By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And yes, I have been stranded by a GM product. Hard to drive when your transmission self destructs.
I've been stranded by a Ford product too, but that was a long time ago. I had a '98 Ford SVT Contour that just quit at 8,000 miles out in the middle of no where. At least, Ford's road side assistance had me towed within 45 minutes. While I liked that car it was a train wreck for problems. A/C issues, wheel bearings, motor mounts. Dumped it as soon as my extended warranty expired.
Adjusting for inflation, a nickel in 2007 was worth about what a penny was in 1972, so dumping the penny probably wouldn't be a big deal. Heck, you could almost do away with the nickel as well, since it's only worth about what 2 cents was back in 1972.
Plus, I think the bigger and heavier the vehicle is, the more likely you might be to do further damage to the power steering and such if you try to drive it once the pump has failed. Years ago, a guy at work had a nice 1982 or so Caddy DeVille that he gave to his kid. The power steering pump went out on it, but the kid decided to just keep driving it like that. He thought it was cool and macho, driving it without power steering. Until the extra stress on the system caused other issues. I forget what all got screwed up now, but it was enough that they just junked the car.
I've driven my '68 Dodge Dart with a failed power steering pump. It required some effort, but was manageable. My ex-wife could even drive it! But I remember when the pump went bad in my '79 Newport, it was a lot harder to steer. I imagine something like a Yukon would be a real chore. Especially since it's going to have bigger wheels and tires which only add to the effort.
Probably not too bad if you're out on the highway at cruising speed, but in tight, low-speed maneuvering it's going to be painful.
The Police Officer couldn't steer the thing. It was the PS pump. There was no indication of this failure. He turned the truck off, called the TT and manually controlled the intersection as traffic backed up for miles up and down the 4 lane road leading to the intersection.
You think it was a Wal-Mart part? :surprise:
Regards,
OW
The Denali was like a Mack Truck without power steering!
Regards,
OW
Bob - Yeah, that's the down side of those dollar and two dollar coins - you'll tilt to one side.
On that gas question I do whatever turns out to be cheapest for me. Usually that means using a card with a gas rebate.
I was amazed at what you can do if you decide to go smaller. Back in 1965 my grandfather still had his 49 Dodge panel truck for his plumbing business. He decided to incorporate down to one vehicle so he bought a 60 Valiant wagon, sold the truck for $50 and gave my mom his 49 Buick. He died suddenly not long after which after the way the Valiant turned out afterward might have been just as well. It would have killed him itself. Wish we still had the Buick.
There's no way my Intrepid would've been able to take that load either. Not big enough, and not tough enough. And this was before I got the pickup truck. We ended up using my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which had about a 1500 lb spread between the GVWR and curb weight. It was tight packing all those boxes in the trunk and the back seat, and I think we even packed a few in the front seat, and one down in the passenger side footwell. My '79 NYer would have been able to handle the weight, but I think its trunk would have been too shallow and we wouldn't have been able to stack as many boxes on top of each other, like with the LeSabre. Plus, I didn't want to mess up the leather. :shades:
Years ago, my stepdad wanted to go into business for himself, doing plumbing work on the side. He was really interested in the Chevy Astro when it first came out, but when he looked at it up close, it was nowhere near as big inside as a "real" van. But still big enough to overload easily, with tools and such. My stepdad ended up getting a 1985 Chevy 3/4 ton van with a 350 CID V-8.
Most contractors I've seen tend to run around in full-sized vans. So, bigger than minivans and such, but at least not quite as big as those medium-duty van-based box trucks. I guess those new Sprinter vans would make good work trucks. Large cargo volume/payload capacity, and fairly good fuel economy.
What my electrician friend must carry every day to serve his customers would not fit into an Element, nor would an Element's suspension be strong enough to carry it. Believe me, if he could downsize to a more fuel-efficient vehicle, he would, as the price of fuel is killing him.
That Yukon has much wider tires than the skinny rubber on manual-steered cars and trucks had back in the day, the gear ratio is probably lower (it was something like 25 or even 30:1 on old trucks), and rack-and-pinion requires more effort than the old-style recirculating ball.
Your Taurus was built after Ford learned its lesson. The customers who were burned by the crappy 3.8 V-6 and faulty transmissions left in droves, sending the company into its present tailspin (although higher gas prices haven't helped). Ford HAD to change to survive, and if its latest products are any indication, it has changed. But lots of people who were burned by Ford in the past have found alternatives, are satisfied, and have no real desire to come back to the blue oval.
