(first posted 10/25/2012) The Fab Four: Those guys from Liverpool who went on to change popular music forever were constantly being categorized, especially compared with their fellow bandmates. So if we apply their monikers to each generation of the venerable Taurus line, what do we get?
Paul McCartney – The “Cute One.” This almost certainly describes the first-gen Taurus. Perhaps it was a bit more than cute, as the automotive world was quite enamored of it, but I think the name works for our purposes. It was attractive, and well received.
John Lennon – The “Smart One.” This easily describes the second-generation Taurus: More polished and refined than the first, with a less bulbous body and a well-sculpted behind. Arguably the zenith of the Taurus, aesthetically speaking.
Richard Starkey (Ringo Starr) – The “Funny One.” It was John Lennon who said that Ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles; that sentiment sums up the fourth-generation Taurus pretty well. A shell of its former self, the old bull was the funny one–because it was the joke.
George Harrison – The “Quiet One.” Was Harrison really shy, or simply overlooked? The skill was always there, but his two older and more recognizable mates stole the limelight. Maybe his looks didn’t thrill either, but listen to “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” or “Here Comes the Sun,” and you’ll recognize his incredible talent. Regardless, he never had a chance to truly break through to the level of the Lennon/McCartney juggernaut. This, too, was the essence of the much-derided “ovoid” Taurus and Sable.
So how did they happen? When you have a car doing so well and generating so much acclaim, the prospect of creating an equally successful next generation is daunting, to say the least. Here’s what the designers were thinking before they developed the now-infamous ovoid styling:
“Even though it had not yet gone on sale, by the spring of 1991, the 1992 Taurus was history so far as the guys in the Design Center were concerned. And they knew they couldn’t get away with another minor tinkering for the 1996 model.” (Mary Walton’s Car, p. 24)
Not exactly how today’s Toyota designers think, eh?
Meanwhile, in Dearborn the process of creating a completely new Taurus was fraught with internal bureaucratic duels, constantly changing mission statements and a rush to adhere to Ford’s newly-emerging World Class Timing designed to turn out new vehicles in less time.
But enough about that; lets talk about the merits of the actual vehicles we ultimately received.
Lets also get the elephant out of the room now: The styling was not for everyone, even though most auto rags praised its looks at the time of introduction. In a rush to create something just as radical as the original Taurus, the designers went full ovoid. I’m in the camp that likes the design of both the Sable and the Taurus, but the numbers aren’t on my side.
The ovoidness didn’t stop at the sheet metal. A swoopy, flowing dash greets your entrance into the car. That radio? Full-on roundness, created specifically by the interior designers in response to complaints that previous Taurii had hard-to-reach controls. To my eyes it’s aesthetically pleasing, but if you want to replace the head unit, you’ll have jump through many hoops.
Probably the least controversial aspect of these models were their engines. The base GS Sable and GL Taurus came with the 145 hp, 3.0-liter Vulcan V6, which by then had earned quite the reputation for reliability. Although not the most refined engine, it got the job done.
The higher trim levels received the brand-new modular Duratec V6, which replaced the troublesome, previous-generation Essex V6. It was rated at 200 hp; a very impressive number at the time, given that the current Maxima had only 190 hp. And of course, the SHO received a Yamaha-sourced 235-hp V8, but perhaps that deserves its own CC.
So just how radical was the design of these cars? Lets take a look at some other cars that shared design themes with the bull:
Indeed, the public had gotten a taste of ovoid well before the introduction of the new Taurus. What happened, then, involved two Taurus-specific things: The headlamp design, and the cost of the car itself.
During the development of the 1996 redesign, Jack Telnack–who stood against anything that resembled “elongated peanuts”–saw what was going on with the lamps and vetoed them. Doug Gaffka, the new model’s exterior designer, then created the circular style we know today. Could more traditional headlamps have improved the look enough to win over more buyers? Maybe, but there’s always more to the story.
Picture this: you’re married and the father of two kids, and you’re looking for a sedan. You compare the outgoing 1995 Taurus with a successor that’s longer, heavier, has less trunk space and is $2,000 more expensive to boot. What would you do?
This my friends, is partly what did the Taurus in. Consider this Camry: Unlike the previous generation, this iteration went full-on cheap. Nothing inside its interior surpassed the Taurus/Sable in quality, but it still had a clean, familiar look and was wedded to the Toyota name. At the time Ford was taking apart 1992 Camrys to find out how to surpass them, I’ll bet their Toyota counterparts were making a reciprocal effort to replicate the 1992 Taurus. Is it a mystery why the ’92 Taurus and ’97 Camry look so similar? I think not.
Now it wouldn’t be such an interesting story if it ended right there, would it?
Did Ford buyers really defect to Camrys? Or did they just “upgrade” to the Explorer, which sat high, had easy sight lines and came with always sought-after four-wheel drive. The sales figures seem to back this up. The Explorer’s never-ending march up the charts during this generation didn’t really taper off until 2002. During the final years of the third-gen Taurus and the first years of the fourth-gen model, Explorer sales never dipped below 400,000 units annually.
The Taurus lost the midsize sedan sales crown in 1997. As Harrison had bluntly stated, “Its not always gonna be this great.” And for the Taurus, it was not.
Now why did your author put so much effort into writing this particular piece of history? Well, I happen to be personally and emotionally invested in one:
I stand by my statement that compared with the other Taurii, this generation really was The Quiet One: Overshadowed by its older stablemates, yet offering its own pleasures and uniqueness. Drive one in decent shape and you’ll be impressed; even with the Vulcan under the hood, you’ll experience a smooth ride and a surprisingly composed chassis, and steering effort that even if a bit light, is nevertheless well communicated to the driver. I’ve also never sat in more comfortable seats.
Which brings us to 2012. Vying for the top spot is another Ford midsize, now in its third generation, which has itself earned a solid reputation and a healthy dose of critical praise. Like its spiritual ancestor, its design has become more radicalized, it’s priced higher than ever, and there’s a lightly redesigned, lower-priced Camry nipping at its heels. Are we coming full circle? Perhaps a Curbside Classic from 2027 will answer that question.
[Welcome Edward Snitkoff, our newest member of the CC Corps. Pretty impressive debut, eh? Ed is 25, has a BA in American History and an MA in History and Political Science (College of St. Rose). He currently calls Fishkill, NY, home, is a sci-fi nut, video gamer and a serious job hunter, and is now updating his resume to add “automotive writer”. Look for more of Ed’s work on these pages. PN]
Well the new Taurus needs to be good Ford Australia is having it again the fish faced one was a disaster it was an appalling car, best selling American car That should have rung alarm bells there must have been some absolute rubbish available in the US that we didnt see and omg is there
This is not English. I read this three times and still have no idea what you are saying.
Makes sense to me – but then again, I am a New Zealander like Bryce. Allow me to translate: Bryce says the current (new) Taurus needs to be good because Ford Australia is likely to replace the Oz-built Falcon with a RHD version of the Taurus for the Australia/New Zealand markets. Thus the Taurus needs to be good because 1) the Falcon is excellent; and 2) Ford sold RHD ’96 “fish faced” Taurii here which were very poorly received. Bryce notes the Taurus being a best selling American car should have been a warning sign to Ford Oz/NZ, as our markets were, and are, quite different from America – and thus there were some terrible cars sold in the USA that we never received. Do I get a fee for my translation duties lol?
IIRC this was the first time that Ford used a bodyside stamping that was a single piece from the B-pillar to the rear taillamps (to improve NVH). Unfortunately, as Ford was implementing improvements to how cars were built, they came out with a design that made it easy to forget about these improvements.
