: Update: SHO Me The Twin Force, Baby! Rumors Of Performance Taurus Tease The Interwebs



Blackout
03-22-07, 02:55 PM
]http://jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2007/03/SHO-Taurus-Concept-1_TOP.jpg

JALOPNICK.COM - - FoMoCo forums are all atwitter with people claiming to have the inside skinny on the possibility of a Super High Performance version of the Ford's newly renamed Taurus. So what have we heard thrown over the back fence from Dearborn? Well, we're getting tios that a high-performance model of the Taurus is undergoing testing in Dearborn. We've also heard, and I dunno how much stock I'll put in this one, but it is from one of our reliable sources, that
"mills with both TwinForce and Yamaha are being tested...the only thing I'm worried about is that it may not reach production...more of a feasibility test, but we shall see."
But on top of our own sources, Blue II over on BlueOvalForums (http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11675&view=findpost&p=156313), a member who's called almost all of FoMoCo's most recent bold moves is now claiming:
"Not sure if this is Mulally news but Taurus will get the Twin Force engine. Not sure if it will be called SHO though."
The Twin Force (http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-auto-show/detroit-auto-show-fords-twinforce-turbo-v6-delivers-power-of-a-v8-226721.php), as everyone remembers, is the new 3.5-liter V6 twin-turbo direct injection engine debuting in the Lincoln MKR concept. The Twin Force delivers 415 horsepower and 400 foot-pounds of torque - comparable to and better than some V8's. We don't know how much, if any, of this is true, but as a reminder of what could be, we've reprinted the 2009 SHO Concept pictures from BringBackTheSHO (http://www.bringbackthesho.com/) below. ? Ray Wert galleryPost('2009SHOTaurus', 4, 'SHO Us The Twin Force Concept Gallery');

SHO Us The Twin Force Concept Gallery (http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/2009SHOTaurus/)


http://www.jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2007/02/thumb140x140_403733191_8344cee5f8_o.jpg (http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/2009SHOTaurus/955544)
http://www.jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2007/02/thumb140x140_403733122_8100edc0f9_o.jpg (http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/2009SHOTaurus/955537)
http://www.jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2007/02/thumb140x140_403733191_8344cee5f8_o.jpg (http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/2009SHOTaurus/1559287)
http://www.jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2007/02/thumb140x140_403733168_daf9990290_o.jpg (http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/2009SHOTaurus/955530)[/

Florian
03-22-07, 05:07 PM
thats one ugly car.


F

xxpinballxx
03-22-07, 05:11 PM
squished lightning

Blackout
03-22-07, 05:19 PM
thats one ugly car.


FIt's a photoshop from the website that is across the top of the windshield

Lord Cadillac
03-22-07, 05:23 PM
If Ford brings back the SHO I hope they learned a lesson from the Monte Carlo SS. Not that the Monte was a bad car - just most of the enthusiasts wanted something with an "SS" on it to be more powerful...

Blackout
03-22-07, 05:42 PM
If Ford brings back the SHO I hope they learned a lesson from the Monte Carlo SS. Not that the Monte was a bad car - just most of the enthusiasts wanted something with an "SS" on it to be more powerful...Exactly. 220 hp back in the late 80's to mid 90's was quite nice but I hope they don't think that 220 hp is going to cut it now adays!

Destroyer
03-22-07, 07:59 PM
Hmmm, get a new Mustang GT and get smoked by a Taurus?. Its like making the Impala faster than the Vette. No matter how fast it is, it will still be a Taurus which has a real crappy image. :eek:

Rolex
03-22-07, 08:04 PM
Am I weird? I like it. Hell if it ran like a scalded dawg I'd buy one. :yup:

ETA: a big +1 on the Monte Carlo SS thing. That would suck.

c5 rv
03-22-07, 08:08 PM
Since it's just a renamed 500, let's hope they don't send that power through a CVT to the front wheels.

Blackout
03-22-07, 09:00 PM
Hmmm, get a new Mustang GT and get smoked by a Taurus?. Its like making the Impala faster than the Vette. No matter how fast it is, it will still be a Taurus which has a real crappy image. :eek:It could be faster then a Mustang GT (Hell the original one was also) but it wouldn't be for long since Ford will be doing the redesign of the Mustang in the not to distant future and that will be faster then the current one

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-22-07, 09:03 PM
I always thought the SHO was a great idea...an american 5 series for 1/2 the cost. I really liked the 1992 (what year did they give the car a facelift) to 1995 generation, especially with that 3.2L/ 4 speed auto. The 1st gen SHO's were much sportier than the bloated, ugly V8 1996-99 SHOs. I've got a coworker who's got a 1993 with the 3.2L and a '97 with the 3.4L and he said that the '93 is much more fun to drive because it's got much tighter handling, better throttle responce and feels so much better in the curves. From what he's said, and I've read in other places, the 96-99's were more of a highway cruiser. Kinda like comparing a DeVille Concours (96-99 SHO) to the 93-97 STS (89-95 SHO).

