My opinion would be that most people want a car that they can easily work on.
you honestly think that car sales are affected by how easily a car is to work on?
heck, the majority of "car guys" probably dont even wrench on their own cars, let alone regular plain clothed civilians!
Dark interiors get lighter headliners because people don't like to feel like they are in a black cave in their car.
I've had three fully-optioned cars with dark interiors: Contour (midnight blue), Maxima (black), Legacy (black). Each had a gray headliner. The latter two had gray pillar covers.
How often does a dark interior have a black headliner? I can't think of any vehicles off the top of my head.
ive seen plenty of mustangs with black headliners. my moms C class benz, my buddy's old POS cavalier, and a few more.
I think this hits the nail on the head.
For me, the Contour couldn't confortably fit three kids across the rear, let alone adults. So my choice was to either save the money and buy a cheaper Escort with just about the same interior room as a Contour or go with a larger Taurus, for not much more (or even less) money. In the end the wife had to be happy so it was a Taurus.
I am wondering where the Pontiac Grand Prix and Grand Am and other cars like it fit in.
It seemed to me that the Grand Prix was a sporty looking car, a step up from a Contour in size, if not in technology.
Aside from the fact that the Contour is a sedan only and the Grand Am came in a coup, if you are going to go smaller than a Grand Prix or a Taurus, the Grand Am was a very attractive, very sporty looking option, especially the GT. Put a Grand Am GT and a CSVT next to each other and 9 out of 10 single 20-something females are going to choose the Grand Am just based on looks alone.
At the end of the day however, every single person who drives my CSVT is impressed.
-Tim-
i havent met too many females that actually like the looks of the contours, even the csvt. and forget the 3rd Gen Taurus lol. seemed like women hated the round jelly bean shape.
I wouldn't say that the Contour was ever a better car than the Taurus, and that goes for comparing the SVT and SHO iterations directly as well.
It was, however, a dynamic, solid, well-performing car with great looks and hot numbers and handling in the uplevel guises (particularly SVT). I loved my SVT, for the record.
What really cramped its style on the sales charts was the tight back seat and the price that blew right past the Tempo and kept on going. Ford delivered a bit too many up-optioned Contours to dealers in the early going, and that sent the wrong message out of the gate. People who had been loyal to Tempo for its value and dependability could have found the same virtues in the Contour. Some did. But others were put off by those initial window stickers of cars that were loaded with way more equipment than they wanted, price shoppers that they were.
in 1998 i bought my first (and only) brand new car, a 98 honda accord. the accord had just jumped up in overall size and was now offering the V6. i was a honda fanboy back then (2nd accord). it was a GREAT car! gave me ZERO problems all the way up till the mid 60k mark when i sold it. i HATED fords back then. bad experiences with them before.
i hadnt even heard about the csvt back in 98, or i may have gone to check it out, though my hatred of ford probably would have prevented me from buying it. and for the same price, you could get a larger, well equipped accord which would be the far safer bet reliability wise. the contour just didnt fit in at the time. people could either buy a 4 door escort if they were on a tight budget and would accept a small car or move up to a taurus. and a contour certainly was no match for a camry/accord in 1998. maybe in 97, but not with the newer/larger cars in 98. it wasnt until i drove a focus that i became impressed by fords newer vehicles (compared to the older stuff). then, when i test drove a csvt, i fell in love!
now, the fusion is in the right spot at the right time.. the taurus is MUCH bigger and more expensive. the fusion is a good sized vehicle, looks good, and gets good mpg, which is a major concern for many family car buyers now.
Disagree respectfully. I have a family member that has literally owned every single generation of Taurus except 2nd gen, ever since they were introduced in 1986. Still waiting on her to get the new re-release, though. They've been quite good, and she drives cars HARD. She's never kept anything longer than about 75k mi. Reasons for trade-off were:
1986 XL - cracked head gasket
1991 S - tie rod broke
1996 SL - just got tired of it
2001 - still driving, amazingly enough...
We'll see if she gets the new one. I hope not. Not to derail too much, but... now, finally, the Taurus may suck. They've jacked up the base price way too high. The way it competed with Camry and Accord before was by being of decent quality, but CHEAPER. Now it fails at $25k. Aesthetically they chopped off the front of a Camry, the rear of a Chrysler 300, and glued them together as a full-size car. :/
The old Tauruses drove great. I learned to drive on one, then went into my first car of a 1986 VW Golf. While vastly different, the Taurus was clearly no crown vic or caddy or SUV in handling. They were easily driveable, with great power from those 3L's. I understand your criticism compared to a smaller car or the Contour, but rated vs. other mid-size cars (what the Taurus used to be, now a full-size), it had great driveability and handling.
Anyways, point being that, sadly, as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, the Contique was not better than the Taurus. Sales proved it. :/
the new Taurus is HUGE. its about the same size as a 7 series bimmer. its not the same Taurus from before. people who dont want to spend that much or have a car that large can opt for a nicely equipped/sized fusion instead.
i think the two main buyers of the contour and taurus were families and commuters. thats what i still see driving them now. for the $, the contour was just too small for a real family car. it would be like buying a trailblazer when you can get a tahoe for almost the same price. who would do that?? :shrug: or buying a V6 S10 if you could get a silverado for a little more (for work usage). and if you were buying one for a commuter car, why not just get an escort. almost the same size but less expensive :shrug:
and lets face it, in 1998, the standard edition escort, contour and taurus were nothing to get excited about in the looks department. which is what MANY people base a larger part of their purchases on (other than reputation for reliability). looks and reliability, not exactly two strong points for Ford in 1998 lol.