I don’t know what Ford was thinking with this design – was it a case of “ti-many-martoonis” lunches in the design studio? The COMPLETE dedication to all things oval threw it off. The Tupperware interior panels didn’t help either. The first time I saw one I didn’t know what to think. I wanted to like it but…. When the 2000 redesign came out I thought it was such an improvement.
As for the Sable, it went from being one of the most interesting and daring designs (1986) to one of the worst looking cars out of Mercury in decades.
My biggest disappointment was with the wagon. I think wagons started becoming popular again because of cool designs like the 1986 Taurus. The 1996 redesign of the wagon was horrible. The back side rear windows did not fit with the general shape of the car. The rear end was just plain goofy.
Yet I think they were pretty good cars. A friend of mine bought a new 1999 Taurus for a steal when the 2000 redesign came out. She drove the car for 12 years before it finally died.
Interestingly, AMC used a single body side stamping for the 1963 Rambler Classic/Ambassador. AMC dubbed it “uniside,” and it was a big reason that Motor Trend named the 1963 Classic/Ambassador as its “Car of the Year” for 1963.
I’m pretty much with Frank. IMO the first and second gen wagons were among the best looking wagons ever. And better looking than the sedans, to boot. Agree that 2000 was a huge improvement over the ’96 – ’99’s. Disagree with the author – the 2000’s and on were the quiet ones. The Taurus was off of peoples radar by then BECAUSE OF the 1996. The 2000’s blended in with the rental companies – no one talked about them anymore. And as someone down below said, this vintage of Sables were among the ugliest Mercurys ever. Probably better than ’58 but uglier than the 62’s recently featured – and that’s saying something.
Sorry, but the Beatle analogy is lost on me. I’ll leave it at that.
Welcome Ed!
In 1998 I bought a 1996 Sable wagon with the Vulcan engine. I had three kids and needed the space. It was my first family car.
I was impressed. I liked the ovoid styling, especially the swoopy dash. And maybe it was because I’d driven nothing but 4-cyl cars before that, but I had a ball mashing the go pedal on my Sable and having it zestfully shoot forward.
But mine developed cooling system issues. A head gasket and an engine drop to replace a blown freeze plug later, to the tune of nearly $2,500, I dedided I’d had enough and traded it.
Still, I saw a 3-gen Taurus wagon yesterday in a parking lot, and had a pang of desire.
I, for one, am glad that controversially-styled cars exist. They add levity to what would otherwise be very dull scenery while driving around or watching others go by. I mean, if every car in the world resembled that ’97 Camry, it would be incredibly boring, websites like this wouldn’t exist, and we’d all be out of at the very least a happy diversion and at worst a big hobby and a major part of our lives.
So, I like the ’96 Taurus. I was glad that it looked like its own design while others were going (or continuing) blandyblandbland styling. The fact that it was a pretty decent car helps it out, too. I even looked at one while I was in college (although it lost out to my first Subaru). So, bring ’em on! Show us your worst, your Aztecs and VehiCrosses, your ZDXs and your Edels. And if you get the chance to see your very first Mitsuoka in traffic in the metal, praise the higher power of your choice for giving you the opportunity to have a good laugh.
A very nice debut piece, Ed. Back in the late 90s, we had a secretary in our office whose husband’s family owned one of the local Ford dealers. She drove a cobalt blue 96 Taurus. I wanted to like the car, I really did. I understood it to be a better driving and better appointed car than earlier Taurii, but I just couldn’t warm up to the look. I was driving an old C body rwd Olds 98 at the time which was nothing but angles, so maybe all of the ovals were just too much of a shock to my system.
It is also interesting to consider this. While the Taurus was majorly upgraded in both appointments and pricing, almost everything else that FoMoCo was putting out in those years was having costs whacked out left and right. So everything that had been selling well got hurt – the Taurus because it became so expensive, and everything else because they got cheaped out.
Thanks, Jim. I’m glad you liked my piece.
Keep in mind that the Taurus also became a victim of cost cutting as well, remember the “G” trim level that was introduced in 1997? And I also think the front Mercury badge for the 1996 model was illuminated. Pretty much a no-brainer for the bean counters to nix that feature.
The “Taurus/Sable Encyclopedia” indeed states that early 1996 models had an illuminated Mercury logo. I guess they weren’t a big seller at first (or nobody noticed when the bulbs died), since I have never seen one lit up!
Welcome, Ed!
You are indeed correct about this Taurus / Sable generation (Tables?). I have heard people deride the styling up front as resembling a catfish, but it’s a matter of personal taste. It does seem to capture the mid-90’s in a sense.
My sister has a ’97 with just over 200k and it just keeps going. I was assigned a ’97 a long time ago and later a ’99 (both fleet vehicles). Between the two I put about 80,000 miles on them. I have driven multiple others and they are quite resilient to abuse.
Very good piece.
IIRC it was someone in Car and Driver who referred to them as the Ford Saurus and Mercury Table.
My thoughts on the Taurus pretty much agree. The second generation was mostly right – refined, solid design, everything worked.
When the third generation came out, what happened? The best analogy I can come up with is when pop music I grew up with died at the end of 1974 and disco rose to the top. What happened? At the end of the year, “Beach Baby” and “Life Is A Rock” summed up perfectly the musical heritage I grew up with. Disco was foreign and I rejected it completely. Likewise, the ovid Taurus lost the crown of being a best-seller and never recovered
The fourth generation? Again, another music analogy: I reckon it to a revival of sorts of good pop/rock music of the 80’s. Perhaps not as good as the ’60’s and early ’70’s, but much better than the disco-era garbage.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
Now? The current “Taurus” is a fake. The Fusion should be the Taurus, or better yet, junk the name completely. What passes for a “Taurus” is, in actuality, a Galaxie 500, and if I could bring myself to own one – which would only occur if (1) the Impala would cease to exist, and (2) the Malibu would also cease to exist and (3) I get mad at GM again and NOT go to Chrysler like I did in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
If that scenario would occur and I bought a so-called “Taurus”, I would remove any name plates with the name and have custom-made “Galaxie 500” plates made. In chrome.
Anyway, that’s my take on the Taurus. FWIW, I have always disliked that name. Should have been properly named “Fairlane”…
Thanks a lot, Ford.
Remember, the new “Taurus” could have been called “Mondeo”!
My parents had a ’90 sedan, traded for a ’97 wagon (which my mother still owns). I’m also currently trying to sell a 2000 sedan that belonged to my recently departed brother-in-law, and drove a 2003 as a company car.
All drove nicely, but the ’90 had a trimness to it that the later ones lack; I always feel as though there is about a foot of extra metal hanging out in every direction, with no discernible increase in interior space.
I imagine it must be how buyers of “the low priced three” in the late 1950s felt, after driving the relatively trim models of the mid-’50s.
“Maybe his looks didn’t thrill either, but listen to “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” or “Here Comes the Sun,” and you’ll recognize his incredible talent.”
His talent is best seen on “Here Comes The Sun” when it is heard with the lost solo.
(NOTE:it has been found and uncovered by Ex-Beatles record producer George Martin and his son Giles. The video of it can be found somewhere on YouTube(TM).)
I still haven’t gotten over dropping the RARE version of “Penny Lane” from the Sgt. Pepper album and replacing it with the awful “Within You Without You” by Harrison. Any way you listen, the song just doesn’t fit. But, as I understood the reason, they wanted George to have SOMETHING contributed to the album. Lousy song…
Goes to show the Beatles didn’t do everything right – that, and stupid licensing laws of some kind.
Then again, my 2012 Impala doesn’t have three tail lights each side either…
Zackman – I have to disagree with you regarding Within You Without You on SPLHB.
