The Ford Model T’s place in history is well secured. A fairly orthodox design, it revolutionized the automobile industry–and the country–by being highly affordable, thanks to an efficient production line and the economics of scale. As such, it essentially set the template of all popular-sized American cars to come: traditional RWD architecture and conservative mechanical design embellished by flamboyant and ever-changing styling, GM’s colourful contribution to the formula. Some cracks in that formula appeared shortly before the Taurus’ appearance, but none that so completely changed the game, and in such an enduring manner.
The Taurus created the template for what has become the new standard American sedan, as typified by the more recent best sellers such as the Camry, Accord, Altima, Fusion, Malibu and Sonata: American-size roomy, comfortable, efficient, aerodynamic, good handling, a choice of (typically) two engine sizes/power levels driving the front wheels, of course, and a growing awareness of the importance of quality in all aspects of the car. Its dynamics, integration and balance were unlike anything that had been sold before in the US; a highly complete package of which its design was only one significant factor.
GM had a head start in redefining the new American car, starting with the 1980 X-Bodies and their evolutionary successors, the 1982 A-Bodies. The full-sized fwd H-Bodies arrived in 1986, the same year as the Taurus.
All of them had certain merits, but GM’s massive move to FWD and more compact cars was also massively flawed from a number of perspectives, most of all their design: they were still trying too hard to look like the traditional American car, inside and out. And they generally failed in attaining the complete and organic and balanced ride, steering and handling envelope that the Taurus managed to achieve. GM was reinventing GM cars, not the car.
As today’s Taurus CC makes clear, the general direction of the Taurus’ development was not just a quick imitation of the 1982 Audi 100/5000, or any other specific European car. Ford had committed itself to a new aerodynamic course before the Audi appeared, but undoubtedly the Audi’s appearance must have been heartening. But given the time frame (three years ahead of the Taurus), the specific design of the Audi undoubtedly contributed to the final Taurus design to some degree or another. The evidence is too obvious.
We can debate the details of the Taurus’ design, but what can’t be disputed is that the Taurus was the first American mainstream car to fully embrace well-established European design and other principles, in a decisive manner. These originated with Citroen’s definitive DS of 1955, the mother of all modern sedans, even if its hydro-pneumatic suspension and a few other details didn’t quite make it into the mainstream.
Over time, its fundamental principles came to be increasingly adopted across Europe, and by the time the Audi 100 appeared, it was hardly revolutionary; in fact its basic design is nothing more than an evolution of the 1967 NSU Ro80 (except for the pesky rotary, of course). And the Taurus also owes a substantial tip of the hat to the Ro80, as do so many other cars. Considering that some twenty years separate these two makes the Taurus look considerably less revolutionary.
Well, it wasn’t really, except for in the US, which was still struggling to emerge from its long design hibernation otherwise known as the Great Brougham Epoch. Ford had embraced it more fully than anyone, and it almost took the company down. Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose, so why not spin the rudder a full 180 degrees?
The Taurus truly was the game-changer in the post-war US market, because it was the first complete and wholly modern car, no longer paying any debts to the past, or stubbing its toes trying to move into the future, as GM did repeatedly. It was hardly perfect, although it served well enough. But most of all, it convincingly proved that the old traditional American sedan model was truly dead, as much as we may miss it (or not).
The fact that the Taurus lost its way later will go down as one of the major mistakes of the modern era. But its legacy lives on, including in its effective successor, the Fusion. And although cars like the Chrysler 300 have shown that aspects of the traditional American sedan still has appeal, it’s likely that the Taurus formula will be with us for quite some time. Only fifty more years, and it will surpass the Model T’s.
Wow, Paul. Thanks for supplementing my article with an additional historical analysis that I did not possess. Truly informative.
By the looks of the 2013 Fusion/Mondeo, I think the Taurus’ legacy has become fully cemented for years to come, like you said. Terrific stuff.
