Ford’s well-contoured ’96 Taurus had two fatal flaws
The third generation (1996–99) Ford Taurus was almost as much of a moonshot as the original 1986 model, which revolutionized the American family sedan. Ford’s decision to develop a third-gen Taurus had merit, as the best-selling car in America was getting stale—to the point that many wondered if fleet sales were the only reason the model could earn that “best seller” title. No matter, the appeal of the OG “jellybean” Taurus was gone by the early 1990s. The bull needed a clean-sheet redesign, perhaps one that took the Jelly Belly look to the next level.
How could the people behind “the car that saved Ford” not hit another home run, if the corporate mothership let them run wild for a second time?
And there it is. Oof. The new Taurus was unquestionably better that the second-gen one in every metric, except for the two that mattered: cost and public perception. The new bull scared more people off than it should have, and traditional fleet buyers scoffed at the inflated asking price; the fancy interior bits were just asking for damage by careless employees/renters. Perhaps all the trouble started with Ford picking the wrong source of inspiration.
The 1991 Ford Contour Concept was quite possibly one of the best examples of designers reaching too far: the volume of ovoids and avant-garde twists on automotive design traditions were simply too much for the Taurus’ more traditional demographic. Which is a shame, because the Contour Concept’s sculptural elements translated logically into the 1996 Ford Taurus.
Well, in theory. Terrifyingly radical styling aside, the 1996 Taurus offered something its predecessors lacked: serious attention to craftsmanship and refinement. The interior was far more luxurious, including triple-stitched leather seats (not mere leather seating surfaces), soft-touch plastic everywhere (including places nobody cared), and delightful details like the flip-out console inspired by Mazda’s ɛ̃fini MS-8 sedan. NVH engineering was heavily improved with a significantly stiffer chassis, and the sweet-revving, 3.0-liter, four-cam Duratec V-6 had 200 Camry-and-Accord-stomping horsepower.
Ford was so proud of its effort to regain the place atop the family-sedan hierarchy that it even invited a journalist into the process. And I bet you didn’t know Ford splashed the cash for a backlight grille emblem on the sistership Mercury Sable. But that emblem and hundreds of other cash-burning features were jettisoned in favor of currying fleet-manager favor and beefing up the bottom-line of stockholders’ equity. Ford’s rush to jettison costs came to head in the mid-year introduction of the Taurus G. (The GL trim levels clearly had too many letters to be profitable.)
Then there’s the matter of the third-generation Taurus SHO, complete with a V-8, an automatic transmission, and a fair bit of extra weight. Can you hear the comments section firing up for this one?
Motorweek got its hands on a third-gen SHO finished in the period-appropriate Rose Mist Clearcoat Metallic and the publication heaped genuine praise on it. The front end clearly smooths out the regular Taurus’ catfish face, the V-8 powertrain was disturbingly refined, the ZF variable-orifice power steering was marvelous, and the seating upgrades had purpose. But the high-performance model was a pleasure spiked with pain, as all the benefits that made the 1996 Taurus such a great family car muted the SHO’s once-famous dynamics and rowdy demeanor.
Most folks will hammer on the fact that the V-8 SHO was only available with an automatic. A fair point, but most V-6 SHOs were sold with a slushbox, ensuring it would be fun for the whole family. And the odds of Ford’s carryover MTX manual handling the V-8’s added torque were unlikely. In any case, the odds weren’t high enough to satisfy an OEM’s need for durability.
Speaking of durability, the Achilles’ heel of the third-gen Taurus SHO was that Yamaha-tweaked V-8 mill. Sure, it sounds nice, and, if you modify the exhaust, it might be the best-sounding production V-8 ever. But failing cam sprockets with an interference engine design did in so many of these SHOs. And that’s a shame, because there are so many reasons to love these overtly oval family sedans.
So let me make a hot take, and suggest the 1996 Taurus was a great car with forgivable flaws (V-8 cam sprockets aside). The styling was logical but too radical, a leap which inadvertently busted the door wide open for cost cutting. The cheaper it looked, the quicker the circle closed: By the introduction of the fourth generation in 2000, that unique oval rear window had disappeared, leather seats had become plasticky, and hard interior polymers had come back in full force. Taken all together, the changes made a compelling reason to spend extra for the Taurus’ Japanese competition. Ford’s cost-cut Taurus is one reason why the Accord and Camry are still for sale to this day.
