If the second generation Ford Taurus could be described as Camelot, the third generation might as well have been the Great Depression. Despite its cautious evolutionary approach in design, and largely carryover underpinnings and mechanics, the second generation Taurus was the best-selling car in America for each of its four years (1992-1995). Of course, as much as 50 percent of those sales did come from fleets, but even taking that into consideration, the controversially-styled third generation Taurus (1996-1999) did not achieve the same level of success and popularity.
The Taurus retained its best-selling status for 1996, but it was evident that Ford was losing market share to Honda and Toyota. Heavy criticism also came to the 1996’s substantial price hike over the 1995, prompting Ford to release the stripper “G” trim level midway through 1996. Still reasonably equipped with standard features such as power windows, power heated mirrors, and full wheel covers, the Taurus G did little to bolster sales, which fell flat as Camry and Accord sales increased each year. Likely a former fleet vehicle, is it any coincidence that this 1996 Taurus G is white?
Photographed: Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts – July 2017
Brendan, I must thank you because before today, I never knew the Taurus “G” existed – but, lo and behold! I would have that Ford would have dusted off the “L” suffix (which it used in the ’80s on the most basic forms of Tempos, Escorts and Mustangs).
I was aware Ford had to decontent these cars and move them down-market, but either I never knew about, or completely forgot about, the Taurus G. Great find!
The reason it was called “G” was because Ford just removed the “L” from the usual “GL” trim name, as the Taurus badge then was a continuous script of “Taurus GL” all in one piece! In addition, they unpainted the mirrors and bodyside moldings, and left off the black trim on the B pillar, resulting in a real spartan look.
Yep…just snapped the “L” right off and went with the new “G” trim.
Made the news that mid-’96 was a cheaper G model, which was gone by ’98. For ’98, they de-contented the LX and SE became the ‘middle’ level.
Add me to the list of people who had no idea that the Taurus “G” existed. With way that non-painted trim on the sides stands out, I would have thought I would have noticed them by now. Perhaps few were ever sold?
My father had two of those Gen2 Taurii – both white, as it turned out. His car between the two was a 90 or 91 Honda Accord. It was surely the best car of the three but he just never felt comfortable in it and after the Accord was wrecked he went back for a second Taurus.
He never got one of that third gen, though. Unless you want to count the 97-ish Lincoln Continental that was his last car.
The first one of these I saw in the flesh belonged to a secretary hired into our office. Her husband was the son of a local Ford dealer and it was a very, very nice car in a beautiful shade of cobalt blue. I had assumed that much like some controversially styled Chevys (like the 59) we would quickly get used to the looks of the new Taurus once they became ubiquitous on the streets. But as you note that never really happened.
I’m curious: Why do you automatically assume that the Accord was a better car than either of the Taurii? Something your father said over the life of these cars, or just the usual “Honda/Toyota is better” automatic reaction?
My assumption is based on my ownership (by marriage) of an 88 Accord. My future wife had just bought it and I was amazed that the only flaw in the car was an outside rear view mirror that had a slight discoloration in really cold weather, probably the adhesive showing through a bit. I came from a world of American cars where there were always three or four things to fix after a month with a new car. I also worked with a guy who had sworn off of Cadillacs after his 86 and 90 Hondas, cars that never cost him a cent outside of normal maintenance.
I don’t have much info on Dad’s Taurus but I know that even the really good Crown Victorias that my mother owned in those years had the occasional thing go wrong, such as power lock actuators and such. Never in our Honda. My 94 Club Wagon, much as I loved it, had numerous issues in its first 80K miles like ball joints, a rear heat/ac blend door and that it was built missing a rear door power lock actuator.
Hondas of that time are, I think, some of the best they ever made. Ford was building good cars then too but based on my experience they were not as good as the Hondas.
I 2nd Mr. Cavanaugh. I had an ’88 Accord too, and think it was the finest car I ever owned, with balance of virtues. No serious issues by the time I sold it at 150K miles. And my wife’s ’86 Camry was likewise.
Yet Ford staff (according to the Mary Walton book) sneered at Honda owner loyalty. This shows how delusional they were.
I agree about the 96 and 97 Accord, It was one of the best cars out there at the time and even now there are tons of them out there still. The 98 and 99 Accord were total crap and felt cheap in every way compared to the 94-97 version. Plus it was that magical time (1998-2004) in Honda land where Honda forgot how to make a reliable automatic transmission.
