(first posted 11/13/2012) As part of my post-Sandy survey of the (non-)damage to my hometown, I was assigned to Older Relative Patrol by my Dad. (In truth, that was mostly my own doing; I wanted to see my somehow still-alive childhood cat, who’s being cared for by a family member.) I ended up at the home of my Great Aunt, whom I’d completely forgotten has owned a second-generation Taurus for many years.
By the time the second-generation Taurus arrived, the bull’s reputation (and that of its Sable cousin) had been thoroughly established. Sales were climbing to eye-popping levels, and Ford was clearly on a roll as the Malaise Era had pretty much become a thing of the past.
“Wow!” Is there really any better way to sum up what Ford did for 1992? Dick Landgraff had been charged with overseeing that very successful face lift, which was so liked by the Ford brass that they handed him the keys to the DN101 project–AKA the 1996 redesign.
Exactly how did Ford justify stirring the pot at this point? After all, the second-generation Taurus was the most successful so far, selling just under 410,000 units in its first year. That is a huge figure. No, it didn’t crush its number-two competitor, the Accord, but it didn’t matter: It was still the best- selling passenger car in the United States.
There were some changes, though.
As a cost-cutting measure, the black molding used on earlier models was dropped in favor of a monochromatic scheme (which happens to look better, in the humble opinion of your author).
The wagon received very few changes. Aside from sharing its front end with the new model, it retained exactly the same specifications from the B-pillar rearward; again, not such a bad thing.
Our featured Taurus has been around quite a while, as my cousin always bought her Fords brand new. Her love for the thing withstood its constantly being in the shop for warranty repair. Why was it? Well…
Blame the dreaded Essex V6. Why the hell Ford couldn’t figure out its kinks after 10 years of production is a mystery to me. Still, the time it spent at the dealership during the Clinton administration paid off; despite being so old, it’s been pretty good to my Grandma’s sister. I remember that once, at the age of 17, the keys were handed to me for a quick jaunt to fetch her mail at the entrance to her mobile home complex. At the time, I had my ’89 Taurus with the Vulcan V6. As I put the newer car through its paces, I kept asking myself where the 3.8’s added grunt was. I wonder if buyers were thinking the same thing.
Now, lets take a more in-depth look at the redesign then, shall we?
They kept the wraparound dash and added a passenger side airbag, something I believe was ahead of its time. That top line above the SRS logo looks like something out of the Enterprise-D.
And here we have the semi-cockpit dash, which was kept as well. It was designed to be user-friendly, but the controls above the vents seem like they would be a pain to reach. I think the reason they were pushed northward was to accommodate a CD player in the upper trim levels in place of the lint rollers. Also, that steering wheel is the same as in the third generation; I have it in my Sable. Curiously, mine is worn down a bit more, despite the fact that my CC has fewer miles than this one. Maybe my palms are too sweaty.
Back to the engine bay: Once again, we can see one legacy of Team Taurus directly in front of us, in clearly-labeled compartments that remain very visible even after all these years. For comparison purposes, only the cap of the windshield reservoir in my 1997 Sable is visible–from the stem down, the entire rest of the damn thing is hidden. Overfilling is a very common occurrence.
You didn’t think I’d leave without pulling my own ride alongside, now would you? Shame on you who did. Anyway, part of me wishes that my car also was a Taurus, which would provide a more proper comparison. Still, I think this suits our purposes quite nicely. I can now truly understand the head scratching that must have occurred when loyal Ford owners pulled into dealerships in 1996 and saw this new oval contraption next to the 95’s.
And in case you were wondering, that is my Great Aunt at the left side, wondering what the hell I was doing. “Go on your computer and check out my articles, Aunt Flo!” , I responded enthusiastically. “I haven’t gone on that damn thing in years!” she replied, taking another puff from her cigarette. Sigh.
Now here comes the harder part: could the third-generation design have been saved by more- rectangular headlamps? Or is that whole front end just dowdy and not as confidence-inspiring as the 95’s? Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me as I look at those crystalline lenses, which certainly have held up well over the years.
