(first posted 11/20/2014) It is difficult to remember a time when the best-selling car in the United States wasn’t an Accord or Camry. For the past seventeen years, these Japanese (although mostly American-built) mid-sizers have kept the sales crown away from any American car brand. But this was not always the case, for prior to 1997, the best-selling car in the U.S. was actually American, and for the better part of the 1990s, it was the Ford Taurus.
Yes, there was actually a time when the Ford Taurus was a highly competitive, modern, and cleanly styled mid-size sedan, that just happened to be the best-selling car in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. In between the radical (for the time) first generation and the goofball third generation, Ford struck gold with a duo of sedans, whose “just right” qualities appealed to everyone from a Catholic nun to Conan O’Brien.
The Taurus’ Mercury sibling, and the subject of today’s post, was the Sable. While it didn’t come close to selling the approximately 400,000 units per year the Taurus did, the Sable still managed to sell between 110,000-140,000 units annually from 1992-1995. That’s pretty impressive for Mercury, a brand which never sold anywhere close to the volume of Ford, Chevy, Honda, or Toyota. For selling that well, however, these second generation Sables and Tauruses are becoming quite scare. They’re still there if you look hard enough, but are represented pretty thinly for cars that combined, sold about 2 million units twenty years ago. I feel like I see far more Camrys of this vintage roaming the roads.
That’s why seeing this second generation Mercury Sable GS on the walking portion of my commute in downtown Boston filled me with a bit of excitement. What’s more, is that it was a Sable with 1992-only pink accent body side molding and woodgrain dash trim!
The second generation Sable and Taurus’s styling was an evolution of the 1986-1991 first generation – so much of one that many believed the 1992s were merely face-lifted models. I’ll admit that in my childhood, and before the miracle of the Internet, I too believed this. In fact, every body panel on the sedans, save for the doors was entirely new. Notwithstanding their similarities, the 1992-1995 second generation carried a far more sleeker appearance, and one that still looked contemporary even a decade later.
Retaining its front “lightbar”, wraparound rear windshield, and skirted wheels, the Mercury Sable continued on slightly more highly-styled path than its more garden-variety Ford sibling. Overall, it looked a little more aggressive and a lot more space-aged. This second quality was only enhanced by the hint of rear fender skirts, which looked decidedly out-of-place and out-of-date on a modern ’90s sedan.
Looking under the hood would reveal one of two familiar V6 engines: the 3.0L Vulcan or the 3.8L Essex. Both engines made 140 horsepower, but the 3.8 added 50 lb-ft of torque, for a total of 215. A four-speed automatic was the only transmission. These cars were not sports sedans, and made absolutely no sporting claims. Those looking for a bit more thrill were best to head over to a Ford dealer and check out the Taurus SHO.
On a side note, Ford did make some prototypes of the Sable with the SHO’s 220-horsepower 3.2L V6 in 1994. Called the “Sable AIV”, or Aluminum Intensive Vehicle, it was an early experimental use of an all-aluminum bodied car. With substantial weight savings, the Sable AIV was more fuel efficient than a Vulcan V6-powered regular Sable. About 20 of these prototypes were made, and although they were never sold, some still survive today.
(1993 Sable LS interior)
While Chrysler’s and GM’s mid-size sedans continued with their ’80s-looking boxy interiors, Ford took the Taurus and Sable’s already modern interior designs to the next level. With its sweeping curves, driver-focused layout, and door panels that blended into the dash, the Sable’s interior was among the most “cockpit”-like in its class, even with the standard front bench seats.
Although several parts, such as the steering wheel, lower dash, and available floor console on bucket-seat models were carry-over from the previous generation, they blended seamlessly with the new design. A Sable-only feature for 1992 was the swath of woodgrain dash trim on non-passenger airbag-equipped models. Mercury got rid of it the following year when they made a passenger’s side airbag standard on across the board.
It should be noted that at this point, Ford still invested in separate interior designs for the Sable and Taurus. The dashboards were different, and the Sable included several additional features, such as full instrumentation and integrated rear headrests. Seat fabrics also differed, with this vertical-pleated cloth upholstery exclusive to base GS models. Even in the early-’90s, Mercury still offered no short of five interior colors in the Sable, including this car’s “Crystal Blue” combination.
Exterior colors also included some expressive flavors, though this car sports more subdued “Silver Clearcoat Metallic”. Accent color paint stripes and bodyside moldings were another 1992-only feature. The hot pink on this one certainly spices things up quite a bit.
While this Sable has sustained some front-end damage (and presumably bumper cracking, as evidenced by the duct tape), surface rust was very minimal. Lack of widespread rust is something I’ve come to find common on most Tauruses and Sables I see from this era. You can’t say that about similar year Accords and Camrys, that’s for sure! Apparently the two-sided galvanized steel body panels and 10-layer paint process were formidable defenses against Northern climates.
Appealing styling, abundance of features, and maximum versatility were the perfect formula to make this second generation the high point of the Sable’s (and Taurus’) career. Regardless of their excellent sales record, there was something special about the years 1992-1995. It was an example of an American car company doing just about everything right in making a good mid-sized sedan, capable of competing in the same league as the increasingly acclaimed Accord and Camry. Only in the last several years has this happened again, by means of another Ford, the Fusion.
After 1995, Ford took the Taurus and Sable on a cheapened, funhouse-mirror path, resulting in their fall from grace. More concerned with building big and profitable SUVs, Ford turned focus away from its mid-size duo, relegating it to fleet queen status. Sales of the more “civilian” Sable took a harder hit, and the last Sable rolled off the assembly line in early 2005, as part of the planned phase-out of both vehicles.
