Talk:Ford Taurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ford Taurus has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 1, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Ford Taurus is a selected article in Portal:Cars.

	To-do list for Ford Taurus:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Add More Footnotes Add a section about Tauruses in the media Get a image of a first generation Non-SHO Taurus. RM any noted POV, to help boost to featured status. Add an image of a standard 3rd generation Taurus (All the 3rd generation images are of SHOS) get a better image of a first generation SHO. Add info on Latin American versions Continue to add info about the revival/fifth generation as information becomes availiable.
Priority 2

The following users are actively contributing on this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: User:Karrmann

Contents 1 Taurus 2 production 3 Fourth Generation Version 2 4 Transmission Woes 5 facelift 6 big infobox 7 Feature article 8 Taurus in Sweden 9 Picture 10 First generation 11 Problems 12 Lew Veraldi, Father of the Taurus 13 Successor 14 Informal peer review, 2 August 2006 15 Bravada's changes/proposed course of further action 16 Taunus/Taurus 17 Not sure about the Discontinuation section 18 Related to Windstar? 19 Latin American versions 20 Export versions 21 "Current event" tag 22 Calm Down! 23 Taurus X 24 Split 25 2008 Ford Taurus. Should it have its own article? 26 1999 Revisions 27 Ford Taurus History 28 BringbacktheSHO.com 29 Fourth Generation Wagon Picture

[edit] Taurus

I'm on my third Ford Taurus. I had an 88, a 93, and I now have a 2002. The 93 and 02 are both six cylinders. The 88 was a four cylinder vehicle. I think putting that type of engine in car as large as a Taurus was a mistake on Ford's part. A Taurus with that type of engine was underpowered because it was too much car for that size engine. On some hills I would have trouble because the car didn't have enough power to get up the hills. When I got the 93, I noticed that the car didn't have as much trouble, but the engine in general didn't run as fast as the four cylinder did. JesseG

[edit] production

my parents were wanting a Taurus, so we went to a Ford dealer. the man at the dealer said that the Taurus is no longer available new to the general public, but it is still in full production for the fleet market, and Ford has no plans to completely halt production because of it's fleet market popularity.

Correct. The 2006 Taurus was the last public Taurus available at dealerships. Ford continued to make 2007 Ford Tauri, primarily for rental car companies and fleet companies. As of now, expect to see 2008 Tauri in the showroom closer to the summer and fall of this year, as of current predictions. - KB

[edit] Fourth Generation Version 2

Is it really neccesary to have a Fourth Generation Version 2 in table since there have been no significant changes in the vehicle (I added years behind station wagon for the Fourth Generation). The table seems already too long. I deleted it after I added the blue boxes. The Taurus received a minor facelift for 2003, but all the information mentioned in the table. The engines and pecs are the same, on other sites the tables do not mentioned every singly minor facelift either. Thank you. Gerdbrendel 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transmission Woes

There really needs to be some detailing of the fact that the Taurus transmission is basically an unreliable lump, someone who knows a bit more (and can write in the "wiki voice" better than I) needs to Detail the progression from AXOD to AXOD-E/AX4S to the late 3rd gen on AX4N. Also, there needs to be an explanation of the fact that the aluminum forward clutch piston on the 1995 and older models is failure prone, and that the pistons were made of steel after 1995.(?)

[edit] facelift

As you know, I'm very commited to making this article a featured article, so I started work on a major do over to get it there. I started with removing the bog info box and citing more sources. I am next going to get this peer reviewed, and hoping at least to get it the "good article" thumbs up. I, and my fellow wikipedians will be working hard to get this article ready for resubmition as a featured article. --Karrmann

[edit] big infobox

When I nominated this article for FA status, one thing that detracted from it was the big infobox. I also noticed that the big infobox made it harder to read. I put in the normal infobox to make it easier to read, and to better it's chances of becoming a featured article. --Karrmann

I strongly disagree. The big infobox is very helpful, and is fairly standard across automobile articles. I don't see how it would keep this article from attaining FA status, though the numerous errors (and awful blue boxes) might. Let's put it back in temporarily so I can keep working on the content and discuss here whether it should be in or out. --SFoskett 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feature article