Yes the Ford AXAS trans in the Taurus was fragile but it did not lock up on you driving highway speeds like the one in the Accord
The only time I was actually scared shitless while driving was when that POS 2001 Accord I owned had its trans lock up while doing 70mph on Rt 95 just before Laurel MD. Luckily there was next to no traffic on the road at that time. Honda to its credit fixed/replaced everything damaged by this and provided a nice loaner car but once i got it back I traded it in on another car as I could not trust it. Yes it got a new transmission but stories were already coming out that the new trans was just as defective as the original ones.
2nd gen Taurus? AX4S was made of glass, and the 3.8 was a head gasket eater.
Hmmm… My father looked at one of those when the time came to get rid of his Mitsubishi Lancer but could not stomach the catfish-inspired styling.
That Taurus is rust free, which is pretty remarkable for a 21 year old car in the northeast
It probably belongs to a snowbird. They are usually ocean people and this car was filmed at the beach. For the uninformed, snowbirds are people who spend summers in places like Cape Cod or the coast of Maine and when the weather turns cold they head for S. Carolina or Florida, just like a migratory bird. It’s possible that despite its Massachusetts plates, it’s never seen a winter.
We in the sunny state of Arizona also call these migratory folk “snowbirds.” They begin to show up in October, and high season is about January through March. They begin to drift away in April, and by May they’re all gone, and we have our streets to ourselves again.
You’re the resident Taurus expert so you’d know better than me, but it’s not to my knowledge that third generation Tauruses rusted any greater than other cars from the era. The good news is that by the mid-to-late 1990s, most automakers had their rustproofing techniques down pretty good. Apart from the undercarriage and common spots like the back of the rear wheel wells, it’s not very common to see sheetmetal rust on “older” cars anymore even in coastal Massachusetts.
Your assumption is correct. The Taurus and Sable duo did not have rust issues and hold up pretty well in that area. My Sable was starting to rust around the rocker panels at 14 years old, but like you said, that is par the course for the northeast.
Every once in awhile I look at a car and wonder “how in the hell did that design make it from the drawing board to the showroom floor?”
+1.
I think that magic mushrooms were involved.
At the time, I very much was put off by the incessant use of ovals everywhere.
In retrospect, it doesn’t seem that far out of line with some of the other things that came around in that era. The ’95 Riviera was very curvaceous (and to my mind still one of the best-looking cars from the ’90s, period), as was the Concorde. A lot of this car’s contemporaries had very curvaceous elements to their designs.
I think where these Taurii fell down was not that they were ovoid in shape. It was that there was no other shape discernible. In some ways it feels lazy, like the all-white kitchen with white flooring and white cabinets and white everything else. At some point, it passes from novel to excessive to garish.
Read “Car: A Drama of the American Workplace” by Mary Walton. It covers the third-gen Taurus development process and self-delusion of Ford’s brand managers in great detail.
Good read. Ford’s target was the Accord at first, but changed to the XV10 Camry. And they couldn’t figure out how, after teardown analysis, Toyota could build it for the price. How demoralizing, to know you’re beaten before starting.
Toyota was more efficient not only in their production, but in their engineering cycle. I think this was why, for example, they could stay in front with engine development, while Ford dragged their feet. This was exemplified in our 2004 Sienna, which not only had a more powerful and advanced engine compared to its Windstar competitor (iron & pushrods), but was reliable to boot. When we rented a Windstar on family vacation, we were thankful we bought the Sienna instead.
Thanks for the tip! I thoroughly enjoyed The Critical Path by Brock Yates on the 1996 NS Chrysler minivans development, and I think I’ll enjoy this too.
You will. It’s an easy and fantastic read.
Certain cars are really color sensitive, and this Taurus is exhibit A. White did this car no favors (even though seemingly half of them were painted like a refrigerator). Could it look any more egg-y? Perhaps if it had a yellow gold interior….
As others have noted, this is a design that I still can’t wrap my head around, even after all these years. While the original Taurus was deemed “revolutionary” (for the U.S. market), it was actually a thoughtful design that followed established international aerodynamic styling principals. Some people didn’t like the “aero” look, but for those many who did, the first Taurus was very nice. The second generation was a conservative refresh but still handsome, and buyers liked it that way. However, also in 1992, the Chrysler LH cars took aerodynamic design to a new and very stylish level, and I’m sure that shocked Ford and fired up the designers to be “bold” for the next generation Taurus. But why on earth did they think they needed to answer Chrysler with an oval overdose? No one in the world (other than Ford) was serving up peculiar ovoid designs, and the reason why is plain to see on this white car, that still looks like an egg, an alien or an aquatic creature depending on your perspective.
