DrivingEnthusiast.net

Here we go again: another Ford that started out brilliantly, then went for a long slide downhill.

The initial design in 1985 was absolutely brilliant. Kudos to the Ford stylists for their initial work. Sales were fabulous, and in fact Taurus led it's class for many years. The competition from Chevrolet and Dodge was pathetic; the Japanese competition was - initially - absent.

But the engineering quality was poor and it took a long time to get corrected. Too long, because by the time the quality was finally fixed, Japanese competitors had taken their own engineering and quality capabilities them into class leadership. Along with several completely new generations of engineering (arguably, the Tausus only had 1 generation, with 1 major and 1 minor rework).

My complaint about quality is not because of how the car was assembled. The plants always did a good job of that. Instead, it's what they were handed to assemble. Ford's engineering department did a poor job with the basic design of the car.

As always, we look to the performance version of the basic car to tell the story - they push the limits and expose issues earlier that the base cars will experience later. And that's where my own experience comes in - I had two Taurus SHOs and both suffered basic engineering quality issues.

My first ('89 V-6) SHO was a quality disaster, and if I hadn't had the 100k warrenty then it would have been a financial disaster for me as well. Mine required about $10K USD of work over the time I owned it (60k miles). Fortunately, I lived near a Ford dealer that did maintainance work on a pair of SHOs that were showroom stock raced in an SCCA series and they knew their work. But, is that really the kind of experience that is required to get this car right?

My second ('97 V-8) SHO was only leased, fortunately. I leased it because it fit the bill for what I needed, and because I had seen it introduced on my yearly trip to the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS). And because I closely followed spy pictures in magazines as the new SHO was developed (see a link to those pictures below).

The new SHO didn't sell well, and Ford offered an excellent lease. My lease costs were only $300/month for 1200 miles/month for 24 months. Basic quality was much higher than the earlier cars, and the structural design of the car was much improved (for example, the entire side was a single stamping) - it was noticably more solid and a lot quieter inside. From an engineering perspective, however, this was still the same car. The suspension was, for example, all but the same. The brakes were essentially the same (front rotors were increased in size, rear rotors moved to solid instead of vented siscs - unfortunately). The front and side of the car was handsome, although the rearend and taillights were - to put it mildly - bizarre. And there was a weight gain.

My sole technical issue in the very short (20k) time I had it was just one item: the transmission broke and would no longer shift. This required a complete rebuild, on warrenty. Unfortunately, it happened right before a planned cross-country drive that I was looking forward to. It required a week in the shop and my drive had to be cancelled. That drive would have taken me from Seattle back to Austin TX. There are very few opportunities for a drive like that.

A major issue that I did not experience, but which impacted other owners: most SHO owners experienced a failure in the camshafts which resulting in a broken cylinder head and the probability of a broken engine. Ford's warrenty coverage for this was abysmal, and the supply of replacement motors from Yamaha was exhausted. This was a bottom-line failure... the end of the road. You only very rarely see a V-8 SHO on the road these days.

In the time I had my 2 SHOs, both completed their missions for me despite the issues. Their sole purpose was to take me thru two different short-term (but strategic) assignments for my employers: one in Toronto and one in Redmond WA. Both climates (snow and constant rain, respectively) called for front-wheel drive cars, and I choose the SHOs so that I could have a bit of driving freedom in otherwise inhibiting climates.

The original road tests of these cars were telling: everybody liked to drive the SHOs. They were front page and lead-story road tests. However, over time the Japanese rivals caught up (the Maxima against the SHO, and the Camry and Accord against the base Taurus) and then surpassed the Taurus. They started winning road tests in magazines, and they started winning the sales race - with one exception. The Taurus made it's numbers in the last several years with fleet sales. Hertz got it's hands on the car and Ford sold them as many possible. In hundreds of business trips over the past ~15 years, I've probably driven almost 1000 Tauri. As far back as I can remember, they never failed me on these trips. I believe that Ford used repair statistics from Hertz to track down and resolve reliability bugs.

How can the Taurus start out so well and then fall so far behind? There was a degree of continuous improvement in these cars (unlike most other Fords), but the basic engineering never changed. The suspension design, for example, which started out as fairly typical in the industry (struts up front and control arms in back) but never changed.

The driving experience (with the exception of the SHO engines) was never a standout, never anything more than slightly below average. The geometry didn't provide good steering feel, the turning radious was terrible, and overall the car never felt atletic in its reactions. The transmission saw some basic improvements but the overall design was all but identical from start to finish. The Nissan Maxima (and later, Altima), the Toyota Camry, and of course the Honda Accord all were light years ahead in their driving experience: steering feel, the responsiveness of their transmissions, and handling. And of course - bottom line - warrenty issues or lack therein.

The sum total ownership experiences of the competition were far better. For the typical buyer, a hundred thousand miles in any of the Japanese rivals would have been easy, but in a Taurus they would have been a very mediocre and frustrating experience and without a 100k warrenty they would have been very expensive. The Japanese brands established and exploited their beachhead in the North American market by building better cars in this class and by continuously improving them. Their war would not have been won if a decisive battle hadn't been fought and won in the mid-size market.

Coming back to the present, I recently came across two cars that provided significant input to the tone of my post.

Fords press release follows. Look at the other cars that Atlanta built - every one of them suffered a similar fate and for the same reasons.

Production ended at Ford Motor Company’s Atlanta Assembly Plant on Friday, Oct. 27, at 7 a.m. when the company produced its last Ford Taurus.

Ford produced 7.5 million Taurus units since the legendary sedan was introduced in 1985. From 1992 to 1996, Taurus was the best-selling car in the United States. Its peak year was 1992 with 409,751 units sold. Ford produced Taurus at two assembly plants – Atlanta and Chicago – until 2004 when Chicago Assembly began production of Ford Five Hundred, Freestyle and Mercury Montego.

Atlanta Assembly opened in 1947 and built a variety of historical models including the light trucks, Ford Fairlane, Fairmont, Falcon, Galaxie, Grananda, LTD, Rachero, Torino, Thunderbird, Marquis, Sable and Taurus.

For the past five years Atlanta Assembly has ranked among the top 10 most productive assembly plants in North America, as reported by Harbour Consulting. In the 2005 report, Atlanta ranked number one in productivity.

Atlanta Assembly employed 1,950 workers, including 1,800 hourly and 150 salaried. The hourly employees, like all UAW-represented Ford employees in the U.S., can select among eight separation, educational and retirement packages.