The 1986 Ford Taurus was an automotive industry revolution. Ford took car design years into the future with its aerodynamic family car that instantly made most other cars look a decade old. For most enthusiasts, the best version of the Taurus was the hot version SHO, with its Yamaha-designed V6 and snickety manual transmission. But there is another enthusiast version of the Taurus, one that perhaps most people have forgotten about. For just two years, Ford was willing to sell you a Taurus station wagon with a fun five-speed manual transmission. It was a dream, except for one little problem.
Some of the most exciting moments in automotive history involve those times when an automaker so brilliantly captures lightning in a bottle. The original Ford Mustang was one of those moments; so was the first Chevrolet Corvette. Move forward in time, and you’ll find great ideas like the Mazda MX-5 Miata, the second-generation Dodge Ram, and the Porsche Cayenne. The Ford Taurus was one of those vehicles, and it remains one of the greatest product launches in product history. To understand where I’m coming from, let’s go back to the 1980s.
The decade opens up at the tail end of the so-called Malaise Era. The multiple oil crises of the 1970s had forced a sort of automotive industry reset. Sheer size and power were substituted for fuel economy and lighter weights. The government wanted automakers to clean up their tailpipes and make their cars safer. The cars of the era became rather square while emissions equipment and the change to SAE net ratings choked engines of their once-impressive power numbers. This was a time when even Chevrolet’s mighty Corvette struggled to break 200 horsepower.
Ford broke into the new decade with product lines like the Fairmont, Granada, and LTD, which were perfectly adequate family cars, but weren’t exactly lighting up the marketplace. Luckily, Ford had aces up its sleeve. The Escort showed the world the benefits of a “world car.” The Tempo took Ford’s compacts into the future. But since 1981, Ford had something bigger, better, and more bombastic in the works. The Taurus would become a revolution, a sensation, and the subject of case studies for decades to come.
But there is one variant of the Taurus that doesn’t get much airtime nowadays, and it’s the version that was a regular car, but a bit more fun. That’s the Taurus MT-5, a car that some younger enthusiasts might not even know about.
The Car Designed To Be Different
In designing the Taurus, Ford dusted off the world car playbook that led to the Escort. Instead of having design and engineering teams working on their own projects by themselves, everyone worked together. The March 1985 issue of MotorTrend talks about some of the development:
The Taurus, to debut in September 1985, is an important vehicle for FoMoCo, in that it represents a major corporate commitment to an unconventional, forward-thinking design concept in a mass-market car. For all its leading-edge-of-technology intentions, the Taurus (and sister ship, Mercury Sable) is anything but an enthusiast’s special interest vehicle. Rather, it is aimed point-blank at mainstream middle America. The Heartland. The bread and butter of the Motown Manufacturing Mentality. Originally conceived as an enlightened substitute for the company’s land yacht LTD, Grand Marquis, and Lincoln, the Taurus series will be marketed (in 4-door sedan and station wagon models) as more alternative than replacement, due to the recent upswing in sales of Ford’s full-size traditionals. It is a from-the-ground-up new car with an all-new V-6 engine, a fully independent suspension, and aero styling that promises to deliver the lowest coefficient of drag (Cd) of any American sedan.
[…]
An interesting postscript to the Taurus powertrain development was the collaboration between Engine Engineering and Design Studio departments to produce cosmetically correct engine compartment aesthetics. That’s right; cosmetically correct. The approach, which will be used on all of Ford’s future new-car programs, was to make an under-the-hood statement—a simplified, refined, machined look with heavy emphasis on color and contrast. The routing of electrical, vacuum, and spark plug lines, air cleaner layout, and rocker cover and throttle body design changes were all prompted by the Design Center’s approach to creating a cleaner, more accessible (more serviceable) engine compartment. (Cosmetic design changes to the throttle body housing actually resulted in a more efficient airflow path.)
