The Blessing and Curse of the 1986 Taurus

[goingincirclez]

Everyone on this board keeps rooting for Ford to "make the next ______ as good / radical / revolutionary / successful" as the 1986 Taurus. While I would LOVE Ford to recapture that sales success - I think that trying to recreate the 1986 Taurus is a dangerous exercise in futility. The problem in trying to recapture that 1986 Taurus magic – or even something as loosely defined as “radical, forward-thinking design change” – is that it’s all been done at this point.

 

Forget for a moment that the 1986 Taurus was called the “1986 Taurus”, and consider it from a design / engineering standpoint, as just some stupid anonymous car. What was so revolutionary? You had:

 

- Flush-fit glass

- Well-to-well wraparound bumpers

- Flush-mount aero mirrors

- Flush-mount aero lamps

- Flush-mount “grille-less” grille

- Monochromatic color schemes

- Aerodynamic shape

- And a whole host of others (mechanicals; layout; interior design, etc).

 

Now consider how all of those things are taken for granted today, or even considered dated in their own right. Yet back in 1985, for all the perception of a "revolution", those items were truly nothing more than the next simple logical steps to take in automotive design – they were the “low hanging fruit” as it were.

 

Ford just took the gamble of applying ALL of them to ONE car, and it was seen as revolutionary. But Ford had applied each of those concepts to other vehicles previously (flush headlights on the Mark VII, Aerodynamic T-Birds, flush mirrors on the Tempo) and they were hardly noticed. If you think about it in those terms, the Taurus wasn’t really a revolution, as much as it was a catalog of refinements.

 

The fact that the low-hanging design fruit is all gone, is what gives us abominations like the 1996 Taurus which was a case of design for design’s sake, with a lack of true purpose. It’s what continues to rule today, in the guise of Bangle-BMW’s (with cues selectively copied by Toyota), the polarizing 300 and Magnum, and other stylistic design themes that can only play to a niche – either loved or hated. And the volume sellers are never too polarizing in design-land.

 

While some may see this as defeatist and closed-minded thinking, it could be argued that there really isn’t much left to push the functionality of automotive design – certainly no more low-hanging fruit. The next leaps in wholesale design trends could only coincide with deep-rooted mechanical changes. Even the low-hanging fruit there has been picked, as evidenced via Chrysler’s “Cab Forward” cars of the 1990s, and even the FiveHundred’s truly revolutionary interior layout – but the changes are so subtle few notice. We have even seen whole cars designed around such novel, next-logical-step concepts like hard-top retractable roofs, with mixed success.

 

So how, absent any sea-change unification of incremental design refinements, since there really aren’t that many left: can you come up with another revolutionary car in the vein of the 1986 Taurus? I'll admit I'm not a designer, but I like to think I'm observant enough to see that the little refinements have all been tried. We've seen "bubble", "soap-bar", "wedge", "edge" and "box" designs come and go. Fads like round, pop-out and triangle lamps come and go. But all the truly overarching stuff - the flush, areo, monochrome, and packaging - type enhancements have been tried, and nobody is going to go back to tack-on bumpers and chrome door trim.

 

Keep in mind, there are dozens more competitors now looking for the same ideas. I seriously doubt that Ford or anyone else could ever shake up the industry with a spiritual successor to the “1986 Taurus”. The Taurus was revolutionary only because it packed in dozens of truly necessary refinements that had been on the stubborn on the cusp of being trickled out. 20 years later, most all of the visibly necessary stuff has been done. The only revolutions left are through “design for design’s sake”, which often compromises functionality and/or personal taste - and that’s a dangerous playground to be in, as the 1996 Taurus proved.

Edited February 13, 2007 by goingincirclez

[Edstock]

Thank-you for your incisive comment. It will probably be incomprehensible to the brain-fart brigade.

 

"The fact that the low-hanging design fruit is all gone, is what gives us abominations like the 1996 Taurus which was a case of design for design’s sake, with a lack of true purpose. It’s what continues to rule today, in the guise of Bangle-BMW’s (with cues selectively copied by Toyota), the polarizing 300 and Magnum, and other stylistic design themes that can only play to a niche – either loved or hated. And the volume sellers are never too polarizing in design-land."

 

Notice how each iteration of the 3 and 5 become less and less bangleized?

