Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Sedans Pre-2008

1…4041434546…66

Comments

  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    that pushrod v6 will be better than the elantra's engine. that was the other car considered by collegecar?
  • atcersatcers Member Posts: 26
    Why is a pushrod engine unefficent? Why has the GM 3800 pushrod engine been so popular for so many years? While the Duratec is a good engine it isn't a "super engine" by any means. Compare the 3.0L Duratec to the Vulcan or the GM 3100 and 3800 engines and they all have similar numbers with almost the same gas mpg ratings. Pushrods don't need to have timing belts replaced and have been a proven design for years. Unless higher performance is needed for a particular application pushrods do just fine in my humble opinion. Now I'm no "tree hugger" but if you want to talk about "inefficent" running engines then there are a whole bunch of them out there. Emissions efficency is one area where Honda clearly kicks butt!
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    most OHC engines are moving to TIMING CHAINS, just like the Duratec has.
  • atcersatcers Member Posts: 26
    They may be "moving" to chains but MOST still use belts.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    Inefficient means that Vulcan has the same milage as Duratec, but has only 155 hp against 200 hp. It means that Vulcan burns fuel less efficiently than Duratec. Vulcan also is more harsh and less refined than modern 4 cylinder engine. Modern 4 cyl 2,4 L engines have the same power as Vulcan but are more fuel efficient, weight less what means better balance that improves handling. So when you go buy e.g. 4 cyl vs 6 cyl you get better milage, better balance, when you buy Vulcan vs Duratec you only loose power and win nothing.
  • collegecarcollegecar Member Posts: 18
    I would have preferred the Duratec, but I got such a good deal on this car, that I was not going to bother searching for hours or days looking for a 2002 Taurus with Duratec for a comparable price. The few I had seen were fully loaded ones with leather, moonroof etc, that they were trying to sell for a lot more money.
    The main advantage I have seen with the Vulcan is that they are readily available. Ford should probably just make the 200HP engine standard if there is no other advantage to the Vulcan.
    I will be driving mostly around town and there is no lack of power in that situation. It has enough power to accelerate quickly onto a freeway onramp. The only time I would notice the lack of power compared to the Duractec, is if I was trying to quickly pass another car while already traveling at highway speeds.
    I still prefer the torquey feel around town compared to a 4 cylinder Japanese car.
    I paid less that I could have purchased even a 115HP used 2002 Civic LX with the same miles and price was a big factor in the selection of this car.
  • ezaircon4jcezaircon4jc Member Posts: 793
    Seems to me that the fastest, highest horsepower engines are still pushrod motors. The Vette's 350 small block still blows most cars out of the water AND gets very good mileage. If you want torque down low, get a pushrod motor. If you want high rpm horsepower, go multi-cam, multi valve. The S2000 has, what, 200hp? Look at the torque. IIRC, somewhere around 135ftlb. Torque wins in the end. Anyone can up the hp by upping revs.
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    anyone can up the hp by upping DISPLACEMENT. That corvette motor needs all 350 cubic inches to get the power it does. The revered but overated 3800 has to use its oversized displacement to make the power it does. Many competitors achieve the same numbers in their cars with only 3 litres of displacement.

    And 'upping the revs' on a pushrod motor ultimately doesn't do you any good because the pushrod valvetrain has more mass and becomes inefficient at high rpm. The limitation of the technology limits it to low rpm operation only. The engine gets coarse and unruly in mid-upper rpm ranges. OHC motors can be tuned for low end torque and high rpm power. The valvetrain is lighter so the valvetrain can remain operational at higher speeds.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    was designed for Taurus in early 80s, because Taurus was new fw drive platform that needed new powertrain. Another engine was doomed 3.8L pushrod with more torque but same hp. Ford was on tight schedule to deliver new midzise car. Small Escort though success was hardly moneymaker and Tempo wasn't any breakthrough. Other Ford cars were so bad that couldn't compete with GM. So I guess that Vulcan was made to save money Ford still had. Of course right thing was to make completely new aliminum 4 valve per cyl. engine. But there were no time and money. It is miracle that Ford survived at all.