The first Taurus affected the Japanese mid-size competitors immediately. Nissan reacted first with the wide-body Maxima in 1989 (69.3 inches OAW vs. 70.7 for Taurus). Toyota reacted next with the wide-body Camry in 1992, 69.7 OAW.
Earlier Camrys and Maximas used the narrow-body dimensions from their home market, at 67.0 and 66.5 OAW respectively.
After the Taurus that was no longer good enough. A 3 inch increase in a car’s OAW is a huge change.
Great read!
You took the words out of my mouth about the GM cars- especially the 88-98/Bonnie/ParkAve/Lesabre, which engineering/platform wise were a far more advanced design. These cars made the same mistake BMC made with the 1800 Landcrab- focus too much on interior space, and the outside looks ungainly and misproportioned.
I should also add that those 3 inches are the reason the Taurus had so little international success. Having tried to pilot a w126 Mercedes in England, I can say that it is girth rather than length that is why American sized cars don’t succeed in Europe. Similarly, a Volvo 240 is quite easy to snake in and out of our tiny roads, while the ‘American sized’ 7 or 9 series feels ponderous and risk head-on collisions.
Right about the width being too large for Europe. Which is why the focus and mondeo are not selling too well over here. American sized. Likewise opal astra is bombing. World cars indeed?
I disagree on your assessment of the GM H-bodies. I like the proportioning. The problem with these cars is that they tried to marry modern engineering to traditional styling inside and out. The Oldsmobiles were the worst (although the ’90-’91 model Paul pictured remedied this somewhat) and contributed greatly to the brand’s demise. That said, those cars all sold rather well at the time. I would have preferred that GM stuck with longitudinal FWD like Audi and the pre-’85 E-bodies, but that’s another issue altogether.
Oddly enough, GM’s response to the Taurus’ aero look, the W-body, totally blew it from a packaging perspective. To this day, almost every FWD GM has a God-awful rear seat.
The GM cars look like they are still firmly entrenched in the longer-wider-lower mantra, whereas the Taurus appears to have a bit extra height that helps improve packaging. Of course I’m not sure if it is just the pictures that convey this or it is actually the case?
I cannot disagree with a thing you said. The 86 Taurus set the template for the styling of almost everything that came after it – the rising angle from front to back, the elongated greenhouse and shortened deck, and just the general proportions and look. You are correct – both GM and Chrysler were still trying to rehash the design language of the 1960s and 1970s, without great success.
I might quibble a bit on the mechanical aspects of the car, which were only a revolution at Ford, as pretty much the entire rest of the industry had gone fwd on midsized sedans, with GM in particular putting a V6 engine/4 speed auto into the package as early as the 1982 A bodies. But I will agree that it was Ford who brought the whole now-familiar package together, a package that still covers new car dealer lots everywhere.
That pretty much nails it Paul.
And yeah the new D3 Taurus seems to be lost in space by comparison, not quite as irrelevant as a leisure suit but then again thanks to Fusion it no longer needs to be.
Can we talk about buttons on the steering wheel?
Model T – Zero
1986 Taurus – Five – I recall my high school math teacher bought a new Taurus, and was not impressed with the buttons: “They’ll never last, I want switches!” Turns out he was wrong.
2013 Fusion – Twenty Three – Not sure if that’s exactly accurate, but my FIL (Who is a Ford salesman) came over with a Fusion demo and announced: It’s got twenty three buttons on the steering wheel ! You need a half day course to be able to operate it! It was too much, even for him.
Where is this going? Will a 2020 Ford product have Forty Nine buttons on the wheel?
That’s one of the reasons I like classic cars.
One button.
Horn.
Beep.
I can’t imagine why Ford never invites me to participate in focus groups…
Twenty three buttons? My VW has 12, and I can’t fathom having even more than that. Ick.
Still, nothing will ever exceed the ridiculousness of the late ’80s Pontiacs that literally covered the entire steering wheel hub with buttons.
*looks up current Mondeo steering Wheel*
OK, if you count the two D-pads as 4x buttons it’s 17 on the front, if you take the D-pads as single items (which they are, albeit with multiple contacts) it’s 11. Including the horn. I call hyperbole!
