What's the story on the Ford Taurus? Has it been discontinued?
Status of the Taurus?
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Guess I should avoid it then...
ya, they were discontinued for the 06 model year except for fleet sales iirc. they still are favvorites for rental fleets and municipalaties.
I believe the last one will roll of the assembly line in October. The Ford Taurus is the best buy out there in a used vehicle. The Taurus used to be made in Chicago also, but that plant was retooled to make the Ford Five Hundred. Do a poll on Ford Taurus owners and see how many happy responses you get.
I used to drive them for company cars and ended up owning one when I took it on trade for a gas guzzling pickup I couldn't sell. Company cars were '95 and '98, car I ended up owning was a 2000.
They're OK if you just want cheap basic transportation. All three were the 3.0 engine which never got great mileage (low 20's) or was particularly peppy. They did continue to improve through the years. I hated the '95, the '98 was OK and the 2000 was better. Maybe an '06 isn't bad. I have seen some dealers advertising '06's for around $12,000. If that were my budget, I'd look for an '06 Civic. JMHO
They have always been a bargain used. You can pick up 0-1 yr olds for around 10-$13K.
My father has had 3 Sables since the year they came out ('86). Each ran to over 100K. My uncle has a Taurus with over 200K. They are still a nice, basic, family car.
quote:It did more than save Ford. For a time, it put them ahead of GM in the revenue race. But Ford was on the mend before the Taurus. The Fox chassis re-designs of the T-Bird and Mustang (all derived from the humble, ugly Fairmont) really started the revival. Ford's product quality was also discernably improved by the mid-1980s. The Taurus just took it to a new strata and completely revolutionized the industry's styling norms. People just forget how different the Taurus was in its day. Even GM had to conform to the "jellybean" earthquake that followed. The first generation Taurus is a car that doesn't look all that outdated even today. Then the beancounters took over the company, and the rest is history, as we say.
Originally posted by LarryL: . . . The Taurus might be remembered as the car that saved Ford. . .
The 3 liter Vulcan may have been a dog, but the 3 liter Duratec would hustle the car along pretty nicely.
If I had a line of credit at a transmission shop I wouldn't mind owning a first gen Taurus. My grandfather has a 94 Taurus wagon not too long before he died. All kinds of room, rode nice, seemed to be fairly peppy and got decent fuel mileage. One time the motor let go, something about the gear off the distributor shaft that drove the oil pump let go and the engine went to ****. That was the only problem he ever had with it.
The early Taurus had its problems. The trannies overheated and blew up with alarming regularity, and the 3.8 was far too much engine for the car. The Vulcan might have been unexciting, but it was durable.
But love it or hate it, it was a seachange vehicle in styling and chassis design from the existing norms.
quote:Ugly? The later Caprices were butt ugly. They took a classic, crisp edged body profile (dated, but nevertheless attractive), and tried to compete with the softer Ford look.
Originally posted by obbop: "The first generation Taurus is a car that doesn't look all that outdated even today." Yes. Ugly is timeless. Eternal. Everlasting. Pert' near forever. But, that's just my opinion and nobody beats at my door seeking it.
Don't forget that the Taurus bailed Ford out of big financial problem when it was introduced. While the Taurus was being designed, Ford started to go to vendors before a component design was finalized to get input on how to build a better part. The Taurus might be remembered as the car that saved Ford. It might also be noted that the demise of the Taurus might have been caused by Ford forgetting everthing they learned about how to build something that the public wants.
quote:Not if it meets your needs and one appeals to you. Like others have said, various things have come together to depress Taurii prices and they aren't bad cars. There was bazillion of them built so parts and service will be available for many years to come.
Originally posted by The Critic: Guess I should avoid it then...
"Ugly? The later Caprices were butt ugly. They took a classic, crisp edged body profile (dated, but nevertheless attractive), and tried to compete with the softer Ford look."
Agreed. Ugly to the bone. The rear view was especially appalling. The epitome of ugliness shared with other vehicles; multiple epitomes.
Ugliness know no bounds but.....
Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.
I think of the multiple times the ecstatic parent(s) held aloft their newly-arrived bundle of joy and proclaimed to all how beautiful the infink is.
Yeah, lovely. Peering at the wrinkled mass before me I realize why some species eat their young. But, that is anuddah' story.
We had a '99 Sable LS wagon with the 3.0 Duratec that I bought new in 1999. That was a great car that required absolutely nothing but fluid changes, brakes, and tires for 130K; I never even put spark plugs in it.
On its last two 1800+ mile highway trips it averaged 29 and 30 MPG @ 70 MPH respectively. It only turned in about 20 in town, but my wife used the gas pedal like an on-off switch.
This was a seven passenger car that had leather, rear discs, and many other nice features. With the seats folded, it rivaled many mid-sized SUVs for cargo capacity. It wasn't a looker like the Magnum but it was a perfect family car that handled everything from interstate trips to weekend camping and everything in between.
A Taurus/Sable is one of the best buys on the used market, no question about it. They are typically half the price of competing "import" brands and will last at least 9/10 as long.
quote:Your opinion is way of base. If you know so much about the auto industry why aren't these "failed" companies recruiting you as CEO? Hmmm,........ thats what I though...........
Originally posted by LarryL: It is kind of interesting that a car that saved Ford became the poster child for 'mediocre is good enough' and that became the marching orders for the American auto industry. If you wanted to succeed you must build a better mediocre family sedan. If you make a better family sedan you'll price yourself out of the market you won't be able to compete. You will loose market share. For Ford, GM and Chrysler, during this time it's been very important to stay mediocre. It's the business plan, not the car that has been the driving force. If you want a better car you have to go somewhere else, and of course, pay more money. Good cars were not in the plan and the Taurus was the leader, for a while.
![[No no]](/forums/graemlins/nono.gif)
quote:Because they have proven time and time again that they can't pick a good CEO. Next question.
Originally posted by MC5W20: Your opinion is way of base. If you know so much about the auto industry why aren't these "failed" companies recruiting you as CEO? Hmmm,........ thats what I though...........
- Status
