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
#220 of 3389 Engne computer problem
Jul 06, 2000 (1:21 am)
taterstud: I had a similar problem with a 1991 Taurus when it was brand new. I went back & forth 4 times with the dealer with no satisfaction. Couldn't duplicate problem, they tried the throttle sensor, O2 sensor etc. I kept insisting that it was the computer but they wouldn't change it. Got the Ford regional rep. involved and we finally agreed that the computer would be replaced, but if it didn't fix the problem I'd have to pay for the computer. The computer change fixed the problem. We kept the car to about 60K then sold it to a neighbor who drove it to 135K without the problem never occurred again after the computer was changed.
Jul 06, 2000 (4:03 am)
The Taurus outsells the Impala because its a good looking car!
I'm convinced most people buy cars based primarily on two criteria
as for price from what I've seen Tauruses can be had a bout 1000 bucks cheaper or more than most GM models.
As far as looks, wouldn't most of America rather have a handsome 2000 Taurus than a confused looking Impala?
Jul 06, 2000 (10:47 am)
#223 of 3389 regfootball (posting #241)
Jul 06, 2000 (2:50 pm)
GM produces a lot cars in about the the same size / price range as Taurus: not only Chevy Impala, but also Buick Century, Buick Regal, Chevy Monte Carlo, Olds Intrigue and Pontiac Grand Prix. And a bit smaller Chevy Malibu.
All of them but Malibu are close related: they have more or less the same underbody, suspension, engines and transmissions. And there is a serious internal competition between the models: people have to select, for example, between Impala and Regal, or between Monte Carlo and Grand Prix.
I am not 100% sure, but it looks more reasonable to me to compare not the Taurus sales vs. the Impala ones, but the Taurus + Mercury Sable (sedans and wagons) vs all the mid-size GM (sedans and coupes).
#224 of 3389 Regfootball and others
Jul 06, 2000 (3:10 pm)
Granted the new Taurus is a much decent looking car than the very "Confused" previous 96-99 generation. However, based on my very negative past experiences with Ford regarding the reliability of their "Quality Job#1" products and lousy customer service, I would recommend the Taurus or any other Ford product with a great dosis of caution. The Impala is not meant to be a "Crowd" pleaser like the Taurus. The Taurus caters primarily to those buyers than are attracted to the "Import" looks but for one reason or another will not put an Asian product in their garages. On the other hand the Impala and the Intrepid cater to those buyers that appreciate the virtues of traditional full size American sedans with all the advantages of modern technology in areas pertaining to powertrain, suspension, handling, safety features without losing the "Positive" (Positive means solid handling, safety, comfort, etc) American feel. The Taurus deserves a lot of credit in American automotive history as the car that not only saved Ford Motor Company but the car that open a whole new generation of better engineered domestic sedans. Before 1986, the domestic industry was suffering at the hands of the Asian manufacturers and the Taurus completely changed the mind set of domestic and foreign car buyers alike. The main problem with the Taurus is its reliability reputation. Most Tauruses have been extremely problematic cars while others have had exceptional reliability. The First generation Taurus SHO was a milestone for the model line as it showed the capacity of a domestic automaker in producing a world class sport sedan. Sadly, the most interesting Taurus model has been discontinued, but It might make a comeback in a few years time.
Aside from the old and worn out debate of who's better (Ford vs. Chevrolet) and the reliability issues that have plagued the Taurus line as well as other GM lines, the Impala is an alternative for those of us that simply don't care for the "Mainstream" looks and performance of the Ford Taurus. The Taurus is indeed a much better looking vehicle than the either the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry, but the typical Impala and Intrepid buyers are not after these vehicles. You have to understand the market mission of the Taurus, Impala and Intrepid:
Taurus competition targets: Accord, Camry, Altima
Impala competition targets: Intrepid, Concorde, Ford Crown Victoria.
Intrepid: Impala, Buick LeSabre, Regal, Grand Prix, Intrigue, Maxima, Passat (To a point).
Why I chose the Impala over the Taurus?
Here are my reasons (Personal perspectives)
* Complete distrust of Ford quality
* Tainted reliability reputation
* Taurus looks sharp but still is bland and easily gets lost in the parking lot.
* The Impala's 3800 Series II V-6 and smooth, precise automatic transmission is a cut above the "Vulcan" and the OHC "Duratec" engines and the slow Ford 4-speed automatic.
* The Impala drives better, handles better and provides a much better road feel than the Taurus.
* The engine/transmission combo in the Impala provides amazing braking effect, something missing from the Taurus and non-existant in the Intrepid/LH cars.
