(first posted 10/25/2012) The Fab Four: Those guys from Liverpool who went on to change popular music forever were constantly being categorized, especially compared with their fellow bandmates. So if we apply their monikers to each generation of the venerable Taurus line, what do we get?
Paul McCartney – The “Cute One.” This almost certainly describes the first-gen Taurus. Perhaps it was a bit more than cute, as the automotive world was quite enamored of it, but I think the name works for our purposes. It was attractive, and well received.
John Lennon – The “Smart One.” This easily describes the second-generation Taurus: More polished and refined than the first, with a less bulbous body and a well-sculpted behind. Arguably the zenith of the Taurus, aesthetically speaking.
Richard Starkey (Ringo Starr) – The “Funny One.” It was John Lennon who said that Ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles; that sentiment sums up the fourth-generation Taurus pretty well. A shell of its former self, the old bull was the funny one–because it was the joke.
George Harrison – The “Quiet One.” Was Harrison really shy, or simply overlooked? The skill was always there, but his two older and more recognizable mates stole the limelight. Maybe his looks didn’t thrill either, but listen to “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” or “Here Comes the Sun,” and you’ll recognize his incredible talent. Regardless, he never had a chance to truly break through to the level of the Lennon/McCartney juggernaut. This, too, was the essence of the much-derided “ovoid” Taurus and Sable.
So how did they happen? When you have a car doing so well and generating so much acclaim, the prospect of creating an equally successful next generation is daunting, to say the least. Here’s what the designers were thinking before they developed the now-infamous ovoid styling:
“Even though it had not yet gone on sale, by the spring of 1991, the 1992 Taurus was history so far as the guys in the Design Center were concerned. And they knew they couldn’t get away with another minor tinkering for the 1996 model.” (Mary Walton’s Car, p. 24)
Not exactly how today’s Toyota designers think, eh?
Meanwhile, in Dearborn the process of creating a completely new Taurus was fraught with internal bureaucratic duels, constantly changing mission statements and a rush to adhere to Ford’s newly-emerging World Class Timing designed to turn out new vehicles in less time.
But enough about that; let’s talk about the merits of the actual vehicles we ultimately received.
Let’s also get the elephant out of the room now: The styling was not for everyone, even though most auto rags praised its looks at the time of introduction. In a rush to create something just as radical as the original Taurus, the designers went full ovoid. I’m in the camp that likes the design of both the Sable and the Taurus, but the numbers aren’t on my side.
The ovoidness didn’t stop at the sheet metal. A swoopy, flowing dash greets your entrance into the car. That radio? Full-on roundness, created specifically by the interior designers in response to complaints that previous Taurii had hard-to-reach controls. To my eyes it’s aesthetically pleasing, but if you want to replace the head unit, you’ll have jump through many hoops.
Probably the least controversial aspect of these models were their engines. The base GS Sable and GL Taurus came with the 145 hp, 3.0-liter Vulcan V6, which by then had earned quite the reputation for reliability. Although not the most refined engine, it got the job done.
The higher trim levels received the brand-new modular Duratec V6, which replaced the troublesome, previous-generation Essex V6. It was rated at 200 hp; a very impressive number at the time, given that the current Maxima had only 190 hp. And of course, the SHO received a Yamaha-sourced 235-hp V8, but perhaps that deserves its own CC.
So just how radical was the design of these cars? Let’s take a look at some other cars that shared design themes with the bull:
Indeed, the public had gotten a taste of ovoid well before the introduction of the new Taurus. What happened, then, involved two Taurus-specific things: The headlamp design, and the cost of the car itself.
During the development of the 1996 redesign, Jack Telnack–who stood against anything that resembled “elongated peanuts”–saw what was going on with the lamps and vetoed them. Doug Gaffka, the new model’s exterior designer, then created the circular style we know today. Could more traditional headlamps have improved the look enough to win over more buyers? Maybe, but there’s always more to the story.
Picture this: you’re married and the father of two kids, and you’re looking for a sedan. You compare the outgoing 1995 Taurus with a successor that’s longer, heavier, has less trunk space and is $2,000 more expensive to boot. What would you do?
