SHODWN
Mother Threasa
Come on now.. Of course it will Don.. But one Ill SHO you..
So who's not really impressed with the new SHO?
- Thread starter DieselDan
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Come on now.. Of course it will Don.. But one Ill SHO you..
platoribs
Live to Drive
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
blah blah blah. Bottom line is that the G8 has tons of rear seat room. The SHO isn't cramped in back, but for its size, isn't terribly roomy...
jedhead
New Member
They're all pretty similar...Though the G8 has to make up for that absolutely awful interior with the big engine.
Last edited:
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
Awful interior, whatever. I don't mind it. It's clean and efficient. Just like the SHO.
Glad you don't mind it, that makes one...Clean and efficient is a Porsche...
Can't say I've ever heard a conversation where it was "wow, did you see that new pontiac interior." Even the Holden Commodore's is better looking with the color matching.
vs
They should have taken parts of Buick or Caddy's interior and put it in there. You can strap a huge engine on a pig, and all you get is a fast pig, it needs some lipstick. Your CTS-V's interior blows it out of the water, its not even close.
I used to be able to say the same for Ford - I love my Lightning but the interior was horrible...and there's the point - they did a great job on the 2010's insides pulling the Lincoln stuff down into it, it really is a great looking car inside and out, especially at it's price point.
Now these are nice: http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/10/31/top-50-luxury-cars-interior/ ... your CTS-V is in the list.
Can't say I've ever heard a conversation where it was "wow, did you see that new pontiac interior." Even the Holden Commodore's is better looking with the color matching.
vs
They should have taken parts of Buick or Caddy's interior and put it in there. You can strap a huge engine on a pig, and all you get is a fast pig, it needs some lipstick. Your CTS-V's interior blows it out of the water, its not even close.
I used to be able to say the same for Ford - I love my Lightning but the interior was horrible...and there's the point - they did a great job on the 2010's insides pulling the Lincoln stuff down into it, it really is a great looking car inside and out, especially at it's price point.
Now these are nice: http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/10/31/top-50-luxury-cars-interior/ ... your CTS-V is in the list.
Last edited:
OldSalt
Floor It!!
The facts regarding the once built G8 interior volume...
Okay so like I really care that the G8 has a 2 inch width and 1 inch rear leg room interior volume advantage? NO! Let me tell you why, the SHO is actually wider (SHO-76.2 vs G8-74.8 exterior width) but added sound deadening and a priority on both exterior and interior styling has reduced the overall usable interior volume, again the engineers are always working to a comprimise, and in this case they were willing (and rightfully so IMO) to allow a slightly smaller rear passenger interior volume to gain superior interior quietness and style. The rear hip room is; SHO-56" G8-58" for 3 adults BOTH numbers are woefully inadequate, leaving a mere 18.7 to 19.3 inches when neither would provide comfortable seating the overall arguement becomes irrelevant. As I had previously mentioned I am obviously somewhat biased since I own a new 2010 SHO but one of the first things I noticed and likely anyone who has even just test drove it, is that the door thickness is remarkably large, I mean really thick! compared to the G8 which I also test drove I am comfortable in saying that I believe the SHO doors are probably an inch thicker overall. :idiot:
Lets not forget that the G8 is not available on your new car showroom floor, now or ever again, which IMHO makes the whole comparision a mute point since someone can't even go buy a new one, if they were desperate they might get one that has been sitting at a dealer for 18 months or so but you might question why hasn't that car already sold? As I did during my new car research.
Okay so like I really care that the G8 has a 2 inch width and 1 inch rear leg room interior volume advantage? NO! Let me tell you why, the SHO is actually wider (SHO-76.2 vs G8-74.8 exterior width) but added sound deadening and a priority on both exterior and interior styling has reduced the overall usable interior volume, again the engineers are always working to a comprimise, and in this case they were willing (and rightfully so IMO) to allow a slightly smaller rear passenger interior volume to gain superior interior quietness and style. The rear hip room is; SHO-56" G8-58" for 3 adults BOTH numbers are woefully inadequate, leaving a mere 18.7 to 19.3 inches when neither would provide comfortable seating the overall arguement becomes irrelevant. As I had previously mentioned I am obviously somewhat biased since I own a new 2010 SHO but one of the first things I noticed and likely anyone who has even just test drove it, is that the door thickness is remarkably large, I mean really thick! compared to the G8 which I also test drove I am comfortable in saying that I believe the SHO doors are probably an inch thicker overall. :idiot:
Lets not forget that the G8 is not available on your new car showroom floor, now or ever again, which IMHO makes the whole comparision a mute point since someone can't even go buy a new one, if they were desperate they might get one that has been sitting at a dealer for 18 months or so but you might question why hasn't that car already sold? As I did during my new car research.