With that out of the way, let’s examine the the second-generation Taurus in its proper historical context.
The 1992 Camry would be ripped apart repeatedly by the DN101 team in order to figure out what made it so special. In terms of styling, clearly Toyota had cribbed notes from the ’86 Taurus, but this design was still a bit, well, bulky, and it didn’t have the flow of the 1995 Taurus.
When the fifth-generation Accord debuted in 1994, it made clear that Honda also was paying attention. Again, though, it wasn’t exactly an eye catcher: To my eyes, that rear end has always seemed a bit chopped-off. And what did the competition do next?
Virtually without exception, they dived headfirst into something close to copyright infringement. It seemed that all these automakers just took a second-generation Taurus and said “lets do it.” And it worked. Even when they didn’t involve a blue-oval vehicle, the midsize sedan wars of the 1990’s really were all about the Taurus–and you’ve got to believe that pretty much everyone involved was plenty entertained.
This generation of Taurus I always thought handled the best, although it wasn’t the most comfortable I’ve ever driven. The ’96 to ’99 models had these on comfort.
Oh, the Taurii I’ve driven. Lots of this and each subsequent generation. However, did I mention this generation handled best?
Years ago, as part of my employer’s new drivers training, I was put in a ’94 or ’95 Taurus at the highway patrol’s test track. I was told to drive as fast as I wanted, but to stay in my lane. I have since had a whole new respect for the 2nd generation Taurus.
The 2nd Gen did have its own set of quirks. Speedometers that bounced in a 10 mph range, a few wheel bearings, a few transmissions on the 3.0 liter models, and the “Taurus” emblem divorcing itself from the dash, as seen above. But they can hop curbs very well.
Ed, you’ve prompted a lot of memories on this. Thank you.
Heh, thanks for the stories Jason,
Out of all the Taurii generations, this is the one i’m least familiar with. I had an ’89 Taurus wagon and currently have the third gen Sable you see above. My dad has a fourth gen Taurus.
From my perspective, the third generation was a huge step up in refinement, but maybe its predecessor did handle better, probably due to its smaller size.
In terms of memories, the second gens were the ones in every driveway of my neighborhood. All replaced by SUVs, of course. In high school, many fellow students had second gens as their first cars. I might have been the only one with a first gen. So it goes…
Somehow I fail to see the Taurus as a curbside ” Classic.” The first year of the first generation is interesting and its development is an interesting story, after that they’re just appliances.
And the Mazda 323/626s, Monzas, ’86 four-door Cutlasses, etc. ARE classics? What difference does it make? This feature is a typical enjoyable read as most other features are on this site.
Challenger,
Scroll up to the top of the page, and look at the tagline underneath the title to this website, then think about what you just said.
It’s a matter of perspective, I think. Last year my mother went to a classic car show with me and was commenting that various 40+ year old cars weren’t “classics” because in her eyes they were just ordinary day-to-day cars.
Well really any typical family sedan is an appliance, be it a 1958 Ford, a 1965 Chevy Impala, a 1973 Dodge Monaco, even the funky AMC Eagle was built to be an appliance despite it’s interesting history. I know your post it about 4 years old now but even in 2012 this car could (and now) be considered a classic.
OK, I’m saying it: I LOVE the 2nd-gen Taurus!
The 1st-gen? I WANTED to like it, but something about it just didn’t come together. The 1992 version? Ford got it right all the way.
They looked best in that light greenish-blue, too.
The 1996 “Symphony of Ovals” 3rd-gen Taurus? Well, the less said, the better, except this: The 4th-gen made an awful design ALMOST acceptable. Certainly much more practical. My Father-in-Law had one. In brown metallic with a touch of red mixed in…it was an excellent car. I actually liked it as well.
Zackman – you and I agree. I was crazy about that metallic aqua on the 2nd gen Taurus. Do I remember that Ford even offered a matching interior? I am not sure, but seem to remember seeing it.
Was it the “green” interior? I love that shade that Ford offered during that period. The maroon & blue hues were also very attractive and are a nice departure from the beige/gray phenomenon that was taking hold then.
