive" (excellent term btw :) ) stuff is really meant as a good ribbing with some truth behind it. Obvious FWD is fine for a majority of daily driver type situations.

But, give it some gas while going around a corner, and I bet you'll be able to tell the difference. And in your situation, I'm talking about in the Mustang more than the Expedition or the Jeep. Even in a RWD car with a lower power to weight ratio (like the 280zx I used to have, or even to an extent like the V6 Mustang your family has) you can feel the difference in my [limited] experience. The car will literally feel like it's pushing you around the corner in the direction you're turning instead of trying to pull you straight ahead at every point. I don't know how to describe it better than that, but IMO it's more engaging. And it just gets better with more power, unlike FWD where past a certain point all you get is wheel hop and torque steer (which admittedly can be fun in its own way but is NOT good for performance).

Not trying to change anyone's minds. Heck, some of my friends who are into cars don't really discriminate one way or another between FWD or RWD. Of course, these are friends who've never actually had a RWD daily driver
56.gif


For the record, both the DDs in my household are FWD (Civic and previous gen Mazda3).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rationull
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Ok so I want one person to sit here and honestly tell me that in everyday driving, unless you literally drive with your foot to the floor every single second, that you can tell a difference in driving... Between a FWD car, and a RWD car. Because you know what? I can't tell a darn thing different. Tell me why FWD is the devil?



First of all, I think most of the "Fail wheel drive" (excellent term btw :) ) stuff is really meant as a good ribbing with some truth behind it. Obvious FWD is fine for a majority of daily driver type situations.

But, give it some gas while going around a corner, and I bet you'll be able to tell the difference. And in your situation, I'm talking about in the Mustang more than the Expedition or the Jeep. Even a RWD car with a lower power to weight ratio (like the 280zx I used to have, or even to an extent like the V6 Mustang your family has) you can feel the difference in my [limited] experience. The car will literally feel like it's pushing you around the corner in the direction you're turning instead of trying to pull you straight ahead at every point. I don't know how to describe it better than that, but IMO it's more engaging.

Not trying to change anyone's minds. Heck, some of my friends who are into cars don't really discriminate one way or another between FWD or RWD. Of course, these are friends who've never actually had a RWD daily driver
56.gif


For the record, both the DDs in my household are FWD (Civic previous gen Mazda3).
]

Ohh I know what you mean. That's what I kinda like about FWD though. If torquesteer is mitigated/eliminated, then the front wheels seem to generally pull the car in the direction the wheels are pointed. Whereas RWD seems to kinda push the rear end around if you overcook the throttle a bit. Thinking its all about the driver though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Whereas RWD seems to kinda push the rear end around if you overcook the throttle a bit.



Yeah that's the fun part :)

Honestly it's totally a preference thing when it comes to "fun" or "feel" and it's been brought up that there are well sorted and poorly sorted cars in both categories. But the fact remains that just like FWD is generally more efficient (in terms of drivetrain loss) RWD is generally better able to handle more power and better at absolute "performance".


Still I'll take my 4 cylinder FWD vehicle over my big block V8 RWD vehicle any day if given the choice (that is... Civic vs Suburban :) )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
Anyone with thoughts on the FPIS/ Taurus interceptor?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
RAR
K
2022 Volkswagen Taos SE, FWD - 3,000 mile review
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
18K
K.Aoi
R
  • Locked
2019 Ram 1500
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
GMBoy
A
Coolant for Ford 3.5 Water Pump
Replies
17
Views
9K
Capt
Cujet
  • Locked
Used cop car review, 2008 Crown Vic P71
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
Cujet
Back
Top