(first posted 12/22/2015)
N.B. – Though not stated either way in the original version of this article, by 1995, the percentage of Taurus fleet sales had indeed reached over 50%. Source: WardsAuto, October 1, 1995
In many respects, the career of the Ford Taurus has mirrored the career path of many Hollywood actors and actresses. From breakout star and mainstream success to being typecast into the same redundant roles to a series of failed projects and almost permanent retirement. Like many of these film stars, the Taurus clawed itself back from oblivion, staging a comeback. But much like these actors and actresses, the Taurus returned a little softer and less youthful, with its return to prominence going only so far as supporting roles.
In its early career though, the Taurus was unquestionably the star of the show. Quite literally taking the industry by storm (its initial 1985 premier took place on the same soundstage where Gone With The Wind was filmed), the Taurus was a styling and packaging marvel. With futuristic “aero” looks, highly versatile interiors, and models to fit a variety of budgets, the Taurus quickly became America’s Sweetheart of the automotive industry, achieving both high praise and sales success, and cementing its place as one of the most influential cars of all time.
Not wanting to mess with success, changes were fairly limited over the first generation Taurus’ six-year run. As for this second generation, Ford largely stayed this course. Making some expected improvements and refinements, Ford elected an evolutionary approach, with very few visual alterations and almost no changes made underneath the surface.
Although the Taurus still looked more modern than most competitors, this was somewhat of a defiant move by Ford. The Taurus had been on the market for six years already, and merely tweaking its shape seemed hardly enough, when competitors like the Accord and Camry were receiving facelifts after only two or three years on the market.
For the exterior, the second generation Taurus underwent a significant nip/tuck. With the exception of the doors, every body panel was completely new, although the general appearance of the first generation was very much retained and to the untrained eye, it did indeed look like little more than a facelift of the first generation. Front and rear fascias were rounder and sleeker, with a lower nose, and slimmer headlights. Bumpers and quarter panels were rounder, giving the car an overall trimmer appearance, despite a length increase by nearly four inches.
The Taurus’ roofline was also revised, with thinner D-pillars and a slightly larger rear windshield. A redesigned trunk now featured an integrated spoiler and higher placed taillights for sportier look. New bodyside trim, wider rocker panels, and a host of new wheel designs also made for a cleaner, more contemporary appearance. For 1992 only, bumpers and lower bodyside trim were accent colored on base L and mid-level GL models, body colored the up-level LX and performance SHO. Beginning in 1993, the L model was dropped and all models now featured body colored bumpers and trim.
The interior of the car received a more substantial visual makeover, with a redesigned dashboard improving on the already good ergonomics of the previous Taurus. Door panels were also redesigned, with front door panels cutting into the dash for an aggressive cockpit look. This dashboard redesign also allowed for a passenger’s side airbag, a feature optional for 1992-1993 and made standard for 1994-1995.
Though most switchgear was carried over, all Tauruses featured new radios with redundant controls for presets, volume, and seek/scan mounted next to the instrument gauge cluster. When equipped with power windows, door mounted switches were now illuminated at night.
Seats featured new fabric choices and stitching patterns, with rear seats losing their integrated headrests for outboard passengers. Staying true to American traditoin, front bench seats with a column shifter were still standard on all models, save for the SHO, with buckets and a floor shifter a no-cost option. 1992 models equipped with buckets still used the first generation’s center floor console, with a redesigned better-integrated one appearing in 1993.
Underneath, the chassis and mechanics were mostly the same as before. In the way of improvements, there was the expected chassis stiffening that comes with most successive generations of any vehicle. Better sound deadeners were also added to the engine and exhaust system for decreased NVH. Lastly, engineers gave the Taurus a new speed-sensitive power steering system aimed at improving maneuverability and new shock absorbers aimed at increasing ride comfort.
Both engines were carryover, with the 140 horsepower, 160 lb-ft torque Vulcan V6 standard on all sedans and sub-LX model wagons. The larger 3.8L Essex V6, also making 140 horsepower but with 215 lb-ft torque) was standard on LX wagons and optional on all sedans. All models now featured a 4-speed automatic as the standard and only transmission choice. This aforementioned powertrain information of course excludes the Taurus SHO, which initially featured a “super high-output” 3.0L V6 making 220 horsepower and 200 lb-ft of torque, mated to a 5-speed manual transmission. Beginning in 1993, a 4-speed automatic was offered in the SHO, mated to a 3.2L V6 making identical horsepower, but 215 lb-ft torque.
