Re: Ford builts its last Taurus in Chicago.

Bill 2 wrote:


A mate of mine had a Taurus (when they were being imported to Australia) Was called the Taurus Ghia. He knows too well about the transmissions he had to get a total of 4 replaced under warranty. Had the Duratec 3.0L V6 in it.
the Taurus wasn't so bad with a 3.0 engine. It's not

Oh Uh Mitsu who? :-p
-- All the best Dan. ... and tonight on the Jerry Springer show "farmers who abuse their hoes"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The 2005 Ford 500, the new Mercury Montego and the 2006 Lincoln Zephyr will be built at Chicago on a version of a Ford chassis first used by Volvo. They will be available with a twin can V6 and offered in AWD and FWD. The AWD has a CVT tranny and the FWD will come with a 6 speed automatic or the CVT. Fords 2005 crossover SUV and the 2006 Lincoln Aviator are the vehicles that will be built on a version of the FORD chassis, first used on the Mazda. Although the last Taurus was built at Chicago that is not the end of the Taurus, it will still be built at Atlanta for fleets for another year of two. The Sable is gone however. As to the Taurus, you are entitled to you opinion but hardly junk vehicle some have described, based on what we have seen of that vehicle over nearly 20 years it was sold. I have seen thousands in corporate fleet service run up as high as 300K
mike hunt
Bill 2 wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

We knew in Australia they were a POS. Ugly as sin as well. :-)
-- All the best Dan. ... and tonight on the Jerry Springer show "farmers who abuse their hoes"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan-- wrote:

Thats what happens when a car is built mainly for export, it was built to a price and to a standard that the export market expected. Fortunately standards have improved significantly since that dismal failure was produced.
Daryl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
D Walford wrote:

It had nothing to do with it being an export model.
The fundamental problem was that Ford was trying to prepare the EA Falcon and the Capri for production at the same time and they simply did not have the people resources to do it properly.
Holden had even demonstrated the same problem with the Commodore and the JB Camira about 5 years earlier!
In the early stages of the development of the VT / project 127, I asked one of the American engineers how many platforms GM in the US built, expecting maybe half a dozen or ten.
He started listing them off, counting on his fingers. When he came back to the first hand at 11, I was surprised. By the time he had finished, he was back again. It was just over 20.
When you've got the resources to design and build 20 different platforms each with a life of about 10 years, you can shuffle resources around from one year to the next to suit your needs.
When you build a single platform with a life of about 10 years, you already have serious fluctuations in your requirements for engineers over that 10 year cycle. If you then try to prepare two platforms for release at about the same time, you are going to seriously overstretch yourself.
Holden did it in the early 1980s and Ford repeated the lesson.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Graham W wrote:

I seem to remember the Capri project was very rushed and they had a lot of problems meeting deadlines, I don't know what Ford Australia's contract obligations were when delivering the Capri but if they are anything like Toyotas contract with the Saudi's failing to meet a delivery deadline can result in the cars being delivered FOC.
Daryl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Capri went into production something like 18 months late. Capri always had a sunset because even when it was designed changes to the FMVSS were on the horizon which would end it.
It wasn't so much rushed by shortage of time as shortage of engineering capacity. But you've snipped the explanation about that...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Get a Mazda, you'll never go back...and yes, I do realize that Ford and Mazda have collaborated on a lot of their cars...I traded in my 95 Escort for an 03 Protege last fall and I have been in heaven ever since...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did someone say Ford Capri?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
KELLI SCHRAMM wrote:

That is true after a mate of mine having 4 of them replaced! And Ford Australia was blaming him for the problem. And I have been in the car with him countless of times and he drives like a bloody granny. The rest of the car was fine just the transmission was bloody dismal. Bet they make it out of the lowest grade materials known to man kind.
-- All the best Dan. ... and tonight on the Jerry Springer show "farmers who abuse their hoes"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
athol wrote:

LOL! Good call Athol. :-)
-- All the best Dan. ... and tonight on the Jerry Springer show "farmers who abuse their hoes"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 1 May 2004 10:19:38 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"

I have a 91 and 95 Taurus. I will agree with the transmission issue. Ford replaced the 91 transmission for free at almost 60K miles. They sent me a post card and I hung on to it until the transmission started acting up. I had to get the transmission on the 95 rebuilt.
I replaced the alternator in the 91. The 95 has the original alternator.
I have replaced: struts batteries oil and fuel/air/oil filters PCV valve rotors/drums and pads/shoes half shafts
The rotors and drums were not very expensive and the replacements were much better than the originals.
They both have the original: IGNITION SWITCHES STARTERS FUEL RETURN LINES HEADLIGHTS - but some new OEM type bulbs ENGINE
Although I am in the process of troubleshooting a melting fusible link that feeds the fuse box and the ignition switch in the 91.
Anyone have any troubleshooting tips? I think it is fuse link E (black/orange wire off the starter solenoid that feeds three circuits). It works fine in ACC position, but as soon as the switch goes to RUN the link melts. It is not necessary to try to start the car, but just putting the switch in RUN causes the link to melt.
I figure the following items could cause this: a short in the ignition switch a short in the fuel pump/wiring (the pump is enabled in RUN/START) a short in the coil (although this ohms out correctly) the ignition module on the distributor
To isolate the problem I could start removing parts and cutting wires, but is there a better way?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I like the Mustang GT because it will blow the doors of anything in its price range, not because it American made. To buy anything domestic or foreign that will beat it, you need to spend up to $10,000 more and that's un-American ;)
mike hunt
rued wrote:

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

Related Threads

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.