We’ve had our share of extremely well preserved vehicles destined to be crushed in short order that have had us crying out collectively “Why, oh why?”, but this 1992 Ford Aerostar from the middle of its 12-year run is by far the best condition Aerostar that I have come across anywhere in at least a decade, and likely longer. They aren’t rare (after all, they sold just over 2 million over those 12 model years) and they are still out there and getting junked but most examples look as one would expect them to, unlike this one.
1992 was the year that the Aerostar saw a number of cosmetic upgrades inside and out. 29 years later it appears that this particular one was also fairly lovingly attended to by its owner, and likely garaged as the paint is in generally excellent condition, with a nice shine still present on the Twilight Blue portions of the two-tone paintwork and the Oxford White areas looking quite good as well.
The Aerostar was of course Ford’s first attempt at a minivan, and like GM with its Astro/Safari twins they both went with a RWD setup, convinced that buyers sought towing capability above all else. Chrysler quickly proved that wrong and simply ran away with the sales crown but both the RWD competitors ended up living surprisingly long lives that can’t really be considered failures. However, individual models don’t exist in a vacuum so by dint of comparison these did suffer against the Chrysler products and both makers would eventually try to emulate them with FWDers of their own.
Ford originally started out with a single length and then added this longer version as an option in 1989 comprised of a 14″ longer body but the same 119″ wheelbase. There was no outward announcement of this though, it wasn’t suddenly the XL Aerostar or Grand Aerostar or whatever, just two different lengths of van named the same. The Aerostar also never gained a second sliding door, sticking with the single door on the passenger side it’s entire life. The front makes me think of a modernized ’69-’74 Econoline somehow, albeit with a slightly longer hood.
Starting in 1990 however it did offer a 4WD version, really it’s what’s commonly known as full time all wheel drive now. Even in the brochure they go to pains to not give the impression that it’s a Bronco Van or similar but rather more for on-pavement use and perhaps very light unpaved trail driving and handy in the snow. The system is constantly active with a 2/3rds rear, 1/3rd front split and if it detects that a wheel starts to slip, then that wheel is locked together with the other wheel on the same axle to control it from spinning freely. The system then releases the transfer case differential lock and checks to see if slippage is still occurring, if so it relocks and checks again and so forth. Rear-wheel ABS was part of the package as well.
Getting the AWD option required accepting the 4.0liter V6 producing 160hp, which was apparently plagued with head gasket issues and could well be the reason for the van taking a permanent visit here. The tag on the window auction sticker says that it “runs and drives” but that wouldn’t necessarily preclude that condition.
While it’s handy of Ford to include clearly marked caps for the fluids that need to be checked and/or filled, changing a head gasket in this engine compartment isn’t something I’d want to attempt. I don’t think I’d even attempt to write a check to someone more than once for that job either. One shot, then that’s it, although my ’79 Mazda 626 did go through two head gaskets while we owned it, but that was a relatively simple job to take care of.
Alloy wheels were an option which explains the replacement generic plastic hubcaps on the steelies here, but for 1992 there was a facelift that mainly seemed to affect the front end with a different grille, composite headlights finally replacing the sealed beams, the indicators gaining clear plastic, and the bumpers being redesigned. You’d have to be a bit of an Aerostar fanatic to be aware of this though, as the general look stayed very much the same. (I’m not a fanatic, I googled this).
The Aerostar always appeared a tad narrow relative to its height, the longer body helped a bit in that regard visually, but it does come in handy with the rear hatch that opens nice and high. The rear wiper here is missing but everything else looks basically brand new.
I’m frankly a bit surprised that Ford didn’t try to make a 9-passenger version by moving the rear bench back and fitting another two-seater bench in between, there is certainly the room for it. The cargo space back here instead is quite substantial, adding 14″ to the body helped a lot even with the floor not being as low as it could have been. While a unibody design there are twin integrated frame rails underneath as well to help give it the same 5,000 pound tow rating as the Astro/Safari and significantly more than the Chrysler vans. I do have to say that the view out seems exceptional on these, there is a lot of glass area.
Taking a short walk to the front lets us see the Crystal Blue interior in all of its persuasive splendor. The dash was redesigned as well to incorporate the elliptical theme that was gaining in popularity at Ford, the dash is sort of Mini-Econoline in appearance. I don’t recall the red and blue power window and seat switches, they’re a bit jarring. And there’s a LOT of blue here. The wheel though is nice, while ubiquitous in Ford-world, I find this to be one of their more attractive designs.