It was Harrison’s one song allowed, and it was highly memorable. A shot across the bow that started with Rubber Soul and continued through the rest of their career that the Beatles were growing apart in so many ways.
The mash-up on ‘Love’ was extraordinary as well.
I am a huge fan of Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields, perhaps one of the most brilliant singles ever released.
Love your writing. Looking forward to more. Since you are a Ford guy maybe you will be the one to give us the definitive Model T CC. Actually, the Model T deserves a whole series. Paul has done one I believe.
Zackman; great comments. Naming the current Taurus the Galaxie 500 (great name) and the Limited version the LTD would be awesome. Maybe they can bring back a Broughm version too!
I actualy have a 97 Taurus and a 97 Camry. Both are very good cars. The Camry is top of the line and had to have an engine replacement due to sludge. I have a clean one now and I hope it takes the kids through college. Peppy and mostly reliable.
The Taurus is a standard “rental” type an my mechanic said that is the one to get. It does look like a catfish and I like the unique look. It has mostly little problems from time to time but it was such a bargain that it is worth the minor headaches. I just replace the head unit which was not as difficult as it looks. Crutchfield.com has a nice package for that job with some basic instructions. As an example of little problems, the stock head unit was draining the battery so rather than mess with it, I spent the $170 and a little garage labor to replace it with a modern unit.
I prefer the Taurus (93K) for the comfort and unique design; the kids prefer the Camry (150K) because it if more fun to drive and better accepted amongst their peers. I took a 400 mile drive in the back seat of that Camry two years ago and thought I would need a chiropractor.
Great article
Funny you mention the audio upgrades to your bull, because I went a completely different route.
After some fact finding regarding the RCU (radio control unit) thats in the trunk of the Taurii, I went right to ebay and purchased the unit that powers the models with the Mach system – it bolted right in. The kicker being that Ford kept the speakers the same in all trims – only the “box in the trunk” was different, with the Mach putting out more amps.
I did end up going to crutchfield too, and bought some very nice Infinity speakers for all four spots. It sounds fantastic and makes driving much easier. I even got something called a “PIE-AUX” unit that tricks the RCU into thinking it has a cd changer hooked up, allowing me to plug my Ipod right into the system!
These are pretty neat cars, aren’t they?
Welcome, Ed! My parents had an ’88 Sable and then a ’97. Both cars were quite good, but the swoopy styling of the later model seemed to turn off the middle of the market.
I always felt the inspiration for the ’96 cars was the XK-E. “Why can’t a family car share some design DNA with a famously beautiful sports car?” Well, the Jag’s aquatic lines were stretched over one low, sleek form. Stacking three boxes behind fishy shapes gives you a guppy, not a shark.
I wonder if they’re about to repeat the mistake with the new Aston-ish Fusion.
Interesting analysis, sir.
I’m also curious about the new Fusion, but I guess time will tell.
Maybe the 90’s XK8…
Anyway I think the difference with the new Fusion is that an inverse proportion of people think it looks good compared with the Taurus ie 90/10 vs 10/90
I was one of those who kind of liked the ovoid styling of the Gen 3 Taurus. At the time I thought the biggest problem was that it appeared smaller than it was — especially compared to the broad-shouldered styling of its predecessors. It didn’t look any bigger than the Contour, and people shopping for family cars were looking for big.
Yes, while it was physically larger, Ford made it appear smaller; supposively to attract woman buyers. I myself thought all this time it was smaller, until I read the dimensions on Wikipedia recently. I also think it’s smaller appearance hurt it more than the fact it was larger.
I think had it came out a few years later; the styling may have been a little better recieved. But, it’s high price and the shift to minivans and SUVs as family cars probably hurt it as much as the styling.
When the Ford Thunderbird was retired in 1997, the “catfish face” Taurus also made it’s appearance in NASCAR, the first “four door” sedan to appear on the NASCAR circuit. (Of course NASCAR racers nowdays do not have any doors, and bear only a superficial resemblance to production cars.) It’s styling also caused controversy there, as they swept most of the top standings, and competitors claimed it’s slippery styling gave them an unfair advantage.
Count me as another that likes the oval styling. It gave it some great character but I could see how folks won’t like it. I owned a ’98 wagon for a while too. When I got it the car was far from perfect and stunk pretty bad. I just had to roll down the windows and listen to that lovely DOHC V6. The chassis and steering was pretty floaty but the engine was a jewel. I’m sure glad I never had to do any intensive repair work on it as it was very tightly packed into the engine bay. Much like a minivan I bet more only get their front three spark plugs changed.
The European market Taurus of this time looks a little bit more odd. Seems to use the Sable front end with some different lens and indicators. Maybe a look at what could have been?
Whoa…now that is interesting. I’m really not sure what to think here. It seems good looking, but I’d have to see it in person for a final evaluation.
In some countries it’s illegal to have the turn signals inboard of the headlights, so Ford took the Sable front end (with the one-piece headlight-turn signal cluster, make the turn-signal parking lamps only, and added turn signals at the bumper level)
Yes, Kitalkki is correct re the lighting regulations being th primary reason for the ’96 Taurus receiving the Sable front end. It goes deeper than that though, as although the front wings look like the Sable wings, there are in fact different. Again, this was due to regulations in one of the export markets – but I’m not sure which. When the ’96 export model was released, there was an extensive article in Australia’s Wheels magazine outlining all the variations that had to be made – the lights and the wings being among them.
The ’96 Taurus was made in RHD V6 sedan and wagon form for Japan, Australia and New Zealand. I’m assuming from the photo that David has posted above that the UK got the RHD ones too? Or did Europe also get a LHD version of the export body? Japan also received the Yamaha V8. The Taurus was very poorly received in Australia and here in New Zealand. I suspect the looks played a large part, as did the fact it was playing in the same field as the RWD Falcon which had decades of support behind it. Another factor may have been the interior plastics, which were of attrocious quality. When I first saw one on the local dealer’s lot back in ’96, I was excited to see it, but that excitement turned to disappointment whe I sat inside it. The door trims rank as the cheapest, most poorly finished that I’ve seen on a post-1990 car – and it pains me to say that as I’m probably one of the very few who actually like the exterior and interior design.
It is my understanding that many drivers in Australia and New Zealand owned a boat and trailer, and the FWD Taurus was not as good a tow car as the Falcon. That too hurt it’s sales there.
While it was not well recieved in Australia and New Zealand, the Taurus wagon in particular was well recieved, and sold very well in Japan. Too well, in fact; Toyota felt they were hurting Camry wagon sales, and convinced the Japanese government to insist that all imported Taurus have an 18 gallon tank instead of a 15 gallon tank. Ford engineers determined that the floorpan could not handle the larger tank, and decided to shut down the export line instead, since the other countries they exported to were not enough to keep the line open. (This according to a former Ford employee on the RHD export line.)
Wheels did “the comparison Ford doesn’t want” and compared the new Taurus with the current (but nearing the end of its model life) Falcon. They found the Falcon better in just about all departments, and finished up questioning why the Taurus was on sale here.
As I recall possibly not accurately Ford AU had taken a financial bath on the EA Falcon and the Capri and Dearborn threatened closure so sent the Taurus the whet Australians appetite for the Falcons replacement, it was very poorly recieved indeed. falcons had been getting constant improvement since the terrible EA model and by the time the Taurus arrived were a really good car.
You remember mostly right, Bryce. Ford had already launched the EF and then approved the AU by the time the Taurus came here. So then they tried to spin the Taurus as being not an internal rival for the Falcon at all and instead tried to target Maxima buyers. I guess they’d already sunk money in the RHD program so they had to go ahead with releasing it anyway to try and recoup.
