Ford Tarus Wagon
Mudd, Stephanie
wanting to trade it in for a Ford Tarus Wagon. Does anyone have any
complaints, compliments or anything to say about this car?
Thanks in advance!
Stephanie
sm...@nsfuvax.math.uoknor.edu
Walter A. Koziarz
>I have a 90 Acclaim and the transmission has gone out on it twice. I am
>wanting to trade it in for a Ford Tarus Wagon. Does anyone have any
>complaints, compliments or anything to say about this car?
actually, I think you mean 'Taurus'; but anyway, my opinion is best summed up
with a quote from Mr. Dodge (the Dodge brothers for whom the cars are named)
after he was asked why he quit working for Henry Ford -- "Just think of all
those poor Ford owners who will someday want an automobile". The Plymouth
Acclaim is a fine vehicle, you just (unfortunately) got one that turned out a
lemon... in seriousness, thanks for at least giving another U.S. manufacturer
a shot... not many do... good luck with *this* one...
JOSEPH T CHEW
My '88 Taurus L wagon has been pretty much problem-free, except for its
assassination of whatever vestigial studly bachelor image I might have
possessed. It's sort of the official car of the local petty bourgeois
(kids-and-dogs division) where I live.
In Kansas, for normal driving, the 3-liter engine certainly ought to
serve you well, but if you anticipate much mountain driving or the
towing of anything significant, shell out for the 3.8 and offer up a
little prayer over your motor mounts and the AXOD tranny. (These weak
points may have been fixed by now.) The 3.0 is adequate for Interstate
cruising at pretty respectable speeds. A few masochists order the Four,
but more than 90% of Tauri are sold with one of the Sixes. I think
that if you want a manual transmission you're stuck with the Four.
Its handling is as un-wagonlike as one could imagine. Zoom! You'll
eventually want to upgrade from the Plexiglass high-gas-mileage tires,
though, if you're at all a driving enthusiast.
Downsides: So-so paint job; Ford's Kafka-Kare service organization;
tendency to warp its brake rotors a bit if driven hard; lousy base
stereo speakers; rumblings of occasional citrus examples.
Upside: Well-done ergonomics; highway cruising; handling.
Ford, typically, has provided a Gordian knot of options and option
packages that mandate, lock out, or supersede each other. I suggest
the Alexandrian solution of finding one sitting on the lot with more
or less the equipment you want and making 'em an offer. The L trim
level is a bit spartan for some tastes. LX is top of the line, GL
in between. Warning: you can spend a fair amount on this car with
prodigal selection of options.
Knock on plastic, this particular Taurus wagon looks like my ride
for the remainder of the millenium (eight years, whooo-pee). It has
grown on me quite a bit, though I still feel like I ought to have a
wet diaper tied to the radio antenna to dry out...no, wait, that's
what you do with swimming trunks; diapers go in your wife's purse
when she isn't looking...
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
In article <1992Jan3.2...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, smudd@nsfuvax
(Mudd, Stephanie) writes...
Bob Kehoe
I take offense to your statements. I bought a new Taurus LX in '89, my
first domestic car purchase in 20 years. We also owned an '85 Volvo
245 at the same time and I ranked the overall quality of the Ford to be
equal to the Volvo. To date, I have not had ONE problem with the Taurus
(which I can't say for all the various foreign cars I've owned over the
years) and we hope to continue with the Ford for a long time. Overall,
the Volvo was better in carrying capacity and was more versatile in that
matter and handled much better than the Ford, but was more expensive to
maintain. With a few planned mods, I hope to improve the Ford's
handling.
You just can't generalize about any car's reliability.
bob