    But using technologies kind of Vulcan now means loosing market to competition and it becomes tougher every year. Everyone introducing excelent cars, even GM and Chrysler. GM pushrods are efficient fuel thirsty engines and transmissions are perfect. Ford has to turn its attention to engine and transmission design asap.
  • atcersatcers Member Posts: 26
    I can agree with everything you say except, the 3800 and some other pushrods are still viable powerplants. Compare the Duratec and the 3800: Duratec hp 200@5650rpm and 200 ft lbs of torque at 4400rpm / 3800, 205@5200rpm and a more significant 230 ft lbs of torque at 4000rpm. More torque at lower Rpm's is a very favorable factor. Now I realize numbers don't mean a hill of beans in the real world so just compare the mpg for a 2003 Sable and a stodgy LeSabre. The Buick gets better mileage and it weighs 250lbs more! I know one could argue that final drive gear ratio plays a big part of mpg but isn't it the greater torque of the 3800 that allows for the higher gear ratio thus yielding the higher mpg? To me the larger displacement satisfies the end result. I chose the 3800 because I've owned a vehicle with one and it was a fine engine that gave me over 130,000 trouble free miles before it was retired for a Sable with a Duratec. In my experience they are both good engines.
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    still viable?

    yes.

    Class leading and worthy of gushing acclaim GM loyalists spew about it?

    No. Its a decent reliable engine. Get over it GM fans. It is average by today's standards and although reliable for a GM product, its not any more reliable than typical Hondas, Toyotas, etc. In fact you will see the Duratec is just as reliable.

    In no way do I say the GM 3800 is a bad engine. What i am saying is its performance and reliability are not above the standard of anything else these days. For someone accustomed to GM's less than stellar powerplants a 3800 may be a godsend. But in comparison to the industry as a whole, its 'just another engine'.

    Ordinary, average, typical it is, the 3800. Like it for its power, reliability, etc....but its mid pack when all is considered. no reason to hand GM a gold medal for it. I certainly wouldn't seek out a car that has it, just for the engine. Especially when 300 other vehicles out there have just as good of powertrains or better.
  • mrosetomroseto Member Posts: 1
    I need to change my brake light on a 99 Taurus. The book said to contact a local dealer. I don't see this as very necessary, but I cannot find the part at the local parts store. Any Ideas?
  • atcersatcers Member Posts: 26
    I would say you were right on target. Nothing special about the 3800 or the Duratec for that matter. I don't believe anyone claimed they were special. The 3800 was only used as an example for pushrod versus OHC.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    you're right about the s2000 engine (it's 240 hp though). it's great for application in the s2000, but would be very lousy in a heavier car that uses an automatic.

    now hondas v6 engines for the accords, odysseys and pilots are a different story. GM's 3.8l pushrod may have a little more low end grunt, but is otherwise put to shame (maybe this is too strong) by a good OHC engine. with the advent of 5 speed automatic transmissions and drive by wire throttle, that one advantage is dissipating.

    even when GM supercharges the 3.8l, it's still no match for nissan's 3.5l in the maxima.
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    "I don't believe anyone claimed they were special."

    Go to some of the GM car boards, the folks there think the 3800 is still at the top of the heap! Some even think the 3800 is still on Wards' ten best engines list! They have the audacity to diss the best Honda and Nissan mills and say the 3800 is superior!

    glad there are still others who have things in proper perspective and see its just run of the mill motor. Let's see how special that 3800 is when Nissan comes out with the TWIN TURBO v6 in the 350z. Those GM cars will be eating dust dust dust.

    I think the whole 'to do' about the 3800 is that its ONE engine GM managed to figure how to make somewhat reliable and so the GM love crew thinks that's a special accomplishment. And even now, the 3800's are blowing plastic intake manifolds on aregular basis because they screwed up the design.