I've always kinda wanted a 3.2L SHO, actually I asked my dad if I could get one when I was sellin' my Roadmaster, but he said no because that Yamaha motor would be a PITA to work on, and very expensive to fix. I test drove a '94 3.2L a few days before I got my deVille, and although I never got to really open it up (damn :( ) I liked it, but not as much as the '93 deVille I drove earlier that day.


Anyways, I hope they bring it back, and design it with the same philosophy they used in the 89-95 model: a bargain 5 Series.

Blackout
03-22-07, 09:40 PM
I always thought the SHO was a great idea...an american 5 series for 1/2 the cost. I really liked the 1992 (what year did they give the car a facelift)1992 was the first yesr for the second gen SHO and the last of the true SHO models IMO.

to 1995 generation, especially with that 3.2L/ 4 speed auto. The 1st gen SHO's were much sportier than the bloated, ugly V8 1996-99 SHOs. I've got a coworker who's got a 1993 with the 3.2L and a '97 with the 3.4L and he said that the '93 is much more fun to drive because it's got much tighter handling, better throttle responce and feels so much better in the curves.I've driven all 3 gen SHO's and I think they got progressively worse in the sporty feel department. The 1st gen's were all about performance. Once the 2nd gen rolled around that was the beginning of the end of the SHO. As soon as they offered an automatic they totally killed the whole point of the car. The 3rd gen was boring as hell to drive. Automatic only, interior and exterior looks were ugly especially that stupid pointless spoiler on the trunk. The only saving grace for the car was that the motor sounded nice at WOT.


I've always kinda wanted a 3.2L SHO, actually I asked my dad if I could get one when I was sellin' my Roadmaster, but he said no because that Yamaha motor would be a PITA to work on, and very expensive to fix. And your dad was absolutely right. I had a oil leak with mine and it would drip right on top of the exhaust manifold and I would have smoke coming from under the hood. I went to the Ford dealership to get a quote to see how much it would cost to get it fixed. They wanted over a grand to fix the damn thing! So I rigged up a piece of metal so that the drip would hit that instead and would roll off and just fall to the ground instead of the exhaust. God forbid you have engine issues because nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to get near that engine. Awesome engine but way, way, way ahead of it's time and even to this day people still don't wanna mess with them. i'd say they're comparable to a rotary engine in that reguard. But you don't want a 3.2 SHO, unless your doing a 3.2 motor swap in a manual transmission SHO which is a popular swap.


I test drove a '94 3.2L a few days before I got my deVille, and although I never got to really open it up (damn :( ) I liked it, but not as much as the '93 deVille I drove earlier that day.lol.....talking about comparing apples to oranges. What did you like about the Deville over the SHO? The only thing I could think of would be the ride quality. But at the same time I never drove a 2nd gen SHO with the automatic so I dunno if maybe you had an issue with the tranny or something


Anyways, I hope they bring it back, and design it with the same philosophy they used in the 89-95 model: a bargain 5 Series.We can only hope!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-22-07, 09:55 PM
1992 was the first yesr for the second gen SHO and the last of the true SHO models IMO.
I've driven all 3 gen SHO's and I think they got progressively worse in the sporty feel department. The 1st gen's were all about performance. Once the 2nd gen rolled around that was the beginning of the end of the SHO. As soon as they offered an automatic they totally killed the whole point of the car. The 3rd gen was boring as hell to drive. Automatic only, interior and exterior looks were ugly especially that stupid pointless spoiler on the trunk. The only saving grace for the car was that the motor sounded nice at WOT.

I like the 2nd gen SHO (92-95) most because it seems like it's a lot like the 1st gen in the handling/performance category, except it was available with the auto, which I always liked more, plus, they had more luxury features than the 1st gen did, which is always a benefit to me. The 3rd gen SHO is something I'd never consider...ugly, not as fast, horrid interior, reliability problems, 3.4 V8 was never as quick or as respected as the 3.0 and 3.2, plus I've never seen a motor wedged into a car like a 3.4L Taurus.



And your dad was absolutely right. I had a oil leak with mine and it would drip right on top of the exhaust manifold and I would have smoke coming from under the hood. I went to the Ford dealership to get a quote to see how much it would cost to get it fixed. They wanted over a grand to fix the damn thing! God forbid you have engine issues because nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to get near that engine.

Kinda sounds like the Northstar, but worse! My coworker needed to order a head for his 3.2L....it took him months to find a place that stocked them, then another two weeks to get it shipped to his home! Not an easy motor to do anything with, plus, even the smallest engine was a PITA to work on under that hood. But I must say, from what my coworker's (Kirk) told me, the Yamaha engines were very reliable, and IMO, there hasn't been a better looking intake plenum ever made.



lol.....talking about comparing apples to oranges. What did you like about the Deville over the SHO? The only thing I could think of would be the ride quality. But at the same time I never drove a 2nd gen SHO with the automatic so I dunno if maybe you had an issue with the tranny or something


Well, I never floored the SHO, so the deVille seemed quicker to me, with much more torque, plus I liked the seats more, the smoother ride and overall feel. I'm sure if I got to drive the SHO more "enthusiastically", I would have liked it a lot more.

