(first posted 12/23/2015) Has there ever been an American brand as enduringly ill-defined as Mercury? A non-existent brand identity and a seemingly nebulous mission left the messenger brand as a misfit in the Ford corporate stable, especially by the 1990s. The third-generation Sable was yet another misdirected Mercury.
White Sable photos courtesy of Brendan Saur
By the 1990s, other problem marques had determined their missions: Oldsmobile had established itself as a division of import fighters and moribund Plymouth was the bargain basement brand for DaimlerChrysler. The 1996 Sable was appreciably differentiated visually from the related Ford – more than can be said for most Mercury cars over the years – but it took the Sable in an entirely new design direction that didn’t mesh with the rest of the brand. But underneath this different sheetmetal, it was pure Taurus.
Mercury was ostensibly a more premium brand than Ford, but did Ford only offer the optional, new Duratec engine? No, they offered the aging Vulcan as the base engine with the Duratec as an option. Did the Mercury offer any unique features? No, the range-topping Sable LS was just as well-equipped as a Taurus LX. Was there a plusher interior? Again, no, the interior was virtually identical to the Taurus but for some available woodgrain appliqués. The Sable even offered a price-leader G version like the Taurus, to help soften the blow of this generation’s price increase.
The exterior styling was somewhat similar up front, except with the driving and parking lights grouped in the same assembly vis-à-vis the Taurus’ quad-light setup. The sedan’s roofline was different, with a more formal-looking C-pillar despite previous Sables featuring a rakish C-pillar with a wraparound rear window treatment.
The ’96 Sable’s rear window was larger and rectangular in shape, instead of the Taurus’ oval window, while the taillights were thin, wide rectangular units. A bulbous rear bumper completed the look of the rear, which was even more eccentric in appearance then the Taurus. As for the wagon, it was identical to the Taurus wagon from the A-pillar back, right down to the ovoid rear quarter and tailgate windows.
The Taurus had proved to be too ambitiously styled for this conservative segment and the price hikes didn’t help sales; Accord and Camry sales were also growing. Taurus would lose the sales crown after 1996 and a significant chunk of the roughly 400k annual units produced went to fleets.
So began the cost-cutting. As the Taurus Car Club of America diligently records, various items were dropped for the third generation’s sophomore season. High-end Taurus and Sable variants lost their 4-way headrests and chrome exhaust tips. The sedans switched to rear drums from standard discs. Passenger seat power lumbar was also axed, heated mirrors shifted to the options list, and there were no longer front door courtesy lamps or indicators for low washer fluid or broken rear lamps. Door trim panels now had exposed screws and the Mercury logo on the Sable’s grille was no longer illuminated. For 1999, even more cost-cutting was evident as Ford’s intermediates lost footwell lighting, glove compartment lights, rear speaker grilles and even the tinted band across their front windshields.
What had started off as a controversially designed but quite high-quality interior had been nickel-and-dimed to mediocrity, although it was still much nicer than most of GM’s mid-size offerings’ interiors, especially the hideous cabin of the Chevy Lumina. The DN101 team helmed by Dick Landgraff had picked apart Camry and Accord and implemented so many of their neat features and details. By the end of the third-generation’s run, so many of these surprise-and-delight features were gone.
Although fleet/private sales breakdowns aren’t available for this generation of Sable, it’s interesting to note annual production stayed consistent throughout its run: around 110k units produced each year, similar to the previous generation. Sable models were generally priced $500-$1000 above the equivalent Taurus.
The 2000 Taurus and Sable would feature a more conservative and elegant design inside and out. Unfortunately, sales declined and Ford implemented yet more cost-cutting. The Sable was axed in 2005, replaced by the smaller Milan and larger Montego.
But for waterfall grilles and different fake wood, these Sable successors – as well as the Montego’s successor that wore the resurrected Sable nameplate – never sought to put much space between the Mercury and its Ford equivalent. Was the Mercury brand incapable of selling at a higher price point as some kind of step-up like GMC’s Denali sub-brand? Would Lincoln have been threatened?
From 1938 until 2011, Mercury had an ill-defined mission on this earth. The ’96-99 Sable, in sedan guise at least, was visually quite different from its related Ford. But who was it aimed at? What was Mercury about? Perhaps Ford executives’ presentations spoke of the average Sable buyer being more affluent and educated than a Taurus buyer. And yet, Mercury didn’t bother to make any real specification differentiation or make any effort to position and price this as a more premium offering. Despite this, they also didn’t settle for the cheap-and-easy badge engineering employed by Chrysler with its Plymouth brand, and actually invested in unique sheetmetal.
The more one looks at this Sable, the more questions arise. Mercury has been dead for a few years now and it seems as though everyone has forgotten. Ford happily offers (and sells) Explorer Platinums and Fusion Titaniums that actually offer more features than their cheaper brethren. Lincoln has expanded and seems to be finding some success as a near-luxury brand. After just a few years, it seems almost puzzling that Mercury ever existed and for so long. Mercury’s tagline during the third-generation Sable’s run was “Imagine yourself in a Mercury”. Post-mortem, the tagline should be, “Imagine a world with Mercury”. It’s hard, isn’t it?
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1993 Eagle Vision
A soap bubble that went poof.
The 2000 looks actually quite nice. I could imagine myself in that Mercury. Used of course, as it was a real bargain. I actually was going to have a look at an ´04 in LS trim, burgundy over grey, Duratec. I had to cancel the appointment because of a fever. Poof, sneeze.
Excellent article, William.
Mercury´s nook between Ford and Lincoln got tighter and tighter because there was not enough spread between the Ford top models and the Lincoln bottom models. A fully spec´ed Ford Crown Victoria offered essentially the same as a Town Car for thousands less.
What could they have done?
How about this: Softer, more sophisticated suspension than Ford, only Duratec under the hood, more exclusive premium touches inside and out. More noise insulation than Taurus. Much of that could have been accomplished by limiting the decontenting to the Taurus. The sales staff should have had the opportunity to say: the Sable is a much nicer car than the Taurus. It´s worth the extra 2 grand.
Of course that only works if the Lincoln is worth the extra 4 or 5 grand.
In this generation at least, you may be on the right track with the Duratec-only and lack of decontenting justifying the price premium. MSRP on the ’98 Taurus was $19525 for the upper-level SE trim with the Vulcan, whereas MSRP on the ’97 Sable was $22140 for the upper LS trim with the Duratec. ’98 versus ’97 as I don’t know how much the ’98 LS would be with the Duratec as it was no longer included in the base price. That’s a spread of about $2500, and with the Duratec standard in the Sable and with the decontenting not done, the differentation would have been there.
For the Lincoln, though, you’re not talking about the extra 4 or 5 grand–you’re talking about the extra 15 grand. MSRP on the ’98 Continental was $37930, or the price of two Sable GS’s. Of course, for that extra money, you got a completely different car that just happened to share the same base platform. 260 HP V8, longer wheelbase with air suspension, completely different exterior sheetmetal that still looked like a Lincoln, completely different interior befitting of a luxury car. They weren’t remotely comparable. Some asserted that Lincoln started its slide downhill when they based the ’88 Continental on the FWD Taurus platform, but they were still very different cars at very different price points that never would have been cross-shopped (plus the ’95 Conti fixed the primary error of the ’88 by going back to a V8 not available in the Taurus/Sable).
