More Ford news. Job cuts and end of Ford GT. Update: End of Ford Taurus

[3-Wheel Drive]

I'm glad they've gotten rid of the Taurus. I say good riddance, it was a heaping pile of crap. And I seriously do not think anyone else who has driven it can argue against that. The car had no redeeming vaules. Its exterior was bland, as was its interior, and in 21 years Ford gave it 3 major updates (and the third was nothing more than new head/taillights). The seats offer about as much support as a garbage back half filled with wet sand. The steering is numb, and it rides like the shocks are filled with jello. The power and braking are a complete joke:
My 10 year old Rodeo's four-banger almost makes as much power as the 2005 Taurus's V6. Acceleration is IMO, comparible.
My Rodeo weighs 1200lbs more than the Taurus, and has only 2 disc brakes (Taurus has 4). Yet, from what I have driven of the Ford, I'd say its braking capability is only marginally better than the Isuzu. And I don't even have ABS.

Farewell Taurus, you will not be missed.


*Do bear in mind that my car/Taurus comparsion is in no way scientific, and other than power/weight/brake type, the figures are probably not accurate at all. HOWEVER, it is an accurate representaion of the feel I got from the vehicle in question, and IMHO, how well a car appears to handle is just as important as the hard, factual number. After all, what good is 150HP if it only feels like 90? A 90HP engine that feels like 150 is much more satisfying.*

 

[YSSMAN]

What always confuses me is the fact we had the Mondeo before (well, sort of, as the Contour). Have North America's tastes really started to mirror the Europeans so much more in the past 10 years that it now makes sense?

I was under the impression the Contour was discontinued because of a lack of purpose. Back then, people had the small car (Escort) and large car (Taurus), and with the amount of space between those, in size, prize, and power, Ford couldn't justify the Contour. I like to think that's the reason why the Altima was suddenly bumped up a class; there wasn't anything there. Of course, now it's a lot closer to the Maxima, but that's another matter entirely.

Basically, I wonder if value-minded North American folks would really want a Mondeo.

I think your views there are indeed well founded as the previous Mondeo sold in North America (left our shores in 2000/2001) was caught between models that really pressed it into a spot it didn't need to be. You could pretty much spend a bit more money and get a penny-per-dollar Taurus, or save some money and get a Escort (later Focus) that was nearly as good.

Today's Mondeo is larger and better built, and IMO a far better option than the Mazda6-based Fusion. The looks are awesome, particularly with the next-gen model, and would indeed be an interesting addition to the North American lineup.

Don't get me wrong, the Fusion is a pretty good car. But "pretty good" doesn't win over sales from the competition, and that is part of the reason why the Fusion will never replace the success that the Taurus was.

 

[huntervf]

I'm glad they've gotten rid of the Taurus. I say good riddance, it was a heaping pile of crap. And I seriously do not think anyone else who has driven it can argue against that. The car had no redeeming vaules. Its exterior was bland, as was its interior, and in 21 years Ford gave it 3 major updates (and the third was nothing more than new head/taillights). The seats offer about as much support as a garbage back half filled with wet sand. The steering is numb, and it rides like the shocks are filled with jello. The power and braking are a complete joke:
My 10 year old Rodeo's four-banger almost makes as much power as the 2005 Taurus's V6. Acceleration is IMO, comparible.
My Rodeo weighs 1200lbs more than the Taurus, and has only 2 disc brakes (Taurus has 4). Yet, from what I have driven of the Ford, I'd say its braking capability is only marginally better than the Isuzu. And I don't even have ABS.

Farewell Taurus, you will not be missed.


*Do bear in mind that my car/Taurus comparsion is in no way scientific, and other than power/weight/brake type, the figures are probably not accurate at all. HOWEVER, it is an accurate representaion of the feel I got from the vehicle in question, and IMHO, how well a car appears to handle is just as important as the hard, factual number. After all, what good is 150HP if it only feels like 90? A 90HP engine that feels like 150 is much more satisfying.*

You never drove a Taurus SHO One blast around a road course in an original 89 would change your view of this car forever.