As stated at the beginning of this article, Ford played it safe with its first redesign of the Taurus. It may have seemed like a good move at the time, and indeed 1992 Taurus sales did increase over the old 1991 model, even surpassing the Honda Accord to reclaim the title of Best Selling Car In America. Well that’s all fine and well, Ford’s choice in keeping the Taurus minimally changed one the outside and even more so underneath had negative long-term repercussions.
In reality, what did the first generation Taurus have that competitors didn’t. It was a front-wheel drive, midsize sedan, with pushrod I4 or V6 power, 3- or 4-speed automatic or 5-speed manual transmission, and several trim levels to suit different budgets and needs. Sure it did have a wagon and a high-performance model, but at its core, it was a workhorse family sedan that really didn’t offer much in the way of noteworthiness that couldn’t be found at a Chevy, Pontiac, Dodge, Plymouth, Honda, Toyota, etc. dealer. Except for its styling.
To say that the first generation Taurus’ styling was the key to its success is an understatement. Whereas every other sedan on the market in 1986 was boxy, straight-edged, square, and quite frankly, alike (and would continue to do so for several more years), the radical Taurus looked like nothing else around. Suddenly the family sedan became modern, stylish, and even aspirational. Everyday people (and likely a few fleets) came in droves to buy them and the Taurus soon spawned many imitators.
By the time the second generation Taurus came along and through the end of its production, it was still a somewhat competitive car, but it looked and felt very dated. In this time, most competitors predictably stepped up their game. With these competitors offering superior style, chassis, powertrain, and refinement, the Taurus quickly became blasé. No longer was it a captivating, near-class leading vehicle which everyday families aspired to. Ford’s decision not to give the Taurus more substantial upgrades and restyling lead to its fall from grace.
Sales throughout the entire second generation remained brisk, with the Taurus remaining America’s best selling car for all four years. These numbers are of course somewhat misleading, as a large percentage of them came from fleet sales (predominately rental companies, government agencies, police and security fleets). I wish I had a breakdown of private vs. fleet sales for this period, but it was clear the Taurus was becoming increasingly dependent on fleet sales during these years.
The outcome of Ford’s very evolutionary, in many ways over evolutionary approach with the second generation resulted in the company taking extreme measures for the third generation model in order to regain the captivating nature of the original, while naturally still retaining its high sales and popularity.
Related Reading:
Nice article – I thought Ford did a good job with the second generation styling – still unique but with a more “button-down” look. Then things went way off the rails with the third generation…..
Curious as to why there hasn’t been a mention of the Taurus wagon in this series. I n my mind it was the last successful American station wagon. Through most of the life of the model the Taurus wagon was an attractive alternative to a minivan. I had a 2002 SEL wagon and found it to be very versatile and a great bargain when I bought it 3 years old with 40k miles.
I was thinking the same thing with the assembly line photo in the 1st gen article. Last great American wagon.
Its 2018, still driving a 1993 Taurus GL wagon. Has the thin steering wheel and the bench seat. The variable assist power steering is a cool feature. My favorite car – its comfortable and unlike a lot of newer cars, enjoy driving it.
There is a display in the entry atrium of the Seattle Art Museam of about 8 2g Taurus’s and Sables all in white. While I am no expert in interpreting modern art, I think they are supposed to represent the generic, cookiecutter, wasteful nature of middle class life. Notice two things, he didn’t chose A bodys, and that Sables were included because the artist thought they were alike enough to make his point.
I understand why some would find the 2g underwhelming. Yesterday we talked about how much the early Taurus benchmarked much higher end German sedans. Well if we think about it, isn’t this type of refresh how they do it in Germany. Think of the 75 and 82 5 series BMW or the 84 and 92 Audi 5000/100. A revolutionary design then a similar looking restyle that updates and adds refinement.
The loss of the four in these points how weight was allowed to creep up on domestic sedans in the nineties. There was a discussion on the K car thread about how imports just had better fours. The discussion culminated with trying to imagine the then 1.8 Accord engine in the K and the K 2.2 in the Accord. The answer is pretty obvious at least to me, that American fours are designed for autos and the Japanese are designed for sticks. Buy the wrong transmission and pay the price.
