If you’re obsessed with cars and spend too much time online, few things probably faze you anymore. Italdesign Nazca C12 in the Brunei leak? Oh yeah, I’ve seen the concept. A Mitsuoka reminiscent of Mike Wazowski? Yeah, the Bubu 501 is pretty cute. However, today I saw something that made me do a double-take — a photo of an original Ford Taurus with a traditional grille. Huh?
Sure, police package cars got a partially vented grille panel, but this isn’t what I’m talking about here. The original Taurus was renowned for being a bottom-breathing car, having just a small punch-out around the Ford emblem where a grille would normally be, embracing the aerodynamic look with what was essentially a blank panel between the headlights. This is the complete opposite of that.
Wilder still, it’s in Ford’s own 1986 Taurus brochure. Specifically, in the section about the base-model Taurus L, where an alternate universe of sorts appears. This Taurus has an upper grille, and it’s impossible to miss.
However, finding proof this grille actually made it to production is nigh-on impossible. It’s not listed in Ford’s parts catalog, I haven’t been able to scrape up any photos of a Taurus with this grille in the wild, and even members of Taurus forums say they’ve never seen it before. Weird. Does it appear anywhere other than the 1986 sales brochure?
Why, yes it does. In fact, it seems at least one car with a grille made it to the press, as a period episode of Motorweek doesn’t just show a Taurus L with a grille, it states that the Taurus L came with a grille. What’s more, there’s another 1986 Taurus brochure floating around, this time for Ford’s fleet division, that shows a Taurus MT5 with the black slatted grille. Huh?
So, if this slatted black grille appeared in brochures and in the press, why doesn’t it seem to have made it to production? Well, the Taurus didn’t actually go on sale until late December of 1985, which means there was definitely a period of time between pre-production models rolling off the line to be shot for brochures and whatnot, and the freeze period for actual equipment changes. There were still decisions to be made, and Episode 3 of Atlassian’s Work Life podcast, which features famed Ford head designer Jack Telnack, offers insight into why a first-generation Taurus with a traditional grille didn’t end up happening.
Jack Telnack:
And the marketing people and the sales people said, “Well, you have to have a grill. Every car out there has a grill.” And we said, “No, not this car. This is a whole new look. We don’t need a grill in this car.”
GABRIELA: This was a big, big deal that made a lot of people at Ford very nervous. You just didn’t build a car without a grill. It looked weird. So weird maybe people wouldn’t buy the car. It was such a big deal, Jack says, this one feature went all the way to the top for approval.
Jack Telnack:
…Bill Ford, who was a vice president of the company and he was head of the design, what they called the design committee, who made the final decision and it was up to him. They threw it back into Bill’s lap and said, “Okay, Mr. Ford, you make the decision. Grill or no grill?” He said, “I want the front end with no grill. The aerodynamic front end.” I about ran over and wrapped my arms around him.
So, there we are. Bill Ford is a big part of the reason you probably never saw a first-generation Taurus with this full-width slatted upper grille on the street, and it’s hard to not see this as the right call. See, the Taurus was meant to be radical, out-there, a car like one few Americans had ever seen before, since nobody can seem to pronounce Merkur. To burden it with a traditional upper grille would mean not being bold, not committing to the bit. If you’re going to build a car that’s out there, it better really be out there, right?
For 1986, the Ford Taurus looked like the future, and Ford’s gambit paid off. This thing sold nearly two million units over a six-year production run, and is often credited with saving Ford from bankruptcy.
(Photo credits: Ford)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
Why I Can’t Stop Thinking About The Ninja Turtle Ford Taurus SHO Race Cars That Ford Sponsored In The 1990s
-
How Ford Could Have Made the Chrysler’s ‘Cab Forward’ Cars Before Chrysler Did
-
This Unholy Love Child Of A Ford Taurus And Ranger Is The Truck You Need To Buy
-
Someone Has Finally Realized The Full Potential Of The Mercury Sable Over 30 Years Later
-
The Mercury Sable AIV Was A Secret Lightweight Sleeper You’ve Never Heard Of: Mercury Monday
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
Like the (thankfully cancelled) grille, I always thought options like the all-vinyl interior or spoked wheel covers were sops to the traditional buyer set who could only handle so much futurism.
