There are some cars that no one will appreciate… but the owners. A bad brand name. Fatal and expensive defects from times past. Even a body style made of a designer’s frump can turn a brilliant vehicle into a showroom relic. This week I majored in buying unloved cars. Seven cars. Seven sins. More than likely seventy-seven plus days on the pavement.
Gluttony: 2000 Cadillac Seville STS
They can consume oil thanks to the Northstar engine’s unique design. They can consume even more coolant thanks to GM’s patented Dex-Cool, which has finally paid for the retirement of several gifted attorneys. They can even keep Cadillac dealers closer to the black thanks to an electric system that is as complex as it is badly protected from the heat of the engine. But for $500, I figured why not? Carmax announced ‘Does Not Run’ on a 2000 STS painted in GM’s “Bronzemist.” I turned the key and drove it home. They were right. Now it doesn’t run. But it’s a camshaft sensor. Or maybe an ignition switch. Maybe. I hope.
Greed: 1997 Pontiac Grand Am SE
I was greedy. Bought a garage kept two door coupe with automatic, cd player, and the best roll down windows that GM ever put on a 1990′s car. Well, I think they actually only used the same one for everything. In practice these are actually great finance vehicles. GM was in ‘Proctor & Gamble’ mode in the late 1990′s and slapped badges on anything they thought would move in the showroom. This works out well in the buy-here pay-here business because you can literally replace most anything on this type of vehicle for peanuts. The 1997 model cost $875 and since it’s the more youthful version, it will sell. I should get $3000 by financing it with $500 down and $50 a week for 50 weeks. Most late 1990′s GM compacts usually sell for right that amount.
Envy: 1995 Ford Aerostar
If you drove one of these vehicles, you envied every other minivan on the road. Ford took a 1980′s Ford Ranger rear wheel drive chassis, added seven thrift store quality seats that absorbed stains as well as they repelled your bum and put Tonka colored plastic buttons all over the door. Because that’s what you should be looking at when you’re driving on the road. For the finishing touch, they let it languish for 10 years while adding three other minivans to their portfolio. The result? I find the only one that had an owner who kept it hermetically sealed. No stains. No paint wear. No rips. No broken buttons. Not a single thing wrong. All the replacement parts were Ford OEM. I bought this 1995 model for $800. Someone will want it. Hopefully they live near Atlanta.
Pride: 1995 Lincoln Continental
Ford took pride in having the most advanced front wheel drive suspension in the world… in 1995. The 32 valve V8 engine produced a heart palpitating 280 hoursepower at a time when Toyota Camrys were sold with less than half that oomph. The seats were splendorous. The noise levels were better than the Town Car. In all respects this car should have been a true winner for Ford. If only they had taken pride in the rest of the car. The interior dashboard and door panel materials came straight out of the rental Taurus. The design was a testament to… the Taurus. In fact, all it really was in the end… was a $40,000 Taurus. I bought it for $852 at a sealed bid auction with a little less than 150,000 miles. It needs $250 worth of paint and that’s pretty much it. Maybe a Lexus badge.
Lust: 1993 Chrysler Town & Country
Come on! You know you want it! A three-box design that would be the envy of any mini-warehouse owner. Faux wood on the dash that is so shiny, you can comb your hair if you look at it just right. What can I say. I’ve always been a sucker for a ‘dirty burgundy’ and this one had it all. Leather seats, captain’s chairs, rear air, cruise, ABS… I think you can now get all these things in a Nissan Versa. I paid through the nose on this one because the owner kept it brilliant for 16 years. $1100
Despair: 1996 Chevy Lumina
I can only imagine the despair of the last owner when Firestone bilked him out of multiple C-notes. The car wouldn’t run right. So of course they ignored everything but the throttle body. Expeditious use of a wire brush and some cleaner brought it back to brilliant shape. It was clean inside and out and with only 90k miles, it’s only middle-aged. Like me. I bought it for a thousand. I’ll probably cash it for two or finance it for three. Like the compacts, GM’s midsized cars are perfect finance fodder.
