How Much Power?

[Lorenr]

This is for anyone who wants a lot of power with one of these cars.

1. Stock, these cars have a really lot of power. If they don't it is because they have not been maintained. Return them to stock and they will have plenty of power.

2. I wanted a lot more power. I installed a 3.2 in a 1989 with all of the suspension upgrades including polyurethane bushings, aluminum sub frame bushings and reinforced engine mounts. I also upgraded the tune up to stock specifications. I put the largest and best tires on the car that I could find.

In short, even with the 3.2 camshafts the car has no traction in first gear. It really hauls and I cannot imagine what I could do with more power. Unless I converted to rear wheel drive there is no chance of making this car run hard.

3. Use these cars as intended. They are extremely fast that way.

4. They'll run at 80 MPH all day long and still deliver 30 MPG. Do that with another car that will pull anything on the road. Plus at 30 MPG a 19 gallon fuel tank will take you 570 miles. Now that is amazing.

5. Try maintaining these cars as originally intended. Well maybe, firm up the suspension and take as much weight out of them as you can.

They are really very fast cars.

:thankyou:

 

[zach44102]

Stock these cars get beat by new camry's. Thats not fast

 

[yamahaSHO]

Take a ride in a boosted SHO and realize that no traction in first truly means that. No messing with the clutch, roll on and break them at will.

I would agree that they have a good amount of power for your every day commuter, but people want excess, whether or not they can handle it.

 

[Whydah91]

Beg pardon, I can lunch on a new Camry at the lights. The **** say 270hp, I say bull. And no my Taurus isn't fast, well kept, but bone stock with 189k. You know all SHOs ain't created equal. That's why I've kept this one for 22 years.

 

[Chaudet]

Saying that u have enuff power is like saying you have enuff money IMO you can always improve the power of your car just like you can get a raise at your job. Another thing as the miles increase on your car it gets more and more tired drops off HP it just happens no matter how well you maintain a vehicle. So if you love your SHO and are rebuilding the motor or restoring the car you may as well put a little extra into it and have a little fun in the process. Me personally I don't rebuild a car to make it stock as a rock just buy a new car and let warranties take care of everything if you are going to do that.

 

[yamahaSHO]

I don't think anyone's talking about the launching variable.

 

[19sho90]

Stock these cars arn't fast to todays standards. Quick yes, fast...no....I mean i put $1,000 Dollars in my intake and exhaust for like what, 20Hp AT MOST.

 

[jayro]

I mean i put $1,000 Dollars in my intake and exhaust for like what, 20Hp AT MOST.

What all did you do to your intake? Seems like alot of $ if you are just talking about performance mods and no camms (if you count those as intake).
I definitly agree that its not the most powerful v6 out there anymore, but I still say the powerband can make one with brakes and suspension a blast to drive.

 

[3d914]

What is the weight difference between a SHO and Camry? Just curious since I'm puttin all those SHO ponies in a 2200 lb car - I want to have some idea of how the ricers will fair.

 

[DJSHO91]

What is the weight difference between a SHO and Camry? Just curious since I'm puttin all those SHO ponies in a 2200 lb car - I want to have some idea of how the ricers will fair.

I checked on Cars.com and they are showing a 2012 Camry SE V6 has a curb weight of 3,420 lbs(Gen1/2 SHOs weigh in the 3100-3250 range). Some interesting added info- they are showing the same vehicle with the following performance test results:

0-60mph = 6.5 seconds, 1/4 mile = 14.8 seconds at 97 mph, Lateral acceleration = .88 G

I also checked a comparable 2012 Honda Accord(271hp/3,558 lbs) and the numbers were almost identical. These performance specs don't sound that far off from a well-maintained Gen1/Gen2 SHO(IMOP). For the increased power they report, I expected more on the performance side.

 

[yamahaSHO]

I would also bet that the SHO motor is a good bit heavier, so the Camry would likely gain weight.

 

[SHO Continental]

In short, even with the 3.2 camshafts the car has no traction in first gear. It really hauls and I cannot imagine what I could do with more power.

I have my '95 very well maintained (and it's certainly faster than Matt Wheeler's '92 ). On level ground it won't break the front tires loose (unless I intentionally pop the clutch) when you floor it. Although I have 245s on 17" wheels.

In short, get better tires.

Disclaimer: does not apply to boosted SHOs.

 

[rubydist]

I checked on Cars.com and they are showing a 2012 Camry SE V6 has a curb weight of 3,420 lbs(Gen1/2 SHOs weigh in the 3100-3250 range). Some interesting added info- they are showing the same vehicle with the following performance test results:

0-60mph = 6.5 seconds, 1/4 mile = 14.8 seconds at 97 mph, Lateral acceleration = .88 G

I also checked a comparable 2012 Honda Accord(271hp/3,558 lbs) and the numbers were almost identical. These performance specs don't sound that far off from a well-maintained Gen1/Gen2 SHO(IMOP). For the increased power they report, I expected more on the performance side.

from my archives:

C&D in March of 91 listed the SHO at:
0-60 = 6.6 sec
1/4 = 15.3 @ 92 mph
.77 G lateral on 300' skidpad

C&D in August 92 listed the SHO at:
0-60 = 6.4 sec
1/4 = 15.1 @ 93 mph
.81 G lateral on 300' skidpad

C&D in October 92 listed the atx SHO at:
0-60 = 7.6 sec
1/4 = 15.7 @ 88 mph
.80 G lateral on 300' skidpad


so, definitely some difference between the 20 years newer stuff and the SHO.