In some ways the third generation Taurus’ demise ushered in a new era of globally designed platforms with far more mundane proportioning and forgettable styling but exponentially more profit for their manufacturer. Why make a sedan for North America alone when you could leverage stuff made elsewhere?
By the end of the ’90s, North American automotive exceptionalism was limited to trucks and SUVs, making Ford’s bursting of this particular bubble a shame. But perhaps we knew that the Taurus’ well-contoured ovals were never gonna last when exposed to forces outside of Ford’s control.
***
Check out the Hagerty Media homepage so you don’t miss a single story, or better yet, bookmark it. To get our best stories delivered right to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletters.
Sajeev Mehta, You mentioned how the bean counters removed the lighted Mercury emblem. However, I never understood the reasoning behind the Amber Parking Light housed in the headlight bezel with a separate flashing turn signal in the grill. I thought that would have been an easy place to cut costs.
Until I read the book “Car”. The author stated it was due to Government regulation that required the flashing signal to be far enough away from the headlight to be seen when the headlights are on. Regulation won over design and costs it seems.
Yes! I remember reading that too…it made me scratch my head and wonder why the Sable’s headlight assembly and/or front fascia wasn’t designed with this in mind. But it made sense, and doing so kinda killed the backlit Mercury emblem because of the added cost (from an accounting perspective) and the visual distraction (from a design perspective).
I had three Taurus 1987, 1991 and a 1995 which were well liked but when they came out with the bizarre oval styling in 1996 it just totally turned me off. The oval theme looked good on the Oldsmobile Aurora but Ford carried it too far.
I still like the wagon version.
Ford’s greatest liability is itself. It had a great thing going with the second generation Taurus, and they royally botched that. Killing the also brilliant Fusion was another bad decision.
The second generation Taurus was the perfect daily driver. It was my favourite rental car choice at a time when I was travelling 5 days a week for work. The third generation was a styling and ergonomic disaster. It could not have been more different than the second generation Taurus.
Can Ford see their way back to building good vehicles? Can they stop sabotaging themselves? Time will tell.
I think Ford was trying to capture lightning in a bottle a second time. Remember the OG Taurus was a success because of its’ radical smooth design.
I used to work at a car rental shop and I remember the center console was unique but not conducive to aftermarket radios. Most importantly they were lethargic. When you smashed the accelerator, there was a 2 second pause and then power kicked in. Definitely made for those with slow reflexes.
I agree regarding the styling jump. Too much, too soon. The transition should have been milder. Maybe keeping the horizontal front lighting feature, just maybe narrowed a bit more. Other styling changes should have also been less radical. The underpinnings I think were fine, and even the interior could have made it. Too much, too soon! BTW, I still think a SHO wagon would have been super cool!
Guys, the fatal flaw of the Ford Taurus was it being a piece of crap (to use a technical term). We bought a new Taurus wagon in 1989 to ferry #1 baby daughter home from the hospital. Over the next 7 years and 70,000 miles, while our daughter grew lovelier every day, that Taurus simply disintegrated around us. Every single major system failed – cooling, HVAC, suspension, brakes, alternator, power steering, fuel pump, ignition switch. We scored a hat trick one day when a power steering hose, the radiator, and the ignition switch all failed simultaneously as we backed out the driveway. Just absolute junk.
To Hagerty News,
I’m disappointed!
For many years I’ve been an avid reader of your daily articles.
What made it for easy reading was the lack of ads, with no pop-ups, no scrolls, just news and information.
Why did you change that?
Now I have to wait for the interruption while ‘Marketplace’ loads during every article I’m reading.
Please go back to the older way. It will make it easier for me and others to enjoy.
Did you mean to post this rant here in the GEN 3 Taurus comment section? really ?
As a “Ford Guy” and owner of a black on black 91 SHO I was looking forward to the new SHO but it took only one glance to surmise this was the ugliest car ever — Pontiac Aztec included. When this model came out I remember reading an article where Bob Lutz had requested the oval theme be carried out to the max — I’ve wondered about Lutz ever since.