I’m with Zackman. The first generation was considered groundbreaking. I kinda liked it, but it seemed to me they didn’t get it quite right. That second generation was updated and refined-looking to where it seemed to me they got it just right. From the time they were new, I always wanted a second generation SHO with a manual, though even an automatic would have been OK. From every angle, I could always recognize the subtle little SHO details that made it stand out from the ordinary Taurus. Have even come to like the 1995 Taurus SE. And, to me, the third generation was a horrible sort of inside joke from Ford that never should have reached production. That much ovalness inside and out could only be truly appreciated by a select group of diehard Ford fans, IMHO. As for the Japanese competitors, the 1997-2001 Toyota Camry was the only generation to have a clean and cohesive design style in my mind. All other Camrys and Accords, past and present seem to be either a little or greatly lacking in a smooth, clean and cohesive design.
I like the styling of the 2nd generation Taurus, subtle refinement for a solid design. On the other hand I took a look at a 2012 Taurus on Sunday morn. The rear tail lights reminded me of my Aunt’s old 65 Ford Galaxy (nothing wrong with a nod to one’s heritage)……but the front end was too truck-like with it’s federal mandated bulbous nose. In comparison, the close to 20 year old Gen 2 Taurus is gazelle-like in appearence!
My father had one or two of these (I really can’t remember, I think it was two), both white. I think the first was a 92 (maybe a 93) and was still early enough that the remote keyless entry fob was impressive to me. I think that he traded it on a 95 which was virtually identical. If I recall, Ford had been offering some really aggressive 2 year leases back then.
He had owned one of the later first generation Tauri (also white) and had traded it on a 90 Honda Accord (also white – seeing a pattern here?). He knew that Honda possessed a kind of “with-it” vibe that was leaking out of the Taurus even in the late 80s. But he just didn’t feel at home in the Honda. When he got into an accident in the Honda, it was back to another Taurus. As I think about it, his last car was a 97-ish Continental, which was sort of a Super-Taurus (although he certainly never thought of it that way).
The thing I recall about this generation was that the Sable lost its unique lower sheetmetal. Gen1 Sable was smooth below the windowline while the Taurus had a crease. Gen2 sables shared the Taurus’ fore and aft crease along the side. Although there was still a difference in the bodies (the greenhouse particularly) it looked to me like Ford was backing away from a big Ford-Mercury difference that had been evident in 1986.
When reading about the history of the Taurus, its amazing how little the Sable is mentioned. In Mary Walton’s “Car,” its even mentioned that Ford was considering shuttering the Mercury brand – and keep in mind this is around the early 90’s. The Ford brass were too concerned about reputation or something, but back then the company was making wads of cash, so I guess it didn’t really matter.
A 1986 Taurus was the first “American” car I had use of when I arrived in Canada in 1990 and I immediately liked it. I described it as “European” compared to the other domestic vehicles of the day and it certainly handled well for the times.
Shame it’s A/C failed the day before I was due to go on honeymoon in it. I was handed the keys to a 1990 Crown Victoria LX, all agleam in white. What a wallowing, wafting contrast that was.
As for the Taurus styling, I think the 1st and 2nd generations were excellent. As with most people, I hated the ovoid version, just grotesque. I especially hated the interior with all the oval dash panels and horrible saggy seats and strange fold-down center armrest/storage cubby. Useful but just tacky looking to my eyes.
The 4th generation “rescue package” was, to my eyes, a miraculous piece of work. I think that version actually is the best looker of the four. Amazing how some relatively small changes could make such a huge difference.
In terms of sales, around 1990 I was working at a Ford dealership and Ford was desperately trying to keep ahead of the Accord to achieve #1 status. To do so they were throwing big money incentives at it while Honda was selling the Accord virtually at full money. I never understood this. Surely better to sell fewer cars at a better profit?
Ford learned their lesson. Sure, there may be some good deals like the out going Fusion (or Focus or Escape)…..but it’s to reduce stock for the new design. No more “GM Think” of #1 to be # one.
No more Rental Queens either (not to confused with fleet/government sales).
