Reliability

I got a good deal on my taurus and have been paying for it ever since. In 1993 I paid $5100.00 not bad for a msrp of $16000.00 new two years earlier. I have replaced the transmission, motor mounts, ignition, air conditioning, wheel bearing, and much much more. The air conditioning needs repair every two years. The power windows don't work. The power door locks don't work. It has a leak in the trunk, a leak in the front driver door. Overall the 1991 Ford Taurus is an unreliable piece of junk, and I highly advise against the purchase of one. By the way mine is for sale for $1500.00.

great power...SE with the 200hp. The base motor only so so on power. Makes you wonder why this slow poke motor would be in something bigger like a Windstar

So so comfy seats,overdone "ovoid" styling done here. The Sable comes off better on style. Slow indecisive transmission.

Wow,great car. The dual over head cammer really wants to get there when you stomp the accelerator. Reasonable on fuel too. My Vegas runs are cheap with this twin cammer 200hp motor. I still averaged 24 mpg with some pretty spirited driving. On the way, I notice the seats could offer more support,especially on my thighs. I am about 5' 9" and I have not overly long legs,but a bit more bolstering here would help. Plus more support on the seat cushion where my posterior would reside. It still feels like sitting on a brick after a long 250 mile or so long drive. Wind noise although still quite low could be quieter. The spaceship ovoid theme is a bit much too. All the controls though are within easy reach. The audio cassette,AM/FM do an ok job here. I usually bring a portable DAT/CD player to listen to my tunes. I just can't tolerate those poor sounding wow/flutter boxes with DXing the tuners that any great portable radio could out do. Once you get past the questionable styling just step on the accelerator pedal and once the transmission makes up its' mind to kickdown, away you go. Quickly and smartly. The handling is quite good for a family car. Don't worry BMW,and You MERC' drivers out there,this Taurus still won't out do those,or the Audis' out there either. But within its own world,it does just fine. Moderate amounts of understeer dialed in here,the front driver here needs more room also to make U-turns than a rear driver,no surprise here.The brakes are fine with the anti-lock to keep the drama down. Pedal feel is decent. The 4 wheel disc brakes do a credible job stopping this sedan. The ride is quite good too without too much pitching about. Running over say railroad tracks still shows the car is decently damped and buttoned down. Overall,it is easy to see how Ford sells so many of these. I really don't think you need the SHO when this guy will do the job nicely. For 2000 I see that the styling is way better and the Transmission indeciviness is taken care of. About time Ford(the transmission issue that is). Better late than never I guess. I hope it doesn't have the dreaded tie rod problem the Windstars do(at least the Windstars' pre '99 design) Windstars use the same drive train and share some suspension components of the Taurus.
A great starter family car that gets better with time. Decent amounts of room,good size trunk capacity,good ride with reasonably taut handling and enough power to do the job,though the transmission is alittle slow to get with the program at times. Easy to maintain. Stay away from the base 3.0 motor,there just isn't enough power to move a fully loaded car on a trip like say,up the grapevine. You will appreciate the extra 43 horsepower here. If you can't go Japanese for some reason,this Taurus is still a nice way to go. V.C.

Similar Products Used:

Chevy Lumina

The SHO I've owned from new; the LX I've rented a few times. The Yamaha V-6 in the SHO is probably the best engine I've ever driven; it makes the car. Good torque from 2500 rpm; whiplash inducing power from 4200 r.p.m right thru fuel shut-off at 7800 r.p.m. Great stealth car; no spoiler or other add-ons to attract the attention of the police. (The SHO replaced a Mustang GT that seemed to make the police go nuts. They were all over that car, and I'm not talking about speeding.) Very comfortable for 4 people; tasteful interior. 5-speed tranny o.k. once it's warmed up.

The brakes are a scandal on a car with this speed potential (140+mph). I've melted brake pad material on to the discs in some runs in the mountains. The clutch throw-out bearing failed after 25K miles! After many threats, etc. Ford finally ponied up the repair cost $1,000+. Handling is ok., but front-drive limits ultimate performance potential. Body flex at the back end makes for some squeaks in back seat area. Front seats are not all that comfortable on long drives. 98 LX: suspension manages to combine harsh ride impact with sluggish handling -- a neat trick. 3.0 Vulcan engine completely gives up on power after 3000 rpm; forget about passing anything going faster than 50 mph unless you have a lot of room. Auto tranny has weird gear ratio spacing; big jumpt between top gear and next lowest gear means that accleration just dies when car shifts to top gear. Tranny very reluctant to shift down out of top gear; programmed to lug engine.

