BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon

Subject: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 07:13 PM

Hi..seeking information. I have two options right now to replace my 1985 Buick..both are station wagons about 1991.one is a Taurus for about $1200 from my mechanic..the other is from a friend of a friend who is redoing a Volvo and it should be in very good shape when done.

I live far from any Volvo dealers, parts, etc. and don't have a lot of money for repairs, but I know it is by far the better car...

Any suggestions? The Volvo is about $2200...the Taurus is ugly to boot but the Volvo is black and I do not like black cars..also don't like greyish beige cars which the Taurus is...

Of course I could keep looking. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,ed
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 07:39 PM

I owned a volvo.
Repairs and parts nearly put me in the poor house.
(a mechanic friend says Volvos last three times as long as other cars, because you put every part on three times)
Maybe others have had other experiences.

The Taurus is ugly, but parts are cheaper and easier to find. Any mechanic will work on them.Not a certain thing for a volvo.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:14 PM

Actually the Buick is not in bad shape...starting to stall a lot. I wasn't going to put even a small amount of money into but maybe I should...the doors are bad though...it runs quite well and has new brakes...heater doesn't work and it fogs up badly in the winter. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:25 PM

The Ford Taurus is famous for having a poorly-designed automatic transmission. Very common to have the overdrive portion go bad. Rebuilding the auto trans requires removing the engine also. Expect about $2,800 the work.   {hint: the Buick you already own is a safer bet than the Taurus}

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:37 PM

The rear wheel drive Buick's (GMs) were good cars, easy to repair and used to be easy to find parts (ie door) for them.

The stalling problem is not likely major.   Maybe needs new plugs, (or wires, or air filter), or fuel injectors cleaned.


Maybe the heater problem is related to a stuck rad thermostat? Or, maybe it needs a rad flush and new coolant (or coolant is low)? Even if you need a new heater (which is unlikely) a used one could be easily found.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:02 PM

None of the above...

But...

... if these are only two choices... the Volvo, hands down...

Taurus are famopus fir eating transmissions and then, ahhhhh, yer lookin' at more than you paid fir the danged thing to get re-transmixed....

The Volvo, providing it is in at least avergae shape, has no frive-train issues...

If you meed a station wagon, I'd recomment a Toyota Camry wagon... Early to mid 90's... ***Four cylindar***... No 6 cylindars here.... And you can find 'um all day long with cold air fir less than $1500...

Better than either the Turus or the Volvo... Okay, not as good as the Volvo overall but less expensive to maintain...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:31 PM

Keep looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,Joe Offer, at the Women's Center
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:53 PM

My wife's 1989 Volvo station wagon had a nasty habit of changing lanes without being told to. I bought her a new Subaru, but it took me another year to convince her to get rid of that damn Volvo. She loved that car, but I thought it was a rattletrap deathtrap piece of junk.
And repairs were expensive.
I'd agree with Bobert's recommendation of a Toyota, or a Honda - but Honda wagons are a bit hard to find.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 10:22 PM

Live! Buy a Cayenne! Seriously tempted, although driving Cherokees for 25 years.

Cayenne S

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:04 PM

Not the Volvo. They are tempting cars, especially the older ones, but you are constantly replacing parts which you generally must find in junkyards (I have a friend who keeps a second Volvo wagon for parts), you have to find and cherish a mechanic, and the thing will strand you on the road anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 02:22 AM

I am with Bobert on this--look for a toyota. You can drive it forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 03:53 AM

Volvo! Last for ever - the rear wheel drive ones. Almost rustproof (a huge consideration here in England). Mostly hugely reliable, with just one or two little peccadillos.   The V6s are very thirsty, but the Turbos can be made extremely fast, and still quite frugal. I have a 16-valve, which I love to bits - but change the cambelts religiously (and the oil pump pulley bolt at the same time), cos if you break the cambelt on the 16 valvers it eats the whole engine (valves hit piston). The Turbos and the 8 valvers don't do that.

Most Volvo engines will last 200,000 miles - sometimes with a head gasket change needed but modern alloy-head engines a head gasket is a wearing part (it's to do with differential thermal expansion). Except on the 16 valvers, a head gasket replacement for the 4-pots is not that hard. Head gasket on the v6 is a nightmare.

Keep a stock of the relays (and probably two of the fuel pump relay) - they are easy to change (behind ashtray).   Do not let bush mechanics anywhere near the auto boxes (but I prefer the manual boxes anyway).