    OHC is what enables a light car like the s2000 to produce phenomenal power. That engine COULD be retuned for torque if they wanted. With OHC you can have it either, or both ways. With pushrodsyou get only the torque....not the rpms, not the ultimate smoothness, not the full powerband hp experience.
  • atcersatcers Member Posts: 26
    That 3.5L Nissan in the Maxima and Infinity G35 is SWEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!
  • collegecarcollegecar Member Posts: 18
    http://www.denniswolfe.com/Taurus/engine_percentage.htm

    Looks like they are actually increasing the production of the older engine despite no apparent benefit other than 1 MPG better fuel economy.
  • fdthirdfdthird Member Posts: 352
    If its like my wife's 2001, you need to get behind the trunk liner and remove 3 metric bolts on long shafts. Then drop the entire tail light unit off car and replace bulbs.

    A pain in the [non-permissible content removed] that could have avoided by putting body access holes in the area!

    Have the same problem with my 2000 Mustang!

    Nice design Ford
  • wildweswildwes Member Posts: 5
    Does anyone know of a trim kit to install horizontal protective strips on the door panels where they jut out and are just asking to be dinged?
  • zeenzeen Member Posts: 401
    I reported a couple of weeks ago about a total failure of a 3.0 Duratec with 60,000 miles. It is in a 96 Sable LS in otherwise excellent condition. Oil level was maintained while I owned it. I bought it at 30k miles. It was a fleet car.
     Dealer wants $3500 to replace the engine. I called Ford and they would do nothing.
    Too old.
    Local mechanic can put in a used Duratec for $2000. Just doesn't seem worth it for a car with a trade-in value of about $3500 at most.
    Local mechanic said he has seen a lot of oil leaks in the Duratec and that results in periods of use with insufficient oil. In addition, he said trannys were inadequate for that engine. He therefore feels it's too big a risk to put another engine in.
    So there you have it. A Duratec that self-destructed at 60K and the car is a total loss.
    Just thought you would all enjoy this tale of woe.
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    the 96 MY tranny issues were prevalent but i had thought ford acted rather quickly on that and had fixed it by 97 or 98.

    Leaks in duratec.....first I've heard of it. Sorry to hear about your costly issue.
  • danielj6danielj6 Member Posts: 285
    Your story is as interesting as it is unfortunate. I always kept this thought in mind that you either pay now or pay later. Ford offers great incentives in the form of cash back. However, if you keep the car for longer than the basic warranty period and don't have an extended warranty, should anything happen, you're out of luck.
    For some reason I think that someone is going to get offended about my statement.

    I don't have an extended warranty and my basic is about to run out. The thought scares me. I'm sorry about your predicament.
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    "For some reason I think that someone is going to get offended about my statement."

    Well, it is a Ford......

    and I own a Taurus!
  • wep68wep68 Member Posts: 18
    with 24V Duratech, leather, and safety package(side air bags and traction control) and adjustable pedals.

    MSRP was 22,870. I got $3500 rebate from Ford and $4000 discount from dealer. Obviously Ford is kicking them some money in some fashion.
     
    The cruise control doesnt work, the indicator light comes on but the car coasts down. Yes I read the instructions. Not reassuring on your second day with the car. Of course I didnt test the cruise on the test drive...

    80 miles on the car, but it was built in Sept 2001! I guess it sat around somewhere for a really long time.

    Any opinions on whether all that time sitting will hurt the cars longevity?

    Hell of a car for $15,370 -- hope it has the reliability. Hell, I paid 13,800 for a my stipped 94 Camry with 22K miles in 1995. That Camry was like a watch tho - just ticked away the miles.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    I think you got a great deal. Have them fix the cruise under warranty and you will be on your way. Likely it is just something simple like the brake switch stuck or misadjusted and disengages the cruise control. I doubt if the new car just sitting around on the lot will harm the car.
  • collegecarcollegecar Member Posts: 18
    That is bizarre. Was there any explanation? They have been selling 2003s for many months, so I wonder why they did not sell that 2002 before now.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    Some dealers are inept. I bought a new '96 Dodge Caravan leftover built in summer of 1996 in April 1997. It happens. Maybe it was a less popular color, sometimes has an odd options mix, or got parked on a dealer' remote storage lot so was overlooked for a long time. Yes, it happens. Lucky is the one who runs into these deals, as they get a good bargain.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    Just checked a local Ford dealer web site and listed all the new (not used) 2002 models they had.

