Saw a pristine 1986 Sable...

[grbeck]

At the fall Carlisle show a pristine 1986 Mercury Sable was offered for sale (asking price of $5,000). It was silver with a red interior.

 

What struck me was how modern that car still looked. The exterior and interior did not shout, "This car is 20 years old." Now I remember what a pleasant shock these cars were in late 1985, when they debuted.

 

It was interesting to see what a huge advance this car was for the time, not just in style, but also in build quality and ergonomics. A 1987 Plymouth K-Car wagon was in the car corral, as was a 1993 Olds Cutlass Ciera (which wasn't changed that much from the 1986 Cutlass Ciera). They both looked clunky and dated. The interior of the Sable was smooth, handsome and suprisingly well constructed. The Sable's disadvantage compared with today's cars was the lack of "soft touch" vinyl and plastics on the door panels.

 

The main thing that struck me was that the Sable looked as though it had been designed - both inside and out - by people who really cared and were trying to do their best. The GM and Chrysler offerings, on the other hand, shouted that they were typical, dreary, cost-cutting-comes-first early 1980s Detroit models.

 

It also made me realize what a huge lead over the competition Ford blew by neglecting these cars in the face of aggressive assaults by the Accord and Camry.

 

If Mr. Mullaly wants to get a handle on what needs fixed at the Ford Motor Company, I'd suggest he start by reviewing the history of the Taurus/Sable...

Edited October 1, 2006 by grbeck

[156n3rd]

Sat at a traffic light and watched as a very early Taurus SHO went zipping across the road. It was red and I felt the same way. It looked sharp. I has an '87 GL sedan and loved it so much I cried when I traded it for a '92 G wagon that my daughter still drives as it approaches 150,000 miles of service, I bought it with 47,000 on it. I know, I'm drooling with taurus love. Too bad, they were one of the best Ford cars built. Anyone who never owned one does,'t know. I also know if someone writes that they had a bad experince with one, then makes all of them bad. WRONG! They were good road cars and I loved mine. :party2:

[ANTAUS]

There are some cars that their styling is very timeless, first generation Taurus/Sable is one of them. I just saw a 92 Mazda 929 is great condition and the car looked timeless in styling as well...hard to imagine that it's almost 14 years since that time. Mazda Millenia is another vehicle which it's styling is timeless and looks at home next to any Lexus any day.

[Roadrunner]

The second generation Taurus (1992-96) was even better - they do have a timeless look.

[Edgey]

I think what is making the 1986 Sable look so well ahead of its time is because it is one of the cars the pioneered today's trendiest design language. Very little has changed since the 1986 Taurus/Sable rewrote the books on car design. For a time Ford tried pushing the envelope a little farther, but design has once again returned to the "Fuller" look of the Taurus & Sable.

 

I think we are once again forging ahead with more flamboyant designs since I think everybody has just about had it with the same old sedan design.

[ZanatWork]

First-gen Sables with the two-tone appearance were fantastic on the eyes...and that was the last we saw of "distictive" Mercuries.

[156n3rd]

The second generation Taurus (1992-96) was even better - they do have a timeless look.

The '92 wagon my daughter drives is Carribean Green. When it's shined up, it looks cool!

[goingincirclez]

It's funny... I find myself "noticing" the 1st and second-gen Taurus and Sable a lot more. That design truly has worn well over the years and actually stands out as almost "fresh" today, compared to how those cues have been interpreted and modernized, the original really is timeless, especially in silver and blue. It's (dare I say) clean without being devoid of character or ruined by polarizing design. The only thing that really "dates" the car is the Sable's "all-glass" C-pillar, which was a "future car cliche' " even then. But considering the total package, I can deal with it. And it sounds wierd, but the wagon was especially beautiful.

[Ovaltine]

If Mr. Mullaly wants to get a handle on what needs fixed at the Ford Motor Company, I'd suggest he start by reviewing the history of the Taurus/Sable...

Just to make it a little easier to remember....

