The third generation of the Ford Taurus, launched in 1996, was a significant departure from its predecessors, embodying a daring approach akin to the original 1986 model that revolutionized the American family sedan market. Ford’s decision to revamp the Taurus was justified; the once best-selling car in America was losing its appeal. Concerns were growing that fleet sales were artificially maintaining its “best seller” status. The original “jellybean” Taurus design had become dated by the early 1990s, necessitating a radical redesign to recapture consumer interest and elevate the Jelly Belly aesthetic.
Could the team that created “the car that saved Ford” repeat their success if given creative freedom once again?
Ford
Ford
The unveiling of the redesigned Taurus was met with mixed reactions. While objectively superior to the second-generation model in terms of engineering and features, it stumbled on two critical fronts: cost and public perception. The 1996 Taurus’s styling proved divisive, alienating potential buyers, while fleet purchasers balked at the increased price, deeming the enhanced interior features impractical for rental or employee vehicles. Perhaps the design direction, drawing inspiration from an unlikely source, was the root of the issue.
Ford
Ford
Ford
The 1991 Ford Contour Concept, with its excessive curves and unconventional design elements, might have been a case of designers overreaching. Its avant-garde approach seemed too extreme for the Taurus’s more conservative customer base. Ironically, the Contour Concept’s design language directly influenced the 1996 Ford Taurus.
In theory, the translation of the concept into the production Taurus was logical. Setting aside the polarizing styling, the 1996 Taurus introduced elements previously absent: a heightened emphasis on craftsmanship and refinement. The interior was significantly upgraded, boasting features like triple-stitched leather seats (genuine leather surfaces, not just trim), soft-touch plastics throughout the cabin, and thoughtful details such as a flip-out console inspired by the Mazda ɛ̃fini MS-8 sedan. Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) levels were substantially reduced thanks to a more rigid chassis. Under the hood, the 3.0-liter, four-cam Duratec V-6 engine delivered a competitive 200 horsepower, outperforming rivals like the Camry and Accord in power output.
1996 Ford Taurus SHO interior showcasing leather seats and refined design.
Ford’s commitment to reclaiming its leadership in the family sedan segment was so strong that they even granted a journalist unprecedented access to the development process. The Mercury Sable, the Taurus’s sister model, even received an illuminated grille emblem, a testament to Ford’s investment. However, this emblem and numerous other costly features were later eliminated to prioritize fleet sales and improve profitability for shareholders. This cost-cutting drive culminated in the mid-year introduction of the Taurus G, simplifying the trim levels and streamlining production.
And then there was the pinnacle of the range: the third-generation Taurus SHO. This high-performance variant distinguished itself with a V-8 engine, an automatic transmission, and added weight, sparking considerable debate among enthusiasts.
Motorweek‘s review of the third-generation SHO, finished in Rose Mist Clearcoat Metallic, lauded the vehicle. The SHO’s front end refined the standard Taurus’s controversial “catfish” styling, the V-8 powertrain was remarkably smooth, the ZF variable-orifice power steering offered exceptional responsiveness, and the upgraded seats provided enhanced support. However, the performance model’s enhancements also diluted the raw, dynamic character that had defined earlier SHO models. The very attributes that made the 1996 Taurus a refined family car somewhat tamed the SHO’s sporty edge.
The exclusive availability of the V-8 SHO with an automatic transmission remains a point of contention for many. While valid, it’s worth noting that a significant portion of V-6 SHO models were also sold with automatic transmissions, aiming for broader appeal. Moreover, the robustness of Ford’s existing MTX manual transmission to handle the V-8 engine’s increased torque was questionable. Ensuring durability was a paramount concern for the manufacturer.
Reliability became a significant concern for the V-8 Taurus SHO, specifically regarding the Yamaha-engineered V-8 engine. While possessing an appealing sound, especially with exhaust modifications, the engine suffered from issues with cam sprockets. These failing cam sprockets, in an interference engine design, led to significant problems for many SHO owners. This Achilles’ heel overshadowed the numerous positive aspects of these boldly styled family sedans.
Despite its flaws, particularly the V-8 cam sprocket issue, the 1996 Taurus was arguably a commendable vehicle. Its styling, though radical, was a logical progression, but its boldness inadvertently paved the way for cost reduction. As cost-cutting measures intensified, the unique design elements diminished. By the fourth generation in 2000, the distinctive oval rear window was gone, leather seats became less luxurious, and hard plastics returned to the interior. These changes made the more refined and consistently high-quality Japanese competitors like Accord and Camry increasingly attractive alternatives. Ford’s cost-focused approach with the Taurus inadvertently contributed to the continued success of the Accord and Camry in the market.
Rear view of a third-generation Ford Taurus highlighting its oval rear window design.
In retrospect, the third-generation Taurus’s fate signaled a shift towards globally engineered platforms, prioritizing manufacturing efficiency and profitability over distinctive design and regional preferences. The era of uniquely North American automotive designs, except for trucks and SUVs, was waning. The demise of the boldly styled Taurus, while unfortunate for enthusiasts of distinctive American sedans, was perhaps an inevitable consequence of broader economic and global automotive trends. The contoured ovals of the Taurus, exposed to market forces beyond Ford’s control, were ultimately unsustainable.
