SHO review at nextautos.com

[DDakRT]

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:

With all due respect, I would weight the opinions of pretty much 100% the car reviewers over yours, whom has an obvious bias for Fords and SHOs. What made your opinions worth more than all those reviews combined out there?

Sure you might have some first hand experience with the car, but how did you drive it? None of us need to drive a Town Car to know it's a wallowing whale (not saying this new SHO is like that), just like we don't need to drive the new SHO to know it's no Lotus Elise, or remotely comparable to the G8 in terms of agility (which I'm sure you know, is universally praised for it's drivetrain and handling abilities).

I dunno about you, but I sure didn't get my SHO for it's refinement and comfort, and I'm pretty sure the majority of us here didn't either since there are far better alternatives out there if that's what you were looking for.

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 here had said anything about the new Taurus' fit and finish and refinement? I sure haven't seen anyone say the new Taurus is bad in those areas.
I find it just as ignorant that you want to shove your notion that this SHO is the be-all-and-the-end-all of automobile down our respective throats; not trying to understand that some of us prefer a bit more involvement and character in any vehicle that wears the SHO badge (who somehow gets belittled and patronized by the so called "fanboys"). Just like you sure can bet on people would be damn ****** if BMW or Audi soften up their M and S series of cars like Ford did to the new SHO.

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

Did you have first hand knowledge of the BMWs, Audis, and Acuras you compared the new SHO to? And I take offense to you trying to assume to know what each of us "naysayers"' thoughts of what a SHO should have been, and worse of all, saying that our opinions are wrong.

Do that, and then I'll listen. Until then...

I don't care if you listen or not Chris, just tone down the assumptions of what we want in our SHOs.

 

[DDakRT]

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.

And that's why many of us don't care for the gen IIIs.

 

[BlackonBlack89]

Gen 3 IMO is not even a SHO. Its a Slow, good sounding taurus. And even further I do not like automatic SHO's in general. Its why I stick with Gen 1. (plus they look better)

But I do like the new SHO for what it is. Its no Gen 1 by anymeans. But it does share the same SHO meaning. Sleeper, refinement, and not crazy expensive.


Personally......I dislike the people who say the SHO needs more things to differentiate from the regualr taurus. HELLO its a q-ship car. Same thing, cept it hauls ass......
They did a decent job with keeping it sleeper and I appreciate that. KEEP it that way.

 

[SuperHO]

i believe the same people complaining about it's weight and lack of that coveted third pedal will be the same ones getting butt-sore the first time their modded MTX gets it's headlights forcibly removed at a stop-light speed contest...

 

[DDakRT]

i believe the same people complaining about it's weight and lack of that coveted third pedal will be the same ones getting butt-sore the first time their modded MTX gets it's headlights forcibly removed at a stop-light speed contest...

Dude, nobody questions it's straight line speed (althought it's really not all that fast compared to other sedans it's competing with these days). Again, it's the stopping, turning, and involvement that doesn't live up to what many of us here expect a modern SHO (or any current and competent sports sedan) should be.

The Taurus Limited EcoBoost (because that's what it is) is a quick, comfortable, and refine near luxury sedan. What it is not is a sports sedan, nor does it have what attracted us to the original gen I and gen II SHOs.

 

[BlackonBlack89]

A come'on kris.

The MAIN part of the SHO was the engine. You have to give credit to ford as this twin turbo V6 is quite special. I mean Twin turbo and taurus. Its WTF!!!!!

BUT....... yes it looks like a tank. Brakes of a mini. More SHOw than go. BUT it is a SHO, just not SH-AWD and SHO Its not a sport sedan anymore. Its a luxury performance-oriented crusier! (And I'd take one)

 

[krednjen]

The Crown Vic/Grand Marq is a dead platform, and with it the potential for a reborn Marauder. Ford has alluded to the Taurus pinch hitting for the dead Vic chassis. That would make this car a well designed and finished, highly modernized Marauder. I like the Marauder and would see this as an actual improvement over that. I would also be more apt to accept it with that lineage, and badging. So who wants to tackle a home built Fusion SHO????

 

[Huntervf]

With all due respect, I would weight the opinions of pretty much 100% the car reviewers over yours, whom has an obvious bias for Fords and SHOs. What made your opinions worth more than all those reviews combined out there?