 

[SuperHO]

So we're comparing a 26 year old small V6 to current, larger displacement V6s with 2 decades worth of engineering? this is like the SHO vs GTP argument...sure, GTPs are equal in a straight line, but let me run the same amount of boost on my 3.2 as you have on your 3.8 and watch.me destroy your ass.

All things considered, my 16 year old Taurus with a small V6 can hold its own just fine thanks.

 

[rooster]

I also upgraded the tune up to stock specifications

Thank you

1. I don't think you understand the word "upgrade"
2. What the **** are you even talking about? That original post was just a bunch of random thoughts. Are you trying to say that you like SHO's? Welcome to the club... Literally
3. If I bring drag radials to the convention can I run your car at the drags. I wanna see how bad it burns rubber... Or clutch.

Your welcome

 

[DJSHO91]

So we're comparing a 26 year old small V6 to current, larger displacement V6s with 2 decades worth of engineering? ...

All things considered, my 16 year old Taurus with a small V6 can hold its own just fine thanks.

Thanks SuperHO, that was the point I was trying to make. 20+ years engineering(and 68 additional hp) should equate to more than, using some of the figures posted above, 3 tenths and 4mph in a 1/4 mile run. It always makes me wonder where the SHO-Yamaha design would be with 20+ years engineering and electronic upgrades. We can only wonder.

 

[jayro]

It always makes me wonder where the SHO-Yamaha design would be with 20+ years engineering and electronic upgrades. We can only wonder.

The "What If" game can be interesting. The SHO engine, in comparison to other current v6's, is a fairly small displacment. It would have been awsome if Ford would of had Yamaha bump up the displacment and used it in different applications. If I'm not mistaken, I believe someone built a stroker SHO motor with a displacment around 3.4 (may be wrong on the exact displacment). Offset ground the crank, rehardend it and used rods from another vehicle. Really increased the torque, but I don't know if it revved as well. Then there is always the rumor that Yamaha built a custom one for Ford to use in some different testing that was in the 3.4 to 3.6 range.....of course I don't think this has actually been verified.

Regardless, 22 yrs ago the SHO motor was a really nice piece. I think their durability and ability to withstand boost/nitrous in stock form says alot about the craftmanship. Too bad the trans isn't the same.

 

[rubydist]

Thanks SuperHO, that was the point I was trying to make. 20+ years engineering(and 68 additional hp) should equate to more than, using some of the figures posted above, 3 tenths and 4mph in a 1/4 mile run. It always makes me wonder where the SHO-Yamaha design would be with 20+ years engineering and electronic upgrades. We can only wonder.

Then you missed the point I was trying to make. The current Camry does not come w/ a stick, and the Accord numbers you cite are for their auto as well.

The current generation stuff is over 1 second faster to 60 and nearly a second faster in the 1/4, which is about what I would expect for the power & weight differences.

 

[tommyturbo]

If we take into consideration when our cars were designed and built they were amazing for their time. In 89 a four door sedan that could do 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, a 15 second quarter mile at 90+ mph, and post .80 G or more in skid pad was exceptional! No camry or honda at that time could get even close. Yes, now a camry 20 years later is posting similar or slightly better times. But if you compare a 2012 camry SE (the sporty model) to a 2012 SHO, the SHO will eat it for lunch. It's all relative.

And as for traction, any of my SHO's have no trouble breaking the front end loose in 1st, and can chirp the tires in 2nd too if you dump the clutch hard. But I tell you of all my cars, my 89 Lebaron GTC convertible with the 2.5 turbo intercooled motor with 14 psi of boost is the king on spinning the wheels and torque steer. It's a monster.

 

[jedhead]

The "What If" game can be interesting. The SHO engine, in comparison to other current v6's, is a fairly small displacment. It would have been awsome if Ford would of had Yamaha bump up the displacment and used it in different applications. If I'm not mistaken, I believe someone built a stroker SHO motor with a displacment around 3.4 (may be wrong on the exact displacment). Offset ground the crank, rehardend it and used rods from another vehicle. Really increased the torque, but I don't know if it revved as well. Then there is always the rumor that Yamaha built a custom one for Ford to use in some different testing that was in the 3.4 to 3.6 range.....of course I don't think this has actually been verified.

Regardless, 22 yrs ago the SHO motor was a really nice piece. I think their durability and ability to withstand boost/nitrous in stock form says alot about the craftmanship. Too bad the trans isn't the same.

The SHOShop offered two stroker crankshafts with a 3.5" stroke. One was rewelded and offset ground and the other was a custom made forged steel crankshaft. Both used stock rods and custom pistons with the pins relocated for the extra stroke. With the 3.2L pistons the engine displaced 3.6L. A 3.6L with all the bolt-ons, stage 2 cams, forged 10.5 to 1 piston and ported heads output 265whp/255wft-lbs on a dynojet. Some of the rewelded crankshaft broke when used with a supercharger. I am not aware of any failures with the custom made crankshaft. The big downside with the custom crankshaft was cost.

Bob