The Sable would return less than three years later, but it was a half-hearted, obvious attempt at saving the floundering Montego with a name that had more relevance in recent memory. After a brief two-year run, the Sable was once again history, this time for good. The Mercury brand would soon follow.
To most people, their memory of Mercury vehicles will always be that of Fords with more expressive styling and slightly higher content, as well as lower sales figures. While that holds true for this car, there were several times when a Mercury proved it could make a very successful car in its own right, and not just “for a Mercury”. This Sable went above and beyond expectations for a typical Mercury, yielding stellar results.
Related Reading:
1986 Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
My 1st new to me car was a Mercury, I wanted a Cougar but when I saw this beautiful mid-sized hardtop I had to buy it. My 1st car was a 68 Montego MX fastback badged as a Cyclone GT.
I grew up in a “Ford family” so after that 1st Mercury I tried every time my father bought a new car, to get him to “switch-up” to a Mercury. I was only successful twice: a 75 Comet and an 84 (small) Marquis. He did go on to own 3 or 4 Tauruses, and at 93 still occasionally drives his 03 Taurus.
I’ve always thought the Sable was a great car (even the name) that managed to be both adventurous and attractive. At one time I thought of it as the American Citroen DS, and considered buying one in a dark color and painting the top white or silver to mimic that French car.
As far as you’re not seeing many around I suspect that is because they weren’t as mechanically “robust” as their Japanese competition. Taurus/Sables of the 1st and 2nd generation developed head gasket problems….usually with the 3.8 engine, that their owners felt were too expensive to repair. 3rd and 4th generation Tauruses had transmission failures at lowish mileage (my father’s 98 needed a re-built transmission before 100 thousand miles and the 03 at 60 thousand) even though their owners weren’t abusive. To their credit, as noted here, these cars were NOT big rust buckets/pre-mature rusters, if kept washed during the winter.
There is a mid 90s Sable wagon for sale near me that is very tempting, but nagging worries about that transmission AND engine hold me back.
BTW, isn’t that “hot pink” strip really lightly faded red?
Interesting comparison to the Citroen DS, I think it’s appropriate, especially for the first generation. You could also make that case for the Merkur Scorpio, although that car was developed for the European market.
The stripes very well could’ve been bright red originally. In any case every picture on the internet of one with them is now the color of this one.
I hear a lot on these blogs about cars with faulty head gaskets. Can anyone supply insight about why this has been such an apparently thorny engineering issue over the years? I should think this problem space would’ve been well-understood, unless it’s merely been a matter of cost-cutting so long as they’re out of warranty.
Those mediocre Ford V6’s are one reason I’ve avoided Michigan products over the years, with this culture of “Who cares? It’s good enough.” The engine is the soul of the car; if they can’t be bothered to excel in this vital area, then I won’t bother to purchase.
I hear a lot on these blogs about cars with faulty head gaskets. Can anyone supply insight about why this has been such an apparently thorny engineering issue over the years? I should think this problem space would’ve been well-understood, unless it’s merely been a matter of cost-cutting so long as they’re out of warranty.
Those mediocre Ford V6’s are one reason I’ve avoided Michigan products over the years, with this culture of “Who cares? It’s good enough.” The engine is the soul of the car; if they can’t be bothered to excel in this vital area, then I won’t bother to purchase.
Subaru EJ25 (non-turbo). ‘Nuff said. (from a Subie owner and fan)
Do you mean Subarus are OK on this or not? I looked up the engine you mentioned, & interestingly enough, its head-gasket failures were attributed by one article to incorrect coolant. Lazy DIY owners or mechanics who don’t take 5 min. to read the manual have only themselves to blame.
My experience with Ford’s V6 was in a rented Windstar; its performance was manifestly inferior to my Sienna’s. Hence my remark.
It was a combination of a bad head gasket design and a change in the heads themselves. Use of a coolant additive and religious changing of the coolant at the specified intervals keeps the problem to a minimum, but the only sure fix (especially for the pre-2004 engines) are aftermarket head gaskets.
Subaru went to an different head gasket design on the NA engines (turbos used different gaskets and didn’t have the leakage/failure issues) midway through MY 03. There are still problems with the later engines, but with proper maintenance many of them go over 150K with no HG issues. On the earlier ones, it was pretty much a matter of “not if, but when”.
The Vulcan V-6 on my wife’s 2006 Taurus developed a bottom end knock at all of 95,000 km. Try selling an American car with a bad motor in Westside Vancouver, good luck on that!. It was towed away for scrap, I couldn’t even get $500 for it. Meanwhile, my 15 year old Acura motors away flawlessly.
No more American cars for us, thanks.
Many engines with cast iron blocks and aluminium heads had problems with head gaskets due to the different thermal expansion rates.
For some reason The first gen always reminded me more of the SM, but as a 4 door obviously. Probably in part because the light bar reminds me of flush full width glass headlight/grilleless treatment on the European models. Ferrari Daytona as well for that matter, which may very well have been the source of inspiration for all I know.
In 1986, my parents were shopping for a new car. They were down to choosing between a new Sable wagon and an ’85 Crown Vic that had been traded in with 5000 miles on the clock. They chose the Vic; I always wondered what the Sable would have been like.
Sometime in the mid-90s I remember reading a book called “The Fall and Rise of the American Automobile Industry” – or something close to that. They had dedicated a chapter to the Taurus. Brendan is correct on the sales volumes of the Taurus but a lot of that volume was derived from fleet sales.
In 2002 I was shopping for a car that could better accommodate a car seat. I looked at a Sable with the 24 valve engine but chose a lower mileage Taurus with the Vulcan engine. It turned out to be a piece of crap; I should have looked harder at the Sable or at something else.
