(first posted 5/13/2014) I remember clearly the first time I saw the new-for-1986 Ford Taurus. It was around the time I turned 18, late in the summer before the Taurus arrived in showrooms. A new sedan and wagon had been placed on display at the civic center downtown, and my parents and I came upon them there when we were on hand for some event. I don’t remember the event, but I remember the Taurus. I noticed the sedan, of course, but dismissed it as an upsized Tempo. I’m sure I dismissed it too easily, but oh my goodness, there stood the wagon, and it was mesmerizing.
The Taurus wagon upended everything I ever knew about wagons. This was a wagon. The next-door neighbor had one, all beat up and rusty.
And this was a wagon. My dad’s best friend owned one and I rode around in its wayback a lot. It sure got blisteringly hot under those see-through roof panels.
And especially this was a wagon, in all of its ridiculous, bloated excess. My first real wagon memory is of one of these. It was 1972, and some new neighbors drove up in one with their three kids in the back. It somehow seemed to be twice the size of Dad’s ’71 Impala, even though the two cars shared a body from the B pillar forward.
Could it be that these over-the-top GM wagons were much like the ’59 Cadillac with its stupefying fins, sobering up an entire industry? Oh, I know that fuel economy had much more to do with the wagon’s downsizing.
Midsize wagons had always existed, but they were starting to shrink to what had previously been considered compact. And square styling was very in by the mid-1980s.
It’s not that any of these wagons was especially bad-looking. But there was still a wagon idiom (that involved slathering plastic wood down the body sides) and nearly every wagon spoke it. Overworked idiom becomes cliché. I don’t like cliché, and I hardly ever looked at wagons.
Yet there I stood at 18 years old, astonished by the sleek form that stood before me. The sloping hood. The big composite headlights. The flowing roof. The integrated bumpers. The Euro-styled flat-top wheel arch.
Even the tail was delightful. “Holy crap,” my 18-year-old self thought, “this wagon is actually sexy! And I badly want to drive it!” It was the first time I felt wagon lust.
It would not be the last, thanks to the influence the Taurus had on American automobile design. More and more wagons would become lustworthy in the years to come. And I find it remarkable how well the Taurus wagon’s design holds up after 28 years. When this ’90 Taurus was new, a 24-year-old wagon in a suburban parking lot would have stuck out like a Frank Sinatra fan at a Mötley Crüe concert. But this aging Taurus blends in. Only its snout seems dull in this age of tall, aggressive front ends.
To this particular Taurus, then: time has not been kind. This dent is the least of the car’s body woes.
Oh, the rot. The dealer sticker on the back bumper says that this car was purchased new here in Rustopia, so it’s remarkable that this car isn’t even rustier.
The interior has held up all right, but clearly shows the accumulated schmutz of a quarter-century’s use.
I swoon for this Taurus. I’d probably lust mightily if I came upon one with fewer cosmetic problems. Some good examples still lurk about, as this eBay find we wrote up late last year proves.
I’m not sure I consider the Taurus’s front end dull; rather, it’s other cars’ overstyled snouts tacky.
It’s funny what a difference age makes. I was two when these first hit the streets, and by the time I could really notice them, they were everywhere. They never made a very powerful impression on me, either, with their soft ends and long overhangs; I think making a bigger effort to maintain/magnify the Taurus’s sporting credentials would’ve been wise. These were Mr. Average after a few years on the market, and it makes sense that Ford decided to go overboard designing its replacement.
It took getting older and learning about models beyond my normal favorites to truly appreciate the Taurus. One significant factor which bears mention is Ford’s care in designing a specific rear suspension design for the wagon. Honda, who introduced an Accord wagon to an eager–and quickly disappointed–audience during the height of that car’s popularity neglected to redesign its enormous unequal-length set-up in the rear. As such, and Accord wagon couldn’t even haul a twin mattress comfortably (which is total bullshit for a large compact/small midsize wagon).
Then you have the Taurus, with its flip-up hatch glass and what appears to be slightly extended length. Thanks for this article, Jim; it makes me realize that as big of a deal as the Taurus was, the wagon was even more of a breakthrough. The only comparable item I can think of, in terms of being a mainstream wagon worth driving, is the Maxima wagon and that, of course, didn’t have the same style or capacity. The weird-o-rama Quantum wagon was too rustic looking and didn’t have the torque. The Legacy wagon didn’t come for another three years. What am I missing? Was the Cressida considered competition?
I’m with you on that. When I was a kid, it seemed like these were everywhere. Neighbors had one, classmate’s parents owned them, they were all over the road and I hardly looked twice.
But now looking back, they are quite handsome. And I agree with Jim’s opinion that the design has held up well over a quarter century. These were the cars that made wagons stick around for 15 years longer.
I’m sure that if I had turned 18 when the ’71 Kingswood Estate came out, it would have busted my view of a wagon, too — I would have woodies in my memory.