So now I'm biased towards Ford Never mind the fact that I don't like the Fusion, that I'd take a new Camaro over a Mustang, the GT500 is way too overpriced, too heavy and too soft, the Focus is ugly as sin, the new F-150 styling is utterly vomit-inducing and the 3-bar grille is the worst addition to the Ford lineup in recent years. Or, never mind that it's actually my JOB to know about cars. Since I'm biased however, explain then why most every otherperson who actually drives the new SHO is impressed with its capabilites?

Sure you might have some first hand experience with the car, but how did you drive it? None of us need to drive a Town Car to know it's a wallowing whale

Of course... the Town Car has been around--virtually unchanged--for 10,000 years. The 2010 SHO on the other hand is brand-spanking new, so aside from what Ford tells us (which isn't necessarily the clear truth) we need to rely personal experience or tap the knowledge of those who've driven the car, until these things have been on the road for a year or two and a general consensus can be reached. Thus far, a vast majority of people who've driven the car have praised it for being a capable handler and all-around performer. Now, I'm not interested as to whether or not that meets every single person's definition of a SHO, or a sport sedan. That's YOUR opinion and I'm fine with that. Just don't write this car off as a big, heavy, numb, luxury car, (at least until you DRIVE it) because clearly many people believe it's not.

or remotely comparable to the G8 in terms of agility (which I'm sure you know, is universally praised for it's drivetrain and handling abilities).

And right there is where your foot get lodged in your mouth, because YES, the SHO IS remotely comparable to the G8 in terms of agility, and if you'd actually driven either car you'd know that.

I dunno about you, but I sure didn't get my SHO for it's refinement and comfort, and I'm pretty sure the majority of us here didn't either since there are far better alternatives out there if that's what you were looking for.

Then you'll be happy to know this new SHO will out-accelerate, out-handle, and generally out-class the original MTX SHO, stock for stock Of course, I understand what you're actually saying here, and yes, this new SHO is a different animal than the original. It's not for everyone and I RESPECT that. I don't however respect belittling the car using unfounded claims.

Who here had said anything about the new Taurus' fit and finish and refinement? I sure haven't seen anyone say the new Taurus is bad in those areas.

I've been chastised--not necessarily by you--for drawing comparisons between the new SHO and the likes of Audi and BMW. And YES, I've driven examples of both and YES, the new SHO compares VERY well to their combination of ride comfort and handling prowess, not to mention the appointment of luxury items and interior layout/workmanship, and I'm not the only one to say this. It is QUITE a departure for Ford, even from the 2009 Taurus. I still can't believe the new car shares the same basic platform, because when I drove a 2008 Taurus it had all the excitement of a wet sponge.

I find it just as ignorant that you want to shove your notion that this SHO is the be-all-and-the-end-all of automobile down our respective throats; not trying to understand that some of us prefer a bit more involvement and character in any vehicle that wears the SHO badge (who somehow gets belittled and patronized by the so called "fanboys").

??? Have you read my posts? You know, like the one just a couple spots above this one where I say this:

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.

I have no interest in shoving my opinion on anyone, nor have I ever, EVER said this car is the end-all-be-all. Re-read my posts...time and again I've simply said "reserve judgment until you drive this car, because it will surprise you." What I'm doing is calling out the folks who are looking for excuses to justify their dislike for the car. Honestly, you don't have to justify it. If you don't like it, that's fine. But saying things like "it was only built for comfort" (which Kris, you actually said in the SHO related section) and it's not "remotely comparable to the G8 in terms of agility" are just flat out WRONG, and that's where I'm calling people out.

Just like you sure can bet on people would be damn ****** if BMW or Audi soften up their M and S series of cars like Ford did to the new SHO.

Explain to me how building a car that out-accelerates, out-handles, and out-classes the original is softening it up? If, you know, you say that after you've DRIVEN the car, that's one thing. But are you aware of how it handles compared to the original SHO you love so much? Honestly, I'd like to know more about why you think this new SHO is softer than the original.

Did you have first hand knowledge of the BMWs, Audis, and Acuras you compared the new SHO to?

Yes.

And I take offense to you trying to assume to know what each of us "naysayers"' thoughts of what a SHO should have been, and worse of all, saying that our opinions are wrong.

