By 1996 we had owned our “cursed” 1994 Honda Civic for just over two years. We were starting to get family from Ohio more interested in visiting Maryland as we lived relatively close to Washington, DC. Since we were new homeowners, we also had the extra space to host visitors when they arrived. We needed a car that was roomier than either the Civic or the Integra, and I was ready for something more “grown-up” and not as unlucky. I didn’t really succeed on the last requirement, as we’ll see.
I had been a big fan of the Ford Taurus throughout its lifetime to that point, starting with the first one I saw in our neighborhood (a neighbor got one as a company car just after they were introduced in 1986). I considered one when I was looking at the Thunderbird SC, in fact. The first-generation car was revolutionary, I thought, and made every other midsize sedan look outdated by comparison. By 1995, however, others had caught up with the Taurus and had sedans that were equally aerodynamic and attractive (the first cab-forward Chrysler LH sedans come to mind, but even the 1994-1999 Accords and 1992-1996 Camrys were in that category). I wasn’t the only one to notice that – Ford saw it too, and there have been many discussions/arguments since then about the wisdom of their reaction to return to the leadership position in the market.
Much has been written already about the “ovoid” 1996-1999 Taurus, including a rather entertaining book about the development of the car written not long after its release (I have a copy but the name escapes me at the moment). For our purposes here it is only necessary to note that the oval styling (both outside and inside) was quite controversial. The oval headlights, rear window, and radio/HVAC controls were fresh and new to some, ugly to others. The brochure made a big deal, as I recall, about the fold-out console/cupholders that doubled as a center seat for a sixth passenger when folded down.
Because it was different and didn’t really look like anything else on the road, I thought it was perfect for our next car – practical but not the same old beige sedan. As an owner of Hondas for a number of years, I was a bit nervous about committing my funds to something other than Honda. To try it out for longer than an around-the-block test drive I rented one for a trip and spent nearly a week with it. I was favorably impressed with how the car drove, how it was put together, and most of all how it looked. Thus, I decided on the car fairly quickly as a replacement for the Civic. I don’t recall what other cars, if any, I considered once I tried the Taurus.
Because the Taurus was fairly expensive for the time (and for our bank account that was still recovering from a home purchase and associated repairs on our older home), I had to pick the least expensive model without options, the GL. I wasn’t able to purchase the option package that included aluminum wheels, power seats, and a couple other amenities that most of the Taurus GLs came with at the time, but the car was reasonably well-equipped even in its base form. The issue of cost for the ’96 Taurus was challenging – these cars were a bit more expensive than the second-generation cars that preceded them, so Ford had to address this by introducing a decontented Taurus later on (the Taurus G – “we take off the ‘L’ and pass the savings on to you!”)
Based on my previous several experiences with purchasing new cars and feeling like I’d been taken for a ride, I decided to try a different approach and use a buying service to level the playing field a bit. Both our bank and AAA had such services that offered discounts and easy purchasing processes, but AAA also offered the ability to lease a vehicle. I don’t recall much about the process other than calling up the service through a phone number in the back of the AAA magazine and having to pick up the car at the AAA service’s location in an office park rather than a dealer. In this case, non-memorable means I didn’t have any problems with the service. Problems with the car, however – that will take up the remainder of this story.
The problems began even before I took delivery of the car. The vehicle they picked out of inventory for me based on my color and equipment choices had some pretty major paint damage to the rear bumper and the front brake rotors were warped pretty severely (even though the car was brand new). The AAA buying service was getting the car through the fleet department of a local dealer, and that dealer was very accommodating in having the rear bumper repainted and the front rotors turned not long after I leased the car. Once that was done, I bought the front end mask that was now a “must have” for me, and had a low-end CD changer with FM adapter installed, and I figured I was set. The unlucky Civic was gone and I should be home free for the next 36 months. Or so I thought…
First, the easy problems – the inexpensive CD changer I bought from a big-box electronics retailer was very unreliable, and I spent quite a bit of time in the trunk removing jammed CDs from the mechanism. (In this age where I have ten times as many albums on the smartphone in my hand that can be played wirelessly through Bluetooth, this seems quaint and antiquated!) Several complaints to the big-box retailer to return the low-end changer and a few extra dollars for a higher-quality Sony CD changer solved that problem. I had problems with the front end mask, too. The design of the car had a small oval grille between the headlights, and the matching oval in the mask had several elastic bands crossing the hole to keep the fabric from ballooning in the airstream when the car was moving. However, the bands were sewn on the back of the mask and rubbed against the paint leaving some pretty noticeable marks (somewhat defeating the purpose of the protective mask). I had to sew on some additional foam around the elastic bands to solve the problem.