I always liked the Camry wagon, particularly the ’92 and later model.
Didn’t the 92-96 Camry wagon have the dual rear wipers or was that the Corolla?
That is the one.
Perry, that could have been their marketing slogan: Taurus – a car for adults
It makes me wonder, if Honda had done the space-utilization engineering of the Fit a decade early for the Accord wagon…
I imagine it was less a matter of engineering myopia (after all, Honda had done a lot of packaging tricks for the 1983–87 Civic that are not terribly different than the Fit except for the repositioned-fuel-tank trick) and more one of cost. Like the coupe, the Accord wagon was built in Ohio and aimed mostly at the U.S. market — the wagon was exported to Japan, where it sold poorly — at a point where Honda was starting to feel the strain of its high engineering costs.
I also always liked the styling of the first and second gen (or rather, refreshed first gen) Taurus. While the SHO was what I was after, even the base models just truly looked.. good. I remember trying to talk Dad into looking at the Taurus wagon when he was shopping for a minivan in the summer of ’89, but nope there was no way he was getting another wagon. Two and a half years with a ’87 Caprice Classic that had the carb’d and underpowered 307 was enough for him. He hated that wagon.
Great cars and the drivetrains and near bulletproof if you had the vulcan. I had a ’92 for a couple of years and the thing was just rock solid. It lived at work and had very little maintenance, but the thing always just.. worked. Almost wish I would have kept that car.
I agree, good looking wagon. For whatever weird reason, the one that “clicked” in my head was a Suzuki Esteem wagon in Car and Driver. 1998 or 1999 perhaps? Same as you…I was about 18 and it took me until right then to realize “wagons can be gorgeous”. Looking at it now, it’s about as plain/vanilla as a wagon can be, so I guess it’s probably a miracle that article caught me on a good day
When these first came out they were startling — and not in a good way. Ford offered the Taurus in a color named Taupe, but which should have been called Fleshtone. It made the wagon resemble nothing less than a giant, rolling vibrator. We had a good laugh every time we saw one!
The last stand of the station wagon. Soon to be overwhelmed by SUV’s and (later) CUV’s.
But for a brief, shining, moment it was a credible alternative to both the SUV and the mommyvan.
completely agree with jim. this wagon not only redefined the wagon but introduced the idea that american manufacturers could design and build a modern car that would be popular with the public.
Wagons convince with their practicality. When they look as sharp as the Taurus and Sable of the 1st and refreshed generation they become “go to” vehicles. I even considered getting a 4th gen Sable or Taurus wagon here in 2014. However, they were either too expensive or too rusty.
I still got a wagon: Pontiac Vibe.
1st wagon: Renault 4, 2nd: Opel Record, 2door, 3rd: Chevrolet Cavalier and after 2 minivans (sorry for that) I am back to an utterly sensible wagon.
I’ve owned a 3rd gen Sable wagon and two 1st gen Matrixes, and while I liked both as drivers, I think I’d take another Matrix before another Sable.
I haven’t had a second of buyer’s remorse about the Vibe. All the minor things I found are easily fixed: broken fog light, dim radio display and lack of lumbar support. I will put a adjustable support into the seat back.
A friend of ours is driving a Taurus Wagon. She has 5 kids. Her now grown up daughter bought a Taurus. These are true people’s cars. I admire Lew Veraldi who headed the team that built the Taurus. I very much respect Jack Telnack who headed the development of gen 3. To me gen 4 looks excellent, the Sable sedan is particular nice from any angle. I think people don’t notice them anymore because there are so many on the road.
I put a $3000 transmission in my first matrix – the five speed transmission in the 2003 and 2004 matrix was well-known to have problems and fail, but it never rose to meet whatever threshold Toyota had to order a recall. That was the single most expensive automobile repair have ever had. So I can’t say that my matrixes have been trouble-free. My second matrix is a top-of-the-line XRS model, and it has developed serious cosmetic challenges, leaks oil too. But it’s now 11 years old and has a lot of miles on it and I just don’t care.
I’m the same vintage as you, Jim, but jellymould quelled my interest in cars for a while. The contemporaries to that 71 Kingswood were fantastic across the board, whereas attractive jellymoulds were the exception to the rule. I do understand the thunderbolt you experienced, I felt the same thing when I first beheld the Renault Espace. BTW IMHO FWIW
I don’t think the Taurus ever attracted me but share the affinity for wagons. Still have one (57 chev 210) that is a monument to fitting better in another time. Used it as a daily driver for several years but 13mpg got it parked and other projects keep it parked.
I think I sold the Taurus and the other wrong wheel drive wagons short. Drove a plymouth reliant wagon when I came to Houston and would have been interested in the type if my job hadn’t required a truck. A 77 Impala wagon was actually my best work vehicle and the 95 4runner is the closest I can come now.
