cant decide

[benjammin]

Its between a '89 w/102,000 on it, or a 95 MTX w/105,000.
The 95 is quite a bit more money, but its a one owner flawless car. Even the drivers seat is perfect. BUT, Its green(will need to be painted black)
The 89 is pretty nice and well taken care of. Drives good. New suspension, tires and alot more. Its lowered with some nice looking wheels.

 

[bubba]

I would go with the 1 gen myself, and if there was any maintance records to go with everything would be better! I 'm a fan of the 89's so I would try and pull you that way! I would go and check everything over before making up your mind on either of them though

 

[benjammin]

the 89 has a good look, and like I said its been well taken care of. Its a steal at the price too. 1500 bones. the guy is the second owner and needs cash.

The 95 is 3700.

 

[RonPorter]

I'm an '89 fan, but I would go for the '95.

This assumes that both cars have a good maintenance record. One-owner is good on the '95. I personally don't like the green, but it's acceptable if it's a good car.

A 20-year-old car with only 102K could have issues. The price difference could be made up with small stuff. Have you priced R-12 for the a/c lately?

 

[benjammin]

The 89 doesnt have all records, just recent. And it seems almost to good to be true at the price. The 95 has almost all records.

I like the interior design of the gen 2's better also.

What kind of hidden issues would you be worried about on the 89?

 

[Toolman]

Don't mind Ron, he just wants the 89 for himself!

 

[rubydist]

I vote for the 95 as well - having all the records and one owner is a big deal when you are buying 15-20 year old cars! (Plus, I like the gen 2 look better....)

 

[RonPorter]

The 89 doesnt have all records, just recent. And it seems almost to good to be true at the price. The 95 has almost all records.

I like the interior design of the gen 2's better also.

What kind of hidden issues would you be worried about on the 89?

With only 102K miles over 20 years, it spent a lot of time sitting. Seals, bearings, etc could be trouble if/when you start driving it regularly. Especially if you don't know how it was stored, or what mainteance was done over those years.

 

[walser]

I vote for the 95 as well - having all the records and one owner is a big deal when you are buying 15-20 year old cars! (Plus, I like the gen 2 look better....)

hmmm i couldn't tell!! haha but i like the gen 2s the most.

 

[sperold]

Thats a hard one!

I have both the 89 and a 95 and it is a tought choice. The 89 is agressive looking with the ground effects and the more upright side profile (which is now the style). I love the cable shifter on the 89 (you won't hear that too often) and with no ABS, it seems a simpler car. The 95 feels more modern with the variable speed power steering and the great interior with the window controls lighted at night. The 95 appears lower and sleeker, which you may or may not like. The 95 is a much rarer car (only about 1,000) while there were 15,000 of the 89's, if that makes a difference to you. You will have slightly more difficulty finding new replacement parts for the Taurus body with the 89, but the 95 has a lot of stuff obsoleted already (just try getting the solid lines for the A/C unit around the compressor for a 95). Both cars are great to drive. The 95 seems more luxurious while the 89 is more business.
The price for the cars is right, but you have more room to negotiate with the 95. You could make a 1-time lower offer on the 95 and let fate decide the issue.
I would vote for the 95 at the right price, but the consolation prize is not too bad either.

 

[RonPorter]

I have both the 89 and a 95 and it is a tought choice. The 89 is agressive looking with the ground effects and the more upright side profile (which is now the style). I love the cable shifter on the 89 (you won't hear that too often) and with no ABS, it seems a simpler car. The 95 feels more modern with the variable speed power steering and the great interior with the window controls lighted at night. The 95 appears lower and sleeker, which you may or may not like. The 95 is a much rarer car (only about 1,000) while there were 15,000 of the 89's, if that makes a difference to you. You will have slightly more difficulty finding new replacement parts for the Taurus body with the 89, but the 95 has a lot of stuff obsoleted already (just try getting the solid lines for the A/C unit around the compressor for a 95). Both cars are great to drive. The 95 seems more luxurious while the 89 is more business.
The price for the cars is right, but you have more room to negotiate with the 95. You could make a 1-time lower offer on the 95 and let fate decide the issue.
I would vote for the 95 at the right price, but the consolation prize is not too bad either.

I would agree with all things being equal between the two cars.

But, with cars of this age, you have to trade off what you want the car for versus what the history of each vehicle might be,

For a daily driver, the '95 all the way.

For a toy car to partially restore and drive on weekends, the '89 is the better choice.

FWIW, SHOs were daily drivers for me from '89 - '94. They didn't work for me at that point. My SHO now is a garage-queen collectible.

 

[Eastcoast SHO]

do you have a carfax for the 89? or proof that the 89 has 102,000 miles and not 202,000 miles?

i personally prefer the gen 2, but it retrospect they are all nice cars