SHO review at nextautos.com

[DDakRT]

Are you serious? Did you actually have to alert me that the Bugatti Veyron is a poor handler as far as super cars go...?

You got to be kidding me.

He's not. The Veyron is a lot of things, it's incredible fast, it's unbelievably powerful, it's technology advanced, etc. It's never been known as a handler though.

Not that Top Gear is really that technical, but it at least gives you an idea:
[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T9TGnCQyGg0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T9TGnCQyGg0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

[DDakRT]

Then what the **** is a SHO? Last time I checked 89-99 SHO's were still Taurus' with bigger motors?

Refer back to where I said:

Don' get me wrong dude, I do think a twin turbo Taurus is pretty neat, and I absolutely adore the new interior.

BUT, would you be as attracted to the original if it was auto only and was fitted with an engine you can barely hear? Was the exotic roar of the Yamahamer and it's 2 distinct power curve not the main reasons that made that engine special? If Ford fitted the Yamaha motor into an auto only Continental instead of the 5 speed Taurus, how many of us would be on this forum today?
I know I wouldn't be.

As you said, the SHO is now a cruiser. An excellent one from everything I've read no less, just don't call it a SHO.

And:

The original SHO might not be much compared to today's cars, but at the time it was a legitimate and one of the best sports sedan you can buy. I'm sure you know it was described a poor man's M5 (which, ironically, is what people had been saying about the G8 GXP), can you honestly say that about this new SHO?
As I explained above, a big part about the original is how the car sounded, how the engine behaved, the involvement between the car and the driver. It added up to more than the sum of the parts. Now, you can't even hear the engine at WOT...

The gen I and II behaved like a sports car should to your senses. The engine made the right noise, the powerband had it's distinct character, the handling was great for the era. Those were cars that connected with the driver, now it almost seems like the new SHO was designed to insulate the driver from the outside elements.

 

[SilverThunder]

I really don't care about all of that information you posted. I was commenting on this:

Originally Posted by DDakRT View Post
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?

Yes it is far fetched, because the original SHO was just a trim level of a MID SIZE FAMILY SEDAN. The main difference between my 2004 Taurus SEL and a mid 90's SHO is the drivetrain/motor. Underneath my car is better outfitted than some SHO's too. I've got the 24/26 sway bars, lowering springs, ALSFB and all that jazz. The point I'm getting at is that, at the end of the day a Taurus is a Taurus no matter the trim level. :thankyou:

 

[DDakRT]

I really don't care about all of that information you posted. I was commenting on this:



Yes it is far fetched, because the original SHO was just a trim level of a MID SIZE FAMILY SEDAN. The main difference between my 2004 Taurus SEL and a mid 90's SHO is the drivetrain/motor. Underneath my car is better outfitted than some SHO's too. I've got the 24/26 sway bars, lowering springs, ALSFB and all that jazz. The point I'm getting at is that, at the end of the day a Taurus is a Taurus no matter the trim level. :thankyou:

Well according to you a Taurus is a Taurus (I guess a 320i is pretty much the same as a M3 GT4 race car too, they're both 3 series cars anyway right?), but there are plenty of people here who would NEVER own a regular Taurus if not for the Yamaha engine, me being one of them.

The SHO bits transformed the car into a different vehicle with it's own personality and capabilities, which is why so many people put up with the crappy Taurus that surrounds the wonderful Yamaha engine. What I posted is relevant, I'm sorry you can't see that.

I don't understand why you listed the stuff about your car, I have far more engine, suspension, drivetrain, and braking modification on my car than you have on yours.
But so what? How do these things contribute to the topic at hand? We may as well talk about Sasquatches going to McDonalds because that's about as relevant to this thread as what you or I have on our respective cars.

 

[SilverThunder]

Well according to you a Taurus is a Taurus (I guess a 320i is pretty much the same as a M3 GT4 race car too, they're both 3 series cars anyway right?), but there are plenty of people here who would NEVER own a regular Taurus if not for the Yamaha engine, me being one of them.

The SHO bits transformed the car into a different vehicle with it's own personality and capabilities, which is why so many people put up with the crappy Taurus that surrounds the wonderful Yamaha engine. What I posted is relevant, I'm sorry you can't see that.

I don't understand why you listed the stuff about your car, I have far more engine, suspension, drivetrain, and braking modification on my car than you have on yours.
But so what? How do these things contribute to the topic at hand? We may as well talk about Sasquatches going to McDonalds because that's about as relevant to this thread as what you or I have on our respective cars.