When it was the 500, I just didn't care for its looks. It just seemed a bit dull and anonymous. When they renamed it Taurus and gave it that heavy, chromey grille, I didn't like it at first, but it's starting to grow on me. If I needed a car that size, I'd be willing to check one out and see how it compares. Next time around though, if I ever get another new car, it'll probably be something a bit smaller. Which is odd for me, because traditionally I've usually gone for larger cars.
One thing I like about the Taurus is that even in the cheapest trim level, it looks like they put a bit of effort into it to keep it from looking cheap. The fabrics look nice, and it has this material on the door panels that, while not really cloth, at least looks more pleasant than just a cheap plastic slab.
I wonder if that is used as a bid truck for the guys that go out on the bidding part of the company's business. Or maybe it is used for light duty such as annual checkups of systems and doing light maintenance.
The last guy that was here for service on my heat pump had a selection of interior blower motors and exterior air handler motors along with compressors in the back of the van. I wondered how much the retail value of all that stuff was worth, but it had to be heavy.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I had always wondered if that was the case. Here's something else I've wondered...did the domestics go to some different type of recirculating-ball type of steering in the 70's? I've noticed that later cars, like my '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass, etc, would be harder to steer with no power than my '68 Dart. And it's not like those cars are THAT much heavier. Heck, with the 318 V-8, the Dart might actually have more weight on the front tires than the 229 and especially the 231 V-6 in that Olds.
I've also noticed it with cars like my '79 Newport and '85 LeSabre, which just seemed more difficult to turn than an older car like my '67 Catalina, which in this case WOULD be a heavier car.
Oops, now that I think about it, I think I might know part of the answer. Those newer cars have smaller steering wheels, so you don't get the leverage you did with those larger wheels. Also, I think the newer cars are fewer turns lock-to-lock, something like 3.3 versus 3.7? That would definitely make a difference.
Good luck with your Taurus and enjoy it. I heard the SHO, which I liked back then, had many problems but you probably know better than me. It seems you di well with that model. I had a 1988 Lincoln LSC which was trouble=free for 80K before I sold it for $8K back in '97.
Regards,
OW
I thought those Mark VII's were good looking cars. Big, yet still sporty, and not dowdy.
The Taurus/500 platform is light years ahead of GMs W body vehicles. It drives nice, is comfortable, and the usable space is unmatched for the money. Why it gets overlooked is beyond me. I think Ford really dropped the ball on the 500 initial styling and name game. Plus the Duratec 3.0 in the 500 was average at best. Though reliable, a bit short on power and refinement.
My dad is still driving a 2000 Taurus with the 3.0 Duratec that has provided him with 170k miles of trouble free miles. He did have to replace the radiator a few months ago, but overall the car is still solid. I rode in it a few weeks ago and it has very few rattles. It being 8 years old with 170k, is quieter and rattles less than my wife's Grand Prix.
That's pretty impressive for the size and power it has. It's better than my wife's Grandprix that is smaller and short 63 hp.
And that, in a nutshell, was my Ford experience. Add to that Ford's customer service was awful.
I like a lot of what I see coming out of Ford at the moment. We'll see what they have when I'm in the market again. Today I would give anyone (well, except for Chrysler) a shot at my business.
In all fairness, I think I'd compare the Taurus/500 to GM's G-body rather than the W. Although GM was able to sort of massage the Impala into sort of a quasi-full-size car. I guess the Taurus would still compare pretty favorably to the G-body, though. I do like the Lucerne, but the base 3.8 is a bit short on power, and I'm sure the Ford 3.5 would blow it away while still getting better fuel economy. The V-8 in the Lucerne certainly helps out with power, but you're going to pay for it with slightly worse fuel economy. Plus, doesn't the Northstar need premium fuel?
From sitting in the cars, I think I like the driving position of the Lucerne better. The seat feels like it goes back further to me, whereas the 500/Taurus has a higher seat, but doesn't seem to go back as far.
I remember when the restyled 2000 Taurus first came out, I was pretty impressed with it. My Granddad, who was 86 at the time, had a '94 Taurus. He usually traded every 3-4 years, but had held onto this one a bit longer. Normally he probably would have traded around 1997-1998, but didn't. And since he'd never held onto a car that long, he just got worried as it aged. I took him to look at the 2000 models, but when he saw one, he was actually disgusted! He refused to test drive it, and the salesman literally had to beg him to get behind the wheel! :surprise:
Granddad actually liked my 2000 Intrepid, but it has a fairly low seating position, horrible blind spots, and invisible corners. I really don't think of it as a good "old man's" car. My Dad is a Chevy fan, and wanted to try talking him into an Impala. But in the end, Granddad just held onto that '94 Taurus until he gave up driving when he turned 90 in 2004. They offered to give me that Taurus if I wanted it, but I didn't really need it, so one of my cousins got it. I think they're still driving it.