The bigger problem was the transmission. This car had the GL’s 2-valve 3 liter V-6 with a four-speed automatic (column shifted, amusingly enough). The car I bought had an odd characteristic that I hadn’t experienced in the rental Taurus – the transmission would make a rather dramatic clunk as the car was slowed to a stop as if something was unlocking or locking as the car speed dropped to about 5-10 mph. Since the other rental Taurus I had driven didn’t exhibit this trait, I figured that there was something wrong with my car. Several trips to the dealer, including at least one long-duration trip where the transmission was removed from the vehicle, couldn’t eradicate the problem. The clunking was severe enough that it would shake the whole car and would do it at every stop sign, stop light, or stop in traffic (which around here meant it did the clunking A LOT). The transmission was generally ill-behaved: I had an experience where the transmission aggressively downshifted in my driveway at fairly low speeds and did so hard enough to chirp the tires as I pulled into the garage.
Needless to say, after several months, multiple trips to the dealer, and several weeks without a car made me increasingly frustrated. The dealer was very helpful, though, and assisted me with trying to get the problem resolved by working through Ford’s dispute settlement process. After the first (or maybe second) time the transmission was out of the car, I wrote a nicely-worded letter to the board asking for assistance in getting this problem resolved. Within a few weeks of that letter, I received a letter in return asking me to attend a meeting of the board and review the issues I had with the car. Of course, this meant taking more time away from work, but I felt it was worth it. I was a bit surprised, though, when I arrived at the board meeting and was asked to sit at the end of a very long conference table lined on both sides with dozens of people in suits and explain the problems I had with the car (I didn’t expect to have to make a presentation, so I was a bit unprepared). I stated my case, explained the problems and the well-documented steps taken to fix the problems, and thanked the board for their time. Then, I waited.
I didn’t have to wait long. A few weeks after that meeting I received a call from the dealership indicating that the board agreed to what they called a courtesy buy back of my Taurus, which I had only owned for about six months and driven only 7500 miles (with a lot of those just between home and the dealership). Success! I was overjoyed – I was able to go back to the dealer and pick out any other vehicle in their lot that was the same price (or close to the same price) as the Taurus. As the Taurus had been fairly expensive, that meant I had lots of options available (and it certainly wasn’t going to be a Taurus, that was for sure). I picked something that was pretty nice but, in hindsight, was probably not the most interesting car I could have chosen. That will be the subject of a COAL in a couple of weeks.
I still have all the repair documentation and dispute settlement board correspondence in my files somewhere. I ran across it recently while reorganizing after our latest move and was amused by all the work that went into getting that problem resolved. Things did turn out well, though – for the most part!
The rear bumper damage, flaky trans and especially the warped rotors suggest this car had a very hard life before you got it. Maybe it was used as a rent-a-racer. Good that you were able to make things right though.
Maybe it was taken for a joyride by the stealership prep people. How many miles were on it when you picked it up?
Maybe a dealership loaner or, worse, something they used to transport people or parts.
I don’t remember how many miles were on the car, but it wasn’t that many. It was coming out of the inventory earmarked for fleets (I know that because it came with daytime running lights which only were available in the U.S. for fleet vehicles at that point). As Ferris Bueller well knows, it only takes a few miles of hammering to do some real damage!
Uh oh…bracing for Taurus pile on.
I’ll repeat that we enjoyed a 96 Ghia for the time we owned it. Great car on trips, liked the polarising looks – Taurus from the A pillars back with the Sable front clip – apparently the guards were unique to comply with some ADR. Loved the interior. Dealers hated them, service was a drama parts were scarce.
Left us shortly after an alternator bearing seized and an incredible fix cost about equal to its market value. A sighting is a rare event these days.
Ford responded the way they did because they triggered what we know as the Lemon Law. It varies from state to state, but essentially after so many attempts (typically 3) to resolve an issue covered under warranty, and so many days the vehicle is inoperable/under repair (again this varies, but 30 is common), they have to buy the car back. Ford was acting solely to avoid mitigation; the Lemon Law allows you to recoup additional expenses caused by the faulty product such as lost wages, rental costs, etc. when one chooses to pursue the case thru the court system. I am glad it worked out for you in the long run, regardless.