Siman
New Member
yeah but around here it’s all about sleeper cars it was an evo but there are lancers around here that have the stock body but have the evo engine and drivetrain setup in them.
Our engines can’t rev as high as the little I4s do or handle 30 PSI of boost....without some heavy heavy mods and even then I wouldn’t do it. I do have a SHO its not in driving condition right now, but my projects are underway and I hope done by the next SHO convention. Also need to get a muffler bracket to Trainguy...
Our engines can’t rev as high as the little I4s do or handle 30 PSI of boost....without some heavy heavy mods and even then I wouldn’t do it. I do have a SHO its not in driving condition right now, but my projects are underway and I hope done by the next SHO convention. Also need to get a muffler bracket to Trainguy...
Last edited:
8000rpms not enough for you? And who told you a SHO engine can not handle 30psi? Forged pistons are not 'heavy heavy' mods. The Yamaha engine is a VERY robust unit.
IM Buddy8
Active Member
Svt focus engines can handle alot o boost stock. Another one is srt-4 2.4lr, it can handle over 30psi on a completely stock engine. After 22psi you will need a better fuel pump and your good to go with no worries, just need a tune.
I think the yamahammer can rev higher than any other v6? Not sure but maybe someone can help. What is the redline on a stock evo?
I think the yamahammer can rev higher than any other v6? Not sure but maybe someone can help. What is the redline on a stock evo?
jedhead
New Member
The rev limiter for Yamaha SHO motor was in place to protect the accessories.
Bob
Bob
hawkeye18
Sorta cares
With underdrive pulleys the Yamaha V6 is fairly comfortable to 8,500+ rpm. I wouldn't have a problem taking it up to 9,000rpm. Now, without cams you will be developing about 12HP at that speed but the point is that the engine is more than happy to go there. I remember hearing a rumor that yamaha engineers had the engine on a stand going to over 10,000rpm before they encountered valve float?
The point is, if there are any modern V6s that are capable of matching (much less exceeding) the Yamahammer's rev capabilities, they are very few and more than likely manufactured by companies whose cars you can't afford.
The point is, if there are any modern V6s that are capable of matching (much less exceeding) the Yamahammer's rev capabilities, they are very few and more than likely manufactured by companies whose cars you can't afford.
Jonny Cash
Good boy
Its impossible to verify really. what an engine can handle, and what they are limited to is two different things. But considering how old it is, its still very impressive. The NSX's were v6's based off of F1 tech, and were factory limited to 8k iirc. Still pretty old technology. If you look at the new v8's nowadays its about the highest displacment and the most effeicient.
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
Glad you don't mind it, that makes one...Clean and efficient is a Porsche...
Can't say I've ever heard a conversation where it was "wow, did you see that new pontiac interior." Even the Holden Commodore's is better looking with the color matching.
vs
They should have taken parts of Buick or Caddy's interior and put it in there. You can strap a huge engine on a pig, and all you get is a fast pig, it needs some lipstick. Your CTS-V's interior blows it out of the water, its not even close.
I used to be able to say the same for Ford - I love my Lightning but the interior was horrible...and there's the point - they did a great job on the 2010's insides pulling the Lincoln stuff down into it, it really is a great looking car inside and out, especially at it's price point.
Now these are nice: http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/10/31/top-50-luxury-cars-interior/ ... your CTS-V is in the list.
You know I can't hate you when you kiss up...
...but I still like the G8's interior. I like the SHO's better, but I think it's straight and gimmickless...