Oh trust me, it was a hard decision. At first I actually said yes, but then the more I thought about it, even a free car costs you money, and if you truly don't need it, it's a burden. It would've cost me an extra $300-400 annually to insure. And even though it only had about 40K miles on it by then, Granddad wasn't so hot about taking care of his cars, so I didn't know what all it would have needed. At least a few hundred bucks worth of maintenance, just to be safe. And I'd have to get it inspected, unless I went the convoluted route of my Granddad giving it to my Dad, and then Dad giving it to me. That's actually what they did, to give it to my cousin. Granddad gave it to my uncle, and then he gave it to my cousin.
Also, at that time I was still making payment on the Intrepid, and hadn't sold my condo yet, so those two were bleeding me to the tune of about $1500 per month. And the Intrepid only had around 90-95K miles on it, so it still had plenty of life left.
I think if something like that came up today though, I'd probably take him up on the offer! Even if a '94 Taurus isn't the most exciting thing in the world...
Not a major cost, but it adds up. I think if Granddad had a car that got me a bit more excited, like a '94 Caprice or Roadmaster, or even a '94 Crown Vic or Park Ave, rather than that mundane Taurus, I probably would've jumped at it.
I've also learned that when you have too many cheap cars, it can cause problems, too. For instance, if one dies, it's too tempting to just let it sit and use another. And then that one dies, so you just move on and use another! And before you know it, instead of having one car that needs fixing, you have several.
My research lab in graduate school had a 1991 Ford Taurus (this was in about 2002/3...funding for experiment cars isn't easy to come by lately). Every kid in the lab drove that car (some of us drove better than others) and it was used in driving studies (so randoms responding to newspaper ads would drive it too). It ate a transmission. The repair was almost $1200. In going through the maintenance records, other than body work (from the studies/grad students) that was its only repair. 3.0l vulcan V6, A4OD transmission.
Even considering the Taurus you had was horrible, I bet that head gasket repair was less than getting the oil pump and seals replaced on the Accord, and I am sure your transmission was cheaper than the 3 belt jobs the Accord had, or close to the cost of the valve job recommended in the Accord manual, and the "regular maintenance" transmission adjustments for the automatic. Oh, and the Taurus was cheaper to buy when we got the '93.
With Tauruses of that generation, I think if you got the 3.0 Vulcan V-6, you were pretty much ensured a fairly reliable ride. It had the same 140 hp as the 3.8 gasket blower, but less torque, so I think it tended to be easier on the transmission as well.
Now, I don't know if things changed much in later years, but a guy at work had a late 90's Windstall, and its 3.8 blew the head gasket. And when it blew, it pretty much took the whole engine with it. $5,000+ repair. This wasn't just a matter of slap a new gasket in there and you're ready to go. I've heard that if the 3.8 was going to blow a head gasket, it would usually do it around 90,000 miles.
But then another guy at work had a 1987-88 T-bird with the 3.8, and it had close to 200,000 miles on it when he donated it to charity. That was just a 120 hp version, carried over from the previous T-bird and the '84-86 era small LTD, so maybe that one wasn't as prone to blowing?
And someone else at work had a Taurus wagon. I think it was a '92. Its transmission went out around the 100,000 mile mark, and I think it was about $1000 to fix. I think this was around 2000-2001, so I imagine it would be a bit more these days.
I guess if a tranny blows after 100K miles and it's only $1K to fix, I wouldn't be too upset. A little disappointed, because that's still premature compared to most other cars I've had. But, if the car had been reliable otherwise, I wouldn't be too irritated, I guess.
These newer cars do kinda scare me though, because I hear that nowadays a tranny can cost $5-7K or more once it's out of warranty. Heck, back when I delivered pizzas, one driver from another store that was helping us out one night had a fairly new-ish Subaru Legacy Outback that just had to have its tranny replaced. It was about $5,000, and this was back around 1998-1999!
As for the first-gen Intrepid/Concorde/Vision, they were horrible with the 3.5 OHC engine, but if you got the 3.3 pushrod they weren't too bad. That was a good, durable engine, and it didn't stress the transmission out like the 3.5 would. There was a lady at work who had a '94 and was always griping about it because it kept having electrical problems. But the original 3.3/4-speed auto lasted through about 160,000 miles, when they gave it to their kid, and then he either crashed it or ragged it out I think. The 3.5 would eat transmissions more regularly, and it had the added bonus of tending to have water pump and a/c problems.
The old clutch like 5 bolts and 3 springs and the new ones are 3 bolts and 2 springs. I guess they over engineered it too much and no one bought new washers. The transmission has metal gears and requires lube. The newer ones are all plastic/nylon gears.