Still plenty of these on the road here in Florida and although I wasn’t crazy about the styling initially, in my opinion, it doesn’t look half bad today.
I enjoyed the article, but I can’t say that I like the styling of the 1996-99 Taurus. At the time I wasn’t quite sure what to think, but, over the years, I’ve come to dislike it. I’ve had the same reaction to the first-generation Cadillac CTS.
In both cases, the styling is an attempt to be different for the sake of being different, without any thought to whether it is attractive or even especially functional.
As Edsel Ford used to say when he saw a design he didn’t particularly like: “They tried too hard.”
The first Taurus was certainly different – for an American or Japanese car – but it was also driven by the need to improve aerodynamics for better fuel economy. The beauty was also more than skin deep. It represented a huge leap in driving dynamics and ergonomics for the typical American family sedan.
At critical times in the history of the Ford Motor Company, when things looked thier bleakest and the future of the company was in peril, they always seemed to pull an inside straight and come up with a car to save the day. The first generation Taurus introduced in 1986 can proudly take its place beside the Model T, the 1928 Model A, the 1949 Ford and the 1964 1/2 Mustang as the most important vehicles in company history. It proved that an American car manufacturer could learn something from the Japanese – start from scratch and make a sensibly sized, priced and designed vehicle that offered great value. Can you imagine what sales of Accord and Camry would have been without this vehicle? Detroit would have never recoverd.
The original Taurus was a winner. Then, inexplicably, Ford threw out its Japanese playbook and instead of continually refining and improving the same basic car it fell into the trap of decontenting, cheapening and bizarre redesigining that led to the messes of the subsequent generations. Some never learn.
Ford also got distracted by the success of the original Explorer. It didn’t cost much money to develop and it generated much more profit than a Taurus (there was no strong overseas competition in the 1990s, and the GM mid-size SUVs were not competitive).
When the 1996 Taurus didn’t sell as well as expected, Ford took the easy path and focused on the Explorer. Ford didn’t move too quickly to fix the Taurus’s styling, and when it did so for the 2000 model year, it also decontented the car.
Over the long haul, these moves handed over a critical market segment to Toyota and Honda and brought the company to the brink of disaster (again). Which is ironic, as the original Taurus served as a template for Toyota and Honda as they “upsized” the Camry and Accord, respectively.
Ironically, Ford didn’t throw out the playbook when designing the Harrison of Taurii, they spent weeks tearing apart the 1992 Camry to see what made it tick The initial 1996 and 1997 model years had quite alot of content.
What really happened was all about the design, and a few other things.
The exterior designers wanted to make Americans have that “wow” factor all over again, like they did with the first Taurus. This meant that it was going to be something quite different. I really think the weakness of the design was the headlamps though, as I stated in the article.
There was also a ton of fighting within the DN101 team, and the upper brass was continuing to breathe down development manager Dick Landgraff’s neck. To borrow another music analogy, the creation of the ovoid Taurus was sort of like the Smile sessions for the Beach Boys, and various members had Brian Wilson-esque crisis-of-confidence issues.
I’ve always called the 1996-99 models the “fish face” Taurus, but I never liked the rest of the car, either. The taillights and oval rear window don’t look any more attractive or cohesive than the front.
Among the 1996-99 generation, the Sable station wagon came off the best, in my opinion.
Not a fan of articles with irrelevant pictures as page filler.
I loved the article and the analogy. Even more than that, this is one of my favourite websites. It’s full of incredible articles and commentary.
whats buggin ya, Spif?
great article, and site.
wished for more on the V8 SHO, tho…
Nothing really, and I’m not pointing out Ed in particular. It’s a good article and a great site indeed, but come on. You wouldn’t write a story on a music blog about the Beatles and compare them to a Taurus while plastering full size pics of Ford cars would you? Again it’s not just this article, there are a few sprinkled here with irrelevant pics and pointless analogies. This isn’t cracked.com. Analogies = filler. Just my 2 cents.
Variety is the spice of CC. We’re not wikipedia. We don’t want to get bored writing or reading our posts, so creative angles to our experiences with cars are welcome here. Encouraged, actually.
We wont limit ourselves to one article per any car, so one of these days you may well see the Taurus/Sable done very differently.
Count me as one who absolutely detested the ’96 Taurus. I really liked the 1st and 2d generations Tauruses(Tauri?), it’s too bad Ford didn’t take the evolutionary path of
continued development championed by Honda. Instead they came up with the oval motif which was totally polarizing-people either liked it or hated it. Unfortunately for Ford, far more people hated the new design than liked it.
I thought the Beatles/Taurus evolution analogy was very clever!! Good work, Ed! And good luck on your quest for a profitable career!
This story reminded me that I almost bought a Mercury Sable LS/Brougham/Limited/Gucci Edition, whatever the highline model was, once. I think it was a ’96 but I can’t remember. It was black and loaded (leather/moonroof) but I never got it.
Just going to say, the Bloated Seal era of Taurus/Sable with the Vulcan V6 is the best non-4×4 winter vehicle to get you through rough Iowa snow storms.
The engine is strong enough to get you though drifts taller than the car at a solid 30-45 mph, the FWD will eat through slushie-hell, and the weight of the car keeps you planted.
Oh my god, right? Living in various parts of upstate New York with the Sable have been a breeze during the winter. A future curbside classic I have planned will touch on the time I didn’t have my old gal. The difference one car makes…
Yes.
My spare car is a 98 Taurus. I have resisted getting rid of it for this reason…snow. The only reasons I quit using it as my main vehicle is that it is so old, and because the driver’s seat seems to give me a back ache.
My wife has a 2006 Taurus, which she had before we met. I don’t see the attraction these cars have. This car doesn’t drive particularly well but it has lots of “features.” The Vulcan V-6 is rough, crude and terribly powerful while the excellent Ford automatic is a herky-jerky affair that feels like it will grenade any time. That in a car that only has 80,000 km on it.
I cringe on the rare associations I have drive it. Perhaps it is because I am used to driving a much more expensive car. It could be, however:
“All of out stuff is American made,
It’s a little bit cheesy but its nicely displayed,
We don’t get excited when it crumbles and breaks,
We just get on the phone and call up some flakes.”
I am led to believe the 1996 cars were better but they were also much more expensive.
I understand your criticism of the fourth-gen model, in my opinion, it is inferior to the ovoids in every way. And I say this from a position of experience; my dad drives a 2006 Taurus.
My understanding is that they added quite a bit of weight during development of the Richard Starkey Taurus. And if my facts are straight, the rear sway bar was deleted after the 2003 model year, which is probably why the both of us don’t like their handling.
You might be stuck with that bull for a while though, my father’s example has 168,000 miles on it and feels just like it did when he first purchased it. Also, aside from some alternator issues, its been rock solid reliable.
The 2000-06 Taurus was a fleet queen that was steadily decontented to keep costs down. If I recall correctly, by 2006 roughly 90+ percent of production was sent straight to fleet customers.
The first Fusion and the Five Hundred were supposed to replace it. The Fusion was successful, but the Five Hundred didn’t really gain traction, even after it was facelifted and renamed “Taurus.”
I understand that it was a decent car, and I wouldn’t mind having the “crossover” version (the Taurus X, which was originally the Freestyle).
The only reason the Taurus was continued after the Five Hundred was introduced was for fleet sales, though they did relent and leave it on the retail order form. It was heavily decontented because it was supposed to be a fleet only car.
Geeber, I spent much time in a 2000-2006 Fleet Taurus as a district employee. Even this fleet queen had illuminated window and lock switches which I found highly handy and a thoughtful little touch on winter mornings and evenings when it was dark.
