On December 27th, 1985, the Ford Taurus officially went on sale. Ford’s forward-looking, aerodynamic FWD mid-size sedan and wagon completely changed the game in the United States, elevating what American consumers came to expect from their cars. The Taurus became a huge hit, and between 1992 and 1996, was the number one selling car in the US. Over the next several days, you’ll see a number of diverse articles covering every generation of Taurus, from the groundbreaking first generation to the remarkably oval-themed third, and beyond. Ford’s more reserved sibling, the Mercury Sable, gets plenty of coverage too.
So queue up Springsteen’s “Glory Days” and have it ready to play while reading our content, since it works perfectly as the theme song to the saga of the Taurus.
The car that wrecked automotive styling. I was never impressed with these at all. They were not the best driving cars and the weak 3.8 could be counted on to blow a head gasket and the axod to go out. The oval one has to be just about the most hideous car Ford ever built. Can’t remember last time I saw one of the ovals or earlier back models.
I’m glad someone else agrees with me. I look at the Taurus as the car that proved America’s love affair with the automobile was over, and it was now nothing more than an appliance. it also proved to auto makers that they didn’t have to design anything that was aesthetically pleasing anymore. My younger sister said it best, the very first time she saw a Taurus wagon…”Eww, it looks like a dog turd on wheels!” True then, true today, and unfortunately, true of almost every car designed since.
On one hand I agree the imitators the Taurus spawned were largely responsible for the sea of soft edged blobs ever since, but as a design by itself in 1986 it was quite an attractive car.
I totally disagree with the assessment that the Taurus killed car styling, I’d say it was the exact opposite intent. Look at the sedan choices in 1985-86, especially from the big three, Ford had the boxy LTD, GM had a sea of nearly identical formal roofline boxes and Chrysler had truly identical Boxes with varying degrees of tinsel added “for style”. I’m sorry but Car styling was already dead/dieing before the Taurus showed up. The Taurus was the first American car in a decade that actually challenged the norm of car styling and succeeded. It probably succeeded too well, like the 75 Seville with the sheer look, but you can’t blame the car for that, blame ever complacent automakers and intrusive regulations(forcing exterior compromises).
Really it’s like Grunge/alternative rock. It’s easy to hate it for effectively killing hard rock and heavy metal, and even possibly killing rock and roll in general(it was pretty much the last subgenre of it that was a big commercial hit afterall). But some of the music is quite good, especially early on, and most of the preceding rock/metal acts by the time Nirvina broke were pathetic cookie cutter bands with cross dressing frat boys fronting them. Change is inevitable, the sad part is sometimes what it’s changed to can be infinite, and like rock, cars in terms of styling really hasn’t really deviated much from jellybean for 30 years.
Thought its not like there wouldn’t have been “aero” cars without the Taurus, it isn’t like everyone had to have a an “aero” car after the Taurus came out, most manufacturers were already working towards that..by 87 the first aero GM cars, the Beretta/Corsica were out, and they were done signed off on in 1984-85, the LeBaron/Lancer cars were fairly aero-modern, and they predated the Taurus by a year, except for the lack of composite headlights, these were very modern for 1984-1985.
Even Ford had an Aerocar already: Thunderbird.
Let’s not forget that Taurus wasn’t Ford’s first time at the aero rodeo, either. 1983 Thunderbird, 1984 Taurus in the U.S. market set the stage for the ’86 Taurus, as did the Sierra in Euroland.
Unrelated to the Taurus, but related to this picture: It’s rare I even see mention of the LeBaron GTS/Lancer online these days. My first car was a 1986 LeBaron GTS. Mine was an utter POS, terrible car, and it would make for the greatest of write-ups on this site because of the genuinely strange set of options it had (including the delete-option third front seat and column shifted automatic!). Now I mention it, though, and people either look at me like I sprouted a second head or think of the later convertible LeBarons.
Sorry, nostalgia passing. Carry on.
