You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Sedans Pre-2008
3389 messages, Last post on Jan 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Forum.What is this discussion about? Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, Sedan
#2664 of 3389 Quality: How do Edmunds and Consumer Reports get fooled? by hansienna
Jan 28, 2004 (8:51 pm)
Where do Taurus/Sable, Camry, Accord, Altima, Impala, Intrepid, etc. stand in the overall reliability and resale value?Edmunds and CR don't rate the 2002 Grand Caravan very high but my son loves his. My 1970 Dodge van was the worst vehicle I have ever owned. Many friends got rid of Taurus when the transmissions failed and they claim their Taurus were the worst vehicles they ever owned.
Although my Ford F-150 is rock solid (sorry to steal Chevy's thunder)I wouldn't buy a Taurus or Sable. The risk is too high.
#2665 of 3389 by regfootball
Jan 28, 2004 (9:24 pm)
the 96 taurus had tranny issues and they quickly worked to improve and fixed the issue.and hopefully some learned that flushing your tranny and maintenance is necessary to prolonging your tranny life.
facts
the taurus is dated
and not at the top of class in refinement
depreciates rapidly
but
its reliable and has a well established track record
inexpensive to buy and operate
is one of the roomiest mid sizers
it not cheese like GM
OHC is available for cheap
SAFETY
and, the Taurus is a good looking (if familiar) car. Ford did a tremendous job fixing the 96-99 botches. Even if I think my 99 SHO looks quite good with the deeper fascia and side extensions. The base 96-99 cars were not good.
as a number 2 car in the family as the previous poster suggested, its a great alternative. Why buy a Sonata? or something like that.
If its as a primary car and you want a higher level of refinement you might want to pay more but you don't have to be ashamed if you don't and get the Taurus. Its inexpensive but doesn't stoop to cheesemobile status. You can show up at a ritzy function in a Taurus and not look out of place at least.
Personally, to me I think Ford should consider another noticeable refreshening, interior redo and bump up the hp on the Duratec to about 220 and keep this thing in production even when the 500 and Futura hit market, even if only as a fleet car.
#2666 of 3389 reg. by alpha01
Jan 28, 2004 (9:42 pm)
A very good assessment, overall. However, I think the Taurus has fallen behind the times in terms of safety. Yes, it continues with a "Good" from IIHS offset and very impressive frontal results from NHTSA. BUT, you can't get the side curtains (coupled also with side chest airbags in the better models) that are so quickly becoming a focal point in the midsize family sedan saftey issues. Additionally, theres no stability control option, and no rear head restraints is a strange omission, one that I would think easy (and inexpensive) to rectify.Otherwise, for precisely the reasons you speak of, I'd heartily recommend a two or three year old certified used Taurus. I would not, however, endorse a new one over a competiting, and similarly priced, Malibu.
~alpha
#2667 of 3389 More thanks to all for your opinions shared. by dako_tian
Jan 28, 2004 (10:19 pm)
And I must say that, having spent considerable time in the Odyssey topics from early 2000 until fading away in 2002 (recently checking in for old times sake), the discussion here is amazingly civilized. You should all be very proud of yourselves, I think.As you all have covered well, the Taurus suits my needs well. It will be a only-two-day-per-week commute vehicle, otherwise used only sparingly for those "I vant to be left alone" jaunts to the home improvement center. I am not nearly as interested in appearance as I am in safety.
The Accord would satisfy both, but because it does so much better in maintaining its value, it will cost me about $15,000 for a 2001-3 with at least air conditioning (this is North Texas, but Texas nonetheless). (Interestingly, I could probably buy a sufficiently-equipped brand new Accord for around $16,500! Go figure....) I can get a suitable Taurus for nearer $10,000. Frankly, having just started on a $29,000 loan for the Yukon XL SLE we bought in November, I can use the relief that the lower amount would bring in car payments.
Even considering the further depreciation, I'm guessing that anything over three years that I keep the car will amount to almost the same total dollars lost in value -- especially when you figure in the extra interest I'd be paying on the larger amount borrowed. Yep, I'll double-check the budget once taxes are calculated, but we'll probably be scouring the lots soon for the best Certified used Taurus deal at or below $10,000 that we can find.
For me, it comes down to what fits my budget that will still give me the best odds, or nearly so, of surviving should I become involved in one of those daily traffic-snarling incidents on the Dallas area toll and freeways.
Thanks again for the volume of replies and most especially for their general civil tone, well-considered thoughts, and detailed nature. You are as fine a group of web-denizens as I've ever had the pleasure to share a few bytes with!