There was a short run of model year 2007 Taurus fleet only cars, built in fall of 2006. Then, the Atlanta plant closed for good in December ’06.
I doubt ours will go that kind of mileage since we live in a heavily urban environment where stop and go driving is the norm. That said, in the last year said Taurus went a grand total of 3000 km. It sits in front of the house at least 25 days a month. It will probably die of moss poisoning before any mechanical component fails. I’ve mentioned the rental car thing for days my wife needs a car, but that didn’t go far.
Thus, I have a Taurus sitting on the side of the road 300+ days a year. I even service it twice a year, too.
Greetings, everyone! I’m truly thankful for your kind response to the article. I’m a bit late on the commenting game today because I spent the good part of last night and a bit of the morning plying the New York State Thruway system in the aforementioned curbside classic, doing a little job “networking,” or whatever that means these days. But as they say, I’m just happy to be here!
Great write-up. I enjoyed it a whole lot. As a young car nut in Europe I was aware of the Taurii but extremely rarely saw one, so the Camry-Taurus comparison is very interesting to me.
I’m not really a Beatles fan.But when I saw it would be comparison, I thought “please let the good one be George Harrison.”
Someone suggested that the front end was sort of a neo-Jaguar XKE. From the day it came out I always thought it was more of a Neo Lotus Europa: look at the round, slightly inboard turn signals.
By 2006, Ford was about to give up on the Taurus. There was a short run of 2007 models in fall ’06, when Mullally walked in the door. The ‘new’ 2008 Five Hundred was shown at Detroit Auto Show in Jan ’07.
By the time of Chicago Auto Show in February, the big car was changed to ‘Taurus’. I remember seeing it on display and saw residue on trunk lid from removing ‘Five Hundred’ badge for shorter Taurus one.
I gotta say, the third gen Taurus and Sable are my favorites of the family, the 1st gen cars come next, 2nd and especially the 4th generation just look bland compared to them. The 5th gen is a 500 to me, the current Taurus is pretty nice looking imo though. I never understood the hate towards the ’96 redesigns, but people have different tastes and unfortunately often prefer the more conservative option.
“In a rush to create something just as radical as the original Taurus…” Why radical? The first Taurus had to be a radical change from the ancient LTD pile of iron, just to get up to date and a little ahead. This car was a radical change for no reason. Why??
The ’96 drove Taurus from first to third in family cars, and marked the end of Detroit’s successful competition with Japan’s best. Messing up Taurus/Sable and greeding-out on Explorers led directly to Ford’s $12.7 billion loss and junk-bond status by 2006.
I was so proud of my ’87 Sable spaceship, and horrified into disbelief when I saw the first spy photos of the ’96.
I posted this chart before with the Camry CC.
It is really sad to see that Ford essentially handed a good chunk of market share directly to Toyota. Of course at the same time Toyota was desparately trying to make the Camry as Taurus like as they could.
I do have to disagree that Ford focusing on the Explorer led to their status in 2006. The Explorer became the best selling car in the US beating out said Camry and raking in huge profits on each one. It was trying to prop up and save the European brands they purchased that did the most damage to Ford not selling products that bore the Ford badge that people wanted to buy and were willing to pay top dollar for.
The other big reason they ended up where they did was the fact that they and GM propped up the economy after 9/11 with their zero interest loans and huge rebates. That pulled a lot of demand forward and to keep sales from heading off a cliff meant they were addicted to not only maintaining those discounts but to keep increasing them. Wall St takes a lot of the blame too as it had shifted from valuing stocks on the intrinsic value of the company and profits to sales numbers regardless of the profit.
+1
Having created a winner in the gen1 & 2 Taurus, it was immensely stupid indeed to risk that momentum on something “radical”. That’s just not how it’s done in the industry.
If you’re totally behind, taking a big risk with something radical may be worthwhile, or even necessary. But not when you’re number 1. Big mistake.
Completely agree. It made sense for the 94 Dodge Ram to be a radical transformation for the same reason that it would never have made sense to do the same with the F series.
The 1997 F-150 would like a word.
Like I said in an earlier comment, the development process really was akin to Brian Wilson’s stint in the studio during the Smile sessions. And this is what we got.
‘Heroes – and – Villains,,,, see what you-‘ve done…’
I think that same graph also tells the reason why. Taurus sales were very good; but trending down. Also, don’t forget that Ford was criticized for making incremental changes to the second generation Taurus; that was why they felt making more incremental improvements to the third generation Taurus was not the answer.
Notice also that Camry sales were trending up at the same time. Many folks felt that Camry quality peaked with the the early 1990s Camry and their sales reflected it; so Ford also felt they had to match the Camry quality to turn around their sales and blunt the rising Camry sales at the same time.
But, this added quality came with a higher price. Toyota already saw that buyers were having sticker shock, and decontented the Camry at the same time they made it more “Taurus like.” That enabled them to keep Camry prices low while riding on their preception of being well-built; the higher prices for the Taurus hurt sales along with the styling.
Looked at in a global sense, the first Taurus wasn’t radical at all, just fully in line with European design trends.
Ford finally identified that the boxy, ultra-square, whack-back roofline design language that made American cars look so strange in export markets had had its day, and that if the US was to be serious about aerodynamics (which seemed increasingly important) the European look (as exemplified by Audi in particular) was the way to go.
The only radical part I can see was taking the gamble that this design would succeed in the US market.
I’ve never driven one but I’m amazed at the survival rate of these things. In the Chicago area they dump lots and lots of salt in the winter and these third gen cars just keep rolling along. With how fragile the transmissions are it really surprises me. I do see lots of them in the yards though.
The transmissions aren’t that fragile, certainly less so than many Honda automatics from the era.
The AXOD transmission in the first generation Taurus was junk, and sent many of them to an early grave. By about 1995, Ford had gotten most of the bugs out; and if properly maintained, they held up well.
The 3.0L Vulcan V-6 was a good engine, but did not like to be overheated; blown head gaskets, and maybe a cracked cylinder would result (I know from experience.) But once again, if properly maintained, they held up well.
They are good car to own long term even today. Thanks to the shear number of Taurii built; parts are plentiful, and cheap help is easy to find. They have few vices, and get reasonable mileage, in other words, a good appliance car.
The transmissions were fragile when connected to the more powerful ohc V-6. It’s my understanding that the transmissions weren’t particularly troublesome if the car had the ohv V-6.
You know you’re right. Most if not all of the cars I see in the yard have the DOHC V6.
The 2000-07 Tauri are now the working class car of choice in Chicago. Most don’t have DOHC badges, the Vulcan is like a Mopar Slant-6, tough but slow.
I still see a lot of the 96-99 cars around as well. I’m guessing most of those are the Vulcan as well since they rarely seem to have the DOHC badge.
As the proud owner of a ’95 Taurus wagon, I keep an eye out for them. I have found that roughly 25% of the Tauri I see are the ’96-99 model, roughly 50% are the 2000-2007 model, and most of the remaining 25% are the 2007-2012 model. I see an occasional ’92-’95 model like my own; but have only seen maybe 3-4 of the ’86-91 model since I returned mine from the dead this year. I do see quite a few with the Duratec motor; and was surprised to see a ’96-99 Taurus SHO just this week.
The 2000-2007 models at least until recently were a staple of the “buy here, pay here” lots. And yes, the Taurus dominates most scrapyards; not a surprise considering how many were built, and will continue to do so for awhile longer.
For ’96, Ford tried too hard to “wow” buyers, and expcected them to pay closer to sticker price. But, they came in and asked “where’s the rebate?” So, they decontented away.