A few years down the road, the gap between a Milan and a Zephyr/MKZ was *much* smaller.
You are right, Lincolns where much more expensive. At least pricewise there was a large gap that Mercury could have tried to exploit.
Which was the original point of the Mercury brand — and later of Edsel, for that matter. Ford went a long, long time with a vast, yawning chasm between Ford and Lincoln while GM’s Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac divisions collectively had about a quarter of the entire U.S. market.
“… Sable is a much nicer car than the Taurus. It´s worth the extra 2 grand.”
But then one could option a Ford with same equipment to match a so called ‘well equipped Merc’, why bother?
Mid price brands don’t exist anymore. Honda and Toyota have high level trims, that Ford brand competes with, now. Buick is pushed up to ‘lux’ and now Chrysler cars are ‘mainstream’. Dodge is now a ’boutique’ make, but how long?
Looking from outside the US marketing, Ford should make the ’96 Sable more conservative, as something more natural as an evolution of the previous design style, as long as the Taurus received that radical make over, maybe the public that got shocked with the new Taurus would migrate to the Sable. Making both products so radical in style for its public and with no significant differences between them was sort of illogical.
Well observed William
From ’49 to ’57, Mercury had a strong image in the public eye. It was Ford’s hot rod. Speed and noise. Nothing else matched it.
Trouble is, Ford management didn’t recognize this. They constantly tried to push Lincoln as the fast road car, the winner of the Carrera Mexicana. Really dumb. Luxury buyers didn’t want speed and noise.
After the T-bird grew into a family-size car, Merc’s real niche was completely occupied. It briefly became the Space-Age car, then Ford management shoved Edsel into that niche.
I agree with all you said, but I’m guessing Ford entered Lincolns in the Mexicana Carrera for the same reason (s) GM entered Cadillac and Chrysler entered a Chrysler.
Completely agree….by ’96 the ship had sailed…want something different than a Ford? Buy a Mercury Capri (no not the one you’re probably thinking of; the Australian built 2 door convertible)…Ford didn’t sell that model…just kidding, but don’t make it unique to the ’96-’99 Sable.
My Dad had a ’96 (also an ’89 and ’94). Reason he got the ’96 was likely because he leased the other 2 and the lease was up. Why he got 3 Sables in a row? More difficult answer, but after his ’86 Dodge 600 was totalled by my sister in ’89, he probably heard the great press for the 1st Gen Taurus, and he bit. Why a Mercury? For him, I’ll answer that question kind of like why people bought early low-end Lexus (which were similar to the Camry, albeit with more luxurious trim)….they liked the dealer experience. Well, you can argue that the Mercury Dealer experience was like a Ford would be, but he liked the location (close to where he lived) and they didn’t pressure him much when he had to get another one…so he kept doing it. I’m not much of a lease fan, neither was he but they gave him a great deal at the time….I don’t like the idea that you give up the ‘when’ part of buying a car (unless you buy your lease..and even then the ‘when’ is prescribed).
Anyhow, at least the ’96 Mercury was styled a bit differently than the ’96 Ford, so you avoided some of the ovals (rear window for instance), it wasn’t a bad car but wasn’t a great car…we went to a car show in ’00 where they had an early Impala I talked him into looking at, and must have stuck in his mind; he did look at ’01 Mercuries but fell for the dealer trick where they “lost” the keys of his Sable and he took the Impala home for the (long) weekend and bought it the next Tuesday. I liked the Impala better than the Sable, but he even did a 2fer and bought a ’06 Impala (so he had 3 of a kind and a pair)…my Mom has the ’06 (Dad passed 6 years ago and she took it over). His had the 3.8 litre which of course wasn’t great, but he didn’t own it long enough to have problems (he was opposite of me, he bought many cars; I’ve only owned 4 different ones in 48 years of driving). Yes, the Sable was watered down from the original, but so was the Taurus, (or Impala, or DeVille or….you name it). It was OK for what it was, but yes, Ford was still on autopilot with these, and hadn’t decided yet what to do with Mercury. Really, other than styling, it would seem the last unique Mercury (that had different body…other than the ’90 Mercury Capri convertible)…was the ’59 I think, so the brand was kind of on autopilot since then…they did different things like the breezeway window that wasn’t on a Ford, but Ford had Thunderbird and even cars like the Pinto that Mercury didn’t get for a year or so….so the message had been illegible for quite some time before ’96-’99.
The 96 Sable just did not have much of a chance. Ford was betting a new style on the old chassis would be enough to raise transaction prices. So as William pointed out, here came the Camry copying team. The style outside and in was a dud and transaction prices of the Taurus stayed down with volume coming from fleets
So the Sable tries to ape the last successful Mercury, the Grand Marquis. A more conservatively styled version of the Crown Victoria that is safe for retail buyers because you won’t spot many in fleet use. But look at this car, is a 70 year old man going to look at this car in 1996 and think it is more handsome or comfortable than the cheaper and more economical 96 Century. Bet the Mercury salesman will almost be shoving him toward the Grand Marquis before he walks out.
With the weight going up so much, I wonder why the Vulcan power stayed so low. A GM 3.1 went from 135hp to 175hp. The Vulcan topped out at 153hp from 140 originally. The four was gone but by now even the original top engine was marginal. William made the point that the Duratech should have been standard, but how can it be when the market wouldn’t pay for it and your customers would be better served by a 3800 from across the street.
Totally agree with the point on the GM pushrod V6s, they were really the ideal powertrains for midsize/large FWD cars of that era – durable, cheap to build, good power/torque, deceptively good real world MPG.
I think the Vulcan engine’s rated power remained in the lower realm because Ford didn’t want to sacrifice its low-end torque. With a pushrod engine and no variable valve timing or forced induction, the things that get you more peak power cost you on the low end, which in a heavier vehicle ends up making it seem slower much of the time. As far as torque went, the GM 3800 benefited from the extra 800cc — with normally aspirated engines, maximum torque is really mostly a function of displacement.
The 3800 was the ideal engine for this class of car. The early 90s Buick Park Avenue was a phenomenal car(also the late 90s LeSabre). I am still not sold on overhead cams for a traditional sedan. I would much rather have the low end torque that I use every minute I’m driving than the peak horsepower at 6 or 7 or 8000RPMs which I literally NEVER use. My daily driver is a 2008 Honda Civic with a 5speed stick and I would gladly trade the top 2000 RPMs for more oomph below 2000 RPMs.
Wow, these were such ugly cars. And to charge an extra $500 to $1,000 for nothing more than a different but still hideous exterior? Craziness…
I agree that there isn’t another brand I can think of that has ping-ponged around more than Mercury. It seems like the brand always did best when it went upmarket (Marquis) or offered something legitimately differentiated from its Ford sibling (original Cougar). I am mystified why FoMoCo didn’t grasp that better and keep Mercury more premium.