???? I'm not trying to assume to know anything. The term SHO is going to mean something different to each person, be it a mid-size sedan versus full-size, Yamaha engine versus Ecoboost, FWD versus RWD or AWD, ultra-luxury versus barebones, etc. Nor am I stating your opinions are wrong, unless you wish to start debating specific definitions of things like the handling capabilities of the G8 versus the new SHO, and what constitutes "remotely similar." Which I might add, I'm HAPPY to do, and I'll be HAPPY to admit I'm wrong if you make some valid points. Of course, that would mean you'd actually need to drive both cars so you have more than broad speculation to bring to the table. And honestly, that's all I've been saying all along. DRIVE THE ******* CAR, then tell me the new SHO doesn't handle remotely as well as the G8. That's an opinion I'll respect.

I don't care if you listen or not Chris, just tone down the assumptions of what we want in our SHOs.

I'm not the least bit interested in who wants what in their SHO. I am however quite intrigued at the people who are trying very hard to find reasons to justify their dislike to like this new car... to the point where baseless facts are thrown into the mix. I'll say this one last time: I don't care if you like the car or not (and I'm using a universal YOU here, not directed at anyone specific). Just don't expect a pat on the back when you try to justify your dislike with nonsensical statements, speculation, and flat out incorrect information

All that said, I think Ford would be extremely STUPID at this point to NOT make some sort of high-performance Fusion with the EcoBoost. Offer decent luxury levels but lower than that of the Taurus, offer a manual trans, and price it around $30,000. In fact, call it SHO as well... why not make a new SHO series of performance sedans, like Cadillac's V-series? I could very well be more interested in that as opposed to a new Taurus SHO. That however doesn't mean I need to automatically hate the bigger SHO, does it?

 

[dstig1]

Overall very nice discussion, after getting past the obvious rage from being disagreed with/dissed. I skipped all that to focus on that salient points you made below.

The 2 points have been made before a bunch of times by one class of this forum: 1. Some people like to shift. 2. And a Sport Sedan is not 4400 lbs. I'm one of them. Does it define my life? Heck no, but if I'm going to spend Real Money on a new car, it had better be one that fits all my needs and wants. I can drive anything to "get there" (and am doing just that now <bleckh>) but if I am spending real money it will be what I want.

So what is that? A tight, sharp performing sport sedan that is a sleeper, with a manual tranny. That was my old '92 (never should have sold that...). The new SHO sounds like a really great car, but it's not what I am looking for. No hate. Just not for me. Had they put a stick in it....well we might well be talking. But I agree with many that given the weight that would be tough to do. And the EPA makes it even tougher to do. Ford's quality and design is top tier nowadays. They just didn't deliver the product I am looking for here. Now mind you - they CAN. I just think they missed the target a bit. Many will disagree, but that is opinion and why we buy different cars out there. I love AWD. The Interior looks absolutely stunning. The exterior has good and bad about it, but overall there is nothing there stopping me....other than 6-800 lbs o' mass and a stick....

I'm not the least bit interested in who wants what in their SHO. I am however quite intrigued at the people who are trying very hard to find reasons to justify their dislike to like this new car... to the point where baseless facts are thrown into the mix. I'll say this one last time: I don't care if you like the car or not (and I'm using a universal YOU here, not directed at anyone specific). Just don't expect a pat on the back when you try to justify your dislike with nonsensical statements, speculation, and flat out incorrect information

All that said, I think Ford would be extremely STUPID at this point to NOT make some sort of high-performance Fusion with the EcoBoost. Offer decent luxury levels but lower than that of the Taurus, offer a manual trans, and price it around $30,000. In fact, call it SHO as well... why not make a new SHO series of performance sedans, like Cadillac's V-series? I could very well be more interested in that as opposed to a new Taurus SHO. That however doesn't mean I need to automatically hate the bigger SHO, does it?

If they put this engine - or something close - into the Fusion with a stick, as you suggest, then I am a happy guy. And a customer, again. Contrary to you, I think the Fusion is great, but that's opinion. I agree that the SHO brand should have been used better on multiple models, and this would be a good way to do it.

I have 16+ yrs experience with Gen 1/2 SHOs. I didn't like the Gen 3 at all (after driving one - WTF is this???). I'll drive a Gen 4 and see for myself. But my impression is that Gen 4, is Gen 3 with more engine and refinement. It's only that - impression - so I'll see. But I didn't like Gen 3, so I am skeptical going in. My bias....can't erase it.

The part that ticks me off here is that there are some on this forum who think anyone talking negative on the new SHO is bad. Grow up. Yes they changed the car a lot. That is going to change the target market. If they picked right, then they win, If they didn't then nobody wins. What I see is that there is enough pull for the original SHO concept that Ford should not ignore it. This car does not hit that target, as good as it appears to be.