Also, Alex Trotman [deceased] said in 1998 that “he didnt care about car sales and Ford would go to 70% trucks”. So, Ford let Taurus rot, see how well that worked! Thank Goodness for Mulally!
Just remember, “Two Eds are better than one.”
Welcome aboard!
Thanks!
I never thought the Infiniti J30 (developed under Gerry Hirshberg, as memory serves) looked anything like the ovoid Taurus (Toroid?) — the J30’s raison d’être seemed to be, “How much like a Series I Jaguar XJ6 can we make this look?” The Taurus didn’t strike me as particularly Jaguar-like, but the J30 certainly did.
I remember when the 1996 Taurus came out, I wasn’t so keen on the look, but I thought the interior was very nicely done. Once I got to take one for a ride I noticed how airy and cheerful it was, and it actually drove rather well. It was also quieter than the 1995 Taurus. Having said that, I still preferred the early Taurus/Sables for their trimmer size.
In late 1999 I picked out for my parents a new 2000 Taurus SEL in Toreador Red to replace their Explorer. Mom rather liked it. They kept it till 2005 then traded it for a Ranger for my dad. Later that summer I picked out for them a beautiful 2005 Sable LS in Merlot. Mom still has that car and has no plans to replace it.
One thing I can say about the 1996-06 versions of these cars, they are great cars to be in if you are going to be in a wreck! I have seen several of these involved in some pretty serious collisions and the passengers always were able to walk away. Very impressive to me.
“I still preferred the early Taurus/Sables for their trimmer size.” Yet they had enough rear headroom for two or three grown-up guys. Thanks to the ovoid roofline, ’96 Taurus did not.
Funny thing, there’s another car I think of with the Beatles…..
Now that’s an awesome set of pics!
I remember seeing these and doing a “wtf?”. The Gen 2 while relatively boring was a solid, highly competent car (rotors and dark gray paint excepted). IIRC they got #1 in sales for 92-95, but I do believe Ford was cranking out the incentives to nab the title.
This was Ford being different to try to have lightening strike twice. Unfortunately it fell flat, especially with the price hikes associated with the higher content design and Ford’s wet dreams. Remember it followed a heavily-incentived, more mundane car.
Ironically, in my mind the Five Hundred/Taurus 5 were the true inheritors of the original Taurus mantle. I also thought the Taurus X was a tremendous vehicle. Obviously hardly anyone else did….
There’s a book, I think called “Car” that explains in-detail what was going through the Ford engineers’ minds when they were competing with the Camry in the early to mid ’90’s and their surprise when the de-contented ’97 Camry came out.
I remember a Ford exec being asked about the ovoid Taurus at the time and said “people will get used to it.” He was wrong.
Given you’re a fan of this-gen Taurus/Sable, Ed–thought you’d be interested that a version of the 1996-1999 Taurus was also briefly sold here in Australia (NZ too I think). Its styling was a mix-and-match of Taurus and Sable bits in an effort to make it more palatable.
Unfortunately, competition was just across the showroom floor in the form of the well-liked rear-drive Falcon, and it was a spectacular flop sales-wise. The ones still around are regarded as real turds.
Whoa, cool. But what do we call it? Saurus…Table? Both are good.
Stable LX?
+1 Tom. That was beautiful and made me laugh quite a bit.
OvalSaurus Wrex works for me. No offense to a fan of the marque!
My ex-roommate in college hated Fords…I mean HATED Fords….He renamed pretty much the whole Ford line — I helped him out on some… Sure, these are stupid but they still give me a chuckle…
Ford Asscort/Mercury Jinx
Ford Temporary/Mercury DopeAss
Ford Detour/Mercury Mistake
Ford Tortoise/Mercury DiSable
Ford Tore-up/Mercury Unstable
Ford Blunderbird/Mercury Booger
Mercury Grand Monkey — (I don’t think we came up with anything for the Crown Victoria)
Ford Mustank
FYI, I have nothing against Fords (we own Mustangs) & i prefer most of Ford’s new stuff to the garbage that my once beloved GM is currently spewing out.
BTW, the 3.0 Vulcan is a great little engine & would be the only powerplant I’d have in one of these cars. I thought the first & second gen wagons were pretty sharp but never really liked the looks of the sedans too much.
The catfish era styling is pretty wonky, but I really got to give Ford credit for taking the oval theme to the max, especially on the inside. While they’re not my thing, I do think these are pretty cool cars.
Yes, NZ and Japan. And sounds like the UK too going by David Saunders’ post further up. Only Japan got the V8 – but thanks to NZ’s sea of used Japanese imports, there are a few V8 Taurii here now. Generally the ones left here are regarded poorly too.
I was on holiday last week and drove past a house in the country with a silver ’96 wagon forming a really nice garden feature. It was green with slime, bushes had grown up around it, and it clearly hadn’t been driven in years. I thought “Boy it’s seriously unusual to see a relatively modern car unused here in NZ; usually it’s things from the 70s that become part of the garden”. And then I spotted the second ’96 wagon on axle stand in the garage with a transmission sitting beside it… And a quick search on trademe revealed at least one other person selling a “good” ’96 Taurus that came with a parts car. So the ’96 Taurus is the only post-1980 car I’m aware of that requires a complete parts car to keep it alive!
I dug up an old copy of Motor magazine (May 96) where they tested the Taurus Ghia against the local Fairmont Ghia – the Taurus got a surprisingly reception, including driving dynamics, interior ergonomics of the ‘football’, seat comfort and engine refinement. What let it down was excessive understeer and poor tires, lack of torque (70lb-ft less than the Fairmont at 1500rpm higher), transmission hunting, poor rear seat room (120mm less elbow room than the Fairmont). The Fairmont Ghia did the 0-60 over a second quicker than the Taurus.
They gave the win to the Fairmont because of the Taurus’ 1) style, 2) rear seat space and 3) lack of low-down torque.
It might be a small thing but one of the strangest omissions is that the Taurus did not have a remote fuel filler flap release, you had to get out with the key – is that to make sure people shut their cars off when refueling?
You know, without that odd concave side sculpting – which is reminiscent of the first Falcon – if the sides were smooth instead of caved-in, it wouldn’t look too bad.
I forgot to mention that my districts transportation department is devising a plan for getting district cars out to all school sites for the use of building staff who must turn in various reports in person on various dates during the month.
I am keeping my fingers crossed for a 1996-2006 Taurus as the district still has many. They were quite nice riding cars and would be pleasant to drive.
May I suggest a districtwide student-art-car competition? It’s not like resale value on these is an issue, especially if they’re not selling anytime soon.
I had a 1998 Taurus SE with the Vulcan V6 and put over 300,000 km on it. I am in the camp that feels that these were wonderful cars. The only design complaints are a low trunk lid that restricted space and a low roofline which restricted head room in the rear. Otherwise, it was very distinctive.
The water pump had a nylon impeller which tended to work loose and create a boiling sensation when the car was stopped at a light. A new part was the fix.
I replaced it with a 2011 Mustang. The Mustang is far superior in horsepower and handling, but falls far, far short of the excellent quality interior materials used in the Taurus. In that respect, the 1998 Taurus was a true winner for quality. Oh, and I miss the flip up centre console.
Ed, welcome aboard!
Really enjoyed the Beatles analogy. I find it interesting how the ’96 restyle – which I liked – got SO dowdy and homely after a couple facelifts.
I see you’re from Fishkill, NY. I lived in Yorktown Heights and worked in Peekskill and Ossining from 1977-81.
Looking forward to reading more from you!