Ok, I have updated this article with all my might. So now we need to prepare it for feature-hood. Judging from the old comments, here are some things that are needed:

1. Free (non-PR) photos of all generations
2. Perhaps eliminate the big infobox (one comment - see above)
3. Fix the redlinks
4. Peer review

Anything else? --SFoskett 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I will let you work your magic, but I did notice that the the Infobox makes it less comfortible to read. The years, engines, and models are already there in the sections, so I really see no need of an info box except to take up space. --Karrmann

By the way, I think we could slip by with the current pictures --Karrmann

Ok, it is just about ready, I just need to make some minor touches. I think it is ready, I'll go ahead and nominate it again.

[edit] Taurus in Sweden

Before Ford made an estate version of Ford Scorpio, the Taurus estate was avaliable in Sweden. That would be around 1989-1991. Ford Taurus was also the first flexifuel (ethanol-gasoline) car avaliable in Sweden. I think it was around 1995-1999, because there are 2nd generation Taurus's in Sweden, but most of them are of 3rd generation.

Apart from these versions (estate and FFV), Taurus has never been sold in Sweden. Unfortunately I have no source (only my memory), and I don't know if the Taurus was sold in other European countries, so I don't want to put the information in the article. --Boivie 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I really like the article. Just a comment: The image in the intro should be replaced with a better one, because the car blends in the background and doesn't appear clearly. Maybe you should use another 4th generation picture, or from another generation (I like the second and the third). Anyway great work. CG 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think some of the pictures need to be changed. I think for history sake the pictures should be as close as they looked when the came off the line from the factory. Out of respect to the car, I would like it to look its best. Ryan J Pasch 00:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First generation

I removed a paragraph from the "first generation" section which read:

The design was far more aerodynamic than the bluff designs that had come before. Ever since the 1973 oil crisis, American manufacturers had sought technologies

It just kind of trailed off mid-sentence and I didn't quite know where it was going. --W.marsh 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed where it stated that the Essex models used the ATX 3-speed, it was actually the 152 HSC cars with the ATX. I also clarified the Essex engine's head gasket problem.-- Sable232 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

The first and second gen was supposed to having rust problems inside the door, and under the window sealant. Whopper 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lew Veraldi, Father of the Taurus

I think something should be added to this article about Lew Veraldi. Considered by many to be driving force behind the Taurus from development to production. If you need some background information let me know :) Ryan J Pasch 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successor

The Freestyle is not really a successor because it is a different class of vehicle. Should I remove it from the successor category. The other two make sense. Bok269 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the Freestyle is the successor to the Taurus wagon. Karrmann 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal peer review, 2 August 2006

It needs (i) a thorough copyedit to fix the basic spelling/grammar errors, and (ii) someone to make the article 'flow' properly - right now it reads like a typical WP page, i.e. written by ten different people who didn't consult each other.

• Opening paragraph...

"This model was a bold new step in American automobile design..." This whole paragraph looks tacked on, is full of POV, and needlessly refers to two other automobiles. If it should be in the article at all, it should be in a 'Design' section, not in the opening.

"During that period, the Ford F-150 remained the country's best-selling vehicle, leading sales along with several other vehicles not classified as 'cars'" reads like it has been tacked on by an F-series fan. Just rewrite the last line before this to specify that the Taurus was the best selling passenger car.

• First generation

"The Taurus and Sable siblings used flush aerodynamic composite headlights...etc etc" Again, what's with the Audi 5000 infatuation? That's two Wikilinks to it in the first five paragraphs. And putting a blurb about headlights above all the details on the different engines?

• First generation SHO

"It is said that the reason why the SHO was created was..." isn't cited. Avoid weasel words.

There looks to be the remnants of an edit war with a Toronado fan at the bottom of that paragraph. Either the Toronado was faster, in which case ditch the SHO's claim, or the SHO was faster, in which case ditch the Toronado owners' whines.

• Future

"Retail Taurus sales had slumped significantly..." Incorrect use of the <ref> tag needs repaired.