Wrath: 2004 Ford Taurus
Can you imagine driving one of these things for 193,000 miles? Someone apparently didn’t need to. The radio was steadfastly tuned on AM stations and NPR seemed to be the only FM setting that was considered. The person who spent time in here was obviously car-apathetic. Judging this Taurus from that prism of indifference, it isn’t bad at all. The leather seats are nice. All the buttons work. Sunroof operates fine. But to be blunt, this car was truly a terrible car for it’s time. I can only imagine what Ford shareholders would have done had they compared this car to a similar year top of the line Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Ford would have been toast. Thankfully the used car market benefits from 20/20 hindsight. I bought it for $1400. It’s competitors would have easily sold for two and a half to three times that amount.
I kind of want a Seville of that vintage…I should know better, though.
Get what you want, want what you get…
Not all automotive choices are sane or rational, if they were we’d all be driving 4 door 4cyl appliances.
I had a polo green Eldorado ETC version of this car. I put 80000 trouble free miles on it. It was quiet and powerful. My complaints were more with the sloppy fwd handling and the interior quality. As I remember it, the dealer charged me $350 to glue my door panel back on. They said it was a brand new panel, but I knew better. I ended up selling it to a guy in Chicago and buying a bare bones 5-speed manual Escape.
At my last place of employment the Grand Am was the popular car of choice. They were worked hard and run up in to the 400k’s of kilometers. A fairly common run was Toronto to Sudbury, about 375km. My former boss drove fast, 30km/hr over the limit. It astounded me that the fuel consumption was consistently 6.5 l/100km (high 30’s USMPG) for the 3.1 V6. I know this because I did the refueling. Nobody I know ever had problems with the dex-cool, but there were a couple of intake gasket.
@ I was under the impression that “dex-cool” was the main cause of gasket failure. I had a 96, and a 2001 Grand Am GT.Both of them ate gaskets,though,I caught it early enough and GM covered it.
My biggest beef with both of them? !PLASTIC CLADDING! I believe that “plastic cladding” was one of the factors in the downfall of the Pontiac brand.
It was a bad gasket design on the 3.1L/3.4L. Dex-Cool isn’t the fundamental problem with any of GM’s cooling system problems, but it does seem to sludge up after leaks occur and coolant level is neglected.
Have your doctor re-check your meds!
I personally stay away from high mileage unloved cars or problem childs. It never worked out for me.
I prefer low mileage, unloved cars with proven drivetrains.
On a sidenote…
I was having a little frustration with my $2500 low mileage Audi 5000S stickshift Quattro I recently bought as a daily driver. I started thinking that maybe I just needed a low mileage Cobalt or G5. They should be unloved and dirt cheap.
Wow what a shock on how expensive they sell for.
Guess I stick with the Audi.
Picture copy & paste:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29396384@N05/6270316159/in/photostream/
If you”recently” bought a 5000, be advised that these are fine cars with good longevity but some truly insane issues… for instance, there’s the “bomb,” as it’s known, the hydraulic pump that does all the things other cars do with vacuum pressure, like brake assist… they are known to flake out with interesting results.
Ninety percent of all repairs involve taking the front bumper off. In a few years, you’ll be able to do it in two minutes.
Door handles are cheaper when you buy them in bulk, which you will.
And my favorite: When (not if) the car won’t start, put it in reverse, leave the key in the ignition, and go behind the car to see if the backup lights are on. Chances are they aren’t, and then you’ll know that the wiring loom in the trunk lid finally chafed through. WHY the ignition is routed through the trunk lid is anyone’s guess, but you can thank me when this occurs.
These cars are truly special, but they require two things: (i) another car, and (ii) wrenching skills of your own or a trusted mechanic with experience in this particular subspecialty.
A good friend of mine had two (2) 1987 5000’s for years. He made it work by also having an ’87 Dodge conversion van, which pretty much always ran. I know all about the 5000’s because being German, I was held responsible for all and any failures. Have fun!
