Will we ever see a modern two door car in Ford’s lineup not named Mustang? Probably not, especially considering the current sales plight of the four door sedan. Thirty years ago, the idea of an intra-company Mustang competitor was also far fetched, but thanks to a company called Cars & Concepts, someone’s dream became a reality.
By the 1989 model year, the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable were riding high, as critics and car shoppers alike continued to thoroughly enjoy the vehicles several years after their paradigm-shifting debut. With the sedan and wagon, Ford designed the Taurus and Sable for young families, which meant that anything beyond the SHO performance trim was never seriously considered. And no evidence exists of any such variants being discussed anyway.
So why does something like this exist? According to the information available on the internet, this creation was the brainchild of Cars & Concepts, a company based out of Michigan that specialized in concept cars and also periodically built specialty vehicles for automakers and other customers. The company doesn’t exist anymore, but their legacy lives on in this very unique Sable.
The company obviously went all out with their modifications to the Sable, and the result was a fully retractable top that didn’t need much human intervention for its operation.
The team responsible for the Sable convertible definitely knew their stuff, as the design doesn’t look marred by any of the modifications, which included front doors that measured a foot longer than the production model. Although this example started out as a sedan, Cars & Concepts incorporated the rear suspension of the wagon in order to make the top fit inside the trunk and also deal with the extra weight.
Television screens were fitted into the rear seats as well. Obviously those tiny 3″ units are laughable by contemporary standards, but I imagine they were pretty cool thirty years ago.
Despite being a concept, at some point the car was apparently assigned a VIN, so any potential buyer would have no problem driving it on public roads.
And the car does deserve to be showed off. That was its whole purpose anyway. The concept was brought to the Cobo Center in 1989 for the Society of Automotive Engineers International Congress, most likely because the company wanted to show off their convertible technology. And what better car to modify?
In some alternative universe Ford contracted with Cars & Concepts for a limited production run of Sable convertibles that are still highly sought after today.
Fortunately, the Sable seems to have been well taken care of over the years. The car resurfaced in late 2017 when its owner put it up for sale. With an odometer reading of about 9,800 miles, it seems the car traveled less than 300 miles during its tenure with this particular individual. It’s been advertised on the internet several times, hence the older pictures. Before the older ad disappeared, the asking price was $15,900, which I don’t think is too unreasonable considering its status as a one-off vehicle. Recently the car was posted on craiglist again, this time with an asking price of $17,995.
Related Reading:
Taurus.org listing for the 1989 Sable Convertible Concept
eBay Find: 1996 Ford Taurus GL – JARED
It’s well executed but using the Sable is a curious choice, more so than the Mustang the elephant in the room was the Cougar, which had it’s own one off convertible concept, only farmed out to ASC for 1990.
That doesn’t look bad at all! Either of these definitely makes sense to me as Ive always viewed the 4-seat convertible as a boulevard cruiser anyway. Kind of in the vein of the Chrysler and Cadillac convertibles of the 60’s/70’s. Just a big ole’ boat to cruise around on a nice day.
..
That Cougar convertible is seriously cool…. looks like a Mercedes SL (R129).
To my eyes, that Sable looks more like a last-gen Buick Skylark. Maybe it needs bigger wheels to be proportional to that huge rear quarter-panel. Anyway, it’s a tremendous find. I wish we could still get reasonably-priced 4-adult convertibles today.
I will confess to being mystified as to why no US manufacturer has taken another shot at this market since Chrysler screwed things up on the Sebring. I have lost count of the number of four place convertibles offered by European companies, which command some pretty premium prices.
Chrysler had this market almost to itself for a long time. I have a hard time with the idea that there is no room for a modern version of the Chrysler LeBaron/Sebring. So I think Ford made a mistake by not offering something like this, whether based on the Taurus/Sable or better yet on the Thunderbird/Cougar.
As an aside, that folding top design looks very much like the one I remember on a friend’s Volvo C-70 convertible.
GM seems to have been interested in the larger 4-seat droptop market during the 90’s, but never followed thru with their concepts. The 1990 Beretta convertible was stillborn, and the 1992 Oldsmobile Achiva and 2000 Alero convertibles were both production ready one-offs.
When you look at GM as a whole in the early 90s, they were already pretty flush with convertible models. This is what I’ve read about the Beretta convertible being axed…..
You had the slightly smaller J-car convertibles (Cavalier/Sunbird), and in the pipeline already was the slightly larger W-body Cutlass convertible. Beretta convertible sales would take from both. GM would be able to make more profit (well, in hindsight maybe break even on the Cutlass) as a larger Oldsmobile with a higher selling price, and the tooling for the Jcars was long paid for.
I would assume the same could be said for the Achieva as well. Not sure about the Alero.
Uh, actually, there is a GM one available in North America. The Buick Cascada (yes, an Opel Cascada imported as a Buick) is on the showroom floor. My 87 year old uncle has one. And yes, that does still seem to be the target demographic for these.