By the nineties the Japanese had grown over 2.0 and everyone had balance shafts and fuel injection for a better experience. Much bigger Camrys and Accords still ran well on their fours. This Taurus was now too heavy to offer a four. Engineering fail. Collonade and Gran Torino redux where the mid size was just too heavy for the base engine.
21 years ago, my parents bought a used ’93
Sable from the local Ford dealer. The first
time I drove it, I was impressed by how thick
the steering wheel rim was, compared to
that on my college hauler ’81 Buick Century,
and, unprepared for how tight the steering
itself was, compared again to that same
Century!
The European influence on these secon-
generation mid-sized Ford products was
more vividly evident than it is on the
latest Taurus and Sable.
I grew up in the Midwest. Some of my neighbors worked for the GM Powertrain Defiance Foundry and some of my neighbors worked for the Ford Lima Engine Plant. I grew up surrounded by American cars.
Until CC I thought that the ovoid Taurus was the SECOND generation, not the third. That’s how minimal the changes were in my eyes.
My father had one of this generation. He bought it to replace a 90 or 91 Accord that he totalled. He had nothing but good to say about the Honda, but went back to a Taurus because he felt more comfortable in it.
My memory of these is that they were friggin everywhere. My mother was shopping for a new Crown Vic in 93. I went to several Indianapolis area Ford dealers, and each was the same: 1 or 2 Vics and 60 Taurii.
If I am right, your subject car is an odd color called Medium Cranberry, a color that looks a touch pink in real life. 1993 was a tough year for Ford buyers looking for a traditional metallic red or burgundy.
While I like the exterior shape of the second gen, the interior seems a bit more “plasticky” than the first gen ( especially the last of the first gens which seemed to have an improved interior ). Was it really worse or does it just look like that in pictures ?
I agree. The exterior was a handsome, conservative update, but the interior felt like it fell down several notches from a quality standpoint. I remember driving both Gen1 and Gen2 Taurii as rentals, and the Gen2 definitely seemed cheaper and more plasticky inside.
The interior for sure took a step down with the second generation cars, especially on the 94-95 cars with that horrid passenger dash with all the mish mash of cut lines and gaps.
For sure, the interior went from revolutionary on the first gen to simply cheap on the next gen. Nothing to differentiate it from any other Ford or any of the competition for that matter. Where the first gen was unique and special, the next gen was simply a means of changing the Taurus/Sable and not for the better.
As the owner of a 88 MT-5 and a 94 GL, yes the Interior of the 94 is cheaper. My 88 door panels make not a noise and are still tightly attached to the doors. The 94 has lost about half of its fastening pins so the door panel pulls 3 inchs away when I go to close it and the plastic armrests creak, a lot! The 88 is a much better put together interior.
“Sales throughout the entire second generation remained brisk, with the Taurus remaining America’s best selling car for all four years. These numbers are of course somewhat misleading, as a large percentage of them came from fleet sales (predominately rental companies, government agencies, police and security fleets). I wish I had a breakdown of private vs. fleet sales for this period, but it was clear the Taurus was becoming increasingly dependent on fleet sales during these years.”
I disagree with this, while fleet sales did play a part in the Taurus being the best selling car from 92-96, It is doubtful that Ford sold more Tauruses to fleets then to regular customers. This is demonstrated by the sheer numbers of them that were around and in driveways in the USA and also the fact that starting in 1997, regular customers abandoned the Taurus and it sank like a stone on the car sales standings allowing Toyota to claim the top spot with its Camry. If it was simply fleet sales propping the Taurus up then it would have continued to be the best selling car in the USA after 1996.
The irony is that the 92-96 Taurus outsold the 92-96 Camry which is regarded as probably the best Camry made and the Camry that finally dethroned the Taurus was the 97 Camry which was a step back in every way from the 92-96 Camry and was really a crudely built car.
I think you’re misreading what I wrote. I don’t state that Ford sold more Tauruses to fleets than private customers. All I’m saying is that as time went on, the percentage of Tauruses sold to fleets increased. I’m willing to bet they were more than 25% by now, which is easily around 100,000 units for those years.
Perfect analogy with the aging film stars. This was the “mainstream” slightly boring Taurus, playing to popularity at the expense of excellence. This sort of coasting would have been fine if the next redesign had been out-of-the-park amazing…
I cannot agree with this assessment of the Gen-2 Taurus.