Good article. Sometimes the site make me reconsider cars I had previously dismissed.
As revolutionary as the Taurus wagon was *for an American wagon* I think it owes a massive debt to the Audi 5000 Avant. Flat-top rear arch? Check. Large composite lamps? Check. No fake wood option? Check. Steeply raked D-pillar? Check; in fact the Taurus held back a little compared to the Audi (probably better for cargo space). The 5000 was still something of a niche car in the US when the Taurus hit the market (and way too expensive to be a true competitor), so the Taurus made a deservedly huge splash, but I’d say the Audi was the template.
As far as competition…hmmm. The Volvo 240 Turbo wagon would have been, except that it was cancelled after ’84 or ’85, The “standard” 240 was probably a more sedate drive but I’d still say a stronger competitor than anything GM or Chrysler was putting out at the time. I’m sure the Cressida wagon would have been competition but those were always rare and the wagon version didn’t carry over into the fourth-gen car for ’89; the Maxima wagon also fell by the wayside after ’88.
I do agree that the styling of these cars has held up quite well. I’ve always found the 1st gen Taurii the most handsome. Extremely rare to see one in good shape nowadays though. If a super-straight body with a non-running motor could be found, though, what about creating the SHO wagon that never was? Think they missed the boat there.
Absolutely right: Jim could’ve been describing the Audi 5000 wagon. And kudos to Ford for taking a cutting-edge idiom and making it their own without slavishly copying the original.
Competitors: Well, when my mom had enough of the shenanigans from her Volvo 240 Turbo wagon, she cross-shopped the Taurus and the Camry wagons. This was in 1992, so it was the first year for the mini-Lexus widebody Camry. And it was no competition at all: the Camry (V6) blew away the Taurus. I’m sure they paid a lot for that Camry, but it gave us 170k of trouble-free service and was still worth quite a bit when we traded it in. Having said that, if she had been shopping in 1991 or earlier (the era of the boxy little Camry), the Taurus would’ve had a fighting chance.
This is why I told this story from the first-person perspective. Growing up working class in the ‘Murican-car-loving Midwest, I had no idea about the Audi 5000 wagon. The Taurus wagon was a paradigm shifter for me, and I’m sure for many, many others.
Good point. The 5000 Avant wasn’t a common sight where I grew up (North Carolina, but one of the bigger cities there) so I’m sure there wre large parts of the country where they just didn’t exist.
And even for those who were familiar with the 5000, translating those ideas onto an American car was Ford’s bright idea (as david42 noted).
And the Taurus was affordable to the masses while the Audi was a very expensive car for the upper-income crowd only.
Ford objectively improved on the 5000 in wagon form; the Taurus offered third-row seating, the Audi didn’t. I think the same goes for carrying a 4’x8′ but I’m not sure.
It also looks revolutionary compared to Ford’s (largest model) wagon we had in that era. This is a 1992 Ford Scorpio wagon with a 2.9 liter V6, pretty conventional.
The Taurus itself was an homage (ripoff) of the Audi 5000.
Sure it was. They didn’t even try to hide the fact. They set out to copy the best and try to improve on it.
The wrap around interior is note worthy. Where did they copy that from?
Many years later I am the one to mention that before I clicked on the picture to sharpen the detail that really looked like a, ahem,
dickshift.
I remember telling someone, when these were new, that the tail had a little 928 to it. Kid laughed at me but I still see it.
A white Taurus wagon of this vintage with nice looking factory wheels has been plying my neighborhood lately. Amazing condition.
It looks positively huge compared to what I recall these cars being when they were new. Too many GM B body wagons still on the road at the time.
The aero thing didn’t appeal to me much when the Taurus was introduced, and like others have said, they became thick and unremarkable on the road – the sedans much more so than the wagon.
But, I’ve really come to appreciate this wagon. It’s a refreshing modern look that still holds up in a world where everybody seems compelled to follow the Hyundai Sonata playbook.
I remember doing a live radio broadcast from Hanna Chevrolet (now Team) in Steubenville, Ohio. It was 1986…and a sign hung on the wall inside one of the back offices, sent by GM:
Baseball…Hot Dogs…Apple Pie and FORD!? (shown as a large Blue Oval logo for emphasis)
The world was changing, and Ford was driving a stake thru GM’s heart with the Taurus.
As a GM (and especially Chevy) fanboy since the age of 10, I didn’t want to admit what was becoming increasingly obvious: that Ford now had the better product in the mid-size segment.
I think we all knew what a total POS the Celebrity was – from build quality that looked like grade school kids were assembling them to steering racks that became dangerously loose by 30,000 miles…but at least Ford had its own brand of POS in its uninspired LTD IIs and their Fox ilk.
