24th Jul 2008, 11:21

I would believe the mpg, the EPA is just an estimation.

24th Jul 2008, 21:44

I don't doubt they get that kind of mileage. I own a 2004 Taurus with the 3.0 vulcan engine and do a lot of highway driving, at between 55-65 mph. This car always returns at least 31 mpg. Its great for a six-cylinder, however, my wife's Dodge Intrepid with a 3.2 V6, has achieved 33 mpg on trips, and is much more powerful.

23rd Oct 2008, 15:05

I couldn't go that slow. At 50 to 60 mph I would feel like an obstacle to others. I typically go 70 to 72 mph. Once I did a trip at around 55 mph and I had excellent gas mileage. The reason for that is a well known aerodynamic effect. Just about all vehicle will have a major drop of fuel mileage when they exceed 55 mph. Therefore, if somebody claims to achieve better than EPA estimated fuel mileage I believe it as much as those who don't. What really messes things up, though, is if people don't tell if they used "imperial gallons" for their calculations. That means an automatic "improvement" by 20%.

Oh, I am driving a Windstar.

24th Oct 2008, 17:59

Depends where you drive. I agree that driving 55 mph on the average interstate is dangerous to yourself and others, especially with the volume of traffic now. However, there are lots of US and state highways where the speed limit is 55 mph. The difference in mileage is not as much as it used to be. The difference between 55 mph and 65 mph is hardly worth the trouble in the age of 5- and 6-speed transmissions. On the other hand, saving myself gas money is more important than somebody else's inconvenience at having to actually slow down and do the speed limit.

31st Dec 2008, 18:56

I would differ. I've gotten as much as 7 mpg better than EPA estimates with a couple of my cars (both 4-cylinder Chrysler products) and my brother has gotten up to 5 mpg better than the EPA estimate in his Chevy Impala. It's hard to pin down a precise figure for ALL of a certain car just due to individual differences between cars of the same make and model. While my last 5.0 Mustang got between 11 and 14 mpg, I have had friends who staunchly maintained that their exact same model 5.0's got 20 mpg. I have found that as a general rule most people tend to get WORSE than the estimates, while a few do seem to exceed them.

18th Jan 2009, 16:22

I totally agree that the fuel mileage is far more a function of the DRIVER than the car. If I drive 60-65, I get 4 mpg better than driving 75. This is true regardless of whether I am in the compact, SUV or sports coupe.

On a long trip a couple of years ago, I was averaging 24mpg in a fully loaded mid-size 275 horsepower SUV. I was driving with the cruise set on 70. My wife got impatient (she said it felt like we were crawling) and I stepped the cruise up to 80. Our next fill up yielded only 19.7 mpg.

17th Jul 2010, 11:01

To the reviewer of this car:

Did you hear that Ford started making the Taurus again? I guess you have. They cost a little more than $11,000 though.

30th Aug 2010, 11:35

I only recently bought a 2007 Ford Taurus SEL, and have really enjoyed it. I got it for $9,285.00, and thought that was a bargain. It's in great shape, drives beautifully, and I like the styling of it; much better than the "boxy" new model (my opinion only).

14th Sep 2011, 15:12

Wasn't the Taurus the Car of the Year for 1985?

Eric Taub writes in "Taurus, the car that saved Ford" that they were releasing it between X-mas and New Year in 1985.

Destined to become a classic!

16th Sep 2011, 12:01

The Taurus is probably one of the most under-rated cars on Earth, and they are an incredible bargain on the used car market. My family has only owned one Taurus (a 1996), but it was absolutely flawless. We have owned many other Ford cars and trucks, some of which made over 300,000 miles before we traded them. All our domestics have been extremely reliable, but Ford is one of the best. We've never traded a Ford because we had to, only because we had had it so long we got tired of it.