    There were a couple of pickups, one full size van,4 Escapes, 2 ZX2's (the coupe escort still around) and one Focus ZX5. No Tauri, however. I did see one on their list several weeks ago. So it is still possible to buy leftover new 2002 models, if you are not particularly picky. Good way to get a bargain and still get a new car.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    Car sitting long time is no good. When you don't drive a car you have to run engine at least once a week and even better drive it a while. Many thing can go wrong like - engine is not lubricated, rubber gets stiffer and so on. So that you bought car so cheap has a reason - it is not as good as 2003. It might be better to buy slightly used car that was running once a week at least. But with used cars you never know though. I can also suggest you to buy extended warranty for engine, AT and AC just for peace of mind .

    BTW Audi announced that it has 2002 models still not sold and asked dealers to sell them as certified used cars. Audi gives $4,000 rebate to dealer and some other incentive. But Audi is inherently less reliable than Taurus and much more expensive to maintain.
  • wep68wep68 Member Posts: 18
    AS I posted earlier just got a new 2002 with 24v, leather and side air bags for 15.4K. No explantion asked or offered why they had 2002s. THey have about 8 more of them actually. About 1/3-1/2 the Ford dealers in teh Bay Area ( I searched websites of about 15 of them) have 2002 Tauri. SC Ford in San Fran and Magnussen in Fremont have the most.

    First impressions

    The brake pedal is quite a bit higher than the gas, seems like an ergonomic problem. Anyone else feel like you really have to lift your leg to brake?

    The car has nice punch 0-30 and 70-90, but at 40 to 60 it is not that quick. It really picks up speed at 70 tho, I found myself driving faster than expected due to power and smoothness compared to my previous ride.

    Taurus Has nice taut ride - not sloppy or wallowing at ALL. I had a rental Buick Century and it was piloting a Chris Craft. Amazing difference. I really felt a lack of control in the Century.

    I really like all the grippy rubber on the console bin floors. My stuff doesnt rattle around.
  • collegecarcollegecar Member Posts: 18
    The things I noticed on my Taurus compared to my previous Accord are:
    Vulcan V6 does not have highway passing power, but seems quick enough at low speed in town and for intial acceleration onto freeway onramps.
    Lighted controls on steering wheel are nice (especially since they are not as easy to control without looking as the Hondas).
    Sloppier body panel fit and bigger gaps between panels.
    Exterior street lighting on side mirrors when remote keyfob is used to unlock doors.
    Keyfob is not as ergonomic as the Accords and it is very easy to accidently press the panic alarm. (On the Accord the panic button is smaller than other buttons and has to be held down before it goes off).
    A little quieter.
    Some wallowing and extra bouncing over speed bumps and exiting from driveway to street. Feels like struts could already be wearing out after only 24K miles.
    Brakes softer and takes more predal pressure for the same stopping force.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    I wouldn't worry about your car sitting on the dealer lot for a long time, particularly in the moderate SF bay area weather. My minivan sat over a Wisconsin winter on the dealer lot and had no problems as a result. Besides, you have the full warranty to work with. Any leaks or problems from sitting will likely show up in the next 3 years/36k miles. I would've taken your deal without hesitation. You saved likely about $3k over the same 2003 car.

    Your other comments are similar to my experience as well except I don't notice a brake ergonomic problem, but I have driven Tauri now as my primary car since 1990, so am likely used to the brake placement. I don't notice it much different than my wife's '96 Caravan, however. My Taurus does not have the adjustable pedal option, however, so if you do, the pedal placement may be different than mine.