Did you get away without the power window mechanisms failing? My Audi dealer told me that I’d be best off replacing the whole door.
“These cars are truly special, but they require two things: (i) another car, and (ii) wrenching skills of your own or a trusted mechanic with experience in this particular subspecialty.”
This is why I stopped buying VWs.
I’d rather have something thats been well taken care of and with decent build quality, regardless of miles.
I’ve had a few abused low mileage beaters, they almost always found excuses to stall on me, and they were automatics.
My father bought a couple of low mileage old cars when I was growing up. It didn’t go very well.
If somebody didn’t trust (or need) a car enough to drive it 7 or 8 thousand miles a year, it’s probably a poor bet as a used car.
I had a 1986 5000cs with nifty alcantara (or suede?) leather seat inserts. With the excellent 5-speed stick-shift, it got mid twenties around town and low thirties on the highway. My cs was FWD, which probably helped a bit with the mileage and (lack of) power. Speaking of power, 110 HP in a full-sized car might sound underpowered, but 5 well-spaced forward gears never had me worried about keeping up with traffic even if acceleration was weak.
Hmmm…. I’m thinking you paid quite a bit for yours. I bought my 1986 as a 5 year old car for $5k and figured I overpaid.
I always thought the Continental was a classy subtle design, unfortunately allowed to rot on the vine.
The Taurus is a strong reminder how far Ford lost their way.
I’m with Dave M., the last version, especially, of the Continental was a great-looking car inside and out. Especially from the rear 3/4 view. Had they gotten that version on the road a year or two earlier, I think it would have been a strong seller.
And actually guys both of the last generations of Continental were Taurus based, so you might say the MKS is nothing new. I actually liked the styling of the “square” Continentals, pitty they didn’t get more powerful engines…
The Taurus isn’t a reminder of how Ford lost its way, its a warning to those who would let a spread sheet and a bean counter engineer an automobile. Thats not to say they dont have thier place but when you give one faction inordinate power over the other, something is going to suffer somewhere and in the case of Detriot it was the consumer.
Read the book “Car: A Drama of the American Workplace” to learn about the chaos behind the 1996-2007 Taurus’s development.
Ford should certainly be chastised for letting the design wither over the years, but the durability gets a bum rap unfairly. Yes, there were too many early trans failures but sadly that is not as uncommon for quite a few other makes as well. My station car has passed 20 years and only now is there a small amount of rust perforation. No major failures either. So the basic architecture is sound IMHO…
Back when I had a 99 STS it never gave me or the previous owner much of an issue, of course my car was a low-mileage example. Though when I got rid of it for a RWD Northstar it was because it had a catastrophic combination of cooling system failure and a blown head gasket. All in all it could have been worse, and it did happen at about 90k, which was just miles I put on the car in the 2.5 years I had it from 36k, adverse conditions indeed.
Stories like that are the main reason why I didn’t pull the trigger on a 4.0L Olds Aurora or N* Eldorado. Engine failure is pretty much the worst reliability issue possible for a car, and having it occur at 90k just isn’t acceptable anymore.
How has your RWD N* fared? I’ve heard that 2005+ engines are much less problematic.
Reports of head gasket issues on these made me leary. I had considered a 90’s Northstar Eldo but went for a 4.6 T-Bird which short of a replacement intake gasket is quite reliable.
My RWD Northstar has 82k on it with no mechanical issues, in fact all I’ve had to fix on the car was a window regulator and a rear hub assembly (axle bearing.) Otherwise I have had no problem at all from the motor. Though small interior electrical issues and low quality interior would be my main reasons to not recommend a V8 Sigma platform pre-2007-ish.
It’s really incredible that the Northstar ever was put into mass production. It was a disaster, through and through, and so badly thought out that one could be forgiven to theorize that it was a group of engineers’ revenge on General Motors (and their customers) for a collective body of past transgressions against engineers.