Ah well. Rational discusion on the internet... Please proceed with "Did too!!!" ..."Did Not!!!" "Mooooommmmmm!!!'
-Dave

 

[Huntervf]

Now THAT's an opinion I can get behind Though I would point out that outstanding sedans such as the BMW M5 and Audi S6 are north of 4000 lbs

And I apologize to the folks who've interpreted my postings as condemning anyone who doesn't like the new SHO. That was never my intention and I most definitely understand that the new car isn't going to satisfy everyone's desires.

I think a lot of people share your skepticism about the new car and how it relates more to the gen III. I was quite skeptical as well, and given the weight I was also very skeptical that 365 horsepower wouldn't be enough to really make this car move. Someone mentioned the Mercury Marauder above and that's what kept rolling over in my mind, a heavy car that doesn't go far enough to be worth the coin. I suppose this is why I keep encouraging people to drive the car when they have a chance, because I personally was extremely surprised by how hard it pulled and how well it bit into corners.

In any case, THANK YOU for providing solid, informed input on why you don't like the car

 

[illSHOyou]

Why is everybody so bent out of shape about the weight? People, its 2010! All cars are heavy not just the new SHO! People make the claim that 4400lbs is not a performance family sedan...? Should I say that 4100 lbs Bugatti Veyron is not a super car? 300 lbs difference! The Bugatti Veyron handles great!, so get over it....

If you really want a ******** new 2010 Taurus SHO, buy one and gut all the BS out of the car. Now you have a 3300 lbs 365 hp high performance family sedan... Who is actually going to do that though? Its right up there with all you ******** family sedan people. Isnt it...? Well come on? Be a MAN!

I would be happy the new SHO is back...cause if it where my company I wouldn't built the car for all you crybaby's.

Some of you people are ridiculous...

 

[SHOZ123]

Ford should build a stripped track edition model with good brakes and more HP from the factory. Then call that a SHO.

 

[nw_mr2]

Why is everybody so bent out of shape about the weight? People, its 2010! All cars are heavy not just the new SHO! People make the claim that 4400lbs is not a performance family sedan...? Should I say that 4100 lbs Bugatti Veyron is not a super car? 300 lbs difference! The Bugatti Veyron handles great!, so get over it....

If you really want a ******** new 2010 Taurus SHO, buy one and gut all the BS out of the car. Now you have a 3300 lbs 365 hp high performance family sedan... Who is actually going to do that though? Its right up there with all you ******** family sedan people. Isnt it...? Well come on? Be a MAN!

I would be happy the new SHO is back...cause if it where my company I wouldn't built the car for all you crybaby's.

Some of you people are ridiculous...

+1. The new Dodge Challenger is almost 4200lbs, and that's a RWD coupe!!
300C SRT8 is nearly 4200lbs, as well as EVERY CAR in that segment is over 4000lbs. Most aren't AWD either, so a couple hundred pounds for that? I don't get what everyone is up in arms about.

Seems like a lot of people only remember the good about the gen1/2. They had ****** brakes too, they weighed a lot for their time, and in no way had any sort of "Race" suspension or handling.

I'm sure if the brakes become a sore point, Ford will replace them with larger ones in coming model years. I understand not liking things about it, but give it a chance first.

 

[venom]

Why is everybody so bent out of shape about the weight? People, its 2010! All cars are heavy not just the new SHO! People make the claim that 4400lbs is not a performance family sedan...? Should I say that 4100 lbs Bugatti Veyron is not a super car? 300 lbs difference! The Bugatti Veyron handles great!, so get over it....

If you really want a ******** new 2010 Taurus SHO, buy one and gut all the BS out of the car. Now you have a 3300 lbs 365 hp high performance family sedan... Who is actually going to do that though? Its right up there with all you ******** family sedan people. Isnt it...? Well come on? Be a MAN!

I would be happy the new SHO is back...cause if it where my company I wouldn't built the car for all you crybaby's.

Some of you people are ridiculous...

The highly heralded G8 GXP tips the scales at 4050 and that is minus AWD folks....

Our 2006 AWD Freestyle (same core platform as the 2010 SHO) is 4,112 and only has 203 HP.

Cars of this size are not typically under 4K...

To prove that point..

The 2009 300C AWD with the hemi... it weighs in at 4,251.