I touched on that weird anomaly in my LeBaron GTS piece: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/1985-89-chrysler-lebaron-gts-hatchback-setbacks/
You’re right, it seems to be one of the forgotten cars of the 1980s.
Another respectful disagreement. While it went downhill fast, I quite liked the original Taurus, and still think it’s a relatively good-looking car. Don’t blame it for what it spawned; what was very much a game-changer in ’86 became stale and unpalatable when it was on its 35th variant by 1992.
One could say that GM’s A bodies wrecked styling too, with plain, boring box look.
Also, there are many critics of 1950’s over the top looks. So, beauty is on one’s eyes.
I’ll wait and see what I can learn about them. The early ones look nice enough but the Ovaltheme they tried to sell here in Australia was an aesthetic disaster area. The facelift (I’m assuming that’s what the top right one is) looks far better.
They landed with a thud down under and though there are survivors about they are almost worthless, there is an earlier sable around here Ive chatted with the owner she sort of likes it, it was subject to a transmission recall before it emigrated she said it drives ok but nothing special, this series should be quite interesting as it was the Taurus that the wide body Camry was aimed at and that spent a couple of years of final development in NZ.
Worthless? How so?
I just checked TradeMe.co.nz. There’s a couple of Gen 3 Taurii there, reasonable condition, for about NZ$2000. They’re not “worthless” as such, but very hard to sell on. I think on the whole you would only buy one as a junk car with the hope of getting a year or so out of it before it’s scrapped. If you want a car of this size and era, you’re much better off getting a Holden, with a decent supply of second-hand parts.
I’ve never been a fan of Gen 3 Taurus myself. I do like the first and second gen Taurus. My dad has a gen 2 Mercury Sable.
Only the fish faced one came here other than rare private imports one of which roams locally.
I see a little of all three still here in the USA. My dad had a generation 1 Mercury Sable, and then he bought a gen 2 Merc Sable. Were Mercury Sables sold in New Zealand?
My neighbours, Asian students had one for sale for nearly 12 months finally the ask dropped to 3 figures for a 97 car with WOF and rego thats approaching worthless they originally asked what they paid 2.5k no bites car was in mint condition, I test flew one 9 years ago at a dealers the ask was 2k ono, they havent got any more valuable since.
Likewise Carsales lists 3 Taurses for sale nationally, one 70k mile creampuff on a dealer’s lot for $5k (dreaming!) and two others sub 150k miles for either side of $1,000 – the $800 one in Victoria is not registered and the cost for registration and compulsory third party insurance (personal injury) is $790, it also needs an inspection for road-worthiness, so buying the car is less than half the cost there.
In Australia, small-volume imports from the major manufacturers generally don’t hold their value well. Customers assume (with good cause) that service knowledge and parts backup will be sketchy. Sales of the Taurus were absolutely abysmal.
Wheels magazine did a comparison between the Falcon and the Taurus, and found the Falcon superior to the Taurus in just about every way. They finished up asking the question “So why is it here?”. William, are you going to post that test this week?
Alas, no, I won’t be posting it. Interesting read though. It really seemed to have no place, especially as Ford Australia had committed to the Falcon by the time the Taurus launched down under. I think Wheels also compared the Taurus to the Maxima, Accord and something else and it won the comparison test or came second. It wasn’t a bad car, it just really had no place in Australia. I still see a fair few around Brisbane though! I really loved them growing up.
Warranty claims on the abysmal EA and the disaster that was the Capri led to the idea of shutting down Ford AU the Taurus was to showcase the Falcon replacement unluckily or other wise Ford AU had lifted its game by the time the Taurus arrived and the Sable fronted fish faced Taurus hardly set the world on fire amongst the critics.
Have you forgotten the Fords wearing huge lemon stickers parked near dealerships and around Broadmeadows in the late 80s early 90s Ford AU produced some of the worst cars ever in that era.
I like the first two generations of Ford Taurus the best.
Twice in my life, I drank the kool-aid my father gave me and bought Ford Tauruses (Tauri?) I had a second gen 1993 and a third gen 1998. The ’93 was more comfortable but had all sorts of problems. I had it for about 9 months. The ’98 ate transmissions but was a good looking car. It was silver and I found that the center of the hubcap was removable, so I gave it what appeared to be dog dish caps. It was sharp, but that transmission finally did it in at 107,000 miles. I finally got my bearings straight and bought a new Dodge and never looked back.
Dodge car or truck?
The ovoid 1996-1999 just goes to show that newer isn’t always better. The first two generations looked a lot nicer, especially the 92-95 model. Plain, yes; but it was styled tastefully and conservatively (ahem, any current Toyota, Lexus, Lincoln…).
I suppose it was Ford’s response to the aerodynamic, snazzy look that Chrysler pulled off so gracefully with the cab-forward LH, introduced in 1993–a year after I was born. Everyone was in awe and was running scared at the same time.
The 2000-07 Taurus undid the damage that its ovoid predecessor had done, even though they shared a lot of body/structural components. Conservative yet tastefully styled. The Intrepid from the same vintage had a lot more “wow” factor, but Ford did try that time around and it showed.
I couldn’t agree more. I prefer the first two generations of both the Ford Taurus and the Merc Sable, to anything produced later than 1995. I’ve had people say they’re crap. Crappy looks, crappy build quality, etc. But I tend to disagree. I believe the 92-95 was the last great Taurus/Sable produced. Everything after that, is hideous.
It is a happiness to see the Taurus being portraited here. Follows a pic of mine ’94, 39k miles, I´m the 2nd owner.
Has there been a Deadly Sin article on the tremendous disaster that was the hideous oval catfish Taruable? Will there be one for this week?
Also Taurus “week”?
Does it really need that much? Couldn’t it be more or less Cliffnote’d into Taurus “couple of hours?”
No, but considering how hideous the “oval catfish” Taurus looked, there damn well better be.
We’ll see…..
Yeah.
What’s wrong, Carmine?
Vending machine ate your dollar, and couldn’t get your gummy bears, this morning?
Lighten up, chief.
Who eats gummy bears in the morning?
The machine was out of my favorite snack…
The tears of my enemies….
Oookay…
Criticizing the editorial decisions or the writers of CC is not welcome in the comments. You may disagree with the actual content, and say so, in an appropriate way. But if you’re not happy with the scope and focus of our content, you’re free to ignore it. Or just STFU.
STFU, really, Paul?
Really. And obviously, that suggestion is meant for Carmine, who can’t stop himself from endlessly doing what I’ve asked him many times not to do.
He’s free to disagree with the content of a story (in a respectful way), but he’s not free to tell us how to run our website.
Oops… My bad, time to back on my paranoia meds, again. 😛
Groundbreaking? How so, since it was an imitation of the 1984 Audi 5000, that was actually the innovator in aero sedans.
This car made every American car, right down to Cadillac, look like jellybeans to this day.
In the Taurus’ defense, I prefer the 1st and 2nd gens(more rectangular and better looking), hate the Oval 3rd gen crapbox( automatic V8 SHO??), and like the 4th gen and current Taurus.
To me, the latest Taurus is such a handsome car… A lot better looking than some European and Japanese blobs out there right now.
Funny, how one of the cars, that started the blob trend, doesn’t look like a blob, anymore.
Glad, to see Ford, brought back the car that was their bread and butter, from the late 80’s-early 2000s.
That Ford 500, was an ugly, boring appliance. Good riddance.
I missed the Taurus when it was AWOL, actually. Nice to see it was brought back, but also, Ford brought back a PROPER Taurus SHO… With twin turbos to boot.
Bravo, to Ford for not letting the Taurus wither by the wayside.
Gimme, one of these, any day.
Your post is confusing, was the right hand battling the left hand at the same time for control?
It’s called counterpoints, Monty Hall… Look it up.
Carmine, missed seeing your posts not appearing for awhile, now not so much.
If you don’t like the Taurus fine… But dont troll every comment you see, buddy.