I’m kinda surprised by the number of favorable comments on the 2g Taurus. IMO it’s gotta be THE most uninteresting car of the last 30 years. A huge letdown after the groundbreaking first generation as far as I’m concerned. I certainly understand not wanting to mess with success in the styling department, but everything under the hood was also the same or worse than what was available in 1986. The interior wasn’t as nice and was made of cheaper stuff, and that 1g derivative styling did it no favors in my book either. Just a totally bland, somewhat well built appliance which is a sad fate for a model that turned the entire American automotive industry on it’s head six years earlier.
I’m not really seeing the resemblance between this and the Japanese midsize cars either (or the short-lived swan song Cutlass for that matter). The Taurus was certainly a huge influence on those in terms of packaging, but the similarities in their looks start and end with the fact that they all had rounded edges… as every single car from that time period did.
In this way it also reminded me of the 1990 Accord, that was such a conservative re-design from the groundbreaking 1986.
I see the ’90 Accord a little differently. It was certainly much more homogeneous and mainstream than the ’86 model… but it was also an entirely new, bigger platform with a brand new drivetrain and every other possible thing. The ’92 Taurus was literally the same exact thing as the ’86 Taurus, just rounder…
Power train wise, the ’92 Taurus was the same; but both the interior and exterior were similiar but different; with the exception of the doors and the wagon, none of the exterior body panels on the first gen Taurus would fit on a second gen Taurus.
And according to “Car: A Drama of the American Workplace”, Ford was going to do the same for the oviod 1996-1999 Taurus wagon; until someone saw a clay of it, and remarked that it looked like “an applicance.” The wagon was then quickly redesigned; the fourth generation wagon also had the new front end, but the rest of the wagon was the same as the previous generation.
Here is my 1995 Taurus wagon parked next to a 2000-2004 Taurus wagon.
I’m also not seeing much of a correlation between the ’92 Taurus and the ’92 Camry/’94 Accord, but now that you mention it, there may have been a bit of influence. As for the subject of the story, I agree, every car has a story, and this post made me look at a car that I honestly have ignored for the last 20 years. Hey, that’s what this site is all about! However, from my personal experience back in the period, I was EXTREMELY impressed by a ’95 Camry I rented once. Even in cloth trim, it felt like a luxury car, and even my GM-loyal mom was impressed by its looks. Around the same time, I rented a Taurus and it felt very cheap to me — especially the dash, which seemed to be a conglomeration of parts and seams. But that said, every car needs a champion, and I’m glad to see these get some love.
OK, thanks, I’m not the only one. To me the ’92 Taurus has always had the same relationship to to its predecessors as the ’97 Camry has to the ’92 thru ’96 Camry. Take a spectacular and stylish car and give it a personality-ectomy. The problem being, of course, that Ford found that whacking the Taurus with the stodginess stick didn’t hurt sales much at all, thus encouraging all the other competitors in this market to follow suit.
Toyota, and later Ford were also forced to decontent their cars to hold the line on car pricing; a trend that continues until today. My 1995 Taurus wagon has ten interior lights, a light under the hood, a spare (even if it is a donut), spare fuses complete with a fuse extraction tool, and struts holding up the hood instead of prop rod; some or even all of these have been decontented out of cars today. But Toyota and Honda continue to benefit from the sterling reputation of previous generations; something which GM and Ford could not do.
One of these would make a nice project car on a budget for those with weird auto tasts like I have. Parts are cheap and plentiful, ans there are nowhere near as many of these on the roads as there used to be. They may be appliances, but they were a huge part of the automotive landscape from the mid eighties to the mid nineties.
Only in the vwvortex/Jalopnik-centric world of internet hotrodding culture would a 2g Taurus fall under the “weird auto tastes” category. In everyday life, they’re formerly ubiquitous yet still commonplace piece of whitebread cars that were perfect for people who didn’t actually like cars. I’d take one as a beater, and I’d love an SHO – but I’d much rather have one of their 1g counterparts.
You mean like the now deceased “Groovalicious Purple Princess Of Peace Art Car”?