• Popular Culture and Famous Owners

There's an awful lot of duplication here, mostly of irrelevant info. So Rachel Dawes drives a 1992 Taurus in Batman Begins? Who cares? Unless it has a specific contribution to the movie plot, it's just a car - she had to drive something. These two sections should be combined into one, and pruned mercilessly.

• Categories

Cult car?? (note: I'd just like to say that I think that entire category is a CfD candidate, if you ask me...)

• External links

A Ford Taurus tribute video gets precedence above the official site? And there's a "Ford Taurus quiz" link?? See WP:EL, please.

• WP:MOS#Pictures is pretty clear about not sandwiching a slim column of text between two images. Since there's so many infoboxes, the various left-justified pictures are interfering with the article more than contributing to it. I'd recommend a gallery at the end, or just ditching the extra images entirely.

• Anything else I may have missed

The above list is not exhaustive, so don't just fix the above and think you're done.

The above review was copy/pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. -- DeLarge 08:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given the article a sort of 'first makeover'. I hope it's a bit tidier, now. - Ballista 10:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravada's changes/proposed course of further action

I have rehashed the intro section to be more in line with WP standards/usual formats - essentially it should serve as a summary of the article for users that want to get a quick overview with the topic of the article, highlighting most important facts. It is kinda "halfway there" now, as I am not at all satisfied with the present state, but I guess the final summary should be written when the rest of the article would be finished.

• Do we have any proof that the Taurus was named after the constellation and not the bull itself? Besides, it would be good to dig out the naming story - I guess it could be itneresting and insightful.
• The Audi 5000/Citroen CX connection does not seem too obvious to me, and read more like an editorial than encyclopedic article. If anything, this should be discussed in the text with very good referencing, but I guess this was just somebody's musings.
• The info on retooling Chicago should actually be integrated into the closing section, but it should be revamped in its own right.

I have also modified the closing section. "Future" is not a good caption for an automobile that has just been discontinued. In general, it can be written a lot better, with accents weighed out more reasonably and with more sound logic (e.g. Taurus probably isn't discontinued b/c of the closing of the Atlanta plant, but the other way around).

I think the article is too big now for catch-all reviews and edits to make much sense. I guess working on subsequent sections could be easier and make more sense. I believe actually the first section is missing, as for an automobile that important and article of that size, much more can be said about the "pre-production" time, i.e. the development of the vehicle, concept etc. For examples, see Mini or Talbot Tagora.

As concerns the current first-generation section, my gripes would be:

1. Style - it might not sound well, but an encyclopedia requires much more sombre style. Starting from the first sentence, there are many more or less POV expressions, weasel words, overt generalizations and unfounded statements.
2. Wikification - in many places, the article reads OK to an auto enthusiast, but not to a generalist WP user. It should be made sure that all peculiarities of the automotive market, design and engineering are either explained in the article or wikilinked, so that a reader not acquainted with the topic could understand everything.
3. Lack of references / unfounded statements - flush headlights and NHTSA, Audi 5000/Stubebaker Avanti, head gasket problems, lightweight two seater (SHO), most powerful FWD car and the "keeping up with" thing - either need to be VERY well referenced or to go. Given the girth of the article, the latter would not be that bad.
4. Poor readability - apart from being filled with technicalities, the text is not very consistent and moves from one issue to another without an easily followable train of thought. I believe separation into further subsections could help - like trim levels, design changes, driveline etc. (also see other articles on cars, especially FA and GA, for examples of good structuring).
5. Images - it shouldn't be that hard to get copyright-free images of first-generation Tauruses (in sedan, wagon, and perhaps SHO forms).
6. Missing info

• If the LTD was the predecessor, why isn't it mentioned in either article? I am totally not familiar with pre-Taurus 1980s Fords, so I guess for users like myself it needs to be explained what was Ford's competitor to the Celebrity at that time - Futura, Fairmont, LTD or what? Seems like the nameplates were moving too (this actually pertains to more than this article only).
• Some sales numbers compared to preceding models and competitors/segment sales volume, preferably in a chart from, would come in handy to illustrate how big the change was actually.
• If prices are given, they are only of any use when compared to prices of other contemporary automobiles.