While the optional digital dash is in forever-dark mode now, the window sticker indicated that the mileage on the van was a quite low 123,128 miles. The column shifter controlled an overdrive 4-speed automatic (standard with the 4.0l, although a manual was available for other-engined Aerostars, but really only seen in XL trims and cargo versions.
A somewhat better view of the cockpit shows the cupholders and the driver-friendly dashboard that seems to brook no passenger input. HVAC controls are nice and high but you’re digging for the (missing) radio. Cruise control and rear defroster were standard in XLT along with a bunch of other niceties, other trims were the base XL, then an XL Plus and the top dog Eddie Bauer edition.
The keys are in it, but there’s no battery anymore.
The passenger has an even better view out and under their seat is a pull out storage compartment as well.
There’s a bit of a step up, but once there the benches look comfortable enough as long as you don’t anticipate requiring use of a head restraint. At least there are shoulder belts for the outboard seating positions. These benches have quick-release levers and are supposedly easily removable. Having removed bench seats from several other minivans these are probably a backbreaker and toe-snapper as well, I already see lots of heavy metal. There was also a fold-flat bed option that I don’t think this van has but the seat backs do apparently fold forward to load longer items on top of them.
I’d not realized that these wheels were 14″ers, which seems remarkable nowadays for something that tows 5,000 pounds and can hold seven people. Every Aerostar was built in Missouri at St. Louis Assembly in Hazelwood, which opened in 1948 and shut down for good in 2006, it was torn down in 2009.
Usually it’s the red interior vehicles that are the survivors, perhaps now I’ll come across a run of blue ones. Either way, it was a bit of a shame to see one this nice end up here. I’m not even a particular fan of these, but if I had to have one this one would probably fit the bill in all respects including (or especially) the color. Perhaps Ford should come on out and try to get it, it’d make a fitting counterpoint to the Dodge Caravan on display at the Henry Ford Museum (that’s never going to run again either).
Related Reading:
Ford Aerostar – How Hard Can It Be To Make A Minivan, Part II, by JPC
COAL: 1994 Ford Aerostar XLT, By Wolfgang
Ford’s bean-counters sure did some maddening things with steering wheel controls back in the day. Number one was the move of the horn from the hub to the turn signal stalk. They got the message on how much people hated that, but moving the switch from the stalk to two tiny buttons on a couple of the steering wheel spokes isn’t exactly handy, either. It was like, “okay, we’ll move the horn back to the steering wheel, but it will be almost as hard to find when you need it”.
With that said, given what seems to be quite good condition both inside and out, this is another one where you have to wonder what the mechanical malady was that laid it up. Other than the mentioned head gasket problem, could the AWD system have proven wonky enough that fixing it wouldn’t be worth keeping this one going? Old minivans simply don’t get any love.
The horn was mounted on the turn signal stalk in anticipation of federal air bag requirements that ended up being delayed. The bean counters weren’t responsible for that one.
H’mm. Other automakers made preparations for the airbag mandate (even as they fought it by disingenuously claiming impossibility). GM made space for an airbag on the passenger side of the Caprice’s dashboard, for example. Yet only Ford put the horn switch on the turn signal lever. And they did it while using steering wheels that would very easily have accommodated conventional horn switches. And if an airbag mandate had gone into effect, moving the horn switch would’ve been one of the easiest adaptations to make, one way or another. More, building the horn switch into the turn signal switch surely was cheaper than the conventional setup. No slip ring and spring-loaded contact, no separate horn switch, etc.
No, I think Jim got it right: this was some beancounter’s “better idea”.
Ford used the same arrangement on some of its European cars. If there was any “bean counter” influence, it was because Ford wanted to use the same arrangement on cars sold on two different continents, and gain the resulting economies of scale.
There were other European cars (not Fords) that used this arrangement. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, all things “Euro” were the rage for domestic cars. That was undoubtedly another factor.
I’d be surprised if any European Fords used the same combo switch and steering wheel as any US models, and I don’t recall or perceive anything like an industrywide fascination (or rage) with making American cars like European ones in the early ’80s era we’re discussing with the turn signal horn switch on American Fords,
but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If the basic engineering for the arrangement to work had been completed, it made sense to use it. That saves money. All successful automobile companies strive for “economies of scale,” not just those with Ford bean counters.