Yep, I was certainly studying up on lemon laws while I was waiting for the car to be repaired. They certainly weren’t replacing the car out of the goodness of their hearts, to be sure. I’ve thought about using a VIN lookup service like AutoCheck to see where that car ended up (as I have the VIN on some of the old paperwork). I probably don’t want to know…
I had a new Honda Prelude that was hit by one of these Taurus’s. The driver was 89 years old with diplomatic immunity from Eastern Europe. But that is another story. The car was totaled and nothing remained behind the front seats. But someone bought two other salvaged Preludes and put them all together into one car. I checked the CarFax and and the car was sold 9 times in 7 years. Then the salvage title was scrubbed and it showed up with a regular title. It was scary that that can happen. I lost track of the car after that. The CarFax or AutoCheck is mandatory when buying any used car. You never know where it came from.
I have used Carfax, and found it more or less worthless. I have seen cars I KNOW were wrecked (and one that was flooded), with clean Carfax reports.
The Taurus was introduced into the Australian market to the bewilderment of everyone. Its fair to say we were a couple of years behind in terms of styling and the latest trends but there was no mistaking the Taurus for its bottom feeder appearance, dismal build quality and laughable dynamics. For some weird reason it was pitched against the Falcon which was absurd considering the Falcon was a much better car in every single aspect. The only difference was the Taurus marketed as a higher quality car which fooled absolutely no one.
There is one in my home town with a President Ford dealership sticker on the back window which seems appropriate.
Well, it took a week, but this must be the CC effect, last weekend I drove my 90 year old mother to a party, one of her friends was also turning 90. when we turned into the street and found the house, there parked in the driveway was a Taurus looking the same as the one in the lead photo. It looked reasonably well loved but also well used, you could see that it had done a lot of miles on unsealed roads, was fitted with a tow bar, it gave the impression that it had given loyal service over the years, I would have loved to have got the story on this car, there couldn’t have been that many of these sold in Australia.
I had a series of Ford Taurus company cars including a used 1988 gen 1, a new 1992 gen 2 and one of these, a new 1996 flounder faced gen 3.
The 1988 was quite beat up when I got it, but new tires and brakes (company paid) and a wax job (by me) made it a solid runner. Carrying me and three DEC sales people from Manhattan to Boston in a blizzard stands out in my mind. The plowed streets in MA had snow ridges level with the Ford’s roof. It went where I pointed it; we didn’t need no-stinkin 4 wheel drive.
The 1992 was better looking in my eyes but had the worse seats I have ever experienced. Two hours in it aggravated my back to the point I dreaded taking long business trips in it.
The 96 was heaven (to me). Comfortable seats, well put together, reliable, and, oh yes, overly oval and homely as hell. I found the unique folding center console handy for the few times I needed six seats. Your lead photo shows what looks like a big oval rear window. But when cleaning the inside of that rear window, the actual viewing area of clear glass was really not that large. At least that is how I recall.
It is always neat to read a COAL of a car that I actually drove daily. I’m sorry yours was problematic. Ford’s FWD transmissions were hit and miss in those days as I found out in my personal 1990 Sable wagon.
I still see these gen 3 Tauruses on the road here in northern NJ and none of them have any visible rust. Go figure.
How I hated my1993 Mercury Sable wagon with manual seats. As you described, they caused nearly unbearable discomfort on drives over 30 minutes or so. Our first gen Taurus wagon with power seats was very comfortable and a sweet driving car.
The transmission problem is similar to one I had with a company owned ’95 Taurus I was assigned. After the second or third flare-up (well out of warranty as I got it with 90,000 miles), it was sold.
I was later assigned a ’97 Taurus and later a ’99 Taurus. I put 50,000 miles on the ’97 with the only issue being the brake rotors. From what I heard at the time, there wasn’t enough material there to effectively have them turned so the practice was to recycle and replace.
The ’99 was the barest bones Taurus of that era I’ve ever seen. It had 40,000 miles when I got it and I put another 40,000 on it in short order. The only issue it had was one day I had three people in the car and slowed to turn onto another road. Going up a mild hill, it needed to downshift but was being stubborn. Gently sticking my foot into the throttle gave me a loud “POW” and it still didn’t downshift. Such a thing never happened again.