[…]
Ford suspension/chassis engineers freely admit that the Taurus project target vehicle was the Audi 5000—regarded as one of the best-handling cars in its class. Although the Taurus represents an impressive step toward creating a car with that fine balance of comfort and stability, it has not yet reached a state of refinement for favorable comparisons with full-size Audis and BMWs. Typical of built-in-Detroit full-size sedans, the Taurus demonstrated a penchant to wallow on rebound over pockmarked and pot-holed asphalt. Driving leisurely with subtle, less than demanding driver input, the Taurus provided quiet, compliant, deceptively solid footing. Asked to hustle through tight esses, however, where limited body roll and predictable transient response are important, it becomes apparent how deeply the Taurus’ family car roots run. Comfortable, yes. True World-Class sport sedan handling? Not quite yet.
In its retrospective, Hemmings noted that Ford also took a different approach to figuring out how to fill out the Taurus. In the past, automakers would churn out vehicles with features that they thought buyers would like. This time, Ford asked potential customers what they were wanting to see in their next family car. The work put into making the Taurus right was staggering, and no detail was too small to obsess over.
As Thomas wrote in 2024, famed Ford head designer Jack Telnack even fought to ensure his car did not have a traditional grille. Marketing and sales demanded that the Taurus have a real grille, and promotional images and brochures were even created featuring the car with a traditional grille. But Telnack just couldn’t let that slide. The Taurus wasn’t just any other car, and it couldn’t look like any other car. Bill Ford agreed that such an aerodynamic car couldn’t be marred with a grille.
Hemmings continues about the car’s development:
[T]he research into the car’s development went so far as to examine variables like insurance cost, ease of repair and even advanced ergonomics for the driver. Engineering teams ripped apart hundreds of cars from competitive brands, reverse engineering each one to determine the best practices employed by various manufacturers. What allowed for this extensive research and development was the budget set aside for the Taurus: At $3.5 billion, it was the largest in Ford’s history. For comparison, a mere $870 million had been allocated for the development of the Ford Fiesta subcompact.
Knowing that the car’s launch would be as important as its development, Ford spared no expense in a mid-1985 Hollywood premiere (held at MGM Studios Soundstage 85) that featured space themes to highlight the futuristic nature of the car. Its ovoid shape was a huge departure from the norm of the day, and critics weren’t sure how to react. Chrysler (and even some Ford executives) thought that the car’s bold, grille-less styling had gone too far, and predicted that the Taurus would be a huge failure for the automaker when it hit the road at year end. To hedge its bet, Ford continued to produce the Fox platform LTD, but the die had been cast: If the Taurus turned out to be a failure, the billions spent on its development would have dragged the company into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Like A Spaceship On The Ground
All of this work paid off. When the Taurus entered production in late 1985 for the 1986 model year, it blew both the public and the motoring press away. The Taurus wasn’t just a family sedan. It looked like a road-hugging spaceship that safely and efficiently carried families to their destinations. This was a car with flush composite headlights, flush door handles, doors with frames that cleanly wrapped into the roof, and wheels pushed to the perimeter of the chassis. The Taurus was also pretty slick for a car of its day with a drag coefficient of 0.32.
It wasn’t just a smooth ride, either. At launch, buyers were able to nab a Taurus with either a 2.5-liter High Swirl Combustion (HSC) inline-four (which was first seen in the Tempo as a 2.3-liter four) with 88 ponies in the stable, or a 3.0-liter Vulcan V6 with 140 thoroughbreds on tap. Bolted to these engines was either a three-speed ATX automatic or a five-speed manual.
Later, the HSC engine would see a power bump to 105 horses, the AXOD four-speed automatic would become available, and in the final years of the first-gen Taurus, Ford’s 3.8-liter Essex V6 would make an appearance. Of course, nobody can forget the hot and fast 1989 Taurus SHO and its 7,000 RPM redline 3.0 V6 that got breathed on by Yamaha.
Now, on just a cursory glance at a modern article about the Taurus, it would be easy to draw a conclusion that the SHO and its Mazda-built MTX-IV five-speed manual transaxle was the only Taurus to have a choose-your-own-adventure transmission. However, for just three model years (only two for the wagon), there was one more version of the Taurus that could be considered to be an enthusiast special. Well, sort of.
The Lesser-Known Manual Taurus
When the Taurus launched for the 1986 model year, it was offered in a handful of trim levels, starting with the base model L ($10,071 or $30,683 in 2026) and working its way up through the mid-range GL ($11,322 or $34,494 in 2026) and top-spec LX ($13,351 or $40,676 in 2026).