It’s possible the US market Fusion has more, but I can’t see why it would.
Anyhow the 2020 Ford will of course have a “Ford: MyWord!” voice recognition system and 0 buttons on the steering wheel: “Fusion: sound the horn please” “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that”
😀
The Model T may not have buttons on the wheel, but it did have other important controls on the column
This is another example of Ford doing its best work when its back is against the wall – just as it did with the Model A, 1949 Ford and today’s line-up.
Ford’s brush with disaster in 1979-81 was a blessing in the long run. The old ways weren’t working, so management was desperate to try something new. It helped that Lee Iacocca had been booted by Henry Ford II in July 1978. I cannot imagine Iacocca ever approving something this radical for the American family sedan market.
GM, in contrast, had been very successful in the late 1970s, and had been stealing market share away from Ford and Chrysler. The big concern in those days was that GM was TOO successful. Downsizing its cars to front-wheel-drive platforms, but maintaining as much of the look and feel of the old cars as possible, seemed like a good idea at the time.
The only problem was that it gave the impression that GM was giving the buyers LESS of what they had been getting before. Ford, on the other hand, was selling the future. Which made sense, as much of its recent past had been pretty dismal.
It was a good way to put a positive spin on changes that had to be made, in response to both rising foreign competition and regulatory pressures.
Good point about Iacocca. Once at Chrysler, the cars under his tenure (other than the category-smashing minivan) became conservative to the point of being reactionary. The Plymouth Acclaim came out 3 years after the Taurus, and other than some slightly rounded off edges and aircraft-type doors, paid virtually no homage to the Taurus. Chrysler’s stuff did not start to show some spirit until Lutz came in and took over and after the AMC-derived platform teams took hold.
And to think then Chrysler introduced in 1985, the Chrysler Le Baron GTS and Dodge Lancer, with a look aerodynamic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssXI8inaySs Besides the Shelby version in the later years (1988-89), it could had get more potential with a V6 engine and as a notchback version.
Then another “what if?” to ponder, what if Ford had updated the full-size LTD Crown Victoria more earlier to release it for 1987-88 instead of the 1992 model year?
I’ve always thought that the LeBaron GTS is what the Sable would have looked like if Ford had chickened out and not gone all the way with the Taurus/Sable. The chrome waterfall grill, the Capri-like trucklet hatch and horizontal bars on the tail-lights, I think it would have fit pretty well in the early-80’s Mercury showroom.
> But most of all, it convincingly proved that the old traditional American sedan model was truly dead, as much as we may miss it (or not).
Maybe that’s why I never liked the Taurus. It was proof that the cars of the future would not even attempt to cater to my tastes at all.
I didn’t like the Taurus. My golf buddy had a 2000. (?) Decent looking car, just not my cup of tea.
Very nice tribute to an often overlooked yet significant car. Thanks Paul.
Not trying to undermine your point, but still, I’d prefer almost any GM product from this time frame over an ’86 Taurus. Still seeing a lot of both Audi 100’s and 1st gen Tauruses around (maybe somewhat less of the latter), I’d attest that both cars are endlessly dull, more likely continuing the ever-somnolent 1980s theme, not any other way around. May be just too tired of this “jellybean” styling… it seems to me that a mid-to-late 1980s Olds / Buick / Caddie door handle has more style in it than the Audi / Taurus as a whole.
Even the mid-90s GM C-cars still had that “oldschool Americana” feel, now forever lost. CryCo… not so sure, their K-cars being what the are. But still, mid-80s Plymouth Tourismo, which one of my buddies owned, was a pretty distinct car, with a strong personality, a real breath of fresh air after any same sized/priced Euro car. It was also very simple, a real Meccano kit for adult shadetree mechanics. In the U.S., you’ve mostly seen “bread-an-butter” Euro imports, like the BMW and Mercedes, but not ordinary Germanic 2-door sedans or hatchbacks, which were so faaar from being exciting in any way, like Opel’s Rekord and Ascona (these were just like the Chevy US-market subcompacts, less their relatively flashy styling) , euroFord’s Taunus (not TauRus) and Granada (not US Granada, which was still pretty dull in its last incarnation anyway) and the like. That may have led to some kind of hmmm… overestimation you seem to have about them. Not to mention things like FIat mainstream models and the rest.