Taurus changed it all. It actually had a premium feel…it was solid, it rode well, it drove like no GM FWD A-body would. That Roger Smith’s reorganizations and creation of Saturn (thereby funneling needed resources from the other divisions) were taking place at this time, only ensured a suitable response from the General would be years and YEARS coming. Certain GM-10s (the W body) eventually would…but Chevrolet itself was left flat-footed until well into this past decade.
At least today the Fusion/Malibu and Taurus/Impala battles seem a lot more evenly matched. But 28 years ago it felt a little embarrassing to be known as a Chevrolet enthusiast.
I always thought that the Fox-based cars were good for the times, particularly the 1983-85 LTD and Marquis.
+1 The mid 80s Fox stuff was solid and pretty high quality. Biggest letdown with them was that they were frumpy pretty long in tooth
I thought I had read somewhere (a long time ago so my memory isn’t so sharp) that the Taurus wagon design that hit the market was less radical than the original proposal.
Despite its undeniable visual graces, this car frustrates me for the same reason so many wagons do: the designer couldn’t get the wagon part of the car to look like it fully belonged with the rest of the car. Look at the full profile shot in the last photo. A chrome strip runs along the bottom of the windows, and stops abruptly at the rear edge of the rear door. It makes everything back of that point look like a separate design idea. Or look at the way the rear side window sits on a different plane from the other windows and has a different surround treatment. This latter fault is evident on most or all of the other wagons as well.
Granted, some compromises can’t be avoided when designing a wagon that is based on a sedan. But sometimes designers are simply lazy. Why can’t car designers get this stuff right?
Honestly, I don’t think that designers are lazy. I think they are enthusiastic and hamstrung by the bean counters. Also designers are very visual types and much less verbal types which puts them at a disadvantage when they have to defend their ideas before the powers to be.
Look at the Volvo 240 wagon. That sedan rear door is so obviously wrong because the window falls away from the roof line. My guess: designer: 0, bean counter: 1.
(If it weren’t for bean counters most of us couldn’t afford cars)
Wagons are only useful if they have three seats and can carry nine adults. Other than that they’re useless. There’s nothing other than people that can be carried in a wagon that can’t be carried in a pickup.
Except what you carry in a wagon won’t get wet when it rains and the wagon won’t have v-8 fuel consumption.
Not mention the wagon won’t rattle one’s kidneys on less-than-smooth roads.
Pickup trucks are only useful if they have an 8 foot bed and a torquey diesel engine. Other than that they’re useless. There’s nothing other than oversize/overweight cargo that can be carried in a pickup that can’t be carried in an SUV/wagon.
See what I did there? Blanket statements don’t make for good arguments.
Your right about that. Short bed trucks are useless. And I wasn’t trying to argue anything. I was just giving my opinion. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.
I don’t think I could disagree more. Yes they have their limitations but I have worked as a chimney sweep and HVAC repairman out of a station wagon. A four door wagon can give access to your tools and still have a cavernous rear door. In utility they are second only to a van and come with better (far better generally) fuel economy.
I made this move to the 4runner because a capable four door wagon was unavailable and I tired of having an open pickup bed with the incumbent lack of security minus a mountain of toolboxes . Would have considered a (mini) van but those with suitable transmissions seemed to be hit and miss.
I am not saying this to criticize your opinion but to point out that needs come in various sizes and shapes. After retiring from the service I was a full time tradesman for a spell and moonlighted once I became a teacher. YMMV and certainly, so will everyone’s needs.
First, Thank you for your service. I’m a retired Air Force Sergent. I drove wagons a years. I had five youngins and it was either a wagon or a van. While vans might come in handy for some things I don’t like them for passenger vehicles. Unless I had twelve kids that is.
But there’s a lot that can’t be carried in a three-box sedan or even a hatchback, which is the point of the exercise. Having just had to stuff almost the entire contents of a dorm room (including a lot of stuff I wouldn’t want flying out of the back of a pickup, either due to the wind or parking lot opportunists), the merits of a compact station wagon are eminently clear at the moment.
Yep. I moved dining room table and six chairs in my Toyota Matrix once.
I would say that wagons are pretty useless at carrying nine adults. For starters the rear seat will always be narrower, plus access to that seat will be less dignified at a minimum. Ok for children, otherwise you really want a minivan or van. Possibly the best in this regard would be the Peugeot 504/505 even if that only seats 8, or the original Olds Vista Cruiser. The traditional US wagons as shown above have too low a roofline.
Carrying a bunch of loose, light stuff is another thing more easily done with a wagon than a pickup.
Of course, there are often compromises to be made in life! Trying to achieve disparate/conflicting uses in a single vehicle is like one of those “there are three… but you can only have two” situations.
@ John H, Agreed. My 77 Impala would carry six adults with the back seat empty and either two more uncomfortable adults or three kids.
I deal with the need to do a bunch of different things in a way that may be unique and sure won’t work for everyone. I don’t qualify for farm tags because I’m not chasing a profit but still have most of the needs of one who does. I have a big yard (5 acres) and no neighborhood association. I have three trailers.
