Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Sedans Pre-2008

L8_ApexL8_Apex Posts: 187
Welcome to the continuation of the Ford Taurus
topic. Those of you joining us from that topic are
welcome to continue your discussion. If you're
new to this topic, you may want to follow the above
link for additional archived posts.

Thanks,

L8_Apex
Sedans Host
«134567109

Comments

  • joyr1dejoyr1de Posts: 2
    What is the exact 0-60 for the 2000 Taurus SEL? With the 200+ Duratec engine? And also.. on the back of the SEL Taurus is it labelled as SEL or just SE? Are there any ways I could see if it was a SE or SEL from just looking at it and not looking under the hood? Any special details that make it different?

    Thx
    -JR
  • reesejreesej Posts: 23
    The Duratec equipped version has been stated at 8.2 to 8.5 seconds for 0-60 depending on the source.

    The back of the SE, SES, and SEL just has "SE". The SEL has machined aluminum wheels while the SES and SE have painted aluminum wheels (wheel selections are not optional). I have an SES with the Duratec, so looking under the hood (or the 24V DOHC emblem on the side) won't tell you it's an SEL. Interior features and options are what really tell the three "SE" trim levels apart.
  • uqmooreuqmoore Posts: 4
    I like the idea of the cd changer in the center console but I'm bawking at the high $600 price tag. It seems like a lot of cash for a cd changer even with the speaker upgrade.

    Has anyone had luck with using Ford's cd pre-wiring with a third party cd player? Please post your experiences here, thanks.
  • matramatra Posts: 5
    I ordered my SEL Feb.12 I pick it up tomorrow (April 26). Can't wait....:)
  • robnisrobnis Posts: 78
    I have a SHO (and have had them for the past 10 years with Red Carpet leases). Since the SHO will no longer be made, I thought I would try the Duratec engine Taurus. Was I ever unimpressed! IMO it is a wimp compared to the SHO. It is a second slowed, the handling is not as crisp, etc I was hoping I could stay a loyal Ford customer; alas, Ford has shot themselves in the foot by not having a fwd performance sports sedan for the SHO enthusiasts. Looks like I go with a Maxima or TL.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    you must've driven a 2000.

    The 2000 has been toned down in every facet. Interior, ride, handling, sound, looks......Good for some people maybe.

    The 99 Duratec is fairly lively. But if you're gonna go for a 99 then might as well get another SHO. I took my own advice and got one. I know you've owned a few SHO;s and liked them; maybe you should get a low-mile 99 SHO while u still can.

    Otherwise, it's rumored that a SHO like v6 may reappear in 2001 or 2002. No substitute for a v8, though. Maybe it will be an SVT. We can hope. It would be interesting to see any extra styling tweaks they would do to the new body with an SVT or SHO.

    Two options, buy 99 SHO now, or wait for a potential new v6 SHO in the future.
  • robnisrobnis Posts: 78
    Thanks for your post and "listening" whil;e I vent my frustration with Ford for screwing up a good thing with our SHO. And I has a loyal consumer with a Red Carpet lease every two years since 1989 too!
  • I was curious about your comments on the 2000 SEL. I've had mine for 4 months and have put on almost 7,000 miles already. The performance is more than adequate and the handling is very good. The standard 16" wheels make a difference over the 99s. Also how do you figure that the 99 is more "sporty"? The performance has been upgraded for 2000 to 200 hp. Granted its not as fast as a SHO but then again the SHO isn't as fast as the GTP I traded on my Taurus. My dad drives a new SHO and its a nice car but I think the performance is a little disappointing for $30k. I'm not looking to start an argument just point out that everyone's opinion is relative.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    I bought my 99 SHO last month with 6000 miles for 20,500. My brother in law two years ago bought a new loaded SHO for a bit over 24,000. No one with a right mind will pay 30k for this car.

    Anyone who would've paid anything close to sticker for any new car needed to do more shopping. And especially SHO's when there are used ones a plenty. For a new one you should not pay more than 25k. So let's not get in the trap of calling the Taurus a 30k car.

    My opinion of the Y2k Taurus is that its more toned down and numb. Trust me, I drove about 10 Taurus' in the last two months (99's and 2000's). The 98 Duratec Taurus as well as the 99 Sable had the 200 hp motor which to me seemed pretty peppy. Maybe it was the transmission or something but even if the 2000 has 200hp, it did not seem as agressive as the 99.