You still don't get it. SHO is just a trim level. I listed the stuff about my car to show that ten years later I can use the parts off of a SHO and put it on a regular Taurus (Oh no!). I really don't care that you have far more stuff done to your car, that's great, but I was merely showing the fact that it's still a Taurus. I found your original comment funny, because you said you wouldn't own a Regular Taurus with a bigger engine. :laugh_ti:

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

Here is a review of a 1992 Taurus SHO......seems pretty similar to me








What do you get when you stuff the heart of a Formula One car into a plain-vanilla American sedan? Big grins and busted parts…By Andrew Stoy


1992 Ford Taurus SHO
The Background

It all just sort of happened. Ford had commissioned a high-output version of its V6 engine from Yamaha for a vehicle that never came to pass. Since the company had already agreed to purchase a set number of engines, they decided to fudge together a sports sedan version of their then best-selling Taurus. The resulting bastard child was the 1989 Ford Taurus SHO. And, like any self-respecting bastard child, the SHO can be trouble but it sure knows how to raise a little ****.

For the uninitiated, the initials "S.H.O." stand for "Super High Output," which the 24-valve DOHC 3-liter V6 definitely had: Ford quoted 220 bhp and 200 lb-ft of torque, good now and truly spectacular for the time. The 3-liter engine was only available with a 5-speed manual, but in 1993 Ford began offering a 3.2-liter version that sported an additional 15 lb-ft of torque, coupled with a 4-speed overdrive automatic transaxle. The bodywork also changed slightly in 1993 with updated front and rear fascias and some interior modifications.

Ford continued to manufacture SHO versions of its Taurus through 1999, though there is some discrepancy as to what years constitute what generation of vehicle. We’re going to stick with Ford’s official word on the subject and call the 1989-95 cars, the focus of this article, First-Generation. The bodywork is very similar, the powerplants are all Yamaha-tweaked V6 engines, and, for the most part, a manual transmission is the primary gearbox available.

The Opportunity

If you’ve never driven one of these Yamaha V6-powered Tauruses before, you’re in for a surprise. While the car doesn’t pull quite like a Mach I Mustang–and generates prodigious torque steer unlike a Mach I Mustang–the engine sings in an Italian tenor that would turn Pavarotti green. A delicious cammy cacophony accompanied by whooshing intake air emanates from the front while a subdued mechanical growl rolls from the dual exhaust pipes out back. It’s all far more Ferrari Dino than Ford…anything.



The fact that the rest of the vehicle is a Ford isn’t necessarily a bad thing in this case either. Love it or hate it, the pre-ovoid Taurus was a well-engineered vehicle that was screwed together about as well as anything else in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Ford cranked out a bazillion of the regular cars, so engineering issues were identified and fixed relatively quickly. But really that’s all just icing: The main attraction of an SHO is the fact that you can churn out a massive cloud of front-tire smoke and blast to 60 mph in under 7 seconds…in an old Taurus.

The Downside

While we applaud the guys in Dearborn for stuffing the Yamaha V6 into the Taurus, we wish they’d have gone through and upgraded the rest of the car a bit more thoroughly. The combination of significantly higher power output and manual transmission on the early cars had a tendency to break related components, particularly if the driver was fond of speed shifting. Many enthusiasts have upgraded the stock motor mounts to polyurethane or even solid aluminum to prevent further breakage, and movement in the engine cradle can lead to the cable shifter binding and grinding gears.

1989 SHO commercial showing that even Ford realized the engine was more attractive than the car.
As for the cable shifter itself, well, it’s awful. Unfortunately, the only way to avoid it is to choose a 1993-95 SHO which was available with an enlarged version of the V6 and an automatic transmission. The engine is sturdy and can survive several hundred thousand miles if properly cared for. It does have some unique maintenance requirements due to the exotic intake plumbing, and seals and gaskets have been known to ooze thanks to the aluminum head construction. While parts are available, just getting to anything on the complex SHO engine can be a nightmare.

The other complaints are basically stock Taurus issues. Brakes were upgraded for the SHO but are still only decent. Handling isn’t bad, but it’s not in the same league as the engine, and the interior is acceptable but hardly cutting-edge; one thing to note is that Ford did install nicely bolstered leather seats on Taurus SHOs. Of course, the advantage to having a car that is mainly just a Taurus is the fact that salvage yards are overflowing with replacement parts. Just don’t expect to find engine components there.