The L was fairly basic, featuring the 2.5-liter HSC four-cylinder with a three-speed automatic, 14-inch steel wheels with covers, a black louvered grille, a cloth bench seat, an AM mechanical radio, and a very basic instrument cluster with an analog speedometer surrounded by warning lights. Many of the options that were standard to higher models, like interval wipers, the V6, an electronic radio, a digital clock, tinted glass, a rear stabilizer bar, and bucket seats with a center console, were either options or simply unavailable to the L.
The GL was the first trim to come standard with V6 power, and it got niceties the L didn’t get. Then there was the LX, which ran through the garden with all of the aforementioned features, plus a power driver seat, dual illuminated visor mirrors with secondary sunvisors, cornering lights, a reclining passenger seat, and power windows, locks, and mirrors. The LX was also the only trim to get air conditioning standard. The options list was pretty tall, even for the LX, and included bits like a digital instrument cluster, a rear-facing third seat for wagons, leather seats, vinyl trim, cruise control, an instant-heat system for the windshield, and more.
But there was one trim level I left out, and that one was the $10,276 MT-5 ($31,307 in 2026). Placed above the L grade but below GL, the MT-5 was a sort of middle child with a few options picked and, most notably, a five-speed manual. A few luxury options the MT-5 had that the L didn’t were power mirrors, bucket seats, a “luxury steering wheel,” an electronic radio, a reclining passenger seat, the nicer grille, a digital clock, tinted glass, and interval wipers. Thankfully, Ford also gave the manual version a fully equipped analog instrument cluster with a tachometer and all.
Under the hood of the MT-5 was the 88 HP HSC four, and the transmission was a five-speed MTX-III. The MT-5 became available in April 1986 for the family-oriented enthusiast. Now, you might wonder why Ford even bothered to make such a car, considering that the early Taurus wasn’t exactly trying to light up the stoplight drags.
According to a period review from the Morning Call, some 300,000 imported cars with manual transmissions were sold in America in 1985. It only made sense for Ford to try to steal some of those sales. Of course, Ford couldn’t just toss a stick into the L and call it a day, because the enthusiast wants a little luxury to go with their fun driving experience.
One brochure said that the MT-5 was “A taste of performance. A touch of class.” Another called it “Driving fun.” Ford tried to sweeten the deal by selling the MT-5 with front and rear stabilizer bars as standard. In 1987, the MT-5 would become the second Taurus trim to come with air conditioning standard.
About As Spicy As A Bottle Of Water
Alright, so was there something special here? Well, that depends. Here’s what the Morning Call said:
The MT-5 proved to be an easy car to drive. Assuming that one can operate a manual transmission. Many people are frightened by a manual transmission and probably for good reason. But as manuals go, the MT-5’s was one of the easier to use. The gears were well defined and the clutch had a lot of built-in forgiveness. Handling was responsive and precise but not overly so. In other words, you didn’t have to think about it all the time and if you wanted to groove in and out of traffic or lay it on in the curves, there was more than enough suspension to handle it. The four-wheel independent suspension has MacPherson struts all around, gas-pressured shocks and fore and aft stabilizer bars. The test car also had the optional P205/65R15 tires, which no doubt helped things along.
Powering the MT-5, is a 2.5 liter/150 cubic inch four-cylinder with overhead valves, electronic fuel injection and a high-swirl and fast-burn combustion chamber design. The engine is rated at 92 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 132 foot pounds torque at 3,000 rpm. Now right up front this doesn’t sound like enough power to move the Taurus out of its own way. But surprisingly the MT-5 doesn’t have bad performance. To be sure, you’re not going to suffer from whiplash on a second to third shift or do you have to worry about smoking those front tires off when leaving the line. But you will be able to mix it up in traffic and run the expressways without worrying.
Some of the reasons for this are the excellent gearing on the five-speed manual and the relatively light weight of the car. Also, it has a big four- cylinder engine and does produce quite a bit of torque; torque is important when moving weight. The engine/transmission combination proved to be impressive for fuel mileage. The test car averaged 22 miles per gallon for city driving and 32 mpg over the highways. Regular unleaded was used. The test car was equipped with the optional extended range fuel tank (18.6 gallons, the standard tank measures 16 gallons), which as one can see would give it quite a driving range.