There’s no doubt in my mind that you are correct about a large percentage of Taurus sales coming from fleet sales. I’ll bet that the percent of fleet Sables was significantly smaller, however. I don’t ever remember seeing any Sable rental cars in the late-90s and early-00s, while the Taurus was an Enterprise lot fixture.
Tauruses were common fleet vehicles through the mid-2000s. A lot of people out here buy the Ex-Gov’t vehicles at the auctions. If your state has a good maintenance program, it can be a good way to afford a car.
I’ve never seen a Sable fleet car. I did see a Grand Marquis police cruiser about a year ago, though, so anything’s possible.
Hertz always seemed to have a mix of Tauruses and Sables in their fleet. I got a Sable from them at least a couple of times.
At that time, Hertz was owned by Ford. That was the one reason why they rented me a Volvo, another Ford brand, in Philadelphia one winter. It was a 240 sedan and other than its heated seats, I would have preferred the Taurus or Sable that I had expected.
I always thought taurusable was one word.
Unless you were talking about the Ford Saurus and Mercury Table.
Old Pete: LMAO!!! ????
ALL of my father’s Tauruses have been Vulcan-engined, the best you can say about them is that the were (generally) reliable. On my father’s 03 he says he has had intermittent problems with starters but I’m not sure if the real problem there is his arthritis….makes it hard to turn the ignition key that last little bit past ACC. Having driven his car several times it struck me as an American answer to the CamCord…but no better. There is nothing to this car that “surprises or delights”, no feature that hasn’t appeared somewhere else before. I did have trouble one time I drove it trying to get the windshield wipers to come on. My Honda, and even my 78 280Z covered that so much simpler.
AND, an internet search turns up the early transmission failures on the “4th generation” Tauruses. Nearly every one at 60,000 miles, just like my father’s 03.
If I remember correctly, Ford heavily discounted the 2nd generation Taurus to hold on to the number 1 sales spot as well as getting them into fleets at discounted pricing. I guess they realized they were up against the wall in 97 and didn’t push the Taurus as hard from that point on.
From reading this article, I think THE best Sable would be one pre-passenger airbag with bucket seats and a console…assuming that was an offered combination. I know later Sable LSs had that combo….even the wagons, though Ford/Mercury persisted in offering a column shift option with the console and buckets. Go figure.
There is a Sable VERY similar to the one featured here a few blocks from where I live, except for being white. I forget if it’s a GS or LS. It’s a bit dirty outside but still looks striking without being strange or weird. I would love to own it but I think I would want to substantially upgrade my AAA membership status before buying ANY Sable.
Would a pre-passenger airbag car still have had the automated seatbelts?
As far as I know, no Taurus/Sable ever had automatic seatbelts.
I had a ’92 3.8 with two tone burgundy with dark red bottom paint that had a black leather interior, bucket seats, center console (without column shifter) and wood grain dash, so yes they existed!
That generation Taurus/Sable was a big success for Ford. I have read from other folks on other forums and in magazines on how the 92-96 Camry was so much better and that Ford and GM should sit up and take notice about that. The 92-96 Camry was a good car BUT it was not the best car in terms of sales in those years. From 92-96 the Ford Taurus was the best selling car in the USA and they did not lose that crown until 1997. So the “Lexus” styled Camry was an also ran the whole time it was in production.
Ironically Toyota took the best selling crown from Ford with the 97-2001 Camry which was rubbish and untoyota like car in every way. Rust issues, engine sludging issues, transmission issues all conspired with each other to make the 97-01 Camry a true curbside classic in terms of survivors.
Interestingly enough the 92-95 Taurus and Sable sedans were almost a totally new car with Ford only recycling the 86-91 front and rear doors and using them on the 92-95 taurus/Sable
The wagons were simply a 86-91 Taurus/Sable with a new front end as everything from the cowl back were 86-91.
While I agree with you that the 1997-2001 Camry was a step backwards from the 1992-1996 (“rubbish” may be a strong word), there are still tons of them on the road where I live, more so than similar-year Accord and Taurus.
My aunt owned both a 1997 and a 2001 Camry LE. I thought they were decent cars for the time, and they were very reliable during the periods she owned them (granted they were new cars then). I will say though that they are miserable compared to today’s mid-sized cars, and I would much rather have to spend time in a 2001 Accord than a 2001 Camry.
Supersized Opel Kadett E.
Nice read. I had the pleasure of driving an AIV (Aluminum Intensive Vehicle) for a couple of weeks in the 90’s. I was an employee of Reynolds Metals Company and was offered the AIV as a perk for a project I was working on. The combination of the SHO motor with the 400 lb weight savings made for a beast of a car (though the torque steer could get scary). The best part was that it was the ultimate sleeper. I wish I could have seen the faces of the muscle cars I left behind when the traffic lights turned green.
Nice find and writeup. A few random thoughts about these. First, I was disappointed in this generation. The original Sable used unique body sheetmetal. The Taurus had a long crease down the sides, but the Sable was smooth. For the Gen2, the Sable shared the Taurus doors and fenders with the crease. There was still some Ford/Mercury differentiation, but not as much as previously.
Second, I have always wondered if Lincoln’s success vs. Cadillac in the 80s and 90s rubbed off some on Mercury. I knew more than one Lincoln owner whose wife or kids got a Mercury. These people had driven Cadillacs previously, and their other cars had been GM as well.
Last, I wonder if the stripe is Ford’s “cranberry” of the early 90s. In at least 1993, Ford’s metallic red and burgundy were Medium Cranberry and Dark Cranberry, colors that had some pink/purple in them. I have made peace with the dark cranberry (that my mother picked out) but that medium cranberry was way to pinkish for me.