[NickF1011]

Well, if you think back to 1984, people probably had this same conversation about the current crop of cars. "What could they really improve? We've done everything already." And BAM, then came the '86 Taurus and changed it all. Nobody expected it, and nobody really appreciated the differences in design until they experienced them. I think it's much the same today. We're not going to recognize what an "advancement in design" is until somebody builds it and we experience it. It will happen again sooner or later. At this point though, it sure doesn't look like Ford's going to be the one to bring it to us.

[Edstock]

"At this point though, it sure doesn't look like Ford's going to be the one to bring it to us."

 

You're probably right. AUDI had the flush-glass 5000 out well before the 86 Taurus, for example. The sideways engine FWD layout was from British Leyland.

 

Anyway, "the Next Big Thing" gets used by everybody, eventually.

[630land]

Auto Styling is talked about to death, as if that is all that matters.

 

The next big thing would be an affordable alternative fuel car, not 'futuristic styling'.

[NickF1011]

Auto Styling is talked about to death, as if that is all that matters.

 

The next big thing would be an affordable alternative fuel car, not 'futuristic styling'.

 

Yeah, but if that affordable alternative fuel car was ugly as hell, it wouldn't begin to get off the ground. Mechanical innovations are rarely noticed unless they are wrapped in a pretty package.

[96 Pony]

While it is true that what the Taurus introduced are now common on all cars, Ford has a history of bringing out new products with exciting styling or new innovations that totally redefine the auto indutry or for that matter, Ford itself.

 

First obviously was the Model T. Followed by the Model A which created a huge response when introduced. Then the Ford V8.

 

When Ford was on the brink, much as it is today, it brought out the '49 Ford - a huge leap forward for the company.

 

And then of course 1964 and the introduction of the Mustang which created a whole new auto segment. Followed by the '86 Taurus.

 

Ford needs to think "outside the box" as they did with all these model and come up with the next "wow" car to regain the customers that they have lost over the last several years.

[silvrsvt]

Yeah, but if that affordable alternative fuel car was ugly as hell, it wouldn't begin to get off the ground. Mechanical innovations are rarely noticed unless they are wrapped in a pretty package.

 

 

The Priuis is fugly...explain that one

[NickF1011]

The Priuis is fugly...explain that one

 

Eh, I don't find the Prius to be attractive, but it's a long ways away from being an Aztek. In the big picture as a unique model of automobile, the Prius really isn't selling that well either.

[Ovaltine]

I seriously doubt that Ford or anyone else could ever shake up the industry with a spiritual successor to the “1986 Taurus”.

 

You underestimate the power of the human imagination with statements like the above....

 

 

 

 

-Ovaltine

Edited February 14, 2007 by Ovaltine

[goingincirclez]

Well, if you think back to 1984, people probably had this same conversation about the current crop of cars. "What could they really improve? We've done everything already." And BAM, then came the '86 Taurus and changed it all. Nobody expected it, and nobody really appreciated the differences in design until they experienced them.

 

I appreciate where you're coming from on that. And I concede that few of us (much less myself) can pretend to know what the future holds. But by and large, given the state of general design enhancements on from the Taurus till today - and considering the demands and requirements of fuel efficiency, space, crash-worthiness, and DAY TO DAY PRACTICALITY (sorry, Christopher Lloyd) :D is there really anything left?

 

To put it another way - you can go back and look at the 1903 Oldsmobile and say "nice, but there should be an enclosed body". Which brings the Model T/A: "enclosed body, but too damn high and narrow". Which brings refinements across all makes through the 30's... to the '49 Ford "Ahh, the father of the modern car". But there's were still some nagging things. You could see the desire for flush-mount parts and aerodynamics in lots of cars from the 60's and even the 70's... but it took technology a a while to become capable of delivering those refinements.

 

And that's my point: The 1986 Taurus was revolutionary because only because it brought all those things home in one package. And have the last 20 years brought? More of the same, in different shapes. Sure you can play with cabin positioning and windshield rakes and wheelbases and such, but all the obvious cards - the things you knew the players had been pining for for decades - have been played.

 

I mean, why else are stupidass things like CUPHOLDERS AND STORAGE BINS AND IPOD JACKS OMFG!! such a big deal today? Revolutions, these are not. And you could spend all day trying to outfit a car with a useable nook and cranny into every damn space. Shoot, didn't the Aztek even offer a camping tent attachment for a while? THESE ARE ALL GIMMIKS!!

