Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hello.

I have a question: how does the DOHC 1999 Ford Taurus compare to its rivals in the days that it was still being made? Chevy Cavaliers, for instance, have only 145 HP, but are about 1,000 lbs lighter. Would that make a major difference? Then there's the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Buick Regal...

So, how would a DOHC Ford Taurus fare against any of its rivals? (Assume that the rivals had their best engine in them...)


*Just a question out of curiosity, really*
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,922 Posts
It could probably outrun the Regal unless the Regal was a GS. Same for the Cavalier. If the Cavalier is a Z24, it's over. As for Honda and Toyota, they'll take the Taurus providing they have the V6.
 

·
Cake monster
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
It could probably outrun the Regal unless the Regal was a GS. Same for the Cavalier. If the Cavalier is a Z24, it's over. As for Honda and Toyota, they'll take the Taurus providing they have the V6.
Horsepower
200 @ 5500 RPM Taurus
200 @ 5500 RPM Accord
194 @ 5200 RPM Camry
150 @ 5500 RPM Z24
Torque:
209 @ 4400 RPM Camry
195 @ 4700 RPM Taurus
195 @ 4700 RPM Accord
167 @ 4000 RPM Z24
Weight
3353 Taurus
3285 Accord
3241 Camry
2899 Z24


Just curious how you came to the conclusion that the Camry and Accord would beat the Taurus, from the specs it looks like it'd be very close, no matter who won. I think the Z24 would barely beat it if it did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
The Taurus with the Duratec is rated 8.6 sec
The Camry v6 LE is rated 7.7 sec
The Accord EX v6 is rated 8.0 sec
The Cavalier z24 is rated 7.6 sec

So, the Taurus is the slowest of the bunch, probably due to it's weight and awful ax4n transmission. The z24 is the fastest, but also the lightest, and a crude machine compaird to this class. You would need the Taurus SHO from this era to take on all these cars, since it's rated 7.4 sec. Both the '10 Taurus Limited and Sho are faster than all of the above. Sho is 5.4 sec, and Limited is 6.9 secs, but they're both newer cars and are much more sophisticated and efficient than they were in the past.
 

·
Devoted Member
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
The Taurus with the Duratec is rated 8.6 sec
The Camry v6 LE is rated 7.7 sec
The Accord EX v6 is rated 8.0 sec
The Cavalier z24 is rated 7.6 sec

So, the Taurus is the slowest of the bunch, probably due to it's weight and awful ax4n transmission. The z24 is the fastest, but also the lightest, and a crude machine compaird to this class. You would need the Taurus SHO from this era to take on all these cars, since it's rated 7.4 sec. Both the '10 Taurus Limited and Sho are faster than all of the above. Sho is 5.4 sec, and Limited is 6.9 secs, but they're both newer cars and are much more sophisticated and efficient than they were in the past.
Where'd you get those numbers? I have whipped my fair share of Camrys and Accords...
(Must be my "Northeast" rocker panels, she's much lighter than production weight...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Where'd you get those numbers? I have whipped my fair share of Camrys and Accords...
(Must be my "Northeast" rocker panels, she's much lighter than production weight...)
I googled the numbers. My mt Accent is rated 0-60 in 9.6 sec (almost the same as my old Vulcan), so all those cars will fly past mine like I'm standing still. I didn't buy the car to race Honda Fits, Toyota Yaris', and Ford Fiestas, I bought it for gas mileage and reliability.
 

·
Devoted Member
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
I googled the numbers. My mt Accent is rated 0-60 in 9.6 sec (almost the same as my old Vulcan), so all those cars will fly past mine like I'm standing still. I didn't buy the car to race Honda Fits, Toyota Yaris', and Ford Fiestas, I bought it for gas mileage and reliability.
Me either, but it's still nice to smoke a youngster in my "Grandpa car" now and then...:thumb:
 

·
Cake monster
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
The Taurus with the Duratec is rated 8.6 sec
The Camry v6 LE is rated 7.7 sec
The Accord EX v6 is rated 8.0 sec
The Cavalier z24 is rated 7.6 sec

So, the Taurus is the slowest of the bunch, probably due to it's weight and awful ax4n transmission. The z24 is the fastest, but also the lightest, and a crude machine compaird to this class. You would need the Taurus SHO from this era to take on all these cars, since it's rated 7.4 sec. Both the '10 Taurus Limited and Sho are faster than all of the above. Sho is 5.4 sec, and Limited is 6.9 secs, but they're both newer cars and are much more sophisticated and efficient than they were in the past.
Where did ya get 8.6? Most sources I've found indicate lower 8 range, with the lowest being from a popular science review that said it was 7.9 in a 4th gen* and I found an answers.com reply saying the 1/4th mile is 16.1**, a little worse than a Camry at least.

*Popular Science - Google Books

Page 73

**Answers.com - What is the 0-60 on a Ford Taurus with the duratec v6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Glad to see that this topic has sparked some discussion.

I've always felt like the DOHC Taurus was quite fast with that 200 HP and 200 lbs of torque and that I could destroy the others, but I guess it only makes up for the fact that it's a very dense car (weight-wise)?

