|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
 |
| #1 |
4-03-2007 @ 08:46:40 PM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I looked at the pic and before I read the description I was like, "No way that's a Taurus...".
|
|
| #2 |
4-03-2007 @ 08:49:28 PM |
| Posted By : 454Nova |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i will never understand the fascination with the Taurus, SHO or not
|
|
| #4 |
4-03-2007 @ 08:54:14 PM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#2, They're arguably some of the best domestic passenger sedans ever made.
|
|
| #5 |
4-03-2007 @ 08:59:31 PM |
| Posted By : three50one |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, inexpensive, decent reliability, safe to drive, ahead of its time in the beginning and middle, saved ford once....uhhh
as far as good cars go....its a good car....it has its fault mind you....but you cant argue the fact that its a good car
oh...and SHOs kick ass......i never understood the fascination with Novas btw...ive always hated them...theyre ugly and cumbersome
|
|
| #7 |
4-03-2007 @ 09:06:04 PM |
| Posted By : three50one |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#6, im not a truck or SUV guy....the less i drive either the happier i am
vans though.....vans are totally different (even though astros and S10's shared basically the same frame)
|
|
| #8 |
4-03-2007 @ 09:16:46 PM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#7, I like driving cars and trucks equally; my Suburban on one hand is a blast to drive, it's big and loud and turns heads wherever it goes, but it's more of the vintage factor than anything else. My Chrysler isn't too exciting to drive simply because it's a 140hp motor in a 2 ton body with rear leaf springs, ugh. But personally I'd rather have a car as an everyday driver, simply because I don't really have any use for something with a lot of torque and a big empty bedspace or something that sucks up gas or is 8 feet in the air.
|
|
| #10 |
4-03-2007 @ 09:55:55 PM |
| Posted By : 454Nova |
Reply | Edit | Del |
oO(note to self: sell Nova and Tahoe and purchase Ford Taurus)
|
|
| #11 |
4-03-2007 @ 10:03:58 PM |
| Posted By : three50one |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#9, VERY similar....as far as interior goes...the only difference i see is the oval football control for the radio is reverse in this one...pointing the correct way for the driver...australian market had it pointing as though it were left hand drive...at least in photos ive seen
i really want a center console e-brake god damnit....fuck that pedal shit
|
|
| #14 |
9-29-2019 @ 06:32:50 PM |
| Posted By : Driven_out |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I disagree, this taurii nose looks a bit more awkward. it wouldn't have done any better
|
|
| #15 |
9-30-2019 @ 08:19:45 AM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#13, I might be in the minority that didn't mind the front but thought the rear end was an elliptical nightmar, a ROUND rear window? Why? Tail lamps that follow any contour they feel like? 10 years too early for that.....
The redesign fixed that, only to, IMHO, now ruin the front with the pizza-wedge headlights
|
|
| #16 |
9-30-2019 @ 09:36:59 AM |
| Posted By : ricerocketboy |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#15, agreed on both. I like both cars, but I prefer the rear of the 2000 car with the front of the '96-99
|
|
| #17 |
9-30-2019 @ 01:44:54 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#15, Same here. The back of that Taurus looked absurd....which is why the Sable of the same generation was so much better-looking.
|
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
View Stats