 

 

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, THIS car supposedly played an inspirational role in the creation of the Taurus/Sable:

 

Audi 5000

 

 

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_5000

"The Audi in turn influenced the Ford Taurus, an American made sedan from 1986. "

 

and

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/ne...-cars/index.htm

 

"The 1986 Taurus was a groundbreaking design for a mainstream family sedan. With its rounded, aerodynamic styling, it made most other sedans look dated almost overnight and introduced a look that other automakers quickly followed. The Taurus wasn’t the first car to use rounded styling. CR likened it to the Audi 5000 when we tested it, calling the Taurus "Audi-like in its rounded body style," and "the Ford in Ford Motor Co.’s future." But the Taurus popularized the design and initiated an era of aerodynamic styling that is prevalent today."

 

-Ovaltine

Edited October 3, 2006 by Ovaltine

[goingincirclez]

Feh. I've never really understood that argument. Audi 5000 - round? Yeah, maybe in the same way the Chevy Celebrity or '77 Caprice was "round".

 

Sheez. I mean, the Audi beat the Taurus to market by what, 2 model years? Yeah, and all the cutting-edge CAD/CAM software back then enabled Ford to drop everything and rush a copycat to market in 24 months. You know, just like how they do today...

 

People forget that Ford tipped its hand on the Taurus when they released THIS:

 

 

 

I always thought the Taurus owed MUCH more of its design to the Tempo (which was announced at the SAME TIME AS THE AUDI) than anything else. In fact, the first thought I had as a kid when I saw a Taurus for the first time was "Holy , that's some custom Tempo!"

 

So the Audi and Taurus share similar cladding styles, I'll give you that. But tell me with a straight face that when you look at an '86 Taurus, you don't see an '84 Tempo that hit the gym and donned a tuxedo. Tell me that the Audi 100/5000 is more "round" than the Tempo.

 

"Taurus owes it design to an Audi" my @$$.

Edited October 3, 2006 by goingincirclez

[retro-man]

The Audi was there first. Even the magazines at the time acknowledged that. I remember an article recounting an incident where they were filling a brand new '85 Taurus wagon up at a Detroit area gas station and someone shouted "Buy American!" at them. Even the gomers thought it looked like an Audi. No shame though - Ford did a nice job with the car, it did bring the aero look mainstream, and it does still look pretty good.

Edited October 3, 2006 by retro-man

[RichardJensen]

The Audi was there first. Even the magazines at the time acknowledged that. I remember an article recounting an incident where they were filling a brand new '85 Taurus wagon up at a Detroit area gas station and someone shouted "Buy American!" at them. Even the gomers thought it looked like an Audi. No shame though - Ford did a nice job with the car, it did bring the aero look mainstream, and it does still look pretty good.

It's also interesting how much the previous generation A8 looked like the 5000

 

One wonders if any American manufacturer could be so conservative in design, and succeed.

 

I suspect not.

[bri719]

I think we are once again forging ahead with more flamboyant designs since I think everybody has just about had it with the same old sedan design.

 

 

oh, you mean a Camry?? actually I would say that the current iteration they have finally looks respectible on the outside, though Toyota should not yet not be declared free of their 'bland' styling label. the last two generations were the dictionary definition of blandness.

 

(but I'm still forced to cut 90% of these off while on the road, being that they are all cruising in the left lane going 15mph under the speed limit - and I don't even drive that fast)

 

I always thought the 1st gen Taurus SHO was a great looking car, and it obviously drove well too. the 2nd gen still worked but the SHO iteration was a little bit rough around the edges, and the "current" gen is a little too tame, doesn't quite live up to the standard set by the original design. but overall I gotta admit it's been a really successful model and for that it should definitely be applauded. the only reason the one that's still going seems a bit dated is because it won't die.

[goingincirclez]

The Audi was there first. Even the magazines at the time acknowledged that.

 

Well, I won't dispute that the Audi was first - if only by such a short time as to not make a difference as far as product development goes.

 

And if all the rags thought the Taurus looked more like an 83 Audi 5000 than an 84 Tempo, more power to 'em.