Avoid the early V6 (the B28). The later V6 (B280) is OK if thirsty until it breaks. Both V6s will break if you don't change the oil and water at specified intervals.

The straight 6 is tough but thirsty.

The 4 potters are all but indestructible. Look after the turbo (if its there) and it should last the life of the engine too.

The preferred gearbox is the M90 5-speed (reverse to right) or M47 5-speed (reverese to left). Avoid the autoboxes - they are OK but palm tree mechanics can wreck them - and avoid the M46 with the overdrive on a button in themiddle, there are too many possible electrical faults with the control system.

There are lots of small builders, window cleaners, and antique dealers here in the UK who use the Volvo estates in stead of vans. They do this because they are tough, tough, tough.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 06:33 AM

There was an accident here recently, and someone on the news noted that the Volvo that was involved was hit so hard the engine fell out. I guess he didn't know that Volvo designed it that way to keep it from coming into the front seat when hit from up front.

They are tough. I've had three of them, but they do drain the purse.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Grab
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 06:36 AM

My only experience of a Taurus was as a rental. V6, 3L engine - and the damn thing still accelerated significantly slower than my 1.4l manual-box Peugeot back home. And the last thing I drove that handled as badly was a canal boat. I don't understand howw anyone could consider driving one through choice.

As for reliability, Volvos are pretty solid - there are still quite a few early-80s Volvos going around in Britain. But your example is now 16 years old, so bits *will* be wearing out. If your friend is replacing/servicing everything (down to new piston rings and stuff like that) then you'll have a good car there. Otherwise probably better to look elsewhere.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 08:53 AM

Most expensive Europeans will last a long time but are pricey to repair and require a mechanic reasonably familiar with the breed. The Taurus is not far from being scrap.

Keep looking and lean toward the Japanese.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,Steamwolf
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 09:41 AM

Is that a serious choice???

Lots of old Volvo's still going in Germany... Didn't see a single Taunus there two years ago.

Question answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 09:52 AM

I've put a link to this up on the volvoclub.uk forums so there mght be a few guests in with views. Is there a Taurus Owners' club?

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,CTCNetwork
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 10:01 AM

Hi,

The Volvos of that era were built to last and Average life was up to 27 years.
Many people in the UK are still happily driving them around, and when VOC members get their hads on them, fix 'em up for more years service..
Given reasonqable care and attention, they keep going. And going..

Taurus? Can't have been that great as it didn't manage to get across the water.
The words ford and quality don't, in my mind, go together.
But a straight choice between a Volvo and a Ford? I'll go Volvo every time.
Especially the pre ford Volvos.. Thats anything RWD.. :o)

Get the Volvo... Nuff said...

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,Al Scarface
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 10:13 AM

Hi

Volvo or Ford = Volvo handsdown everyday of the year, Ford bought Volvo and since then the quality is down and repair bills are up.

I have an 89 745 turbo, its reliable always starts never breaks down, requires very little work and what it does I can do myself, it has NO rust, engine pulls like a train and will leave most modern cars behind and I can still get 25 mpg on average, I can fit my family +45 kg of dog in and still have room left. Sure they can cost money to fix but the Jap cars cost more (I've owned them) and all cars cost money to fix.

If you buy a good one they can last longer than most other makes on the road.

Ali

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Desdemona
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 10:47 AM

I am on my second Volvo station wagon, and I have absolutely loved both cars. The current one is a XC V70 and I couldn't be happier. Of course, I have 3 sons and a dog, so safety, roominess and reliability are key, but it has excellent pick-up and is lots of fun to drive as well, which is important to me because I spend a lot of bloody time in it.

I second the above post in re: buy a good one, maintain it, and you'll have it for years.

Best,

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bert
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 11:51 AM

I had a Volvo one time and it was by far the worst car I ever owned and the engineering was atrocious. If I had turned out crap like that when I was an apprentice (Mechanical Engineer) I'd have got my arse kicked.

I'd never buy another.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:24 PM

But did you like it?

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:31 PM

I can give you a 1989 Ford Sable with 28,000 miles for about 800 dollars. It has a crack in the windshield due to my snow shovel skills and is in need of a new bolt that holds the right rear suspension spring. It has AC and is all white with red interior.

For an early Taurus type car it is the one that has the solid light across the entire front.

or get a camry

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:37 PM

My old 245 wagon drove like a truck, had minor electrical difficulties--and ran over Northeastern roads (salted in winter) for over a quarter-million miles with half-ton loads until the State of New Jersey wouldn't let me licence it because of some rusted panels. It's still in sewrvice a couple of years later in Pennsylvania.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:53 PM

gee...as recent owner of a black Taurus station wagon, I'm not gonna be much help, am I? (2002...runs like a dream so far)

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bert
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:35 PM

Did I like it?