I’ve only put around 90,000 to 100,000 miles on these – that’s not much exposure, is it? 🙂 I’ve been around oodles of them and they all gave good service. They weren’t the tire eaters the later Impalas were (I’m talking fleet service in all instances) and they were profoundly comfortable. Plus the angled console / drink holder was a nice idea and it wasn’t invasive the way current ones are.
I did purchase an ’01 based upon my terrific prior experiences with various Taurii. Well, that’s just a different story.
The book about the development of this generation of Taurus was titled “Car”. Author is Mary Walton. I bought it at a used book store in Denver and enjoyed it very much. It was a professional job by people who know the industry. Recommended!
Ford bought back my ’92 Taurus wagon under this process. They treated me fairly and promptly and I was satisfied. I continue to buy (only) Fords as new cars (though for used cars I stray to Mercedes).
Yep, that was the book. It was interesting to see how the Ford designers chose where to make cost-cutting compromises relative to where their competitors did. I think I still have my copy someplace – should get it out and reread it.
The first generation of the Taurus thrilled me. I felt that Ford had engineered the car; the second generation pleased me. I believed that Ford had refined the car, and improved on weak areas. The third generation saddened me. I thought that Ford had merely styled the car, and not very successfully at that. While it was still objectively a good car, the emphasis on ovaling everything suggested that the reign of the engineers was over and that stylists were back in charge.
“Let’s design a car that features ovals.” What a dumb idea! We had a 97 Taurus GL. It was a good car. It was ugly but it never let us down.
Besides the fish-face front (and rear), that dedicated radio/HVAC oval control panel was really a hare-brained idea. In addition to looking goofy, it precluded being able to install pretty much any kind of aftermarket stereo, which could have been a big deal since I think this about the time of the advent of in-dash CD players/radios.
A customer had a fleet of white taurus sedan/wagons, we always called them the Beluga’s, but Beluga whales may object.
I rem. hearing several years ago that the early 6 cyl. Taurus had a problem with head bolts ?
Don’t recall why or what ?
That was the early Taurus/Sables with the 3.8 engine option….that was not a long-lived engine, whereas the Vulcan 3.0 was bullet-proof.
I put 336,000 on one with zero engine trouble.
The 3.8 V6 did have serious head gasket issues, but wow, that was one fast car off the line. I rented a few of these and was surprised at how quick it was, or at least – felt.
I recall renting one in Manhattan back in the day to visit my parents on Long Island who were up from Florida for a family visit. I asked my father to drive the 3.8 Taurus and said ” … level out the steering after this turn, stop completely, and then nail it .”
“Holy cow” he said. Well, he was daily driving my 1982 5 speed Honda in those days, so the Essex V6 was a torque monster in comparison.
The 3.0 Vulcan developed 140 horsepower at 4,800 rpm and 160 lb. ft. of torque at 3,000 rpm.
The 3.8 L Essex V6 also had 140 hp, but had 215 lb·ft torque. I can’t find the rpm level for the 3.8’s above numbers, but that 215 number must have come in at a pretty low level.
This lends credence to the old saw that Americans talk horsepower, but drive torque.
I had a lot of issues with our 1990 3.0 Sable wagon, but no issues at all with the motor.
I will vouch for the torque of the 3.8. That thing felt like there was a V-8 under the hood. Unfortunately, the head gasket problem surfaced, and we said good-bye to our big, smooth, comfortable, spacious ’93 Sable.
Never had a bit of trouble with the transmission. As for the A/C, well, it seemed to be designed with a self-destructing compressor. We went through three of them. Power window switches got cranky as the car aged.
Unfortunately, by 1996, the Vulcan engine was, while reliable, quite outclassed in what was becoming a fairly heavy car. (Even the fleet-special Intrepids got the 160hp 3.3 minivan engine.) The Duratec was no rocketship, but the Vulcan in a post-1995 Taurus was on the underpowered side. The fact it sounded agricultural when pushed didn’t help. Adding to that: the Duratec didn’t use any more gas. (Though I must note, my mother’s DOHC Sable did not use any LESS gas than my LT1 Caprice.)