I only know what my opinions are of the present '09 Taurus and our 60K '06 Freestyle. I can't wait to drive a 2010 SHO as I can only imagine what Ford can accomplish with the well proven platform that our Freestyle rides on.

Personally I don't want a car that feels fast because it rattles or creaks or acts liek it is on the ragged edge of physics, I have reasonable exhaust and intake noise in my 96 MTX, that car is about as raw as anything I would carry my family around in. The Freestyle is a tad taller as it is a CUV, the Taurus is lower, and with the suspension changes I expect out of the SHO, I suspect one will be in my driveway someday if it drives even close to how I am believing it can. Sure there will be nits that the after market will have to fix up (sounds like the paddles may need to be built by someone), but I look forward to having an after market to provide for the car for once (personally having taken 2.5 years of my spare family time to put in my own MTX to replace the sad excuse for an ATX that the AX4N is in my 96). With EcoBoost under the hood those problems will melt away. The tunability of the Electronic steering is going to be lovely in the after market world to boot.

Just because you are used to throwing around a 3300 Lb car built around a 20 year old design doesn't mean that the new solution to the problem might not be even better. I started in SHO's with a Gen III. I lusted after Gen I's as a high school punk (sef assesed). But with the family and needs I have now, the MTX Gen III is plenty rough around the edges for dad's drive to work and carting the kids around. I have dabbled with the Gen I and II's but want the space and rigidty afforded to me with a Gen III or later. Both of those items have a cost - one of which is weight.

 

[esfoad]

For those worried about the brakes, remember that the Infiniti G35 from 03/04 and the X from 05 had small brakes. They worked well but you were lucky to get 15K miles life from them. two thins: 1-the aftermarket responded for those early years - I changed my rotors and pads and am now at 50K miles on that set. 2-Infiniti upsized the brakes for rear wheel drive 05's and all 06's. This seemed to stop the complaints. So give Ford a chance and see what they do for the future.

 

[DDakRT]

A come'on kris.

The MAIN part of the SHO was the engine. You have to give credit to ford as this twin turbo V6 is quite special. I mean Twin turbo and taurus. Its WTF!!!!!

BUT....... yes it looks like a tank. Brakes of a mini. More SHOw than go. BUT it is a SHO, just not SH-AWD and SHO Its not a sport sedan anymore. Its a luxury performance-oriented crusier! (And I'd take one)

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.

 

[DDakRT]

So now I'm biased towards Ford Never mind the fact that I don't like the Fusion, that I'd take a new Camaro over a Mustang, the GT500 is way too overpriced, too heavy and too soft, the Focus is ugly as sin, the new F-150 styling is utterly vomit-inducing and the 3-bar grille is the worst addition to the Ford lineup in recent years. Or, never mind that it's actually my JOB to know about cars. Since I'm biased however, explain then why most every otherperson who actually drives the new SHO is impressed with its capabilites?

So you don't have a bias for Ford nor SHOs? Ever?
Which automaker had you been associated with? What kinda cars did you own over the years? Which manufacturer's online communities have you been a part of and active in?

I never said the new SHO and Taurus weren't good cars, in fact they were universally praised for it's power, refinement, and quality. But it was pretty much universally said that it's not a sports sedan also; this is the part that I'm having an issue with.

Of course... the Town Car has been around--virtually unchanged--for 10,000 years. The 2010 SHO on the other hand is brand-spanking new, so aside from what Ford tells us (which isn't necessarily the clear truth) we need to rely personal experience or tap the knowledge of those who've driven the car, until these things have been on the road for a year or two and a general consensus can be reached. Thus far, a vast majority of people who've driven the car have praised it for being a capable handler and all-around performer. Now, I'm not interested as to whether or not that meets every single person's definition of a SHO, or a sport sedan. That's YOUR opinion and I'm fine with that. Just don't write this car off as a big, heavy, numb, luxury car, (at least until you DRIVE it) because clearly many people believe it's not.

Are you saying none of those people who reviewed the SHO thus far had actually driven it?
I haven't read a single review that praised the SHO as a "capable handler", I have read multiple that said it's not a sports sedan and that it's not really a SHO however.
Most have said that the new SHO hides it's weight well, that it's comfortable, composed, and offer a good balance of ride and handling. This does not mean it's nimble and agile.

And right there is where your foot get lodged in your mouth, because YES, the SHO IS remotely comparable to the G8 in terms of agility, and if you'd actually driven either car you'd know that.