The Hit

$1,400-$4,250

In a Nutshell

Mid six-second zero-to-60 times, an engine that sounds like it came straight out of Modena, four-door sedan convenience and good parts availability, all for about $3,000? The Taurus SHO might just be the perfect enthusiast beater.

 

[SuperHO]

The bodywork also changed slightly in 1993 with updated front and rear fascias and some interior modifications.

We’re going to stick with Ford’s official word on the subject and call the 1989-95 cars, the focus of this article, First-Generation.

Many enthusiasts have upgraded the stock motor mounts to polyurethane or even solid aluminum to prevent further breakage,

As for the cable shifter itself, well, it’s awful. Unfortunately, the only way to avoid it is to choose a 1993-95 SHO which was available with an enlarged version of the V6 and an automatic transmission.

It does have some unique maintenance requirements due to the exotic intake plumbing, and seals and gaskets have been known to ooze thanks to the aluminum head construction.

Was the person who wrote this article dropping acid in epic amounts, or did he just make shit up as he went along?

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

Seemed pretty acurate to me

 

[SilverThunder]

Seemed pretty acurate to me

everything except the 93 comment. It changed in 92, not 93. But everything else seemed right to me too.

 

[SuperHO]

lessee...gen I is from 89-91, gen II starts in 92; that craptastic cable shifter went away in 91; to use solid aluminum motor mounts is asking to replace your subframe, and i've never heard of anyone using them; the exotic intake plumbing has absolutely nothing to do with maintenance...in fact, aside from mechanical valve lash and premature rod bearing year, there's nothing on this engine that differs from almost every other engine out there as far as upkeep. and the only gaskets that require upkeep because of the aluminum heads are the valve stem seals...the rest are just rubber that wears out.

 

[SilverThunder]

lessee...gen I is from 89-91, gen II starts in 92; that craptastic cable shifter went away in 91; to use solid aluminum motor mounts is asking to replace your subframe, and i've never heard of anyone using them; the exotic intake plumbing has absolutely nothing to do with maintenance...in fact, aside from mechanical valve lash and premature rod bearing year, there's nothing on this engine that differs from almost every other engine out there as far as upkeep. and the only gaskets that require upkeep because of the aluminum heads are the valve stem seals...the rest are just rubber that wears out.

We recently had a discussion over at the TCCA. Ford groups 89-95 as the 1st generation and then 96-07 as the 2nd gen. why? I have no idea. :swing:

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

The other complaints are basically stock Taurus issues. Brakes were upgraded for the SHO but are still only decent. Handling isn’t bad, but it’s not in the same league as the engine.

Seems like this describes this new version of the SHO pretty well AND the old SHO. Besides the wonderful sound of the Yamaha engine I think everything else has been greatly improved for the better.

Ford will never put a manual transmission in this so that's just wishful thinking.

 

[thebigjimsho]

I understood perfectly. It was not difficult. Just wrong. Factually. But hey, never let an unpleasant fact mess with a fervent opinion.

pax, smn

Don't ever call someone's objective opinion wrong. It makes you look like an arrogant ****...


Forget about looking...

 

[DDakRT]

You still don't get it. SHO is just a trim level. I listed the stuff about my car to show that ten years later I can use the parts off of a SHO and put it on a regular Taurus (Oh no!). I really don't care that you have far more stuff done to your car, that's great, but I was merely showing the fact that it's still a Taurus. I found your original comment funny, because you said you wouldn't own a Regular Taurus with a bigger engine. :laugh_ti:

Uhhh it's you that apparently can't comprehend that different parts can change the characteristics of a vehicle.

Do you really think a base model 3 series drives the same as a M3?

How many times and how simple do I have to explain it so you can understand the following:
All SHOs are Taurus', but not all Taurus' are SHOs
All M3/M5 are 3 and 5 series, but not all 3 series and 5 series are M cars.
All 300C SRT-8 are 300s, but not all 300s are SRTs.
All G8 GXPs are G8s, but not all G8s are GXPs.

Quite simple really. Dunno why you can't understand that.

Please find where I said the SHO isn't a Taurus? Or did you just make that up? Or maybe you just didn't read other posts fully. Read and comprehend before clicking that reply button my friend.