Another big miss for Mercury was in the early 1970s when they did not further build on the success of the Capri. The imported sporty coupe found a nice niche, which could have been expanded with the range of European Ford products. While Ford Division had floundered with the Cortina (why bother when you could push Falcons and Mustangs), Mercury could have offered something different for a more upscale buyer. This was the time when increasing numbers of upper middle class consumers were waking up to the merits of imported cars, and it could have been a smart play. Also, unlike the Opels sold at Buick dealers, these cars were badged Mercury, so no one was left scratching their head over the name. Imagine if the Comet of the 1970s had been a Cortina instead of a Maverick…
Lastly, I’d argue that Mercury is still very much with us, at least in spirit. FoMoCo continues their strategy of targeting slightly more affluent customers by offering nicer Fords with different exterior styling and more posh interiors. The only difference is the brand name used to market these cars. Today they are simply known as Lincolns. The segment FoMoCo really gave up trying to reach was the luxury market…
You see to forget (the disaster) that was Merkur. The Sierra-based XR4ti hit the market right about the time the now U.S. built Capri was pulled for lack of sales. And then there was the Scorpio….a good car that had lackluster sales numbers.
I think one of the struggles with Merkur was the same thing that killed the Capri off in this market–unfavorable exchange rates ate the profits of the German-made Fords and it would have been very expensive to tool up plants over here (plus then you lose that made in Germany cachet.)
The exchange rates really were a huge issue for the 1970 imports from Germany. Basically killed the “real” Opel and the Capri for this market. Still, had they gone with my “Cortina Comet,” maybe FoMoCo would have had enough Mercury to make it worth their while to figure out a cost effective manufacturing strategy–something they weren’t willing to do just on Capri sales.
Yeah, Merkur was a bust–but I’d blame that on an idiotic name and some pretty radical styling on the XR4Ti. As you note, the Scorpio was a good car, and would have made an interesting Mercury.
What I was really envisioning though was in the early 1970s, for Mercury to be at the leading edge of the import trend. The Capri was selling around 100K units per year in ’72 and ’73, and a sedan and wagon could have really complemented that mix. The Cortina MKIII redesign even made it look like a small Mercury…
The original Capri did manage to take the title of second best selling imported car in it’s earliest year(s)? with the Beetle still at top with a commanding lead. IN retrospect they could have potentially capitalized on that better by adding another captive import.
It could have been the Ford import brand and there was a world of different Fords to choose from, some good some not so much but it would have made interesting showrooms.
Some very spot-on observations about this car and the Mercury brand.
FWIW, I actually have always found the ’96-’99 Sable to be the MORE attractive of the two, though that isn’t really saying much. The ’96s took jellybean styling to a whole new level, looking somewhat like a mashup between Chrysler’s LH sedans and the Infiniti J30. These cars always reminded me of something Mickey Mouse and friends would drive in a cartoon.
This Taurus/Sable story line is emblematic of each of the big three during the 70s–90s. They would have a success and then promptly ignore/forget it when the next product development cycle came around. We just read about how Ford painstakingly base-lined against the more expensive euro brands and used their engineering might to develop the 1st Gen Taurus which emulated those qualities (if not duplicated them) at middle-class price point. So why in the world would they come out with this 3rd gen TURD of a car?! Why could they not just baseline against the current euro cars and the CamCords and then put their own mark on it like they did in ’86?
Take the styling, for instance. The most successful Japanese and Euro models have nearly all followed a natural progression of styling changes over time. Most sedan buyers want something that looks modern but not outlandish. Ford totally jumped the shark on the styling of these third gen cars and then had to do the classic de-contenting of them to retain sales until they were just another boring, sub-standard us sedan.
Look at what Ford did with the current generation Focus–they obviously took a very long look at the competition and decided to build a world-beater of a car instead of just trying to figure out the minimum level of content, performance and quality that they could sell in large volume. I remember the way that I felt when I saw my Uncle’s new 1986 Taurus–it was exotic looking to my mid-western, 16y/o eyes! It was something that was special and obviously better and different than what we had been getting. Thankfully, it seems like they are back on that plan after some pretty dark years in the 1990s and early 2000’s.
The thing is, they actually did exactly what you suggest: They heavily heavily HEAVILY benchmarked the Camry, and later the Accord, during development. The development team’s mantra is literally “Beat Camry.” But they set out revolutionize the car market with the ’96 the way the ’86 did.
Ordinarily we as enthusiasts lament the influence of the “bean counters” in design and engineering. Let me say this in all caps so it comes through clearly: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE BEAN COUNTERS LET THE STYLISTS AND ENGINEERS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. The stylists wanted this controversial design, and they convinced the 12th Floor to let them have it. There were a lot of things the engineers wanted, and they got it. Third-Gen Taurus/Sable blew the development budget by a huge margin.
The cars themselves were actually pretty decent, and I still see a lot of these Taurus/Sable versions on the roads. Granted, most of them are probably equipped with the Vulcan at this point, since the Duratech shredded the spline gears in the transmission to pieces.
But the point stands: The stylists actually got pretty much everything they wanted. The team heavily benchmarked their Japanese competition. This is what came out of that.
I’m going to disagree with your disagreement here. This is certainly not a problem that would have been fixed by *less money*. If their budget had been slashed, you would have ended up with a car that might have been easier on the eyes, but dynamically would have sucked, and probably would have been a further rehash of the ’92-’95 generation. Old hat as soon as it hit the showrooms.
As you said yourself, the cars were good to excellent under the skin. The problem was a complete failure to accurately gauge what the market wants. I don’t think that has a lot to do with money one way or the other, unless they didn’t allocate enough share of the budget to market research (but it’s chancy anyway, and one of the best ways to build a bland, forgettable, boring car is Death By Focus Group.)
Let me be clear-I want suggesting they should have spent less. What I was pointing out is that the 3rd Taurus wasn’t bean-counted down, and the vision wasn’t watered down by committees or focus group. Nor was it forgotten by the company.
Absolutely Ford missed the mark on this one. That much is certain. But it’s not for being forgotten or lack of benchmarking or lack of money. They swung for the fences with the styling and missed, plain and simple.
I can’t say whether or not they did what you say they did, but the results didn’t look like they were trying to emulate other cars as they did with the original 1986 Taurus. At some point, the stylists won over the management to the new design language, clearly a huge misjudgement. Where do you see over-engineering in this car? These had a lot of feature content to match the competition, but it isn’t like they were bristling with cutting edge engineering features…
Bottom line seems to be that the styling killed these at a time when Japanese competition was very accurately targeting the same demographic.
Another factor was probably the explosion of the SUV boom and the unreal sales of the Ford Explorer. I wonder how many former sedan and wagon buyers left with an Explorer instead of a fish-face Taurus.
Setting stylists and engineers loose to come up with wild, advanced products isnt a bad thing inherently…but doing so on a bread and butter appliance grade midsize sedan is the absolute WORST place to do so. I disagree that the engineers went wild here, theres no new ground being broken….the hard bits are all pretty pedestrian all the way around. Its the styling that is kind of out there.
In retrospect, is it all THAT out of whack? During the ’90s some knuckleheads got the idea that a car shouldnt so much look like the machine that it is, but rather they were experimenting with some touchy-feely organic mantra that resulted in cars that looked like a dolphin fetus or some such. You could hardly find a hard edge on most vehicles during this time. It aged badly, looks very dated now…not that it was good back then. Ford was really on board with this back then. The contemporary Mustang and F series are hideous blobs.
Agreed. Ford’s styling was really out to lunch on a worldwide basis in those days. Maybe too much liquid lunch?
