Maybe it's just me...  
 
But, my husband's white 2002 Ford Taurus SE is bland, chintzy, and nothing to be proud of. The most redeeming quality of the vehicle is that it's his company car and we aren't forced to shell out our hard earned cash for the not-quite-mediocre piece of crap.  
 
With that said, I have nothing against Ford or the Taurus for that matter. But, the fact remains that the auto giant made very few (if any) improvements over the 1999 SE model. I, in fact, have a sneaking suspicion that the company has gotten a bit too comfortable in the market and in the buying public. They have a built-in audience that will buy a Ford Taurus regardless of higher quality and similarly priced competition (like my own lovely 2002 Chevrolet Impala LS).  
 
THE EXTERIOR  
 
From the outside, the 2002 Taurus SE looks pretty good. The style is a definite improvement over the late 1990's 'spaceship look.' It in fact is a combination of the more popular earlier and boxier Taurus lines and the style popularized a few years back by creative Japanese auto manufacturers. The side panels are relatively blah, while the back and front are slightly attractive. Ford designers shouldnt be proud of their work on the car, redesigned initially for the 2000 model year.  
 
As with the 1999 model, the vehicle has some issues with aerodynamics. The car should have been tested further in the wind tunnel. Why? Well, if you drive one and haven't yet noticed rode grime and mud collects in strategic locations toward the back bumper. Its not a major issue when you're driving but goes to show that the body isn't perfectly designed.  
 
THE INTERIOR  
 
Upon sitting down in the bland medium-gray interior, the first thing that struck me was that it looks and feels cheaply made. Considering the fact that the car retails for over $20K, this isnt a good thing. There are strange metallic decorations, a badly contoured dash, and not in the least bit attractive console. Fortunately for Ford, the console is nicely arranged and can be accessed easily by the driver. It's roomy enough for a mid size vehicle, though the seats aren't nearly as comfortable as some other similar vehicles.  
 
The already uncomfortable seats have no features to speak of. You can tilt the back and push the seat forward or backward. Aside from that, the 2002 Taurus SE lacks lumbar support and any of the other perks that are sometimes available. The passenger seat is similar while the back bench is a bit cramped and not particularly comfortable for riders. It would be good for small children, but by the time kids become teens the seat might be a bit too small.  
 
With an adequate 17 square foot trunk, there is plenty of room in the Taurus. The trunk is rather thick, though is lacking when it comes to deepness (extending toward the rear seats). The rear seats are fixed and cannot be folded down in any way to allow for added capacity. This is a major flaw in the design.  
 
The SE model we have came with a CD player with average speakers and no real bonuses. There isn't anything special to speak of about the temperature controls aside from saying, "yes, there is in fact air conditioning." One minor complaint I have is that the visors are cheaply made and the back-side mirrors lack lights. If memory serves, I do believe that the 1999 Taurus SE at least featured that luxury. Other standard features include power windows, mirrors, and brakes and keyless entry. Just don't expect any good surprises. This is a pretty stripped down car.  
 
THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE  
 
I will admit that I'm jaded because of the 2002 Chevy Impala LS. That car has a lot of energy, pick up, and is easy to drive. The 2002 Taurus SE on the other hand feels like a dog. The usually adequate V6 Vulcan with 155 horsepower engine is slow to accelerate. The automatic shifting at times has problems between 1st and 2nd gears adding to the already problematic driving experience.  
 
Once you get up to speed, the car functions decently, though not perfectly. Passing is a laborious process. What I can say is at least the brakes work well on both highways and city roads. The steering wheel-mounted cruise control is easy to use and functions pretty well. Just a tiny tap of the brakes and the cruise immediately shuts off.  
 
So far as gas mileage, expect to get an average of just over 20 miles per gallon (despite Fords claims of higher). As compared to my Impala (with a much larger engine) that's not too good. That larger vehicle gets about 25 miles to the gallon on average. The Taurus' smallish engine should in reality be more efficient. So, basically, you get a low energy car with iffy gas mileage. Is this car sounding good to you yet? I hope not.  
 
FINAL ASSESSMENT  
 
When compared to the earlier style model, the 2002 Taurus SE looks nicer from the outside though it took a big step back with the interior. At well over $20,000 for this car, its not a good buy. I would recommend buyers look elsewhere to the aforementioned Chevy Impala, the Honda Accord, the Toyota Camry, and even the Chevy Malibu before settling on the Taurus. It really is a disappointing vehicle.  