T he styling is very reminiscenr of the European Ford Scorpio, or Merkur if you prefer. I dont imagine they took the liftback version to the States? I agree with Howard that the side strips would have been red but they would have faded in the ten years before the digital photos that make it onto the internet were taken, the same thing happens to mid-90s Fords here too. I am curious about the new/facelift distinction here – were the roof or windshield shared?
There was never a liftback version of either the Taurus or Sable in the United States.
Yes, the styling of the Sable did mimic the Scorpio (or vice versa, not sure of time frames). A few magazines here at the time were critical of the resemblance given the mission and price point of each.
Sorry I meant the Scorpio liftback – I didn’t realise that was the only version they built at the time and it was only later they did the sedan version, after they had dropped the model in North America!
The medium/large liftback car is quite an interesting category, they have been all but dropped from mainstream cars – I think only the Ford Mondeo, Opel Insignia and Renault Laguna still offer them an mostly in Europe only. On the other hand they have emerged in recent years for the prestige market, eg Audi A5 & A7, BMW 4 & 7 Gran Coupes and Porsche Panamera.
I don’t think the Taurus/Sable shared anything with the Granada/Scorpio. There was talk of developing another world car as a simultaneous Taurus/Scorpio successor, but it didn’t happen because Ford eventually realized the only common ground was that the cars were sort of similar in size. If they had done that, it probably would have ended up like the Mk3 Escort, where the North American and European versions were more alike than different. Still, that might still have been preferable to the 1996 Taurus and the ghastly final-generation Scorpio.
The Sable and Scorpio didn’t share anything except a few generic parts- the Mercury was of course FWD and the Scorpio was RWD.
I still consider the Sable to be the best looking family sedan of the 80’s and 90’s. Always loved that front light bar. At the time I even liked the wheel skirts. In the 80’s it was the most futuristic sedan on the road, and it aged nicely up until gen 3.
The 2nd generation of both Taurus and Sable were the best looking. I slightly preferred the Taurus, as the C pillar treatment and skirted rear wheel openings of the Sable was a bit offputting. Still, I have to give Mercury credit. They managed to put their unique stamp on this car with these styling cues, as well as that cool front light bar and Sable specific interior.
Dad had a 1992 Taurus and my sister a 1989 Sable. Both had the Vulcan V-6 and both were kept for many years and miles with minimal issues.
Both cars lost their way with Gen 3, but what a ride FMC had from 1986-1995 with these. There were perhaps four critically important cars in the 100 year plus history of the Ford Motor Co. The Model T, Model A, 1949 Ford, and these. Each came along when things looked bleak, and all each did was save the company.
There are still some pre-1996 Tauruses/Sables living in Portland, but Japanese sedans out number them. Even Trimet has a 92-95 Taurus in service. Nice looking vehicles, some are just more bullet proof than others hence their longevity. You think this Sable’s headlights are new or did someone just buff out the yellowed layer of plastic?
Brendan, I like how most of the cars you photograph have ‘low’ or reserved number plates…
Haha, it’s by coincidence I assure you. I was noticing that too today with this car. Maybe it’s a subconscious nod to my grandfather. He was a proud low number plate owner (“K 9546”) for many years.
Email me directly, I have some info about the Mass RMV you will like A LOT.
louisdesantis@gmail.com
Some of his old plates proudly hang in my garage.
+1…from the license plate collector in the group.
I always kind of wondered if SABLE GS was pronounced “sab-legs”.
My father has a similar “A NNNN” reserved plate number, which he’s had since some time in the ’60s – I always notice plate numbers from this series when I see them. I think he has all of his old plates going back to the 1966 issue (white on dark green, the last of the dated, replaced-every-two-years issues).
We’ve talked in the past about the manner in which the green-on-white plates were phased out and replaced by the current Spirit of America plates (or weren’t, as the case may be). My recollection is that all of the green-on-white plates in this reserved number series were taken out of circulation and replaced with SOAs not long after the SOAs first appeared — note the 1989 sticker on the plate in the photo.
That would make sense. My grandfather was the first person in my family who had the red SOA plates. Even in the late-90s most people I knew still had the green ones (single rear plates only). Mass is still trying to get rid of them when they can, but I don’t think they’re automatically issuing new plates to green plate holders.
My mom’s best friend finally had to succumb to new SOA plates a few years ago, as her 40+ year old green one was illegible from whatever number of feet they’ve set as the parameter. My older cousin is a holdout, as she started driving in the final years of the green plates, and hers is in good condition.
Neil:
About the head gasket and intake gasket “problems”, Ford and GM both had this problem. I haven’t heard of Chrysler products suffering from this malady…I’m not sure why. Apparently, part of this problem (and I’m sure others will jump in to correct me) stemmed from a switch to “lifetime” coolant fluids that could NOT be adulterated with coolant that was of a DIFFERENT brand. Just as the need to change timing belts on Escorts and Ranger 4 cylinder engines SHOULD have been highlighted on maintenance schedules….but was not, so it should have been STRONGLY stressed that owners MUST keep with the manufacturer’s coolant.
As far as the pre-mature transmission failures…my father’s Tauruses BOTH “lost” their transmissions and by looking on Edmunds.com it seems ALL 4th generation Taurus transmissions had the same exact part go bad…and at nearly the same mileage.
I don’t know why, but the re-built transmission in the 4th gen Taurus has lasted for over 150,000 miles. Apparently the re-builders knew how to fix Ford’s engineering flaw?
How do you explain that only certain engines were afflicted by this?The Ford Vulcan 3.0 has no history of eating gaskets;literally every 3.8 did. There were obviously design differences that came into play. The same goes for other engines too.