 

I personally just cannot see the similarities to favor the 5000 over the Tempo. I mean, LOOK at them. The Tempo is like a 9/10 scale Taurus with chrome, and it looks nothing like the 5000. The Audi is a box, like a low, long Volvo. I certainly see nothing "round" or "aero" about it beyond the flush headlights. And I'm serious when I say the '77 Caprice has a more rounded design than that Audi:

 

 

 

 

Note the profile curvature of the Chevy's hood and trunk, and the pregnant profile in the doors. It's smooth; the Audi looks clunky and awkward in comparison. Yes, GM gets props for a great design. The only thing that Audi has which I will give due credit for, is the flush-aero grille and headlights. And yes, I see where that one element is redone on the Taurus, and would have done wonders on the Caprice too. But that Audi, from the pictures I've seen, is as square a box as any typical early-80's sled. Reminds me of a 1st-gen Toyota Camry, actually.

 

No expert am I but I still feel compelled to stand by my OPINION that the Taurus was a design refinement of the Tempo, with a few simple cues snagged from Audi - Aero headlights being the most obvious (followed by blacked-out B-pillars), from whence the similarities end.

Edited October 3, 2006 by goingincirclez

[RichardJensen]

Ford was first on the market with aero headlights anyway (Mark VII).

[retro-man]

The most difficult trick - and the most striking similarity between the Taurus and the Audi 5000 - is getting the side glass to sit flush. You are right: the overall lines of the Tempo and the Taurus are similar, and the Taurus certainly has a family resemblance. But the Tempo (like all cars of its era and before) has deep shadow lines at the side glass. I can't remember what the exact technical issues were with getting the glass to sit flush and still operate, but I remember reading that it was difficult, and a technical breakthrough. The goal of course was to increase fuel economy by lowering the drag coefficient. Had the incidental side effect of creating a new look.

[silvrsvt]

I've also read that these two cars where in the design studio when Ford was working on the Taraus:

 

 

 

Another timeless Ford/Mercury Design

[Ovaltine]

The most difficult trick - and the most striking similarity between the Taurus and the Audi 5000 - is getting the side glass to sit flush. You are right: the overall lines of the Tempo and the Taurus are similar, and the Taurus certainly has a family resemblance. But the Tempo (like all cars of its era and before) has deep shadow lines at the side glass. I can't remember what the exact technical issues were with getting the glass to sit flush and still operate, but I remember reading that it was difficult, and a technical breakthrough. The goal of course was to increase fuel economy by lowering the drag coefficient. Had the incidental side effect of creating a new look.

 

BINGO! That's the main "inspirational" similarity I remember reading about the most. The flush glass!

 

Thanks for pointing that out retro!

 

And hey.... we ALL know what a great success the original Taurus / Sable were. I'm not knocking them for having a car benchmarked, inspired, copied (whatever) against an Audi! The Taurus and Sable were EXACTLY what Ford needed at that point, and they saved Ford's bacon.

 

I'm wondering right now if Ford's got anything similar coming down the pike?

 

A roomy, stylish, powerful AND gas miserly sedan/wagon/hatch trio (compliments of a "Manhattan Project"-like program) would just be what the Dr. prescribed. Is that possible? I don't know. Time will tell.

 

-Ovaltine

[goingincirclez]

The most difficult trick - and the most striking similarity between the Taurus and the Audi 5000 - is getting the side glass to sit flush...

 

.. but I remember reading that it was difficult, and a technical breakthrough. The goal of course was to increase fuel economy by lowering the drag coefficient. Had the incidental side effect of creating a new look.

 

Ah... yes I can see that more clearly now, where Audi could have been considered ahead of the game on that one. Thanks for clarifying that... the photos don't show it well. But I still don't think revolutionary windows qualify as an entire "design inspiration". Although I do understand where that was a key cornerstone element of the original Taurus. But as I said, Audi just applied it to a box. So call it a gray area then - Audi gets the technical acheivement award, Ford gets the design revolution award. Or maybe I'm just anal.