I really don’t understand how Ford kept the ’96 generation around for so long, which is seemed various obvious (and quickly so) that their previous recipe (restrained but pleasant styling, boxy and function, generally conservative) was far more successful with the such a mainstream genre of vehicle. If the standard was to re-design or facelift every 4 years how did the Taurus last until, what, 2005 or longer? They could’ve more successfully recovered the nameplate by just introducing something more mainstream in 2000, it seems to me.
Oh well, my family bought Accords and never left again.
The Ford norm was a generation was supposed to last 10 years with a refresh at 5. So Ford did bring out the refresh sooner than planned as it came out in the 2000 model year. The likely would have done it earlier but my guess is they scrapped what ever they were working on for the refresh to come up with the more main stream version. It was only supposed to last until the 2005 model year but fleets (and some individuals) balked at the price and possibly size of the Five Hundred so they kept in on the order forms for an extra year. Until 2006 on the retail order form and 2007 on the fleet form. Sales did do a slight rebound for the 2000 model year.
This car, in my opinion, really began the downfall of Ford. It was able to regain first place in sales from the Honda Accord through the use of heavy fleet sales and hefty incentives. Ford ultimately won a pyrrhic victory, as those tactics would prove to be addictive to Detroit. It was easier to ramp up the incentives or sales to Hertz than to actually improve the car. These tactics had inflicted serious damage to their brand images by the early 2000s.
If you bought one with the 3.8 V-6, you were hit with the double whammy of a blown head gasket and premature transmission failure. The automatic transmission could not handle the additional torque of the 3.8 V-6. These were also plagued with motor mounts that wore out prematurely.
This car helped hand over the family sedan market to Honda and Toyota.
As for why the 1994-97 Honda Accord looks truncated – Honda had expected Americans to seek smaller, thriftier cars in the 1990s, in response to higher gas prices and tightened economic circumstances. Of course, after 1992, the economy boomed, gas prices fell in real dollars, and Americans rushed to buy SUVs or the biggest car they could afford. That is why it was ultimately the larger, more refined Toyota Camry that claimed the number-one sales spot from the Accord. And why the 1998-2002 Accord looks bigger and more conventional than the 1994-97 generation.
Maybe that’s just me, but my personal problem with ’96 Taurus styling were “aerodinamic” plastic rocker panel moldings and not the front end. They just looked alien to the car itself.
But, at least the ’96 did not look as generic as the first and second generations (ah yes, call that restrained if you want ))).
Oddly, the full-width front light of the Sable always pulls me in. I would definitely buy one.
I loved that full-width light on my ’87 Sable. It was put there purely for style and it worked. A creative answer to the grilleless front end problem. Pontiac started copying it, then Mercury dropped it! Penny-pinching fools.
I loved it too. Citroen SM for the masses 😉
I owned a 2nd-gen Taurus for a couple of years, after the ’87 Celica.and while waiting for the ’01 Prius. Lily and I got married and her 6’3″ high-school son suffered in the Celica’s back seat. She drove an Alfa GTV6, so it was family car time again.
Our Vulcan V6 Taurus had been an HP fleet car. I bought it from my ex-HP boss, so it had been an engineers’ car all along and well maintained. Having owned a new ’87 Sable eight years, it compared well, a slight refinement of the 1st gen. Other than a persistent little tranny slip on hard downshifts while turning, it was flawless. (I drove it pretty hard.) Plenty of room, comfort and power, with solid handling which felt completely secure in slippery conditions. Great American big car feel.
So tragic they ruined this car rather than continuing to refine it.
MikePDX,
I wouldn’t say they completely ruined it, and if you’ve ever driven a third gen, it IS a huge step up in refinement. Its really the fourth gen that sullied the reputation of the Taurus, that was the beginning of the end in my opinion. It was really the styling and price of those ’96 models where Ford misjudged.
I’m surprised that this generation Taurus evokes such a “meh” here. The 1st gen rocked the automotive world when it came out but it looked a little too chubby for my tastes.
I prefer this more squared-off 2nd-gen restyle, the neato dash emblem & especially the green interior.