While it made competitive numbers when it was originally released relative to the competition in terms of power and torque, it was such a bad design that…wait for it…
…it didn’t “blow head gaskets” per se, but the head bolts essentially pulled out/backed out from the engine block due to the inherently defectively designed threads, and combination of the physical design and the mating of the materials used in the block, head and head bolts, especially when an overheating situation occurred.
I don’t know if anyone ever proved that the 2008+ model years were revised in such a manner to say with authority that GM really ever did “fix” this problem, but many owners both under warranty and out of warranty discovered that the only possible solution to avoiding head bolt nastiness was to stud them, in the hopes that this would prevent head bolt failure, which would necessitate removing the entire motor from the vehicle to repair (and a temporary repair at that), which was buku intensive from a time and material $$$ standpoint.
It’s really quite incredible.
The Northstar has an aggressive crosshatching on the cylinder walls. This is intended to retain more oil on the cylinder walls. However, this oil retention causes issues, as the oil at the top of the cylinder, in the combustion chamber burns.
First off, there is more oil consumption than most drivers are accustomed to. Secondly, the resultant carbon can lead to a knock that sounds a lot like piston slap. And of course if bad enough, predetonation can be an issue.
The solution is old school take it out and blow the carbon out (drive the crap out of it – lots of top gear high load, full throttle shenanigans). Get behind a North star when someone stomps on it and you’ll see the black smoke coming out the back.
The head bolts were also an issue for many. But proper cooling system maintenance goes a long way towards preventing issues.
Overall, I found the Northstar to be a fantastic motor in search of a better chassis.
I believe GM fixed the Northstar design after 2001, if you have one before that, replacing the headgaskets is often times more than the car is worth. You can pick them up at firesale prices as a result.
My understanding is the car has to come up off the engine to get at them, not exactly a shade tree type job.
Had Cadillac simply dropped the Lt1 or LS1 V8 in the Cadillacs instead of the Northstar disaster, they would have saved a bundle and had a lot more happy customers.
Imagine if the nineties all the Cadillac models were RWD with the proven pushrod Corvette motor and consequently, a few grand less.
According to both cadillac forums, there is an ongoing debate as to whether they fixed the problem as of 2006 or even 2008, let alone 2001.
I’m not saying you’re wrong that it was resolved in 2001, but if you do some research, you’ll find that head bolt/head bolt thread issues plague even far newer Northstars than 2001, if the many techs and people owning the cars posting about the problems are to be believed (there was even an official Cadillac Dealership link with backstory about the problem in all Northstars, which I can’t find as of right now).
GM put in more beefy head bolts after the 2001 model year, that was the main source of the defect. When you buy a remanufactured Northstar from that era from a quality builder like Jasper, they make this upgrade with oversize head bolts.
But that doesn’t mean though the engine will no longer have any head gasket problems, even properly designed engines (especially with aluminum heads) will likely have head gasket issues with enough age and miles.
Sadly I don’t know enough people who own them to say they have or haven’t been fixed. I know one gentleman with a 2005 DeVille and at 90,000+ miles his car is just fine. The vehicle was inherited from his uncle and it had about 50,000 on it when he took possession. His uncle drove like most elderly men do while my friend drives in a far more aggressive manner. So far so good.
I realize that manufacturers often fix designs during a product life cycle. As an example, having several Tauruses in the districts fleet I can see that the transmission design improved between the late 90s and the end of production for that platform. We have many examples pushing 100,000 on their original transmissions. I just wish I had more data that Cadillac had done something similar.
Won’t be long before the 8th and 9th deadly sins are the dual clutch transmission and the touch screen in the dashboard. These offer no value to the buyer, they are tacky, and seem to offer reliability problems. How tacky are they? Kind of landau vinal roof and wire wheel cover tacky from way back when I was a kid in the 1980s.
Excessive and useless technology is the new tacky, and it is an effort to raise Detroit car prices such that the Detroit automakers can continue to afford those UAW contracts. I can’t imagine Detroit executives think they can impress my generation with that junk.