ಠ_ಠ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
I've never had a change to drive a Duratec, but I did have a MT SHO and even with 180K it was still pretty quick. Honestly, I don't think the Vulcan has all that less Torque (pulling power) than a Duratec. At it's highest the Vulcan had 190, and the 'tecs lowest was 195. The rule with OHC's is that they don't do much till 3K RPM, but what's funny is that's also true for the pushrod Vulcan!
 

·
Devoted Member
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
I've never had a change to drive a Duratec, but I did have a MT SHO and even with 180K it was still pretty quick. Honestly, I don't think the Vulcan has all that less Torque (pulling power) than a Duratec. At it's highest the Vulcan had 190, and the 'tecs lowest was 195. The rule with OHC's is that they don't do much till 3K RPM, but what's funny is that's also true for the pushrod Vulcan!
You are correct my friend, the Vulcan is supposedly only 15-20 ft/lbs. less torque than a Duratec. It's that extra 55hp in a Tec that whips the snot out of overconfident, unsuspecting ricers, though. Now, let me tell ya a few stories about cruising around with my Brother in his 99 SHO years ago and schooling a few Mustang GT's....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
that's nothing, the duratec now a days has 240hp!!
 

·
Devoted Member
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
Glad to see that this topic has sparked some discussion.

I've always felt like the DOHC Taurus was quite fast with that 200 HP and 200 lbs of torque and that I could destroy the others, but I guess it only makes up for the fact that it's a very dense car (weight-wise)?

ಠ_ಠ
Salt Belt Taurii weigh less and run faster! :rofl2:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
76 Posts
Also keep in mind what the transmission gearing is set for, along with how the ecm/tcm/pcm is programmed. If the trans is geared for a 3:05 final drive vs a 3:73, then acceleration would be a bit different. Not to mention how the ECM/PCM/TCM pulls engine timing under hard accleration during gear changes.

Basically its simply more then just a numbers game.
 

·
Cake monster
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
Also keep in mind what the transmission gearing is set for, along with how the ecm/tcm/pcm is programmed. If the trans is geared for a 3:05 final drive vs a 3:73, then acceleration would be a bit different. Not to mention how the ECM/PCM/TCM pulls engine timing under hard accleration during gear changes.

Basically its simply more then just a numbers game.
+1^

I tried looking for the gearing info on the duratec when I made my first post, all I could find were the specs for the vulcan gearing, which I think is different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
+1^

I tried looking for the gearing info on the duratec when I made my first post, all I could find were the specs for the vulcan gearing, which I think is different.
I have no idea what the final drive ratios are for Tauruses but my Ranger has 3.73's which are aimed at better fuel economy. Sadly, it still only averages around 20 MPG. Which even for the Vulcan powered ones, is decent. The 3.0 and larger Cologne 4.0 V6 only have a 1-2 mpg difference, isn't that awful?
 

·
Cake monster
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
I have no idea what the final drive ratios are for Tauruses but my Ranger has 3.73's which are aimed at better fuel economy. Sadly, it still only averages around 20 MPG. Which even for the Vulcan powered ones, is decent. The 3.0 and larger Cologne 4.0 V6 only have a 1-2 mpg difference, isn't that awful?
Look at the MPG ratings between a 3.8 Windstar and a 3.0:

3.8
16 City
21 Hwy
18 Combined

3.0
15 City
21 Hwy
17 Combined

Though, The Windstar is somewhere around 800lb heavier than a Taurus. The 3.8 makes 200HP/230TQ, the Vulcan is terrible at 145HP/170TQ. I would rather own a 3.8. I firmly believe that Ford should have never, ever taken the 3.8 out of the Taurus. It was actually rather stupid when you think about it, they had two engines of the same displacement making similar mpgs while one had a butt load more power than the other.

This is what Ford should have done:

1)

Keep the 3.8
Install the 2.5 Duratec as the base engine

2)

Install a 2+ litre L4
Keep the 3.0 DOHC

Ford needed to dump the engine but didn't for some unknown reason, they would have been better off hacking an old ranger 4-banger in there than keeping the slow SOB. They didn't even improve it really, look at the power improvements the 3.8 got over the years while the Vulcan was ignored. Speaking of the 3.8, they should have dumped all of their other V6s (maybe then not the Duratec) and been done with it. The SOHC cologne never really beat the essex at power, nor did the OHV versions. It's a shame that the design flaws ruined the reputation of such an awesome engine. The Essex is a far nicer engine to have, it's very torquey and has balls a Vulcan could only dream of, it doesn't wind to the sky either.

I want to install a 3.8 in a 3rd or 4th gen Taurus, it shouldn't be very hard to hack the heart of a Windstar in there I think.

My Sable has a 24v and I say screw the Vulcan, because that's what Ford did about 16 years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
The 2.2 Ecotec in my Cobalt is pretty quick in the mid-highend, about quick as a 3.0L Duratec. Only sluggish from the start but it's tuned for economy. It's rated at 155hp because of VVT.

But driving my dad's 04 SES Tec, I forgot how fun it is gunning from a start :)
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top