I’m sorry but it seems that you don’t like the Taurus halfway through your post, until the end, when you do?
For example, you wrote
“Groundbreaking? How so, since it was an imitation of the 1984 Audi 5000, that was actually the innovator in aero sedans.”
Which to me, came off as a negative, perhaps some editing would help you make your statement a bit clearer?
Yep, called a counterpoint.
“No need to be cheeky.”
There’s things that I hate and like about the Taurus, which I should have started saying initially.
Not really a fan, but I am glad to see it back in Ford’s lineup… If that makes any sense.
Aero sedans began with Audi in 83 or some such twaddle the Opel in the development post Ford liked had morphed into a Holden and was released down under in 78 seems Audi was well behind. The Sierra was out and about in 83/4, leave Audi out of the equation.
That line sounds like an observation rather than a criticism, there is one perspective on the Taurus’ place in the American industry but another on its place or impact globally.
I thought the 500 was a reasonably handsome car, even if a bit plain and the headlight shape could have been improved.
Bryce, the Opel Rekord/Senator was nowhere near as aerodynamic as the Audi, no flush side windows etc
It was very much influenced by the 5000 (introduced in ’83 BTW), but the fact remains that no one was doing it in the US market at that point. Ford had led the way in Aero with the ’83 Thunderbird and ’84 Mark VII, but the Taurus was still a pretty radical departure in terms of bread-and-butter family sedans. GM didn’t get a 4-door version of the GM10 out the door until ’89, and Chrysler went stubbornly sticking to boxy design with the Dynasty and didn’t embrace aero in their passenger lines until the LH in ’93.
No, Chris, below is an 83 Audi 5000… The last year for the 1978-83 square bodystyle.
The 1984 US aero 5000, was already introduced in Europe in 1982, as the Audi 100/200.
That aero Audi didn’t reach the US market till late 83, as a 1984 model.
Notice, I said the Audi 5000, was the innovator of the new aero “sedans”, not coupes. 😉
In the US market, yes, the 1983/84 Fox body Ford Tbird/Mercury Cougar/Lincoln Mk VII/LSC led the way for American coupes. I knew that and fully agree with ya. 🙂
To me, cars of from 40s and early 50s look like beans, too. It’s all generational and psychological.
I’d rather see beans than the boxy cars GM had in their mid 80’s “look alike” era.
I remember when the first ones came out. It took a while for the look to grow on me. Fast forward a couple decades and I was the owner of a gently used 2004 passed along from my Aunt. In the eight years we had it, we put on about 90k miles. It was quite dependable, if unexciting – a true appliance car.
IMO, Ford made a grave error when they temporarily ditched the Taurus name a few years back. When they came to their senses and revived it, the damage was already done.
IMO, Ford made a grave error when they temporarily ditched the Taurus name a few years back. When they came to their senses and revived it, the damage was already done.
Which is basically a myth, there hasn’t been a single year since 1986 where there wasn’t a Taurus available from Ford.
Fourth Generation – 2000 to 2007
Fifth Generation(five hundred rebadge) to current – 2008 – 20xx.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe the ’07 Taurus was available new only to fleets….so there was/is a ’07 Taurus, but “the average Joe” couldn’t buy one new at the Ford dealership.
Well yes and no. If you were a fleet buyer then the Taurus was available every year. If you were John or Jane regular customer living in the USA then no the taurus was not available every year as it was restricted to fleet sales in the short MY2007. production ended in October 2006 with the last car going to the founder of Chick-fil-a.
I don’t know where you live but where I live the Ford Dealers will not sell a fleet car to a regular buyer due to the dealer losing money on the sale and it also competing with the part of the dealership that deals with retail sales.(fleet sales sells each car slightly above whole sale and they make money in volume over per car price. I wanted a brand new Crown Vic but no dealer would sell me one since they were fleet sales.