    Taurus tight handling and ride without being punishing is definitely a winner. That and I have had absolutely no squeaks or rattles after 24k miles and 2-1/2 years.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    I have already 10,000 miles on my Sable LS Premium (means Duratec). No problems so far, even minor. Going to the second oil change. Both times dealership (Fremont Jeep-Lincoln-Merc) sent me coupons for oil change for $28 and free inspection and tyre rotation. Downside is that you have to be in dealership about 1,5 hour. On my older Taurus oil change takes 10 minutes in something like Quicklube though they put cheapest Mobile.

    I have no problem with pedals except I would like to move them farther away, so moving pedals is no help for me. Breaks on Taurus/Sable is worst compare to competition, but for everyday usage it is okay. They are a little spongy but I get used to it on my older Taurus (that has disk brakes on wheels).

    Steering is not so fast as on more modern cars, but still okay for everyday use. It is a great commute car because it is more quiet and smooth than most of other cars, you don't get tired. Overal impression of interior is good, though craftmanship is not as good as on Japanese or german cars. But I like this overal good feeling, I find Camry and old Accord interior too boring even though better executed, so I like Sables interior more, really during driving I don't pay much attention to details, but Ford has to address this issue in next design.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    There is a favorable review of 2003 Sable in the carconnection:

    "If somehow I could have been blindfolded when approaching the car, then blinkered while driving it, I would have sworn that I was in a peppy, responsive, nimble yet solid touring sedan from... Well, I wouldn't have been able to say where from exactly. The 2003 Sable delivers more pleasurable road feel and feedback than its typical Japanese rivals from Toyota and Nissan. On the other hand, the Sable is a bit cushier in the ride department--a little less severe, perhaps, in the way it absorbs bumps and road deflections--than the European models we get over here, most of them Teutonic. Could it be that Sable is a truly genuine interpretation of a distinctly North American automotive idiom? "

    The link to the full review is

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5627&n=157,- 180&sid=180
  • danielj6danielj6 Member Posts: 285
    Nice review indeed!
    At $25,865 - $2000 to $3000 cash back makes this car an unbeatable value. ¿Are station wagons more expensive that sedans in the Taurus/Sable line?
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    www.CarConnection.com has a good review of the 2003 Taurus wagon. Seems like lately in the car press, the old 'Bulls' are getting good write ups.

    Also, go to the beginning of this forum and it seemed like it was all "my car is junk". Now, there are lot of "I just got a Taurus and it's great." Good news for a change.
  • fred_tenagliafred_tenaglia Member Posts: 1
    I am considering a Taurus 2002 SES with 14k and a 3.0 V6 Vulcan engine. I'm ok with the Vulcan the concern I have is that it is a FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicle) which burns alternative fuels (alchohol based I think. I plan on burning just regular gas. Do you knoe of any reliablity problems with this type of engine or fuel delivery system
    Thanks
  • ezaircon4jcezaircon4jc Member Posts: 793
    I heard/read that the Ranger with that engine has some problems. One of the common complaints is a rough idle.
  • denon12345denon12345 Member Posts: 3
    Have a 1999 Ford Tauras, has about 62000km. The problem is when the car is shut off the power sterring fluid backup in to the container. But when the car starts up it sucks it all back through. If anyone know any idea what it could be, it would be very helpful.

    Thanks.
  • libertycatlibertycat Member Posts: 593
    Does anyone here own a Taurus SEL with interior wood trim? I was considering buying a used one in a few years and was curious as to how common they are.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    I doubt if anyone has any idea except Ford how many SEL's are equipped with wood trim. I believe it only came out as an option beginning with the '03 model year, and I really doubt that there are a lot of them out there. Considering that the vast majority of Tauri on the Road are SE and SES models. I would guess the total percent of '03 Tauri with wood is likely less than 5%, and for '00-'02 it is 0%.

    Whether a used car has wood trim is about the most minor issue you should concern yourself with when buying a used car, however. You should be much more concerned with the mileage, condition and service history.
  • minghua7014minghua7014 Member Posts: 2
    Basic Info: 2000 Taurus GL wagon, red brown, 76k miles. Ave. 22-23mpg on mix of local and highway.Conservative driver.