Oh well, seems like it is not going to be as easy as it seemed... Bravada, talk - 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taunus/Taurus

Yes, let's please keep the Taunus disambig comment - it is helpful, esp. in Europe, where the Taunus was once a common vehicle and the Taunus mountains are well known. - Ballista 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not and say we did. I don't think there's enough likelihood of confusion to merit the disambigation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a wider issue emerging, now. The WP is a truly international project, which means that 'centricism' has no place. From a 'US-centric' point of view, of course TAURUS is better known. However, from a European perspective, the reality is quite the reverse and TAUNUS is better known, both from a geographical connotation and, esp. in older folk and those with a 'bent' for classic cars. To put it into perspective for those not aware, TAUNUS used to be synonymous with FORD, in Germany and continental Europe, that's the scale of its 'fame' - it was a household name. I say it should be on BOTH articles, as a helpful note to any editor or reader who might, quite understandably, feel that a typo error has occurred when reading. When such a discussion is going on, it's better (and good etiquette) not to revert edits, as there's a danger of an 'edit war'. - Ballista 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure about the Discontinuation section

I think there's an error in the article about the discontinuation of the Taurus/Sable. Using ConsumerGuide and Automobile as a couple references, my research says that the following is the course of events. 2004: Last year for Sable wagon. 2005: Last year for Sable sedan & Taurus wagon. 2006: Last year for Ford Taurus sedan, no wagon or quadcam engine. This applies only to retail sales. CG and the other publications do not cover fleet-sales (which is why they show the last year of the prev-gen Chevy Malibu to be '03, ignoring the 2004 Chevy Classic model). So, I'd say needs to be reworded to say discontinued after 2006MY, retail sales continue until end of 2007MY. Any contrarian evidence? If not, I'll make the change. Sacxpert 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related to Windstar?

Apparently someone has interpreted "based on the popular Taurus Sedan" as "The Taurus and Windstar are related!" The Windstar used the same powertrain as the Taurus. It might have used a similar front suspension setup, But, if I recall, the rear was different. I take "related" to mean the vehicles are built off the same platform. Other thoughts? --Sable232 02:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I shall rremove it. I already reverted it once. Karrmann 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You will want to remove Lincoln Continental also then, it's not built on the same platform either 2nd citation added stating its off the Taurus platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.59.10.54 (talk • contribs) .

The Continental is based off the Taurus, just look up "Ford Taurus+Lincoln Continental" and you'll see several links about it. --ApolloBoy 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, the same is for the Windstar. I added 3 citations, 2 of them says its off the Taurus platform, the first just says "based" but the others say it is built off the Taurus platform. I can look up more citations for you then. Click the citations, all 3 of them, and read the content, it explains it right in them. Ejfetters 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I ask to please not just revert edits, but discuss the edits more in depth first. I have tried to do this. I have added citations that contradict what you are saying, but you simply just revert it back without explaining why when my citations explain my edits. Like I said, the 2nd citation says its built off the platform, not just uses the engine and suspension. If you can find a citation that contradicts this from a more reliable source that explains what platform it uses then, and if its reliable, then of course, I will agree with you. I would really like to know what the Windstar platform is too if it isn't, because I am myself trying to expand and totally improve the ford platform page linked to at the bottom, and would whole-heartedly welcome ANY help you can give me, because its obvious you have a vast knowledge that you can help me with. Again, if its not the Taurus platform, and my sources are wrong, please tell me what platform its built on. Thank you. Ejfetters 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All I ask is that we don't get into an edit war about this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to a 1994 Motor Trend (or was it Road & Track?) that I own, the Windstar has the same chassis base as the Taurus, or something like that.

Strongly recommend asking the experts at BlueOvalForums.com (link: [1] about this. --Guroadrunner 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin American versions

I believe they were slightly different to US/Canadian cars; should I include this??? --TheM62Manchester 13:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Put in the export models section Karrmann 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Export versions

Since Israel isn't a country where they drive on the left side of the road, at least as far as I remember, why would right hand versions have been exported there? --84.142.156.240 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Current event" tag

Considering that an IP user placed the tag, I removed it as not applying, and Karrmann restored it, I'm posing it to the group: Is this a "current event" in the way the tag describes it? I consider the tag's use for signifying an ongoing event (like a weather event or a convention), or a developing story (like the recent Foley scandal). My understanding with the Taurus's discontinuation is that it happened, it's done and no longer ongoing, and now it's no longer a "current event" for purposes of that tag. That's my rationale for removing it earlier. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's over. --Sable232 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again on Feb. 20. Someone had reposted it. I agree also that this doesn't qualify as a current event. A current event would be something that is in progress as the article is being developed. This article just has a section that is based on a future event, not current(soccernamlak) 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calm Down!