This my friends, is partly what did the Taurus in. Consider this Camry: Unlike the previous generation, this iteration went full-on cheap. Nothing inside its interior surpassed the Taurus/Sable in quality, but it still had a clean, familiar look and was wedded to the Toyota name. At the time Ford was taking apart 1992 Camrys to find out how to surpass them, I’ll bet their Toyota counterparts were making a reciprocal effort to replicate the 1992 Taurus. Is it a mystery why the ’92 Taurus and ’97 Camry look so similar? I think not.
Now it wouldn’t be such an interesting story if it ended right there, would it?
Did Ford buyers really defect to Camrys? Or did they just “upgrade” to the Explorer, which sat high, had easy sight lines and came with always sought-after four-wheel drive. The sales figures seem to back this up. The Explorer’s never-ending march up the charts during this generation didn’t really taper off until 2002. During the final years of the third-gen Taurus and the first years of the fourth-gen model, Explorer sales never dipped below 400,000 units annually.
The Taurus lost the midsize sedan sales crown in 1997. As Harrison had bluntly stated, “It’s not always gonna be this great.” And for the Taurus, it was not.
Now why did your author put so much effort into writing this particular piece of history? Well, I happen to be personally and emotionally invested in one:
I stand by my statement that compared with the other Taurii, this generation really was The Quiet One: Overshadowed by its older stablemates, yet offering its own pleasures and uniqueness. Drive one in decent shape and you’ll be impressed; even with the Vulcan under the hood, you’ll experience a smooth ride and a surprisingly composed chassis, and steering effort that even if a bit light, is nevertheless well communicated to the driver. I’ve also never sat in more comfortable seats.
Which brings us to 2012. Vying for the top spot is another Ford midsize, now in its third generation, which has itself earned a solid reputation and a healthy dose of critical praise. Like its spiritual ancestor, its design has become more radicalized, it’s priced higher than ever, and there’s a lightly redesigned, lower-priced Camry nipping at its heels. Are we coming full circle? Perhaps a Curbside Classic from 2027 will answer that question.
[Welcome Edward Snitkoff, our newest member of the CC Corps. Pretty impressive debut, eh? Ed is 25, has a BA in American History and an MA in History and Political Science (College of St. Rose). He currently calls Fishkill, NY, home, is a sci-fi nut, video gamer and a serious job hunter, and is now updating his resume to add “automotive writer”. Look for more of Ed’s work on these pages. PN]
I guess Taurii are a good candidate for cockroach of the road. These things’ only real appeal is being cheap and pretty reliable. My sister and husband bought a ’99 ‘catfish’ Taurus as a program vehicle. A few years back, she needed a minivan and sold it to my parents as a 4th vehicle, a gas saver. They still have it. Good car from a ‘cheap runabout, who cares if someone door dings it’ kind of perspective. I got the dubious privilege of taking it on a roadtrip to Memphis last time I visted back there. Its a creaky, slow penalty box for sure. Coming from my old turbo PT Cruiser it was like going from a corvette to a chevette in terms of the driving experience, but it hasn’t broken down on them…
This is one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen. I hate the way it looks. It is the ugliest ford ever. Even the 80 cougar looked better. Homer Simpsons car looked better. I rode in one once and the back seat was more comfortable than the front. The engine was buzzy and the steering wheel was too thick and to was ugly like a mutant fish. It makes even an 85 Cadillac compact de ville look better if you park this next to it. I’m surprised they sold as well as they did. I hate this car. I hate its looks.
Top 10 ugly cars.
This taurus.
2. 85 olds 88.
3 85 Fleetwood/ Seville
4. New fiats
5. 78 olds cutlass fastback
6. 78 grandprix
7. 88 grandprix
8. Most Subaru’s
9. Aztec
10. Saabs
Honorable mention geo w Bush’s limo.
The backstage tale of 3rd-Gen design was well told in Mary Walton’s book “Car” (cited above)–she seems to have been given surprising access to Ford’s decision-making.
The ’96 struck me as a little edgy at the time; I figured I’d soon “get used to it,” and I did. My ’98 DOHC, while not “babied,” has gotten the full factory mtce. schedule treatment, and is purring right along at 130K. I still believe the Tauri wagons will be a CC feature one day, even if 12-15 years down the road. (Occasionally, an especially nice ’96-99 wagon goes for surprising $$$ on eBay!)
What I like the most about the Taurus is the conventional 6 passenger seating, bench seats, and a conventional column shifter. There were only 3 other cars that I am aware of that still had the 6 passenger seating for as long as or longer than the Taurus.
Ford Crown Vic
Chevy Impala
Buick Lacrosse
I also wish it were still available…sadly, none of the 3 still offer front bench (or split bench or anything besides bucket seating). The Crown Victoria is no more, and the Impala and the Lacrosse are now only available with bucket seating.
In a way, I kind of get it, now cars are narrower and the possibility of 3 across seating is really not there (especially as we’ve gotten wider, myself included) but there are other good reasons for bench seating, not the least of which is accessability, you can get in the car from either side. I also found that my handicapped father could be “pulled” into the passenger seat from the driver’s side in his ’06 Impala (with the split bench seating) which I wouldn’t be able to do as easily with my car (bucket seating of course on it).
I guess the console is used to house all the junk we carry with us, but I wish for the option of having a bench seat in the front, with a dash mount column shifter.
Hey, the first time I saw a 1996 Taurus wagon I said, one day I will have me one of those. I loved their styling from the first moment. Now, I drive a 1996 Ford Taurus wagon and just bought a 1996 Mercury Sable wagon. Two of the same beauties! The Taurus is nearing 300,000 miles and I hope the Sable lasts just as long.
I just happened upon this link, as I owned a 96 model. A slick used car salesman, sold me on one. I came to regret the purchase shortly there after. I bought it one year old. Green. Oval everything. First was the night time driving….cars driving behind would illuminate the interior of the car like I was being persued by police…that dammed low trunk, and big oval rear window! That was pretty minor…then came The costly repairs…trick warranty wording that left us out in the cold…literally…transmission issues that were never able to be repaired for much less than a thousand a pop..cost our still young family thousands, with cooling issues with engine, then the weird squeaking from the rear strut…it was possessed. I unloaded it within 4 years, learning some valuable lessons along the way. Ford motor company did not care to help in any way. Mechanics were always on the take…even at transmission shops. I’d like to think I’ll never own another Ford, thanks for taking our family to the cleaners on this POS.
I own a 1998 Taurus SE with a 24-valve 3.0 Duratec engine. It has been a good car and has 171,000. It hasn’t given a lot of problems and gets good gas mileage. Secret to a reliable car is routine maintenance. Follow the manufacturer’s recommendation of oil change, transmission fluid and filter, brake service, tire rotations and the Taurus will perform. I’ve owned this one 18 years and hate to part with it. I don’t see many ’98’s around with a Duratec in my part of the world. There is a car auction in town that buys them from the dealer trade in and strips the tires wheels from them and then crushes them. What’s you opinion folks will it be a classic in a few years and rare because everyone turns them in to scrap?
A classic ahahahahahahahaha …see my above post…and consider yourself lucky. Ford sold their reputation out on this pos.
…a classic….ahahhhahahhhha
The first ads for the ’96 were ‘artsy’, like the first Infiniit brand “rocks and streams”, not really showing the car. Had a woman singing folksy jingle, and seemed like ad for new family TV show.
Then, the cost cutting began a few months later, and image went down hill in buyer’s minds, became a fleet queen. Tired too hard to be a ‘high feature/high priced’ car.
I have nevery understood the hate for the Gen 3 Taurus/Sable. My parents bought a new Sable LS Wagon in ’96 to replace our aging ’86 Sable LS Wagon. I later drove the Sable in college.
1. I honestly believe the Gen 3 Sable to be an attractive car, with the 98-99 being slightly better looking than the 96-97. But then I also think the Infiniti J30 was gorgeous.
2. Having already owned two Corollas, (’77 and ’91), my parents seriously considered a Camry wagon; I came along for the test ride in ’96. My parents were not impressed; the Sable was a far better value. All I remember is that the Camry’s stereo sounded awful compared to the premium sound system in the Sable.
3. Interior space was imperceptibly different than the ’86. Seats were very comfortable.
4. The Duratec V6 was powerful, smooth, and reliable for its time. If the VQ30DE in my ’96 Maxima was a 10/10, the Duratec was an 8.5/10.
5. The car was impressively reliable; I sold it with 220,000 miles on it when the AX4N had a 4th gear solenoid failure, and I can’t remember anything else being wrong with it. I occasionally wish I hadn’t sold that car, as wagons are incredibly useful. But it was as sexy as a clown and I was looking for something more appropriate for a recent college grad.
My aunt bought an ’86 Taurus – such an incredible piece of crap that it pretty much soured me on the brand to this day.
I liked the 1996 Sable style a lot more – the Taurus had a bad case of catfish mouth front syndrome. But whenever I was in either one of this generation (Taurus or Sable) I was always impressed with the interior quality, even if the dash design was an oval or two too far.
The Taurus that immediately followed may have looked marginally better on the outside, but the inside was both cheaper and so, so much more boring.
Btw I just love that name Snitkoff. It makes me giggle a little every time I see it written?
Quite fascinating how these cars have disappeared now, I havent seen one in ages, Asian students across the road had one in quite tidy condition it came and went by tow truck occasionally and was up for sale and its gone but so are its owners whether it sold or not I dont know, There was an earlierv model Sable nearby imported used from the US the people who owned it have a yard full of Camaros and mustangs all recent imports but I havent seen that either recently, they could be an extict brand here now.
I hate the looks of these. They are the ugliest taurus ever. I’m surprised it sold at all. I have driven a few tauri. I feel that they are basically junk. 3.0 Vulcan is best motor. Transmissions are weak. The back seat is strangely more comfortable than the front.
Despite all the shit they get, I loved the 1996 Taurus. My uncle Joe, who was a “legislative liaison” for the PA Department of Conservation of Natural Resources in PA (basically an internally lobbyist who would lobby the PA legislature in favor of DCNR initiatives) was exactly the sort of upper middle class buyers that Ford was targeting. He traded in a 1990 Mazda 626 on it. He loved it, except for the gas mileage that was far worse than his 626, despite not having any real more oomph – he should have sprung for the Duratec.
Either way, it was a great car to ride in, and really did feel as high-end as the early 90s Toyota Camry did… right before the great decontenting of most midsize sedans made the Taurus seem expensive and out of touch.
Either way, he kept the thing for a decade, and only got rid of it to get something more practical for his sports-playing kids who were now teenagers.
PS – the 626 was more fun to drive, of course. He had the 626 LX, which on the GD 626 (the last squarish one), was the top of the line short of the GT/Turbo. His had every option… except an automatic. His was fully loaded with stick. I still wish I’d been a year old so I could have bought it from him; my parents’ 626 DX just wasn’t as nice inside. It wasn’t just lack of power options – the seat fabric was noticeably nicer on the LX as well.
In the intervening years since the first publishing of this article, these bubble-Taurii have largely disappeared from Metro Detroit roads. It was an odd thing, as though someone came in the night and hauled them all away.
And I find myself missing them from the road now. When they first came out, as I was starting high school, I did not appreciate the styling-it seemed like everything was becoming a generic mass of curves and half-melted-looking lines, and this had gone all-in on round and ovoid. Then even the F-150 succumbed to the syndrome, and I truly despaired for the state of auto design.
Then, and now, though, I have to give it to Ford for making a shape that cut through the bland, generic detritus of mid-late 1990s auto design, even if at the time I thought it going in the wrong direction. 20 years later, though, and I’ve come to truly appreciate and even enjoy the design on these. They still have an identity even 20 years later, and very very very few cars from that era managed that.
Xequar…i hated the styling on these when they came out and I still hate and detest it. I find not one redeeming line on them. But I’m generally a T-square kinda guy when it comes to styling. For example, love the Mark VII and hate the Mark VIII simply because of styling. Love the 79-91 Crown Bricks, absolutley hate the 92 up Aero shape. But I only speak for me. There are still quite a few 96 up Tauruses left down here as well as a small amount of 2nd Gen ones. 1st gen like my 88 are so rare I perk up instantly when I see one and want to chase them down and document them. I might consider owning a 2004-2006 model because they are now inexpensive to buy ( a main criteria for someone on the bottom of the socio-economic scale) but would prefer a 2000-2005 Impala.
The 2000-07 generation is now ‘super beater’ status around Chicagoland. Most are dragging their rear ends as ‘work cars’. Once in awhile, see older person in a clean one. But, fading away as working class aims to get ‘newer-older’ cars/UV’s.
A teacher I worked with had a ’94 Taurus with the 3.8, and while he liked it, he refrained from taking it on long trips. “We like our Taurus, but we know its limitations” he said. He preferred to drive his 96 Saturn, once remarking that the Saturn was a much-better engineered vehicle than the Taurus and was far more trustworthy. He soon junked the Taurus due to both a blown head gasket and some transmission problems.
At that time, several teachers at the school owned Tauruses as family vehicles due to their bargain price as used vehicles. A couple of them had older Caravans. Most faced expensive mechanical problems they could I’ll-afford, and the school VP ended up junking his Sable (I joked that he was now dis-Sabled). The shop teacher advised us to avoid the Taurus and Caravan.
I drove a ’97 Taurus wagon. With the rear-facing seat it sat eight kids, and we occasionally filled it to capacity. It was pleasant to drive, but I was jittery about the reliably (and an antifreeze smell that surfaced when I made left turns) so I sold it.
Correction: the Taurus sat eight passengers, not “kids”. Although I was pretty much a kid at the time I owned it.
Hate the ovals. Ford would have made the wheels oval if they could.
So, what, twelve years after the fact, I stumble across this while crawling CC (I don’t know how this site didn’t become a regular to me earlier). I’ve never owned a Taurus, but rode in a few. Actually, one of my best friends in Navy flight training had a 96 or 97 Sable wagon. Talk about a NOT Ensignmobile! But I had him topped in my ratty-looking (but nice inside, and air-conditioned) “Fontana from Montana” – ’64 Fairlane.
Anyway, my thoughts on the Taurus are that the ones to own are either the original (ideally a SHO, obviously), or a 96 or 97. The original is a retro-modern classic now – sorta old, sorta new. The 2nd gen is probably the most cohesive, but too anonymous. The third-gen suffers from a pinched nose and that tail that wanted to be E-type-esque but got pulled into no-man’s-land. I’m a long-time Ford guy, and I really wanted to love it when it came out, but didn’t. Still, it wasn’t anonymous and it had redeeming qualities – above all that it didn’t feel cheap and disposable, like it’s successor. That’s why I’d drive one over its true competitors (it was actually another CC on the deliberately bland ’96 Camry that brought me here).
The look just didn’t hit like the original: Ford tried so hard to make lightning strike twice, overdid it, and failed to recognize that the people who bought the original Taurus (the wagon in particular) to stand out would have walked right by and bought an Explorer anyway. The 2012 Fusion mentioned exemplifies this perfectly: it’s a decent car (my Dad has a ’14), and one of the best-looking Ford’s come up with in a while. But everybody wanted crossovers, and now the only “car” Ford sells is the Mustang. Anyway, if they’d hit on styling like the forth-gen – blander, but few buyers passed because of the looks – they probably would have held onto the family sedan crown longer. Instead, as mentioned, the looks got toned way down, but so did the quality.
I’m surprised Jac Nasser wasn’t mentioned; as I understand it, he had more to do with the cost-cutting and de-contenting than anyone. For whoever’s to blame, it hit hard across the line: we went from the “fat Fords” of the mid-90s with their nicer look and feel (inside in particular) to the hard plastic and shiny “look at me!” bits of the 00s. It hit the top end especially hard: most reviews of the Lincoln LS praised its chassis and driving feel, but panned the interior. Nobody remembers it was Motor Trend’s Car of the Year because no amount of value and road feel can make up for your eyes and fingers telling you you’re in a Ford – and not even a very good one. The Taurus had no chance of a resurgence: removing the quirky looks wasn’t going to bring anyone back, and cheapening it only made it more forgettable yet – which is why it suffered the lamentable fade away as a fleet car, and the last gasp to revive the name went over about as well as a reconstituted hair metal band in the 90s.
Wait, did I just tie it back to music? I like my metaphor a bit more than the Beatles one actually (big fan of the band; George is my favorite Beatle), but I appreciate the effort. Might I suggest a reprise, however: instead of the various Taurii, take the mid-90s Ford lineup of cars, and you even have enough cars to choose from that you can drop the weak swimmers! (Looking at you, Escort and Tempo).