* 5 Star government crash testing scores (A tie since the taurus has the same rating)
* Fuel economy on the 3800 Impala engine is a steady 20 city/ 30 highway accomplished with regular 87 octane gas.
* Content level on the Impala LS: Traction Control, ABS, Tire pressure monitor, 16" alloys, police grade 4-wheel disk brakes, quick ratio steering, trip computer, steering wheel mounted radio controls, RDS stereo system, dual zone temp climate control, dual power front seats, side airbags, dual exterior heated mirrors, etc for under $22,000.
*Comfort and plenty of room for cargo and passengers.
* Love or hate it looks....whether you like or not an Impala stands in the crowd.
*Have received complimients from VW, Mercedes, BWM, Honda and FORD TAURUS OWNERS!
So since the Taurus is not my "Cup of Tea" and the Intrepid's oversized Space Ship design doesn't appeal to me either, the Impala just fits perfectly in between the two.
Again the Taurus is a very nice car, but there are other alternatives just as good or better in terms of value, safety, performance and quality.
I would like to encourage the participants in this topic to stop the nonsense rants against the Impala. Hey if you don't like the car, fine, this is a free country! But let's find things in common and share experiences and knowledge about both cars....it would be very intertesting to see how the Taurus and Impala perform on a day to day basis and what advantages and disavantages one has over the other and so forth
The purpose of these forums is to inform potential buyers about experiences with a particular model line, not to trash, humilliate and insult the choices of other car buyers than happen to think differently from you and I. let's grow up and show some maturity and respect for each other!
Enjoy your rides! They look very nice!
Jul 06, 2000 (6:16 pm)
My opinion: I'm laughing at the whole article. Especially the write up on the Intrepid "We would have liked some rear-end action, but the Intrepid's understeering nature probably makes it the "SAFEST" of these automobiles" You front drivers are so brainwashed.
In compro to the Dodge my car accelerates faster, hauls down from 60-0 in less distance, has a skidpad of .82g, has a large rear seat, huge trunk, and will last when driven hard. It's design is over 10 years old. Really folks, what great advances have been created that beat this? For such a "new design" the Impalla doesn't really beat any of these parameters, nor does the Tauri family. Forget about the Intrepid....it'll break. Bulls, antelopes, adjectives...ahhh give me a crown anyday.
#226 of 3389 Nothing personnel
Jul 06, 2000 (6:18 pm)
Just stirrin up conversation.
#227 of 3389 Actually
Jul 06, 2000 (6:29 pm)
The basic design of your car dates back from 1977. The Crown Vic's are good sturdy cars, but they frankly don't impress me much. But I would pick any of them over a SUV or minivan.
#228 of 3389 Any one heard of this problem?
Jul 06, 2000 (10:26 pm)
A friend of mine just bought a Y2K Taurus and had the following problem: Using the key fob or the key itself to enter the car. But the car wouldn't start (it's as if the factory alarm is still engaged). Car had to be towed to dealer. Dealer says part (transceiver) is on back order!
Any one heard of this problem? She's only had the car a month!
Jul 06, 2000 (10:56 pm)
you can't compare taurus+sable to "each and all GM somewhat close to midsize sedans" because
a) chevy and ford are direct competitors as mainstream basic autos. Chevy wants to beat ford. Can't beat ford when your model that directly competes with the taurus sells 1/3 of the taurus
b) even you did group all of gm's mid size offerings into one group and compared its sales to the taurus, the question would need to be asked "Why the hell does GM need to design and build 10 different models under six different brands to sell 500,000 midsize sedans when Ford can sell near that of just Taurus alone?" Is GM that friggin lame that they can't make one competing model that will outsell the Taurus? Do they really need to have ten different designs under so many different labels in that much more dealers to sell the same amount of cars? Certainly not very economical.
As for reliability, you are saying Taurus are unreliable basing it primarily on the older generation Taurus model before 96. They may have below average but the 96 on up Taurus' are actually quite good, and certainly equal or better than many GM models. I know of three people personally who have had 96-99 Taurus, and have a combined 250k miles on them that have been entirely trouble free. As for Fords in general, I just traded a Thunderbird with 73k miles on it that I spent a total of 300 dollars in repairs for fixes over a five year span. In contrast my fatherin laws 1998 Olds 88 blows a tranny with 40 k miles on it to the tune of a thousand bucks. Or my dad's Seville with 30k miles on it and blown struts in front the dealer says will cost hundreds to replace.
Fords are no Toyotas but you can't label them as all crap because they are actually pretty solid. Ford at least builds durable motors built with the latest in technology. And the cars themselves hold up better than Chevy's, Pontiacs, etc.