 

IMHO the next big practical "revolution" will be tied to the way we interact with a car - think controls and layout - but those efforts (center IP stacks, joystick / yoke controls, etc) have been met with huge resistance.

 

For the record - nobody here is denying that the Flying Car would be anything short of revolutionary - but let's be realistic, shall we?

 

While it is true that what the Taurus introduced are now common on all cars, Ford has a history of bringing out new products with exciting styling or new innovations that totally redefine the auto indutry or for that matter, Ford itself.

 

First obviously was the Model T. Followed by the Model A which created a huge response when introduced. Then the Ford V8.

 

When Ford was on the brink, much as it is today, it brought out the '49 Ford - a huge leap forward for the company.

 

And then of course 1964 and the introduction of the Mustang which created a whole new auto segment. Followed by the '86 Taurus.

 

Ford needs to think "outside the box" as they did with all these model and come up with the next "wow" car to regain the customers that they have lost over the last several years.

 

See, that's sort of my point. The Model T and A were the originals, but it could be argued that Ford's refusal to update them meaningfully is how they got passed once and for all by GM (uh, wait a min - haven't we heard this before?). The '49 Ford was revolutionary for Ford, but almost evolutionary in terms of the industry as a whole. The Mustang was a whole new segment - which doesn't come along every day - but how many other segments have been born, boomed, withered, and died over the years (El Caminos... Full-size Conversion van craze... "personal luxury coupes"... "A" cars...). Even the Mustang had to change with the times over the years to survive ('64 to '73 to '75 to '79 - hardly one hard-defined segment across there, and I rest my case).

 

 

My point is that people wishing for the "2010-11-12" or whatever Taurus, to be just as revolutionary as the original, need to keep their expectations in check. If it DOES prove to be revolutionary, it WON'T be in the same sense that the original was. But then Ford doesn't seem to be dangling the Taurus name atop of new, necessary (and revolutionary) ideas like alternative fuel-and-powertrain cars, or "segment creators" like the Fairlane.

 

For all its malignment, the FiveHundred was pretty revolutionary in a sense, given the way it packaged the interior: SUV-like ride-height and room, in car smaller than a Crown Vic. Coupled with the CVT to eke reasonable power from a wheezy engine, it really should have been lauded more than it was. So yes, Ford DID try to be revolutionary in a sense. Why the FiveHundred seems to have failed, can be debated for days and days.

 

I am basically in too many words trying to make the case that Ford should not be fooled into thinking the "1986 Taurus" is something that can be recreated at will, given X amount of $$ and people and process. The context of WHY the 1986 Taurus was considered a revolution BY THE CONSUMER needs to be understood, first. Because Ford has definitely tried design (1996 Taurus) and packaging (2005 FiveHundred) separately, to disappointing results. And I maintain that the low-hanging fruit is still picked.

 

(Alternative fuels might be that big juicy watermelon waiting to be hauled in, but we all know that CANNOT happen by any one car...)

Edited February 13, 2007 by goingincirclez

[silvrsvt]

I mean, why else are stupidass things like CUPHOLDERS AND STORAGE BINS AND IPOD JACKS OMFG!! such a big deal today? Revolutions, these are not. And you could spend all day trying to outfit a car with a useable nook and cranny into every damn space. Shoot, didn't the Aztek even offer a camping tent attachment for a while? THESE ARE ALL GIMMIKS!!

 

 

its a gimmik if the customer doesn't want it, but with the popluarty of iPods/MP3 players, they better sure as hell offer some form of integration...I was checking out the Volvo C30 and it didn't even have an MP3 hookup! Which is fucking retarted for a car like that and who its aimed at.

[Roadrunner]

The sideways engine FWD layout was from British Leyland.

 

Call me a kid with no grease on his fingers, but I thought that's how most American cars were built from the '80s onward? Because I believe the GM H-bodies had a sideways FWD engine layout. Learned something new today.

[Roadrunner]

goingincirclez, you make some convincing arguments. The 1996 Taurus could be seen as design for design's sake.

 

However, I believe that nothing is impossible so we will see some revolutionary car in the future.

[Pablo2079]

Maybe the next BIG thing will be a mix of composite use and alternative fuels. Especially since Mullaly was at Boeing when the push from aluminum to composites occurred, maybe something similar could happen at Ford. I'm not an engineer, but if Aerospace can get 30% better performance.... maybe some of that can be adopted to the automobile sector??