That’s a very good question that I suspect comes down to several converging factors. Perceived low demand, the cost of complying with crash test and other regulations, the heftier profit margins on SUVs; it’s almost a perfect storm of issues. You’re right that a big convertible is a very appealing prospect, but possibly a hard sell in the automotive boardroom. Maybe Lincoln will surprise us with a droptop Continental, though; we can hope.
If only Ford would be so bold. It certainly would help with awareness of Lincoln and drive some showroom traffic and perhaps even sales. Too bad it would probably be assessed as its own stand-alone business case.
More likely would be a Lincoln convertible on the Mustang platform, but fully reskinned to put it in line with the new Lincoln look and not “look like a gussied-up Mustang”. There’d be no coupe version, to save the expense of tooling up a different roofline.
One thing to keep in mind is Nissan did take a crack at the “big” convertible market a few years back with the Murano convertible and basically got laughed at. As strange as a CUV convertible might seem, it was a larger car and potentially tap into the booming CUV market but it was a dud. Though kudos to Nissan for trying something different.
Though I do suspect a decent number of people who want to do some open-air motoring and don’t want a pony car end up with a Jeep Wrangler.
The Murano convertible failed because it wasn’t really off-road, had a Medusa like style, and had zero brand credibility at the $44,000 price point it was stuck with. Jeep Wranglers get awfully close to that price tag, but have the chops to back it up, along with a very defined “image”. Same for the Range Rover Evoque soft top; High street style, good capability respective to the off road image, and an exclusive price tag to boot. I understand they sell in respectable numbers in Europe, if not here.
Speaking of the Wrangler, supposedly, the latest version has a newly designed soft top that is much easier to lower/raise. That would go a long way to increasing sales of what some might consider a 4-door convertible.
The last 200 would have made a nice convertible, but the smart money would 2 have been on the 300. I mean if youre gonna do it, REALLY do it, right? Furthermore, that would have laid the tracks right to a 300C pillarless 2 door hardtop…
The reason none of the 4-seat non-ponycar convertibles ever made production can be answered in one word: cannibalization. Ford and GM were scared to death that a sedan-derived convertible would bite too heavily into their ponycar convertibles. Chrysler had no such worry since they didn’t have a ponycar, anymore. Hell, they even made a PT Cruiser convertible for a while after the Sebring went away. Interestingly, with the death of the awkward Chrysler 200 convertible, there’s still a couple of convertibles left in FCA’s lineup, but they’re the Fiat 500 and Spider. The fact that Chrysler didn’t think there’d be a market for a Challenger convertible speaks volumes for how consumer’s tastes have changed.
A pity since there were some great domestic convertible concepts through the years. Besides the feature Sable and the mentioned Cougar, there was the Marauder convertible. Unfortunately, tepid Marauder sedan sales, along with the poor showing of the final Thunderbird, killed it.
About the same time as the Marauder convertible, Bob Lutz had a very nice Bel Air concept convertible that had 1957 retro touches. It was a pretty car but, again, the 2-seat Thunderbird’s failure convinced GM management to, instead, build the ill-fated SSR quasi-pickup.
The sad fact is that the convertible sales pie is just nowhere near as big as it once was. The best selling convertible of all-time was the 1965 Mustang but, back in the sixties, there were convertibles galore in virtually all model lines from every domestic company.
But, then, affordable air-conditioning, along with proposed roll-over regulations (which never materialized), killed off just about all but a few of what was generally accepted as the most attractive version of any model. Even Ford quite making Mustang convertibles from the entire Mustang II’s time up until 1983,
Silly to have t v screens in a convertible as the sun would wash out the picture
Worse yet: analog TV, 480i resolution, 3-inch screen, and whatever is available on the local airwaves (or VHS). Maybe I’m spoiled with streaming HD video on my smart phone and a car that has its own WIFI. Of course, 30 years does make a difference!
Add to the silliness that these are probably CRT screens, with several inches of the picture tube protruding behind the display. That’s probably why the screens are angled upward, and that wedge-shaped housing is tacked onto the front seatbacks.
I assume the reason they’re in a convertible is to allow the technology to be seen when the vehicle is displayed at auto shows. I’ve noticed that a lot in show cars; convertibles allow a good way to show off interior details to a large number of people, without them having to actually get into the vehicle.
And we all know that the tech a 4 passenger convertible needs is a headset system to allow back seat passengers to be included in conversations on the highway. 🙂
nightmare
belt line too high, like the last Sebring
convertibles need a low belt line to work
Yeah, I think that whole ‘high-beltline’ direction of not only convertibles, but all cars, in general, was a calculated move influenced not so much by style but to increase profits and reduce weight. For starters, having a high-beltline on a unibody car is a way to shift metal from the floor pan to the sides, yet retain (even increase) overall structural integrity. It also lowers weight by reducing the amount of heavy glass area.
Of course, the one area it doesn’t help is safety, since it makes it a lot harder to see out of a vehicle. That, alone, is the reason I’d choose a Challenger or Mustang over a new Camaro with those gun-slit windows.
Side impact standards have pretty much outlawed low beltlines and large glass area.