Could you all just sit down and cool it for a while? Ford isn't going to make an official announcement until tomorrow. We don't need to be making two hundred edits to this thing today. Wait a day, and make all the edits at once, maybe? --Sable232 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford has not confirmed it in an announcement, though we pretty much know that it is going to happen. Plus, not all of them have been about the revival. Most of them were me just generally improving the article, by adding footnotes and expanding the sections about the past generations.Karrmann 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taurus X

Do we want this in the Taurus article or the Freestyle article? I'd lean towards keeping it with the Freestyle despite the name similarity. Other opinions? IFCAR 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a different car. I think it ought to be kept with the Freestyle article for now. --Sable232 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford will probably use the Freestyle name for its Fairlane-based CUV. -- Bull-Doser 01:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I say here, as it is basically going to be marketed as a new Taurus wagon. It is basically like how we have information about the SHO in this article. Karrmann 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The SHO doesn't share everything but its name and a few styling details with another model though, as the Taurus X does. We don't know how it will be marketed yet, it could be as dissimilar as Cherokee and Grand Cherokee. IFCAR 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Taurus X will be Ford'e entry level crossover, slotted below the Edge, or for possible Edge buyers who want a extra row. Karrmann 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is different from being a Taurus wagon. IFCAR 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But still, it is part of the Taurus line. Like the SHO has some different sheetmetal and mechanicals, but it is still part of the Taurus line, so it deserves a place here, same with the X. Karrmann 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there isn't already an article dedicated to a car with SHO sheetmetal and mechanicals. IFCAR 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, there have been enough changes to call it a new car. Ford claimed that they made over 60 changes from the initial Five Hundred and Freestyle. Karrmann 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

< < < Moving indent back to the left < < <

I wonder, considering that the Five Hundred and the Freestyle were the replacements for the Taurus and are now becoming the Taurus, that the Five Hundred and Freestyle are best described as the "Fifth Generation", and therefore should be briefly described and linked to their respective articles with {{main}} tags. Then the new Tauruses should be sixth-generation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm amenable to that. Do we want to merge Five Hundred and Freestyle? IFCAR 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough diffrence between 2007 and 2008 that would make them separate generations. Calling the Five Hundred the "Fifth Generation" of the Taurus would only make things more confusing.

This page is long enough as it is, we don't need the Taurus X here. Sure it is "part of the Taurus line," but it's a competely different vehicle. Combining Taurus and Taurus X would be like merging Cutlass Ciera and Cutlass Calais. Bad idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sable232 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm with you on the Taurus X, and see where you're going with this, and in fact, separating out the Taurus X has some precedent in how a similar situation was handled. Chevrolet Lumina, which used the same name for a sedan and a minivan (two separate vehicles with the same name), has separate articles for both. Chevrolet Lumina describes the sedan model, while Chevrolet Lumina APV describes the van. Thus to apply this reasoning to our situation, Ford Taurus should continue to carry the description of the new Taurus sedan, while we should create a new article, Ford Taurus X, for the former Freestyle. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just made a new article for the Ford Taurus X, if you all could go on over and make it professional that would be great! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PorscheRacer711 (talk • contribs).

So far, so good. I've added some tags to it, and done a little cleanup work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Schuminweb, I will add some more information to the article today. PorscheRacer711 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I am keeping the pages together. I understand why the Taurus X could need its own article, but there is no need to make a seperate article for the 2008 Taurus. Technically, there was no break in production, there has been a Taurus for every model year since 1986. Karrmann 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but if we should need to free up the amount of info on this page, go ahead. PorscheRacer711 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Ford Taurus. Should it have its own article?

