'92 Taurus 3.0L shifting

Hey everyone...
I have a perfectly good beater Taurus (beautiful brown metallic... NOT!) with 175,000 miles on it. Works fine, starts right up, doesn't
burn oil, etc. etc. Heater doesn't work, but that's another story. :)
I'm mostly happy for what it is: cheap transportation to/from work... what I DO absolutely hate about the car is the wimpy, pathetic shifts that the transmission goes through. I would think the car would seem a lot peppier if the trans would shift faster, rather than laboring through them like it does now. I'm sure a lot of this was probably done to increase longevity of the drivetrain, but it's over the hill now, and I'm looking to replace it whenever it dies... so if I can either make it more bearable and/or hasten its demise, all the better. ;) I'm not looking to improve power, just improve driveability.
Is there any way to improve the shift profile cheaply, or will it cost an arm and a leg (chip)?
Thanks,
*Geoff!*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmmm. Since it's a 92, I doubt it. Before that, the tranny shift points were controlled by a Throttle Valve Cable. You could adjust the cable type. However, yours shifts electronically, and the shift is computer controlled.
You could try disconnecting the battery, which would reset the computer. Then the computer will have to relearn the shifting. Drive it agressively and it should shift a bit firmer I think.
This would be a great question to ask over at www.tauruscarclub.com There are a lot of knowledgable people over there.
CJ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you're not at all worried about blowing it up, switch to Type F fluid. I won't make a huge difference, but some. Sealing rings and bushings will not last as long using old gold F.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:14:29 -0700, Christopher Brown wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Geoff Oltmans wrote:

91/92 were the first years for the AXODE. A lot of them turned into terrorist bombs.
A 3.0 is a reliable motor. But even at its best, its no speed or torque demon. And you want to stress a already questionable trannie even more? If you want to play those games, get a SHO. You treat your 3.0 right, you will get 200K out of it.
BOB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob-
As funny as this sounds - there are a few exceptions to the "terrorist bombs" AXODE tranny rule. I have a 94 SHO automatic and it has 143k miles on it. My driving style has always been somewhere between aggressive and borderline abusive since the day I bought it (around 60k miles). I have always planned to rebuild the tranny with a shift kit and other goodies when it finally grenades but it seems that it just won't die. I should also note that I normally avoid burnouts - for obvious reasons - except for those times when I just can't help myself - then I do them in grand fashion.
Dave
<snip>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Statistically, the AXOD-E was fixed by 94. The worst year by far was 91. Sounds like you have a great car. You should check out www.tauruscarclub.com There's a growing group of SHO owners there.
CJ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Christopher Brown wrote:

91 I believe was the first year for the electronically shifted AXODE. And i think 91/92 were unique years with a different pin configuration to the computer. There were some issues with oil in the planetary section as i recall that had some mods during a rebuild to improve the situation. Along with a host over other minor updates to improve reliability. If one of these early transmissions were rebuilt with all the updates, it should be as good as a newer one. If not, Anything over 100K is bonus time on one of the early units. Feel lucky? I think by late 92 and 93 when they did the mods at the factory and beefed it up a little made the AXODE/AX4S more reliable. Still not bullet proof, but better. If you had a un rebuilt 91 with over 150K, go buy a power ball ticket.
Do a google search on lemon, taurus, and axod and i am sure you will come up with plenty of information on this.
Just for the record, I have had a 89, 90 and two 93's and have not had a trannie failure yet. But i drive easy and stay away from the trouble prone 3.8.
BOB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CJ-
While I would agree that the worst issues were fixed by 94 on the regular Taurus, slap on a higher output 3.2L Yamaha engine from the SHO and you have the recipe for bad things to happen. I can't even keep count of how many dead trannys I have seen/heard of on the 93/94/95 auto SHOs. It seems that anything over 100k or certainly 120k on the stock tranny with a SHO is a bonus (unless you drive like grandma).
Oh, and I am already a member of the SHOtimes mailing lists (www.shotimes.com) but I will check out the taurus car club.
Dave
Christopher Brown wrote:

<snip>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.