But, I see a real problem ahead. On the east and west coasts, Toyota is selling base model Camry’s for 19K … no dual clutch transmission and no touch screen. And, the are flying off the lots. I doubt Detroit will be able to compete at that price.
I’m a big fan of technology, and I disagree that the touchscreen is the problem. But I likely value the same low-bling cars you do. So, let me explain how I came to the same conclusion differently.
The problem is that the technology isn’t modular enough for people to swap out these parts when they become obsolete.
As someone who’s in car ownership for the long haul, having an obsolete NAV system in the dash *IS* tacky. But I’m not the kind of monetary lush that will go out and spend $30k on a new car to fix something so trivial.
I’m sure that putting impossibly-to-replace quickly-dated electronics in the dash got some sales from some people during boom-times. But most of us can’t afford to do that, and most people (that I know) value cars for their value as transportation first and foremost.
So, what’s a guy to do in this situation? In one car, we live with the dated old touchscreen in the dashboard. When I had to trade my well-worn Ranger truck for a well-worn daddymobile, I deliberately picked one that had minimal technology in the dash, and a standard-ish radio opening, so that I can upgrade it as I see fit.
But that’s just me hacking around. How does the industry fix this problem, while still delivering the whiz-bang that made people want these systems in the first place? My preferred solution would be a new set of basic/flexible standards that acknowledge the new realities of the mobile electronics world for swappable car infotainment systems and dashboard-displays that would make it easy for normal people to their stereo and instrument cluster int he parking lot of Best Buy whenever the get the urge. That would open up a huge new market for electronics, and it would allow Ford could start selling Sync to people who own Toyotas, or whatever. I bet a lot of people would like to be able to swap swap out whatever came with their car for long-lasting traditional knob-based hardware.
The beauty of touch screen systems like SYNC is you are just a software update away from having a new interface and features.
SYNC = voice commands, not touch screen
MyFord Touch = touch screen (MFT includes SYNC, but SYNC doesn’t necessarily mean MFT)
I have no problem with voice controls–I have no use for them, but I have nothing against them. Touch screens, OTOH, should never be put into a car. They are the wrong tool for the job.
The argument about “a software update away from having a new interface and features,” is a very big minus, not a plus, for computer controls:
– That sort of logic means the first version will blow chunks just like MFT did out of the gate and every Windows OS before they release service pack 2.
– Software “updates” don’t always fix problems, nor do they always work better than what you already had. Again, look at what happens when people update to a new Windows OS. I had a DVR from Dish that got an update and never worked properly again. It is far better to get a system working right and leave it alone.
– This is a car we’re talking about. Honestly, what do you need it to do? MFT bragged about displaying a national weather chart–why? If you need that, look it up sometime when you aren’t in your car. The ONLY weather you need to worry about when driving is what’s outside your window, which you can see without a fancy touch screen.
You can make whatever argument you want about the usefulness of touchscreens, but when you consider the overwhelming popularity of smartphones and other devices equipped with them, it makes sense that manufacturers would offer them as an option in their vehicles. Ultimately, the “value” of any optional piece of equipment rests with the consumer. Some will find them beneficial, others will decide that they don’t need it. You say that dual clutch transmissions offer no end benefit to the consumer, yet they allow for much quicker shifts and noticeably better fuel economy than conventional automatics. Those sound an awful lot like benefits to me. Maybe you hate and despise new technology like a lot of appliance buyers, but it seems that an increasing number of people are waking up from that stupor.
Really, this is nothing more than a thin set of apologetics for the Japanese manufacturers that have fallen far behind in the race to incorporate new technology. Their declining market share is proof that not all buyers are satisfied with the dated and unsophisticated products that they have to offer. Ultimately, this strategy will only make things worse for them over time. Toyota can’t afford to keep taking huge losses on every car they import while simultaneously barely breaking even on the cars they produce domestically. Those $19k Camrys aren’t going to do anything for the bottom line.