It was OK at times. a bit underpowered.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: EBarnacle
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:38 PM

I had a Volvo from the mid 80's, a 744. It is a close race between this and my 1959 Alfa Romeo for unreliability. Mechanics seem to see them coming and replace "black box" components at $200 or more a pop. A Taurus may be ugly but the parts are readily available from your local junker. If you want a long term Toyota, Lady Hillary has an 81 Celica available that only needs to go through inspection and a gasket for the sunroof. It runs strongly and the body is ugly but sound.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Mickey191
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:53 PM

I need advice on the subject--please come to my thread--Hundai- Don't want to interfere with guestMG

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:53 PM

actually we have about a 93 Taurus at work that I think is quite pretty..the 91 is an ugly beige gray color and just a bit dinged etc. I do want a pretty car. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: folk1e
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 09:41 PM

I paid 4K for my 95 940gle auto 6 years ago. only had cosmetic damage (caused by me) Only one problem with the starter circuit, but runs like a dream. Before that I had a 245, 20 years old when I got rid, and that ran well too. They are the largest estate on the road and one of the best!Average service charge is £120!..... NOT by a Volvo mechanic.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Chip2447
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 01:20 AM

I've owned 3 pre-owned Volvos, each at least 10 years old at the time, and each with well over 100,000 miles on them. I wouldn't have hesitated to drive any one of them across the Country (USA) and back. In fact in the mid 80's my dad, my brother and I all used it to get to work; Dad and my brother would leave at7 am and drive 30 miles to drop dad off at work, then my brother would drive back home. Then he and I would take off (30 miles again) to take him to work. then back home I came, only to drive back to town to pick dad up and drop me off at my place of employment, you can see where this is leading...I hope...We were putting on average better than 200 miles a day on a 13 year old 1972 144.

My 1975 242 had somewhere in the nieghborhood of 500,000 miles on it and the last25k or so were HARD miles, I know, I put them there.

As far as parts availablity is concerned, Volvo is now owned by Ford so it shouldn't be that big of deal now.

My vote is Volvo...

Chip

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:54 AM

As to power, I can't commment on the Taurus but as far as the 7 and 9 series volvos go: -

1986cc, 4 pot normally aspirated - SLOW
2316cc, 4 pot normally aspirated - tolerable - but the US ones are slower because of US emission controls
1986cc, 4 pot turbo - fairly brisk
2316cc, 4 pot Low pressure turbo - fairly brisk
2316cc, 16 valve normally aspirated - fairly brisk
2316cc, 4 pot high pressure turbo - quick (up to 195 bhp depending on exact variant)
1986cc, 16 valve turbo (Italy only) quick - about 205 bhp.
All the above are called "red blocks"
B28 and B280 2849cc V6 - power varies from abou 140 bhp to 170 bhp depending on variantm so performance varies from tolerable to brisk
3 litre straight 6 (white block) up to 205 bhp so quick.

If you go to www.brickboard.com you will find that people can and do make the volvos go PDQ. Some are running the standing quarter mile in the 10 second bracket, and a lot in the 11 second bracket. 300 bhp (flywheel)is commonplace and 400 bhp a bit more expensive. One loony from Sweden has the redblock producing over 800 bhp.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,Telmo Big
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 07:25 AM

Here in Portugal there are no Taurus, but Escorts and Mondeos. The '90 decade was desastrous for these models, rust and bad engines.
I believe Taurus can be a little better, and easy to find parts, also.
My experience with Volvo is fairly good. Have a 744 Turbo 2.0 '87 with 130k miles and didn't get any malfuncion except for the parts that the previous owner did not cared about: air conditioning, rad and water pump, belts, OD switch and electric terminals, starter, battery and generator. Those parts are naturally worn due to the ageing...
Besides that, engine runs perfectly, top comfort for family trips and no rust. It seems this car will never end, and I love it.
Parts are a bit expensive, but you can always find it in a scrapyard.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: EBarnacle
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:38 AM

If you do a lot of urban driving, DO NOT GET A TURBO ANYTHING! They suck gas on acceleration and require attention on startup and shutdown or you will seize or burn expensive bearings [lots of labor for the mechanic, too]. For suburban or open road driving, it is useful and you stand less chance of damaging the system.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:49 AM

I used to own a Taurus and I rented a Volvo once. Both wagons. Hated the Volvo and loved the Taurus. I guess I'm alone in my opinion. Maybe I got the only good Taurus. The Volvo was brand new and driving it was a new lesson in pain. It was not designed for someone who is six foot three and weighs too many pounds. But then my wife who is much, much, smaller than me also was uncomfortable in the Volvo.