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
Okay so like I really care that the G8 has a 2 inch width and 1 inch rear leg room interior volume advantage? NO! Let me tell you why, the SHO is actually wider (SHO-76.2 vs G8-74.8 exterior width) but added sound deadening and a priority on both exterior and interior styling has reduced the overall usable interior volume, again the engineers are always working to a comprimise, and in this case they were willing (and rightfully so IMO) to allow a slightly smaller rear passenger interior volume to gain superior interior quietness and style. The rear hip room is; SHO-56" G8-58" for 3 adults BOTH numbers are woefully inadequate, leaving a mere 18.7 to 19.3 inches when neither would provide comfortable seating the overall arguement becomes irrelevant. As I had previously mentioned I am obviously somewhat biased since I own a new 2010 SHO but one of the first things I noticed and likely anyone who has even just test drove it, is that the door thickness is remarkably large, I mean really thick! compared to the G8 which I also test drove I am comfortable in saying that I believe the SHO doors are probably an inch thicker overall. :idiot:
Lets not forget that the G8 is not available on your new car showroom floor, now or ever again, which IMHO makes the whole comparision a mute point since someone can't even go buy a new one, if they were desperate they might get one that has been sitting at a dealer for 18 months or so but you might question why hasn't that car already sold? As I did during my new car research.
I wish you were a mute point.
...moot...
RonPorter
SHO Club of America
I don't understand the obsession with the ability to rev. The V6 wasn't even thast remarkable for 1989. As someone mentioned, revs are kept down to save accessories.
Just building in the ability to hit 8-9-10K rpm is no big deal. Having the fuel and the ability to move enough air in & out of the engine matters more.
Plus, without gearing options, having a high rev capability with power up there is useless trying to get all of the SHO weight moving.
I guess for those who were in the Detroit iron prior to '89, the SHO had some kind of miracle engine. Same for the kiddies, 1989 was the stone ages and they are surprised we didn't have to hand-crank an engine anymore.
The SHO engine had a really cool intake, but the technology for the engine itself had been around for awhile on the market.
Just building in the ability to hit 8-9-10K rpm is no big deal. Having the fuel and the ability to move enough air in & out of the engine matters more.
Plus, without gearing options, having a high rev capability with power up there is useless trying to get all of the SHO weight moving.
I guess for those who were in the Detroit iron prior to '89, the SHO had some kind of miracle engine. Same for the kiddies, 1989 was the stone ages and they are surprised we didn't have to hand-crank an engine anymore.
The SHO engine had a really cool intake, but the technology for the engine itself had been around for awhile on the market.
jedhead
New Member
I disagree that our V6 was unremarkable. There were V6's in 1989, but none with a 4000rpm power band like the SHO motor had with the very innovative dual runner intake. All other V6's at the time, like Acuras, did not have a dual runner intake nor a 4000 rpm power band with dual torque peaks. It was the wide power band that gave the SHO the performance that could only be exceeded by a V12 750 BMW and 3.5L M5 BMW. All other sedans smelled our exhaust.
Bob
Bob
SHOclub1
SHO Member
First, EcoBoost V6 in the Fusion? Kirk, I am sure you can make it fit, but it has been reported it won't just drop in. anything can be MADE to fit!
As for the 10,000 rpm SHO Engine. Lots of people with lots of SHO knowledge and more info on this than those speculating have said for years: "Yes, the V6 SHO engine is a 10,000 rpm engine...ONCE!". the rev limiter was there to save the engine AND the accessories, but mainly the engine. The SHO V6 is a wonderful engine, and will take a lot of power, but super high rpm's are a different ball game (mixing metaphors?)
Anyway, forget taking the V6 SHO to 10 grand unless you like buying new engines a lot, Would take a bunch of innovative and expensive parts to make it happen reliably.
As for the 10,000 rpm SHO Engine. Lots of people with lots of SHO knowledge and more info on this than those speculating have said for years: "Yes, the V6 SHO engine is a 10,000 rpm engine...ONCE!". the rev limiter was there to save the engine AND the accessories, but mainly the engine. The SHO V6 is a wonderful engine, and will take a lot of power, but super high rpm's are a different ball game (mixing metaphors?)
Anyway, forget taking the V6 SHO to 10 grand unless you like buying new engines a lot, Would take a bunch of innovative and expensive parts to make it happen reliably.