So, the bottom line is… they don’t make them as they used to… blah blah… ))
At least the Audis are almost indestructible, though. A neighbour still has one, built may be in 1983 or 1984, as a daily driver. It has been lying in the backyard, with its wheels stolen, for the two previous years. Never heard any complains from him concerning its mechanical reliability though. Didn’t become a rust bucket, too, which is a pretty common thing for the Tauruses.
um, I think you’re conflating eras there: citing late 70s Euro models in a thread about mid 80s cars.
The Ford Taunus had been replaced by the (far better) Sierra for four years by the time the Taurus was launched.
The Ascona and Rekord were retired in ’88 and ’86 respectively. The Taurus’ Euro-GM contemporarys were the first gen Vectra and Omega, primarily the Omega which is known for being a hoot to drive especially in “Lotus Carlton” form.
Even FIAT (the perennial obvious target, for those who’ve never driven one) – who have never excelled at large cars – were at the time pedalling the solid 1st gen Croma: a car with plenty of grin to give even before you start looking at its Saab 9000 Areo, Lancia Thema, and Alpha 164 sister models.
By all means stick with your preferences, just be clear about what the competition actually was at the time. Citing the cars those marques had binned a couple of years earlier just isn’t an accurate comparison.
Those Audis were certainly not “indestructible.” They were very problematic and have virtually disappeared from around here.
In terms of vehicle design, the Taurus was important, and it revolutionized car styling to come. However, as a car overall, other than styling there was nothing overly spectacular about it. It certainly doesn’t rank up there in terms of importance with the Model T. Overall, these cars weren’t any better than the dated GM A-bodies, although they had vastly improved styling and interior design. Even the interior space on the Taurus was very comparable to the A-body, with the Taurus having a slight advantage in some area (although it was a slightly larger car too). In terms of durability, they sure had there issues too, specifically with transmissions and rust problems. Don’t get me wrong, I am not an A-body fan either, I just don’t think that there was anything great about the Taurus other than the revolutionary styling.
Read this Popular Science Road test comparing the Taurus, Celebrity, Audi 5000 and Dodge Lancer. Top picks were the Celebrity (for overall best performance) and Taurus (overall best styling).
http://books.google.ca/books?id=96DnlrVhzDsC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=ford+taurus+vs+chevrolet+celebrity&source=bl&ots=CM9P2nA0Pg&sig=pNZICy2H-QRrtLdYY3ppL0eEGj8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xNaaUNj0LsjMyQHCl4HQBQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ford%20taurus%20vs%20chevrolet%20celebrity&f=false
What makes the Taurus nearly as important as the Model T is exactly that it looks boring now. It set the (jelly)mould that others followed and thus no longer looks revolutionary. The Taurus changed the streetscape not only of posh yuppie suburbs as the Audi did, but of small towns- taking them out of the Kodachrome era and ushering in the look of the future. A streetscape of 1982 looks far more similar to one of 1972 than it does of 1992, and this is thanks to the jellybean.
That said, as far as ‘modern design’ goes, the much maligned Beretta was the car that made a 10 year old me go ‘wow’ when I saw it on display at Epcot Center’s World of Motion in 1986 next to the solar car display. As a kid, hidden door handles really made it look like the car of the future. As everyone knows now that we live in the future, door handles have become a thing of the past. The Taurus beats the Beretta, in spite of its equally ‘modern’ look because Ford engineered it correctly, while Oldsmobile engineered the N body while Chevrolet engineered the L, effectively demonstrating that GM is to organizational competence what Lysenko was to horticulture.
The Model T was significant because it revolutionized the car business. It made the car become available to the common man and not just a rich man’s toy. It brought the assembly line practice to the industry. This vehicle was hugely significant.