The GM dealerships will sell you a fleet vehicle(want to buy a Silverado in white that has manual windows? There is no such thing in the retail department but if you go back to fleet sales, they have your truck and at a discount)
Ford had made the decision to kill Taurus in late 2004 or early 2005, if my increasingly-shoddy memory serves me correctly, with 2006 scheduled to be the last model year. Thanks to a bit of controversy and a couple other things, they wound up kicking the final closure down the road a few months. That was long enough that there are 2007 Taurii roaming the roads, only distinguishable from their 2000-vintage brethren by the lack of bar across the grille and lower content than even the rental-spec versions had in the first few years of the fourth generation.
Consider: A 2007 Taurus OPTION was keyless remote entry, an option my friend’s 2007 Taurus does not have.
Mulally came on board in October 2006, right around the time Atlanta Assembly was being shuttered for real. So, while there are 2007 Taurii out there, the line had indeed been canceled, the 2007s were as much an accident as many younger siblings, and Alan Mulally stepped in to unscrew the screw-up just in time to rebadge the stepped-up refresh of the barely selling Five Hundred.
I think the decision to keep the line open was from a large fleet order made from Chick-Fil-A? They(Chick-Fil-A) wanted to keep the Atlanta plant open?
I know that Chick-Fil-A founder Truett Cathy got the last Taurus off the Atlanta line.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/chick-fil-a-founder-takes-last-ford-taurus
That sounds right, actually. I was thinking there was a fleet order, but I wasn’t sure if I was confusing that with the Crown Vic or if I was correct.
So thank you for jarring loose a memory.
The Fusion sells well, so Ford did not “make a grave error” in the mid size market. I think the Taurus name did run aground to mid size buyers, and is better off on the larger car.
The shift made sense, given the Taurus’ trajectory toward the end anyway. While the majority of them were fleet and rental cars, Ford was, in 2003 or 2004, marketing Taurus as a more upscale car. The commercial I remember was with a butler chauffeuring his boss around while the boss’ car was in the shop. The boss remarks on what a great car it is and wonders how the butler managed to get such a great loaner car. Of course, the butler reveals that it’s actually *his* car.
Obviously we all knew better, but the conservative look and some of the things they put into the SEL spec cars showed Ford was trying to push it back upmarket. From there, it makes sense to me that, when Mulally revived the nameplate, they’d take it to the full-sized upmarket car.
My late Mom’s best friend has two Taurii sitting in her driveway right now: a second gen and third gen. If I weren’t 1500 miles away, I’d get a couple shots for the cause.
The outfit I work for has a few of the latest model. Not bad to drive, but bigger overall than I like and I hate the enormous console that seems to take up far more interior space than necessary.
Interesting cars, and worthy of an extended look, but IMO let down (maybe not so much the current generation) by poor materials and build quality. As innovative as the overall design was, there must be some reason Camrys and Accords still sell in droves.
Oh well, let the week of Ford’s Bull commence.
I’m looking forward to this series of articles! I’ve always been a fan of the Taurus, even though I don’t remember that many of them in the hinterlands of Michigan from whence I came. I remember a lot of GM A and J and H cars, a handful of Chrysler Corporation products, square Fords and Tempos, many pickups, but not Taurii. I thought the second-gen were sharp-looking cars. I’ve come to appreciate the third-gen Bubble Taurus, although I thought it was stupid-looking back then.
As for me, I had a 2003 Taurus ex-rent-a-car that had (as I discovered later when I found all sorts of stuff in the car) been previously driven by a pothead. That ended badly, the worst used car I’ve ever purchased, thanks to the aforementioned pothead and his curbstoning buddy. My partner has a 2013 Taurus as his daily driver, and that’s a fantastic car.
I think before we get to the articles on the third-gen Bubble Taurus, everyone should read “Car: A Drama of the American Workplace” by Mary Walton. She was given unprecedented access inside of Ford during the development of the third-gen Taurus. She doesn’t go into a lot of technical detail, so if you’re looking for engineering texts, this isn’t for you. What she does capture in very easy reading is the culture, the politics, the players, and all the non-engineering challenges and facets that make or break a car long before the first one ever rolls off the line.
This is gonna be fun!
The 3rd generation Taurus was “previewed” by several show/concept cars. The concept cars had “non-production” engines and transmissions and the construction and styling were similarly advanced….too advanced? Remember, Ford used a variation of that “catfish” design theme on all it’s Ford sedans, to some degree, during the mid-late 90s. The Escort (IMHO), as well as the Contour, carried off the look quite well. The Taurus? Perhaps a case where what was previewed in the “concept” had grown too stale when finally executed.
The way it reads in “Car” was that the stylists actually got pretty much everything they wanted for Taurus 3. The idea was that they were going to revolutionize the car market with Taurus 3 in the same way they did with Taurus 1, so the stylists fought to keep the concept pretty well intact.
You do raise a question well worth asking, though: How many people saw the 1995 Contour/Mystique or some of the concepts, decided that the bubble look wasn’t for them, and ran to buy 1995 Taurii while they still could? Let’s be clear-Ford did buy some of that share that made the second Taurus the best-seller, but they couldn’t have even done that without genuine demand, especially at the end of the run.
People looked at the Contour’s MSRP and bought a “more buck for the pound” Taurus.
Car is a great book. As you mentioned, not rife with technical details, but an interesting look behind the scenes at the competing priorities and the various ways they cheaped-out on their way to being second or third – best in the market segment.
As I mentioned earlier, I owned a 2004 Taurus sedan for about 8 years. It was adequate and dependable…. also a nice highway car. However, I owned a couple of unexciting yet dependable Gen 3 Camry’s overlapping that timeframe. Side by side, you could see and feel where Toyota made some extra effort toward refinement of a lot of little details.
Thanks xequar, I was trying to remember the name of this book after the one on the original Taurus was mention in the other post.
(Most) everyone loved the 86-95 Taurus/Sable. While the T-Bird/Cougar came first, these cars were the first mainstream new age design that America fell in love with. Then the SHO came out and you think FoMoCo could do no better. If there was ever a car that went from cool to uncool in such a short span, it would be this one. While the 95 models were already 10 model years old, they were still modern looking a crisp. The 96+ models were grotesque ovoids that no one wanted to be seen in and quickly became rental fleet and company car models. It was like night and day. I am hard pressed to think of a car that was once America’s #1 car and then became hated in 2 years.
There are actually two books. The first is by Eric Taub: “Taurus: the Making of the Car that Saved Ford” and Mary Walton: “Car: A Drama of the American Workplace”.
I find both books ought to be read in sequence to better understand what Lew Veraldi was facing and what Dick Landgraff was facing when either one was creating his brain child.
It seems to me Lew Veraldi was genius in many ways. His success made it even tougher for Landgraff. Landgraff overreached stylistically in his quest to match or exceed Veraldi´s achievement.
Veraldi completely changed the way Ford conceived and designed cars by integrating every aspect from day one. He succeeded in making Ford relevant to to the American buyers again after the company (Henry II) lost touch with their customer base. Landgraff´s idea was to repeat this feat some 12 years later, quite possibly so directed by the top brass. I opine that Ford would have done better by updating the Gen 2 design and improving the workmanship with a lot of those dollars that went into the excessive styling that is now derided as fish-faced oval blob. Ford missed the boat right here and Toyota was rowing along and passed them.
I came to this side of the pond in Fall of ´86 and really liked the looks of the Taurus. I thought it was a much more expensive car than it actually was. What a contrast to the hopelessly outdated Crown Victorias found on the same dealer lots. Those CV´s soldiered on based on a reputaion of indistructability. Ford never managed to impart that reputation to the Taurus line. And it has nothing to do with BoF and RWD vs Unibody and FWD. After all Toyota proved otherwise.
Love it or not, the Taurus finally broke the old, stale box-styled regime that had been in place for more than a decade. Much the same way at streamlining breathed new life into car styling in the 1930’s, the aero-styled did in the 1980’s. But, now we’re thirty years into it and its becoming tiresome. Time for another sea change but what?