I was skimming through the article and comments to find transmissions mentioned. A few comments there. We found both the Taurus and Sable to have bad transmissions, even shortly after new purchase at the dealer the transmission can start to fail. A friend of mine, die hard Ford man had bought several, with transmission failures on all, the last one he bought the transmission started to go so he traded it in for a Buick and couldn’t have been happier.
“We found both the Taurus and Sable to have bad transmissions”
They are identical, so I bet that explains that LOL
The 96 version Taurus is still hideous to my eyes, just a stupid looking car.
I did own a red 93 SHO and loved it, and I think the ’00 version looks pretty good. One of those with the DOHC optional engine drives pretty well.
We had a green ‘99 that was passed down to our oldest daughter who was in high school. She and her 3-year younger sister called it “Booger”. That saved little sister’s life the summer before her senior year. She turned left at a dangerous intersection when I had warned her not to do that. A guy came flying around a large Suburban, hit the front quarter panel of the Taurus, spun her around and she slammed into a telephone pole. A wrecker had to pull Booger off of the pole. Those Ford engineers designed that car to protect the driver and passengers. I wrote them a thank you letter and included photos of the totaled car. She only had a few scratches from broken glass.
Love the Motoring TV throwback.
Sadly that show is now off the air. Graeme Fletcher, Jim Kenzie, Brad Diamond, and Rob the mechanic were a great team.
I liked the “polarizing” ’96 Taurus when it came out. I was around 17, thought it was so futuristic. Every other sedan at the time was so boring.
I see generations differently, 1.0 and 1.1 for the first two. To a non Ford guy they looked about the same. Same with 3/4, 2.0 and 2.1. Same basic body on them, just detail differences.
But the important thing is 1.0/1.1, or 1 and 2, whatever, people liked driving those things. They thought well of them. Kind of like the Volvo 240 series, slow and frumpy, but people loved them. Not that it’s easy, but maybe they should have focused on that?
Strictly from a reading the magazine perspective, the SHO transition was classic. First gen, 6 cylinder, good output and performance for the day. Ovoid gen, now a V8, more rated HP, but somehow slower. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but …
I always thought Ford dialed back the Taurus too far in the 4th gen from the 3rd. The sedan, that is – they pretty much nailed it on the wagons, carrying over just enough oval weirdness to give the design character without going too far over the top.
These were so controversial that even at 10 years old people noticed them. I was not a fan although the Mercury and LX versions were more inspiring r
than the base Tauri.
We had two Tauri in the family. An ’88 GL wagon that had electrical issues and an ugly bland interior. My grandparents’ Buicks were far nicer. My dad had a ’97 GL after his Altima was totaled. It was also cruddy and both were saddled with the wimpy Vulcan V6.
The Taurus was an overrated product but GM, unlike in previous eras didn’t respond to it. The first generation only had to fight the A bodies for 3 years and the Ws arrived packaged poorly to fight it (As I have said on other threads GM would have been in way better shape had they given a 92 Taurus like update to the A in 1987 and then launched a more modern midsize car in the early 90s) Chrysler still had the K Cars. The Japanese had their audience but were still too small and weird before the 1990 Accord and 1992 Camry.
Chrysler had a chance here as I consider the Concorde one of the best packaged and most stylish ’90’s cars. But it was bigger than these and the Cirrus was a bit too small, low and underpowered. By the time the ’96 came GM was a complete mess in the midsize market, selling a warmed over Lumina and when they finally launched a slew of new designs in ’97 they were much more meh than the 70s/80s GM cars. So Toyota got its shot by getting a well built if extremely boring ’97 Camry. (The ’94 Accord was still too small and I feel the ’98
never did as well as the ’97-’01 Camry).
But Ford dropped this generation and let the nameplate shrivel. Like many other domestic passenger cars it languished without updates for years allowing the Camry, Accord and the 2002 Nissan Altima to steal this market for good. The ’06 Fusion was probably the best attempt at a midsize car by Detroit that decade but it was too late.
Good analogy between the four Tauri and each of the Beatles!
One minor point:
I would have reversed the order of presenting the late 1990s “George” ovoid Taurus and the early 2000s “Ringo” so as to be in chrono order.
My Mom’s last car was a “Ringo”: a metallic be-spoilered 2001 Taurus Sport.