When the Taurus came out in 1985 (as an 86 model) it turned the whole auto industry on its head. Round, futuristic styling, taut but compliant suspension, good power and good fuel economy gave this car an edge over everything else on the market, and it took the auto industry many years to catch up.

When the SHO model debuted in 1989, only the BMW M5 was faster, and a VERY strong argument can be made for the 89 Taurus SHO being the reason why we see so many sport sedans today. Only in the last 2-3 years did we start seeing comparable FWD sedans that surpassed the SHO's performance... the car was WAY ahead of it's time. It had aggressively bolstered leather seats, a 5-speed manual transmission and a sport-tuned suspension that gave the car very predictable handling, with lift-throttle oversteer a prevailing characteristic.

With the mild redesign in 1992 the Taurus became the best selling car in America, and it held that title for the next few years. Engine options were a 150hp 3.0 V6, a 150hp 3.8 V6 and the 220hp 3.0/3.2 DOHC SHO V6.

1996 is where things turn for the worse. Ford decided to gamble once again and debuted a whole new Taurus... the "oval" car as some call it. The 86 Taurus was a gamble that paid off, but this time the magic didn't happen, and the Taurus would never recover. Styling wasn't a hit despite a better build quality, and the public responded. The base engine was still the 3.0 150hp V6, but the new 3.0 DOHC duratec with 200 horsepower kept the Taurus on par or ahead of ALL the other sedans in its segment. The SHO model "matured" to a 3.4 V8 of 235 horsepower and while the performance wasn't quite the same as the V6 cars, the refinement was night and day, and it would still do 145.

But the public didn't buy into the oval styling, and that coupled with an expensive camshaft problem on the SHO models really turned people away from the car. By the time the next redesign came about in 2000 the damage was already done, and I think Ford knew it. I'm convinced that, if the 2000 design has come about in 1996, the Taurus would've stayed at the top of the pack. Why? Because it was in fact a very reliable, very functional car. Being in the Taurus community for about 13 years now I can list hundreds of owners who've hit the 150,000 mile mark with few issues. The V6 SHOs are even more amazing, 200k isn't uncommon, and I know a few people with over 300,000 miles on their cars with nothing but regular maintenance, and they still run strong.

Also, the lagging sales of the 96-99 Taurus's led Ford to push them onto the rental fleets, thus making them a dime a dozen. And the rental fleets got the entry level 150hp V6, which while good in 1986, was definitely inadequate in 2000. Sadly, most people who've never owned a Taurus are handicapped by this perception because it's the only experience they've had. The truth is, the SHO models and the duratec models were very impressive cars to drive, and they were very reliable cars as well, provided you took care of them, which can be said for any car out there.

Yes, the Taurus will be missed by a good many. And as a Taurus owner, I certainly can argue against the statement that these cars are crap. Go find a duratec-powered Taurus, or better yet, a V6 powered SHO. You wouldn't believe it was the same car.

As for Ford in general, pay attention in the next few years. You're going to see a return to some automotive excitement, in more ways than one

 

[a6m5]

SHO was very cool, but I don't think that automatically equals to Taurus being a great car. You put a high revving Yamaha motor and a stickshift in any midsize sedan, I'm sure it'll become interesting.

I think Taurus would've been missed by many, if Ford actually cared to update the model late in its' life. But because of how they turned this once an elite midsize sedan into one of the most boring and outdated fleet, rental-mobile, many people, including many Ford fans, were glad to see Taurus go.

Very sad. I'm guessing that Ford was thinking either: 1) They couldn't afford to completely redesign the car or 2) It's not worth the investment and should just pour little money into the car for some minor changes.

And either way, they were wrong. If they actually bothered to put the money and effort into redesigning the Taurus, I don't think Ford Motor Company would've been in the financial trouble they are in today. Perhaps they got blinded by the temporary success of their trucks and SUVs, leading them to neglect their midsize sedan segment.

 

[YSSMAN]

...And that is the problem that many of the American automakers have begun to face. Without significantly updating their automobiles every few years like their Japanese rivals, they lose out on sales based on quality and driveability, and it only makes those pocket books in Japan thicker. Ford did a helluva lot less than GM when it came to their midsize sedans, really only updating it twice in terms of what lied beneath, only changing the exterior every once in a great while.

The good news is that Ford's Taurus replacement, the Fusion, is doing impeccably well here based on Consumer Reports decision guides. Quality is up, and the media certainly has noticed. Same goes for it's sister car, the Mercury Milan, and the Lincoln MKZ (Zephyr) actually a tiny step behind the "standard of quality" Lexus ES350. Of course quibble with Consumer Reports as much as you want (I know I do, a lot...), people listen to it. News like this is particularly good for Ford, who is working hard to prove that it can be the lean/mean company it once was.

...I still say they need to re-work their business model, but of everything they have on sale, the Fusion and the Edge are easily the best products in their lineup outside of the Mustang, and that is good news indeed...

 

[Tornado]

News like this is particularly good for Ford, who is working hard to prove that it can be the lean/mean company it once was.

The main problem now is, however, that of the three tiered model range to replace the Taurus, Ford only seems to care about 2 of them (Fusion and 500), leaving the Freestyle to languish. Not helping the fact is that the 500 is more-or-less mediocre.
They still suffer from shades of piss-poor management (the handling of the restyling of the Navigator, for example), though I still stand by the assertion that leaving the Euro-Focus in Europe was pobably the way to go.

 

[YSSMAN]

The Focus is a mixed bag. The car needs a complete overhaul, and I doubt the price and size increase would have been criticized that much if Ford could have made up for it with the Fiesta or something else. They have the means, and I know they can do it cheap (see Mazda 3), but the reluctance to even think about it is a sign that Ford doesn't necessarily know what it is doing...

Mr. Boeing could fix it, but I doubt he will.

 

[harrytuttle]

...And that is the problem that many of the American automakers have begun to face. Without significantly updating their automobiles every few years like their Japanese rivals, they lose out on sales based on quality and driveability, and it only makes those pocket books in Japan thicker. Ford did a helluva lot less than GM when it came to their midsize sedans, really only updating it twice in terms of what lied beneath, only changing the exterior every once in a great while.

Short. Term. Thinking. It's both disastrous and thoroughly American. The Japanese figured it out decades ago, and it shows. Heck, even Germany's getting the hang of it. "It takes money to make money."

 

[Tornado]

They have the means, and I know they can do it cheap (see Mazda 3), but the reluctance to even think about it is a sign that Ford doesn't necessarily know what it is doing...

I disagree. Ford knows prefectly well what they are doing. They've learned that particular lesson 5 times in 25 years, and I don't see it as unreasonable that they don't want to suffer the consequences of the action again.

 

[a6m5]

I think that Ford kind of knows what it has to do, but often, at least in the recent history, just couldn't afford to. That story we hear about how Detroit cars have additional cost of like thousand or more, because of the union(👎 👎 👎 ), I think that plays a role here. I've always wondered why American companies were so stingy on model changes, I think that is why.

On Focus, I don't see how the new, bit more costlier European Focus is a bad thing. They had to replace that car, like a year or two ago. We should just call this car a Baby Taurus or something, because so far, Ford is giving this car EXACTLY the same treatment they had given the Taurus. If Bill Ford was still in charge, we'd probably seen another cosmetic update for the Focus instead of a whole new model.

On the new crossover SUV, Edge, I haven't heard anything good about it yet. I hope it doesn't turn into another Focus, which had serious recall issues early in its' life.

 

[YSSMAN]

...I've heard quite a bit good press over the Edge, the new Car and Driver review was pretty forgiving. Weight problems seem to be the issue, but it drives great, and will satisfy most people looking for that middle-ground between a Freestyle and an Explorer. The Mazda C-7 certainly is like a gazillion times better IMO, but I think the Edge would be something good if I wasn't looking to have something that put "sport" in "sport utility vehicle."

Of course, that doesn't save it from the fact that GM has three excellent crossovers coming out between now and the spring... The Saturn Outlook (my favorite), the GMC Acadia, and the Buick Enclave.