Last post on Aug 22, 2008 at 10:00 PM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
What is this discussion about?
Ford Five Hundred, Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, Future Vehicle, Sedan, Wagon
#524 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [jsylvester]
Mar 25, 2008 (5:07 am)
The problem with the Grand Marquis and its sister ships is its ancient platform, not its reliability. When I drive or ride in one, the contrast with a modern luxury or near luxury sedan is greatest with the body stiffness. It's the same looseness that was common with all large cars until the mid-90's or so. Even when the GM is new and fairly rattle-free, it clunks and bangs and shudders over potholes and uneven pavement, heaving expansion joints and so on. Then as it ages, it develops squeaks and rattles that show up on sharp bumps that only add to the sense that it is not a quality chassis. In its time, it was competitive. That time has passed.
The other glaring difference is in the interior: uneven gaps, too many cut lines, old style finishing that looks amateurish now compared to the competition. But like any proven product, you know what you are getting and if you can live without the improvements that are standard on just about any other car, its cheap and troublefree motoring.
Most cars these days are reliable, compared to a few years ago. VW for example has mediocre reliability ratings, yet mine have been completely trouble free. Ford's current "experiments" are screwed together rather well.
#525 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [gregg_vw]
Mar 25, 2008 (5:34 am)
Gregg, I couldn't agree with you more. I have had numerous GMs, CVs, and TCs as rentals. Driving one is like going back in time - and not to a good time - for American cars. The seats are not comfortable, the ride is loose, there is too much engine noise, power is lacking, interior fit/finish is poor, and the rear seat room is horrible for cars that take up so much space.
A Taurus or Sable is vastly superior in all of the areas noted above. You and I agree that the styling of the Taurus/Sable is a turn off to prospective buyers but otherwise they are excellent mainstream sedans.
I have ridden in CV and TC cabs that have over 400,000 miles on them. I know they will last. If longevity is the primary purchasing decision, I suppose they have merit. I just couldn't tolerate one of the beasts long enough to put many miles on one.
#526 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [jsylvester]
Mar 25, 2008 (9:17 am)
It's easy to get the bugs worked out of a car when you have over ten years to do it. That old thing better be reliable - it has no excuse to be otherwise.
#527 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [thegraduate]
Mar 25, 2008 (10:48 am)
Try 30. The 1992 redesign used the same chassis introduced in 1978 as a 79 model. The updates since 1992 have improved the steering and handling a bit, but the bulk of the car has been the same since then. It's now like the Checker used to be, a new old car that is leagues behind what is sold now. But reliability is what its got, beside blue haired (or uniformed) drivers.
#528 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [gregg_vw]
Aug 22, 2008 (2:33 pm)
Good point. The Ranger is in the same boat, it dates back to 1984.
#529 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [gregg_vw]
Aug 22, 2008 (3:36 pm)
But as a taxi it is pretty good. I had a ride lately in SF and it felt very comfortable.
#530 of 530 Re: Taurus vs Sable [gregg_vw]
Aug 22, 2008 (10:00 pm)
I was thinking about the 4.6 V8 going into it, but that may have been even later.