Yeah, that Aerostar…knew a guy who had a 2-wheel-drive one with a stick – 200k trouble-free miles. But my carpool driver had an AWD automatic; when the tranny went gunnybag the first time the independent shop that rebuilt it foolishly (imo) guaranteed it, with the result that they got it back three more times. By that time, lack of maintenance and a couple of minor dents had caught up with it and it was donated to someone who would haul it away.
Ahh the Taurus. I think every Taurus ever made, aside from the SHO, fits that bill. For two years I had a ’93 GL with the 3.0 Vulcan, bench seat, column shift and.. a sunroof? It was my “leave at work car” (I generally bike to work) and I hated it, actively trying to kill it. It was the automotive cockroach, and I sold it with 180k on it for $800, non-working A/C and broken motor mounts be damned.
I drove a.. 2003? 2004? 2005? I can’t tell, but they’re all the same. What blew my mind was aside from looking different, it drove exactly the same as the ’93. Exactly. Same Vulcan V6, same Vulcan moan, same loamy handling – same everything! And yet, the damn things just don’t die.
Hey, Vulcans don’t moan, they just need love every 7 years…
“(I generally bike to work) and I hated it, actively trying to kill it. It was the automotive cockroach…”
Ummm…I believe you may owe Geozinger a beer…
Where has geozinger been lately…..
Ah the Ford Taurus, I do admire the bold grille-less and sleek look of the first 2 generations, but the rest went from weird to bland.
I see them all of the time in scrapyards which makes me wonder why so many people missed it when Ford quit making the Taurus.
The new Taurus isn’t even a Taurus, its a tacky chrome-abused boat, they should’ve called it the “Ford 500”.
I’ve driven the new one (and regularly get to drive the early 2000s models thanks to a work fleet thick with them) and although the new car is clearly larger in ever dimension than the previous model I certainly wouldn’t call the handling “boat” like. In fact I agree with Baruth’s assesments of the vehicle.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/08/capsule-review-2006-ford-five-hundred-sel-cvt/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/04/rentin%E2%80%99-the-blues-second-place-2009-mercury-sable-premier/
The Fusion is really the replacement for the Taurus. The new Taurus should have been called either the Crown Victoria or maybe even the Galaxie.
“The new Taurus isn’t even a Taurus, its a tacky chrome-abused boat, they should’ve called it the “Ford 500″.”
That’s GALAXIE 500, son! I -almost- agree with you.
The true sin of the STS was the 92′, one of the most beautiful, radically designed cars GM ever made (or of that era). The Northstar was 6 months behind schedule, does GM delay the STS release? No just shove the old 4.9 in there and ship it, bought by alot of lawyers and doctors who quickly went back to thier German (and/then Japanese) brands (that’s how several teachers at my high school quickly had them in 93′). If they would have delayed it for 6 months and put the Northstar in it to start with, would the story have been different?
But the 4.9 was much more reliable than the Northstar, or so I’ve heard. With the problems the Northstar had, imagine how bad it would’ve been if it had been rushed to market!
I had a 92 Seville. When it came out it turned a lot of heads. Really was a beautiful car in its day. Clean lines outside. The interior looked European, almost Scandinavian.
The 4.9 had plenty of torque on the low end, but only about 200hp total, so it got off the line alright, but quickly ran out of steam. With the exception of 3 water pumps. the 4.9 ran quite well, and never used any oil. The rest of the car had some issues: Dead window regular motors, dead instrument cluster display, dead LED high mount tail lamp. Heat-A/C blower motor died and took the controller with it. Brake line that rotted out and burst, upon inspection, it was discovered that all the cheap steel brake lines were rotted. Lots of other things I can no longer remember. All in all, it gave the impression of being a car that was only 80% completed when someone at the factory said, “Good enough, ship it.”
As for the 4.6, I’ve heard enough horror stories from people who owned them to stay far away. It’s also telling that I see more of the 4.9 cars on the road around her than I see 4.6 powered examples.