Whether American customers liked it was another matter. It was a universal complaint among Americans who bought Fords during this era – to the point that Ford abandoned it for a more conventional horn placement.
The American auto industry was very much looking to European cars for inspiration in the 1970s and early 1980s. (Particularly by the early 1980s, when the Brougham Look had just about played itself out.)
The 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon was advertised as the American version of the “Great GT cars” (meaning, European sports sedans). So was the first Pontiac Grand Am, which debuted that same year. The first Cadillac Seville was a direct response to the increasing inroads Mercedes-Benz was making among the American rich, particularly on the coasts.
And remember all of those commercials for the Ford Granada that compared it to a Mercedes? The Ford Fairmont/Mercury Zephyr were dubbed “American Volvos” by the press due to their square-cut, no-nonsense design.
The “aero look” Fords were a direct reaction to the Brougham look (and the parent company’s near-bankruptcy after relying too much on it), and very much viewed as looking to European design for influence.
How well each of those vehicles succeeded in distilling the European essence in a basic American mass-market vehicle is certainly up for debate, but I can show you articles from my collection of American car magazines from that era that made the connection.
And, yes, if a feature as mundane as a horn-mounted turn signal stalk could make a basic Ford sedan seem a little more “European,” that would be one more reason to use it, along with potential cost savings due to greater economies of scale.
My 1986 Hyundai Stellar had the horn switch on the turn signal lever which it inherited from the European Ford Cortina.
My 1974 Cortina had the horn on the stalk – really annoying, but probably saved me from getting ‘the finger’ quite a few times. Even after 20 years it was still instinctive to bash the centre of the wheel in an emergency!
Not to pile on my original post, but another Ford ‘better idea’ was to eliminate the ‘cancel’ feature from their cruise control switches. That meant the only way to cancel a cruise setting without turning it off was to hit the brake pedal. Real convenient, that one was (just like Ford’s moving the horn switch around from the intuitive placement in the middle of the steering wheel) and it hung around for a very long time before Ford finally got around to bringing the cruise control cancel button back.
I had a 1990 Mercury Sable with that same steering wheel. Those 2 horn buttons were TINY — we ended up putting Velcro on them to make them marginally easier to find without looking. Also, I never realized Ford had deleted the cruise control “cancel” function from earlier model years — you’re right that the only way to cancel the cruise was to hit the brake pedal or turn off the master switch, a real annoyance.
Also the photo of the automatic transmission shift lever quadrant reminds me that the Sable didn’t have the “2” position. This was maddening when you wanted engine braking on relatively steep downgrades where 3 was too high and 1 was too low.
I still recall the dumb babble on the subject in the owner’s manual of my folks’ Stinkoln Clown Car: “There is no ‘2’ position because the quadrant has only six positions. Therefore, the second-gear starts described elsewhere in this manual [no they weren’t! ] are not available.” Uh…thanks? Meanwhile, those showoffs over at GM, in a lavishly financed skunkworks R&D program, somehow managed to figure out how to pull off the amazing feat of—wait for it—adding a seventh position (I know, right?) to arrive at P R N 🄳 D 2 1 for the TH700R4 and TH2004R.
My 2CV has the horn as an additional function of the light switch, which is a stalk on the right side of the steering column. I have hit it in error when shifting into reverse.
Regarding the shift quadrant thing. Yes the AOD had the “2” position missing or a 2/1 position in some models so that you couldn’t start in 2nd gear something that Ford had done in the past. However you certainly can use it for compression braking. If you shift to 1 from D it will only down shift to 2nd if the speed is too high for 1st. The trick to manually shift your AOD was to start in 1 shift to D when you want 2nd and then shift back into 1 and leave it there until you want 3rd and then back to D. Clunky and a pain to do for sure but still useful when pulling a heavy load on a steep grade.
Yes GM spent the money for the extra position for “2” but it should be labeled 1-2 since in that position the 700R4 still started in 1st gear and the transmission still controls the 1-2 shift point.
Meanwhile when the AOD got its -E and a switch for OD the D 2 1 and 2nd gear starts returned.