#2668 of 3389 dako_tian by badgerfan
Jan 29, 2004 (6:54 am)
Well, you sparked a lot of response in a board that was very quiet-though I am sure it is quiet mostly because Taurus is currently not the new kid on the block with a recent redesign, and most of us Taurus/Sable don't need a lot of stroking to assure ourselves what a good car we have. We know it already. You will also notice the Taurus maintenance board is quite quiet too, which is a good thing-it likely means Taurus has no glaring maintenance issues that lots of upset owners would be posting about.As far as deficiencies in Taurus such as rear headrests and airbags for every part of your body, true much of the competition has added these if not standard, as options. This still does not take away from the fact that Taurus is a solid buy at very reasonable prices new or used.
Ford is introducing 500 this year and Futura perhaps by the end of the year or early next and I am sure we will see most of these improvements available on these new cars, along with other new features such as six speed automatics, a wheel drive and CV transmissions, which neither Toyota, Honda or all the rest have yet adopted on their bread and butter sedans.
#2669 of 3389 by snowman
Jan 29, 2004 (9:58 am)
I agree with badgerfan, I am also member of different Taurus forum. I hardly seee any problem with Generation-4 Taurus.500 looks very attractive though...
#2670 of 3389 Tapping noise by upsetter1
Jan 29, 2004 (3:42 pm)
Regarding tapping noise we were talking in prev posts. I had an oil change and asked dealer to diagnose the noise. They told me that there is no tech bulletin for this car and noise rather comes kind of from injectors.#2671 of 3389 by regfootball
Jan 29, 2004 (5:15 pm)
"and similarly priced, Malibu."NOT. let's compare an actual out the door 19 thousand dollar Malibu and Taurus.
the Taurus will have leather and sunroof (and dual power seats?). Duratec. ABS. Autolamp.
Bu at 19k won't even have the faux leather they are trying to pass off as real, and it won't have the sunroof.
Plus, the Malibu is an ugly car, plain and simple. Why pay more for such uglyness? Its not like the Malibu has stability control either.....
remote start? I can have that put in at the dealer or auto store for 100 bucks.
Wait for the bloodshed of incentives on the bu before you can say its price competitive.
safety equipment? that can be added easily if they chose to do so. The basic structure of the steel unibody and safety cage is stout and safe. If Ford added side curtains and stability control it would be welcome and then it would be almost tanklike!
#2672 of 3389 by danielj6
Jan 29, 2004 (7:10 pm)
Just a few thoughts here: CR bases its assessments of quality on their yearly questioner mailed to subscribers. I always found this questioner lacking and limited in scope. I don't find their reviews all that compelling either. That's another issue though.Toyota has built quality and this sold lots of cars. It redesigned their cars continuing with the manufacturer's emphasis on logic, ergonomics excellence and dependability. Looks are something subjective, so I'll leave it out of the conversation.
Ford couldn't or didn't want to do the same. Instead, it put its efforts on standard features, room and safety. These 3 things made me drive my Camry at least twice into Ford dealers to check their cars and possibly trade. Didn't do it basically but not exclusively on Ford's dubious reliability ratings, which worried me.
Dealers'poor treatment was also part of the equation.
Finally, the third time I bought Sable. Traded not a Camry but a different Japanese vehicle. After I test drove the S.W. I could feel its sturdiness, comfort, power and vault like strength.
If Ford improved reliability I wouldn't be thinking of buying something other than Taurus or Sable now. I read that you guys claim your cars to be reliable. My car with less than 30000 miles needs a power steering pump replacement. It's not a new transmission or engine but it's going to run me $$$$$$. It's out of warranty. This could also happen to a Camry or Accord, but what are the odds? These same odds are the reason Toyota surpassed Ford, became 2nd and watch out GM! It's not perceived quality, is real quality.
Just let me say that I don't want to buy Camry and I'm not advertising Toyota or attacking Ford. A car is the second most expensive purchase one makes. I'll never buy a 2 or 3 year certified Taurus with low mileage. It'd be nice if Ford put money into improving what it has instead of making new.
#2673 of 3389 2003 Tauruses/Taurii by chicagosky
Jan 30, 2004 (11:07 am)
A radio commercial aired advertising 2003 Tauruses/Taurii, with less than 20K miles, for under $10,000. Mainly out of curiosity, and because it was at my dealership, I checked it out. It was (as far in the process as I got, anyway, which purposely on my behalf wasn't at all far) legit, and surprisingly, it was SESs and not LXs or SEs. I guess these would be relatively high mileage vehicles, so I thought that might be the reason they're surprisingly low in price. Any other thoughts on why the surprisingly low price?The dealership got them at auction, and they are just the basic SESs (not the SES Sports), and that's the reason they gave for the sale...but still, a comparable SES Sport they listed at around $17,000. I know that's not what someone would actually pay, but the price difference was just interesting.
This may also serve as a bargaining tool for anybody out there trying to buy an '03 SE or SES.
Again out of curiosity, does anybody who frequents this board have the fully equipped SEL, with leather, dual power seats, the Duratec, the wood package, etc.? That must be one heck of a car. I always think my SES is fairly luxurious, and then I remember that there is the SEL.
To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement