Third Taurus or not?

Newer transmissions (2000+) are much better than the AXOD. The two engines available are pretty good.

Overall the biggest problems my 2000 has given me is brake light switch and squeaky fan belt.

Consumer Reports gave them a recommended rating. Slightly used, you can get one for around $10,000 if you negotiate. They have poor resale value and they are a good vehicle. That works to the buyer's advantage. John

Zekers! opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@bellsouth.net:

If your 95 is a 3.0, AX4N tranny; you have a keeper. Or sell it for premium price, advertising it as such.

I was lucky because when I bought my 95.. knowing only vaguely of the 3.8 Head Gasket and AXOD piston problems and didnt even check for them.

One can not judge every vehicle of a particular brand based on the ONE they have owned good or bad, as many are prone to do. My one son had a 2001 V6 Accord that was one problem after another during the two years and 30,000 miles he drove it. His wife had a Sable company car that she used during the same time period that was trouble free and had nearly 50,000 miles on the clock. Both cars were purchased new, should one than assume that all Accords are bad and all Sables are good, I think not.

mike hunt

Bill 2 wrote:

LOW retail price perhaps, buy POOR retail price is inaccurate. As a percentage of the actual total selling price the Taurus does quite well. A two year old Taurus may go for $4,000 less than a Camry but the new drive home price of a Taurus is at least %5,000 less. One can buy a 2004 Taurus V6, nicely equipped for under $16,000 much less that the drive home price of a 4cy Camry. Go do some total drive home pricing and get educated on real world pricing..

mike hunt

jriegle wrote:

opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com:

I never much liked the Taurii... until the wife needed a newer car and I had a limited budget.

For me, it took finding a 95 with just the right color for my idea of the styling. Cranberry, in my case, I loved the looks then. And still do.

That was 5 years ago and 120,000 miles later.. total 165,000 miles, it has been a real gem.

Knock wood.

You ain't kidding. Do a web search on "Taurus" + problem + warranty and see what you get.

Both Tauri had the 3.8 and axod. Neither had a problem. The '04 is two models newer than the '95. I was wondering if they have similar reliability, workmanship, etc relative to the model's history. Some advice has been to stay away from first year and end year. Since Taurus is now history, I'm thinking that the workers on '04 and maybe '03 models threw in the towel.

-- " "

-Bob- opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Look.... crap cars dont stay on the road.

I was a pup when the 1957 models came out, and you know the Fords way outsold Chevvies that year.

7 Years later, when I bought my classic black 57 BelAir 2dr HT, you could barely find a 57 Fairlane on the road.

Check out how many 90-95 Taurii you see on the street.

Now check how many early 90 Nissans you see.

Yep, got my '88 3.0 w/85k when grandma passed away. Big ? on it's service record, maintained it and got it to 150k before the trannie went. GF's '94 3.0 was bought used w/50k on it, it's at 150k and runs like a top. Except for brake parts, VSS and a water pump it's still all OEM . If ya don't drive them like a 17 yr old they last. I'd own a Nissan, if I lived in Japan, but I don't and won't.

Yes they do. Consider the Taurus, for example.