If adulterated coolant was the problem, one would expect the same issue on other makes with similar tricky coolant formulations (e.g. Toyota’s pink stuff). Perhaps it was only an aggravation, not a root cause.
The Ford Vulcan V6 is a 3.0 L (2,986 cc (182.2 cu in)), 60° V6 engine with an iron block and iron heads,
The Canadian Essex is an overhead valve (OHV, or pushrod) design featuring aluminum heads,
That ought to explain it.
For comparison, my 2004 Sienna’s ●all-aluminum● 3MZ-FE engine, more sophisticated than either of Ford’s, has passed 100Kmi with no issues, head-gaskets or otherwise. And to think I worried about the aluminum when new.
As has been said one was iron vs. aluminum. Next one hears the coolant is the culprit. Another is that Ford had to make do with new head gaskets that no longer could use asbestos and this was their first try. Another is that the fire ring around the cylinders is thin and the coolant wicks under and starts the process. Once Ford went to the MLS head gasket must of the problems seemed to be solved.
The transmission issues for this transmission were heavily dependent on the fluid. Ford recommended 30,000 miles and in this car that was it. Do it and you might survive. Skip it and there goes your transmission.
My wife’s 3.0 Vulcan had the typical brown coolant seen in 98-99. Had the maze of hoses in the back with no bypass which would lead to a clogged heater core and blocked coolant flow. Not to mention the eaten away impeller on the water pump. Ergo blown head gasket and most likely damaged #1 cylinder combustion chamber.
I got it with a chamber crack in #1. Went through the whole thing with new heads and gaskets from heads on up and oil pan on down at 118,000 miles. Plumbed the hoses differently and used brass tees. Previous owner changed the transmission with his Dad who was a Penske race mechanic. I change the fluid every 30,000 miles and coolant every two years. The engine and transmission are now approaching 200,000 miles.
If it were as simple as a coolant problem Ford wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to improve the ESSEX V6 in the vehicles it was still used in from 1996 to whenever it stopped production. The cylinder heads were changed(much thicker deck surface), head gasket design was updated, block was updated, ect. and headgasket failure is nearly unheard of in those years unless the engine is overheated first(which usually kills head gaskets on any aluminum/iron engine).
My ’03 Windstar has the Essex and had no headgasket issue while i owned it all the way to 175K miles.
The great thing about silver cars is the duct tape blends in.
+1
We rented a ’92 Taurus for an extended road trip, and loved it. Then in ’94 we bought a ’93 Sable GS that had about 13,000 miles. It drove beautifully, and the 3.8 V6 felt like a V8 with all that low-end torque. It was comfortable, roomy, quiet, and the A/C worked really well.
Before the factory warranty ran out, the A/C died. The compressor was replaced. Within another year or two, the A/C died again. This time, it was a really expensive job to fix, because the warranty had run out. I think we had to replace the compressor AGAIN after that.
Somewhere around 90,000 miles, I think, pack rats moved in and chewed up wiring. They also left cholla cactus joints on the engine. It cost about $1,300 to fix that. By then, the power window switches were getting cranky, and the lifts were getting sluggish. We never did figure that out.
Finally, in 2003, the dreaded white cloud appeared from under the hood. The odometer showed about 115,000 miles. What was really irksome was that Ford had done a special extended warranty on the 3.8 for the ’94 models but NOT the ’93s.
We never had a bit of trouble with the transmission or the steering; I think we had to replace a warped brake rotor. No; this particular specimen’s Achilles’ heel was found in the engine, the A/C, and the windows. And, after ten years, the clearcoat was going bad, too. I think there was a crack or two in the dash as well, thanks to the sun.
I was a huge fan of our family ’88 Sable LS. Drive one of those against an ’88 Camry – which cost about as much – and you’ll see why Ford sold a lot of these, and also why the Camry got bigger and torquier on its way to becoming the top seller.
I don’t really like the gen-2 exterior changes. It’s like they were told to reduce the apparent size of the schnoz, but couldn’t actually lower the hood. They settled for just pinching the “lightbar.” Meh.
I’ve always liked the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable up to 1995. After 1995, its styling got uglier and uglier, until the car simply looked laughable at best.
I much preferred the first generation, with its unique panels not shared with the Taurus. The second gen. always looked a bit too upright to me, as if it had lost some its low, wide rakishness. The spaceship had come back to earth, and the taillights looked super cheap.
We test-drove one around ’87 for my mother, but the big deal killer was the rear headrests. They were very obtrusive and blocked so much of the visibility that we looked elsewhere.
A base model ’92 Sable went through hell and back through my side and my wife’s side of the family, reaching around 300,000 km before being parked and left to the mice.
Despite flagrant neglect of basic maintenance and unheeding the (famous) protestations of the power steering pump, that thing just kept rolling.
A note about the gaskets, etc. issue. To the best of my knowledge, the 3.8 Essex was the culprit on gaskets, and in that same vein the AXOD transmission couldn’t handle the torque of that engine and so you had multiple trouble spots with this powertrain.
As we all know the first generation Taurus/Sable was a ground breaking design and deserves its place in automotive history and as a collectable automobile. Yes it had some problems what car didn’t in the eighties? We bought an 87 Taurus wagon with the 3.0 Vulcan engine and other than a tranny rebuild (who didn’t have that?) it was a wonderful car for our young family.
The second generation Sable/Taurus never turned my crank. But in 1999 we turned in our Windstar lease so my wife could downsize to a 96 ex-lease Sable GS. Loaded with options the car looked good and with the 24V engine provided good performance and very good fuel consumption. In 2009 it was time to replace the vehicle as little issues were becoming too frequent. A later generation Taurus or Sable was disregarded as a replacement they were just too bland. Its unfortunate Ford lost interest in refining what were for the most part, great cars.