After many Honda’s, I purchased a 2002 Ford Escape in preparation for a job relocation from Boston to Denver. I was promptly laid off but that is another story. The Escape was brand new and had only 7 miles on it. At 1,000 miles, the steering rack gave out and I could not take right turns. Off to the dealer. At 5,000 miles, it went out again. It failed a third time before it even reached the end of the warrany period of 36,000. It failed for the fourth time at 37,000. Ford generously offered to pay 50% of the repair, which was a considerable cost. Also during this time, the following items failed: wheel bearings, tie rods, ball joints and every other suspension piece you can imagine. This car never even went off road. I lived by the water and the brakes would “freeze” in cold weather. I had to warm the car up for at least 20 minutes in cold damp weather or the brake pedal was literally frozen and was unable to move. By this time, the engine and transmission decide at they didn’t want to work together. The transmission sounded like it was filled with marbles. The transmission problems mentioned on this Taurus sound very familiar to me. Ironically, I was driving a lot for my new job and I put 37,000 miles on it in just about 2 years. It would have been more except it spent a lot of time at the dealer. I got so annoyed, I took everything out of my car and drove to the Ford Dealer in the middle of the night. They had two large doors on the showroom that opened OUT. I parked the Escape in front of those doors, pinning them closed. The only way to move the car was was to drive it RIGHT. Of course it would not turn right due to the steering rack. I watched as they got a tow truck and dragged that car sideways to get it out of there. I was given an ovoid Taurus wagon for a while. I had saved the receipts and calculated that warranty repairs on this car added up to $18,000 over two years. I had paid $25,000 for the car. I rejected Fords offer to pay 50% of the 4th steering rack. I filed a dispute with the Ford Zone office and after much complaining, they agreed to pay for the rack, but they stated that no more warranty work would be performed on this car as it had reached beyond 36,000. I had no faith at all that this car would not continue to cost me monumental amounts of money. The value of the car was dropping more than the monthly payment each month. The day I picked up the Escape after that installation of the 4th steering rack, I drove immediately to my old Honda Dealer and begged them to take me back. I needed a hatchback and the Escape was too big anyway. I bought a 2004 Honda Civic SI Hatchback. They paid off my Ford car loan and I had zero equity to apply to the Civic. But I drove off Happy and got 200K miles out of that Civic. I sold it to my nephew only because I fell in love with my current 2010 Honda Civic SI coupe, in orange. At 160,000 miles, it is still going great. That Escape was by far the worst vehicle I ever owned (and my first car was a Pinto). I will never even consider buying a Ford product again.
Yes, the old good Ford/bad Ford thing. My 94 Club Wagon did better than your Escape did, but in the first 80K miles I still needed two complete sets of ball joints, a steering gear (Ford paid for part of that one though beyond warranty) a radiator and a torque converter. The next 80k miles were pretty trouble free until the a/c compressor went “bang” at about 160K. I loved the truck but I had a lot go wrong with it for what was supposed to be one of Ford’s better products.
In contrast the 93 Crown Vic bought by my Mom needed 1 power lock actuator replaced and an autolamp switch in 12 years. The old R-12 a/c system was still blowing cold when I sold the car for $500 about 3 years ago.
I bought the Escape at the recommendation of my then boss. His wife drove one and they pulled a small boat with it. They got well over 300K trouble free miles out of it. My company at the time had Ford Explorers and Chevy Trailblazers as company vehicles. The Chevy’s were consistently mediocre. The Fords were either perfect, or horrible. I always wondered if it was based on the manufacturing plant that made the car more than the design. How can the quality vary so widely.
Had there been a fire at that store and someone was working that night you may have been charged with manslaughter . Never a good idea to block a door .the car was a lemon ,not worth going to jail over
There were multiple doors.
My 2004 Taurus had to have a new transmission too. Probably every Taurus on the road either has a new trans or will be needing one. Not a good thing for Ford since they sold so many of these.
Good thing I got out of my 2007 Five Hundred (the rebadged Taurus) at 96,000 miles then, because I sure as hell couldn’t have afforded to fix that. And CR was all over itself recommending it as a used car that year. I spent about $1,400 on it over the 8 months I owned it, which was either paying a $100 deductible for something to be fixed under Ford’s ‘extended warranty’ or fixing stuff myself they wouldn’t cover.
Screw Ford, and screw Consumer Reports
I remember my step father looking at the Five Hundred when they first came out in 2006. He looked at the Fusion as well. They both had the same engine, but the Five Hundred was significantly heavier. It was a slug. Typical Ford. Release a car without the right engine. They then developed the 3.5 liter engine but it was too late. The Five Hundred had a bad reputation and low sales by then. So they reskinned the car and called it a Taurus. “Let’s treat these consumers like idiots and change the name and maybe they won’t notice that we are selling them the same piece of crap”. My step father bought the Fusion and got many good years out of it. That seems to be a car that they got mostly right.