I now drive an old Mercedes. Bought it for a song (now this thread can go up into the music threads). It runs like a top, is built like a tank, and has great gas, uh, fuel mileage. It's a diesel. I love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:08 AM

At 16 years old I would think it would be hard to tell unless both had been looked over carefully; no matter how good a car is in the first place, once it's had 16 years of either good, bad, or no maintenance, all bets are off.

I've seen good and bad examples of both. My college roommate had a Volvo and getting the thing repaired turned into a huge pain in the ass and was expensive (no Volvo mechanics in small-town Iowa). A high school friend had a hand-me-down first-generation Taurus that was a complete piece of junk. But then if either of them had been better cared-for they might have been fine cars. And Naemanson is right; Volvos can be cramped. I'm 5'7" and I thought my roommate's was a tight fit in the head and foot-room department (and we thought Scandinavians were tall).

Can you tell anything about the condition of them in relation to one another?

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,rx9
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 09:49 PM

The Taurus was designed as a cheap 'runaround', and lets face it no Ford has ever been built to last. Expect interior trim to rattle like hell, engines that are basically buggered after 120k, and perhaps most of all really uncomfortable seats. Don't go on long journeys.

The Volvo was always originally designed to stand upto the harsh conditions found in Sweden. Build quality is top-notch and rivals Mercedes. Legendary safety - if you die in a Volvo you can guarantee the other guy dies too! Industructable 'redblock' engines that can last over 300k without even a basic rebuild. Best ergonomic seats ever - go on a long journey and you'll know what I mean. Sure, the parts are a bit more expensive, but at least you know they'll last the equivlant service life of any Ford vehicle.

Oh yeah, any shade-tree mechanic can work on a 7xx or 9xx volvo engine. To think otherwise means you know absolutely sod all about engines.. seriously!

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bert
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:44 PM

...go on a long journey... You didn't have my Volvo..We were going to New Mexico from Colorado Springs. Half way to Pueblo it died. Absolutely no reason could be found, plenty of gas, good spark. Eventually it started again and we took it back to the dealer. He couldn't find anything wrong.

This happened several times.

When we finally made it to Santa Fe the transmission gave up and had to be rebuilt.


Then there was the heater blower. I had replaced ane a few years before on an old Hillman Minx. Undid four nuts, lefted the old motor out and unplugged it. Plugged the new one in and did up the four nuts. It was a ten minute job.

Now on the Volvo, You had to...

Remove the Radio.
Remove the console
Remove the columns that held the console
Remove the glove compartment
Disconnect the hoses tucked in behind the glove compartment
Remove the instrument panel
Disconnect the hoses tucked in behind the instrument panel
Lay down on the floor and undo the bolts to the motor and remove the motor
Get a file and file out the motor housing while lying on your back on the floor because the new motor didn't fit.
Keep trying to fit the new motor until you had filed out enough of the housing.
Fit the motor and then reverse the whole process to put it all back together.
It was almost a whole weekend's work.

Then there was the water pump. Ok it bolted onto the front of the engine pretty much like any other water pump BUT the water connections came in from the top and there weren't any bolts in that direction to hold the pump against the O ring seals. SO you had to put a load of gasket seal around the O rings. partially tighten the bolts but leave one out so that you could get a podger in that hold and try to hold the pump against the O rings. and so on...

Then there was the brakes and the air filter and the power steering. It was just never ending bad engineering.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 02:11 AM

Whic Volvo was that Bert - it sounds like an early 760 with the B28 V6 engine (which I say avoid) and an auto transmission (which I say avoid) - except that you mention the nasty redblock water pump.

If you know how to do it, the water pump is not that bad, although I too wonder why there is no obvious clamp to the cylinder head.

The order of assembly goes - put squidge on all O rings - fit to the pipe that comes alongside the block - insert and do up to "nip" but no further the seciring bolts - put large lever under pump and force upwards while tightening bolts - but the official time to replace the pump is considerable.

But you can expect a redblock to last over 250,000 miles up to 500,000 miles before needing pistons, rings, mains or ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bert
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 12:22 PM

It was a '75 or '76 242, 4 cylinder manual transmission.