The Taurus/Sable just don’t do anything for me. They were the first American “jelly bean” cars, a style (or lack thereof) which I hate, they were FWD, they only came as 4 door sedans, and they had computer controlled EFI engines with tons of emissions crap. Exactly the opposite of what I want in a car. The first generation Taurus doesn’t look that different from my ’01 Malibu, a car that I desperately want to get rid of.
GarryM:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Sable or Taurus that shade of blue, before.
That “Moonlight Blue” is something that I, too, remember seeing only rarely. Perhaps dealers hardly stocked them that way, and that the occasional M-Blue ones we see were special order? (Whereas the Toreador Red, for one, seemed to be plentiful.)
I don’t know why they cut the woodgrain, or the accent striping. I’d assume that the closest American competitor would be the Jellybean LeSabre. They were able to use woodgrain with a passenger airbag. It’s a nice touch.
The woodgrain and the accent stripe make that car look much, much nicer to me.
I’d also disagree on the blending door panels claim. The LeSabre did that, too.
I thought that the Buick interior was a little too conservative, but I like it more than the Taurus interior. Those lines above the glovebox just really bug me. The Buick looks more “professional”.
The woodgrain strip on the LeSabre goes below the passenger airbag “door,” whereas the strip on the 2nd-gen Sable went right across it.
One thing that irks me about that vintage of LeSabre is the lack of a door pull. Instead, you have to grab the armrest by that little depression below where you’d normally see a door pull. That detail (or lack thereof) always bothered me.
Trivia- On the 1992 LeSabre, there was a glovebox where the passenger airbag was.
I drive a 1995 LeSabre as my backup car. The “grab the recession” thing doesn’t bothre me in concept, but the recession isn’t deep enough.
The interior as a whole doesn’t bother me, though. It’s very conservative, but I like that. I even learned to like the really wide, 1960’s style speedometer.
I just can’t get over the right side of the interior. Instead of the stupid over-glovebox section, I think that a flatter dash (A-La 1995-1996 Chevrolet truck) would work wonders.
Nice writeup on a classy car, It’s hard to imagine FoMoCo tossing all this goodness out for the weird ovoid replacement, yet if you’ve read the book “Car” you’ll know they felt they had to put out something exciting and different to combat the perceived dullness of the Camry.
The AIV is really cool, and considering how fun SHOs of this generation are an aluminum bodied Sable with the same powertrain would be a blast.
There is a reason there are a lot more Camacords on the road that Ford Tauri from this generation………
Until recently, my wife had a 2006 Taurus she had bought just before I met her. When I saw it, I told her to sell it. She loved the car, so it had to stay, even if it sat on the side of the road most of the time. It was an ex-fleet car, bought in 2008.
Coming from an automotive background, and knowing the Taurus’s sterling reputation as a reliable, high quality machine, I only did oil changes twice a year, thinking the the thing would self-destruct around ten years/140,000 km, as most American cars do in these parts.
Well, good thing I didn’t do spark plug or fluid changes, because at all of 95,000 km, the engine developed a severe bottom end knock, rendering it worthless. Even a clean, low km 2006 Taurus would be hard pressed to get $3000 in these parts, but with a shot motor, it was worthless, and was driven to the scrapyard, where I got $150 for it. Good thing I didn’t do a lot of maintenance on it. I might add, this car never had the pedal to the metal or went over the speed limit the whole time she had it.
I have never like any Taurus. I always saw them as crappy, cheap and unreliable. People who like them have, in my experience anyway, have never driven anything else, or can’t afford anything else. That said, my family made a lot of money fixing them over the years.
geozinger: “the parts are cheap and any clodhopper can work on them.”
do pray tell, why didn’t you?
thou doth protest too much, methinks.
Why didn’t I pull the engine and do an overhaul? Well, you should see where I live. It is urban and very high density. The car is parked on the road so no way to do that sort of a job anyway. Besides, I hate wrenching on cars anyway, even if I had the time, which I don’t. Second, the car wasn’t worth even swapping in a used engine, even if you could do it yourself. No Taurus of this generation is worth spending anything on. Drive it ’til it drops and scrap it. We just got one that was even crappier than most.
Aside from the AIV (would love to own one, or a “twin”), Ford did preview the “jelly bean” look with several show/concept cars. Apparently, public reaction wasn’t too bad. I suspect Ford wanted to break away from GM whose formerly blocky sedans were starting to copy the 1st and 2nd gen Taurus-Sable. Unfortunately, Ford went WAAAAY overboard on the ovals for the 3rd gen Taurus. Ironically, the little Escort carried some of the same themes but managed to strike an acceptable balance.
BTW, my biggest gripe with the 2nd through 4th gen T/S has to do with the dashboard. I knew what they were for but I really didn’t care for all the “cut lines” in the dashboard for the airbags.
Funny that you should mention the camry as I rarely see rusty camries oft his era in my part. Of Mass. A kid at work has a white one of these that looks pretty good other than some rust behind the left rear door.
I agree with your observation; the ’92+ Camry rarely develops rust unless it has had some sort of bodywork done along the line.
This generation of Sable was too little of a departure from the previous version to know it was virtually an all new car. The styling was way too close to be able to tell.
I think that the original T/S was a landmark car, alleged reliability and durability aside. I know people who had all four generations, some ran as far as 300K miles with few problems, some like my brother’s 3rd gen Sable barely gave him 60K miles. My sister had a 3rd gen Sable wagon that gave her well over 100K miles with no issues.
