Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Sedans Pre-2008
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
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thx
-JR
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.
Has anyone had luck with using Ford's cd pre-wiring with a third party cd player? Please post your experiences here, thanks.
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.
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.
Thx
-JR
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
Chevy and Pontiac can eat dirt.
The Taurus and Sable are kicking the already
outdated Intrigue's, Regal's and Century's butts.
GM thinks it can come up with a new car and not
do anything to it for 7-8 years, like the old
Cutlasses, Acheivas, and Centurys (ick). Now, cars have to be constantly updated, or else die.
As for Olds, I believe they will be merged into another branch of GM soon.
Good to hear about the Taurus/Sable sales. I see quite a few of them around now and like the look more and more. The 16" wheels that come standard give the car a sporty, yet rich look. Score one for Ford for putting a nice wheel and tire on these cars. I still believe the Taurus will make the #2 spot by next year. The Camry will be the one to fall from grace.
I would like to get another magazine or two, though, so each person in our family could have their own 6 CD selection without having to constantly shift CDs around.
My co. car is on order and I have to sell a 99 Lexus GS400 w/ 300hp. Don't mind getting a free car but I'm not looking forward to 150hp either.
Comments please.
I am looking for a sedan for my wife, and am looking at the Taurus, as well as they Camry, 626, and Accord. I really like the looks of the 2000 Taurus, but would like to know what people who have bought it think of it.
How is the handling, ride, pick-up ( with 24v engine) and the quiteness. Also, have you had any problems with the 2000 model?
The current car still uses the old door design from the 96-99 generation and it is beyond me as to why Ford revamped the entire body design but the doors? The Taurus has had a very dark reliability history (Look at reliability data from years past)and specially the vaunted 3.8L engine and its infamous "Blown Gasket" problems. Sorry to blow it back and you, but the Taurus has never been a star in the reliability dept. GM as Ford and other manufacturers have had their own share of mistakes, but the current GM sedans (Regal, Intrigue, Bonneville, Lumina, Impala)are showing much improved trends in quality control and reliability over the Taurus. In fact, the Intrigue reports less problems per car than the Taurus does. As far as the "Long Term" tests performed by Edmunds...I take them with a grain of salt due to their questionable testing methodology, (Going back to the same dealer that gave them bad service, wrecking the car and then trash it all the way,etc)and unquestionable bias towards domestic products, namely GM, make me wonder about the accuracy of these reports. But to each his own. In the end the best critic and tester is the owner of the vehicle. I was a Ford owner many moons ago and the cars exhibited the worst quality and durability of any domestic maker. The "Quality is Job#1" bull was just a "Hook" and "Hype" to make potential customers believe that their products offered the edge from all fronts. Ford had lost until recently the design leadership it acquired in the 1980's with the Taurus, but now it is regaining some of it back with the Focus. Ford lost me forever with their lousy products and service. Enjoy your vehicles...that's the beauty of having choices....everyone drives what they like!
I hope you aren't being serious. The Taurus has changed a lot since 1986. Everything it is known for having problems with has been eliminated (and for a while.) No more 3.8L engine, no more AXOD-E transmission, and it seems like they improved the air conditioner's reliability. I had a '93 Sable (same as Taurus) GS, and now I have a '97 Taurus GL. The only thing similar about the two cars is the name. In '96 Ford improved everything about the Taurus/Sable. They are much more reliable, they handle better, they are more comfortable (in my opinion), and they are more cutting edge design than the '92-'95 models. I highly doubt you've driven both model cars if you think there are no differences. To each there own though. Just don't use facts about the 3.8L engine when talking about the new Taurus (since it hasn't been used in Tauruses for 5 years.)
And another thing, Ford Taurus sales are up 32% over last year alone! This is Taurus only, not including Sable.
Yes, you can get the Duratec 3.0 24V engine in the SE model. It is a $626 option, I forgot the option number. Head over to Edmunds on the new car site, I believe they list the option number. I currently own a Contour SE V6. I am seriously thinking of a 2000 Taurus SE myself with the 24V Duratec. A dealer in my area is listing the SE's with the 24V V6 for 17.2K, A while back he had some for 15.9K! One heck of a value when comparing other sedans with like options.