You should definitely read Mary Walton’s “Car,” because it addresses all the things you mention here.
I agree completely on the color-sensitivity of this design. The black trim all around the greenhouse made these look much better in a dark color. Decent wheels helped a lot too. To the extent that anything could.
The oval pod on the dash with the buttons for HVAC and sound was a mess. “Let’s throw it at the wall and see what sticks!”
Makes the 1962 Plymouth Savoy dash look conservative.
Ugly cars, no wonder sales dropped off. The sqared-up refresh in 2000 was a vast improvement.
Ugly cars, no wonder sales dropped off. The squared-up refresh in 2000 was a vast improvement.
I heard you the first time! 😉
I got to ride in one of these on a business trip to Waco (wacko) Texas in 1995.
Since Ford perfected the Taurus with the 1992 model, this generation perplexed me. I wanted to like the styling, but I just couldn’t get over the “symphony of ovals” design theme, and it fell flat to me. Apparently the illusion – real or imagined – that this Taurus was less roomy and had less trunk space turned off many buyers, and Ford lost the crown of best seller.
Ford tried to fix the design with the next generation, opening up the grille area a bit and raising the trunk deck certainly helped, buy Toyota and Honda got in the way, and many thought the Japanese OEMs had the better idea.
Apparently, many buyers still think that way, and they may be right.
I think over time, Ford’s hit-and-miss product performance, in engineering, quality, and style, has eroded confidence among non-enthusiast buyers (who came of age during Japan’s heyday) to the point where they don’t even consider them now.
Luckily for Ford, it still isn’t this way with truck buyers, a nut Japan hasn’t cracked (or tried to).
Ford saw Chrysler dumping their cars and now says, “we can do that too”, and cancelled the planned 2020 Fusion redesign. Instead will put cash into Utilities and trucks. So, no need to try to out do the Camry/Accord.
Some say current Fusion platform will stay, but will only be high end trims, no fleet/price leaders.
Passenger car market has changed/shrank since ’96, who knew?
Current Fusion platform underpins the Edge/MKX, along with MKZ. The Continental sits on a streched version of the platform. In the future I would assume if sedans return to prominence, you will see them developed from a CUV platform.
I wouldn’t consider the Toyota Tacoma and Tacoma “not trying”. You could say that about the Nissan Frontier and maybe the Titan and Ridgeline. In the case of the Tacoma, it is the best selling truck in its class.
Meant to say Tacoma and Tundra
I do think Toyota is not trying with their trucks.
The Tundra is one of those “why bother” vehicles. There really is not anything that is offered with a Tundra that would make somebody want to buy it over a Chevy/Ford or Ram truck.
The twin mainstays of Toyota (high resale value and reliability) don’t really apply in the pickup truck segment where GM/Ford/Ram trucks are both durable and reliable and also hold their value.
In 2017 GMC sold more Sierra trucks then Toyota did Tundras
If the Japanese have taught us nothing else, it’s that family sedan buyers aren’t looking to be “challenged” with edgy styling innovations. Witness the success of the Camcords in the past two decades. They were all conservatively styled, high quality cars that generally stayed out of the shop and lasted beyond the car payment coupon book. I get this completely (sez the guy with a Camry in the garage).
I kind of have to disagree on the Camry. I thought the 2007 redesign was much like the 96 Taurus – a mish-mash of different shapes resulting in a frumpy, unattractive design. Didn’t seem to hurt sales really, and for the next 11 years Toyota just gave us various iterations on the same basic design until it became boring and dull again.
This generation of Taurus was really just ahead of its time. If it came out in the late 2000’s it wouldn’t have been considered so far out there as it was in 1996.
I think most of what there is to say about the Bubble Taurus has long since been said. Babe Ford swung for the fences and struck out. The styling of these ultimately did grow on me, but it wasn’t until 10 years after they’d come around in the first place.