When people ask about cheap wheels, I have no problem telling them to look at a 4th gen Sable or Taurus with the 3.0 Vulcan. It’s a dirt simple motor and so long as the trans is working OK, the car is fairly durable. If nothing else, the parts are cheap and any clodhopper can work on them. The J Mays redesign of the Sable from 2000-2005 was one of the better re-works in recent memory.
They are good cars if you treat them like beaters. These cars can either last for years or develop severe Forditis when they get old. Everything seems to fail at once and costs $400 to fix. When the first big failure comes, either scrap it, or fix it and get it gone.
These cars do not good high milers make. Toyotas and Hondas are much better lasting beaters.
That’s funny, my Dad just got a $1400 bill to fix his well maintained 12 year old 150k mile Lexus today. Valve cover gasket sprung a leak and toasted the coils, and unlike most straight 6 engines the intake manifold runs right over it so it needs to be R&Rd as well. Yay Toyota!
A similar thing happened to my parent’s elderly friends that owned a 2006 Camry several years ago. With 78K miles the V6 valve covers sprang a major leak toasting a coil which gave the engine a bad miss thus killing the catalytic converter and also frying the intake manifold along the way all within the course of a few days. It also needed the flexible upper piece of the exhaust replaced. The bill was over 2500 bucks!
I remember when I was really young (like four or five) when these cars were a more common sight. I always thought people with these cars were driving cars made by Hoover because of the vacuum cleaner-like headlight bar. I think there was an Oldsmobile or Pontiac car that had the same look to it from around this era, I can’t remember which one it was.
That said, the ovoid 1996-1999 Taurus/Sable was a downgrade in appearance in my opinion, especially the rear end. Looking back, I can see that Ford (and GM) were frantically trying to move away from the boxy look when Chrysler released the LH sedans but failed. I will say that the 2000-07 Taurus isn’t so bad looking.
You may be thinking of this car, the 1990 and later Pontiac Grand Prix STE (and in some cases SE) that had the full width light bar in front…
Now’s probably not the right time to write this because I am SEVERELY ticked off at the Ford Motor Company, but my 92 Taurus had the Vulcan and that engine never gave me a moment’s trouble until I hit 250k and the oil pressure light came on. Sure, it mysteriously ate a quart of oil between changes, but I stayed on top of them and that may be what saved it. The transmission was always serviced but that, too, started screaming at 250k. I commuted about 40 miles a day, so the engine always had a good warm up.
The reason I’m pissed is that I recently bought an ’02 Sable and so far I have:
Replaced the battery (found out the headlights on warning wasn’t working)
Replaced the IAC valve
Had the timing cover gasket re-sealed, and while they were in there they did the water pump and the oil pan gasket
New pulley and drivebelt
And now the lovely power steering pump VOMITED fluid all over and has to be replaced…maybe it won’t sound like a moose in heat.
Did I mention I bought the car in May?
I’m starting to save up for another car, by the way.
“Did I mention I bought the car in May?” and said car was 12 years old.
It’s called maintenance.
Nothing out of the ordinary for a 12-year old car.
If you don’t want to fork out $40k, that’s what you get. (Some pay $40k and still have those problems, might I add).
Nothing out of the ordinary for a 12-year old car.
It would be very out of the ordinary for a Camry or Corolla.
With aforementioned maintenance performed, owner probably paid within spitting distance of said Toyota.
I’ve been driving a 15 year old Acura for four years. So far, the car has received eight old changes and one ATF change. That’s it. The car still drives like new.
I didn’t pay much for it, and it has decent mileage (109k) for its age. No one wanted a tan Sable, so I was able to dicker it down to almost a pittiance, but it has brand new AC all the way around, new tires and new brakes and it had a recent transmission flush plus all its papers (dealer serviced).
My mechanic checked it out and so did another friend of mine. The only thing detected was the power steering whine.
All I can think is that it’s got the 100k Ford-itis.
As for Toyota, my brother bought a 2010 Camry with 15k on it and the water pump gave up the ghost at 30k. Now the heating system is not working right. Buying any car is a crapshoot.
I am sure it will last another 40-60k just fine. Repairs are expected on essentially any used car. Be glad it’s a Ford and not a Cadillac.
I had a tan Taurus bubble car with camouflage interior way back when (I must have bought it in the dark)–a very marginal car (I hated it). Took me a few minutes on Google but found a pic of the nasty seats:
Try telling that to my parents best friends with there 2006 V6 Camry. That car spent more time in the shop for major and expensive repairs all before 80K miles than a car has the right to. $5000 later in repair bills they traded on a 2012 Ford Taurus and have thus far had zero troubles with it during 30K miles and counting.
As has been said in the comments above, these were attractive cars built with not-so-great mechanical hardware. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 3.8-liter versions are near extinct, but you still see Vulcan examples hobbling around sometimes (although to be honest, I don’t know how to tell the difference on the Gen2 versions without popping the hood… I do notice the 1996-2005 models have a “24V” badge on the front fenders)
It’s so weird how times change, these were everywhere when I was growing up in the late-1990s and early-2000s, family members owned them, neighbors owned them, they were sprinkled in every other driveway of my suburban neighborhood. They seemed contemporary, smooth, and average, just blended into the background, but now they look boxy and ancient compared to the Pontiac G6s and Ford Fusions that sit in the same Midwestern driveways.
In the past year or two I’ve started noticing the pre-96 Taurii/Sables on the streets when I see them; they all disappeared so quickly and silently. My grandparents had a 1993 Taurus in that medium teal color that 70% seemed of them seem to have been painted in; that dashbaord and blocky steering wheel will always instantly me of my childhood outings with grandma.