I was combing craigslist and can find the equivalent washer for less than $100. Given the age of our machine and how reliable its been so far, I am going back and forth on if i should start over or just order the parts. Its that devil you know vs the one u don't issue.
You know that 10 or so years ago, the Contour/Mystique rebadge twins were the "new kind of American car" that were going to compete with the Accord and Camry?!
My 2003 LS was a great car but the overall package was rather bland.
1988 LSC was a better car for the time. Loved the outstanding brakes...best of any US car I have ever owned. Blew away the Caddy at the time but I remember the GM claim that said the anemic 1988 FWB could destroy it in the 1/4 mile. Well, my dad had the FWB!! POS! Worst brakes, nice acceleration but LSC was a better car!
Regards,
OW
Do you think $15 billion could fund 1 great little car that gets 45 MPG? Nahh, fugghedaboudit!
Regards,
OW
I'd order the parts somewhere. Do you know for sure it has to be replaced? There are a couple of great help sites for appliance repair. I've replaced the agitator dogs, timer, and drilled a new hole for the rear verticle spring that pulls down on the back of the tube on mine from approximately the same time period. I love the way these are built--2 screws, 2 clips, unsnap 1 electrical connector and the whole metal shell is off. The dryer I had the tub out a couple weeks ago because I thought I had a roller worn--turned out it was a plastic fork caught in the air holes in the back of the drum area. The websites show exactly how to remove everything.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But it didn't have the crappy 3.8 V-6, which was the one notorious for head-gasket failure. (I'm not going to condemn an 11-year-old abused car for transmission failure.) And, for what it's worth, I've read that the real problem was that the transmission couldn't handle the extra power of the 3.8 V-6. Several people I know who had fleet Tauruses with the 3.0 V-6 had no problems with the transmission or the head gasket.
Which left buyers with a tough choice - either buy the engine that was competitive in terms of power and smoothness, and be guaranteed to experience some expensive failures down the road, or go with the less powerful and less refined engine and avoid expensive head gasket and transmission repairs.
That type of choice drove buyers right into the arms of Toyota and Honda.
lilengineerboy: Even considering the Taurus you had was horrible, I bet that head gasket repair was less than getting the oil pump and seals replaced on the Accord, and I am sure your transmission was cheaper than the 3 belt jobs the Accord had, or close to the cost of the valve job recommended in the Accord manual, and the "regular maintenance" transmission adjustments for the automatic. Oh, and the Taurus was cheaper to buy when we got the '93.
The problem is that your experience was the exception, not the rule. The simple fact is that every reputable mechanic tells me that Hondas and Toyotas of the 1990s are far superior to comparable domestics in reliability; this is backed up by reputable surveys; and the sales trends over the past decade shows that many buyers have had roughly the same experiences. Companies don't loose this much market share (let alone this much money) for nothing.
I doubt that Toyota spent more than $2 billion developing the Prius. It gets 45 MPG easy. We spent $2 billion in tax dollars on the GM EV-1 along with other EVs. There are BMW 3 series diesels that get 45 MPG being sold in the EU. The money is already spent. It is the will of the Congress to allow them to be sold in the USA. Big lobby money is trying to keep high mileage cars out.
So what laws are being passed to keep high mileage cars out of the US?
Regards,
OW
How about the fact that EPA and CARB have done everything possible to keep diesel cars off our highways under the guise of emissions. When diesel cars have much lower CO, HC & CO2 than gas equivalent cars. Don't you think that it is strange that over 50% of cars in the EU are diesel and less than 1% here. We would be using about 25% less oil in the USA if we had followed the EU in developing clean diesel and the cars to run on it.
PS
The oil companies do not want to be stuck with a lot of worthless gasoline as they are in the EU. That is a pretty good incentive to keep the proper flow going.
I'd argue the flip side of that is a stronger truism and more factual and reality-based:
My friend bought himself a '94 Geo Prism (otherwise known as Toyota's Corolla battletank run-forever car). He floored it everywhere he went, everyday he drove it. It was his first car, he raced it, he sped in it, he broke hard and accelerated as fast as it would go. He even banged, bruised, and crashed it up pretty good in it's older age. He got that thing to over 100K miles and the only problems he had were with body integrity trim issues from abuse from unruly passengers and teenagers (like plastic moldings and trim being kicked loose, a rearview mirror being swung off its mount, wear and tear to upholstery). He didn't have to spend a dime in repairs (with normal maintenance schedule adhered to), and he didn't spend a minute for warranty issues. That's the way it should be, and that's the Toyota way and why they are number 1.