I really don't care that you have far more stuff done to your car, that's great, but I was merely showing the fact that it's still a Taurus.

Hey I wasn't the one who randomly posted what they had on their car. And from what you originally posted:

"Underneath my car is better outfitted than some SHO's too. I've got the 24/26 sway bars, lowering springs, ALSFB and all that jazz."

Personally I think you did a pretty darn poor job of using that example to convey that a SHO is indeed a Taurus. What you posted in that quote had absolutely nothing in relevance to the SHO is a Taurus idea. You could substitute the name "SHO" in that quote with "horse drawn carriage" or "Millennium Falcon" and it would make just as much (or little in this case) sense.

:swing:

 

[SilverThunder]

Uhhh it's you that apparently can't comprehend that different parts can change the characteristics of a vehicle.

Do you really think a base model 3 series drives the same as a M3?

How many times and how simple do I have to explain it so you can understand the following:
All SHOs are Taurus', but not all Taurus' are SHOs
All M3/M5 are 3 and 5 series, but not all 3 series and 5 series are M cars.
All 300C SRT-8 are 300s, but not all 300s are SRTs.
All G8 GXPs are G8s, but not all G8s are GXPs.

Quite simple really. Dunno why you can't understand that.

Please find where I said the SHO isn't a Taurus? Or did you just make that up? Or maybe you just didn't read other posts fully. Read and comprehend before clicking that reply button my friend.


Hey I wasn't the one who randomly posted what they had on their car. And from what you originally posted:

"Underneath my car is better outfitted than some SHO's too. I've got the 24/26 sway bars, lowering springs, ALSFB and all that jazz."

Personally I think you did a pretty darn poor job of using that example to convey that a SHO is indeed a Taurus. What you posted in that quote had absolutely nothing in relevance to the SHO is a Taurus idea. You could substitute the name "SHO" in that quote with "horse drawn carriage" or "Millennium Falcon" and it would make just as much (or little in this case) sense.

:swing:

*sigh* I think you were just reading way too into what I was saying. ALL I was commenting about originally is you said you wouldn't buy a taurus with a big engine called a SHO. I completely understand that certain cars drive different than their lower model counterparts. But the fact that you said all SHOs are Tauruses rest my case, and that's all I was looking for. I'm done arguing on an internet forum

 

[SoonerLS]

When Edmunds did a head to head they said:

If Edmunds tells you water's wet, feel it. They're worse than Motor Trend, IMHO. At least MT's wild-arsed speculation is what usually gets them in trouble; Edmunds is sometimes just willfully ignorant--their sins when it comes to the Lincoln LS are legion and legendary in the LS community. ****, they couldn't figure out how to operate the 2nd row seat release on their '06 Mountaineer, so they said 3rd row occupants had to climb over it--even after a friend of mine (a retired Ford engineer) gave them the instructions, which are, in fact, printed on the release handle... (Look at picture number 8 in their review here.)

I don't know if the author of that particular article took the introductory course Your Ass from a Hole in the Ground: A Comparative Study, but it has become obvious that some of their "experts" haven't...

 

[DDakRT]

*sigh* I think you were just reading way too into what I was saying. ALL I was commenting about originally is you said you wouldn't buy a taurus with a big engine called a SHO. I completely understand that certain cars drive different than their lower model counterparts. But the fact that you said all SHOs are Tauruses rest my case, and that's all I was looking for. I'm done arguing on an internet forum

So in the end we were discussing about 2 different things?

Bummer.

 

[Huntervf]

Kinda sounds like my marriage

I think I finally get where Kris is coming from. We've been hashing numbers, and performance figures, and driving characteristics, but the debate isn't about characteristics, it's about character--not the same thing. The character of the original SHO transcends nuts, bolts, and raw performance data. It's not how fast it was, or the handling, or being a big engine in a Taurus. The look, the feel, the sound, and the uniqueness of the original car created a very distinct character, causing many people to instantly fall in love with it. The fact that it was also a game-changer and well ahead of its time in many respects of course only adds to that character.

The new car on the other hand could be offering a completely different kind of character that, while outstanding in its own context, doesn't compare to the original car. That doesn't make the new car better or worse, just different. Character isn't something that comes with a universal definition or set of criteria; it's going to be a bit different for each person and now that I understand that a bit better, I apologize if I've seemingly tried to assert my definition of character onto others; it certainly wasn't my intention.