    History:
    I bought the 2000 Taurus GL wagon Last January at 67K miles from a small dealer. It looked and worked well without any detectable problems. I even sent it to another large Ford dealer to check that it did not have any mechanic problem before I finally bought it. The mileage is high because it was leased by a company for some business purpose. I paid $7, 700 and I thought I had a good deal.

    It worked all right till a day last May when it just passed 70k miles. The transmission occurred a sudden death in front of a traffic light. I went back to the Ford dealer who did the mechanic inspection before I bought the car, and they said that the transmission and other “internal” damages are not detectable by the inspection. They also said that the previous owner (the company guys) might have driven the car too hard, which causes the premature failure of the transmission. Finally, towed to AMMCO and the overhaul cost $2000, because it is actually cheaper than the Ford dealer. So overall, it was not a good deal any more.

    It worked all right again till now. It is reasonably powerful and comfortable, but I really concern about the internal quality (Especially transmission) of Ford cars and I am afraid that it will go serious wrong some day again, suddenly.

    I wish my bad luck had gone.

    Thanks.
  • alhar33alhar33 Member Posts: 2
    In June 02 I was interested in purchasing a fully optioned SEL. I could find only 2 within a 50 mile radius of my home, 1 with the wood panel option. Ford just doesn't make that many SEL's with or without the wood panel. I bought the fully optioned SEL without the wood panel and am very pleased with it. Good luck.
  • alhar33alhar33 Member Posts: 2
    Has anyone heard anything about the Taurus replacement? I was watching the war news the other day and thought I saw a scroll about a Taurus replacement in 04. Maybe I was dreaming!!!
  • danielj6danielj6 Member Posts: 285
    www.thecarconnection.com
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    what's the deal with Ford design anymore? BLAH. Since the focus its all YUCK and dull. The new Mustang is dull. This Futura is kinda, well, boxy, dull, upright.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    Actually, I think the Futura looks pretty decent, but will actually have to wait to see it when it comes out to pass judgment. It certainly looks better than the current Camry and Accord, in my opinion.

    I've got plenty of time to wait, as I plan on keeping my 2000 Taurus for seven more years or so, so may see a couple of generation of Ford product in that amount of time

    Almost all cars are becoming taller lately, to gain passenger and trunk space without adding length.
     
    Looks like Ford's strategy is to come out with two sedans, one slightly smaller dimensionally than Taurus being the Futura, and one maybe a little larger, the 500. I think they should keep the Taurus name, however for one of these new models.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    When designing original Taurus Ford decided to design it in North European style. And it worked, it was looking even better than new Audi 100 that came same time and had similar design (coincidence).

    During 1986 redesign they took direction that no one else were going and lost big time.

    Now they are moving in the same direction again. Similar to VW. Indeed in Europe many are simply copying VW, even interior and even gauge cluster. Ford does the same thing. In press release they note that interior has Audi like quality. It tells something. And BTW J May was working for VW before (e.g. New Beetle and Passat is his design).

    Taurus will remain unchanged and be sold to fleets and may be other price concious customers. But basically it seems that nameplate is going to be phased out. Anyway name doesn't start with "F" so I don't see a place for Taurus name in Ford line-up. Sable also doesn't start from "M".
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    I understand the desire to make cars taller (more space) but they are are looking cartoonishly slabsided. That Chrysler 300 concept yuck. The Futura looks a little like that. I hope we aren't headed for a 70's styling redux.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    I agree that making cars taller without care does make them cartoonish. Camry is very ungainly looking due to the high belt line. Accord is not quite so bad in this regard, but still has some other styling issue problems. Suzuki Aero is one of the worst offenders for cartoonish slab sides.

    If you are careful, however, you can pull it off. VW Jettas and Passats are quite tall without being ungainly. Taurus when redone in '00 got a taller roof without looking slab sided. The sculptured doors that carried over may be the key to keeping it from looking slab sided. Focus isn't bad either for being tall. I have trouble liking the rear end treatment of the hatchback versions of Focus. The tailight treatment is just a little too funky for my taste.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles