Festus Hagen
New Member
So I've had my 2011 non-PP SHO for a couple weeks now. It's a lot of "firsts" for me, first AWD car of any sort, first car with a spoiler, first car with a turbo (ok, two turbos), first car that would rub my butt at the push of a button, first car with over (or anywhere near) 300 horsepower.
My last car was a 99 Acura 3.5 RL. It was a good car for me and I liked it a lot, it was one of those deals you hear of once in a while... "little old lady-owned", I bought it in 2006 with 16,000 miles on it. A few things bugged me about the car though... mainly I felt like the car should either get better gas mileage (say 25mpg highway or better) OR make around 300 horsepower (it was good for about 22mpg on it's best day, and I think around 210 HP). I guess I was judging the car by the standards of the next generation RL which isn't fair, and I have to say that even if it wasn't a bruiser the engine in that car was very nice and smooth. This car does all of that and more though (obviously).
I have read articles that state the SHO "does lots of things pretty well, but excels at nothing." I'm not sure I agree, but I get where they are coming from. Even if it's true, I guess I'm all right with it. My daily driver NEEDS to do a lot of things well... the Thunderbird is our "fun" car but that doesn't mean I want a totally vanilla daily driver. I'm not convinced that the Sony audio system sounds QUITE as good as the Bose from the Acura, but if not it's close enough, and sure does a lot of things the Acura's system could not. The Acura was a comfortable car but I'd give the nod to the Taurus in that category as well. In fact my father owned a Ford 500 (AWD) and a Taurus Ltd, I drove both of them and remember feeling that those cars did everything the Acura did, better than the Acura did them. Again, comparing much newer cars, probably not fair... but I've always felt these latest Taurus cars were under-rated, and the SHO adds another dimension of goodness to that equation.
For several years before the Tbird came along, I owned a 99 Mazda Miata. Great fun, good car... but not especially practical. The SHO is just as fun in it's own way and yet does all the daily-driver kind of stuff I like.
Before I fell into the deal to get the Acura, the car I really wanted was (don't hate me) a late-model Monte Carlo SS. Figured it would have decent power, pretty good gas mileage for the size, front wheel drive which I always found OK in snow. Trouble was, I test drove a few used ones, and they always felt like they had been hit by a bus and dropped off a cliff. Not saying I drove anywhere near enough of them to call it a scientific conclusion, but I can tell you that my SHO was the ONLY one I test drove and felt (feels) like a brand-new car to me.
Tl;dr, Cool cars, these SHOs.
My last car was a 99 Acura 3.5 RL. It was a good car for me and I liked it a lot, it was one of those deals you hear of once in a while... "little old lady-owned", I bought it in 2006 with 16,000 miles on it. A few things bugged me about the car though... mainly I felt like the car should either get better gas mileage (say 25mpg highway or better) OR make around 300 horsepower (it was good for about 22mpg on it's best day, and I think around 210 HP). I guess I was judging the car by the standards of the next generation RL which isn't fair, and I have to say that even if it wasn't a bruiser the engine in that car was very nice and smooth. This car does all of that and more though (obviously).
I have read articles that state the SHO "does lots of things pretty well, but excels at nothing." I'm not sure I agree, but I get where they are coming from. Even if it's true, I guess I'm all right with it. My daily driver NEEDS to do a lot of things well... the Thunderbird is our "fun" car but that doesn't mean I want a totally vanilla daily driver. I'm not convinced that the Sony audio system sounds QUITE as good as the Bose from the Acura, but if not it's close enough, and sure does a lot of things the Acura's system could not. The Acura was a comfortable car but I'd give the nod to the Taurus in that category as well. In fact my father owned a Ford 500 (AWD) and a Taurus Ltd, I drove both of them and remember feeling that those cars did everything the Acura did, better than the Acura did them. Again, comparing much newer cars, probably not fair... but I've always felt these latest Taurus cars were under-rated, and the SHO adds another dimension of goodness to that equation.
For several years before the Tbird came along, I owned a 99 Mazda Miata. Great fun, good car... but not especially practical. The SHO is just as fun in it's own way and yet does all the daily-driver kind of stuff I like.
Before I fell into the deal to get the Acura, the car I really wanted was (don't hate me) a late-model Monte Carlo SS. Figured it would have decent power, pretty good gas mileage for the size, front wheel drive which I always found OK in snow. Trouble was, I test drove a few used ones, and they always felt like they had been hit by a bus and dropped off a cliff. Not saying I drove anywhere near enough of them to call it a scientific conclusion, but I can tell you that my SHO was the ONLY one I test drove and felt (feels) like a brand-new car to me.
Tl;dr, Cool cars, these SHOs.