I checked the MotorTrend archives, and the first mention of the MT-5 that I could find was in October 1986 in only a very short paragraph that talks about models for 1987:
After spending a week in an MT-5 sedan, I came away pleased with its operation. The 5-speed MTX III works smoothly and without hangups, but the MT Golden Rule applies to this car: Anything can be made better with 50 more horsepower.
Most stories paint the MT-5 as being an improvement over the base L, a bit more fun to drive, and reliable, but the compliments seem to taper off around there. The sedan was only 2,863 pounds, but still had only 88 HP for motivation. Calling this engine “tepid” would probably be pretty accurate. Certainly, you probably wanted to refrain from challenging anything but compacts and diesels. In case you were wondering, the MT-5 was worse than the L in one way, and it’s that it wasn’t even offered with the option to upgrade to the V6.
One thing that the MT-5 had going for it was that Ford was willing to sell it to you in a wagon body. So the whole family, including those in the optional rear-facing third seat, could enjoy manual fun. Even the SHO wasn’t available as a wagon!
As you could probably imagine, the MT-5 didn’t exactly light the sales charts on fire. The wagon was available for 1986 and 1987, and if Marti reports from enthusiasts are correct, only 2,376 MT-5 wagons were sold in 1986, with 3,910 more finding homes in 1987. The sedan was around for one more year, but sadly, enthusiasts have only the production numbers for 1986. That year, Ford allegedly moved 20,011 Taurus MT-5 sedans, which is pretty neat!
Yet, the MT-5s are rare for Taurus. In 1986, Ford moved 236,362 Taurus vehicles in total. That number increased to 374,763 units for 1987 and 387,577 for 1989. Compared to the total production, the MT-5s were barely a blip on the radar. The MT-5 wagon’s apparent sales make the MT-5 sedan look like it was a decent seller.
It would seem that the MT-5 probably found itself stuck in an unfortunate position of not being attractive to the enthusiast buyer. Perhaps it was the fact that the Taurus was futuristic, but didn’t exactly scream “sports sedan” as the imports did. Perhaps it was the fact that the enthusiast special was given the weakest engine. Or perhaps it was just the fact that it was a family car that most people expected to see an automatic in. The original Ford Taurus itself would go on to become an automotive legend, one that still carries influence today. But the fact that Ford made a manual one that wasn’t the SHO is barely a footnote.
A Forgotten Special
The Ford Taurus MT-5 is also another example of rarity not exactly equaling value. If you can find one of these for sale, it’s almost certainly going to be well under $10,000. It just seems like, for the most part, the MT-5 was discontinued and forgotten, with only a small group of fans keeping survivors alive.
Despite all of that, I find myself enamored with the MT-5. Sure, it wasn’t fast, wasn’t particularly desirable, and was bypassed by even enthusiast buyers when it was new. Yet, Ford did something neat with this car. Ford took a regular, everyday car, and made it just a little bit more fun. I like to imagine that, back in the 1980s, someone’s parent had just a teensy bit of fun on the school run by rowing their own gears in the family MT-5.
So, from that angle, I think there should be more cars like this. I know that current manual take rates are so low that there’s little point in an automaker trying. I’d still be delighted to see a Chevrolet Trax or a Toyota Corolla slinging a manual. Or, heck, Ford could just bring back the Taurus, period.
Top graphic images: Ford
I owned the manual transmission wagon of my dreams over a decade ago, and it was definitely not a Taurus. My parents bought one of these Taurus’ new when I was a little kid, and I can’t say I’d like to own one myself unless it had the SHO V6 in it.
As a European this confounds me. And this was 30 years ago.
I despair for America sometimes
And the alternative a 3-speed auto? With which the Taurus won Motor Trend’s car of the year? <shakes head>
Some weird part of me wants a two-car garage that’s an MT5 wagon and a Firebird with an Iron Duke. Screw horsepower; I’m not in a hurry.