The real problem is that it’s black plastic. Nothing says “I bought the L model because I’m cheap” like a black plastic grille.
I feel like that Bubu 501 would be a perfect consolation prize for folks who lost deposit money on Elios.
It’s a shame they went with the grille on the Tempo.
Sadly Ford walked back this decision with the new body Panther Crown Vic in 1995? The grille-less early version is so much cleaner.
92, and very much disagree. The 92 grill-less vic is weird lookin’. Though whale Victorias are sort of strange looking in general.
I agree the ’98? and up with the heavy c-pillar and blockier front end look better overall, but the tiny vestigal chrome grille bothered me.
Yeah same, it was a half assed solution. But I didn’t like the wiiiiiiiiide featureless face of the 92’s.
Buyers of RWD big sedans were much more conservative in tastes than midsize family car buyers, Ford got a lot of negative feedback from dealers and customers RE the Crown Victoria’s grille. Same thing happened with the more aerodynamic looking 1998 Town Car, leading to the hasty 2003 facelift that restored the upright grille and hood ornament
GM wasn’t immune, either, the ’90s Caprice sedan lost its covered rear wheels due to negative feedback
Very interesting! Of note: When the newly designed Panthers came out in ’92, the Crown Victoria also omitted a grill, in favor of a very Taurus like panel. What worked on the Taurus, didn’t exactly fly with the Vic. The grill-less nose only lasted a year, after which Ford shoved on a teeny-tiny little chrome grill to keep customers happy. I think it was a good change, the grill-less Victoria was pretty weird looking.
I’d disagree, the tiny grille on the Crown Vic looked really weird, especially since it had those chrome eyebrows. If they kept it grille-free and directed more traditional buyers to the Grand Marquis it might have been smarter – the 1992 sold as well as any of the other years.
I also agree, the Grill less unit looked a lot more sporty, almost like a Thunderbird. Honestly they should have let Mercury get the old fogies looking for a useless chrome grill take those sales until the youth got old enough to want a sporty full size sedan.
Ford had a very coherent design language at this time (say 1992) with the grilleless front. As did Mercury (waterfall grille or full width lamps) and Lincoln ( Mk VII, Continental, ’90 and up Town Car). I really think this is important in car design and has been lost.
It’s the size of an aircraft carrier, I don’t think that strategy would work very well…
No, it’s an escort carrier at best. The ’74 Caddy in Shitbox Showdown is Nimitz Class.
Heh fair!
Exactly, the Vic even had a more modern airy greenhouse.
Agree that the teeny grill looks weird, but I don’t think the wide featureless face looks better. Both bad. The GM, which was designed with a grill in the first place looks a lot better, and the TC looks the BUSINESS. The grill-less unit was pretty universally disliked, so I don’t think simply shifting drivers to the GM would have really been the solution.
Dad had a 1990 Town Car. That thing actually rocked with snowflake wheels and a steel roof. Very good design shared with the Mk VII.
My favorite design of Town Car by a pretty wide margin. The newer ones are nice, but it makes me a little sad they all went to the Grand Marquis sheetmetal after 98. Not saying I don’t like the Grand Marquis sheet metal (I own a 97) but the character was certainly watered down.
These were still upright and imposing looking. They just sanded off the harder edges. The later ones are terrible.
Interestingly, the 4.6 was not ready for 1990 and they still ran an HO 302 with dual exhaust.
Ford back then had okay cars, like GMC/Chevrolet, but quality compared to a comparable Corolla was lacking. But their trucks were decent and were simple to work on.
Fast forward 4 decades later….Farley promises that he will “fix” Quality. This sentence does NOT make sense and he is VERY UNCLEAR as to how he would do it.
Does he mean “fixing” quality by cutting configurations? Yes, he has done that, but the QC issues STILL EXIST- even the 2024 F 150 models (yes, every manufacturer has these problems, but Ford is the worst offender).