In Australia they gave us the hideous AU Falcon – and never really recovered. Europe got the monumentally-weird second-gen Scorpio. Viewed in this global context this Saurus/Table’s design language fitted right in. But also viewed globally, the style was a disaster and a return to design sanity couldn’t come quick enough.
I have to agree. I used to like the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable up to this generation, between 1996 and 1999. From this point on, things went south appearance-wise.
Yup Ford set out to beat the Camry as they were Jealous of the transaction prices Toyota was getting. Unfortunately at the same time Toyota wanted the Taurus’ sales crown. So while Ford added features and increased the price Toyota went the other way. Of course due to the styling a lot of customers didn’t have a chance to be scared away by the price as they were too scared to walk in the showroom.
Toyota was also dealing with the unfavorable exchange rates and the fact that the home market was sagging badly by the mid-nineties, both of which contributed to corner-cutting.
Ford waited untill this model Taurus to send in down under with the Sable front sheetmetal if they’d done it when they first threatened to shutter the Aussie operation in 88/89 it might have worked.
The Australian (I guess maybe also NZ) market “Taurus Ghia” used most of the Sable front end, minus the US turn signals (crammed much too close together), plus a new front bumper with compliant parking and turn signal lights. I think it looks better than the ’96 Taurus or Sable.
Why so many underdifferentiated Mercurys? One word: Dealers. Not only the industrywide phenomenon of one-make dealers all wanting to be in every segment but the fact that for instance in my town, for decades the L-M dealer was on the other side of town from, and had a much better reputation than, the big Ford dealer on the main auto row. People who bought small-to-midsize Mercs did so because the dealer offered a better experience and/or a more convenient location than Ford. It’s served them well in continuing as a used-car operation once Mercury went under.
+1
The Mercury dealer wanted to sell the Sable to the same people that the Ford dealer was trying to sell the Taurus to, so naturally each of them had to have a full range of models that would pretty much completely overlap. This is what killed Pontiac and Olds too–demand from dealers and stove-piped leadership in the various brands meant that they were fighting for the same turf. At the corporate level they could have fixed this, but I agree that the very powerful dealer network would not have bought into a plan that took Mercury out of Ford’s demographic.
Chicagoland L-M dealers peddled Mercurys as price leaders, to compete with cross the street Ford stores. Such as Topaz and Tracer. Sables/Marquis were sold as ‘Mercury for a Ford price’. But really, who were they kidding?
Older buyers of the 80s/90s still had notions of ‘Mercury is an upper level make’ from 50s-70s. But, the charade didn’t last.
Some complain that Ford Inc closed dealers, but then Ford needed to mortgage their whole footprint to stay in business. Making cars that are not profitable to Makers, but only to dealers from add ons, is no way to stay afloat.
The old tag line was “Mercury makes better cars… at the sign of the cat”, but at the same Ford plants!
I’ll always remember the Mercury salesman who sold my Mom her 97 Sable. She asked why she should pay more for a Sable than a Taurus, he took us out to the lot where they had the 2 side by side and just said, “look for yourself”. For that generation the Sable looked way better than the Taurus.
So Ford killed Mercury , ignored Lincoln , sold off Jag and Volvo ……. but is now thinking of creating a “Vignale” luxury brand in Europe ? …
Here’s something that bothered me about Mercury. Heated seats were completely unavailable on the Sable (1986 to 2005) and almost unheard of on the Mercury Grand Marquis. Meanwhile many LeSabres had heated seats and almost every Park Avenue I’ve seen above the level of the base model had heated seats.
It bothered me because it seemed a glaring omission for a vehicle with near luxury aspirations and an aging clientele who probably wanted heated seats for their aging bodies.
Good question. The majority of Marauders had them, so it wasn’t that they hadn’t engineered the system. One very much wonders why they weren’t standard on the LS trim level, as just about everything else was.
My impression from reading Mary Walton’s “Car” is that Sable was an afterthought during the development process for the third generation. I mean to say that as they were designing the Taurus, they’d design whatever thing they were designing that day for Taurus, then they’d think about how to tweak it to differentiate it enough to make it a Sable. That impression jives with my feelings on how the design and engineering teams worked while I was hanging around World Headquarters for eight years.
And it shows. Nothing on the Sable at this point was really so far away from the Taurus in the end, and the Mercury wasn’t so much its own thing as it is “alternate Taurus.”
When I was there, Ford seemed to work as a one-brand company that had to feed several mouths. They would design a Ford, then they would figure out how to swap out a couple bits or graft on a couple bits so they could call it a Mercury or a Lincoln. The first Milan was the only car that didn’t seem to be so cynically developed. That one felt as though Ford actually took the time to develop a proper Mercury. The interior was much nicer, with brushed aluminum trimwork and other niceties not available on the Ford at any price, and the exterior looked suitably different. The Mercury was a niche alternative for the style-conscious.
The worst one to me was the MKX/Edge. I was sitting in the auditorium of World Headquarters when they, in advance of whatever auto show, showed employees the second-generation Edge and MKX they were getting ready to reveal. When they pulled the covers, I couldn’t help but exclaim “Are you fucking kidding us? They’re the exact same car!” I got a sharp elbow from my “work wife” for that one to shut me up.
While I was there, they always talked about “differentiation,” and when Derrick Kuzak took over global design he gave a lot of lip service to making Lincoln really stand on its own. The thing was, all that talk was about being different *enough*. It wasn’t about being actually different. No one ever said that they had to really rethink Lincoln or that they needed to be designing Lincolns separately and apart from the Fords. It wasn’t until they created the “Lincoln Motor Company” right before I left that they even began to talk like they were going to design Lincolns separate and apart from the Fords.
And all that’s where this Sable went wrong, too. They were designing Taurus, and Taurus had GL, and LX (with G added mid-year to try and juice sales a bit). Because they weren’t designing a Mercury but rather designing a Ford and then swapping some bits, that meant Mercury had a GS and LS. Taurus got engine choices, so Mercury got engine choices. There was no brand management apparently happening for Mercury, just the corporate notion that they had to make a Mercury because they’ve always made Mercuries and hey, we can swap some bits around and it’ll be a Mercury.
None of what you say is surprising. During most of my life, Mercury’s slogan should have been “Hey, we give Lincoln dealers something that they can sell in volume.”
I really enjoy your comments, by the way. It is fascinating to hear from someone who had a view from the inside.
+1 on the comments comment.
Some very good observations. As to the decontenting, I don’t think it’s fair to lay it all off on underwhelming sales of the model. Fact is, FoMoCo started decontenting everything from top to bottom starting around 1996. Whichever Ford model you pick, there will be a year from 1996 to 1998 when the car got dumbed down and many nice little touches went away.
I think that the only car that can rival Mercury for rudderlessness is DeSoto. But with Mercury, there were no excuses because it had the advantage of having open a much wider part of the price spectrum that Chrysler filled with Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler. Every time someone spent money and differentiated Mercury, someone followed up by doing the opposite.
They put a fake temp gauge and it really bothered me. The models I am familiar with are those Thunderbird, Cougar and Mark VIII.
And for the ’98, the plastic engine bay cover was gone on Mark VIII also. It’s really too much decontenting on a car at the price. But it existed on many other Ford vehicles, as the ’11 Panther cars were horribly decontented. The leather on Town Car isn’t as nice as leather in a late ’90s Crown Vic, and badges on trunk were skipped, plastic trim on fenders were skipped on Crown Vic and many other more.