I just created a article for the 2008 Ford Taurus because of some talks about making this car have its own article. It will need some work and I will be glad when someone gives it some new information as well as a picture for it.

Please discuss if we should keep this article or bring it back to the one on this page. Thanks! PorscheRacer711 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any reason for the Gen V to have a separate article. It is still a FWD family sedan. Some people think the FH should have been the Gen V Taurus in the first place; had that been the case, we probably wouldn't even think twice about keeping the articles together.

Another thing: for future reference, when a "split" tag is placed on an article, it's best to discuss first, then create the article if consensus says to do so. --Sable232 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But isn't there too much on this article as there already is? I dont mind what happens either way, but just getting to the correct part of the page to read about the new Taurus is a bit long and confusing. PorscheRacer711 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for the new Taurus to have its own article. it is not like the name was revived decades after the initial discontinuation, and there never was a break in production. There has been a Taurus for every model year since it first went into production in 1986. And the models are pretty much the same formula. As I said above,, I can understand the Taurus X having its own article, but the Gen five Taurus is going to stay here. Karrmann 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There are definitely longer articles for cars out there (check the Ford truck series for example...). Taurus X yes because its a different vehicle, not trim. But i'm with Karrmann on this one...Gen V is just the next version of the Taurus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.61.95 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 1999 Revisions

Just wondering, does anyone think that a short paragraph or few sentences would be good under the Generation III section? During the first few months of 1999, Ford made some small changes to the Taurus, specifically cost cutting options. If no one complains, I can write it up. soccernamlak 23:10 21 February, 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aight, changes have been made. Please don't delete as I feel this is relevant to the article. In terms of editing/formatting, go for it! Hope this helps everyone. KB soccernamlak (Talk) 9:49, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Hey, I know you, you are from the TCCA! Karrmann 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, same username. and ur Mcloud, right?Soccernamlak 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just like i said in my intro, I pretty much is the key person in making this article the way it is. Karrmann 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh...."pretty much is the key person?" i now fear for the grammatical quality of wikipedia.... :P just messin'...i like the article....very well written compared to others. keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccernamlak (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ford Taurus History

Why was the early history section of the Taurus removed? I liked that. I didn't think anything was wrong with it. Sk5893 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because the article is on the Taurus, not why Ford need/wanted/what went into making the Taurus? idk. you have to ask Karrman on that on. Soccernamlak 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wroe that up last summer. I removed it because it has poor grammer, is a POV oriented, and poorly referenced. I am trying to get this article featured, adn that section will just be holding it back. I am almost there, I don't need a neutrality review. Karrmann 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a whole new page titled "History of the Ford Taurus" with that info, plus more info on how it was sold in recent years, discontinued, etc. Sk5893 13:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a section on the car's history is worthwhile, but that needs to be done in the main Taurus article, not a separate history article. Rewritten from scratch and fully referenced, of course. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BringbacktheSHO.com

I am the founder of BringbacktheSHO.com, I noticed someone made some edits to the article, and I wanted to let you know that no one connected with the website made any of the edits. I would like a mention about the campaign and would like to know what you guys think of the idea. We are a group of enthusiastic, vocal and dedicated Ford owners that are doing what we can to convince Ford to re-enter the market it helped create with the 1989 SHO. The website is not an "advertisement" of any kind and have a lot more to offer than a few photoshops. The website and the campaign are now part of Taurus history and I think it should be documented. Ryan J Pasch 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against the site. as a Taurus enthuiast, I personally am proud of your site and support you all the way. The only reason I removed it was because who did add it made it sound too much like an advertisement boosting the site. if it can be worded to sound less like an advertisement, It can gladly be included in the article. Karrmann 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Karrmann, thanks for the support. I also wanted to apologize if I came too forward on the above post. I would love for the site to be included in the article, but am not sure how to word it correctly. By the way I have noticed that the article has come a long way and looks great! Ryan J Pasch 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Generation Wagon Picture

I noticed the rear view picture of the wagon on the Fourth Generation section looks identical to the wagon on the Third Generation section. Is that correct? rb26dett

Yes, that's right. --Sable232 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because the rear end didn't change from the third to fourth generation. (Or from the first to the second generation, for that matter.) IFCAR 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)