My biggest quibble comes from the assertion that the bulk of sales were to fleets, while absolutely no evidence to that effect is presented. Conversely, Mary Walton’s “Car” suggests that the bulk of sales were in fact to regular paying customers, but Ford had to start throwing incentive money at it in order to keep Accord from taking the best-selling title in 1995. I’ve seen other sources that suggest the same thing-that Ford essentially bought enough share in 1995 to keep Taurus as the best-selling car. The thing is, though, there had to be genuine demand in order for that strategy to work in the first place.
The second quibble I have is again based on Walton’s “Car” as well as basic auto industry timing that so many seem to struggle with understanding. Development for the Bubble Taurus, as I affectionately call the Gen-3, started in 1991 and was rolling in earnest by the end of 1992 thanks to Ford’s mandated World Class Timing. The assertion that the “minimal” second-gen refresh directly led to the 3rd-Gen’s design team being compelled to make revolutionary changes, then, doesn’t follow. Gen-2 was barely on the market when Gen-3 development was starting.
If anything, the success of the 2nd Gen Taurus would have told the 3rd Gen’s team to keep the same basic formula and improve the existing car. Instead, the team decided from the start that the 1996 Taurus was going to revolutionize the car market in the same way the 1986 did. They made that decision in 1991 as the 2nd Gen was hitting showrooms and four years before 3rd Gens were doing the same.
As for me, I think Ford was on the cusp of really completely internalizing all the Deming Method and Japanese Method training and development the company went through during the mid-1980s. They were so close, and Taurus 2 shows it. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, they took a good product, listened to their customers, and made a great product. It looked good, it had a better interior, wind noise was down, ergonomics were better, and it still had the attributes that customers liked in the first place. Taurus 2 was the exemplification of the Japanese Method of product development, and I assert that had Ford stuck to that method, they could have avoided the several billion dollar disaster that was the Bubble Taurus.
There’s something to be said for your interpretation–look at the Accord. While the pop-up lights and wedgy nose profile on the 3rd-gen were quite unique (and stylish) in ’86, the car from the firewall back was an evolutionary update of the 2nd-gen. It was visually lighter, a bit larger, and looked more modern, but it broke no new ground. The transition to the 4th-gen was very evolutionary. The pop-ups went away in favor of glass-encased projectors (again, new and different back in ’90) but the shape of the car was very similar to the 3rd-gen overall. Rounded off, and gained some size, but the cues were fully intact. For a short time we had an ’84 Accord and a ’91 Accord in the family, a 2nd-gen and a 4th-gen, and the styling lineage was quite clear.
Maybe they took more risks (mainly in the headlamp designs) but making incremental, evolutionary changes served Honda quite well. Perhaps that wasn’t a bad way for Ford to go with the Taurus either–they studied the best, after all.
The Accord did get more significant changes with the Prelude-inspired 5th-gen in ’94, but they were nowhere near as sweeping (and wacky) as the ’96 Taurus.
CamCord went conservative in past few generations, and ‘stayed the course’. Their loyal buyers have aged too and ask for comfort over ‘spirited driving in the twisties’.
Now, more like modern Olds/Buick/Mercury Cruiser than any ‘sporty, zippy, car’.
“the team decided from the start that the 1996 Taurus was going to revolutionize the car market in the same way the 1986 did. They made that decision in 1991 as the 2nd Gen was hitting showrooms ”
That also means that Ford´s decision makers may have been influenced by the motor journalist´s and the public´s reaction to Gen 2. I recall the word was that Ford spent 3 billion dollars to come up with Gen 2 that gave hardly any visual clues for the improvements made. “Three billions for the same old?” seems to sum up the sense of befuddlement it created. Even if Ford´s decision to go revolutionary for the next iteration was already set in stone this reaction must have confirmed their resolve. In any case history shows it was wrong.
What if they improved the Vulcan´s torque curve and beefed up the transmission? What if they improved NVH of this power plant? All I ever heard was that it did nothing terribly wrong and excelled nowhere.
What if they imroved body stiffness significantly?
Those would have been steps that tell the public they get something for the 3 billions in development cost.
Please read the article carefully. Nowhere in this article do I state that “the bulk of sales were going to fleets”.
I state that “a large percentage of them came from fleet sales”, as in it was a significant percentage.