Disinformation??? Lutz left Ford (due to Ford FOOLISHLY naming Red Polling as Peterson’s replacement. How on Earth do you try to blame Lutz for the disaster that was the 1996 Taurus? Had Lutz replaced Peterson, Ford would likely be the best car company on the planet. Perfect example of the principle that “personnel is policy”. Ford selected a bean counter to replace an engineer…….results were inevitable.
OOPS….I left off the key part. Insert “) in 1986.” just after the word replacement.
I LOVE the Oval them, either way, it stands out. 27 years later and people STILL can’t get past it……(sigh)
I don’t get the vitriol for this car. While not the world beater the original was, it was fine for what the segment had become. Whether you got the SHO or the Duratech you got a reasonable amount of power in a well-mannered car. In hindsight, the business was obsessed with BMW-itis. No one could understand how such banal automobiles had taken over the aspirational market.
Thank you DAVE! I left a comment further back about the Gen 3 and the BMW 540i comparo and how the SHO out handled the 540 on the driver course!! Considering the suspension on the SHO was very much the same as used on the BMW !! LOL (people don’t know about that little fact – they think it was all about the V8!). (O:
In it’s day, the original (and Gen II) Taurus was revolutionary. When judged by today’s standards, the SHO is still in the ballpark of being a competitive large performance sedan. 0-60 in 6.5, over 18 cuft of truck space, seats 5 in comfort, better than average handling, and I have obtained over 28 MPGs at 80 MPH, on many road trips, this with the huge trunk fully loaded and an adult passenger. Yes, I realize this is FAR better than the EPA, but I can prove it with records. I am convinced that the EPA hates manuals, so they under-rate the gas mileage estimate.
With rather minor suspension improvements, I was able to push a Mazda RX-8 right off of a road course (Gratten). On the prior session, I had tried to pass it on the strait. While gaining on it, I ran out of room and had to back down, even though I had pulled ahead by a nose.
On the other hand, my wife worked for Ford in management in the 90s. In 1996, we were going to save some money and lease an Escort for her company car. Ford was so desperate to keep the Taurus #1 we were able to lease one for less than the Escort. It was such a POS that we decided that we had made a poor decision and would definitely get the Escort the next year. BUT Ford offered the High end Duratech Taurus for nearly the same price, so we got that. It was far better than the 1996, but still pathetic compared to our 1995 SHOs (we had two by then:)
The moment I saw my first “overtly oval” Taurus, the idea of a catfish face came to mind.
Over the years several friends who appreciate car design reported thinking the same thing.
My need to ask those Ford designers and execs who either somehow didn’t ‘see’ that or didn’t mind a ‘fish face’ will likely never be resolved.
What is so cool about the GEN 3? 27 years later, people are still talking about it’s design. They are pretty much long gone now……………but the design lives on in the comment sections, and glad to see it is NOT so forgettable (((O:
I got a 1999 Taurus because I loved my 1986 one. I laughed at the younger Taurus’ too many circles. They were awkward to the point of looking stupid, but you don’t drive a car’s styling. You drive the vehicle. Alas, the 1986 was everything the 1999 was not, as far as driving, maintaining, and repairing. Things like wheel alignments, which every car needs, were not thought out. I kept my ’86 for over 30 years. When something normal broke on the ’99 that practically required disassembling the car to fix, and cost more than the car was worth, I got rid of the 1999. I still mourn having to get rid of the ’86. But have never looked back at the 1999 with any sentiment. Just a cheaply designed car that I used for transportation.
I had rented a 96 to go on vacation to Canada and really enjoyed it. Also learned about Canada’s running daylights as everybody kept flashing me because my headlights were off. I went on in 2000 to purchasing a one year off lease 1999 green Taurus. It was a great car. Comfortable, roomy as heck, I’m 6’3 and I had tons of headroom. One of the things I really liked and found almost no equal for was the expansive forward visibility of that huge winshield, unlike todays cars. 5 Star crash safety rating. Very reliable, I never replaced a thing on that car except for tires and wiper blades, etc. Traded in at 175,800 miles with only the trunk beginning to leak in water from the worn seals. I do miss it.
We bought a 89 SHO when they were first announced and still have and enjoy it today. The only short fall is the 5 speed trans that is slow to shift. In all these years of use the only trouble we have had was an A/C compressor failure. Great handling car that is still fun to drive.