As I recall, the horn on the signal stalk was a nod to European influence. I worked for an auto rental company in the ’80s, a big outfit that went belly-up due to a number of factors, one being the owner’s nose candy habit and mismanagement. Specialized in the insurance replacement market, with free pickup and delivery of the car. Something of an Enterprise before Enterprise, there were over 500 offices all over the country. The fleet was all Mercury products, (Lynx, Zephyr/4dr Cougar, Marquis, and 2dr Cougar). The Zephyrs had the signal stalk horn, it was touted as useable without taking your hand off of the wheel. With enough seat time, you’d get used to it, and could understand the rationale behind it. As the Zephyrs cycled out of the fleet, the feature disappeared, and you’d have to retrain your reflexes to use the horn on the steering wheel.
Strange I drive a 03 C5 Citroen the airbag and horn are in the steering wheel centre not hard to accomodate both apparently but I do like the rimblow setup in my Superminx no airbags in that though.
I love the horn on the stalk. When you are doing an emergency maneuver you want you hands on the wheel not in the center of the wheel. But people are used to it in the middle and therefore automatically think the center is better.
A friend of mine had a 90-91 Aerostar with the 4 liter and awd. Sharp car, and strong.
Once we towed a trailer loaded with a 78 Mark V. That combo must have been close to 4000 kg. behind the car. Max speed was around 40mph or else the car would start dancing. Up the last kilometers, a steep grade, the trans.fluid cooked out of the filler tube.
The next morning we put in 2 liters of tran.fluid, and everything was ok.
I remember he had to change the headgasket once or twice, and eventually it rusted to pieces. Comfortable though.
14 inch wheels on a van that could carry seven people and tow a ski boat? People seemed to dismiss it as a fluke that Ford saved a few bucks on the immensely profitable Explorer with marginal tires, but obviously Ford was always willing to check the actuarial tables before deciding if their buyers’ families lives mattered.
This 4WD Aerostar had an estimated curb weight of 3,920 pounds. It had seven seat belts, and it could tow like a light duty pickup trunk. I recently bought tires for a 3,600 pound Honda CRV with five seatbelts and a towing rating like that reveals its secret inner Civic wagon. The standard tires on the CRV have a load index of 102, while the load index of the standard tires on the Aerostar is 96. That’s a modern mid-sized sedan number, but Ford was encouraging people to put a 40% greater load on their bargain tires before you consider their 5,000 pound tow rating. Maybe if they’d sold better, there would have been news stories about Aerostar tires.
My otherwise fairly nicely equipped ‘86 Ranger, 4WD V6 SuperCab came with 195/75-15 tires. I destroyed one in less than 20K miles … it just came apart, no impact or anything. Fortunately on the rear and controllable. At least it had a full-sized spare.
Another Ford factor was that even when the tires were properly-sized, they were beating up their suppliers to the point that their OEM tires weren’t as sturdy as the same tires being sold retail. I don’t like it when manufacturers sell cars with ‘XL’ extra-load tires required, because the extra-load tires in passenger sizes will often be replaced with normal load tires of the same size. It is better for them to go up a size or only use an XL tire for properties other than load. Ford went much further though, by convincing Firestone to make a tire that looked like one of their popular tires while essentially being a cheap knock-off.
These weren’t exactly rare when new. If there had been widespread problems with under-sized tires, I believe we would have heard about it.
Look how long it took for the Explorer stories to penetrate the friendly relationship between media corporations and…other huge global corporations. Many other countries had already taken action against the Ford Explorer’s over-loaded tires before anyone in the US even covered the story.
Again, we would have heard about it by now. If there had been a widespread issue, there would have been a class action suit. While there have been civil cases involving the Aerostar (and virtually every other vehicle on the market), I couldn’t find a class action suit focusing on Aerostar tires.
Trial attorneys don’t sit around waiting for the media to cover stories before filing suits. I have received a notification of a class action suit involving an issue with 2016-17 Honda Civics, and the issue has not been covered extensively by the media.
The Explorer allegations didn’t first surface in the U.S. because they had been happening in countries where driving conditions apparently led to more tire issues (if I recall correctly, the issue surfaced more often in hotter climates), not because the media is out to protect Ford or any other corporation.
The reason your Civic has such an overkill on the load index is because they want the size of that tire, not because it in any way needs it.
A tire with a load index of 96 is good for 1565 per for a combined rating of 6260 or almost 1000lbs more than the GVW of the vehicle.
The problem with the Explorer was the same as your fancy Civic in that they were way overrated for the application. That meant that a low pressure was needed to meet the intended load. Where that fell apart was that it put it close to the minimum pressure. The bigger problem by far was the tires and it wasn’t due to Ford beating up suppliers, it was Firestone and their poor relations with their employees in one particular plant. Goodyear tires didn’t fail and Firestone tires from the other plants did not fail at near the rates of the problematic plant.