Not all of them needed a new transmission but their owners were told that they needed one by a transmission shop and junked the car. A lot of the ones with so called transmission issues just needed a Vehicle Speed Sensor(VSS) which ford called it OSS. A band OSS/VSS sensor would cause the transmission to ether have a very hard shift going from 1st to 2nd or cause it to seem like it was slipping. This is because the computer does not know which gear the thing is in due to a wonky sensor. This would have been a hard thing to diagnose just with a quick look because 9 times out of 10 the speedo still worked fine but by doing a couple quick tests, it would easily be found. This is a $50 part that is located on the top of the transmission that takes about 15 mins to replace.
My folks have a 2003 Sable that was doing this and they were ready to junk it for a new car, but I fixed it with this part and it has been running perfectly for the last 6 years.
Since this time, i have replaced them on 6 Taurus and Sables for friends and all were fixed by this replacement part.
While a thoroughly mediocre car, my mother’s Sable was quite reliable. It had two notable repairs in 105,000 miles: AC compressor under warranty (about 30k), and, just before she traded it, one of the rear windows mysteriously stopped working. (Fortunately, completely closed.)
I disliked the car-very thin on headroom, especially with a sunroof, it also had several jarring design gaffes, and was basically a rental-grade car, but it was quite relible and quiet.
I have been fortunate in that none of my new cars (all 3 of them) or late model used ones have suffered from major system failures. I have dealt with some major annoyances, but nothing unfixable. That must be maddening when it happens after spending so much money on a car you really like.
Ford kind of amazes me in that it has built some of the best and some of the worst cars in recent memory, and all at the same time. And for some reason, the worst ones have tended to be some of the most popular, at least for awhile (thinking of the Windstar) while the best have had limited retail markets (Panther).
What’s with the combination radio and climate control?? That’s got to be expensive as hell to replace and totally needless. Why not make the radio DIN compatible and the climate control a separate system? If I’d been shopping and saw that, I would have stopped immediately and looked at something else.
On the other hand, if it had been an am/fm only setup, I would have done the remote CD player thing too. And nowdays, they make USB fm converters that you plug into your power port. Just find an unused frequency and plug in your phone.
There are kits from the major purveyors of that type of thing so you can put a DIN unit in it. You transfer the HVAC controls over to the new piece. The interesting thing is that the actual radio and amplifier is in the trunk so you’ll also need an extension cable to connect the antenna. Here is a complete kit with the dash piece and the needed antenna extension. https://www.crutchfield.com/p_142F134030/Scosche-FD134030B-Dash-and-Wiring-Kit.html?tp=3486&awkw=75639885265&awat=pla&awnw=g&awcr=47623549825&awdv=c&awug=9033280
That’s right, the radio was actually in two separate pieces. The controls and the cassette deck were in the oval dash pod with the HVAC controls, and the amp/radio tuner were in a separate box. Not sure now why they did that. The FM-converter CD changer had an antenna cable as output, and that plugged into the antenna port with the actual antenna plugged in behind it. That way, the CD player could “lock out” the antenna signal when the CD player was on.
Those FM tuners that plug into a power port are great – I use one for when I am driving one of my 80s-90s vintage “old” cars. Amazing that my phone contains more music than I used to have with me in my CD box when these cars were new!
Fords can really be funny. Good ones. Bad ones. You just never know with them! My Dad’s 1982 Ford Country Squire was a breath of fresh air after his awful 1977 Caprice Estate. The build quality was superb and it gave us well over 100k miles of care-free driving, right until the carb started acting up. To me, that was a really good Ford. I needed a car for our printing business to travel to customers, so I decided in 1988 to try one of the newly restyled 88.5 Ford Escort GT’s. At 5,000 miles, the power steering pump let go. And then one morning I went to shift and the floor mat was drenched. It had a water leak that couldn’t be found and/or duplicated after three+ trips to the Ford dealer. Frustrating to say the least! Eventually the dealership decided to help me out and contacted Ford for me (probably because my uncle worked there for over 20 years and knew I was pissed), so with about 7,000 miles on it I was able to trade it in with hardly any additional money for an ’89 Escort GT which was flawless for the nearly three years and 50k miles that I had it.
Going back to the original Taurus, I had several relatives that bought them brand new in 1986 and absolutely LOVED them. In fact, they kept them for a very long time, only to trade up to the newer generations, and felt that the newer ones had lost the appeal, build quality and specialness found in the original.
