Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2017, 12:32 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 9,037
Thanks: 1,960
Thanked 2,939 Times in 2,297 Posts
Not a Ford person, but I'd side with Frank. Remember what the mid-eighties were like.

Quote:
Every so often, an automobile company brings out a car that wins them new respect (or respect, period). When Ford introduced the Taurus (and fraternal twin Mercury Sable) in 1985 as a 1986 model, it hit one out of the park and won over thousands of new fans. Suddenly, Honda and Toyota had someone in their rearviews.

Taking a cue from Audi, who had introduced its aerodynamically sound and visually stunning 5000 a few years prior, Ford enveloped the Taurus with a smooth, jellybean-like body.... Both cars had large glass areas with slim pillars, which granted excellent visibility. The Sable went for a more futuristic look in this area with all but the A-pillars blacked out, giving the glass a near wrap-around appearance. With an aerodynamic drag coefficient of only 0.29, the Sable was one of the slickest cars in the world.
https://www.edmunds.com/ford/taurus/history/

  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (08-06-2017), Xist (08-06-2017)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-05-2017, 03:36 PM   #12 (permalink)
home of the odd vehicles
 
rmay635703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 2,658

Silver - '10 Chevy Cobalt XFE
Thanks: 224
Thanked 419 Times in 316 Posts
This isn't the first time Ford has killed the Taurus
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rmay635703 For This Useful Post:
Xist (08-06-2017)
Old 08-05-2017, 03:58 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Stubby79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 754

Topoff (RIP) - '92 Geo Metro LSi
90 day: 48.54 mpg (US)

'91 Miata - '91 Mazda Miata
90 day: 27.11 mpg (US)

'86 Fiero GT - '86 Pontiac Fiero GT

Purple Penny Pincher - '95 Pontiac Firefly Base
90 day: 43.68 mpg (US)

Jett-Black - '01 Volkswagen Jetta
90 day: 39.32 mpg (US)

Firefly EV - '98 Pontiac Firefly EV
90 day: 107.65 mpg (US)
Thanks: 37
Thanked 226 Times in 166 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
I beg to differ. The ones I've had personal experience with were good cars, one of them might even qualify as great.
What year(s)?
__________________

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Stubby79 For This Useful Post:
Xist (08-06-2017)
Old 08-05-2017, 05:44 PM   #14 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,002

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,375
Thanked 2,905 Times in 1,852 Posts
1995. Had a 3.0 and drums in the rear. Extremely reliable, extremely durable... but even a durable car gets left with a mark after being T-boned by a skid-steer. The drivetrain with nearly 200k miles was still as good as new. I was not happy when it got sent down the road.

Party didn't want anything else so found another '95- this was in about 2012! This one has the 3.8 and discs in the rear. I'm not as fond of this combo but the rest of the vehicle is just as good. The 3.0 had all the power needed so the 3.8 is just thirstier with no other benefit. And I simply prefer rear drums in part due to ease of servicing them... I had to mess around with a stuck load-sensing proportioning valve on this one that the drum car didn't have.

Moon Unit is basically a Taurus and it has been a good vehicle too. And it even has the station wagon back that some of you are so fond of.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2017, 02:19 PM   #15 (permalink)
Ecomuggler
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,464

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 40.43 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 33.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,276
Thanked 918 Times in 687 Posts
I thought the Taurus died decades ago. It seemed like every single one from the eighties wanted to die.
I never wanted my Forester, although I moved across town with two trips.
Mom had a station wagon and, aside from the suicidal Taurus, they worked just fine. I knew tons of people with minivans that managed well, but plenty of Suburban owners, too.
Right now a unicycle is big enough for my family, but if I ever manage to secure one, I would want a station wagon or minivan, but everything would depend on what the Mrs wanted to drive, wouldn't it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 02:30 AM   #16 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 5,711
Thanks: 0
Thanked 545 Times in 489 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
This one has the 3.8 and discs in the rear. I'm not as fond of this combo but the rest of the vehicle is just as good. The 3.0 had all the power needed so the 3.8 is just thirstier with no other benefit. And I simply prefer rear drums in part due to ease of servicing them... I had to mess around with a stuck load-sensing proportioning valve on this one that the drum car didn't have.
The only undeniable advantage of disc brakes is the heat dissipation, but I also prefer drums when it comes to ease of maintenance. They still tend to cope better with harsh environmental conditions, no wonder many truckers prefer them to operate in rural areas.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 12:32 PM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,821

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 854
Thanked 474 Times in 356 Posts
Drum brakes go out of adjustment so quickly as to make it a monthly chore on a 12k annual
Mile vehicle.

And they're worthless in the wet.

So, unbalanced braking both front to rear plus side to side and worthless in rain.

THEN that they aren't capable of high speed stops.

Drum brakes are the tech equivalent of points ignition and bias ply tires. Obsolete. And for good reasons.

And there's nothing hard about servicing discs.

We ran disc equipped trailers and tractors in the oilfield. "Rural" doesn't describe where we had to go.

There is no substitute for stopping power.

.
__________________
2004.0 DODGE Ram QC/LB 2500 2WD/NV-5600 305/555 ISB. 7,940-lb. Stock. 200,000 miles/5000-hrs @ 40-mph average.
1990 35' Silver Streak TT 7,900-lb.
8-cpm solo & 11-cpm towing; 21-mpg average past 54k-miles
Sold: 1983 Silver Streak 3411
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to slowmover For This Useful Post:
wdb (08-08-2017)
Old 08-07-2017, 07:15 PM   #18 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,002

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,375
Thanked 2,905 Times in 1,852 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
Drum brakes go out of adjustment so quickly as to make it a monthly chore on a 12k annual
Mile vehicle.

And they're worthless in the wet.

So, unbalanced braking both front to rear plus side to side and worthless in rain.

THEN that they aren't capable of high speed stops.

Drum brakes are the tech equivalent of points ignition and bias ply tires. Obsolete. And for good reasons.

And there's nothing hard about servicing discs.

We ran disc equipped trailers and tractors in the oilfield. "Rural" doesn't describe where we had to go.

There is no substitute for stopping power.

.
That's odd. I've experienced none of that.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 09:30 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 9,037
Thanks: 1,960
Thanked 2,939 Times in 2,297 Posts
Possibly because you back up occasionally so that the self-adjusters work?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 10:59 PM   #20 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,002

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,375
Thanked 2,905 Times in 1,852 Posts
Maybe that, and I'm rarely hard enough on the brakes to tell.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com