The Thunderbird/Cougar/Mark VIII temp gauge isn’t fake, nor is it in the Taurus/Sable. The gauge Ford faked in those years was oil pressure, which is quite literally an on/off switch.
On many of the Fords the actual gauge is not fake it is just tricked into having two readings, 0 or a fixed point depending on whether the oil pressure is below or above 7-8psi. This is done with a sender that works the opposite of the old idiot light models and a bias resistor usually on the flexible circuit or circuit board. So they can be made to function properly by putting a real sender in and a jumper around the bias resistor.
Chrysler has been at the fake temp gauge longer than anyone else. They started way back when they figured out that they could have the computer send a signal to the gauge based on the coolant temp sensor signal and eliminate the coolant temp sensor thus saving money. Once they did that they figured out that the response of the gauge no longer had to be linear nor represent what was going on. So on many of those there is a dead band where the reading won’t change over a significant range of actual engine temp, usually 20 degrees or more.
The reasoning behind both moves was that way too many people didn’t know what they should actually normally see. So in the case of the oil pressure people would freak out that the gauge would read lower idling with a hot engine than cruising down the street or before the oil is up to temp. For the fake temp gauges it is because some people freak out if the gauge goes up and down as the fan cycles when subject to extended idling or extreme stop and go driving. So make the gauge read the same for slightly above the fan on temp to slightly below the fan off temp if the vehicle is equipped with an electric fan. Both cases it was to stop the need for the nuisance “warranty concerns” and educating the customer about what is normal for a real gauge to read in different situations.
With just about everything now having CAN Bus architecture every gauge out there is suspect as to how it actually operates. Way to easy to manipulate the signal sent to the gauge to make it do what the engineers desire.
That’s pathetic.
Reminds me of a car I drove once(automatic trans). I don’t remember the model. The idle speed changed according to the MPH of the vehicle. I proved it by putting the car in neutral when I was doing 85 on the highway. As the car gradually slowed down, the RPMs gradually slowed down to match.
Another car I drove once (this one a stick) seemed to me it was automatically trying to match the engine revs for the next up shift. That was really annoying.
Mercury in general carries more refinement over the corresponding Ford. Even near the end of lifespan, Mercury Sable and Milan ( especially Premier ) were much more attractive than Taurus and Fusion, especially in terms of the interior. There were quite few well optioned Mercurys but the Fords barely existed. The difference grows more evident as the cars get older, for every well kept Ford LTD Crown Vic, there are several times more well kept Grand Marquis, and it remains the same from the ’80s models till the ’11.
That may be in small part to slightly better materials in the mid/upper range vs. the entry-level cars, but I think it also has a LOT to do with the buyers of those cars. Where I live, the grand marquis demo is retired people with some money. Cars owned by these people can make it through the first owner with very little wear and tear–low miles, garaged, tiptop maintenance, etc. The basic ford owned as a daily driver isn’t going to get that same treatment and so it won’t look anywhere near as nice after 10, 15 years.
Milan was just a different grille, they didn’t bother by then. And I agree that ‘loyal’ Merc buyers were older and kept cars better.
And no way was a Topaz “better built” than a Tempo. Many of 1992-94 Topazes had ‘Flying M’ badges missing from the fake lightbars, after 2-4 years.
+1000 yeah I wouldn’t count the Topaz or the Tracer. although, I found the 1987-89 Tracer based on the 323/Laser to be somewhat compelling. I think that car should have been a bigger success than it was. Many of them have outlasted similar year Escorts. I’ve seen a few still on the road over the years in southern CO. I haven’t seen a 1987-89 Escort in a long long time.
The Topaz was everywhere when I was a kid in the late 80’s/early 90’s. I remember thinking they were alright looking at the time. Like generic versions of the Taurus/Sable. It’s funny how time changes the economic status of a car. Any time I see a Topaz or Tempo nowadays, it’s usually beaten to hell and something of a mobile petri dish.
I can tell you some things about the 2001 Sable I’m driving now. It was low optioned car, with adjustable pedals but no Duratec. It also has drum brakes on the back, which is a bit of a waste. It’s given me nothing but problems, especially in the steering department. Same problems as my 1992 Taurus, but in a less nimble package. The 92 was terrific in snow. This is like an elephant on rollerskates, even with the really good tires I had installed.
The adjustable pedals on my 2002 have gone unadjustable. A gear in the pedal drive has stripped, but in an adjustment range that I don’t use. It is $400 in parts and a not-easy procedure to replace it, so I’ve set it where I want it and unplugged it.
The 2002 is less agile-feeling than the 1994 and also the 1992 that we used to own, and suffers even more by comparison with the Dodge Intrepid. It is as though Ford gave it a Big Car Feel, in the worse meaning of the concept. There is only so much a manufacturer can do when the chassis remains the same for 21 years, as Taurus/Sable did.
Comments here refer to Taurus and Sable interchangeably, as that is how we have seen the two, as twins.
I won’t even tell my friends the pedals are adjustable.
Another problem, the lights-on warning chime doesn’t work and neither does the dome light when you open the driver door. If I’ve read correctly, this is the GEM module, something I won’t be replacing. I may have someone jury-rig one of the add-on alarms.
If the lights on and the dome light doesn’t work when you open the passenger door then the far and away most likely issue is the door switch. The great news is that it is usually fixable with just WD-40 or something similar. The switch is attached to the latch inside the door. Open up the door and liberally spray the latch mechanism. Some times you’ll need to do that a couple of times a couple of days apart.
If it is the GEM module why spend more having it Jerry rigged that fixing it properly. Yes a GEM module is not cheap if you buy a new one but they are really cheap at the wrecking yard. Plus the wrecking yard one is already programmed if you pick the right car to pull it from. It is a 15-20 minute job to R&R it.
Another example of why this site is so great!
My wife bought a fully loaded 96 Sable LS lease return from a Ford dealer in 1999. She liked the colour and size of the car. Upon discovering the old insurance pink card in the glove box, I contacted the previous owners. The husband gave me the complete history and that sealed the deal because they had taken very good care of the car. Once summer came, I gave the Sable a complete detailing and it looked fabulous, including the chrome tailpipes and shiny wheels. I would always compare it to similar Taurus sedans whenever out and around. Clearly the Sable was much nicer in design.
The multi-valve Duratec engine never gave us serious trouble. A tensioner was replaced and years later I had to have a mechanic clean out debris between the radiator and AC condensor (?) when an overheating issue developed. Power wasn’t outstanding, but fuel economy was good around town and on the highway. Cruising at a 120 km/ph still gave us close to 30 mpg depending on whether we were loaded with gear or going against the wind. And what a comfortable highway car it was.
The Sable gave us good service for 10 years and that’s about when little things started wearing out like the centre console lid or the power antenna. So in late 2009 we sold the car for $1,000 to a young couple with small child who wanted a good used car for cheap. Before doing that I gave the Sable a good wash and for some reason took a picture of it. I suppose because it was one of the more enjoyable cars we have had in the family over the years.
I love that color. You took really good care of that car.
Thanks. For whatever reason my vehicles have to look good, even the beaters (within reason). While not as capable with wrenches as I’d like to be, I can certainly detail a car and enjoy doing so.