In further research however, it does actually appear that more than 50% of second generation Taurus sales were to fleets, as of October 1, 1995. Here’s an article published in Ward’s Auto from 1995 that states “Ford wants to cut corporate and rental fleet sales, which account for more than half of Taurus volume”.
So even if I had made that claim, I wouldn’t be wrong.
http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/america-ready-96-taurus
I owned a Taurus sedan and loved it. My family situation was changing in the mid Nineties and I knew my Mustang wouldn’t cope, so in January 1995 I bought a lightly used ’94 GL in Emerald Green with matching cloth upholstery, apparently an unusual combination. It was comfortable, roomy and quick enough for my needs, and it glowed like fine glass when I waxed it twice a year. As I remember, the Vulcan V6 returned about 24 mpg in mixed driving. All it ever asked for was fresh Havoline 5W/30 and a quality oil filter every 3000 miles and periodic transmission fluid changes. It served me faithfully until I traded it in October 2009 for my Grand Marquis. A good, good car.
We had a rental Taurus in ’94 or ’95, a sort of light mint green with a darker green interior. I always found that a striking color combo and wondered why the color was not seen more often. Emerald green over that same interior, which sounds like what you had, would have also been quite nice.
Ford liked their colorful interiors back in the mid 90’s. Lots of reds, greens, and blues available. My ’97 Crown Vic has a willow green interior, which is a pleasant color. I miss choices like those.
My uncle received a Taurus GL as a new company car back in ’92. It was a metallic teal with gray rockers/accents, a color combo that was prominently featured in early advertising for the car. Very sharp-looking, though it wasn’t around for very long before he changed jobs and the Taurus went away. (Replaced by a top of the line Roadmaster Estate, a nice upgrade…)
We test drove a used second generation Taurus around 1995, it was very nice, quiet and solid. We opted instead for a brand new 95 Thunderbird with the V8.
That Taurus was no slouch!
My other thoughts on this version of the Taurus come courtesy of a good friend of mine. This particular individual has… struggled a bit as an adult. He and college weren’t a good mix, but he’s not particularly suited to the trades, either. So, in 2012 when his 1995 Escort Wagon finally coughed its last, he bought a 1995 Taurus, metallic green. Apparently it was the unicorn little-old-lady car, and it had 57,000 miles when he bought it.
I only rode in it a couple times, but I imagine in 1992 or even in 1995 that interior was very competitive. I still think this generation was a good-looker outside, too.
Last summer, Friend clipped the back corner of a semi-trailer as he was making a lane change on the freeway. He wound up spinning into the center concrete barrier wall at 70 miles per hour before being hit in the passenger side by another motorist. He had some bad whiplash and was in a neck brace for a couple months, but he survived that crash with no broken bones and no permanent injuries.
So if nothing else, Ford did a great job with the safety aspect of this car, if someone could survive a crash like he had.
In 1995, my grandmother was looking to replace her ’87 Century and was thinking about getting a Taurus. She didn’t wait because she was advised by my aunts to go out and immediately get a gen 2 model, as the new one coming out (gen 3) was, in their words, hideous. It makes me wonder, despite rebates offered that year, if there was an uptick in sales from people who, like my grandmother, we’re trying to avoid the then upcoming gen 3 model.
It was the second generation of these Taurus cars that really broke the straw on the camel’s back between the terrible AXOD-E and later AX4S transaxles with many cars now on there 2nd and 3rd replacements, the troublesome 3.8 V6 option, the cheaper downgraded interior and a plethora of electrical gremlins, bad springs and suspension components. It was no small wonder the best seller title was soon after handed to Toyota. The 1996 Fish Taurus did it no favors either.
Just what I expressed earlier in different words: what if they beefed up the transmission?
I never understood why Ford did not (does not?) look for the weakest links in their models and consequently eliminate them. What´s the point of being “best in class” when the owner realizes he or she bought the worst in execution?
A friend of ours had a gen 2 Sable and loved it except for the busted transmission. Apparenty a cast-in channel for the transmission fluid was too weak to hold pressure and it died of “internal bleeding”.
Another friend had a gen 2 Taurus wagon and loved it except for the busted transmission. Apparently a steel ball that functions as a valve of sorts broke loose causing mayhem.
Maybe Ford learned something? I have not heard much of catastrophic failures of more recent models.