One spends it’s existence full of large bales of hay.
One carries livestock, rock, dirt or anything like that. It has a large wheelbarrow friendly tailgate. It spends a lot of time empty but when I need it, I need it. Basically it is my 8′ truck bed but it’s larger and heavier duty than any half ton could be.
One is a flatbed with tool boxes mounted. It is my work bench or my tool caddy. It goes behind tractor or truck. I am 100% aware this wouldn’t work for anyone that lived in town.
Most of the wheels and tires are interchangeable so only need one spare for the two that are.
License tag goes from one to the other and I have painted them red because at the last renewal asked what color.
Once you have them they cost almost nothing to maintain. Insurance for three homemade trailers is the same as one. I only use one at a time. Since I have a space to park them it’s a lost less redneck than it sounds. It does certainly establish the need for a primary vehicle that can tow and that turned out to be a 95 4runner. It doesn’t get a lot of miles so hope I have ti a long time. If I carry through with my threat to build another for RV purposes, that may change.
You’re entitled to your opinion regarding three-seat wagons; but my 1956 Ford Country Sedan nine-passenger wagon is exactly that. Fairly comfortable seating for nine adults plus a bit of room for baggage in the wayback…or fairly cavernous cargo room when configured with two seats…or seriously cavernous cargo room with just the front seat. The 292 V8 with 3spd manual & overdrive is relatively decent on fuel, too.
I’m on my fourth Taurus/Sable wagon (five Taurus/Sables overall): All but the last with the Vulcan V6, and all but the last (so far) going over 200K, still running strong when swapped out.
They have been highly practical cars. Being in rust-free California helped keep the bodies solid.
86 Taurus L, red. “The Tomato.” Still running…after several owners, as a kick-around errand car at an auto wreckers!
87 Sable GL, dark metallic grey. “The Grey Whale.” Got tired of crank windows, sold it and got…
92 Sable GL, light metallic blue. “The Blue Goose.” Sold to the brother of the mechanic who was doing the front end on my 63 Corvette. Still running daily but the clearcoat paint is peeling.
02 Taurus SE, greyish-green (or greenish-grey). No name…last week it hauled a water heater, 200 pounds of cat litter from Costco, and six bags of garden soil from Lowe’s. But the less-styled Gen 1-2 wagon body could take bulkier cargo by an inch or two.
MMMM never seen a wagon none were sold here or any Taurus sedans this model however I have had a close look at an early Sable there are two in NZ and one is close by and they arent as bad as they appeared later certainly more appealing than the ugly fish faced one that lives opposite me anyway the tailgate echoes a Mazda in styling the grille less front was copied by Ford AU for their disasterous EA model, different I guess but I dont want one.
Interesting article. This car (wagon and sedan) saved Ford. That look was so successful for them, they placed it on all the Fords in the 1980’s. The comments were interesting to read. I preferred the Mercury Sable myself.
I had a 1st Gen Taurus and I liked it. Nothing magnificent, but it stood up pretty well to lots of hard driving. Its tranny died at around 140K and that was that but it lasted 12 years, so couldn’t complain too much.
Like it or hate it the Taurus changed the automotive world. Out with the boxy and in with the rounded. Somebody posted that the first time they saw the Taurus it looked a bit like the Tempo. That I think hits the nail on the head as the had the first generation Tempo/Topaz and Aero T-Bird/Couger not came out in 1983 and 1984 and led the aero way then the Taurus might have not been as accepted well as it was(and sold over 400,000 in the first year) indeed even Ford had a contingency plan in case the Taurus flopped and that was discussed in a book by Eric Taub called Taurus: The making of the car that saved Ford.
My family has had several Tauraii and Sables in our household( 1993 Taurus Wagon, 2003 Sable Wagon, 2008 Taurus Sedan, 2009 Taurus Sedan and finally a 2006 Taurus Sedan) and I can say that all were roomy inside and the wagons were able to carry loads of things.
A good condition first and second generation Taurus/ Sable is still a modern and fresh looking vehicle. I love the light bar on the Mercury Sable.
The 3rd generation sort of was a “Meh” to me as it seemed that turning point of where the taurus went from challenger and winner of the midsize car wars against Camry and Accord to a rental car special.
The 4th generation was better looking then the 3rd generation but the writing was on the wall. I just bought a 2006 Taurus for cheap to use as a commuter car(I love my Fiesta but driving it on 495 with all those idiots in bigger cars riding up my rearend put the fear of god in me)
I came across this picture of my folks 2003 Sable wagon next to my 1990 Volvo 240 DL wagon that I took before I did some work to their car a while back. As you can see the styling between the 2 cars is night and day. The Volvo is boxy and looks belongs to the past while the Sable looks fresh(so to speak) even though it is now 11 years old. I can imagine how putting the original 1986 Taurus wagon next to the 1986 Volvo 240 or Celebrity wagon or any of the other wagons of the day would elicit the same type of wow night and day moment.