I think I would have liked one of these. But probably already asked, but could you swap a SHO engine in? Maybe you’d have to do the transmission as well? Somebody must have tried.
The real reasons that they offered the 4 was to keep the base price down to upsell to the 6, keep the advertised MPG up and of course to match the Celebrity which of course had been doing the same thing for several years. Of course it was pretty easy and relatively cheap to make happen, pop the deck on the 2.3 to match the Iron Duke’s displacement and use the Tempaz transaxles.
I only saw one back in the day and it was a sedan, not a Wagon.
I remember my mom thought the MT-5 was interesting, but then I pointed out the wimpy engine. Since she,was driving an 84 Accord 5 speed and dad had an Audi 4000 Quattro a Taurus would have been a major step down.
The only 80s Ford I ever owned was a 1985 Ranger S which was basic but sprightly with the OHC engine and a 5 Speed.
is a 5spd, fuel injected Taurus really a step down in power compared to an early 80s carbureted Accord?
The Taurus may have had more power, but overall the Accord was better put together, and noticeably lighter. Yes the Accord had a spaghetti junction under the hood but it was a reliable and well engineered spaghetti junction
gotcha, I’m only familiar with 5th gen and newer Accords, having owned a 6th and 8th gen with 5spd. Every time I hear carbureted Honda, it brings me back bad memories from the CVCC days and the couple relatives that had problems with them
Had a 93 Taurus wagon. What an absolute tea bagger of a car that was. The first and second last new Ford product I ever bought. Hated every minute of ownership, dealing with he corrupt slime ball dealership. Gawd, now I feel better.
I had a supervisor when I was in the Air Force that had an MT-5 wagon, he loved it. It was brand new and that’s the only one I’ve ever seen. Also had a co-worker there that had a 2.3l Aerostar with a stick, and later at a different duty station a neighbor had a 3.0l Aerostar with a stick. I’d forgotten all about those, and you sure don’t see them anymore.
The Taurus love is always kind of funny to me because to my eyes as a mid ’80s baby getting into cars in the late ’90s these Tauruses seemed hopelessly dated and frumpy. A buddy in high school drove his parents hand me down wagon, which sad to say we made fun of at the time. But even then I thought the SHO was cool when I learned about it, and even kept my eyes open for a decent used one in the early aughts though I never found one.
It’s amazing how much personality is drained from the car with the traditional grill.
My first car was the 89 taurus wagon with the digital dash. It very much felt like a spaceship compared to the analog dials of the 80’s Ford trucks that I would end up driving for decades after.
Context matters. Europe was building cars that almost looked like this as early as the 70s, and the Taurus design languge made appearances earlier in the 80s on models like the Sierra and Scorpio.
True, and in the States the Taurus’ more aerodynamic design language had been previewed by the Tempo and Thunderbird. But for the mass market family sedan space in the US, the Taurus was still revolutionary.
It was often compared to the Audis of the time, which were indeed sleek.
That’s fair. I should have said “…made most other American cars look a decade old.”
The Escort with that engine was dead-ass slow. I can imagine it would be just short of glacial in a big ‘ol Taurus.
There was no Escort with the HSC, was there? They were all CVH or *lol* Mazda diesel.
It’s ironic that the HSC – based on a cut-down Falcon six cylinder (so by that time, 2/3 of the engine in the F-150s it was sharing the lot with) made the same 88hp the Escort’s CVH did. The HSC was cobbled together because they needed another small four and there wasn’t enough CVH or Lima capacity. Probably shoulda just done that from the start, given the amount of money and problems the CVH caused; though I still like it a lot for its uniqueness. And I think it’d be cool to put CVH heads on a V8 block, but it won’t be a Ford – bore centers are all wrong.
Yeah, I don’t think it was available on the Escort. But it was the standard engine for the Tempo/Topaz.
Oh yeah, I remember it well from our ’93 GLS ex-rental
Ah, must have got them mixed up. But I’m betting it was still hella slow!
The Falcon 6 wasn’t used in the F-150 that was the Big 6. One of the reasons they based it off the old Falcon 6 was that it could be built on the then retired engine line with just a few modifications to existing tooling. That cut the cost and time to get it to market.