The V-6 SHO is a great buy on the used market and a fun car to drive. The 92 car has a rod shifter which is much better than the cable shifter that preceeded it. Later models have larger front brake discs and more robust clutches. The 3.2 liter bored-out Yamaha motor in the automatic version (introduced in '94, I think) has more torque to compensate for the slushbox. The auto-SHO has nearly equivalent straight-line performance from a standing start as the 5-speed, but loses out once the car is moving more than 20 mph; the autoSHO also is more softly sprung than the 5-speed. The 3.4 liter V-8 SHO introduced in '96 or '97 (to be discontinued next year) is an entirely different car -- not as hard-edged as the 5-speed V-6 car with inferior performance, except braking.

strong engine

expensive parts and labor

I completely enjoyed the car until about, O' say from 50,000 to 110,000 miles. Frozen calipers, headlamp switch melted, ignition broken, main computer replaced, air conditioner quit, water pump replaced, power stearing noisy, front strut squeaks all the time, clutch replaced (which I would expect at 70k), tappit gasket leaks, oil pan gasket leaks. Parts and labor are very expensive: Ford wanted $482 for plug/wire replace, over $1,000 for clutch, $500 water pump replace, brakes $$$$, $390 for tappit gasket replace. It was a great car for awhile, but I don't recommend the 1993 3.0 SHO. Try another model year.

Similar Products Used:

Maxima SE, BMW 325i, Audi A4

Decent reliability

Too many to list: weak engine, shotty brakes, crappy interior, just plain sucks

I strongly recommend not getting a taurus. If all ford cars are like this, then many americans are getting a bad deal from them. I say go with a Chrysler/Dodge car; I have one and I love it.

Similar Products Used:

99 Chrysler 300M (MUCH BETTER BUY)

strong enginve

RELIABILITY

My Taurus was a 3.8L and had very good power and acceleration. That is the ONLY good thing I can say about the car because the reliability was so poor. The motor mounts had to be replace 3 times in 100K miles; a defect that Ford will never admit to. The air conditioner went out twice. Constant problems with CV joints/boots, power steering, brakes, electrical system, radiator and transmission. The transmission finally died. The 1987 Honda Civic drove better and was much more reliable and is still going strong.

Quality is job #1?!! I don't think so! I will never buy another Ford product after my Taurus experience.

Similar Products Used:

Acura CL, Maxima SE, Honda Civic and Accord, Mazda Protege

Handling, Power, Steering, Brakes, Ride, Comfortable for 5 full-gron adults intown, 4 on long trips.

Slower than a Maserati, Doesn't go off-road like a Land-rover, or carry as many people as a Suburban. Wind noise above 60 mph.

I have been nothing but happy with my SHO. It is a very well designed vehicle. It has respectable power, handling and can comfortably carry family and clients, without being too flashy.(although it is on the verge of that, once they have ridden in it :

Similar Products Used:

I've rented about every similar car.

Handles very well. This car replaced a '97 model destroyed in an accident - it's head and shoulders better than the '97. Duratec engine, 200 hp v6 is well worth the $. Full size spare tire. Comfortable seats (bucket front & console)

Trunk somewhat difficult to load/unload. Entry & egress

Very satisfied with this automobile. Duratec engine is highly recommended - runs like a real performance car! Comfort and convenience features are excellent. Worksmanship reflects excellent quality control. A nice, tight vehiclce.

