Last post on Jan 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
What is this discussion about?
Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, Sedan
#1 of 3389 Should this be "Tauri"
Apr 24, 2000 (2:34 am)
Welcome to the continuation of the Ford Taurus
topic. Those of you joining us from that topic are
welcome to continue your discussion. If you're
new to this topic, you may want to follow the above
link for additional archived posts.
#2 of 3389 Taurus Label and 0-60
Apr 25, 2000 (11:31 pm)
What is the exact 0-60 for the 2000 Taurus SEL? With the 200+ Duratec engine? And also.. on the back of the SEL Taurus is it labelled as SEL or just SE? Are there any ways I could see if it was a SE or SEL from just looking at it and not looking under the hood? Any special details that make it different?
#3 of 3389 0-60 and Taurus Label
Apr 26, 2000 (2:57 am)
The Duratec equipped version has been stated at 8.2 to 8.5 seconds for 0-60 depending on the source.
The back of the SE, SES, and SEL just has "SE". The SEL has machined aluminum wheels while the SES and SE have painted aluminum wheels (wheel selections are not optional). I have an SES with the Duratec, so looking under the hood (or the 24V DOHC emblem on the side) won't tell you it's an SEL. Interior features and options are what really tell the three "SE" trim levels apart.
#4 of 3389 Ford's $600 Mach Stereo Option
Apr 26, 2000 (5:59 pm)
I like the idea of the cd changer in the center console but I'm bawking at the high $600 price tag. It seems like a lot of cash for a cd changer even with the speaker upgrade.
Has anyone had luck with using Ford's cd pre-wiring with a third party cd player? Please post your experiences here, thanks.
#5 of 3389 Finally !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apr 26, 2000 (7:22 pm)
I ordered my SEL Feb.12 I pick it up tomorrow (April 26). Can't wait....
#6 of 3389 SHO vrs. Duratec
Apr 27, 2000 (12:30 am)
I have a SHO (and have had them for the past 10 years with Red Carpet leases). Since the SHO will no longer be made, I thought I would try the Duratec engine Taurus. Was I ever unimpressed! IMO it is a wimp compared to the SHO. It is a second slowed, the handling is not as crisp, etc I was hoping I could stay a loyal Ford customer; alas, Ford has shot themselves in the foot by not having a fwd performance sports sedan for the SHO enthusiasts. Looks like I go with a Maxima or TL.
Apr 27, 2000 (5:47 am)
you must've driven a 2000.
The 2000 has been toned down in every facet. Interior, ride, handling, sound, looks......Good for some people maybe.
The 99 Duratec is fairly lively. But if you're gonna go for a 99 then might as well get another SHO. I took my own advice and got one. I know you've owned a few SHO;s and liked them; maybe you should get a low-mile 99 SHO while u still can.
Otherwise, it's rumored that a SHO like v6 may reappear in 2001 or 2002. No substitute for a v8, though. Maybe it will be an SVT. We can hope. It would be interesting to see any extra styling tweaks they would do to the new body with an SVT or SHO.
Two options, buy 99 SHO now, or wait for a potential new v6 SHO in the future.
#8 of 3389 To Regfootball
Apr 28, 2000 (1:11 am)
Thanks for your post and "listening" whil;e I vent my frustration with Ford for screwing up a good thing with our SHO. And I has a loyal consumer with a Red Carpet lease every two years since 1989 too!
#9 of 3389 To Regfootball
Apr 28, 2000 (2:32 am)
I was curious about your comments on the 2000 SEL. I've had mine for 4 months and have put on almost 7,000 miles already. The performance is more than adequate and the handling is very good. The standard 16" wheels make a difference over the 99s. Also how do you figure that the 99 is more "sporty"? The performance has been upgraded for 2000 to 200 hp. Granted its not as fast as a SHO but then again the SHO isn't as fast as the GTP I traded on my Taurus. My dad drives a new SHO and its a nice car but I think the performance is a little disappointing for $30k. I'm not looking to start an argument just point out that everyone's opinion is relative.
Apr 28, 2000 (8:30 am)
I bought my 99 SHO last month with 6000 miles for 20,500. My brother in law two years ago bought a new loaded SHO for a bit over 24,000. No one with a right mind will pay 30k for this car.
Anyone who would've paid anything close to sticker for any new car needed to do more shopping. And especially SHO's when there are used ones a plenty. For a new one you should not pay more than 25k. So let's not get in the trap of calling the Taurus a 30k car.
My opinion of the Y2k Taurus is that its more toned down and numb. Trust me, I drove about 10 Taurus' in the last two months (99's and 2000's). The 98 Duratec Taurus as well as the 99 Sable had the 200 hp motor which to me seemed pretty peppy. Maybe it was the transmission or something but even if the 2000 has 200hp, it did not seem as agressive as the 99.
Also my styling preference inside and out is for the 99. I prefer the less cluttered interior and the oval pod to the upright, plain dash on the 2000. I do like the exterior redo for 2000, but a 99 with SHO front and rear fascia and 16 inch wheels to me looks better.
As far as the GTP, its fine that its a little faster. I don't try to do 0-60's all the time. I don't judge my status in society on the idea that I can do 60 in under 7 seconds. I think Ford's products are more refined than GM's. I don't like pushrod motors. And I certainly prefer an 8 cylinder DOHC motor to a I've also owned an 89 SHO which was had a bullutproof and lightning fast v6 and was a fabulous performer. The car I traded in for my SHO was a 95 Thunderbird with a rock solid v8. I have loved the absolutely bulletproof and performance oriented nature of these two Ford OHC motors. The exhaust sound in all three cars was invigorating. The handling on all three cars was very good also.
For what my money would buy, the SHO was preferable to the Grand Prix.
Plus the whole Pontiac thing just turns me off, Too NASCAR, too gigolo, too many buttons, too many lights, too spaceship, too Grand Am, too sorority, too 1992, way too much cheap dark plastic. To me, I just think Pontiac could back off on some of this wierdness and cheapness and just produce a car that isn't trying so hard to be some futuristic transport vessel.
Bottom line. Ford purposely toned down the 2000 Taurus so it would be more acceptable to the average car buyer. The "average" car buyer values different virtues than the 96-99's had to offer. The result is a pleasant functional car; one that doesn't excite, but will please many. And at a helluva good value. Taurus is still a better overall buy than just about any other mid sized sedan.
Robnis I can totally understand your frustration. My brother in law has owned these new since 85
85 Mercury Cougar XR7, 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, 92 Taurus SHO, 97 SHO.
His 97 now has 72000 miles on it, but he feels like you do, He has been giving Ford business for over a decade and now they have pulled the plug on the kind of cars he likes. He is afraid he may have to switch brands when he goes to buy next year. But he dislikes Pontiacs also. He may be leaning towards a 300M.