630land Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 In the 80's and until 92, Camry and Accord were classed as 'compacts'. They were the size of today's Corolla and Civic. Taurus was mainly gunning for GM, and former full sized car buyers. Also, the Panther cars and trucks back then brought in $$$, along with Taurus, for recovery. Taurus alone didn't help. Bigger and more profitable vehciles helped a lot, but then Ford managers got hooked on SUV 'heroin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Wow thats fucking ugly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Wow thats fucking ugly! Starship enterprise called...they want their control panels back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Starship enterprise called...they want their control panels back. Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not an automotive interior stylist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 The Escort was #1 car from 1982 to about 87. I dont have the facts, but most of the 80's was #1. Escort made the Chevette look like an East German car. The Taurus was an answer to GM and Mopars big push into FWD. But also, to show Baby Boomers, who were under 40 then, that there was "an American car for them". There were lots of GM/Chevy fans who right away said "its hideous", but reality it was a sucess. Boxy GM cars looked ancient. Also, if Ford buyers wanted boxy, the LTD Crown Vic was still around til the 92 re-do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I have a challenge here for you posters. If you look back at the history of the Taurus and try without personal bias and 'war stories' (eg. my Taurus had 30 zillion miles...etc.) explain how the Taurus was all that. I can understand the competion at the time from the other Big 2 it was arguably better. The imports had yet to be proven but were offering more up to date technology but pricing and reliablity was yet to be proven. Can we draw any lessons learned to where we are today? I agree the devlopment team was a new and successful approach. Yet, was the car itself really all that? Cheers, Hugh Yes it was. The actual content in the vehicle was not new (most of it) but putting it all in one package was what made it the success it was. The Taurus brought a lot to the table. EFI and SEFI standard (at a time when the Japs were still using carbs) the first FWD that did not handle like ass. It far out classed any thing else of the era in the FWD market. The Fit and finish and materials used were years ahead of any one else in the segment. The interior was an ergonomic master piece. Hell the First gen units are still better than some of the stuff being built today. The green house enabled a drivers view almost devoid of blind spots. (a thing the auto rags harped on in the day). It was designed for mass production with minimal parts. (if I recall correctly, it had some thing like 15-20% fewer individual parts than equivalent cars of the day) It had class leading fuel economy. Still to this day one of the most comfortable seats ever put in any thing. Even the bench was extremely comfortable. It revolutionized the way HVAC controls were designed even today most cars copy the original Taurus-Sable HVAC set up. Was the First mid sized with a real usable rear seat for long trips for adults. The Taurus was every thing right that was already one the market (with some new ideas) all stuffed in one package. That is what made it great. The Taurus redefined the market and not just cars but all passenger vehicles and the way manufactures assessed and implemented product. Aero styling was not new But it was the Taurus that took it from oddity to mainstream on all forms of equipment. From lawn tractors to ocean liners. Even today there are Taurus innovations that are still used on 2007 cars. When you look at the competition of the era there is nothing that came even close to matching the Taurus until basically 4 years later. I do not think since the Model T has a single vehicle impacted the market as much as the Taurus did. The Taurus's impact of styling extended well beyond the automotive sector but was seen in all aspects of consumer products. I doubt we will ever again see a single vehical have such a profound impact on the Automotive sector, and American culture. It was all that and more. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Peterstern did an excellent job of showing the impact of the Taurus, and how it fared through the years. The Taurus was important because its design showed the everyone working on it actually CARED about the ultimate product. After about 1972 or so, it seemed as though Detroit put as little effort into its products as possible. The main effort appeared to be meeting government regulations, and it seemed as though the companies tried to comply in the manner that would prove to be the most irksome and annoying to the customers. Perhaps they were hoping that the customers would blame the government and demand a repeal of the regulations. People forget how dreary most of Detroit's cars were in the late 1970s and 1980s. Look at GM's cars from that time, and realize that it was Detroit's style leader...and that will give you an idea of how bad things were. "Downsizing" was the operative word of the day...and the cars were downsized in more ways than one. The Taurus changed all that...well, actually the 1983 Thunderbird was the first sign of better things to come. I still remember being bowled over by the photo of that Thunderbird on the cover of Car & Driver. But the Thunderbird was a specialty coupe, so we expected it to be stylish and trendsetting, while the Taurus was a family sedan, which made it even more significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Stiffer chassis, better crash test performance, better steering/suspension design, available AWD, larger interior, lower price, better electronic gadgets. Any engineering test result to prove that the chassis is stiffer? You can claim anything... The avalon has a better skid pad so there goes the better suspensison argument... You cannot use pricing to say one is better because is does not alter any mechanical traits.... Cheaper yes, better NO... So all we are left with is AWD and larger interior.... Nice try, but it is not proof that it is better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 http://www.straight-six.com/neue/ftlod/05_ford_500.php "Class leading stiffness" Also, skidpad numbers are hardly an indication of a 'better' suspension. The rear suspension on the Five Hundred/Taurus is not the simple Mac strut with an "L" shaped lower arm, as found on the Avalon. Instead the Five Hundred/Taurus has a suspension design borrowed from the Volvo S80 (retuned for 2008), featuring coil over shock layout for better NVH (one of the biggest shortcomings of a mac-strut is the combination of the upper location point with the mount point for the spring. All other things being equal, having upper placement independent of the spring provides better absorption of road irregularities. Perhaps 'better' was not the best choice in describing the Five Hundred/Taurus rear suspension, as that is too vague. More sophisticated is appropriate, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) So all we are left with is AWD and larger interior.... Don't forget better crash test performance. Edited February 11, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 And of course, AWD is better than 2WD, like we see in WRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 The experience I had with the original Taurus was as a rental car. It was the very base model with V6 and colomn shifted four-speed auto. The other GM and other makes rentals were 4 bangers with e-speeds. Even though it was the base model, it was very comfortable, handled great and was moderately quick. Driving the other rentals showed the Taurus was light years ahead. A close friend of mine bought a fully loaded Sable LS with leather buckets and a console shifter (rare). That was a nice car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryll40 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Um, yea. :blah: The fact of the matter is in 1980 Ford was in nearly as bad a shape as they are now. I was reading Douglas Brinkleys book about Ford the other night (a great read btw) and it's deja vue. Everything that is happening now to Ford (sans buyouts) and the reasons was happening then. So the Taurus came out and what happened - by 1987 they were the most profitable car company. Most of this was due to Taurus although Ford also really worked on their entire car and truck lineup before it came out so people were starting to take notice of Ford again anyway. Taurus was the right car at the right time and actually brought respectability back to Ford. 1980 was COMPLETELY different than now. Sure, Ford was in dire straits then as now. But in those days the ENTIRE AUTO INDUSTRY as in a huge slump. NO ONE was selling cars. Today there are RECORD VOLUMES of cars being sold. Just not Ford, GM and DCX, at least not in any sort of record volume. Bottom line is that 1980 was a function of an economic slump. Today's problems are a function of a bet (on big 10-13MPG SUVs) that ran out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Correct, it is not like then at all. For one thing, imports only had 25% share, and GM was stil near 45%. And one car line will not change everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Don't forget better crash test performance. And folding passenger front row seat... if you need to carry a ladder in your 500 or something, it's handy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Volvo makes use of the forward-folding seats as helping to prevent whiplash, which is also kind of useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.