The Taurus, while I agree (as seen in my original post) revolutionized styling in the 1980’s, did nothing else. All other aspects of the car were no better than the dated A-body, which was the point I was trying to make. The PS article represents what “experts” in the industry thought of the car in 1986 and how it compared to the competition. And in this article, the only real advantage to the old A-body was the modern styling and interior.
As for the Beratta, it was hardly revolutionary by the time it came out. Maybe for GM it was, but GM styling was not a leader in the 1980’s, while Ford was clearly a leader in this era. Aero styling was more common place by then, especially in the sporty coupe market (remember the 1983 Aero Bird), GM was just catching up to what Ford did years prior.
Bottom line the Taurus was an average car for its time with styling that revolutionized the industry. It was a very important car for Ford, in that it very much helped Ford sales. This was more because Ford was still selling the out-dated Fox RWD sedans as it’s mainstream cars previous to the Taurus. In that sense, the Taurus is more comparable to the Ford Model A replacing the the then dated Model T.
At one of the Carlisle auto shows about two years ago, there was a mint-condition 1986 Mercury Sable for sale. There was also a mint-condition Buick A-body Century from the late 1980s for sale. Both of these cars were original.
The Sable blew away the Century in terms of fit-and-finish both inside and out, and it still looked like a modern car, while the Century had a dated look.
The Buick’s interior, for example, looked slammed together, with parts that appeared to be from the old “bend it or pound it until it fits” school of workmanship. The Sable looked as though someone had actually sat down and tried to make sure that everything fit well and looked harmonious before releasing it for production.
The ergonomics of the Sable were simply light years head of those of the Century.
The Taurus and Sable were, in some respects, much like the Accord and Camry – very well-rounded vehicles with some “surprise and delight” features. They weren’t the terror of the dragstrip, and they may not have pulled terrific figures on the skidpad, but they felt refined, comfortable and capable in real-world driving situations.
GM could design a vehicle that looked great on paper – it could turn in a great 0-60 time, or pull great figures on the skidpad. But it was also plagued with torque steer, and the suspension package that enabled it to pull great skidpad figures made it ride like a truck, and the dashboard had these ugly gaps between the panels, and the seats were mediocre unless you upgraded to the optional power seats…
Ford US finally learned to do what Ford elsewhere were doing, build a decent car. Sorry but the taurus isnt much of a milestone anywhere but the US and it incompetence as a car was revealed when exported.
“…they were still trying too hard to look like the traditional American car, inside and out.”
As a major fan and owner of several ’80s and ’90s early GM FWD stuff, I somewhat disagree. The Olds 88 and Cadillacs seem to have been trying the hardest to appeal to the traditional set. My current FWD Electra also has a lot of throwback styling. However, a T-Type Electra or FWD Ninety-Eight touring sedan had a decent amount of evolution to them.
Also, the 1st-gen H-body Bonneville and Lesabre T-type (which both need a CC) were especially a major style change from what came before. Compare a ’88 Bonneville SSE (love it or hate it) to the B-body Bonneville Brougham we featured a few days ago. Or even worse, compare it to the Deadly Sin Bonneville G…
I’ll never forget the first time I saw that ’82 Audi 5000. It was so different, so right, instantly obvious it was the new way for cars to go. Its appearance on the road might have prepared Americans a little for Taurus/Sable’s radical change. Five years later I was delighted to own a new Sable.
Your picture and words finally showed me how remarkably similar they were to the NSU. Right down to the angles of the ABC pillars, and its overall profile. Amazing.
The mid-80s were a high-tech future-oriented time. PCs, Macs and Nintendos were hot. Pop music went techno. “I want my MTV!” TV became video. VCRs and cable and Star Trek IV. Taurus and Sable fit right into all that. Not just styling, the well-integrated whole, inside and out, performance and value. Millions of thirty-somethings like me were buying their first family cars. GM’s cars were simply not on my radar. Too boxy, too old to even look at. Ford nailed it. Japan caught on quick. Cab-forward Chryslers joined in. GM? Never quite right.