Still see a few decent 1st Gen and 2nd Gen for sale out here. Not a big fan of the 3.8L engine and their head gasket issues. The 3rd Gen is now in decline as less and less on the road and more and more in the junk yards. Rows upon rows with very few past 180,000 miles. Never a fan of the 3rd Gen sedans. Still think they just look wrong from any angle. Ugly. However, I did get my wife a 3rd Gen wagon in 2007. They do well for what they were designed for and if you know how to handle the quirks of the Vulcan engine and the transmission they will easily go over 200,000 miles. Except for the 22 mpg the car suits my wife just fine.
As for me the last wagon I was in was a 1967 Satellite between 1967-74. I still remember the streets full of them in the 60’s everywhere you went.
I can now handle the curves better the longer I looked at the wagon just like I acquired a taste for some scotch. No hope for the sedans just like there is no hope for gin.
I had a Sable wagon just like that but in green. Really, really liked driving that car — good power, good enough fuel economy, capacious wayback. Hated that the head gasket blew.
I bought two new Sable wagons and loved them both. Drove each about 5 years.
The factory wheelcovers look like they came from Wal-Mart. The wheelbase at the rear is too short, the overhang looks out of proportion. As far as looks go, the Audi 5000 Wagon blows this car into the weeds. But as far as being reliable, the Sable would win hands down.
Great take on this one, Jim. What I remember most about these is how almost overnight the 1983-early 86 Fox body LTD/Marquis wagon became a drug on the market. Everyone wanted the Taurus/Sable, nobody wanted the old Fox version. A great situation for the guy looking for a presentable, comfortable car on the cheap.
My mother bought a new Crown Victoria sedan in August of 1985. In the late spring of 1986, my car-mentor Howard bought a black 86 Sable sedan, and let me drive it. I still remember my immediate impression: Mom bought a year too soon.
As I recall, Ford priced the wagons considerably higher than they did the sedans, which might account for the low proportion. I also agree that the styling has held up remarkably well. These cars do not look nearly 30 years old.
The Taurus was better than the LTD, no doubt about it, in almost every way you could measure. But that didn’t make the LTD a bad car. A gray Marquis in nice shape prowls my area and reminds me of that every time I see it.
Wow, this is a LOT of love for what to my eyes is just an updated Family Truckster. Maybe some of that is since ole’ Griz drove one in Christmas Vacation. But while the Taurus was a groundbreaking design, I cant see it as something to get excited about. In its best form, it was still a sedan. The SHO drivetrain would’ve been better used in the Probe. At least alongside the Taurus.
As to sexy wagons….
+1 after jellymould went through its awkward adolescent stage.
Not sure what ‘jellymould’ is…
I got turned onto these based on one that would come down my street at my old apartment. It was triple black, slammed into the weeds, and had that gorgeous V8. Manual trans and straight pipes so it sounded like an abosolute BEAST.
Or if you wanna get REALLY naughty…..
Oh my, do I lust after these. Almost bought one but its Carfax saying it had tussled with a deer spooked me.
I came REAL damn close to hunting down an R/T Magnum. I went for a PT Cruiser GT based on no manual available on these. But with Hemi power on tap…. I might be able to get past that in the future. Still, that’s the only complaint with my Rumble Bee…
I cannot overestimate the game changing fact that the Taurus had on the American public. It really made all other US attempts at the time obsolete. These were so prevalent in many suburban driveways and I remember riding in a new Taurus Wagon (A friend from high school had one) and was impressed at its styling and design theme). My wife’s sister just recently traded her 1990 Taurus for a new Focus.
Generally, the weak points were the transmission and rust issues. The Vulcan 3.0 was/is durable if not overly powerful.
Love it. I’ll forever associate this car with my favorite movie. “We’re kicking off our fun old-fashioned family Christmas by heading out into the country in the old front-wheel drive sleigh to embrace the frosty majesty of the winter landscape and select that most important of Christmas symbols.”
Came across this article by sheer accident. Funny how my now-27-year-old daily driver, built on October 5, 1989 (my birthday!) is now a curbside classic. I’ve customized a few things in the 21 years I’ve owned it, such as a tach and a 140mph speedometer from a SHO; removed the fake wood trim on the dash down to its base brushed aluminum; and converted both front seats from manual to powered, but everything else is factory and it all works. Mechanically, it’s three years old as I completely overhauled the front and rear suspensions with all-new Motorcraft parts and rebuilt the air conditioning system. Did all the work myself, this car is incredibly easy to work on.