The “G” gambit was interesting, but inherently flawed. I even get the notion of making a lower-price version to get the sticker prices down as a response to complaints about high prices. Trouble is, it’s not the sticker price people were complaining about. It’s the idea that they were getting less for the money.
I dunno, these can’t have all been bad, though, as there were a ton of them on the roads around here until about two years ago. It seems like two years ago, the order was given and they were all finally decommissioned. I didn’t have much exposure to the Camcords of this era. Actually, I still haven’t, and the few times I have seen them they’ve been beaten down examples that aren’t really fair comparisons. It seems like the number of people that complain about these Taurii, though, is outsized compared to the number of them that successfully ran 200,000 miles and gave several owners fine service in the end.
I sat in a dealer training session back in summer 1995 when this new Taurus was about to hit the lots and recall how Ford bench marked the current Camry and how upmarket Ford had taken the new Taurus to beat them. Sadly as the new Taurus arrived Toyota was about to decontent the Camry and cut their costs, offering more value, while the Taurus appeared over priced. The timing was just wrong for Ford at the time and the Taurus never recouped. The Taurus was considered a better car in feel and features, but this was the core sedan market and value was more important to more folks.
I’ve purchased my fair share of American cars and have driven 5 Taurus fleet cars.
The fleet Fords were better than some (e.g., 1995 Eagle Vision TSi) and worse than others (2002 5 speed PT Cruiser and 1999 5 speed Miata).
For example:
1988 Taurus (Black) – My first, very heavily used and abused before I got it; I detailed it and put on new tires and all was well. It aged out of the fleet still running well.
1992 Taurus (Silver) – Nice looking car; terrible seats. Had to replace front suspension parts and alternator in first year. Glad to see it go when company cancelled car plan to cut expenses.
1996 Taurus (Puke) – Ugly car; ugly color (ordered it from a color chart – should have seen one in the flesh). Very comfortable and trouble free. Go figure.
2003 Taurus Wagon (Green) – Perfect in every way, roomy, comfortable, and great in deep snow. Would have bought it but I already had two cars and only one driver. I like green cars.
2004 Taurus (White) – Almost totaled it on way home from the dealer when the rear drum brakes made emergency braking much more leisurely than all of the preceding front and rear disk braked Tauri.
I also personally owned a 1990 Sable wagon (all disks). Very nice car in every way, but after the warranty expired I should have replaced it before major and expensive repairs were needed on a regular basis (not unlike the Eagle Vision).
All of the Ford cars were low end (not sure what exact models). The Sable was a low end GS.
As they say: YMMV.
Whenever a young family member asks me what car they should get I say Honda or Toyota. I got my second son a used 2002 Accord and that was one impressive, reliable, and smooth riding car (until he wrecked it).
Financial advisors say that older people should make safer investments once they get near or past retirement age. Accordingly, my next car will probably be a Toyota or a Honda. When time becomes more valuable, who wants to increase the risk of having to spend it getting dealers to make things right.
“Financial advisors say that older people should make safer investments once they get near or past retirement age. Accordingly, my next car will probably be a Toyota or a Honda.”
That’s why my Mom’s last three cars were, in order, Chevy Citation, 2nd Gen Taurus, Nissan Sentra. We gave the then-already-well-used Nissan to my nephew when Mom passed in 2010 – he’s still driving it.
A friend who is a body repairman for our local Toyota/Honda dealership once told me that American cars are built for the first owner. Japanese cars cars are built for 2nd and 3rd owners! I think he’s right.
I think Nissan has been upping their game over the last 10 years.
Even the bottom feeding Versa Note felt well made.
To me, the ‘2nd gen’ was a mild facelift, and not that much different than the 1986-91. Not really a true ‘generational’ change, with new body shell or chassis.
The Taurus G had heated/powered rear view mirrors? My father had 3 different Tauruses, I don’t think any of them had heated rear view mirrors, and all were LX or SE sedans.
The 3rd generation Taurus we had was an attractive shade of Kelly Green. Yet, to me these cars always looked a bit more hunch-backed than the similar 4th (?) generation model. I always thought the 3rd and 4th generation cars looked like armadillos.
Resolution isn’t the greatest but the 1996 Taurus brochure lists heated side mirrors as standard.
Was that brochure printed in fall 1995? Wouldn’t have the ‘G’ listed yet.
What’s with the “voice-activated” cell phone? That seems pretty advanced for 1996!