Yep, I had a 1st Generation Taurus as my first car and a busted transmission claimed it at around 130K miles. I liked it, over all, other than that final catastrophic failure.
What Ford learned is to let GM Powertrain (former THM) design their FWD Transaxles. Their 6 Speed is largely the same as the one GM now uses only built at the Ford UAW plant in Sterling Heights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM-Ford_6-speed_automatic_transmission
Another awesome Ford Taurus article. I’ve always liked the first two generations for the Ford Taurus and its twin, the Mercury Sable. I’ve always found them more attractive than anything that has come along from Ford since then.
I agree that the styling had a lot to do with the crazy success of this car, although it DID need to be a very good car to begin with. Brendan is totally right about the design language change from late 80s early 90s; the difference is plainly obvious from the photo ads and the Camry/Accord/ChryslerWhatever photos that follow. As someone born in the early 80s, this was the most significant and abrupt design language shift I can remember.
My mom replaced her Toyota Corona wagon with a silver 1987 Taurus wagon in 1992. To my young eyes, the new Taurus looked awesome. Like a silver spaceship. I remember a few years later riding with my baseball coach in his loaded mid 90s Camry. That Camry was oodles better than the Taurus, just a few years later. Both were landmark vehicles.
Just what I always thought of the second gen Taurus – cheapo. The first gen was so much nicer and more unique. The special feeling that made a Taurus a Taurus was lost in the second gen. It was like a larger Tempo. Shame on Ford for taking away that specialness that made them such a breakthrough vehicle. And then coming out with the ovoid Taurus in 1996 was an attempt to make another special vehicle. The only difference is that the public didn’t care for the ovoid look. So instead of Ford going to the drawing board to take the Taurus to another level, they made it mainstream again and boring.
Good review. Like many here, I thought the exterior update on the second gen was well done, and I generally prefer it to the original. The added length made it a bit sleeker. Overall, it seemed a bit more conservative than the original, which was fine by my tastes.
The gen 1 dash was just a bit different from everything else on the market – and refreshing these days for its simplicity. The gen 2 dash seemed typical for the times, even suffering a bit that typical Ford passenger side look that several of their cars had that screamed “look, I’m set up for a passenger side airbag.”
I’m probably inclined to say that the Mopar competion for this car was the LH series vs. the AA and JA “Cloud Cars.” There was long some fog as to what cars were the brand flagships during the ’80s and ’90s, with legacy RWD cars running around, etc. More than not, the Taurus was Ford’s flagship, and sometimes even referred to as “full-size” depending on who you were talking to. The Mopar LH cars assumed a similar mantle at Chrysler. I know when I shopped mid-size sedans for myself in 1995, I nearly instantly dismissed the Mopar JA as too small, and cross shopped the Taurus with the Dodge Intrepid / Chrysler Concorde
I agree that the JA Cloud cars were compacts and not Taurus competition, the Contour was pitted against them.
Camry/Accord were mid sizers too, but growing from 80’s compacts.
I had a 92 that was a handsome car, but just not for country driving. My gravel driveway tore the suspension to ribbons.
I had a 60 mile per day commute at the time. Aside from adding a quart of oil between changes, the car made it 250k miles on the original transmission.
Sadly, by the time it hit the mileage, the transmission was screaming and the oil pump was getting cranky. I sold it for 300 bucks to a co-worker and told him about the problems. He decided to drive it to Virginia Beach and it konked out on I-64. Why you’d do that when the transmission sounded like a cow dying is beyond me.
“Accord and Camry were receiving facelifts after only two or three years on the market”
Really?
The 82-85 Accords are identical, same with 86-89, 90-93. Camry was the same 83-86, then 87-91, and any ‘facelifts’ were just new grilles. OTOH, Japan’s Big 2 were restyling them 4 years apart, but the 2nd gen Camry was a 5 year car.
Now, the CamCord are 6 year cars, so Taurus was first with such, 😉
Not so. I’m not as well-versed on the Camry, but on the Accord, there was a mid-cycle refresh in every generation. Minor details, but noticeable (the ’84 Accord got an entirely different front clip…the ’96 got different taillights and the entire rear panel was rearranged…etc.)
If the Accord is a 6 year car currently, that must be starting with the current generation (which is in its 4th year, and I don’t know that a new one has or hasn’t been announced).
Looks like the red Taurus in the article has had the rear bumper repainted…..That car looks like it has been taken care of by its owner or owners.