My wife’s best friend bought a brand new 2010 Fusion Hybrid right off the showroom floor. It was a very good car for her for the initial 80,000 miles, but it seems like it is just falling apart now. The brakes have been very troublesome, and now it is developing severe body rot on the rocker panel just in front of the driver’s side back tire. Sad because you would think a car would last well over 100,000 miles and 7 years today without such issues!
Accords, Camrys and Altimas routinely get 200K to 300K miles out of them. The Malibu can’t do that. The Fusion probably won’t do that. It’s no wonder that the American brands can’t compete.
Show me a 98-07 Accord with an automatic transmission that has 200,000 miles on the odometer and has its original transmission. Honda had massive problems with those transmissions and even after they replaced them the replacements still had the same issues.
Most Altimas are in beater status by 100k and on their way to the scrapper.
I had two Honda Preludes that got 200K to 300K miles. I have family and friends with Camrys and Altimas with that mileage. Fusion does well because it is based on the Mazda 6. Malibu is just garbage. Name an American Brand that will get anywhere near that mileage. I know that the Honda Odyssey minivan has some transmission issues but my sister still got 300K out of it.
Only the V6 models. The 4-bangers are bulletproof, they are the type of car Honda built its reputation on. Sadly, they seem to be coasting on their reputation…
I guess we got lucky. Yes, the original transmission was faulty. The dealer replaced it at 102,000 miles. Some type of class action lawsuit had been filed. The statue of limitations was 109,000 miles.
Today, our Accord V6 coupe has 395,000 miles and the same replacement tranny. I change the fluid every other oil change and pony up $8 a quart for genuine Honda fluid. It has some special voodoo additives in it I am told.
We’re going to push our luck and see if it will hit the 400,000 mark. After that, we’ll put her out to pasture.
Older Accord with its original transmission? Leon, I am driving one! 1999 Accord EX 4-cylinder, 214,000 miles. I am the second owner – bought it five years ago with 140k from the original owner who had every single service record from new. The transmission was never replaced. I see so many of these cars still on the road – that right there tells me the durability of them. A lot of the issues were with neglected fluid changes, too. My car’s transmission has been flushed every 30k miles since new (like Chuck said – exclusively with Honda fluid) so I am a believer in preventive maintenance.
I agree it is possible with the Camry and maybe the Accord. Not sure about the Altima, like the Ford Five Hundred they have had issues with the CVT in the past. Some Accords are now being equipped with CVTs, don’t know how well they hold up. Surprisingly, have seen a few DCT equipped Ford Foci for sale with 200k+ miles.
https://www.cars.com/articles/2013-2016-nissan-altima-rogue-transmission-issue-1420683183828/
http://nissanassist.com/faqs.php
The wet floormat could be due to a clogged air conditioning evaporator drain. Did it happen in the Summer? Not a hard fix, usually blow it out with compressed air or poke a coat hanger through the drain. Happens to almost every car over time. The 2010 Fusion was based off the Mazda 6 and did well in quality/reliability surveys. However, Ford licensed the Hybrid technology from Toyota. I have seen a few Escapes with Hybrid powertrain issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/business/ford-to-use-toyota-s-hybrid-technology.html
Ford licensed the first generation Toyota Prius system. The one from that boxy first generation non Hatchback Prius. Toyota made improvements in subsequent versions.
I can’t find any information to back that claim up. All I could find was Toyota and Ford started in 2004 and dissolved their partnership in hybrid technology in 2013. The first gen Prius came out in 1997. I would be surprised that Ford licensed what at the time was 7 year old technology from Toyota. That seems like it would not be a benefit to either party. Most press releases at the time suggest that they exchanged technology rather than Toyota just letting them use their old technology. Also you stated that the Fusion did well reliability wise, but probably won’t make it to 200k miles?
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1085750_ford-sells-more-hybrids-than-ever-dissolves-tech-partnership-with-toyota
The Fusion should last longer than a Malibu. They don’t even last 100K. I remember that Toyota turned over their current technology to Ford when they were revising the system. Ford used the old system and Toyota used a new system. I am sure Ford revised it as time moved on.
No they didn’t, although it’s a common myth. Ford developed theirs on their own, but there was some overlap, on both sides. To avoid any complications, ford and Toyota cross-licensed aspects of their hybrid technologies. I rather suspect Ford got more out of that than Toyota, but I don’t have the details to back that up.