I do know I haven’t seen another first-generation Taurus wagon on the road around here in years (and this is south Florida where rust doesn’t exist). Too bad, as they were built to last. I bought it with 74,400 miles on it and it now has 192,000 on the odometer with no reason it can’t make 300,000. As noted by another post, the Vulcan V6 is not overly powerful but it is durable and dependable and I still get speeding tickets with it.
Nice to see this!
I drive my ’95 wagon daily. It’s a GL with manual windows, sears and door locks. It is exactly the kind of functional simplicity I was looking for. I purchased it from the original owner who garage kept it. It had 44k original miles when I bought it. I had to replace the signal/wiper stalk and the fuel pump. I also put new tires on it because the car had set and the tires had flat spots in them. I really like this car!
I drive my dark green 1995 ford Taurus, (grey interior) 3.0 engine like the first two every day — it’s my third Taurus wagon!
The first was a used 87 with too many miles on it, but i loved it anyway (I fell in love with the shape when the first ones came out) and when it was wrecked, I got my first ’95 Taurus – Cherry Red, beige interior. (in 1997). I put many many miles on it, and was hoping to make it to 200K. I made the mistake of letting that one go (I was in the middle of nursing school and believed the idiots who told me they couldn’t find the parts). For a year was in car wilderness (hating the interim car until it almost killed me in an accident that wouldn’t have even happened in the Taurus)
Then, I found a perfectly kept 1995 station wagon with just 15K miles — in 2011! Not quite believing it, I went over it with a fine tooth comb (it helps to know the car!) then snapped it up, and have been babying it ever since. The only thing I did was replace most of the rubber in the car since it hadn’t been driven much due to the owner’s illness.
I plan to drive it as long as I drive, which I hope will be a very long time. I maintain it well, and it has taken care of me. I love my car. People think I”m crazy to love such an ordinary car, but it gets me there, and I’m comfortable. I look at the gleaming dark green paint that is so lovely in the sunlight and count myself very lucky.
I really like (no, _love_) the front bench seat – so much more comfortable than the cockpit bucket seats in all modern cars. I’m not a huge person, but i have long legs and I just don’t like to be hemmed in. The taurus is nice b/c it’s big enough, but not huge like the same vintage caprice wagon, which I also kind of liked. (So many 4 door caprices and tauruses were sold as cop cars because if you maintain them, they are reliable, comfortable and tough.)
My tauruses have moved couches, industrial shelving, generators and other tools and supplies, helped me move house twice, and carried 7 adults (occasionally). Trips to the hardware have been much less complex than they would be in a four door. I just transported two big screen TVs that had outlived their usefulness, no muss, no fuss. The car is more fun to drive than an SUV and easier to get into and out of when I injured both knees. I’ve avoided van rentals on several occasions.
If i had a pick up, I wouldn’t have a rear passenger compartment or a lockable back and the handling sucks, especially in bad weather.
We used to have an SUV, but i found this more stable to drive, and small children and older people find it easier to get into and out of than an SUV. Gas mileage isn’t fabulous, but it beat the SUV and is reasonable on the highway.
I would much rather drive a wagon than a four door. When I rent cars in foreign countries, I always request wagons if they’re available. Much easier to deal with luggage than a 4 door, and cheaper by far than an SUV.
Bottom line, if I could find another one in good shape, I would probably buy it – in case I ever lose use of this one. 🙂 Or just to have a different color… that lovely rich deep blue, for example!
I just saw this response. 15k original miles is amazing! Do you still own and daily drive this wagon? If so, how many miles are currently on it? What items have you had to replace?
That is a very nice wagon! I always loved these and the Sable. Especially gen 1 and 2. I very much appreciated the aesthetic qualities that this model line brought to the market and to American roads. They all looked good to me, even as a kid in the late 80’s/early 90’s. My first car was a 1992 Taurus GL Sedan and we also had a 1986 Sable LS wagon prior to that. I miss this design. It still looks great after all these years. That wagon is very nice looking and you also have the best hubcap pattern for those years. Glad to see these cars still have their fans.
When I first say the Taurus wagon way back in 1986 I was 15 years old, and I thought that I was going to pee my pants! I thought wow! Is this for real? I was so tickled pink. The car was a sparkling delight to my youthful eyes! And when the driver started the engine I was dancing for joy to hear that tuneful burble sing form the exhaust pipe. Oh, I thought, this is the car my parents need now. As the Taurus drive off I remember doing a wee little dance in the JC Penney parking lot donning a brand new pair of Sperry TopSiders. When I was old enough to buy my first car I settled on a brand new sparkling silver 1996 VW Jetta. I wanted so badly to get the GLI but on a ballet dancer’s salary I couldn’t be too choosy!
Was may favorite wagon as a kid and still remains so today. The styling has aged extremely well. Compared to some of the bulky, over-done designs of today, these can still look positively fresh faced. It was a groundbreaking design that has remained timeless. 1986-’95 Taurus and Sables still are good looking to my eyes.