Similar Products Used:

89 Taurus, 97 Taurus GL

-it's a sho, come on
-with glasspack mufflers it sound very cool
- if you read this far you probably know everthing there is to know about a sho so i'll stop now

i beat on my car so this really doesn't represent a average car but for the sake of lunacy i will contiune
-2 clutchs, i put in the 9.75 in so it's cool now
- motor mounts, front and rear---no surprize the way i drive
- front rotors and pads---till i got groved rotors, they sucked
- i hate $30 oil changes, mobil 1 5w30 and a motorcraft filter
- front tires of course
-it's not faster

the reveiws are very polar on this page, love or hate, some in the middle but not many. i have the SHO pacage cause i love to drive fast and be crazy, i'm willing to spend the extra matinece money to keep my car up to the task. if you beat on sho's the breckage factor is tripled......but who says it's not worth it.

if you have tools and no fear, buy a 89. 89's are the best sho's by far if you think other wise go to the shotimes forum and look at the "supersho" file and see how many non89 sho's are listed

as stated above "it's like driving art"

i'm taking control of the rateings so this is what i think the first one, value rateing is relabity if you beat on it. the second "overall ratings" is the number of times i've gotten away from law enforcment officers because of speeding and the taurus "old person factor"

Similar Products Used:

i geuss the only compareably products are bmw's and infinti's and i haven had the privagle yet to own one of those

3.8L? No way, I had one for 5 years (1993), it was a great car even though it had to have a short block replacement and an entire tranny rebuild at 60k miles. My Sable WAS comfortable and stylish, I just didn't like the fact that it spent close to 6 months at the dealer while I owned it.

My SHO is WAY faster than my Sable ever dreamed it could be, especially since the SHO is a stick. Better gas mileage, too, about 26-28mpg vs 22-24 for the Sable w/3.8L

Not a cheap car to maintain. I have not had any costs creep up just yet, but the SHO is a car that you definately want to perform PREVENTATIVE maintenance on, not wait until something breaks. Upside, though, is that if you maintain it well, the SHO's Yamaha engine is known to live upwards of 300k miles. Great support from other SHO owners online, too. Much better than the regular Taurus/Sable boards.

As for the Sable with 3.8L, it consumed over $6800 of warranty work, then another $1000 after the warranty. When it ran it ran great, but there was always SOMETHING that was not either dead or on it's way out. Two blower motors, three headlamp switches, driver's seat motors, defroster window, 3 a/c compressors along with all the parts that get destroyed when they go out, the ECU, that one was real expensive, an ignition control module, two sets or rear brakes sliding brackets and of course the ever present front brake warping problem. And don't forget the tranny rebuild and short block replacement.

I just had to comment after reading the one post about the 3.8L being stronger than the 3.0L SHO motor, obviously some people are misinformed (Well, actually, most people are) The 3.0L that came in the Taurus SHO is NOT the 3.0L vulcan motor the regular Taurus received. It is a motor that was designed and built entirely by Yamaha, except for various sensors and whatnot on it.

The 3.8L motor Ford produced put out about 200ftLbs or torque and 140hp. the hp is very low because the torque on the 3.8L comes on early (makes for a great traffic driver and a good towing motor, gives a strong "butt feel" when punching the gas from a stop, but that is all. The power dies by 4000 rpm and the motor can't get past 5k.

The 3.0L Ford produced put out the same hp IIRC, but less torque.

The 3.0L Yamaha produced that was put into the Taurus SHP puts out around 190ftLbs, but 220hp. The motor revs strong all the way to it's limiter at 7300 rpm. Low-end torque is not great, but it's a stick, so it really doesn't matter. Once you get up into the rpm's the SHO obliterates both the 3.0L and the 3.8L equiped vehicles.

To anyone that would like to have a car that can haul the entire family or tons of groceries, but is quick in stock form like a pre 1998 Mustang, this car is the one. There is a limited but high-quality aftermarket for the car, too, for up to 300HP NA and even higher with forced induction. Don't try that with your 3.8L, if the head gaskets don't fail the crank life will be seriously reduced. (Plus the ever present tranny issues)

Similar Products Used:

Neither car (same unibodies) is as tight as my wife's contour, which is slightly smaller and has a better body construction, but the SHO now is tighter than the Contour after about $400 in subframe connectors and subframe bushings. Roomier by a bit, of course. The 96 and newer Taurus/Sable is tighter to begin with, though, and much closer to the ride of the contour, yet quieter and of course roomier. The newer motors have more power, but still are not as fast as either the MTX or ATX SHO, nor do they get as good gas mileage. Not sure about the 96 and up SHO, they changed the motor to a V8 with head built by Yamaha and vulcan based block (or is it duratec? Unsure.) The motors have more power (need it because the car is heavier than the previous versions of the SHO) and only come with ATX. I am unsure of the gas mileage, but I have heard it is still excellent and the car is of course still faster than any stock regular Taurus or Sable.