Was the bubbly Taurus THAT bad of a car?
idk if that should be on that list...
Nor should the 89 Tbird
idk if that should be on that list...
Nor should the 89 Tbird
Edmunds 100 worst vehicles of all time
- Thread starter renegade_987
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Was the bubbly Taurus THAT bad of a car?
idk if that should be on that list...
The Taurus faithful hated that redesign.
The main complaint I heard was that Ford narrowed the roofline and decreased the shoulder and headroom. They were unimpressed by the addition of the Duratec 3.0 in spite of it having only 17 less horsepower and a couple more ft-lbs of torque than the Yamaha developed SHO 3.0 V6.
Was the bubbly Taurus THAT bad of a car?
idk if that should be on that list...
The Taurus faithful hated that redesign.
The main complaint I heard was that Ford narrowed the roofline and decreased the shoulder and headroom. They were unimpressed by the addition of the Duratec 3.0 in spite of it having only 17 less horsepower and a couple more ft-lbs of torque than the Yamaha developed SHO 3.0 V6.
the 3rd gen "bubble" Taurus was a great car.
my mom just sold the 99 (last year of that body) she ordered new in fall 98.(replaced w/ 09 Taurus)now, we didn't have the Duratec 30, we had the good ol Vulcan 3.0l(engine built here in town)
at 13 yrs old, and with 125k mi, it looked and drove as good as the day we drove it off the lot in 98.
I got her old car back then, 93 Chevy corsica w/ the 4 cyl. honestly that corsica was THE BEST snow car i have ever driven.
and as for that design "killing" the taurus? the reason for dropping the Taurus name, as told to me by a ford dealer, was one of the big wigs up in detroit decided that all the Ford Models should Start with a F(and all the Mercury's Should start with an M)
so the Taurus Became the Five Hundred (Sable became Montego)
Windstar Became Freestar (Monterey)
the Taurus wagon became Freestyle
new midsize model was the Fusion (Milan)
my mom just sold the 99 (last year of that body) she ordered new in fall 98.(replaced w/ 09 Taurus)now, we didn't have the Duratec 30, we had the good ol Vulcan 3.0l(engine built here in town)
at 13 yrs old, and with 125k mi, it looked and drove as good as the day we drove it off the lot in 98.
I got her old car back then, 93 Chevy corsica w/ the 4 cyl. honestly that corsica was THE BEST snow car i have ever driven.
and as for that design "killing" the taurus? the reason for dropping the Taurus name, as told to me by a ford dealer, was one of the big wigs up in detroit decided that all the Ford Models should Start with a F(and all the Mercury's Should start with an M)
so the Taurus Became the Five Hundred (Sable became Montego)
Windstar Became Freestar (Monterey)
the Taurus wagon became Freestyle
new midsize model was the Fusion (Milan)
Last edited:
I don't know about whether they were bad cars, but they certainly didn't stand the test of time in the rust belt. The few I see on the roads are rusted beyond recognition in large areas of the body. Not too many 12 year old cars you can say that for.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The Cavalier & Sunbird/Sunfire might be the worst cars built in the last 20 years. (and the V6's & the Twin Cam 4 had all sorts of problems, mostly head gaskets),
Did you have a V6 Cavalier or Sunbird with gasket issues? Or are you confusing the earlier V6 engines with the later 3100 and 3400 V6 engines, which were never installed in the Cavalier and Sunbird.
The 2.3 and 2.4 Quad and Twin Cams; yes, they were junk.
The Cavalier & Sunbird/Sunfire might be the worst cars built in the last 20 years. (and the V6's & the Twin Cam 4 had all sorts of problems, mostly head gaskets),
Did you have a V6 Cavalier or Sunbird with gasket issues? Or are you confusing the earlier V6 engines with the later 3100 and 3400 V6 engines, which were never installed in the Cavalier and Sunbird.
The 2.3 and 2.4 Quad and Twin Cams; yes, they were junk.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The Taurus faithful hated that redesign.
The main complaint I heard was that Ford narrowed the roofline and decreased the shoulder and headroom.
I recall renting several Taurus' during that time. I hated them because they seemed much tighter and cramped inside. The side and rear windows were hard to see out of. The previous version was much roomier and had better outward visibility, in my opinion.
The Taurus faithful hated that redesign.
The main complaint I heard was that Ford narrowed the roofline and decreased the shoulder and headroom.
I recall renting several Taurus' during that time. I hated them because they seemed much tighter and cramped inside. The side and rear windows were hard to see out of. The previous version was much roomier and had better outward visibility, in my opinion.
Cavaliers had one thing going, they rode on decently large tires, like 195/70/14. Most other tinboxes rolled on 175/70/13 back in the day. Cavs also had mushy springs so as long as you didn't bottom out or overload the trunk the ride was pretty soft. I don't understand its front end, the a-arms bolt to some stamped whatzamajigger instead of a proper subframe.
The corsica/ beretta were, as I understand it, engineered to a rental car spec/ segment "slightly larger than cavalier". Wife had a 93 3.1 that could pull off 31 MPG with a 3 speed auto, secret is tall gearing, light weight, and decent aerodynamics. It also scooted like a rocket for the time.
I literally owned a 1982 1.8 liter cadillac cimarron so I feel like I've had 2 or 3 cars on this list at once. Would have been nice with the available stick shift. Made power in the higher revs but the auto trans was set up to shift at 2k RPM. Vacuum lines to the carb were a spaghetti factory. The car was 17 years old when I had it so, hey, it was durable.
The corsica/ beretta were, as I understand it, engineered to a rental car spec/ segment "slightly larger than cavalier". Wife had a 93 3.1 that could pull off 31 MPG with a 3 speed auto, secret is tall gearing, light weight, and decent aerodynamics. It also scooted like a rocket for the time.
I literally owned a 1982 1.8 liter cadillac cimarron so I feel like I've had 2 or 3 cars on this list at once. Would have been nice with the available stick shift. Made power in the higher revs but the auto trans was set up to shift at 2k RPM. Vacuum lines to the carb were a spaghetti factory. The car was 17 years old when I had it so, hey, it was durable.
I've had experience with j-bodies as well, and don't think it's fair to say they were the worst car of the 1980's - far from it.
I had a 1985 Buick Skyhawk for 2 years with the 'Chevy' 2.0L OHV engine. While it wasn't an absolute powerhouse, it was a LOT more powerful than, say, an Escort 1.9L - THOSE were gutless, IMO. The Chev. 2.0L was also a lot smoother and peppy than a Chryco 2.2 - I drove one of those before the Skyhawk, and it was a rough engine.
I'll admit the overall reliability of my '85 was abysmal, but theose cars DID get amazingly better as years went by. The 2002 Cavalier i got rid of last year with 160k miles on it was one of the most reliable vehicles i've ever owned. Lots of folks getting thousands and thousands of miles of reliable service out of 2000-up Cavaliers and Sunfires.
I had a 1985 Buick Skyhawk for 2 years with the 'Chevy' 2.0L OHV engine. While it wasn't an absolute powerhouse, it was a LOT more powerful than, say, an Escort 1.9L - THOSE were gutless, IMO. The Chev. 2.0L was also a lot smoother and peppy than a Chryco 2.2 - I drove one of those before the Skyhawk, and it was a rough engine.
I'll admit the overall reliability of my '85 was abysmal, but theose cars DID get amazingly better as years went by. The 2002 Cavalier i got rid of last year with 160k miles on it was one of the most reliable vehicles i've ever owned. Lots of folks getting thousands and thousands of miles of reliable service out of 2000-up Cavaliers and Sunfires.
- Status