The standard size on the Explorers in question was 105 or 2039lbs per tire. With a max GVWR of under 6,000 lbs the tires were far from their limits.
You mentioned the pull out storage compartments under the passenger seat. I loved those in my Caravans, and I was quite surprised when my Escape did not come with one. Have those basically vanished from autodom now?
With how commonplace power seats are now, that’s probably what’s happened.
Our base model VW Golf has an under seat pull out tray. Very useful.
I’m impressed, it even has rocker panels. I know one guy who got his rockers replaced twice under warranty, they were practically made of paper mache.
Also impressed that it’s an AWD version, I started a CC article on my work adventures with an AWD Aerostar but I’ve never been able to find one to photograph, or locate any information on the AWD system..
I had a short ’93 that was blue & silver. After 15 years & 300k the interior & the top 2/3 still looked as good as this example. The bottom third was swiss cheese and bad body work like every other one you’ve seen this decade.
My first guess would be the transmission went, as that is the other real weakness on these. On the other hand my friend the Ford tech said to stick with 2wd and the 3.0, so this one certainly has other potential problem areas.
Some other spotting features:
The first year or two had a square has door instead of round.
Starting in ’93 there is a 3rd brake light above the rear window.
’97 (the last year) has all red tailights without the amber turn signal.
Another terrific find. Those power window and seat switches really do seem incongruous, don’t they? I thought they must be some aftermarket add-on at first, but apparently they’re factory-issue. As you said, an odd choice in an otherwise pretty nice interior.
Ford did the orange/blue as well as using raised bumps and detents on the buttons to make them easier to differentiate, they said. I think the F 150s were the first to do it as i remember thinking it was odd back then when my uncle got a new Lariat that had them.
Gotta love the “light truck” exemption for headrests. “It’s a cargo vehicle, it’s not made for hauling passengers; ergo, we don’t need headrests, even if we have passenger seats!”
Quite a cream puff. There’s still some plying the streets here. In fact the survival rate of Aerostars and Astros seems higher than early Chrysler minivans.
As to putting in another row of seats, the camera is giving a misleading impression of how much room is behind the rear-most seat. Take a look at your picture of the back two seats shot from the side door; there’s no room for an additional row.
The short Aerostar had a very modest luggage area back there; the longer one rectified that.
The other issue is that the additional weight of 2-3 more adults would have undoubtedly created safety/certification issues. As another commenter pointed out, its 14″ tires were already very marginal.
I wouldn’t be surprised if more Astros and Aerostars survived than the Chryslers of the same age. Chrysler never had much luck selling the cargo version while Chevy moved a lot of the cargo version and so did Ford though not as successfully. Even the passenger versions often get used by tradespeople who yank out the seats.
That means they fall into the trap of the tradesman who can’t afford to be w/o it but also can’t afford to replace it. So they keep throwing money at it to keep it on the road.
That B4 axel code is an 8.8” – 3.73 :1 ratio with traction lock diff. The most sought after item I’d the after market world. Typically with disc brakes though I didn’t check this one. Probably doesn’t hold much value to most of us in the cc crowd lol
I’m not a particular fan of those vehicles, but it saddened me to see such a good looking specimen awaiting a gruesome fate in the junkyard.
Perhaps the head gasket and/or transmission put it there. The Wikipedia entry for these claims that the AWD system in that vehicle was used from 1990 to 1997, so they should have had time to work that out; perhaps it had some troubles.
It seems to me that somebody could have bought that from the last owner for the price offered by the salvage yard, replaced the head gaskets or swapped out the transmission, and kept it in service for a few more years.
Well according to Jim it has a sticker from an auction that says it runs and drives. So my bet is that it was a trade in that was sent to the auction and none of the used car dealers bid on it, or at least they didn’t bit as high as the Junkyard.
The meaning of the term “runs and drives” is of course open to interpretation, and may not rule out a slightly leaky head gasket or a transmission that slips a little. The trade-in idea makes sense, and it is understandable that a used car dealer would not want to gamble on a vehicle that age with that kind of potential baggage. I was thinking more of a Craigslist buyer, but the owner might have gotten a better price from a dealer eager to move a new vehicle.
