By David M. Kinchen
Editor, Huntington News Network
Hinton, WV – The vast profusion (pro-Fusion?) of model names from Ford Motor Co. has me completely con-Fused – Has anybody figured out the reason for naming a car The Five Hundred? – and now the Dearborn, MI-based firm is killing a car that saved it from bankruptcy, the Ford Taurus.
The last Ford Taurus – and its stable mate, the Mercury Sable – will be produced this week at the Ford plant in Hapeville, GA, near Atlanta. Frankly, I thought the company had already quietly canceled the car, with the introduction a few years ago of the Five Hundred, the Freestyle and the Fusion. As I said, the con-Fusion is monumental at FoMoCo, with all those model names!
According to Wikipedia, the “Taurus was ultimately replaced by three cars, each aimed at better covering the markets that the Taurus had competed in: The Ford Five Hundred, a large car; its crossover SUV version, the Ford Freestyle, to replace the Taurus Wagon; and the Ford Fusion, a midsize car closer in size to the Taurus.”
Despite this explanation, I’m still con-Fused! Maybe I should Focus (another Ford model) more!
When the Taurus and Sable were introduced in December 1985 as 1986 models, I was living in car-crazy Los Angeles. With their European-looking styling, I figured the cars would win back some defectors to Audi and Saab and other Euro-Front-drive cars. It worked: Ford sold 7 million Tauruses (Tauri?) and 2 million or so Sables in the production run, a record the company should be proud of. Ford even sold a lot of cars in California, where foreign nameplates are very popular.
I think the beginning of the end was about 10 years ago, with the extreme jellybean redesign of the original substantial-looking1986-1991 first generation cars. The new jellybean look made the cars look smaller than they were, although they were supposedly the same size.
I thought the original design captured the spirit of Volkswagen’s Audi, with fewer reliability problems than the German front-drive machine. With the exception of troublesome transmissions, the Taurus and Sable delivered the goods in a reliable fashion. Craig Hammond, a contributor to this site and a Bluefield, WV radio talk show host, loves his Taurus station wagon, which also had a transmission replacement.
The Associated Press story on the demise of the famous brand name quotes Rhode Island lawyer Frank Ribezzo, who’s selling his third Taurus, a 1997 version, for $950. It’s got 210,000 miles, about what I have on my 1994 Dodge Caravan which I will never sell. Ribezzo knows how to make his cars last: The first two accumulated more than 220,000 miles. He must drive all over the East Coast: Rhode Island is about the size of Greenbrier and Summers counties combined!
How did the Taurus get its name, you ask? Again, according to Wikipedia, “the Taurus was named by Lewis Veraldi (the ‘father’ of the Taurus team concept) and his chief planner, John Risk, each of whose wives were born under the astrological sign of the bull.” It’s the second sign of the Zodiac, for those born between April 20 and May 20.
Just as my Caravan and its stable mate the Plymouth Voyager were milestones for the American car industry when they were introduced by Lee Iacocca (a Libra, born Oct. 15, 1924, who was fired by Ford and went on to save Chrysler from bankruptcy) back in the fall of 1983, so was the Taurus a trendsetter for both Ford and the American auto industry.
It made front-wheel drive cars popular with the masses — even though both GM and Chrysler had been making them for several years prior to the 1985 introduction of the Taurus/Sable line.
So shed a tear for the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. (And other discontinued brand names like Oldsmobile and Plymouth).
If you want economical, paid-in-full transportation, you might want to follow the example of that Little Rhody lawyer and buy a clean sample of either car. You’ll be free from those pesky monthly payments – and your auto insurance bill will be less because you won’t need collision coverage.
GUEST COMMENTARY: Mr. Chertoff: Please Get Your Act Together!
Posted by kinchendavid on October 17, 2006
By Rene A. Henry
Every time I fly, I question whether I am as safe as I was before 9/11 because of all of the confusion getting to my seat on the plane. I pray that my flight crew and air traffic controllers know what they are doing better than the security screeners.
Contrary to American Airlines and its slogan, “We know why you fly,” they don’t have a clue why I fly, which is more often than I would like. American and other airlines must insist that Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, implement security procedures that are exactly the same at all airports.
For years we have been taking off our shoes, pulling out our laptop computers and separating all of the metal in our pockets before going through the electronic gates. Transportation Security Administration personnel at some airports want shoes, like computers, in a separate bin for the X-Ray machine. Others do not. If you’re boarding a flight outside of the U.S. you don’t have to remove your shoes. And at some airports, Chertoff’s TSA officials will even insist you remove your belt. The well-meaning, on-site TSA personnel just are not trained to implement uniform procedures and, as a result, there is no consistent policy whatsoever from one airport to another.
Until recently, it was illegal to carry on shampoo, mouthwash, toothpaste or any liquids or gels. After many protests, TSA loosened its carry-on ban for toiletries in containers of less than three ounces on some domestic flights.
At least supposedly. I have had no problem going through airport security in the U.S. However, clearing security at Heathrow Airport in London when returning to the U.S., miniatures were confiscated. Again, Chertoff has not made Homeland Security and TSA guidelines universally consistent, if indeed he even has a policy. Don’t always believe what the TSA website says. What really counts is how the policy is implemented when you are trying to board a plane.
The next time you go through an airport security line to board a flight, if you get confused, frustrated or delayed, ask your representatives in Congress to wake up Chertoff and his “Beltway Bureaucrats.”
The carry-on rules get even more complicated for international flights to the U.S. Just ask Russian-American jazz musician Valery Ponomarev who suffered a broken arm when he wanted to carry his trumpet on board an Air India flight from Paris to New York. The 63-year-old Ponomarev, who has lived in the U.S. for 35 years, kept his trumpet with him on a connecting flight before arriving at Charles de Gaulle Airport.
In his protest, the trumpeter obviously blew a couple of sour notes because four of Paris’ finest gendarmes subdued him, broke his arm and held him in detention without treatment for six hours. Ultimately, the U.S. Embassy came to his rescue.
Recently, before flying to and through London, I called and e-mailed American Airlines, British Airways and TSA to get specific information on the size limitations for carry-on, so I would not have to check my camera, laptop, and other personal information as baggage. When I should have had the same answer from all three, I got different measurements from both airlines and no help at all from TSA.
When it comes to security fast tracking for frequent flyers and those flying business or first class, again this varies by airport and airline. As someone who has flown nearly four million miles, I appreciate being able to fast track security. I can do this in Seattle and New York’s JFK, but not in Miami or Washington’s Reagan National Airport. When I ask why, I’ve been told by a TSA officer that it is because the airline does not want to spend the money. When I ask the airline they blame TSA. No one accepts responsibility. The situation is even more confusing in London where you can fast track at Heathrow but not at Gatwick.
The media doesn’t make matters any easier by reporting what they are told and perpetuating the confusion. A good investigative reporter should see firsthand if the process works.
TSA has established levels of threat alert with colors from code red being severe, orange high, yellow elevated, blue guarded and green low. The way Chertoff’s “policy” is being confusingly misimplemented, “Saturday Night Live” parodied it best saying the color codes would be better labeled white, off-white, eggshell, cream and ivory.
Rene A. Henry lives in Seattle, WA is the author of six books, and writes and speaks on various subjects including customer service, public relations and crisis management. He is a native of Charleston, WV.
Posted in Guest Commentaries, Transportation, Travel | Leave a Comment »