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!
1979 trans am was a bottom breather as was the corvette. Can’t really say it was a radical change to not have a grill
To think the Taurus’s styling could’ve been ruined if Bill Ford’s Two-Face coin flip moment in his head had gone the other way and decided only the Mercury Sable would be sans grill.
Infiniti thought Q45 without grille and a bizarrely adorned herald bearing the logo would be a great design concept. After three years of rueful misgivings, Infiniti stuck a grille on Q45 for 1993 model year, which improved the look and lent the aura of luxury.
I think it was not so much the lack of a grill but the oddly shape pie plate they stuck on there.
No sarcasm here, and unpopular opinion for this site, but that grill makes the car look so much better! I have never been a fan of the grill-less look, even when grills are not needed. Corvair, Tesla, Cutlass Calais, Avanti – all look better with something, anything breaking up the vast expanse of nothingness at the nose. Beetles are the only thing that immediately come to mind that look OK without a grill, maybe because the hood maintains a continuous arc to the bumper without a distinct nose.
The vast majority of Porsche’s haven’t had an upper grille, and I would say they’ve looked pretty good too.
Excellent point. I didn’t even think of Porsches. 🙂 I was mainly thinking of the ones I don’t like. I hated when Pontiac put solid inserts in place of the grills on some 3rd gen Firebirds prior to the ’85 re-design.
I liked the smooth look and how it was carried over to the Crown Vic and T-Bird. But then they put a conventional grill on the Vic (along with changing the taillights) and it looked like a tumor to me.
I always thought the grill treatment on the police package looked cool. Overall, I liked the original design of the Taurus, but they lost me when it went all oval. It just reminded me of Admiral Ackbar in Return of the Jedi.
In either body color or with the chrome strips that looks perfectly fine. The plain black version makes it looks like the grill was replaced after an oops and they didn’t bother to paint it. The chrome strip version makes the Taurus look evem more like the ’84 Audi 5000. I greatly preferred the Mercury lighbar grill. That was just super cool back then.
But the car didn’t need the extra ventilation, so why bother other than on those police package cars?
I don’t think the kids today really have any concept of what an astounding leap forward the Taurus was for an American car in everything from the look, the interior design and quality (even decent seats), to the ride and handling. Shame the engines and transmissions were pretty dire. Antediluvian pushrod v6s or an underpowered agricultural four, both connected mostly to automatics made of glass. Though a high school friend’s dad had a manual MT5 was decent and lasted a long time. Overall, compared to the dreck that GM and Chrysler were pumping out, just astounding. And a huge leap forward from the Squaremont.
Different duty cycles; presumably the police packaged needed extra cooling.
The SHO also had an extra intake between the grille and bumper.
I love how many domestic brands have one or two cheap little shitboxes that saved the brand from bankruptcy and how none of them seem to remember that people buy cheap cars when times are hard. [Glares at stellantis*
The Taurus was neither a cheap car nor a shitbox. They were actually rather expensive for a domestic mid-sizer of the day.
The cheap shitboxes were only cheap due to CAFE. They had to sell lots of those crapcans to keep the fuel economy average up to where they could sell cars they actually made money on. It costs very little less to make a small car than a larger one, especially today when regulations and expectations require them to have 90% of the same equipment.
The amount of difficulty to get an Accord back then bordered on insanity. And then, if those cars had problems, there was an entrenched Stockholm Syndrome that kept people from actually talking about it (as if they couldn’t admit their car wasn’t Jesus).
Not to say the ’80s/’90s Accords and Camrys weren’t very well built, full of value, and with high quality the traditional automakers couldn’t put in profitably without changing the way they did everything (which is what they did – read The Machine That Changed The World)
Amusingly, Japanese cars never had the reputation for longevity they enjoyed in some of the country in Northern New England. They dissolved too quickly.
And for sure, everytime I encounter a Camry even today that someone tells me has “200K and I have done nothing to it”, it’s a heap with a Christmas Tree dash. Cars need regular love and attention, even if due to simplicity and reasonable build quality they need less of it than cars with MUCH higher performance capabilities.
Oh yeah, even now, I’m surprised by what corrodes and how fast.
They remember, and that’s why they don’t sell cheap cars anymore. You will buy a car that’s too expensive for your budget, too expensive for what it is, and too full of tech that will be outdated in 5 minutes, and you will like it.
L sedans did start with different, plainer taillights without the 3-bar look too, but that wasn’t as dramatic a change as the grille.
I once came across some early launch video for the ’86 Taurus a while ago that of course I can’t find now. It was either a customer promo or for dealer training as it walked through the trim levels. But what jumped out at me was that it had a trim badge on the trunklid, which the first two gens of Taurus didn’t actually have in production, only on the front side moldings/rockers. Seemed like a last minute change and I’m not sure why, as other Fords had trim badges on the trunk as did the Sable. Maybe it seemed confusing or busy with all the Taurus trims so they went without?