The ’92 Seville was one of just a handful of new cars in my lifetime that I refer to as “jaw-droppers” because they are so striking. Will never forget the first time I saw one in ’92. My best friend’s dad always leased Cadillacs. For the past 5-6 years he’d leased white Sedan Devilles. One day their family came to visit and my friend said “My Dad got a new Cadillac, let’s go outside and check it out.” I walked outside expecting another white Sedan Deville and was FLOORED at how modern the Seville looked. Plus it was navy blue, not white. It still looked like a Caddy, but was a huge step forward in styling. It instantly dated the rest of the contemporary Cadillac line-up.
Didn’t have that reaction to another car until about four years later when the all-new ’96 minivans were on display at the San Diego auto show. People were literally beside themselves at how “modern” they were, and the booth was PACKED.
The 1992 Seville/Eldorado was indeed a beautiful design. Too bad the reliability didn’t live up to the promises of the design.
It’s true that the remaining Sevilles of that generation that I see don’t usually have “Northstar” or “4.6” badges.
I’ll take a 4.9 over the Northstar all day long, after all the 4.9 was a fixed version of the doomed 4100 ‘digital fuel injection’ V8 platform which at that time had been in production for over ten years. Cadillac buyers at the time weren’t Jag buyers where the owners accepted the fact it would be in the shop six months a year. These were the retiring members of the great generation coupled with aspiring boomers who grew up with the legend of big block Cadillacs which RAN with gobs of torque and power. The Northstar project in hindsight seemed like too ambitious of a venture at the time to gain/regain some Gen X market share who along with their parents recently made the switch to Acura/Lexus/Mercedes. Cadillac dug itself quite a hole in the decade prior to Northstar and I see N* as a desperate attempt to compete in a market which was lost by 1984. After the first few years when it must have been obvious to GM the Northstar had issues, they should have done a FWD LT1 or something to this effect (imagine a 3800 in a swanky Caddy!), at least for the core Deville models and reserved the N* fun for the Seville. Oh and for the record as much as GM management was as blind and effective as Mr Magoo in the 80s I 100% blame CAFE and our government on the demise of Cadillac and the rise of Japanese luxury. If there had been no CAFE, by 1981 when the oil crisis had subsided they would have continued production of the 368 big block V8 in the full size cars, probably avoided the Cimmaron debacle (also a CAFE move in addition to quick profit), and held back the HT4100 by several years as was originally intended for the 1985 FWD switch. The 368 was quickly replaced (between 1980 and 81) for two reasons (1) the cutting edge 1980 displacement on demand computer didn’t work resulting in its replacement with a carb at dealers and (2) CAFE. I believe I once read between 1981 and 1982 Cadillac’s CAFE figure went from 12 to 17 MPG. This is what the corporation as a whole was concerned with, meeting their mileage goals. Remember in 1982 there was no Acura (1986) and no Lexus (1988?) it was just Cadillac, Lincoln, whatever Chrysler was doing, and the Germans. Dumping the 368 prematurely was a huge mistake, and its precisely the tipping point which destroyed Cadillac.
If the Aerostar is one of the rare 5-speed models, mark it sold and I will fly in next week.
So they sinned a little in product execution. The meant well. They had their reputation and their good intent.
Kimbra – Good Intent
The Aerostar was reliable while the Windstar was not, read of many horror stories of the FWD minivan having transmission breakdown ritht after the warranty expired and also had horrible resale values, I knew of some folks who hav A=the older RWD Ford offering and it gave them years of reliable service.
purist rag on the old Taurus, but the one bought had near 200K miles on it. Pretty good run for a so called ‘bad car’. To lower income buyers, it’s a luxury car.
And, 2004 was one year away from the intro of the 2006 Fusion, which hasn’t had any knocks against it.
Can go on and on about 20+ year old mistakes of car makers, but what matters is what is running and selling now.
After twenty-years, and sales of nearly seven million cars, Ford has announced that it will no longer make the Taurus, forcing many thirty-somethings to find a new way to show the world they’ve given up on their dreams.
— Amy Poehler, on SNL’s Weekend Update — 10/21/2006