I haven't had a car yet where I didn't have to spend a single minute on warranty issues up to 100K, but then again, I haven't bought a Toyota. However, my brother and parents have many similar experiences with their herem of Toyotas.
I'd say what matters most is not how a car is driven, but how it is built, how high of quality the part used to assemble it were, the quality of the assembly, and the quality of the engineering and design are ALL that matters. If the quality and engineering is there, it shouldn't matter how hard you drive it (but normal maintenance is a no brainer). Similarly, if the quality is not there, it doesn't matter how much you baby it, it'll break down.
As true as that may be, I don't know of any American car that recommends "valve jobs" or "transmission adjustments" as routine maintenance in their manual. A valve job can be nothing but big $$$$$
Fixitnow.com and "the appliance samurai" seem tied to repairclinic.com, which isn't a bad thing. That is how I got it isolated to the clutch or trans. Repair Clinic wants like 2 Benjamins for the trans and over a hunnie for the clutch/shaft kit, about 3x eBay prices. If eBaying the parts gets them all for ~$100, I think I am golden, and Mrs. LEB will be pleased not to be going to the laundry mat.
I guess it pays to be a little handy, apparently its a $500 service call job.
The less $$ I spend on this crud, the more I have to put towards something a bit more entertaining than the Accord (or paying it off at least
Hmm, the French government supports the French auto industry, the Italian government supports the Italian auto industry, the German government supports the German auto industry, and the Japanese and Chinese governments support their auto industry.
The US government and lobbyists fight with the US auto industry place stronger restrictions on the US auto industry, and treat it like a red-headed step child.
Meanwhile, the US government has been letting the financial sector run lose, and now they are going to kill off all domestic industry cleaning up after that.
Wait...were they actually still pushing valve adjustments by the 1990s for import cars?! I know that was common in the 70's and 80's for them. In comparison, I think domestic cars phased that part of maintenance out back in the 50's! Maybe early 60's, at best. FWIW a valve ADJUSTMENT, which is just routine maintenance, probably isn't a big expense. I hope not, because back in the 70's and early 80's, those Japanese cars called for it every 15K miles! Now a valve JOB is when you have to replace the valves. My Granddad had to do that with their 1972 Impala. But he was a mechanic and knew how to do it himself, so it probably wasn't that expensive.
I don't know anything about "transmission adjustments", but I play it a little paranoid with my 2000 Intrepid, and get its tranny serviced every 30K miles. The owner's manual calls for 100k on the "regular" schedule and 50K on "severe". Heck, maybe that's why the things were so prone to failing!
When GM came out with that little lightweight THM200C tranny, they recommended a 100K mile service interval. I have a 1979 Malibu brochure that mentions that as one of the advantages. Maybe that's one reason those things were so trouble-prone? FWIW I had a 1980 Malibu with that tranny, and never a bit of trouble. One of my great-uncles worked at a transmission shop though, and we'd take it in every year to get a tranny service. I sold it at 100K miles, and ran into the new owners about a year later. They had 115K on it by then, and loved the car to death.
We were never stranded or in need of a tow truck, however, it did have a few minor issues, but most of them fell under the category of maintenance, and were not very expensive to fix, I never had anything go wrong with my Dodge that wasn't very expensive to fix (or maybe it was because they could find 2 or 3 things wrong with it that needed fixing every 3 to 4 months).
The Honda ran beautifully w/o the service of Tow trucks.
While we had it we replaced:
1) The hoses as one of them sprung a tiny coolant leak and we just changed them all for safekeeping.
2) The brakes, rotars, and CV joint.
3) speed sensor/speedo sensor (which meant getting a new instrument panel)
These are the problems I can live with in a more than decade old car with close to 200K miles.
What I can't live with is: (Dodge problems)
1) Electrical system shut down for the entire vehicle (tow truck to dealer - didn't make it more than 2 miles out of garage) Bad Alternator and Serpentine belt?
2) Fuel pump sensor issue (tow truck to dealer - won't start) 1st morning after purchase.
3) Corroding starter cables, wires, battery terminals in a 2 year old car (tow truck to dealer - Won't start)
And near tow truck misses:
4) faulty tranny at 60K miles
5) leaky head gaskets at 40k? or so? can't remember now, which led to low coolant levels, which led to overheating, which led to discovering head gasket problem
6) leaking gas tank o-ring seal
7) faulty AC compressor which was smoking/burning my timing belt (and squealing very very loudly!!)
And problems that just made me laugh at Chrysler's patheticness:
1) Windshield cracking down the middle for no apparent reason while parked in a safe shady spot.
2) parking brake failure
3) rattles and shakes, and glue melting seepage galore