Paul’s right, the best family-sized cars since have just been better Tauruses.
You lost me with that headline. Way over the top.
Would you like to nominate some other candidates?
Interesting article – a few thoughts:
1) Was the Taurus the American basically version of the Sierra? (obviously not based on the Sierra, but the same concept and impact)
2) It was mentioned earlier, but I wonder whether the impact of the Chrysler K-car would be similar as the first fwd car that ‘worked’ together with being the progenitor of the minivan?
3) I have read the Tesla Model S touted as the most significant car since the Model T – does revolutionizing the mechanicals overshadow the style/aero/packaging change of the Taurus? Perhaps the Model S’s premium position might preclude any comparison to the Model T, which might be more apt for the Nissan Leaf.
My two cents:
1) The Sierra was more conservative, I’d say, being underpowered and rwd.
3) I believe that for a car to be significant/revolutionary it has to make an impact. The Tesla will not revolutionize the car market. Even if it did, the electric car honors would go to some earlier car or later. As it stands electric cars have a long long way to go. In Denmark a company has invested in battery exchange stations across the nation making battery replacement take no longer than refueling. That increases the range. The Renault Fluence is being sold as the main car for this setup and it is still not selling in significant numbers.
It is this company btw: http://betterplace.com/
Mechanically the Sierra was conservative, but as a package it was exactly as brave and groundbreaking a move for Ford Europe in 1982 as the Taurus was for Ford US in 1986.
It’s worth reading the AROnline write up for context:
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/facts-and-figures/development-history/the-cars-ford-sierra-development-history/
I think John’s dead right: in terms of concept and impact they’re near identical, even though they’re actually unrelated.
Writing the Sierra off as “underpowered” is a bit short sighted imo – especially since it was available with scores of different powertrains over its ten year run. From a modest 1.3l i4 to a roaring great 5l V8 (admittedly the V8 was only in South Africa, Euro Sierras topped out with a 3l V6, but it still illustrates the huge range of engines that were available).
Mads I agree with you about the Tesla, which is why I mentioned the Leaf.
Better Place and the Fluence are still coming to Australia, I’m not sure on their plans for switching stations but they are putting in some charging stations in conjunction with Holden for the Volt. Switching batteries is interesting but is logistically different as each car has them configured differently, plus there is also liquid cooling to complicate things. I’m sure that a workable solution is possible, but whether there could be enough cooperation to make it happen is another question!
Excellent write up Paul. I’ve read through the comments posted above, and would like to offer an opinion from someone who only knew 80s/90s American cars through the pages of Car & Driver. At the time New Zealand’s roadscape was becoming dominated by modern efficient Japanese cars, as well as a healthy dose of Australians Falcons and Commodores, and vestiges of the ‘motherland’ British Empire in the form of the Ford Sierra.
As teenage me read C&D in the 80s/90s, I liked to try to envision the American cars I saw in it on New Zealand’s roads. With some that was easy, others not so much. The Taurus/Sable fell into the first camp, the H-body GM cars (and pretty much most GM cars) fell into the second.
The Taurus’ interior and exterior design was cohesive, consistent and looked up-to-date. Visually the car presented extremely well and would have easily fitted into our Antipodean market. The H-body by comparison wasn’t a bad car, but wouldn’t have fitted in here. Design-wise it looks like it came from a parallel universe that’s neither new nor old, and is overall vaguely directionless.
.
Ultimately of course, parallel universe design is what killed the ’96 Taurus which we did get here. There are a few American cars from the 80s that I would genuinely like to own, and the Taurus/Sable is right up there near the top of that list. Make mine a Sable wagon!
no guys, really…flushing down the toilet all the heritage that made an american car an american car really was a kamikaze move in the long term…to me this car it’s the turning point when us cars just stopped being relevant, interesting or even just amusing…that chromeless, jellybean style…late ’80s cars were just like late ’80s pop/dance music, plastic nightmares