Summer is how many months away? Ugh.
“Sable … replaced by the smaller Milan …”
No, the Fusion/Milan are mid size cars.
Just because they are both in the mid size classification does not change the fact that the Taurble was bigger inside and out than the Fulan. At one point we had both a 2000 Taurus and 2010 Fusion.
This has always been my least favourite generation for the Mercury Sable/Ford Taurus. I’ve always found its appearance hideous, at best. Perhaps its best attribute was its interior. I like the way the dashboard looks. It’s better looking, (IMHO), than the exterior.
I had a ’96 Sable LS Wagon in college. Fantastic car.
Likes: Smooth DOHC Duratec V6, 4-wheel-disc brakes with ABS, comfortable leather seats with lots of leg room, great audio system, tons of space for beer and gear, great ride quality with decent handling (for a large family car)
Dislikes: AX4N Transmission
The premium for Mercuries over Fords was on paper only. My parents are relatively frugal people, but on the infrequent basis when they bought a car, it was often a new Mercury. Although it wasn’t a good sign for the health of Ford’s ailing luxury division, I’m pretty sure the incentives and rebates made the Mercury more affordable fthan the Ford counterparts.
Where you came out ahead with the Mercury was the packaging of the options/trim levels if and only if you wanted all or most of the bells and whistles. As far as the incentives go from the mfg they were usually the same on comparable Ford and Mercury models but if they were different they were usually lower for the Mercury. When we bought our Mountaineer the Explorer had a $500 larger rebate but that didn’t make up for the price difference when equipped as desired. Some of that was due to the Aviator sitting next to the Mountaineer in the showroom. That capped the price of the Mercury to stay at/under the starting price of the Lincoln at least until they added tire pressure sensors to the options list and then you could pay $195 more for the top Mountaineer vs the base Aviator. Meanwhile an Explorer equipped the same as the Merc was ~$3000 more. Doesn’t do a lot for the profit margins on the Mercury brand balance sheet.
The CC Effect strikes again- Saw a pre-facelift 3rd gen Sable in downtown Chicago today. Not only that, but it was a wagon in almost showroom shape, at least from the outside. Here, the remaining Taurii/Sables from that generation are almost always one step from the junkyard, with bumpers held on with duct tape and lots of body damage or missing trim. If you even see them- they’re few and far between these days. And the first/second gen haven’t been around in ages; I assume they’ve all thrown a rod or rusted out by now.
I have to admit, I wasn’t a big fan of these when they came out, but the design has aged well in my opinion. The wagon is really striking when compared to all the tall, chunky SUVs and crossovers that roam the streets these days.
‘Alternate Taurus’ was probably the best description for these. Preference would be litterally down to the details, these just looked less ‘fishy’ than the Fords. But in the end, these are just as white bread as any other midsize sedan. They make good, reliable used cars with the Vulcan, but theyre about as exciting as well….white bread.
The comments on Mercury and its apparent lack of direction kind of reminds me of that song ‘Crazy bout a Mercury’ which came out sometime in the ’90s by some country singer. Naturally, in the video he was driving a ’49 lead sled. Thats a sad commentary when the last time one of your cars was worth writing a song about, you literally have to reach back several DECADES to find it!
That song dates back a piece too. I think the version you’re referring to *might* have been Alan Jackson? But the more famous version was done back in the 70’s by the Steve Miller Band, which was itself a cover/rework of the original, written in 1948 by bluesman K. C. Douglas.
It was highly out of sync with Mercury’s actual lineup in ’93, of which the only semi-noteworthy car was the Cougar XR7.
As usual, I’m late to the party, but here goes anyway. I think we’re overthinking the failure of not just Mercury, but also Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Plymouth. And really, Buick and GMC should be here also, except China supports Buick, and the Buick dealers “need” a truck line to sell alongside cars. Anyway, product strategies aside, the market was just too competitive to support these numerous nameplates. Lincoln, Cadillac (except the Escalade), and Acura can’t figure out who they want to be in this market, instead of focusing on being appealing. To me, having an Escalade in your garage is like hanging a velvet Elvis in your living room; but they do appeal to some, which is what a car needs to do to survive. And Scion?????
I enjoy looking back at these orphaned brands, but their day has passed. There were just too many manufacturer nameplates and too little market for the orphans to have survived. Automotive Darwinism lives.
I agree. Buick should be here, along with just about every other American make of cars, including GM. Of all the countries to support Buick, why the hell China? I’ve never understood that. What does China want with Buick?
Buick has historical ties in China. Back before China became communist and they closed their borders, Buicks were sold in China and were quite popular. I believe they even had a factory there assembling Buicks from knock-down kits.
Ah-ha! Ok. I reckon that makes sense. As an American company, I believe that Buick should be on the “Orphan car” list, along with the likes of Chevrolet (cars).
Chinese have good memories of Buicks from the pre Communist days. But also, they are not seen as ‘old lady cars’. Look it up.
Interestingly this is the model that landed down under a Taurus with the Sable front, it never really stood a chance with that styling it was so far removed from the then current trends it begs the question, why did they bother? Wrong car wrong place wrong in every major department for the market, Ford must have observed the Camrys sales success and figured their FWD car would be fine, they perhaps didnt realise that Toyota tuned their Camry specifically for each market, Kiwi CamCams have a much faster rack and stiffer shock setup than Australian cars which are mid range while Japanese models have the same mush setting as US models, Two years of on the road development paid off handsomely for Toyota, Ford didnt bother.
the trials and tribulations of mercury are interesting to me because Dad worked in the
body shop of the Hazelwood MO plant for 30 years By the way Mopar Rocker
that song was ”mercury blues” by the Steve Miller Band!
I put the decline of Mercury, and a lot of other big three brands, at 1960, and the break down of Sloanism.
The first compacts came out, and the mid market brand dealers no doubt cried ‘we want one too, we don’t want to turn compact buyers away so they go to the Chevy store down the street”
So the midmarket brands got their compacts: F-85, Tempest, Comet, a bit larger and nicer than the Ford and Chevy compacts. Then the Ford and Chevy dealers probably cried “we want that larger compact too, we don’t want to send a customer to the sister brand because we don’t have a car like the Comet”
So the cheap brands got the Fairlane and Chevelle.
Then the beancounters stepped in “if we are making cars about the same size for each brand, then they should all *be* the same car, because it would be cheaper”
So we get Mavericks with Comet badges, Granadas with Monarch badges. At GM “X” was the answer for every division except Cadillac, and they resolved that omission with the J body.
So at the end of the day, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Mercury were all answers to questions no one was asking.
To me, the front end styling on these had a Citroën DS vibe to them which I thought was very daring for Mercury. It turns out that it was way too daring for Mercury.
I always enjoyed the styling of these cars, particularly from the rear. Some of you say “alternate Taurus” like it’s a bad thing. I’ve always appreciated the more distinct and lesser seen styling of the mid-line brands, and felt that Chevy and Ford are just too common. Coming from an all GM family where my grandfather was a GM employee, Ford was a bit of a bad word. Mercury (or Lincoln), however was safe. I would still consider a Lincoln, and in fact the upcoming Continental will get some serious attention when it comes time to replace my current Buick Lacrosse.