This also raises a new set of criteria for me however, in relation to the new SHO. For starters, the 2010 SHO isn't a game-changer like the original was. There are plenty of other cars that can do what this one does, and some do it better. Nor is it necessarily unique; the market is full of high-end sport/performance sedans, and the parts used on the SHO (including the engine) are found in other applications. Nor is it ahead of its time; it has some impressive technology, but the twin-turbo V-6 isn't an exotic engine like the Yamahammer was, and the rest of the bits can be found in a wide range of cars. That's three high-profile character differences between the new SHO and the old, and now that I'm looking at the new car in this light, I can definitely see why some people may find it lacking something.

Still, I gotta come back to "drive it" defense here, because yes, the new SHO does have character that's worthy of your attention, and that's not something that ANY auto reviewer will be able to convey. It may not be the same character as the old car (which I'm not sure could be duplicated, and I'm not sure I'd even WANT it duplicated... would take something away from the original), but IMO it has what it takes to make people fall in love with it. That doesn't make the new car better or worse, just different

 

[SilverThunder]

So in the end we were discussing about 2 different things?

Bummer.

The joys of the internet, where conversation is void of any inflection or emotion. :woo-hoo:

 

[dstig1]

I think I finally get where Kris is coming from. We've been hashing numbers, and performance figures, and driving characteristics, but the debate isn't about characteristics, it's about character--not the same thing. The character of the original SHO transcends nuts, bolts, and raw performance data. It's not how fast it was, or the handling, or being a big engine in a Taurus. The look, the feel, the sound, and the uniqueness of the original car created a very distinct character, causing many people to instantly fall in love with it. The fact that it was also a game-changer and well ahead of its time in many respects of course only adds to that character.
:

Yeah you get it. "It" being what all the "whiners" have been saying. That's the kind of thing that made me buy the original new in 92 when I graduated and got a real job. I see letter writers say it all the time in C&D: " The *** was faster and had higher skidpad numbers but you only gave it second!!! You are idiots!!!" It is the character that the original had, and the new one (according to reviews) does not. I'll go see for myself when they show up (not as of yesterday here...). It's what Mr. Newberg and a few others here keep beating on people about when they disagree with their view, much as the C&D letter writer, that the specs are better so it must be better. You want fastest? Go fly jets or rockets. I want a great car ride.

The new car on the other hand could be offering a completely different kind of character that, while outstanding in its own context, doesn't compare to the original car.
:

Clearly. On all counts. Me? I'd like the "character" of the original updated for 2010. This is apparently not that car. It is a smooth large performance luxury sedan with Thor's engine and Smurfette's brakes, from the sounds of it. I believe that is what many have argued. I've read the same basic point several times now over the past few months since the announcement - "This is not the car you fell in love with."

This also raises a new set of criteria for me however, in relation to the new SHO. For starters, the 2010 SHO isn't a game-changer like the original was.
:

The engine is, IMHO. Direct injection gas is really new technology, outside the lab. It has significant potential moving forward too, on many fronts. But the rest of the platform perhaps had too much involvement from the Ford hierarchy... ("Can we uplink it to show direct feeds from YouTube???")

It may not be the same character as the old car (which I'm not sure could be duplicated, and I'm not sure I'd even WANT it duplicated... would take something away from the original), but IMO it has what it takes to make people fall in love with it. That doesn't make the new car better or worse, just different

But this forum is full of Gen 1/2 (and even 3 - and yes, I think that was the first betrayal...) fans. The difference is probably insurmountable for those like me that really loved the Gen 1/2.

Ford can do it again. Maybe it won't have all the game changer aspects you noted, but put this engine (or something close) in an AWD Fusion with a 6-spd manual or 6 speed manumatic, and you will have a New "SHO" (in the original sense). And I'll be putting a deposit down NOW.

As of now, I'll go drive the new SHO, and I'll do it a few times to get a good feel for it. And then I'll see...but probably not buy as I don't need it now and it doesn't turn my crank as of now. Not the enthusiasm Ford expected or needed. But gimme that Original SHO Character, and I'd go buy now.

Really, is anyone from Ford listening, or are they just basking in the "we revived the SHO!!" moment? Because to many, they did not.

Let the hate mail begin...But thank you for a thoughtful post and discussion. Cars are either transportation or emotion. The SHO was (and should be) emotion...that puts you in motion.

-Dave