And I thought the PT Cruiser convertible was homely!
Really, really cool!! What a find. Do I like its looks better than a Cutlass Supreme convertible of a similar vintage? Maybe not 100%, but I’ll still say it looks good.
I have always wondered what a 2-door Sable or Taurus would have looked like, and even though this is a one-off, it fully answers my question. Great find and post, Edward.
I have to agree, the idea of a two door and convert Sable drove me wild back then. I would have traded my 5.0L Capri in a heart beat.
But, no dice. “You’ll get your Sable as a sedan or wagon and like it!” says Mr. FoMoCo…
Hello, Doctor Oldsmobile? Do you still have one of those Cutlass Supreme convertibles?
Dammit! Forgot the pic…
try again?
This time with feeling…
Nice!! See, I think our featured, one-off Sable convertible looks as good as this Cutlass. Granted, it probably would have been outpriced if had gone into production, with no “factory” 2-door Sable on which to base it. From a looks perspective, though, this car would have been a worthy competitor to Cutlass and Chrysler LeBaron convertibles.
When this came out I had an ’87 Sable, even the same color. I went nuts for this concept car and really wished and hoped they’d go through with it.
When I was a kid we had a new ’61 Ford Galaxie Sunliner convertible, so I grew up with the big convertible experience. There’s nothing quite like it. It’s certainly different from driving a roadster, which is wonderful but different. A big convertible loaded up with family or friends and the top down is fun like no other. Not available in a new car now!
What a cool find! I’m not usually a fan of 2-door cars in general, and I don’t much like convertibles, but C&C did some really fine, craftsmanlike work over the years, and I think this counts as such. Too bad no pics with the top up—though those might well cause me to erase some of these gold stars I’m giving this what I see.
Cars & Concepts did a lot of neat projects, I drive by the old location in Brighton MI quite a bit.
Here’s more info on C&C, including Dick Chrysler:
https://www.inc.com/magazine/19830201/4290.html
I guess that since it is a custom job with a custom VIN, this doesn’t really matter, but judging from the front of this car…particularly the light bar…it was built not on a 1989 Sable, but a 1986-88. The 1989-91 lacked the divider in the middle of the light bar. Also the instrument panel is the 1986-1988 design, with the instrument cluster in what looks like a “pod.”
That is remarkably good looking. I was never a fan of the Sable, I thought the roofline and greenhouse were particularly bad, and never liked the light bar front.
I can even live with the light bar on this!
As JPC noted, it’s odd there have not been more attempts at a mid-size ‘vert. The right car could have a real following as the LeBaron / Sebring demonstrated for a long while.
The Toyota Solara made an attempt at it, but as I once read in Motor Trend regarding the Solara, “it may be ugly, but it sure is expensive!”
Again, there is one on the market from GM. The Cascada. Its sales are not good, they are marketing it to old coots, being a Buick, but it is out there for sale. A real 4 passenger convertible cruiser. The problem is that with the SUV craze, nobody wants to spend a dime on creating what is a chopped-top sedan that will sit on dealer lots. Other than the rental market in sunny climates and for aficianados, there is little call for an open car other than a sports car. In this case they just lifted a fully developed convertible out of europe and badged it as a Buick. If and when sedans come back into fashion, so will coupes, wagons, and convertibles. Until then, enjoy the classics.
I don’t agree that the Cascada fits in with the idea of a mid-size convertible with decent interior space. I’ve been in the Cascada, and it is a small, cramped car for me. The low windshield header is downright intimidating for me at 6’1″.
A little poking around shows the first gen Mercury Sable had 37.1 inches of rear seat legroom while the Cascada has 32.8 inches. The Sable had 18.5 cubic feet of trunk room – plenty of space for a trip to the golf course. Buick can’t seem to be bothered to publish the luggage capacity of the Cascada, but it’s small.
I like the idea of a Buick convertible a lot, but a compact car with a starting price over $33,000 is not the ‘vert I’d be looking for. If I were willing to go with a car with no practical backseat, I’d get a Mustang for a better price, image and more interesting engine choices.
I’m not crazy about the style, but this 1991 Buick concept hits on more cylinders for me………..
Just like how Lincoln Mark VIII convertible never went to production from the factory.
Ad the disappearing car doors to this convertible concept and I would beg, borrow, or steal to own one!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IK56Ttte8Sw
That actually looks good and it makes sense to be from a first gen Sable rather then a first gen Taurus.
The 86-91 Sable with its slightly more streamlined body panels made it look more sleeker then the Taurus so the convertible concept seems to go well with the car.
It’s a clean job – how many of these were made or was this the only demo? would be nice to see what it looks like with the top up; to me, that is the true measure of how attractive a convertible is.
My Lutheran god, that´s one good looking automobile, love it!
WOW! I had an ’89 Sable 20-some years ago. not a bad looking car in 4-door sedan form, but this creation is stunning!
I wonder if this would have sold had FMC chosen to produce it? Probably not.
I would drive THE SHIT out of that!
That is all.