I was given a dark green ragged-out ’95 model with a bad transmission. It had around 250K on its Vulcan V6 but I could never find a cheap used transmission for it — nearly all the 3.0 Tauruses coming across the scales at the Lake of Fire still had good engines and bad transmissions.
I hate to be the odd man out but don’t get the hype about the Taurus. The first time I drove one, I was all set for a really good experience and it turned out to be one of disappointment. The car drove like a big Tempo which is not a compliment. It just seemed heavy and over damped and not nearly as nice as an Accord or Camry.
The first generation was not terribly reliable. We had them in our shop a lot, mostly for electrical issues but lots of transmission problems, too. The 3.8 Essex motor was a complete disaster.
Agreed.
I worked at a service station from ’03-’07. I was personally responsible for condemning many a ratted-out Taurus/Sable to the junkyard, inevitably with transmission issues. They were all reaching the end of their service life at the hands of college students and the very elderly. Sure, some had 200k on them, which is admirable, but a lot were sub-150k cars.
While I give Ford all due respect for creating and effectively marketing the Taurus, it saved Ford, not the auto industry. They hit a triple while GM and Chrysler survived on a diet of singles and doubles. Meanwhile, the contemporary Accord and Camry were 550 ft. homerun shots. There is no comparison if you’ve worked on and driven all three.
All American cars of the era are toast at almost exactly 140,000 km. There is not any use spending money on them after this much mileage, you’ll just be wasting your money.
On the other hand, 140k is just breaking in a Camry or Accord.
I actually like the ovoid 3rd gen Taurus. It’s different and a bit daring. The oval theme even extended to the instrument panel, where the climate control/sound system controls are in an oval.
2nd gen Taurus by comparison looks derivative from the 1st generation, which is fair, given the astounding success of the model – why mess with success?
“As a cost-cutting measure, the black molding used on earlier models was dropped in favor of a monochromatic scheme (which happens to look better, in the humble opinion of your author).”
How was monochromatic a cost cutting measure? The bumpers and moldings are painted separately from the main body during the assembly process, having them all black in the earlier models meant they only had to be painted that one color regardless of the car they get attached to down the line. Making them monochromatic adds more steps to the process.
Plus, as you mentioned, it looks better. That was the consensus within Ford at the time too, starting with the 1988 Cougar XR7s receiving fully body colored moldings, side mirrors, grille ect. That look soon found its way into other top of the line submodels like the Thunderbird SC and the Taurus SHO. All of which had very limited color pallets because of the added cost of having to paint items separately.
Xr7Matt,
I thought I read somewhere that changing the bumper style ended up saving Ford money in some way, but you may be right. And I agree with you on monochrome appearance; no automaker should have black moldings anymore. Hopefully it won’t make a comeback.
Are you sure it is referring to bumpers? Both fully-painted and unpainted bumpers are shown. I thought it might refer to the window surrounds, which are black on the sedan then body color on the wagon below, which would save the step of painting or applying a black cover.
I think I can explain this. For ’92, the Taurus L and GL came standard with unpainted gray bumpers and side moldings. They also could be ordered with a two tone option where the bumpers/trim were painted slightly darker than the body color…I believe this could be had on the Sable as well.
The second-generation LX and SHO were always monochromatic. For ’93, the strippo L was dropped and all models had body-colored bumpers. I imagine the two-tone thing was expensive (not to mention that it looked like crap) and deleting the unpainted bumpers (which were quickly falling out of favor) probably further simplified production.
How come the ’86-88 MT5s looked like SHOs with the black window surrounds, but other model lines had chrome?
Because it was a half-hearted attempt to have it be a “sporty” model. Blackout trim was considered sporty at the time.
For instance, this is an MT5–it has a black bumper like an L but SHO windows.
“Virtually without exception, they dived headfirst into something close to copyright infringement. It seemed that all these automakers just took a second-generation Taurus and said “lets do it.” And it worked.”
Uh, no. Do the Camrys and Accords of this era not have grilles? Do they have six-window greenhouses? Six passenger seating? Headgasket-eating 3.8L V6s?