I’d love to know the exact details of how that went down, but in any case, Ford did not license the bulk of Toyota’s HSD in order to develop and build their own system.
I think Ford and Toyota may have used some of the same suppliers for their hybrid components, as well, to leverage economies of scale. (Aisin, I think.)
I never really warmed to this gen of Taurus. Too ugly. When Ford squared things up for the 2000 model year I thought that was a huge improvement.
Ahhh yes, those Taurus/Sable transmissions!
My parents bought a new ’87 Sable GS. The first time I drove it I complained that the transmission didn’t feel quite right, seemed to over-rev on the 1st to 2nd upshift and never revved up higher than a normal upshift even when you put your foot into it. Hand shifting gave much better performance; but why have to do that on a modern automatic transmission?
Since Mom putt putted around town, she just let it go.
Three years later I bought the Sable from Mom & Dad. As Dad had bargained for the extended warranty, I brought it to the dealer and gave them my transmission complaint.
Much to my surprise, the transmission/transaxle for part of a factory recall! They swapped in a new one at no charge. After that, it shifted just as I thought it should.
I drove one of these, or the next refinement of the narwhal, a couple times and was surprisingly impressed. Between the sensible center pseudo console and the seats and the column shift I really felt Ford got the interior ergonomically right- for me at least. Driving dynamics we’re a slight let down tho.
MDLaughlin, thanks for the writeup. My biggest reason for jumping in to say I’m happy that Ford (finally) came through after all your troubles.
The discussion above is another divergent-opinion CC/Taurus thread (I’m chuckling as I write), so no reason for me to chime in, I suppose.
Paul, is my ’99 Taurus wagon too “young” for a COAL? It’s the longest I’ve ever owned any car, and I’m sitting on the fence about letting go of it vs. continuing to get “cheap miles” as long as there are no major problems. I’m sure the CC faithful would have some useful opinions…..
Nope!
Write it up George! It’s an ideal wagon with the 24 valve V6.
My mother had a 97 Taurus with 24 valve duratec….peppy yet severe transmission failures….got rid of it 2 years later and swore her off Fords for life.
Ha ha, I’m not going to bother posting my opinion on the Taurus here; I’ve done so in several other threads. Still driving my ’90, is all I’ll bother to say. Had the transmission’s annual service done yesterday, still going strong.
I think we’re at the point where any 20th-century vehicle would make a good COAL. Looking forward to reading about your longroof!
Ford’s designers were tripping out on goofy droops, swoops, circles and blobs in the ’90’s.The ’96 Taurus and Sable have the look of the waxy goop inside of a Lava Lite.
Had a rental ovoid Taurus on a vacation before many were on the road. Wife’s reaction? “Oh I like these new Neons. Can we trade ours?”
I had a 1996 Taurus GL(?) as a “company car”, (meaning that the whole company shared the car). It was absolutely unremarkable beyond the point that I found the ovoid theme just silly. As far as a sedan goes, it was fine, I even got used to the flip down console/seat and thought it was a rather good solution for a car with that mission.
I had a string of Fords that gave me nothing but problems, which has put me off the brand for a number of years now. I’ve seen this happen to other people, too with all kinds of other brands. It’s just a fact of life…
If it were me, I’d be infuriated, not so much by the transmission problems as by the dealer’s inability to fix them.
The 2000 major refresh is what should have come out for 1996. The ’96s were stunningly ugly. And, The SHO version (which looked a lot better) was shackled with a V8 putting out a whopping 235hp. It was slower than the ’95 V6. I really liked the ’00s. There was no SHO version though, and they were soon just rental cars. Really sad. Btw, I owned a 1994 SHO, and it was a fantastic car! I loved it. Never had it back to the stealership for anything.
The V8 SHOs are ticking time bombs. The cam sprockets are just pressed on, and like to come adrift. Engine goes boom. Ford didn’t care.
There was a thriving industry at one time in pinning or welding the sprockets on.
Everyone loves to throw stones at the Taurus, but it always seems like the problematic cars had the Essex 3.8L V6 (Gen 1 and 2) or AXOD/AX4S transmissions in Vulcan-powered Gen3 cars. We had a ’96 Sable LS wagon with the Duratec DOHC 3.0L and AX4N transmission that ran beautifully for many years. I thought the 96-99 Sables were good looking, comfortable, and reliable cars. Sold it with 220,000+ miles, and often regretted that. I always thought the Gen4 (2000-2005) was the most stylistically bland, phoned-in “update” Ford ever did.