There is a Pick & Pull out near Travis Air Force Base that I go to. The #1 car in there is the Taurus followed by the Accord and then the Camry. Sable not so much since they didn’t sell much but one could combine it with the Taurus. When I walk these cars I always pop my head into them to take a look at the mileage. Especially so on cars with nary any body damage from a crash. I am always stunned to see most between 110,000-150,000 miles and no higher. I’d say almost evenly split between the Vulcan and Duratec engines.
On the other hand when I see a 90’s Crown Vic or Marquis, which are few, they usually have crash damage and where probably totaled out.
Oh, and on the road it is rare to see any Taurus/Sable from 1999 and older nowadays. No 1st Gen and almost no 2nd Gen leaving a handful of 3rd Gen.
I am surprised at all the comments about unreliability. Illinois Casualty used Tauruses and Sables as company cars when I was in physical resources. We bought 2000-02 sedans as program cars with 15-20K miles on them and ran them up to 125K miles with just regular service. These cars weren’t babied either, largely being used by the investigators who drove them all over IL, IA, IN and WI. I had the use of one too, and it was a pleasant enough car, if not terribly exciting. Mine was a charcoal green 02 Sable GS. I really liked that car.
The 1992-1995 examples looked best to my eyes and drove fairly well when newer. The Vulcan was a decent mill with the occasional valve cover or intake leak.
The real trouble spots were the Essex 3.8, power steering pump and lines, weak springs that are often broken, electrical gremlins and the AXOD transaxle. Snow belt drivers will also want to pay close attention to the shock towers as they tend to rot out.
My mom had a 1992 Mecrury Sable GS which I frequently drove as a teenager. Hers was green and had cloth front bucket seats, but otherwise the same as the one pictured. That was a great car. It had what felt like great acceleration for the time.
> every body panel on the sedans, save for the doors was entirely new.
The door sheetmetal was new on the second-generation Sable too – the horizontal crease just above the door handles was not there on the first generation. I believe this was done to make the door skins the same as the Taurus, which would mean the second-gen Sable has the same doors as the first-gen Taurus (or at least it appears to).
I like how the refreshed ’92 Sable looks on the outside, but thought the interiors were considerably cheapened. The dash and door panels on the 90-91 cars especially look richer and more elegant than those used afterward.
Bought one new – 1993
It hadn’t any problems at all – right up to the trade in, back in 2001.
Leather seats, digital display dash, a very good car.
One of the cool features of this car that I hadn’t see up to that time was a toggle switch that worked like a joy stick – located to the immediate right on the instrument binnacle. With the digital dash, the toggle swept through all the menu items quickly.
My uncle like the car so much he bought a Taurus. Both cars were excellent and held their trade-in value.
Oh, poor mercury. The few times ford paid attention to it in recent memory with the villager or contour cougar, the cars sold fairly well. I still think there’s room for an upscale ford product with a different image and dealer experience that isn’t quite lincoln. In my experience the mercury dealer treated customers MUCH better than the ford dealers, who were absolute scum.
Ford cut the sable off at the knees when ford decided that the taurus being number 1 was hugely important and incentivised taurus v sable sales. I still hated the melted bar of soap styling in 1992-1995 although we had a well used 95 ish taurus wagon for a while and it ran and served well. Absolutely VAST inside and very comfortable: far better than the Cuvs that replaced it. The only complaint was ford picked some really awful thin, hard, cheap plastics for the dash. Very unattractive design. If I had been looking for a new car in this era and class, I’d have taken a long look at the chrysler lh or olds delta 88/pontiac bonneville as an alternative without the transmission or head gasket ailments.
I drove a family friend’s 1st gen Taurus, second gen Sable and 3rd gen Taurus and for the life of me, I couldn’t and still can’t understand the appeal of any of them. None of them were very reliable, and I laughed when our friend complained about the “football” of buttons on the third gen one. The 3rd gen turned out to be their last car when their health went to hell and they died. Their son inherited the Taurus, but soon after he took it back to Virginia, the trans ate itself. Adios Taurus, hello Camry.
I had a 96 Taurus with a 24v V6. Car was pretty decent. Had no problems with it. Got a great deal on a low mile 98 Avalon so I gave my Taurus to my niece. The Taurus developed the trans problem at around 60,000 miles. A clip that hold a spool valve? in place broke. Part couldn’t have cost 5 cents. No more over drive. Easy fix but choose not to fix it, just put it in drive, no big deal. Then about a year later engine seized up. Perfect body, junk yard offered $250 for the car.
The Avalon was better but had its problems too. All struts and strut mounts replaced by 15,000 miles. HVAC controls failed and broke Recirc door actuator. TSB for the problem but Toyota would only pay 50% of parts bill and no labor coverage. Starter crapped out. Took one look at replacing timing belt on the V6 and decided time to trade this tarted up Camry.
My Father owned 3 Sables in a row, starting in 1989 when my middle sister totalled his ’86 Dodge 600. The middle one was leased, which was unfortunate, in that it timed out in time for the unfortunate ’96…middle one was a ’94, which I liked probably the best. I think the last one had the 3.8, the others 3.0, had the normal options such as A/C, power windows/locks, and AM/FM stereo (no CD, but cassette in each of them)
In 2001 he switched to Chevrolet, buying an Impala in place of the Sable…then he traded it on a 2006, which my Mother owns now (as my Dad has since departed).
I bought a 92 mercury sable for 500 dollars, from the original owner with 38.000 miles with a 3.8 v.6 . It’s a barn car and hadn’t seen the sun in 7 years. At 42.000 it blew a head gasket and we repaired it for 600 dollars, I used to for a work car and have 58.000 miles on it. It gets about 24 miles per gallon running 75 mph average in city driving. I plan to give it to my grandson for his first car, interior is almost perfect and only one dink from a Walmart asshole from a hit and run. It’s minor.