I would never consider buying from a company that has produced such poor designs. Every single thing you touched was bad. As it was bad throughout the vehicle it must have been company policy. I would guess that they hired kids straight from school to do their design work.

But they certainly didn't come from the school that I went to.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: mouldy
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 01:50 PM

I've just bought my first Volvo: 2.4 diesel V70.
Got a good deal as it was pre-registered. I've been driving VW/Audi happily for years but I just needed a bigger carrying capacity. (We also had a couple of Merc estates before the VWs. I liked them). The only drawback so far with the (front wheel drive) Volvo is that it turns like an oil tanker!
My neighbour is on his 3rd Volvo, and he warned me about this. The old, rear wheel drive ones would turn on a sixpence.
I'm working on getting the mpg up. Stats give 50mpg extra-urban. So far I am up to 40.8 and I have about 3500 miles on the clock now. The runs to Southport next week and Scotland next month should help.
My neighbour has the automatic version and his computer says he is doing the quoted 45mpg for that model.

Of course now I get stick from the offspring who say I have joined the old fogeys' brigade; and my son in law would have loved me to buy a T5, which the police use! (I am told the T5 goes through rear tyres like stink - something to do with the back diff not being up to the job).

Andrea

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 03:58 AM

I have owned a full range of Volvos - from an S80 to a 240, then a 740, a V70 and now back with a 760.

The ones to get are well maintained models - regardless of age. Condition is what counts with a Volvo.

The 240 blew a head gasket after 3000 mile and was duly scrapped. The 740 covered 25000 miles in 18 months - with only a loose alternator belt being a problem. It would start at -15c on the key (IE no gas) everytime - and this was an 18 year old car. The V70 was a superb motorway companion - and rapid as well - touching over 140mph with ease on the German autobahn. Again it needed no work doing on it in 6 months.

The 760 has only been in my care for 3 months and has again proved a worthy companion. Supremely comfortable, well equiped (even by modern standards). It is thirsty (22mpg (UK Gallons))but makes a wonderful sound and rides so smoothly.

The build quality of real Volvos (RWD ones) is as good as it gets.

Parts ARE expensive, but 240/740/940 cars are pretty ease to work on, and they are reliable in extreme conditions

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: mg
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 01:10 AM

I just bought a $400 Dodge Caravan, 1997..I won't even say how many miles. Used by a young mother, formerly a rental. She needed money ASAP to bring her mother here. Seems pretty good. The body is beautiful so at least I will enjoy looking at it. I assume I will have to do some work on it. Small oil leak, which I will just live with. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 02:17 AM

Replace head gasket on any Volvo 4-pot other than the 16 valver - abut £200 to £250 all in if you know the right garage.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 10:04 AM

Based on my experience with the truck version of the Caravan, expect bizarre failures and total lack of sympathy and support from Chrysler.
Keep an eye on the exhaust. Based upon the age of the vehicle, don't be surprised if you need a new engine soon, as the cylinders wear, allowing the rings to pass oil. I hope your experience is better than mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 03:00 PM

Driving home today (in our Taurus station wagon), I noticed another right ahead of us....well, I thought I did...but it was a Mercury Sable. I commented to my wife that they were almost identical.

"Yes", she said, "they just took the ones made on Mondays and made them Tauruses."

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 09:07 PM

It was a case of jack up the name plate at the factory.

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Naemanson
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 02:52 AM

GUEST,rx9 "The Taurus was designed as a cheap 'runaround', and lets face it no Ford has ever been built to last."

I generally have the same opinion about General Motors cars. I like Fords. I guess we all have an opinion. It's just that mine is right. *Grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 12:11 PM

Well, after 50 years, this is the first Ford I have ever owned...we have our fingers crossed. It was well taken care of, and has all the service records and behaves beautifully so far. ....and, maybe because it IS a Ford, it was a couple thousand cheaper than similar Japanese models of the same age....we spent part of the savings on a carefully chosen warranty.

we shall, as they say, see...

Subject: RE: BS: Taurus vs. Volvo station wagon
From: JennyO
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 12:27 PM

My current car is a Ford - not a Taurus but a 13 year old Fairmont. I've had to spend a bit of money here and there on the usual wear and tear issues that you get with a 13 year old car, but it's basically still a lovely car which runs like a dream.

There was an issue with a windscreen wiper motor the other day, which has been fixed. The mechanic had turned the car on to show me that they were working, walked away for something, came back a minute later, forgot he had already turned it on and went to turn it on again. It was running so quietly you couldn't hear it!