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
#199 of 3389 Taurus Comment
Jun 28, 2000 (2:46 pm)
I just bought a 1999 Ford Taurus SE Sedan, and I really think it is one of the most comfortable cars that I have ever owned. I have driven the 2000 Chevy Impala a nice car but gutless. I drive 780 miles a week and I drove the Impala for about a week, but I will put my Taurus up against the Impala anytime as far as dependability, and comfort. I had the Impala for a little over a week, and it was in the shop after the first two days that I had it. I rally wanted the Impala, but when I got it I was very Disappointed.
Jun 28, 2000 (2:52 pm)
You go, McDill!
As the owner of one Ford product ('98 Explorer XLT) and one Chevy ('00 Impala LS) I can say I've had far fewer (read: none) problems with the latter. Now I leave the Explorer to the wife and only drive it when I absolutely have to.
A buddy of mine is a salesman and puts a lot of miles on his Taurus, to which he has always been loyal. But after he came to visit me this spring, he wanted an Impala. Rides better, rides stronger, is roomier, and you can find your car in the parking lot instead of trying to figure out which of seventeen silver Tauruses is yours.
I agree that Impalas should have six taillights, three on each side; after all, that's what my dad's '70 had. But that's kind of a strange reason NOT to buy a car, isn't it? The 2000 Impala's taillights are still distinctive - and isn't that the point, that you could always spot an Impala a mile away because of the taillights?
Some of this board's comments about the Impala ("slumming," "$1.98 exterior") are offensive and grounded in little else but jealousy.
#201 of 3389 brd2..
Jun 28, 2000 (9:20 pm)
the 17 "tauruses"..is a good point all "Silver"....."touche"...but "never argue with success is another...".....mine is a "Autumn Gold"#....SEL...
#202 of 3389 Taurus Fuel Gage
Jun 29, 2000 (12:43 am)
You think you have problems, be glad your's aren't the opposite like these poor Audi A6 owners: http://www.carseverything.com/news/details.html?NewsID=02022
I liked my 1996 & 1997 Taurus's. Both were empty with the gage needle just below the last mark. I could top them off and put over 20 gallons in their tanks and I never ran out. When the gage was below 1/4 it would fluctuate depending on grade. Nose down they read high, nose up readings were low so level ground was required for an accurate reading. However, a lot of drivers don't like a gas gage that indicates an empty tank with the needle just below the last mark, so due to complaints about running out the 1998's (& 1999's) were changed so when the needle was below the last mark you still have a good 4 gallons. I loved the gages on the 1996 & 1998's and hated the ones on the 1998 and 1999 cars I always ended up filling up when I could have gone another 80 - 100 miles.
#203 of 3389 it's opinions folks
Jun 29, 2000 (6:46 pm)
"...comments about the Impala...are offensive and
grounded in little else but jealousy."
Oh gosh, does a car actually have feelings? I get all kinds of crp for driving a Ford and I deal with it.
These are just opinions about material objects, not religious beliefs. If someone thinks your car is "slumming", big deal, its just a car.
#204 of 3389 tomcat630
Jun 29, 2000 (8:25 pm)
Car does not feel anything. But its owner(s) do.
#205 of 3389 pull/ vibration new SES
Jun 29, 2000 (8:53 pm)
Just picked up my co. Taurus SES and having driven it 2,000 miles in 2 weeks took it to the dealer.
I got a vibration at 80+ MPH and the car constantly wants to wander to the left in either lane. They balanced all 4 tires and did a 4 wheel align. This moved the steering wheel down a little on the left but the car still vibrates (less than before) at 80+ and the pull is still there.
Could it be the Continental brand tires? Any other sugg. besides driving below 80?
#206 of 3389 brh2 (slumming Impala)
Jun 29, 2000 (8:57 pm)
Consider where you are ... This is a FORD board! I would expect the same flames in reverse being a Ford owner on a Chevy board. What's the big deal?
Jun 30, 2000 (1:24 am)
brh2: Sorry but IMHO the 2000 Impala is butt ugly. About the only thing that spoils the scenery more is the sight of a 2000 Monte Carlo. No jealousy here just calling them as I see them. The Lumina that the Impala replaced was attractive enough for a sedan, no complaints from me here. I still like the 98-99 Taurus body the best of any Taurus ever made including the 2000.
Jun 30, 2000 (5:49 am)
the 2000 impala is "slumming" from the standpoint that it really is a cheap looking car.
Maybe fine for the sprint car crowd, or something. But man, you would never want to show up at a nice restaurant or social event driving one. Really, a night on the town in your IMPALA? Seriously, you'd get more style points in a Daewoo Laganza. Sadly, the Bonneville looks even more corny. Yet, the Grand Prix, Aurora, Regal and Intrigue have fabulous exteriors (only the Aurora has a nice interior).
At least the 2000 Taurus can hold its own in more expensive company. A nice dark colored Taurus with a nice leather int. looks fine in the company of an A6 OR A8, or a Passat, or any other car like that you'd see at, say a private college on graduation day when all the rich parents go to see thier kids get a dipl.
Even a Chrysler Concorde or Dodge Intrepid looks nicer, but they still looks a bit cheesy.