The CVH was also a rush job. They had inked a deal to buy engines and transaxles from Honda. Once Hank the Deuce found out about that plan he was reported to have said more or less “No FUCKING way is there going to be a Jap engine under a hood with MY name on it”. Never mind they have been selling a whole flipping Japanese truck with his name on it for several years by then.
The Taurus MT-5 is a great reminder that a car doesn’t have to be fast to be genuinely fun and memorable. Oh look it’s a FWD.
Finding a clean example would be exceedingly rare now… there was a decent sedan MT-5 at the Carlisle Ford show this year. They applied a similar formula to the later Lincoln LS with the V6/manual combo, but RWD!
When we learned my wife was pregnant with our first child in 1987, we bought a new MT-5 wagon. The dealer even told us about an unpublished factory option of a high compression head. We finally sold the car after 160,000 miles and it still had the original clutch. Too bad I can’t post a picture of me jumping the battery of a 300SL Gullwing with it.
My dad had one of these for a bit during his tempo, Taurus kick. I have no idea what he did with it. Probably sold it to a buddy or something. I drove it around a few times I don’t recall it being good in anyway. He still says one of the best driving cars he had was a sable wagon with the 3.8 that kept eating transmissions.
Sorry, but the manual-transmission station wagon of my dreams is going to be rear-wheel-drive.
It’s a BMW e39 528iT for me.
I’d be leaning more towards something like this:
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/img/pictonorzw/chevrolet_usa/1963-chevrolet-wagons-01-nova.jpg
In the early ‘90’s, I had an SHO Taurus. Loved the car. We were actually searching for an MT-5 wagon that we could convert to an SHO wagon, but weren’t able to turn one up.
“Ford was willing to sell you a Taurus station wagon with a fun five-speed manual transmission.”
INCORRECT!
It was a Taurus station wagon with an un-fun manual transmission. Same trans in the Escort and Tempo. Not good.
MT-5 was not nearly compelling.
The gearbox in the manual-equipped Taurus was rather dreadful too. At least it didn’t outshine the 88hp engine.
I just can’t wrap my head around a slightly-bigger Tempo engine in a Taurus, much less a wagon. The 2.3 was such a hateful slow noisy coarse bastard.
Never knew about the manual Taurus, but it’s been the same story with Ford and GM my whole driving life. Automatic with a V6 or 4-cylinder, or manual with only a 4-cylinder. Those were the choices so many times. One notable exception was my 1998 Contour with 2.5 V6 and 5-speed, it was nice V6 but a smaller one.
Mondeo was always under appreciated in the US. Contour really didn’t get a fair shake. A cool cheap fleet could be contour, escort wagon, and focus 2 door and wagon. Late 2 door tempo sort of has a euro look to it too.
I’d say the early 4 door Tempo with the right trim is the most European looking Tempo. The six window sedan looks a lot like a Sierra from many angles.
That and the exp do look euro ford. But late 2 door tempo especially in black or that silver grey color looks more up market. Sort of like a smaller hammer. It’s one of those in hindsight things. Definitely wasn’t the case when they were on the road.
http://consumerguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/90113321990807.jpg
I had a friend in college with a high mileage ’96 Mazda 626 with the 2.5L v6 and 5 speed combo and I remember thinking it was quite a decent little car and a great little sporty v6 even compared to the used Audi A4 I owned at the time.
Man, they really knocked that out of the park with the SHO. One of the most beautiful engine bays ever made.
Too bad the MT-5 was a no SHO.
The Taurus never grabbed my attention as anything special. I think it’s because I spent most of 80s overseas only returning in late ‘88. Rather than groundbreaking, the Taurus just looked like every other car on the road in Europe that I’d been seeing for the previous three years.
My grandfather had a baby blue Taurus wagon and when I returned to the States I stayed a few months with them while job hunting. The Taurus was competent enough, but nothing special. Never drove a SHO version.
“Oh look, it’s a FWD Sierra!”
I had an ’88 V6 wagon for a little while. It really was nothing special.
I remember the transmission (AXOD) going kaput and costing what the car was worth to replace, and the sticky, gummy plastic on the steering wheel, which was so awful I haven’t bought a Ford since then.