22nd Aug 2017, 05:29

This gentleman's car only had 90K miles, not a lot nowadays, or even in 1991! My Subaru of the same year gave me 260,000 trouble free miles. I don't know if you work for Ford, or are a fan boy, but you seem to apologize for Ford's poor quality control on every one of these Taurus reviews. I have owned several Fords, along with GM and Dodge products, and all of them had quality control problems not found in my Toyota, Honda or Subaru. Recently, Ford has been doing a lot better, but the company has a reputation for not admitting mistakes or correcting those mistakes in a timely matter (I owned a Pinto with the "exploding gas tank"). And if you go to the Ford Taurus forums, the same problems are mentioned, over and over again: bad transmissions, bad brakes, and generally, a lack of quality.

22nd Aug 2017, 11:51

I second that, although others may say that our experiences are anecdotal and therefore meaningless.

My first car in high school was a 1990 Geo Prizm LSI (badge-engineered Toyotal Corolla). My family had bought it in 1996, and it took all the abuse of more than one new driver and gave excellent service with no unexpected/expensive maintenance. It was wrecked in 2001 and scrapped.

Then I got a 1994 Ford Taurus GL, which was a big step up in size, but a big step down in quality. Everything from the fit and finish to the highway ride was disappointing. Driving between Kansas City and St. Louis was annoying as the cruise control worked intermittently and there were too many squeaks and rattles above 60 mph. The Prizm ran fine with the cruise set at 65 mph.

I still have fond memories of the Prizm, but none for the Taurus.

23rd Aug 2017, 22:13

Acknowledging the inevitable criticism doesn't invalidate it.

Sure, your experiences were real. But two data points don't establish a pattern.