What really hurt this generation of Taurus and Sable was the cheapening of the interior – the originals were so much more sophisticated and looked more expensive. The revised versions had sort of a vacuum pack plastic look compared to the original. This was the first sign that the original benchmarks were forgotten or thrown out to make the product more cheaply. I can guarantee you that the switch reduced costs by at least $100 per unit – a lesson that Ford would not learn from until it saved itself in 2009.
Are you kidding me? The first-gen Taurus was light years ahead of the American competition in terms of handling, packaging, ergonomics, aerodynamics, interior quality, exterior quality, styling, comfort, and pretty much every other possible category. Remember American midsizers in the mid-eighties? To say that the K-car, the Celebrity, Cutlass, or any other American car was in any way competitive with the Taurus is wrong. As for the imports, even the Camry or the 3rd-gen Accord wasn’t as nice to drive as the Taurus. The only cars that could match the first-gen Taurus were German imports costing twice as much.
As for the second-gen, I think we all know people who had multiple bad transmissions and blown 3.8 head gaskets. The Camry and Accord were far better cars and even Chrysler was offering some pretty good products. Too bad Ford forgot what made the first-gen so great and created a stylistic nightmare for 1996.
Perhaps he meant competitive only as far as the
segment those cars and the Taurus were targeting.
As far as the 1st and second gen Taurus handling
goes, I don’t remember back that far. Most American
cars I’ve driven had loosey-goosey steering with
less self-centering than anything goes! I was driving
a 1981 Buick Century at the time and I was allowed to
take my Mom’s 93 Sable around the block. I do
recall how hard it was to steer compared to that
Century, but that’s it. I never paid attention to how
the wheel centered itself or stuff like that at the time.
Every American car manufacturer is notorious for letting their cars wither on the vine, something Japanese manufacturers never did. Chrysler 300 strikes me as a prime example.
There were lots of downgrades and decontenting in the 1992 model. You mentioned no more rear head restraints, but didn’t note they also nixed the fold-down xcenter armrest, covered rear shelf compartment, or door pull handles (rather than just a hole in the armrest). Cheaper-looking upholstery and no woodgrain trim either. Options like the larger gas tank or cornering lights disappeared either in ’92 or the next year or two. Several other items of this sort I don’t remember.
Trivia: the first-gen Sable had illuminated power window controls, the Taurus didn’t until the second generation.
I had several rented Tauri, by Hertz of course in 92 to 94. I remember only positive impressions: spacious, functional and reliable. The comfort of the bench seat was what the kids liked about these cars. I wish Ford had continued building cars like these!!!
Later I got a Town Car, very comfortable, but the Tauri were somewhat better to handle.
I am really, really sure there was a U.S. federal law in the ’92-’95 timeframe, requiring each and every rentcar to be a Taurus.
Ford evidently sold three or four of them outside the North American regulatory island, too:
With Ford being the owner of Hertz there is no wonder why there were so many Tauri in the rental fleets. In our area the Ford dealers were pretty aggressive with their pricing so they sold a lot to the gov. fleets in my area.
I’d completely forgotten about the facelift. I’d personally call it more of gen 1a than gen 2. But even into 1a, people liked those cars, they really liked them. I might have had a few minutes of seat time in one my Dad had on a lease long ago, but it wasn’t memorable, good or bad. He later had one of the oval ones and didn’t like it nearly as well as the 1a.
But Ford had something, much like the Volvo 140/240/DL series, people really liked them, liked driving them much more than they should have from what the specs on paper were. Yeah, the trannys were on the infamous side, but people spoke well of them. You didn’t hear that about the oval ones that followed. The SHO version was the perfect illustration, A V8, higher rated power, but slower somehow. Speaking of, I even saw a first gen SHO in the wild a couple of months ago.
Big reason Taurus sales faded, “Explorer.”
Now, years later, the mid-size car market has shrunk, and not many care about “what is the prefect one?” Camry sells fairly well, but compacts are now bulk of passenger car sales. Arguing about “what is perfect CUV?” is all over internet.
Also, nowadays, Honda Accord is not all over the sales charts, and has issues with oil dilution in Turbo motors. Far from the “perfect car” of the 80s/90s. Honda is now like Ford, manly caring about SUV sales. CR-V is thier bread and butter, and Accord is withering on the vine.