I liked the ’96 Sable when it came out, even as a teenager. It looked futuristic to me, and far more advanced than what GM had to offer as a mid-size at the time (the prehistoric A-body Century and Ciera were still around back then). I did end up with a ’96 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme (coupe) as my first car, but in reality it was nothing more than an alternate Monte Carlo (or Regal or Grand Prix). I actually liked the brand engineering better than when they tried to differentiate car lines. I never traded up to an Intrigue, because while I could live with a sedan, I vastly preferred a column shift/bench seat up front. Even though I loved the styling of the Intrigue, Oldsmobile was targeting an import oriented buyer instead of offering an alternate Lumina, and chose to emphasize that by making it bucket seat only. Anyway, speaking of bench seats and back to the topic at hand, I found it weird that Ford actually spent the money and designed two different dash setups, but instead of a unique design for the Sable, they used one for the buckets with console shifter, and the other for the bench seat (and later some stripper models that had a column shift with buckets) interchangeably between the Taurus and Sable.
I never cared for the Taurus sedan of this generation, it was trying too hard to be different, making everything possible into an oval and failing miserably, and both wagons were homely, but this Sable sedan still catches my eye when I see one on the road. The Taurus (sedan) was much improved in the looks department for 2000, but the Sable fell off my radar at that time. Lastly, with the attempts to be as different as possible, don’t forget about the teal and purple interior colors they offered.
Bought a 96 Taurus….mostly an impulse buy…..likes, comfortable seats, drove well first few months. Dislikes…transmission…and it cost a lot to repair, then it failed again. Traded for a new Hyundai.(no issues).
This particular Taurus is the final Ford our family will EVER own…the car bled our family money in short order, and many calls to the manufacturer just kept letting us down with no help whatsoever. We owned an 85 merq marquis that just plain worked. (Like our Hyundais)…One would think that after building cars for so long, anything else that comes out of the company would only be improvements, not let downs. Such was our experience with Ford. NEVER AGAIN will we send them our hard earned dollars!
The last domestic I have had to date was the ’97 Taurus GL. You could appreciate it from driving it, but the looks were always polarizing. I thought the Sable was the more attractive of the two, but hey in the used car world, sometimes you get what you get. The car was thoughtfully designed, that is for sure, but in many ways the final execution was kind of hit or miss, and while I did enjoy the car overall, I think the reason I haven’t come back from Toyota since is remembering some of the strange annoyances I had with this car.
Ford made such a big deal I remember about these cars having a split folding rear seat in 1996, for example, as if it was some kind of brand new feature, but even cars like the economy minded 1984 Corolla offered this. And frankly, it wasn’t all that useful as I recall, because the bar that the seat backs sat on was not recessed into the lower parts of the seat area, or better yet, using a proper latch/hinge mechanism that eliminated the bar, as it protruded into the cargo area and you would always have to lift things over it instead of being able to just slide them with ease, as with the Camry. That bar would sometimes dent and leave imprints in one’s cargo. There was also excessive exposed sheet metal behind the seat backs and the cheap plastic covering often broke and was a waste of time to replace, so if you had to have the seat back down in the sedan, you were treated to lovely exposed sheet metal around the opening to the trunk in the interior of your supposedly “premium” car.
I also did not care for the “flip-fold” console of gen 3 at all. Could not use the power outlet/cigarette lighter if the console was folded out. The cheap plastic door was prone to breakage and falling off, being that it was held in with cheap plastic pegs and springs, the pegs would break after not too often and after getting the parts to repair it at least 3 times, I gave up on it.
The front door panels were not well fastened to the doors. Only one or two screws and the rest was the typical and infernal Ford fasteners with the recess in the head of the fastener which is supposed to hook into the inside of a retainer inside the panel and the male part of the fastener into holes in the sheetmetal. Replaced, and repaired these countless times as well. I didn’t think that I was hard on my door panel or anything, it was just cheaply and poorly fastened to the door.
Dash separates on virtually all of these and you are treated to exposed black plastic. I did use gorilla glue and a c-clamp one afternoon to repair mine, but it’s tacky when left unrepaired and very common.
Integrated control panel with cassette/radio/hvac controls is just a pain in the rear. The aftermarket adapter kits look ridiculously cheap. Not a great car for someone who enjoys quality audio but doesn’t want their car to look like a fisher price nightmare. Options in this arena are limited.
Lots of visual stuff going on, but basically the same 1986 underpinnings as far as 3.0 Vulcan goes. Nothing cutting edge in terms of tech. Miserable acceleration. Heavy as crap.
There were good points to the car however. Fairly reliable, not stellar but never left me stranded. Did require a transmission replacement at 120k as I recall. Roomy interior, decent upholstery in Gen 3, not like the cheap crap Ford supplied for Gen 4. 1997 still offered the floor well lamps, and most courtesy lamps, some light de-contenting at that point. Overall a decent effort from Ford, that lasted us a long time. The reliability was about what one would expect, but I was disappointed in the overall fit and finish of the vessel itself. I also realized how bad of a ruster a Taurus can be. The exterior looked alright overall, but underneath was a rust nightmare and after the transmission was replaced we had to have the sub frame spot welded on, so if the car had a trans problem again, it was doomed, which is exactly what happened.
A somewhat sad chapter in the Taurus/Sable chronicle. I really loved Gen 1 and 2 and to this day I guess I really still do. There was just something honest, yet attractive about them. And even the bare bones 1992 Taurus L model was a decent car to drive for the times back then, and looked decent to boot. It was somewhat apparent to me then, even as a kid, and even more apparent to me now how much Ford botched a major success with this Gen. I think a big part of where they went wrong was also with not just discontinuing the Tempo/Topaz without a replacement. I think in a lot of ways, Ford could have invested that capital in just really honing the Taurus and the Escort/Focus. They would have had their Camry/Corolla competition. I never got the reason for the 4th barely Midsize/Not quite compact sedan with Ford in those years.
I think Ford could have come much better than they did back in ’96. I think the styling overall was just too radical. Everything else was somewhat tolerable. If anything, they were one of the last car lines to offer some interesting color choices in terms of interior colors. Look up “Rose Mist interior”. They exist. Just like the “Evergreen” interiors of the late 1994-95 Tauri and Sables.
Gen 1 and 2 are cars for which I always have a soft spot. Many happy memories with them, had one as my first car. They were cheerful and pleasant in terms of their design and I enjoyed seeing them, in spite of them being everywhere and just as beige as any Camry back in the 90’s. Gen 3 was some kind of effort but in many ways, represents the end of an era for Ford in my eyes. the late 80’s up until around 1995 was one of my favorite periods of Ford design. I haven’t really felt the same about Ford since then. They have just become a Truck company in my eyes, but there was a time when they were my favorite domestic brand. They have had decent stuff here and there, but it seems as far as the cars go, Ford lost their way in the 90’s when they got drunk on SUV profits.
> Has there ever been an American brand as enduringly ill-defined as Mercury?
Chrysler’s Eagle division, what did they stand for? Apparently, a hodgepodge of AMC, Renault, Mitsubishi, and Chrysler designs that were either poor sellers or available elsewhere under better-known brands. (See also: Geo, Scion.)
Has there ever been an American brand as enduringly ill-defined as Mercury?