I admit I have a bit of a soft spot for these, especially the wagons. Maybe it’s the rear-facing third-row seat – there is still a functional drive-in around here…
I have to say that this is the only American car I’ve driven for a decent amount of time, given that my ex had a Mercury Sable Wagon with that funny face. I have to say that my ex bought it for very little money and the car was very decent and comfortable.
However, as I am a Spaniard who drives a Seat Ibiza TDI in the completely clogged roads around Barcelona, I found the Vulcan V6 + Auto tranny completely gutless. I was mesmerized on how slow that car was from a stoplight. Sure, my ex was harder on the pedal than me and almost matched my car when overpassing on the highway but from my standpoint,the average 25 mpg we got with that car didn’t merit such lackluster performance.
My girl friend and I rented a 1996 Taurus when we took a trip that year. We loved the way the car handled-far better than most. In 2000 we bought a one owner, low mileage 1997 Sable GS sedan and naturally it handled well like the 1996 Taurus. Over all it is a very satisfying car (I still have it).The ride is firm but comfortable, the acceleration is adequate but not neck breaking, the gas mileage is very good, and everything works and works well almost.
On the down side the transmission had to be rebuilt at 77 thousand.This appears to be the biggest short coming of these vehicles. Another short coming, but not nearly as costly, is the tendency of the interior lights to stay on. This problem was solved by squirting some WD 40 into the driver’s door.The styling? I love it even if it is not politically correct to do so. The Generation 3 was a good one. I have owned and/or driven many different cars over many years and speak with experience.
You lost all credibility in my book calling that Vulcan V6 boat anchor “reliable” and the Camry “full on cheap”. Not only was the ’97 Camry a far better car than your beloved Taurus, in both quality and looks, it also is outlasting them far longer as well. These Tauruses are literally piling up in every junkyard I ever visit, while seeing a 4th Generation Camry in the U-pull it yards is still very rare. I’ve had the displeasure of owning both a 94 Taurus and a 98, both cars thankfully rotting in the fiery pits of hell in the junkyard.
That they are piling up in junkyards is true; but they are also still plentiful on the road. One of life’s mysteries to me is where all the Camrys and Accords went – they are rare in salvage yards; but they are not still clogging the streets, either; which is what you seem to imply. Where did they go?
Every make has it’s supporters and detractors; and judgements of looks and reliability are somewhat subjective in nature. You obviously have your own opinion; but it is far from universal.
The Camrys and Accords were probably exported to other countries – yes, even if they had salvage titles.
I had one of these up until January of ’12. a 1997 GL my mom bought new and I bought from her. It was a great car once you got past the styling, and even that started to grow on me after a while. If my Tranny hadn’t gone kaput……she’d still be in my driveway. Trannys were always the weak point on these though….
I bought a ’97 Taurus GL with 66,000 miles (!!!) about a week and a half ago and I find it a great comfort to read all these stories attesting to the car’s hardiness. It’s funny how when I first saw one as a teenager, I thought it was hideous and that I’d never own one… but now the oddball styling has really grown on me- it’s by far the easiest car to clean snow off of that I’ve owned. The engine runs so smoothly that sometimes it’s hard to tell it’s running after turning the key. It’s such an effortless car to drive- every button and control is exactly where you expect it to be, so you don’t have to take your eyes off the road to find them. My only complaint so far is that it could use a little more “oomph” on the highway, but other than that I’m really enjoying the car.
Awww, I’m a little touched by the comments on the seats. Working on those seats was my first “real” engineering job out of school, at Lear Seating. Those seats were a mission critical project for them, and I didn’t appreciate that at the time.
For a while I had a set of SHO seats I was going to convert to office chairs. I still should.
“Personally and emotionally invested in one” too. Haha I thought I was one of the few who still love the 96 Sable. Even if its really beat up like mine (Under $1000 couple years ago) its still has plenty of life and pep in it at 125,000. ” Never sat in more comfortable seats” especially if in a LS and they’re power. Going to get it repainted in the spring!
I guess Taurii are a good candidate for cockroach of the road. These things’ only real appeal is being cheap and pretty reliable. My sister and husband bought a ’99 ‘catfish’ Taurus as a program vehicle. A few years back, she needed a minivan and sold it to my parents as a 4th vehicle, a gas saver. They still have it. Good car from a ‘cheap runabout, who cares if someone door dings it’ kind of perspective. I got the dubious privilege of taking it on a roadtrip to Memphis last time I visted back there. Its a creaky, slow penalty box for sure. Coming from my old turbo PT Cruiser it was like going from a corvette to a chevette in terms of the driving experience, but it hasn’t broken down on them…
This is one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen. I hate the way it looks. It is the ugliest ford ever. Even the 80 cougar looked better. Homer Simpsons car looked better. I rode in one once and the back seat was more comfortable than the front. The engine was buzzy and the steering wheel was too thick and to was ugly like a mutant fish. It makes even an 85 Cadillac compact de ville look better if you park this next to it. I’m surprised they sold as well as they did. I hate this car. I hate its looks.
Top 10 ugly cars.
This taurus.
2. 85 olds 88.
3 85 Fleetwood/ Seville
4. New fiats
5. 78 olds cutlass fastback
6. 78 grandprix
7. 88 grandprix
8. Most Subaru’s
9. Aztec
10. Saabs
Honorable mention geo w Bush’s limo.
The backstage tale of 3rd-Gen design was well told in Mary Walton’s book “Car” (cited above)–she seems to have been given surprising access to Ford’s decision-making.
The ’96 struck me as a little edgy at the time; I figured I’d soon “get used to it,” and I did. My ’98 DOHC, while not “babied,” has gotten the full factory mtce. schedule treatment, and is purring right along at 130K. I still believe the Tauri wagons will be a CC feature one day, even if 12-15 years down the road. (Occasionally, an especially nice ’96-99 wagon goes for surprising $$$ on eBay!)
What I like the most about the Taurus is the conventional 6 passenger seating, bench seats, and a conventional column shifter. There were only 3 other cars that I am aware of that still had the 6 passenger seating for as long as or longer than the Taurus.
Ford Crown Vic
Chevy Impala
Buick Lacrosse
I also wish it were still available…sadly, none of the 3 still offer front bench (or split bench or anything besides bucket seating). The Crown Victoria is no more, and the Impala and the Lacrosse are now only available with bucket seating.
In a way, I kind of get it, now cars are narrower and the possibility of 3 across seating is really not there (especially as we’ve gotten wider, myself included) but there are other good reasons for bench seating, not the least of which is accessability, you can get in the car from either side. I also found that my handicapped father could be “pulled” into the passenger seat from the driver’s side in his ’06 Impala (with the split bench seating) which I wouldn’t be able to do as easily with my car (bucket seating of course on it).
I guess the console is used to house all the junk we carry with us, but I wish for the option of having a bench seat in the front, with a dash mount column shifter.
Hey, the first time I saw a 1996 Taurus wagon I said, one day I will have me one of those. I loved their styling from the first moment. Now, I drive a 1996 Ford Taurus wagon and just bought a 1996 Mercury Sable wagon. Two of the same beauties! The Taurus is nearing 300,000 miles and I hope the Sable lasts just as long.
I just happened upon this link, as I owned a 96 model. A slick used car salesman, sold me on one. I came to regret the purchase shortly there after. I bought it one year old. Green. Oval everything. First was the night time driving….cars driving behind would illuminate the interior of the car like I was being persued by police…that dammed low trunk, and big oval rear window! That was pretty minor…then came The costly repairs…trick warranty wording that left us out in the cold…literally…transmission issues that were never able to be repaired for much less than a thousand a pop..cost our still young family thousands, with cooling issues with engine, then the weird squeaking from the rear strut…it was possessed. I unloaded it within 4 years, learning some valuable lessons along the way. Ford motor company did not care to help in any way. Mechanics were always on the take…even at transmission shops. I’d like to think I’ll never own another Ford, thanks for taking our family to the cleaners on this POS.
