Fuelly Forums

Fuelly Forums (http://www.fuelly.com/forums/)
-   General Discussion (Off-Topic) (http://www.fuelly.com/forums/f22/)
-   -   Just read the 2006 Taurus review... (http://www.fuelly.com/forums/f22/just-read-the-2006-taurus-review-3186.html)

Rstb88 10-20-2006 06:12 PM

Just read the 2006 Taurus review...
Just got done and it kinda made my heart hurt. I loved the taurus I had and the one my mom has. Seeing as he got 18-23mpg on an engine made back in 1986 and has never changed thats pretty damn good. The only difference is that it runs on 5w20. The tranny is an axod-e which means disconnect the battery overnight and drive it like you would normally and allow the adaptive transmission to learn and it will serve you well. unfortunantly the backend always sags, that what us TCCA (taurus car club of america) members call saggy but syndrome that only SAR spring from for can cure and still maintain stock ride somfort. And fords lack of understanding that a rearsway bar would make a huge difference, the really only reason the suspension sucks. The SHO was disconntinued in 99 when Ford viewed it as a lose. Too many people tried to get a warranty fix on the camshaft failure, which Ford will still not fix, its a 2grand job in USD. And the Taurus farther fell when fleet sales went up and the technology stopped progressing. Even though it was rated as a bad car not suggested for retail, it is highly loved and has a good aftermarket following.

Spule 4 10-20-2006 08:40 PM

The Taurus was a success, and a what COULD have been.....like the Voyager, this was the car that got Ford out of a pinch. It was the top US car for many years until the Camry beat it in 1997.

There was, for a short period, a five-speed manual version called the MT-5 with a 4 cylinder motor. If this had been taken further and marketed well, this car could have been right there with the imports. EPA 22-32 (wagon -1) with a 2.5 four is nothing to laugh at, but by 1990, it had gone. The attention to aerodynamics and use of space was good, but did not last as the cars went through subsequent re-design and got bigger and piggish. If the European Ford division had been allowed to work on the interior bits and suspension, it could have improved the car, and a bigger market?

The lights go out on the Taurus in a week. The rental/rep/government car buying folks will have to look elsewhere soon.

onegammyleg 10-21-2006 01:38 AM


Originally Posted by Rstb88
unfortunantly the backend always sags, - members call saggy but syndrome

Oh , so its sumthing like this then.


Rstb88 10-21-2006 01:06 PM

MT-5 was and is rare to find. I think there was one on ebay that sold for 5grand. besides the inline4 was unrealisticall underpowered to be continued. the gen2 where great but the had the axod and so did some of the early 00 and 01(cause ford had extras 96-99 were exempt from recieving these)but the tranny was notorious for going out. theclencher: is the owner of that vehicle a member of the tcca. i want to know the model, year, and if it was a gl or se or what ever the classification was. ford had considered introducing the mondeo as the new taurus but that never came to realization. and you can tell ford got cheap on this car when the only changes make for the fourth gen was a remodeled front and rear fascia and lights. it was a couple hundred lighter making it the lightest taurus made. thats called a motorcycle wedgie. oh and they said the duratech got better mileage, but it came at a big cost. you have to baby it more than the vulcan(3.0 ohv standard engine) and when it came to maintanance time you have very little room to work with to change the plugs with. the only one harder to work on was the 3.4 v8 in the 96-98 SHO, which required removing upper intake and sometimes the lower intake manifolds. oh and ford had a concept gen 4 sho which had the new 4.4 yamaha v8 in it, but yet again ford never made it.

Rstb88 10-21-2006 01:14 PM

of course the guys on tcca are more power oriented so they swap out the 3.0 duratech with 2.5 svt heads from the contour and some other things and make some awesome power. not to mention some of the things they do to the vulcans over on the ranger forums. can't do much to a tempo except kick it....j/k that picture makes me think who needs brakes when you're your own parachute

rh77 10-21-2006 08:39 PM

With the same 3.0L displacement, the DOHC Duratec engine did indeed provide much better real-life enonomy than the Vulcan V-6. Also agreed, the SHO was definitely the one to have -- but foremostly, the Taurus in common fashion, defined the "Family Car" for a generation.

BTW, thanks for reading the review!

Rstb88 10-22-2006 12:40 PM

I don't mean to critic or put down the review, it just I had one as a first car and I fell in love with them and defend them..

rh77 10-22-2006 01:10 PM

It's all good...

Originally Posted by Rstb88
I don't mean to critic or put down the review, it just I had one as a first car and I fell in love with them and defend them..

It's all good -- I've driven many miles in a Tauruses and they've never let me down; however, I've known a few friends who had problems at that 100K mile mark. I admit it's too bad that the line has been dropped, nor have been remade into an efficient family-mover.

No offense taken -- it's a free forum, and constructive criticism is actually appreciated.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.