[Edstock]

"The sideways engine FWD layout was from British Leyland."

 

The original 1958 Austin Mini was the first use of the transverse FWD chassis layout. The sled also ran on rubber, instead of steel springs.

[Mark B. Morrow]

"The sideways engine FWD layout was from British Leyland."

 

The original 1958 Austin Mini was the first use of the transverse FWD chassis layout. The sled also ran on rubber, instead of steel springs.

 

The original Mini was a great success in packaging. The ultimate use of limited space. It is also a great little race car

[Ovaltine]

goingincirclez, you make some convincing arguments. The 1996 Taurus could be seen as design for design's sake.

 

However, I believe that nothing is impossible so we will see some revolutionary car in the future.

 

My point exactly! Remember that the quote I called into question was:

 

"I seriously doubt that Ford or anyone else could ever shake up the industry with a spiritual successor to the “1986 Taurus”."

 

That would be like someone saying back in 1903: "Well.... I guess that settles that whole fanciful idea of man flying! I seriously doubt that man will ever be ever to fly any faster or higher than them there Wright Bros.!"

 

I don't mean to rag on you Silvr and Circlz, but short of mankind being nuked off of the planet, I'd wager that in the world of transportation, "You ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!". We're just waiting for someone like "Doc" to bang his head and envision the "flux capacitor"!

 

B)

 

-Ovaltine

Edited February 14, 2007 by Ovaltine

[goingincirclez]

I don't mean to rag on you Silvr and Circlz, but short of mankind being nuked off of the planet, I'd wager that in the world of transportation, "You ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!". We're just waiting for someone like "Doc" to bang his head and envision the "flux capacitor"!

 

B)

 

-Ovaltine

 

 

Well taken - however... wouldn't comparing a flux-cap powered car to a mere Taurus (or any other car) be akin to, say, comparing a Howitzer to a flyswatter? :D

[grbeck]

Maybe the next BIG thing will be a mix of composite use and alternative fuels. Especially since Mullaly was at Boeing when the push from aluminum to composites occurred, maybe something similar could happen at Ford. I'm not an engineer, but if Aerospace can get 30% better performance.... maybe some of that can be adopted to the automobile sector??

 

This seems more on track to me...the next "big thing" for automobiles won't involve a radical change in styling, or even ergonomics.

 

It will boost fuel economy dramatically - or even use an alternative type of fuel - while maintaining today's levels of performance, comfort and safety.

 

As for why the Five Hundred failed to catch on - it had two problems. One was an interior that seem slightly cut rate for that class of car. The other was lackluster performance. The size of the interior couldn't make up for those deficiencies, especially since today's customers are very conscious of how nice the interior is, and the "feel" of power when behind the wheel.

[Cashman]

[markfnc]

What are the 2 best selling "cars" now? The Accord & Camry. Are they exciting? No. Are they revolutionary? No. A "good" car, "nice" interior, decent mileage, good price, with a good reliability rating, and safe. That is the answer. And I would never by either, because they are Foreign, even though Made in USA.

 

Our competition to those two really is the Fusion, not 500. I consider the 500 / Taurus competition to be the Avalon, Lucerne, Impala.

[silvrsvt]

 

 

its the 1986 Taurus reborn!

[Watertest]

The Audi 5000 was the benchmark for the original Taurus. The book I read about the development mentioned that it was one of the first cars to really go to town on benchmarking the competion. That's what the Japanese have been doing for the last 50 years, copy and improve.

 

BUT, the '86 was an employment guarantee for the dealer techs. Company I worked for then had a whole shit load of 2.5 fours, it was 50-50 whether they got to the 80k turn-in mileage before the head gasket blew or some other major engine problem. Power steering hoses, crank pulley bolts, automatics failing, heater cores and evaporators failing. By the '88 models, no more Tauri.

 

Trivia: How did it get the name Taurus?

[Watchdevil]

If Ford was bold enough to take a styling excercise like the MKR and make it a Taurus then they may possibly lead in design again...

 

I am glad the Taurus is back... I have been noticing lately how many original first two generation Tauruses are still on the road... And they still look good. I do believe it is as significant as the 1949 Ford even though the 1983 Thunderbird preceded it.

 

By the way I remember back in 1982 when the 1983 Thunderbird was first shown and I related the design to being very similar to the 1949 Ford with it's rounded forms and thick greenhouse pillars and glass shapes.