If anything, the 1996 Taurus was a direct response to the ’92 Camry. The upsized ’98 Accord was also a response to the Camry. Toyota cut a bunch of cost out of the ’97 model because all that refinement made the car too friggin’ expensive; Cost was Ford’s other big error with the ’96 and they responded by mercilessly cheaping out the Taurus, Contour, etc for 1998.
Basically, Ford’s timing was wrong, they started loading cars up when everyone else started stripping down. The same thing is happening again right now; the jury is still out on who’s right this time.
I liked this Taurus back in the day and in many ways it was a great car, but it sorely lacked refinement compared to its Honda/Toyota rivals. I’ve still got a Motor Trend comparing the all-new ’94 to the second-gen Taurus. The Taurus won points for roominess, and V6 power (the Accord didn’t get a V6 until ’95, and it didn’t get one that wasn’t worthless until ’98), but the Accord won because it aced everything else, right down to the smallest details.
I remember renting a third-generation Sable on family trip once. I still kind of liked the car despite the controversial looks, but compared to the sixth-generation Accords my parents owned the time, the Mercury was a joke. No comparison whatsoever.
FromaBuick6,
If you look at both the Accord and Camry from the late nineties, its very clear that they borrowed design elements from the Taurus, whether it was the first generation or the second. That is abundantly clear.
Everyone has different opinions as to what refinement means. For me, its the overall driving experience, seat comfort, and general interior aesthetics/functionality. This is where the third gen Taurus/Sable shine. The Camry got by on its Xanax-like pothole absorption, which pleased many. The Accord gets praise for its handling and no-nonsense interior.
I don’t think the Mercury was a joke compared to sixth gen Accords, simply due to the amount of road noise that penetrates the cabin in those cars, and lets not forget the famous transmission issues that plague the sixth gen when paired with the V6, which many people gloss over. Keep in mind the Sable was quite a bit larger and heavier than the Accord too, about ten inches longer and several hundred pounds heavier. That certainly changes things.
My dad worked in sales and had a white 1994 Taurus as a company car. He drove a LOT, and it only failed him once — the “computer went bad” and the car stalled out right in the middle of the 5/405 junction in Orange County (affectionately known locally as the “El Toro Y”) at the peak of rush hour one afternoon. But that was the only problem he had with it, and he still remembers it as a very reliable — if not boring — car.
I was in junior high at the time, however, and HATED the white Taurus. I thought it was so boring and cheap inside. The plastics seemed so cheap and “creaky.” I often had to sit in the back seat and can still remember the moans the door panels would give when my legs rubbed up against them. I think part of my hate for the car can be blamed on the awkward stage I was in at the time. I DID think the redundant radio controls to the side of the gauge cluster were a good idea since the radio was mounted so low.
His next company car was a red 1997 Taurus. I know they’re not much loved here, but at the time I found the ’97 to be a significant step up in style and interior quality. The controls were much more ergonomic, and the feel of the buttons and switches (for example, the damped radio power/volume knob) was impressive. The oval Taurii were a BIG deal at the time and I still have a soft spot for them. They certainly haven’t aged well, however.
I have a new roommate moving in at the end of the month with a white 2012 Taurus (a strange choice for a young single guy in LA in his late ’20s, but hey more power to him). Not gonna lie — I’m anxious to check out the car up close and personal. Who knows, maybe I will rediscover my love of Taurus.
By the way, I think the jeweled headlights like your aunt’s were a 1995-only feature and helped kick off what I call Jeweled Headlamp Fever, the 1990s version of LED Fever.
sckid213,
I agree that the third gen was a huge step up in refinement, there was a brief period of time where I had both my ’89 Taurus and ’97 Sable on the road, and the difference was night and day in every facet, even with the same engine.
Personally, I think the third gens have actually aged quite well, and we’re seeing some design elements that made them infamous return to the mainstream sedans like the Sonata, Optima, and most notably, the Fusion. It’ll be interesting to see how we perceive these new cars when they themselves become curbside classics.