I own a 1998 Taurus SE with a 24-valve 3.0 Duratec engine. It has been a good car and has 171,000. It hasn’t given a lot of problems and gets good gas mileage. Secret to a reliable car is routine maintenance. Follow the manufacturer’s recommendation of oil change, transmission fluid and filter, brake service, tire rotations and the Taurus will perform. I’ve owned this one 18 years and hate to part with it. I don’t see many ’98’s around with a Duratec in my part of the world. There is a car auction in town that buys them from the dealer trade in and strips the tires wheels from them and then crushes them. What’s you opinion folks will it be a classic in a few years and rare because everyone turns them in to scrap?
A classic ahahahahahahahaha …see my above post…and consider yourself lucky. Ford sold their reputation out on this pos.
…a classic….ahahhhahahhhha
The first ads for the ’96 were ‘artsy’, like the first Infiniit brand “rocks and streams”, not really showing the car. Had a woman singing folksy jingle, and seemed like ad for new family TV show.
Then, the cost cutting began a few months later, and image went down hill in buyer’s minds, became a fleet queen. Tired too hard to be a ‘high feature/high priced’ car.
I have nevery understood the hate for the Gen 3 Taurus/Sable. My parents bought a new Sable LS Wagon in ’96 to replace our aging ’86 Sable LS Wagon. I later drove the Sable in college.
1. I honestly believe the Gen 3 Sable to be an attractive car, with the 98-99 being slightly better looking than the 96-97. But then I also think the Infiniti J30 was gorgeous.
2. Having already owned two Corollas, (’77 and ’91), my parents seriously considered a Camry wagon; I came along for the test ride in ’96. My parents were not impressed; the Sable was a far better value. All I remember is that the Camry’s stereo sounded awful compared to the premium sound system in the Sable.
3. Interior space was imperceptibly different than the ’86. Seats were very comfortable.
4. The Duratec V6 was powerful, smooth, and reliable for its time. If the VQ30DE in my ’96 Maxima was a 10/10, the Duratec was an 8.5/10.
5. The car was impressively reliable; I sold it with 220,000 miles on it when the AX4N had a 4th gear solenoid failure, and I can’t remember anything else being wrong with it. I occasionally wish I hadn’t sold that car, as wagons are incredibly useful. But it was as sexy as a clown and I was looking for something more appropriate for a recent college grad.
My aunt bought an ’86 Taurus – such an incredible piece of crap that it pretty much soured me on the brand to this day.
I liked the 1996 Sable style a lot more – the Taurus had a bad case of catfish mouth front syndrome. But whenever I was in either one of this generation (Taurus or Sable) I was always impressed with the interior quality, even if the dash design was an oval or two too far.
The Taurus that immediately followed may have looked marginally better on the outside, but the inside was both cheaper and so, so much more boring.
Btw I just love that name Snitkoff. It makes me giggle a little every time I see it written?
Quite fascinating how these cars have disappeared now, I havent seen one in ages, Asian students across the road had one in quite tidy condition it came and went by tow truck occasionally and was up for sale and its gone but so are its owners whether it sold or not I dont know, There was an earlierv model Sable nearby imported used from the US the people who owned it have a yard full of Camaros and mustangs all recent imports but I havent seen that either recently, they could be an extict brand here now.
I hate the looks of these. They are the ugliest taurus ever. I’m surprised it sold at all. I have driven a few tauri. I feel that they are basically junk. 3.0 Vulcan is best motor. Transmissions are weak. The back seat is strangely more comfortable than the front.
Despite all the shit they get, I loved the 1996 Taurus. My uncle Joe, who was a “legislative liaison” for the PA Department of Conservation of Natural Resources in PA (basically an internally lobbyist who would lobby the PA legislature in favor of DCNR initiatives) was exactly the sort of upper middle class buyers that Ford was targeting. He traded in a 1990 Mazda 626 on it. He loved it, except for the gas mileage that was far worse than his 626, despite not having any real more oomph – he should have sprung for the Duratec.
Either way, it was a great car to ride in, and really did feel as high-end as the early 90s Toyota Camry did… right before the great decontenting of most midsize sedans made the Taurus seem expensive and out of touch.
Either way, he kept the thing for a decade, and only got rid of it to get something more practical for his sports-playing kids who were now teenagers.
PS – the 626 was more fun to drive, of course. He had the 626 LX, which on the GD 626 (the last squarish one), was the top of the line short of the GT/Turbo. His had every option… except an automatic. His was fully loaded with stick. I still wish I’d been a year old so I could have bought it from him; my parents’ 626 DX just wasn’t as nice inside. It wasn’t just lack of power options – the seat fabric was noticeably nicer on the LX as well.
In the intervening years since the first publishing of this article, these bubble-Taurii have largely disappeared from Metro Detroit roads. It was an odd thing, as though someone came in the night and hauled them all away.
And I find myself missing them from the road now. When they first came out, as I was starting high school, I did not appreciate the styling-it seemed like everything was becoming a generic mass of curves and half-melted-looking lines, and this had gone all-in on round and ovoid. Then even the F-150 succumbed to the syndrome, and I truly despaired for the state of auto design.
Then, and now, though, I have to give it to Ford for making a shape that cut through the bland, generic detritus of mid-late 1990s auto design, even if at the time I thought it going in the wrong direction. 20 years later, though, and I’ve come to truly appreciate and even enjoy the design on these. They still have an identity even 20 years later, and very very very few cars from that era managed that.
Xequar…i hated the styling on these when they came out and I still hate and detest it. I find not one redeeming line on them. But I’m generally a T-square kinda guy when it comes to styling. For example, love the Mark VII and hate the Mark VIII simply because of styling. Love the 79-91 Crown Bricks, absolutley hate the 92 up Aero shape. But I only speak for me. There are still quite a few 96 up Tauruses left down here as well as a small amount of 2nd Gen ones. 1st gen like my 88 are so rare I perk up instantly when I see one and want to chase them down and document them. I might consider owning a 2004-2006 model because they are now inexpensive to buy ( a main criteria for someone on the bottom of the socio-economic scale) but would prefer a 2000-2005 Impala.
The 2000-07 generation is now ‘super beater’ status around Chicagoland. Most are dragging their rear ends as ‘work cars’. Once in awhile, see older person in a clean one. But, fading away as working class aims to get ‘newer-older’ cars/UV’s.
A teacher I worked with had a ’94 Taurus with the 3.8, and while he liked it, he refrained from taking it on long trips. “We like our Taurus, but we know its limitations” he said. He preferred to drive his 96 Saturn, once remarking that the Saturn was a much-better engineered vehicle than the Taurus and was far more trustworthy. He soon junked the Taurus due to both a blown head gasket and some transmission problems.
At that time, several teachers at the school owned Tauruses as family vehicles due to their bargain price as used vehicles. A couple of them had older Caravans. Most faced expensive mechanical problems they could I’ll-afford, and the school VP ended up junking his Sable (I joked that he was now dis-Sabled). The shop teacher advised us to avoid the Taurus and Caravan.
I drove a ’97 Taurus wagon. With the rear-facing seat it sat eight kids, and we occasionally filled it to capacity. It was pleasant to drive, but I was jittery about the reliably (and an antifreeze smell that surfaced when I made left turns) so I sold it.
Correction: the Taurus sat eight passengers, not “kids”. Although I was pretty much a kid at the time I owned it.
Hate the ovals. Ford would have made the wheels oval if they could.