    Also my styling preference inside and out is for the 99. I prefer the less cluttered interior and the oval pod to the upright, plain dash on the 2000. I do like the exterior redo for 2000, but a 99 with SHO front and rear fascia and 16 inch wheels to me looks better.

    As far as the GTP, its fine that its a little faster. I don't try to do 0-60's all the time. I don't judge my status in society on the idea that I can do 60 in under 7 seconds. I think Ford's products are more refined than GM's. I don't like pushrod motors. And I certainly prefer an 8 cylinder DOHC motor to a I've also owned an 89 SHO which was had a bullutproof and lightning fast v6 and was a fabulous performer. The car I traded in for my SHO was a 95 Thunderbird with a rock solid v8. I have loved the absolutely bulletproof and performance oriented nature of these two Ford OHC motors. The exhaust sound in all three cars was invigorating. The handling on all three cars was very good also.

    For what my money would buy, the SHO was preferable to the Grand Prix.

    Plus the whole Pontiac thing just turns me off, Too NASCAR, too gigolo, too many buttons, too many lights, too spaceship, too Grand Am, too sorority, too 1992, way too much cheap dark plastic. To me, I just think Pontiac could back off on some of this wierdness and cheapness and just produce a car that isn't trying so hard to be some futuristic transport vessel.

    Bottom line. Ford purposely toned down the 2000 Taurus so it would be more acceptable to the average car buyer. The "average" car buyer values different virtues than the 96-99's had to offer. The result is a pleasant functional car; one that doesn't excite, but will please many. And at a helluva good value. Taurus is still a better overall buy than just about any other mid sized sedan.

    Robnis I can totally understand your frustration. My brother in law has owned these new since 85
    85 Mercury Cougar XR7, 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, 92 Taurus SHO, 97 SHO.

    His 97 now has 72000 miles on it, but he feels like you do, He has been giving Ford business for over a decade and now they have pulled the plug on the kind of cars he likes. He is afraid he may have to switch brands when he goes to buy next year. But he dislikes Pontiacs also. He may be leaning towards a 300M.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    I meant to say.
  • I think we're coming at this from similiar view points (I traded a 94 V8 T-Bird for my GTP) but coming to different conclusions. I also have a 96 Taurus in the drive way and side by side I prefer the looks of the 00. Its cleaner and doesn't have the Quirky ovoid styling. To me Ford tried too hard to distance itself with the 96 and came up with a strange Infiniti look (downturned rump). I guess thats why theres choclate and vanilla. As far as GM, I'm a Ford fan at heart but I acknowledge that they build an excellent product for the money. What you might call gimmicks others might call excellent features (I still miss the Heads up display). The GTP is an excellent buy for 5K less than the SHO with all of the features of the Ford. I just wanted a change when I opted for the SEL and have not been disappointed in the least. We'll just agree to disagree.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    They are selling Taurus SES's with the 3.0 Duratec in my region for 16.9K! I just wonder how can they do this? This isn't just one either, this dealers is offering 6 to choose from. A comparably equipped V6 Accord or Camary would cost over 20K.
  • joyr1dejoyr1de Posts: 2
    I was wondering where I could find more specs on the Taurus models like 0-60's and other features that Edmunds has here. I like Edmunds but some of the information is missing for cars so I was wondering if there were any other pages that are similar?

    Thx
    -JR
  • reesejreesej Posts: 23
    Do an Internet/Web search for 2000 Ford Taurus or whatever else you are interested in (try various keywords). Some sites and reviews have specs and some don't.
  • andys22andys22 Posts: 13
    hi folks. I just noticed my 99 se duratec with about 8500 miles, starting to ping. just a little noise while going up hills in OD ( It shouldn't ping on Regular if its MADE to run on Regular) Any ideas ? I tried half a tank of premium and we will have to see.thanks for any input
  • tl565tl565 Posts: 78
    The SVT Contour is a kick if you like high-reving manual tranny performance sedans. Also, the new Lincoln LS in a way replaces the SHO (albeit at a higher price! but not much more than the front wheel drive 300M).