My MIL and then my wife’s sister had the 1995 LX version of this wagon. My MIL had the 1986 LX wagon and bought the 1995 when she needed a new car. It stayed in the family for 20 plus years and was well past decrepit when they finally donated it to NPR. It was still running but only poorly and rust was getting it but pretty much everything still worked. A good mechanic might have been able to rescue it.
My first new car (same blue, even), so instant nostalgia for me. It sure felt up-to-date, sleek and comfortable. By today’s standards, not a ton of horsepower, but still was really something after my 70s-80s malaise-y cars. Numerous cross-country trips, and I’ll bet the experience would hardly feel primitive today:
Someone on this site noted the Taurus wagon was the first car to have what is now a ubiquitous design feature – a decklid or liftgate whose bottom edge drops an inch or two into the surrounding bumper. The rest of the car was forward-looking too; the front end looks tame today but seemed incredibly futuristic. The only thing I didn’t care for was the obvious re-use of the sedan rear doors and the resulting busy C pillar area.
1990 was the first year antilock brakes were available on a Taurus, but you could only get them on higher-trimmed sedans. For 1991, ABS was available on any Taurus.
This was just like Mom’s last wagon, which we replaced with a newer Taurus sedan when Mom was about 89, I believe. She was still a much-better-than average driver at the time and loved her independence, so we got her another car. Unfortunately, the “new” sedan had power windows/door locks (a first for her), and she could never figure them out. She locked herself in the car early on and my brother had to come rescue her. Mom was an angel born in 1926 and Dad was “thrifty”, to put it mildly, so frills like these were never even considered. Those 2 features alone frustrated her so much, she never liked driving the sedan. She had 6 wagons in her life, and I think they always made her feel like her 6 kids were still piled in the back, quietly eating candy we had snagged from Nana’s house, hoping that Dad couldn’t hear us.
I have always loved the styling of the first gen Taurus wagon. I had an ’84 Cougar and thought that it would be my next step in a family car. My Wife did not. She did not like wagons, at all. We bought a ’90 Dodge Caravan, which turned out to be a better choice as we could space out the children’s seating assignments better. The third row in a minivan is more easily accessible than a wagon. Twenty years or so later, after a second minivan, two of the kids were gone and the remaining one doesn’t like to go places with us anymore, so no need for wagons. I ended up buying an old ’97 Ford Explorer ( RWD 5.0 V8) for my Daughter to use for her craft business, but she didn’t use it much. I did, for five years, and ended up loving the thing. It recently broke down in a bad situation and I had to let it go.
I wanted to replace my old Mustang GT with a late model, but we both, (really!) decided that we should get something more practical. I had been interested in the Flex since it debuted. It would have been a comparable Explorer, if I hadn’t chosen the Flex. I hadn’t really cared for the styling of the 2011 -2018 Explorers, but the new 2019 model is okay, and it’s RWD also. I wasn’t going to spend the money for a brand new Explorer, but I still could have bought a three year old Mustang GT for what I paid for the Flex.
Do I regret getting the Flex? While I still want the late model Mustang, I still have my old one, and a truck, and another Mustang. But without the Explorer we didn’t have a comfortable, multi passenger vehicle. The Flex fills the bill perfectly, it’s pretty much good for everything I need, the fuel economy is acceptable, and I like the way it looks. It’s the first FWD vehicle that I’ve had in years, not like when I had Honda Civics, minivans and even a Cadillac STS. I prefer RWD, but it’s fine for cruising
My father in law decided he had to have an 88 Mercury Sable wagon, loaded in silver. So he went to several dealerships around the Fort Lauderdale area until he found one. No moon roof, but all the other features including the 3.8 engine. He leased it, thankfully, on a 4 year red carpet lease. At 4000 miles the transaxle starting to soft hard and erroneously. If you need to pass, and hit the gas, it jumped into neutral and then slowly went into 2nd.
Ford’s service was deplorable in those days. They “fixed it” with a bottle of anti friction oil. Two thousand miles later, that transmission was shot. His car listed at little over $19200, and Ford was reluctant to replace the transaxle. So they called him to the dealer and told him that their cost to repair the car was $4200. They would not do it unless he signed a waiver that he would not use the Florida lemon law (it more than qualified!)
He did foolishly because the other offer was to simply get him out of his lease.
From then on, things on that car piled up: electrical issues nearly set it on fire (it didn’t because at the time all the accessories were in use, draining off some of the 22.5 volts being pushed through the system due to a bad voltage regulator), power seats had to be rewired because they would cut into the wiring, ignition switch fell out, on and on.
Finally came the day to send it back. Ford called to ask where they could pick it up and he told them. He asked if it would be transported on a truck, they said yes.
Then two men came to pick it up, saying they were going to drive it from Fort Lauderdale to Tampa to an auction. He laughed and said ok. He told me later that it wouldn’t shift past second anymore!!!