Does he mean “fixing” quality by increasing vehicle reliability? Not quite. As we have seen with the 10R80 debacle…and yes while GMC/Chevrolet have a similar issue across their products for which they acted poorly recently , the 10R had issues from the start (even if it is stronger internally supposedly). And let me know of MY24s with this issue…The only positive thing that was done was give a 10 year warranty on the 2.7s prone to dropping valves…
Does he mean “fixing” quality by admitting the truth, and trying to GET THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME instead of always claiming to be the best? A hard NO. All manufacturers have been and are dishonest to several lengths , have done many wrongs (ignition scandal of Chevrolet and saddle tank issue of GMC/Chevrolet come to mind, among many other scandals- NONE of these issues were good at all and cost a heavy amount of lives), but FORD has a strong track record. The Crown VIC fires that burned policemen to death (am yet to hear a case from Kuwait and Oman, since CVPIS were used there as well), the Exploder debacle, the Pinto fires the 6.4/6.0 debacle, and what not.
Yes, again, I admit they had their greates successes in the 6.2 Boss V8 which is a very reliable motor. They had their successes in the 4.6 2V in the Panther Platform which was ALSO a better motor than the 3V 5.4 turd. They had their successes in the 6.8 V10 and the 7.3 TD, which were ALSO great motors. And they had their successes in the 300 I6 , and 2011-17 5.0 V8s (let me know which other great motors they created).
I am not an expert, but here are my thoughts- Good QC and reliability starts from having good management- that is, those who ENSURE a product stays in a lifecycle for AT LEAST 8 years minimum, while being refreshed to keep it competitive. That means, at least two refreshes per year. But NONE of these refreshes should involve – always getting ahead of others. They should instead focus on powertrain improvements, fixing and ironing out issues. Which means, the powertrain MUST KEEP THE SAME OUTPUT throughout several years. This means, the L.O 6.7 V8 must have the same power for 8 years while improving its durability in harshest of conditions. That means the 5.0 V8 must have the same 400 HP even until mid-year of next generation while recieving durability improvements. Look at the case of the Crown Victoria and the Ford SD 6.2. They kept improving them time by time, and the reliability of those engines showed that. Yes, it is difficult for a manufacturer with so many products and will definitely take years to complete, but it is possible with the right amount of effort.
Truthfullness also must be there. If the engine has 335 hp, IT HAS 335 HP- not more, not less. The entire 7.3 debacle could have been avoided if it were for correctly testing the engine output. Same with the case of the SN Mustang as well.
Again, I am telling this because they have a lot of recalls. To be clear, I AM NOT PUTTING other manufacturers or praising them above Ford- they too have their serious and minor problems which I am NOT pleased with, but the bad light of Ford is in particular concerning. So, before trying to blast me, try to go through everything.
I drove one of those manual gearbox/4 cylinder Taurus and it was about the slowest car I had ever driven! This was at a dealership in Fresno, and the car also had no A/C…….in an area that gets as hot as Phoenix! I don’t know who they were building this car for as it had wind up windows and no cruise either……
The one with the grill looks like a Panther body styling exercise
I don’t think it would have like *ruined* the car to do it, but no grille was 100% the correct decision.
The grille makes it look like some Russian automaker attempting to cheaply facelift a 1980s design for the 2000s
Maybe it’s the cheapness of it bring unpainted black plastic, body color, or even chrome, might look a lot better
I don’t think it would have totally killed Taurus sales, it was still an eye catching aerodynamic design otherwise, but it did clash visually
Very similar to the early Euro Ford Sierra, where cheaper versions had a rather ugly slatted grille (and smaller headlights), while more upmarket models were strictly bottom breathers, which is the iconic look that most people remember today. The Sierra made Ford Europe very nervous, as it was perceived as extremely radical compared to the Cortina/Taunus it replaced (though mechanically it wasn’t a big departure), and the grille versions were emblematic of a lack of nerve. I think avoiding that mistake with the Taurus was the right call and a pretty brave thing to do considering that LTD to Taurus was an even more radical departure than Cortina to Sierra.
The grilled one looks like something old (not now) GM would produce – modern lines that are then marred with something antiquated b/c different committees not communicating.
I’m surprised at how much I don’t mind the grilled one.
Obviously the choice they made was the right one, but I think it’s really not bad with the more trad front end