    The LS has awesome handling with a more refined ride than the SHO had. Plus, the LS has rear wheel drive which is a nice change from all of the front wheel drive jobs out there.
  • 2629926299 Posts: 3
    I am considering trading 98 Intrepid for 2000 Taurus SEL any comments?
  • tl565tl565 Posts: 78
    26299 - The Taurus does much better in crash tests than the Intrepid if that is at all important to you. The Taurus has the dual stage air bags that are not as dangerous as the normal airbags. They also have new special seat belts that help keep you better restrained in the event of an accident. The new Taurus also offers side air bags. As for styling, thats a personal choice, I like the new styling of the Y2K Taurus a LOT. The Intrepid has a bigger back seat probably.
  • reesejreesej Posts: 23
    New Taurus SEL -- Just got an SES mid-March and love it. Didn't buy the SEL as I didn't want the Daytime Running Lights (I HATE those things with a passion) and I have heard that moonroofs just turn into leaks later. I upgraded the SES with options of the Duratec 24V engine (highly recommended), floor shift console, side air bags, power adjustable pedals, heated mirrors, and front/rear floor mats. A power antenna would have been nice -- not even an option on the sedan, though it comes standard on the wagon.
  • reesejreesej Posts: 23
    Power moonroof is an option, not standard, on the SES and SEL. I commented on it since ALL the SEL's I have seen on the dealer's lots have it on and are indeed fully optioned models.
  • sable93sable93 Posts: 107
    Hey everybody, guess what. This weekend, I took a plunge (or I should say my bank account took a plunge), and I traded my '93 Sable GS in for a '97 Taurus GL. I LOVE THIS CAR!!!!! It is maroon with a tan interior, it has 6 speakers, premium wheels, pw, pl, and if I want, I can add a 6 cd changer later (the radio is set up for it.) I miss the power of the 3.8L in my Sable, but that is the only thing about the car I miss. Oh, I also really like the integrated radio/climate control pod. It seems like a great idea, and I am quickly getting used to it.

    On top of all this, I also got a pretty good deal. $9200 including tax and title, with $4,000 for my trade in (which is above average for a '93 Sable.) I'll keep everyone posted on my "new" car. :o)
  • sable93sable93 Posts: 107
    I just looked at the invoice, the actual car cost $8600, but then the tax (6% in Ohio) brought it up to the $9200.
  • agtabbyagtabby Posts: 28
    Hey, all I can say to your statement on Pontiac is: AMEN! Geeze, these things have more plastic crud than a . . . . well, than last years Pontiac.

    Sad, if they made a simply car with the 3.8 and a five speed and rear wheel drive that would be awesome.

    ****

    "Plus the whole Pontiac thing just turns me off,
    Too NASCAR, too gigolo, too many buttons, too many
    lights, too spaceship, too Grand Am, too sorority,
    too 1992, way too much cheap dark plastic. To me,
    I just think Pontiac could back off on some of this
    wierdness and cheapness and just produce a car
    that isn't trying so hard to be some futuristictransport vessel."
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    not only the fact that Pontiac hasn't changed their "look" since the 1982 Grand Am.

    In other words, it's getting old. And this new Aztek and Pihrana, yuck. Barf. The Aztek is the biggest styling lemon ever set forth on the American car buying public. Basically they must be acknowledging the vehicle is gonna suck (c'mon, a sport ute built off a minivan platform?) so they are trying to differentiate it with vomit inducing styling.

    I digress. Really, with the Grand Prix my big gripe is the interior. But the Grand Am and Bonneville, ouch.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    How can ANYONE rag on Ford for the 96 Taurus styling when we see atrocities like the Pontiac Aztek?
  • 2629926299 Posts: 3
    The Taurus I was looking at didn't have the moonroof but it had the upgrade sound system something they called Mach. I appears your ses has most of the options of the sel, I do like the auto temp control. They only had three sel in stock no white but the salesman said wouldn't be any problem to find one.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Pinging is a result of timing issues or fuel/air misture ratio's. Take it back to the dealer and make them adjust it correctly.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    Here is the latest sales figures for the 2000 Taurus:

    from www.prnewswire.com

    "Ford Taurus - Record April sales of 37,066, up 32 percent. Previous
    April record (35,070) was set 1989. New Product: Taurus redesigned for
    2000 model year."
  • honda33honda33 Posts: 2
    I have a 98 taurus SE that I just bought used a month ago. It has the duratec engine. The problem that I have with this engine is that it does not slow down very much when I take my foot off of the gas. If I am going 55 mph and take my foot off the gas on a flat surface, it keeps going 55 and will slow down very slowly. I was wondering if this was normal or not. It just drives me nuts that I have to hit the brakes all the time if I want to slow down at all. Thanks for any help on this.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    Taurus rules.

    Chevy and Pontiac can eat dirt.
«134567109
Sign In or Register to comment.