I know that I am in the minority but I always have thought that the second generation of Taurus just seemed to lack the coherence of the first generation and for that reason, I never thought of it as a good looking car as I had thought of the first generation. I also liked the first few years of the third generation. I liked the sleek modern look, although, I will admit, the almost bizzare interior was, perhaps, a bridge too far.
True to form, I got the CC clue because I owned one, a pre-owned 1994 SHO. Previously (with a new 1990 Mustang 5.0 convertible in between) I had a new 86 Taurus MT-5. I prefer the original styling……there was bulldog stance to it, while the 2nd gen. was smoother, perhaps too much so? Like the monochrome exterior, the interior had too much sameness in color.
Having said that I loved both of them. No problems with with 4 cylinder or the Yamaha V6, both with 5 speed manuals, as was the Mustang. Unless you count Consumer Reports Black marks for clutch wear on the SHO……duh~!!! Which made them an absolute bargain as a used car……thanks CR!!!!
Side note: this era SHO used Sable headlights and front fenders.
Yeah just to clarify since I’m being so negative, I only think this version of the Taurus is boring and crappy from a design perspective. How the car came to be and it’s place in history is another story altogether…
I always wanted to hate the Camry of this era too, which was a soulless piece of cardboard as well… until I spent some serious time in one. The Toyota makes being bland an art form and executes it perfectly, I can get on board with that. It’s beauty is in it’s practical, durable engineering. The 2g Taurus is a product of spreadsheets and focus groups alone. All of the Japanese cars were still in a completely different league at this point.
Just to clarify, this was supposed to be a reply to Chris Green… I haven’t mastered posting comments on here from my phone yet!
The story of my 1995 Taurus GL wagon:
The Saga of the Blue Goose
Nice! I know how you feel about your wagon, I loved my ’89, even if it was at the end of its life. We probably would have repaired its heater core and suspension issues, but the deal for my current car was too good to pass up, and it was obviously a good decision since I still have the car.
I am late to this party by several months but I really enjoyed reading this. I am also familiar with the Taurus. My folks had a 1993 Taurus GL wagon which served them for 16 years before being traded in for brand new 2009 Ford taurus(Ford Five Hundred with more fake chrome and wood)
My folks also have a 2003 Sable wagon
One way to tell the 92-95 Taurus apart was that 1992 Taurus had ether Gray(L, GL) or painted glossy black(LX) bumpers. 1993 Taurus had bumpers painted the same color as the rest of the car and had black plastic door handles. 1994-1995 Taurus had a revised steering wheel and painted door handles that were the same color as the rest of the car
Interesting in more than one way your 2nd gen Taurus didnt go down under but the advertising”have you driven a Ford lately” did right when Ford AUs quality hit the basement, also Ford taking your 92 Camry apart was a bit late really, you see that Camry was out among the NZ public in late 1990 Toyota no doubt had already looked a Taurus over before the development model Camrys landed in New Zealand for Beta testing nobody else got any, and the redesign for world consumption must have already been underway when those first production cars were being tested.
Ive only ever seen one 2nd gen Taurus and that was a Sable owned by a local back yard car importer and its driver told me its the only one here whether thats true for both flavours I dont know, it looked ok but I’d have the Falcon in preference.
We had an ’89 GL wagon that served us well, but it got tight with four young ones, three in car seats. It had the 15″ alloy wheels, which set the car off nicely.
I also had a ’95 SHO (dark green with tan leather) as a company car… first in the fleet with a manual transmission. At 80,000 miles the fleet manager sent me a note telling me it was time to replace it; I explained that I’d let him know when I was ready. Finally let it go at about 120,000.
The Cutlass/Malibu copied the ‘93 Altima and 626 (and watered down anything unique about them) IMHO. The ‘97 Camry does indeed look a bit like the ‘92 Taurus.
As for the ‘92-‘95 Taurus itself, I strongly prefer the Sable version. The Sable looks much more upscale, whether or not it actually was.
80’s and 90’s Tauruses are nearly extinct in Chicago area. Hardly see any, due to rust, etc. Some 98-99’s, with all red taillight lenses, seen once in awhile, but fading.
2000-07’s are still chugging along, some used as work cars with full trunks.