My current perception of surviving Aerostars is as vehicles for home-improvement contractors who take out the seats and use them as work vans. Those with larger vehicle budgets use the Transit Connects.
An Aerostar with an intact body is museum material in the north. Well, if people went to the kinds of museums that would feature an Aerostar, that is.
I had forgotten about the all wheel drive option on these.
My father favoured these as a work vehicle, and I got to drive them extensively on logging roads with nary a problem. My favourite was an extended length four wheel drive variant in an attractive dark metallic green. Felt very balanced when driven fast on gravel roads; made my quickest times out and back driving it. I always removed one or two bench seats for the trip (depending on number of passengers) and yes they were very heavy.
Interesting example – I suspect you’re right about some unexplained major mechanical failure.
That blue over white doesn’t really work for me, and the junction between the blue and white ahead of the screen is truly awkward.
I agree that the blue-over-white seems a bit awkward here. At first, I assumed it was some sort of special edition, like the somewhat perplexing Mercury Villager Nautica Edition (below)… but no, I guess it was just a regular two-tone paint job!
The trick to engine repairs on these, unbolt the Engine Cradle and lift the Body. Roll out the Cradle and work on it. IIRC there are 4 Large Bolts holding it in. Disconnect electrical and fuel lines and there you are.
Except for the dashboard, the interior is EXACTLY the same as the one in my ’96. Now having an ’05 Astro, I can say for a fact you had more room behind the 3rd row in the Aerostar when both were the extended versions. You COULD make an 8-seat Aerostar by replacing the 2-seat bench with a 3-seater from a wrecked model–the mounts are the same–but 3rd-row access would be much harder. Mine had the 4.0 but never any head gasket issues that I can recall. It must have been one of the luckier ones until the trans called it quits.
I might be in the minority here as I actually LIKED the horn button layout on the steering wheel used at the time–you didn’t have to use your WHOLE hand to sound the horn! I remember the storage bin under the front passenger seat as well, in addition to the the rear-seat radio controls & headphone jacks–pretty nifty!
The lack of head restraints on any of the back seats (except 2nd-row captain’s chairs) never bothered me although they certainly would have made the riding experience a little safer. GM wised up & added them to the Astro/Safari in 1996, but oddly never put them (and STILL hasn’t!) in the full-size Express.
IMHO, all the money Ford spent on making the Windstar could have been used to improve the Aerostar, even to the point of a new generation for ’98 to address the passenger-airbag requirement. Styling-wise, a potential equivalent came in the form of the not-for-US Toyota Granvia (article link below), but with the Explorer selling like hotcakes by this time would it have really made any difference? It DOES make you wonder…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/curbside-outtake-1995-2002-toyota-granvia-ditching-the-dog-house/
For me, and maybe I’m no majority, maybe I am, but I really enjoyed this era of Fords. Late 1980’s up until the end of the 1995 Taurus/Sable was something of a golden era for Ford. They had appealing designs and features, and a very through and expansive selection of colors inside and out. There was an optimism that came through in the designs and I think overall it was also a time when they had their most cohesive and competitive lineups in all segments because they had not yet started phoning it in with the sedans. When I look at this very clean Aerostar, all of those feelings kinda come back and I feel like a kid again at the 1992 or 93 Auto show. To be honest as the years have gone by, Ford has lost me with their designs, and the vehicles they focus the most on producing appeal very little to me. My grandparents currently have a 2014 Edge. It’s a nice car don’t get me wrong, but probably not one I would go for myself. I have had trouble being as enthusiastic about them as I was back then in the early 90’s.
I will also say that this steering wheel design was one of my favs over the years from them. Had it in my 1992 Taurus GL, a 1993 Econoline van, and a few trucks also. Nice clean design with easy to use CC buttons. The horn button was a nice feature IMO as well. I liked it.
Really a shame to see this going to the crusher. If I had more of a driveway I’d almost want to adopt it.
Frankly, I will add, that as much effort that went into the 1996 Taurus, it still signified the end of an era for Ford when it was released and was somewhat dead on arrival. After that all of the cost cutting began and the rest is history.
…..Early 90’s Ford really had it going on. They actually competed well with Japan at that time IMO and ate GM’s lunch with the Taurus. Their future seemed extremely bright at the time. in 1992 or ’93 most people would have laughed if you said that Ford would not be making sedans in the future.
Crazy how long ago that is but how it also feels like just yesterday too.