Truthfully spinning off what la673 said for Eagle, I’d say the Chrysler brand itself, it largely has the same undefinable image Mercury did in not being fully premium but trying to span a wide swath of the mid priced field with a primarily luxury focused image. I think Chrysler skates from criticism Mercury gets by #1 its name and organic history, #2 cars like the 300 letter series, #3 holding out through a chunk of the malaise era for better or worse building only large full sizers and the still pretty large Cordoba, and #4 just barely surviving to today gives the brand some benefit of the doubt, but if Chrysler brand was dropped ten years ago we’d be discussing it much the way we do with Mercury I suspect.
Where Mercury falters is there is no legacy to the name, it’s just a random name concocted to fill a market void, not named after the company founder(Plymouth had this problem though), and Mercury having a full model range with a sizable portion of models being badge engineered undermined their well executed ones. The original 86 Sable was actually a remarkably distinguished car from the Taurus, but then there was the Lynx next to it that looked exactly like the Escort inside and out, and there hasn’t been a single year since the 50s that hadn’t been the case. Be it the original Comet, Cougar, a few versions of the full sizers, their success that could have given Mercury a real identity was always undermined by another model. Even these third generation Sables frankly. No I don’t find them attractive either, but there are enough distinctive aspects to it where I do find it a distinctive model from the Taurus (it largely mimicks the Lincoln Mark VIII)…. But then there’s the Mistique and Tracer in the background to remind you, “oh yeah, it’s a Ford”.
Mercury’s best hits didn’t need to fool anybody that they weren’t warmed over Ford’s, the original (60-65) Comet was clearly Falcon derived, the Cougar was obviously Mustang or Thunderbird derived, and the Sable was obviously Taurus derived, and that was ok. You’d buy those cars because you wanted those cars, not because the LM dealer was having better rebates or was simply more conveniently located than the Ford dealer that sold one of the identical models. The brilliance of Pontiac in the 60s was that they offered almost all Chevy offered, with clearly similar bodies but the styling just had their own distinctive appeal.
Mercury was probably the biggest missed opportunity in automotive history. No one was “Mr. Mercury.” They needed better brand managers and if they would have had “skin in the game” that would have been better still. To few “car guys” out there anymore. Mercury suffered from this even in the 50’s. Too bad, they built some great cars despite this.
I absolutely agree, it was largely a squandered opportunity in many ways. Mercury needed a champion within FoMoCo, someone with the clout to force action, besides different rear windows and grilles.
I’ve had several Mercury cars, several I really miss.
I realize that there’s not much of a place for it now.
Although, would such a cheerleader necessarily have resulted in a significantly different/better car? Consider the first-generation Sable: no body panels in common with the Taurus, so massive extra cost and effort, resulting in a car almost nobody saw or considered as significantly different to the Taurus.
I also believe that Ford confused the buying public with its Merkur brand. Obviously a takeoff on the Mercury name, it distracted potential buyers with a “Wait a minute moment,” what happened to Mercury? Oh I see, it’s a Merkur with smaller, sportier, newly designed cars eh? Not the recycled Taurus but something else? Then why do they still keep Mercury?
Perhaps Merkurting execs thought they could steal away sales from Mercury. Maybe Ford had an end game in mind. Maybe Ford thought they could harvest cash from Mercury Sables that were really just dolled up Tauruses. I think they maybe were trying to play GM corporate ladder a bit, and convince people to up their status with a Mercury instead of a plain old Ford. Like a Pontiac instead of a Chevy. But the distraction of Merkur added to the confusion at this time.
At least they didn’t bring back Meteor as well.
What does Merkur have to do with the 1996 Sable? The brand was long gone, a failed experiment to sell European Fords here. Merkur is German for Mercury. I dont think people got confused between a $9000 Topaz and a $13k XR4Ti. They were clearly far different cars. It could’ve been handled better in hindsight.
[Baiting and personal attack removed—we don’t do that here.]
We like Ford and we liked the option of getting a Mercury. We did consider Mercury a step up over Ford, but also realized that a Mercury was 99% a Ford. We always saw them as nicer, and expected more from them.
I know that it was entirely a personal choice, yet it was one we liked making. The Lincoln/Mercury dealers were usually a bit nicer than the high volume Ford dealers.
Ford was Wamart, and Mercury was Target.
Exactly. A real unsung trait of American midpriced brands was making a corporate car a little more interesting to the right buyer. How many cars on sale today more than ever do you see and think “wow, I really like that new model, but that front end is just so goofy!”? Very often Mercury, Pontiac, or Dodge would remedy designs like that with their own twist over the Ford’s, Chevys and Plymouths, or make something simply more unique that would get the right buyers over the edge and put their money down on. Trim levels like Titanium aren’t a substitute.
I know full well that that model is a relic and isn’t profitable or sustainable in today’s market so I don’t need a lecture that I understand business or the “needs” (rolling my eyes all the way around my eye sockets) of modern buyers, I know, but it was nice to see a different take on a design, especially as design cycles continue to get longer, and I think a lot more regular car buyers feel that way than they even know. The Bronco Sport is a perfect example, as it for all intents and purposes is a boxy Escape, a companion model like that is awfully similar to a well differentiated Mercury, only without the baggage of a separate brand and dealer body.
Agree on all counts. Consider also: when automakers have put different sheetmetal and a different interior on a given platform, there’s often griping about how they’re somehow trying to fool or cheat buyers. Hey, no fair! The Acclaim isn’t new, it’s a K-car underneath! Shenanigans! They did that to save money! (Um…yeah, so? Does the car find appreciative buyers?)
My mother liked the 1996 Taurus, hated the oval rear window. So, she bought a Sable and had it for many years. She then went to a Grand Marquis, hated it, went to a 2012 Taurus SEL and refuses to give it up.
It did give people a choice. As far as GM, always preferred the Olds, Pontiac or GMC to the Chevy (although I ended up with a Chevy truck, not another GMC). With Ford, I almost always prefer the Ford version, sometimes I liked the Mercury more. I loved her Sable, I drove it in high school because my crappy Toyota didnt run half the time. However, my favorite generation is the second, and i prefer the Ford. Thus I own a 1995 Taurus and love it.
The ’96 Sable was an odd duck- from every angle. The 2000 was a vast improvement with a more normal and squared off front clip. Ditto the rear. This design should have been used for the ’96. The ovoid look on the ’96 Taurus worked better IMO. The only- and fatal- flaw was the oval back window. It looked like my grandmother’s dresser mirror laid on its side. Also, every last thing didn’t need to be ovoid. At some point it became a gimmick and probably turned off a lot of import buyers.
Consider the $$$ spent on the development of Continental Mark II, Edsel, Taurus and the later purchase of several European brands. Many dead ends. Mercury instead could have been both a tarted up Ford and a junior Lincoln. Could have effectively competed with Mercedes and BMW with Mercury if they had incorporated these plans in development. The 1962 Meteor is an example. My uncle Istvan Could have been a competitor to the Euro cars. Instead, they gave it a very bland look, limited power and a steering wheel that looks like it came off a Falcon. Even after giving Ford first dibs on the halo stuff and development, Mercury should have at least gotten better access to the Lincoln and Continental parts bin. Was Mercury never an afterthought?
I prefer any older vehicle. The Sable, is a fantastic vehicle. The modern vehicle is just a cash grab. Muscle car’s are superb.