Huntervf
Bored now
http://www.nextautos.com/driven-2010-ford-taurus-sho
And who is that in the used/classic channel talking about an M3?
And who is that in the used/classic channel talking about an M3?
SHO review at nextautos.com
- Thread starter Huntervf
- 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.
stephen newberg
SHO Member
Oh darned, a really positive review. What will the nay sayers do?
pax, smn
pax, smn
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
I don't know. But the rest of us get a chuckle when you post...
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
Just reading the review, how is it much different than any other? Good car, good acceleration, very refined, worrisome brakes. Their tastes seem to appreciate a car as this while others may want more involvement. This review falls right in line with every other I've read...
stephen newberg
SHO Member
Excellent! Unlike many here of late, I would rather leave positive feelings behind me.
pax, smn
SuperHO
Mental Patient
Eh, I don't care what the naysayers and stick shakers think...the new SHO, for me, was a really bad case of Love at First Sight. They can ***** and moan all they want about it not being a 3 pedal car, or the fact that it weighs a hair over 2 tons, or that it costs $40k...none of that matters to me. The car's everything I need. It's quick, it appears to handle decently, and it looks DAMN good. If I want a track whore, I've got my 95 3.2 MTX. This car's not designed for the track...it's designed to haul the family around quickly and comfortably.
stephen newberg
SHO Member
Stop being sensible. You will get them all upset. 
pax, smn
pax, smn
thebigjimsho
LSA = YUM
Oh no! Those poor haters!
That's a heavy eff'n hair!
stephen newberg
SHO Member
venom
Rowboat Design
This doesn't make me a naysayer but multiple technical details are in error in that article...
The obvious one is the shift from the paddles does not occur in .75 milliseconds either. Closer to .75 Seconds....
stephen newberg
SHO Member
No surprise there. Any time I read an article in a non-technical journal or in the general media on some topic I know something about, they always get some (or even most) of the details wrong. These days I am happy if the media just gets the general trend right.
pax, smn
Huntervf
Bored now
Hyperbole anyone?
It's a common trick us journalists use to, you know, make boring things a little more interesting
dstig1
New Member
No, just at bad math... 75 milliseconds (=0.075 sec) is the likely number (decimal error). An intoxicated slug can shift any manual in under .75 sec...
You calling the new SHO boring? Mr. Newberg should be on your case any minute now...
Hyperbole anyone?
It's a common trick us journalists use to, you know, make boring things a little more interesting
You calling the new SHO boring? Mr. Newberg should be on your case any minute now...
DDakRT
New Member
Bingo.
As one of the so called "naysayers", I can easily turn the argument around and question how anyone can dismiss what reviewers had pretty much universally described the new SHO as tame, not a handler, has weak brakes, and generally not really a sports sedan.
Is it really that far fetched that some of us don't really care for a regular Taurus with a big motor being called a SHO? Especially one that weights almost 4,400 freaking lbs?!?
venom
Rowboat Design
No, just at bad math... 75 milliseconds (=0.075 sec) is the likely number (decimal error). An intoxicated slug can shift any manual in under .75 sec...
You calling the new SHO boring? Mr. Newberg should be on your case any minute now...
Negative. During the release presentations in North Carolina there was a graph SHOwing the shift times, and how SelectShift generally was faster at rev matched downshifts than BMW. I'll have to find the video again on youtube. Top of the graph was like 1.5 seconds or so.
No way can the car rev match in under a few tenths of a second. It will take a couple tenths to get the RPM's in the right range before dropping into gear at a minimum plus everything that needs to happen in the slushbox.
And An intoxicated slug cannot rev match a buttery smooth downshift in under a second reliably either.
Edit....
Found the link for the video. The whole watch is good but the downshift time graph is at about 4:50.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Z_t4cPfPM
Last edited:
Huntervf
Bored now
Is it really that far fetched that some of us who've actually SEEN and DRIVEN this car might have a much better perspective on its capabilities???
I get that a bunch of people aren't happy with a big performance sedan. This is a very different kind of SHO than what many people are used to, and/or wanted, and I'm cool with that. Whether or not it should be called SHO, to me anyway, is ********. Would it somehow be much better (or worse) if it was called something else?
What I do find extremely frustrating is that some people seem to be so sure of this car's capabilities, fit, finish, and refinement without even seeing the car in person, never mind driving it. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but that is just plain ignorant, and frankly a bit insulting to those of us who have spent time with the car (who somehow get labeled "fanboys", apparently just because we actually have direct, personal knowledge of the car
) This holds especially true when a vast (yes VAST) majority of the people who've actually spent time with the new SHO have much praise for the car, including the engine, refinement, quality, and yes, the handling of this car. At the same time, it also seems the folks who've driven it don't like the brakes, and though I personally didn't have troubles with them, I'm more than willing to listen to the other folks who've had bad experiences with them.This isn't some spin machine; it's all out there in black and white print for people to read.
I'm all for respecting individual opinions, but when I'm attacked and ridiculed for having firsthand knowledge of this car by people who've only seen a freakin' picture, yeah, I take offense to that, and frankly it says a thing or two about the people behind the words. If you don't like the car, fine. Just say "I don't like a large, heavy sedan. As for the rest, SEE the car in person. DRIVE it. Then tell us all how it could never compare to Audi or BMW (assuming of course you've driven an Audi or BMW). Then tell us how lousy the suspension is. Then tell us how it doesn't live up to the SHO name.
Do that, and then I'll listen. Until then... :corn:
Last edited:
stephen newberg
SHO Member
My comments would be identical to Hunters, with the one addition that though this new version SHO is certainly very different from the GenI/II in concept, it is not all that different from the Gen III in concept, and can be seen as a logical extension of that. So, if rejecting this as really an SHO, then logically you would reject the Gen III in the same way. That is fine by me, if that is the way you personally want to think about it, but do not expect everyone else to want to live by your definitions as you are making them up to fit your argument. This is a classic rational thinking flaw. To then nay say others who do not agree with your redefinition is, well, not very polite, to be polite.
pax, smn
pax, smn
SHO1
Coke Is It!
Agreed, and for me as with many, I pretty much didn't like anything about the G3 when it 1st came out. Took a good 2-3 yrs. before I started liking anything more than the sweet sound of the V8 when it was opened up a bit. By the time they were out 5yrs i liked enough to buy a low mileage '99. The 2010 is well ahead of that curve for me. If I had the money or wanted to sell my truck, I could see me buying one between now and maybe 1-2 yrs. from now max.
esfoad
Esfoad
My opinion - Ford never intended the SHO to be a competitor of the M5 or the S6. I believe the car is intended to be a comfortable sedan with extra performance vs a regular sedan. In that light they have succeeded with all 4 generations. If you want a track car then some modifications will be necessary.
Similar threads