[grbeck]

Well, I won't dispute that the Audi was first - if only by such a short time as to not make a difference as far as product development goes.

 

And if all the rags thought the Taurus looked more like an 83 Audi 5000 than an 84 Tempo, more power to 'em.

 

I personally just cannot see the similarities to favor the 5000 over the Tempo. I mean, LOOK at them. The Tempo is like a 9/10 scale Taurus with chrome, and it looks nothing like the 5000. The Audi is a box, like a low, long Volvo. I certainly see nothing "round" or "aero" about it beyond the flush headlights. And I'm serious when I say the '77 Caprice has a more rounded design than that Audi:

 

 

 

 

Note the profile curvature of the Chevy's hood and trunk, and the pregnant profile in the doors. It's smooth; the Audi looks clunky and awkward in comparison. Yes, GM gets props for a great design. The only thing that Audi has which I will give due credit for, is the flush-aero grille and headlights. And yes, I see where that one element is redone on the Taurus, and would have done wonders on the Caprice too. But that Audi, from the pictures I've seen, is as square a box as any typical early-80's sled. Reminds me of a 1st-gen Toyota Camry, actually.

 

No expert am I but I still feel compelled to stand by my OPINION that the Taurus was a design refinement of the Tempo, with a few simple cues snagged from Audi - Aero headlights being the most obvious (followed by blacked-out B-pillars), from whence the similarities end.

 

The Caprice has a more rounded design than the Audi?! Sorry, but I beg to differ.

 

The Caprice has very blunt front and rear ends, along with sharp edges on the fenders, roofline and quarter panels and a relatively upright greenhouse.

 

Bill Mitchell used the 1975 Cadillac Seville as the styling inspiration for GM's downsized 1977 big cars. He called the new style the "sheer look," and to his eyes it was anything but rounded.

 

With its downsizing effort, GM moved away from the rounded, bloated look of its 1971-76 full-size cars and 1973-77 intermediates. Those cars featured radically curved side windows, deep windshields, extreme curvature of the lower body and a fair amount of side sculpturing. They were seen as wasteful and profligate at that time, especially in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo (they also weren't very roomy, and had relatively small trunks, considering their massive size).

 

The Audi was a sensation when it debuted, as it was the first of the "aero" styled cars to hit our shores in really large numbers. It may look clunky NOW, but at the time it was a definite breath of fresh air, and a huge change from what was on the market, not only compared to the American companies, but also the Japanese and other German manufacturers as well.

 

When the Audi came over, Ford's offerings were either aping GM (the 1979 LTD is a copy of a 1977 Olds Delta 88) or trying to fit Continental and Thunderbird styling cues on to downsized vehicles (1980 Lincolns and 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar). Both approaches brought less-than-stellar sales results. Meanwhile, GM's "sheer look" approach to design had just about run its course, even though the 1977 Caprice was a great design. By 1982, however, it was tired. (As with show business, in the automobile industry people are always asking "What's next?".)

 

The Audi was the inspiration for Ford's new design direction. It's just that Ford hedged its bets by rolling out the Thunderbird/Cougar and Tempo/Topaz first, before the radical Taurus. At that time, just like today, the Taurus competed in the heart of the market. Remember that the Taurus was going up against the GM A-bodies, which dominated the family sedan market. The Olds Cutlass Ciera was among the best-selling cars at that time. GM's A-cars were anything but aero in their styling theme. If anything, they looked like Americanized Volvos - which, in those days, was not necessarily a good thing.

 

Ford took a HUGE risk with the Taurus. It was bringing a very advanced style to a relatively conservative market segment. It was also going up against the "If GM makes it, it must be best and most stylish" mindset (which seems incredible today, I know, but that was once the way family sedan buyers thought).

 

Today the Taurus seems like a no-brainer, but at that time, its success was anything but a given.