"Ethanol is more chemically active than gasoline. It corrodes some metals and causes some plastic and rubber components to swell, break down or become brittle and crack, especially when mixed with gasoline. Special materials and procedures have been developed for flexible fuel vehicles and the dispensers used by ethanol fuel providers." This is followed by a warning that flexible fuel components are not interchangeable with standard unleaded gasoline components.
The basic difference is the construction of fuel line materials. The FFV also differs from the standard Vulcan is regards to PCV valve, spark plugs, and compression ratio (Vulcan is 9.3:1, FFV is 9.14:1, Duratec is 10:1).
Otherwise, all the standard parts and filters are the same.
One more thing, why does everyone give Ford so much crap? Everyone I hear at work and anywhere is "Why didn't you buy a chevy?" Because I got all the bells and whistles for less money, thats why. Or "Friends don't let friends drive Fords?" Okay guys, I thought the competition was between the businesses, not the drivers, as if what car you drive determines your character. News people, they are CARS, not a reason to argue which is better. If everyone drove the same car, that feeling you get when you drive off the lot in a new car, that few people yet have, will be gone. I would puke if I saw my same exact car being driven around by some old man, trying to stay young and hip, like those morons with spoilers on their mini-vans.
1. GM cars had independent front suspension in the 1930's. Ford didn't until 1949.
2. GM went to overhead valve engines in the 1930's, Ford didn't until 1954.
3. GM's full size cars went to rear coil springs in 1959, Ford didn't until 1965.
4. GM's mid size cars went to rear coil springs in 1964 or 1965, Ford didn't until 1972.
5. GM's V8 engines of the 1950's were light years ahead of Ford's overweight under powered designs. It wasn't until 1962 that Ford had a lightweight V8.
6. GM was king of the design studio in the 1950's and 1960's.
Now what does that ancient history have to do with your '00 Taurus. Most of Ford's cars from 1974 to 1985 were hideous ill handling under powered cars. The 1986 Taurus was a great car in its day and most likely kept Ford in the passenger car business. Hey as good as things are for FoMoCo today, the early 80's were dark days for Ford. With that said the '00 Taurus is a far better car than the 86 Taurus but bad reputations die hard. GM has had some real turkeys in the last 20 years, but GM gets away with its bad cars due to its legendary days in the 1950's and 1960's when it owned 70% of the car market in the U.S. Ask your Chevy fan friends to explain why GM has lost almost half of it's market share in the last 25 years.
I have gone up the steepest longest hills on 101 at only 65mph (about 2400rpm) and the 200hp engine did not shift down to cope! it holds the road very well for me, tight like a small car; a little torque steer to the right, i think, when accelerating, and if pushed, it takes off. 90mph on the free way is no problem, and it is hard to touch the pedal lightly enough to go below 65.
the trunk is nice and roomy, but they did not put in a cargo net even though they have the hooks inside (bought one). Another peeve is not having a light under the hood of the engine compartment?! I guess they think that the duratec doesn't need any checking...what about fluids you bozo engineers at ford! I do not like the side inward curves on the taurus and wish for more side protection for the paint in parking lots. the front glass is so tall, i am having trouble putting up a sun screen (even "jumbo" size is only about 28", and i need about 36").
Overall, I am very pleased with the car, the power is great compared with my 93 merc cougar 3.8 v-6 and 88 chevy 350 v-8 pickup. it takes rough bumps very well, but certain old wavy surface concrete on the freeway (southbound for 1/4 mile on 101 at buellton,ca) can set up a little feel that it is too stiff to handle i guess, but not too bad.
the leather seats are firm without any stiff metal line hitting across the back. our ride up to morro bay and back was comfortable except for my varying the speed between 55 and 90 mph to break in the car (manual says first 1000 miles to vary the speed, i probably vary too quickly). the manual also says not to stay up at the top of the tachometer continuously, which would be 7000rpm, i may have hit 6000 with a couple of downshifts.
Road noise: some wind noise that i wish was less, but i was not ready to spend the extra 10k for a lincoln ls for the same engine and thicker glass. side winds have some effect on the car, but not enough to move me out of my lane.
Zero defects to take into the dealer yet...very nice surprise, no squeaks from dash movement, no problems...hmm, maybe the turn signal switch when i want to go right isn't quite latching at the right position for me...not sure yet; not enough to bug me so far. the engine power makes it all worthwhile for me, but could get a ticket for me unless i learn to quit competing and showing off on the highway.