Really? When Edmunds did a head to head they said:

Originally Posted by Edmunds.com
Despite all the hype surrounding Ford's new twin-turbo, all-wheel drive sport sedan, our long-term Pontiac G8 GT would put it on the trailer. The Pancho is quicker, it handles better and it has better brakes. Oh, and it's much, much, much, much cheaper. In fact, for the price of the SHO you could step up to a G8 GXP. And then it's really no contest, the SHO's doors would be officially blown off...

Oops.

Then you'll be happy to know this new SHO will out-accelerate, out-handle, and generally out-class the original MTX SHO, stock for stock Of course, I understand what you're actually saying here, and yes, this new SHO is a different animal than the original. It's not for everyone and I RESPECT that. I don't however respect belittling the car using unfounded claims.

Well I sure hope any cars today will out accelerate, out handle, and out class the version that was introduced 20 years ago...
I am not belittling the new SHO, just saying I hate what Ford did to it. I think it's safe to assume that when Ford decided to put the SHO badge on the Taurus again it's trying to recapture the glory days of the SHO and Taurus name; this was the 87-95 era, not the gen III (which seems to be the consensus here that this new SHO is modeled after).

I have no interest in shoving my opinion on anyone, nor have I ever, EVER said this car is the end-all-be-all. Re-read my posts...time and again I've simply said "reserve judgment until you drive this car, because it will surprise you." What I'm doing is calling out the folks who are looking for excuses to justify their dislike for the car. Honestly, you don't have to justify it. If you don't like it, that's fine. But saying things like "it was only built for comfort" (which Kris, you actually said in the SHO related section) and it's not "remotely comparable to the G8 in terms of agility" are just flat out WRONG, and that's where I'm calling people out.

I hear what you're saying, and I don't doubt the new car will surprised me in many ways (handling included, especially for something that weights 4,400lb). I just wished Ford made a G8 GXP and SRT fighter, instead of a Genesis fighter is all.

Explain to me how building a car that out-accelerates, out-handles, and out-classes the original is softening it up? If, you know, you say that after you've DRIVEN the car, that's one thing. But are you aware of how it handles compared to the original SHO you love so much? Honestly, I'd like to know more about why you think this new SHO is softer than the original.

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...

 

[Huntervf]

To answer your question on my "experience", over 13 years I've been affiliated directly with:

Ford (all lines)
GM (all lines)
BMW
Suzuki
Mitsubishi
Mercedes
Mazda

Indirectly through my used car and journalism efforts, I've driven hundreds of cars, trucks, and work vehicles from every manufacturer short of the high-end exotics. I've owned cars from Ford, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge, Mitsubishi, Subaru, and Volkswagen, I lost count as to how many automotive forums I'm registered at some time ago, and I'll GLADLY lay this track record next to anyone else on the forum, so yeah, if I sound a bit arrogant that's because I actually have the credentials to back it up. Any more questions on my automotive background? Would you like my resume? How about my social security number? If you're looking for someone to belittle on knowledge and experience, keep looking. You'll lose this fight.

I'm done going back and forth on this. I'm biased, I'm misinformed, I'm not experienced, blah blah blah. I'm not out to change people's minds on this car, just trying to get their heads out of their *****. Then again, I guess that's the driving force behind bench racers. But that's the rub, isn't it? When I say the SHO isn't that far behind the handling of the G8 (while having a much better overall ride), I'm not bench racing.

The reviews are out there, and AFAIC they speak for themselves. Take whatever information you will from them, though it's clear your mind is already made up before even finding out for yourself. That's the real tragedy here.

 

[stephen newberg]

The reviews are out there, and AFAIC they speak for themselves. Take whatever information you will from them, though it's clear your mind is already made up before even finding out for yourself. That's the real tragedy here.

Actually, it is not, and in some ways it is a good thing. You see, this way they never really will actually try driving the car, and not doing so or owning one, they will eventually go away to whine about something else that does not fit their version of how things should be, and then those of use that actually do drive the vehicle and maybe even buy one can get on with dealing with reality about the car.

After all, until all this came up, I did not know my Gen III was not an SHO either...

pax, smn

 

[venom]

After all, until all this came up, I did not know my Gen III was not an SHO either...

pax, smn

Funny how something is too well rounded to be a worthy successor. Sure the Gen III doesn't do a few things as well as the Gen I or Gen II's, but it does many other things better.

Appears that based on the G IV reviews my G III is now officially outclassed as they have improved the swiss army knife yet again.