[156n3rd]

It's a knwon fact that designers use influences from other designers. But saying the Audi is that close in design to the first Taurus is a stretch. What is exciting to me about the first "T" is that it was our own "home grown" modern design of it's time. Those pictures of the '49 Ford and Mercury show a family resemblance to the Taurus. Call it "heritage". I recall my first soslo drive with my '87 GL sedan. The car felt and looked ahead of it's time. It drive so smoothly and wonderfully. I traded a '80 Citation for my Taurus. The Citation was smaller and even a bit more nimble, but it nothing else. The Taurus's comfort, driving experience and quality were excellent. And here we are, still marveling over the thing since 1986. That says alot.

Edited October 4, 2006 by 156n3rd

[Ovaltine]

It's a knwon fact that designers use influences from other designers. But saying the Audi is that close in design to the first Taurus is a stretch.

 

Those pictures of the '49 Ford and Mercury show a family resemblance to the Taurus. Call it "heritage".

 

 

I don't usually like to pick on people personally on here, BUT.... I do have to comment on the above statements.

 

How can you say (with a straight face) that comparing the Taurus and the Audi is a "stretch", and

then go on to say that "... the '49 Ford and Mercury show a family resemblance to the Taurus.

Call it "heritage".

 

 

I'm sorry Sir, but I'm going to have to ask you to step AWAY from the Kool-Aid!!! B)

 

 

 

-Ovaltine

Edited October 5, 2006 by Ovaltine

[Roadrunner]

Now I know why the 1986 Taurus looks outdated compared to the 1993 Taurus in my eyes: it's the black bumper and the flat front fascia.

 

Check out

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ceksite/files/img_0055.jpg

and see how much smoother the overall car looks.

[Hemiman]

At the fall Carlisle show a pristine 1986 Mercury Sable was offered for sale (asking price of $5,000). It was silver with a red interior.

 

What struck me was how modern that car still looked. The exterior and interior did not shout, "This car is 20 years old." Now I remember what a pleasant shock these cars were in late 1985, when they debuted.

 

It was interesting to see what a huge advance this car was for the time, not just in style, but also in build quality and ergonomics. A 1987 Plymouth K-Car wagon was in the car corral, as was a 1993 Olds Cutlass Ciera (which wasn't changed that much from the 1986 Cutlass Ciera). They both looked clunky and dated. The interior of the Sable was smooth, handsome and suprisingly well constructed. The Sable's disadvantage compared with today's cars was the lack of "soft touch" vinyl and plastics on the door panels.

 

The main thing that struck me was that the Sable looked as though it had been designed - both inside and out - by people who really cared and were trying to do their best. The GM and Chrysler offerings, on the other hand, shouted that they were typical, dreary, cost-cutting-comes-first early 1980s Detroit models.

 

It also made me realize what a huge lead over the competition Ford blew by neglecting these cars in the face of aggressive assaults by the Accord and Camry.

 

If Mr. Mullaly wants to get a handle on what needs fixed at the Ford Motor Company, I'd suggest he start by reviewing the history of the Taurus/Sable...

 

 

A friend of mine bought that car. I haven't seen it yet, but from the description, it sounds real nice. He's an interesting guy. A few years ago he came home with a pristine 4 door Fairmount.

[Hemiman]

\

The main thing that struck me was that the Sable looked as though it had been designed - both inside and out - by people who really cared and were trying to do their best. The GM and Chrysler offerings, on the other hand, shouted that they were typical, dreary, cost-cutting-comes-first early 1980s Detroit models.

 

It also made me realize what a huge lead over the competition Ford blew by neglecting these cars in the face of aggressive assaults by the Accord and Camry.

 

All very true. I was in college in 84 & 85, and one of my business profs used Ford's development of the Taurus & Sable as a study, (he must have known someone, cause he had a lot of accurate info to share with us). Ford was banking a lot on these cars and pulled out all the stops. I don't remember any mention of Audi, I do remember that Honda & Mercedes were the bench mark (had numerous examples in the engineering lab to study design & construction). Camery wasn't even on the map yet. Also a big part of the design was inclusion of plant managers and line workers in all phases of developement.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Hemiman