Also I’m fascinated by that old CGI for that fleet brochure MT5.
It saved Ford $1/car. When you sell millions of them over time, that adds up. That is ALWAYS the answer to this sort of thing.
Well yes, there’s that too, but then you’d think they would do the same on other models, which they didn’t. Why not do the same on the Tempo or Escort too? That’s what gets me.
Those cars didn’t have the model designation in the side trims, IIRC. Makes sense to do one or the other.
That’s what I also figure. They didn’t want to imprint the side moldings. Later Escorts were just a decal after all.
There was some discussion about this grille in the forums way way back, one was allegedly found in a junkyard. As a former 2nd Gen Taurus enthusiast I remember the Taurus Car Club of America (TCCA) forums quite well.
The Taurus had more than one attempt at going backwards design-wise. In the movie Robocop (we covered this on Reels and Wheels), Verhoeven picked the Taurus as his police cars because he saw it as futuristic. (He was right by the way. The fact that he predicted Ford Taurus police cars was just one of way too many future predictions he nailed).
To my point, there’s a scene in that movie where a Taurus pulls up with its headlights on and the headlights are old school square headlights. If I remember correctly, the explanation was that they modified the car so the camera shot of it with its headlights on would look better.
“…old school square headlights…”
You mean round?
This is me, standing corrected.
From what I remember, the headlights in the Taurus were replaced with aircraft landing lights so that they would show up extremely bright on film. It was the same trick used in Christine on the Fury.
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.
Tell me more about this “L” model…
Ford usually had “L” as their base model at the time. I believe it stood for “loser” internally.
It’d be interesting to see how many of those L models ended up in the employee parking lots.
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.
It’s a shame they went with
the grille onthe Tempo.Eventually, they went with the “grille-less” look on the 92 refresh.
And even tho there are still a couple slats at the bottom – it looks all the better for it.
Would have been even better had Ford gone with the oval logo vent as they did on Taurus.
Yeah, a few tiny slats in the lower but still was more of a “grille-less” look like the Taurus than the previous egg crate grille. Definitely helped to unify the line with that similar look.
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.
disagree
the 92-97 looked much cooler than the 98+ and the grand marq
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
The covered rear wheels is kind of the opposite phenomenon, because that was a more old-school detail. Strange.
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.
The 1998-2002 Town Car shares ZERO body panels with the Grand Marquis. The 2003-11 Town Car also has a unique body that shares zero parts with the Ford and Mercury.
Personally I find the 98-02 Town Car to be hideous, the 03-11 are a bit better but still kinda frumpy. The 90-96, the boxier one was pretty cool IMO.
When that bloated first GEN whale Crown Victoria was jumped in the opening scene of the movie “speed” it looked pretty good and it took the hit just fine along Keanu Reeves to do his normal bad ass stuff… I approve 100%
Also couple buddies and me used to buy winter smashup cars to have fun pit maneuvers in industrial parks around the metro area in winter. My 87 Taurus did quite a fine job at absorbing the hits and keep going before we had to repurpose the radiators… Solid car, great build quality.
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 have never been more frustrated working on a vehicle than an 86 F150. Every design decision they made was the exact opposite to make it easy to work on it seems. The dang transmission cross member being above the frame rails instead of below really sucked along with the torque to yield bolts they used on that cross member. Similarly the intake gasket on the 5.0 V8 was also an exercise in miserable to get to bolts. At least it was big and had lots of room to get to stuff.
I think the way they’re fixing quality is by berating people about it constantly while remaining aloof with endless layers of bureaucracy and broken processes.
I am not an expert, but here are my thoughts- Good QC and reliability starts from having good management-
I kept wishing for the company leadership to have its “Are we the baddies?” moment.
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……
Fleets.
A friend’s dad had one – it had been his company car and he bought it from them when the lease was up. Though not THAT poverty spec, it was an MT5 with a manual, but optioned with A/C and cloth seats. Still crank windows and manual locks and I doubt it had cruise, that was pretty rare in those days. No cassette deck, IIRC.
Not that slow for the day, certainly better than anything GM pumped out with the Iron Puke. Though probably a lot more painful with the slushbox. It replaced a Pontiac Phoenix with the Iron Puke and measly 4spd stick – now that thing was a turdmobile.
The Taurus MT5 (the only trim you could get the 4cyl and 5-speed combo) was intended to be the “sporty” Taurus until the SHO came out.
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.
Before the interview in this article, I had assumed the Taurus went no-grille-only because of the Sierra, since it had mostly dropped the slotted grille by that point. Figured that was more in alignment and they would point to it even moreso for the Euro/aero influence.
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