>>When time becomes more valuable, who wants to increase the risk of having to spend it getting dealers to make things right.<<
That's why I say to people that Hondas and the like are the true luxury cars because they rarely require trips to the dealership for repairs.
btw, this Taurus was an absolute mess, ugly and overweight. Ford did a better job cribbing the Audi 5000 the first time even tho the orig Taurus fell way short
We had a 1st Gen GL wagon (’89) and a 2nd Gen SHO (’95). Both cars were excellent, no buyer regret in the slightest. The 3rd Gen left me cold.
After having pretty good luck with my ’92 and ’94 Taurus company cars, I was looking forward to getting my new and improved ’96 Taurus wagon. Unfortunately, the excitement was short-lived.
The ’94 wagon I was given included a number of “no cost” promotional options, the most useful of which was the optional 3.8 liter engine. While it officially had the same horsepower as the standard 3.0, it felt decidedly more powerful due to its higher torque. Other options included some upgraded interior features and alloy wheels. Fortunately I traded the ’94 in before any ugly 3.8 liter head gasket problems occurred.
My new ’96 Taurus wagon was a basic GL with no extras. With the 3.0 liter engine, it drove like a turtle. When you needed extra power and floored it — it wallowed for a second or two, downshifted with a bang, the engine screamed, but it still didn’t really accelerate any faster.
But the real problem was all of the quality-related issues I had with the ’96. The back doors repeatedly got “stuck” closed (great fun when taking clients out to lunch, or unloading your kids from their car seats). The first time the dealer attempted to fix the doors, they wound up putting a large dent in one of the doors trying to get it unstuck. The car had repeated electrical problems, leaving it totally dead in my driveway 2 or 3 times within the first 6 months of ownership. Having an unreliable car made my outside sales job a lot more stressful.
The icing on the cake was on a trip headed south on the old central artery in downtown Boston, just before rush hour on a hot summer day. One-by-one, the electrical components stopped working — first the air-conditioning, then the power windows, the radio, the wipers, etc. I had visions of I-93 traffic backed up all the way from downtown Boston to the New Hampshire border, with me sitting inside my broken-down Taurus. But the car continued to run; so I drove straight to the nearest Ford dealer service department to get it checked out.
I explained what was going on to the service advisor, and he told me to just shut it off to see what would happen next. It was stone dead. The dealer mechanics attempted multiple times to jump start it — still stone dead. The dealer wound up keeping it for 3 weeks trying to diagnose the problem, and eventually they replaced a couple of computers and some of the wiring under warranty before it returned to normal.
Stupid problems continued to pop up throughout the 2 years and 80K miles I had the ’96. I couldn’t wait to trade it in on my next company car, which – thankfully – was considerably more reliable.
You most likely had water contamination of the transmission lever position sensor, it’s basically a combo neutral safety switch that allows the PCM to know where the gearshift lever is (PRNDL). Was fairly common.
Were the rear springs sagging, as they are on every 1996-2007 Taurus/Sable?
I have had experience with three of these. A 1988 Taurus wagon, a 1995 Sable wagon and. 2005 Sable. The 1988 had no issues for 100,000 miles other than paint fade and seatbelts not retracting. The 1995 needed nothing but a water pump in close to 85,000 miles. The 2005 had a leaking rack fixed with a flush and a can of stop leak in 50,000 miles over ten tears. That was all. They provided a roomy comfortable ride with a 6 cylinder and more options than what a Camry or Accord could provide for similar money.
The last two were bought at great discount due to the new design coming out. No regrets with these cars.
That front end really looks like a) Japanese anime character; or b) the scene from A Christmas Story where they’re at the restaurant and he thinks the duck is smiling at him….
Yes these were a big letdown from the ’95s. And Mary Walton’s book is excellent.
I hated the Gen3 Bull, and decided to keep my 1990 wagon. It’s still my daily driver. While I see few Gen1s or Gen2s on the road around here, I haven’t even seen a Gen3 in years. Those ovoid Tauruses were pig-ugly and I wouldn’t own one for anything.
With all the upgrades I’ve done to my wagon – i.e., converting both halves of the split-bench front seat to 6-way power, to name just one – and all the work I could do myself, such as rebuilding both the front and rear suspensions as well as an all-new HVAC system, why get rid of it now? It’s a real station wagon and serves all our needs. Haven’t made a car payment since 1999.
Works for me.