Blackout
03-22-07, 10:07 PM
Kinda sounds like the Northstar, but worse! My coworker needed to order a head for his 3.2L....it took him months to find a place that stocked them, then another two weeks to get it shipped to his home! Not an easy motor to do anything with, plus, even the smallest engine was a PITA to work on under that hood. But I must say, from what my coworker's (Kirk) told me, the Yamaha engines were very reliable, and IMO, there hasn't been a better looking intake plenum ever made.The motor was damn near bullet proof but on that occasion that something does go awry then it is quite the pain in the ass to get work done on. And I 100% agree with you about the intake. It's a work of art



Well, I never floored the SHO, so the deVille seemed quicker to me, with much more torque, plus I liked the seats more, the smoother ride and overall feel. I'm sure if I got to drive the SHO more "enthusiastically", I would have liked it a lot more.The Deville or the 4.9 for that matter had huge amounts of low end torque which made it feel much quicker off the line but it died once it got into the upper RPM's. And the best feature of all with the SHO is going from a stand still and going WOT. Once you hit 4000 rpm's that's when the show begins! Nothing sounded much better then hearing those secondaries open up at 4000 rpm. It still gives me chills thinking about it! But if you ever get the chance to drive an SHO make sure you get on it because any and all feelings you had for the Deville will be gone before you know it

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-22-07, 10:20 PM
The motor was damn near bullet proof but on that occasion that something does go awry then it is quite the pain in the ass to get work done on.

Again comparing apples to oranges (sorta), but that's a big advantage over the Northstar.



The Deville or the 4.9 for that matter had huge amounts of low end torque which made it feel much quicker off the line but it died once it got into the upper RPM's. And the best feature of all with the SHO is going from a stand still and going WOT. Once you hit 4000 rpm's that's when the show begins! Nothing sounded much better then hearing those secondaries open up at 4000 rpm. It still gives me chills thinking about it! But if you ever get the chance to drive an SHO make sure you get on it because any and all feelings you had for the Deville will be gone before you know it

Totally true about the 4.9, have you ever driven one? From what you say, the SHO's power curve sounds identical to the L37 Northstar...the fun begins at 4000 RPM and it's no holds barred! Have you driven both and if so, could you confirm if what I said holds any truth? I'll have to find another 2nd gen SHO with the 3.2 and test drive it quick, as I'm "in the market" and there's no time like that to look! Although, my neighbor scored a 48k mile Forest Green/Tan 3.2L SHO for $3800 from a Volvo dealer in Maine on Ebay motors...I'll try and persuade him into letting me drive it next time he's back from school...

Blackout
03-22-07, 10:39 PM
Totally true about the 4.9, have you ever driven one?I've driven one 4.9 and that was a 1992 Sedan Deville. I also owned a 1990 Sedan Deville with the 4.5 and they basically had the same power curve but the 4.9 definately had more power.


From what you say, the SHO's power curve sounds identical to the L37 Northstar...the fun begins at 4000 RPM and it's no holds barred! Have you driven both and if so, could you confirm if what I said holds any truth?I've driven both and I would say they have similar power curves but I think the Northstar definately pulled harder but at the same time I would hope so with two more cylinder and 1.6 more liters.


I'll have to find another 2nd gen SHO with the 3.2 and test drive it quick, as I'm "in the market" and there's no time like that to look! Although, my neighbor scored a 48k mile Forest Green/Tan 3.2L SHO for $3800 from a Volvo dealer in Maine on Ebay motors...I'll try and persuade him into letting me drive it next time he's back from school...If you can I would say to check out a manual SHO. It's more of a drivers car but if your really in the market for a automatic SHO then they are much more plentiful then the manuals.

thebigjimsho
03-22-07, 10:42 PM
Hmmm, get a new Mustang GT and get smoked by a Taurus?. Its like making the Impala faster than the Vette. No matter how fast it is, it will still be a Taurus which has a real crappy image. :eek:Until the late 90s, the SHO would beat all GTs.

As for the "new" SHO, the guy who runs jalopnik has a radio show on Sirius' MAXIM radio. They interviewed Ryan Pasch, a good friend of mine and the person who runs bringbackthesho.com. Personally, I'd rather see a Fusion SHO. But either way, I don't think they'll ever make the magic the early SHOs made. 220hp doesn't sound like much but the torque curve is straight as an arrow and it flies from 4,000 to 7,200 rpm.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-22-07, 10:48 PM
I've driven both and I would say they have similar power curves but I think the Northstar definately pulled harder but at the same time I would hope so with two more cylinder and 1.6 more liters.

Hmmm... so lets say we get a '94 3.2L SHO and a '94 STS and race 'em from a 60 mph roll, what'd win?



If you can I would say to check out a manual SHO. It's more of a drivers car but if your really in the market for a automatic SHO then they are much more plentiful then the manuals.

I can do stick shifts, but I'm not really comfortable with 'em, I'd feel much more confident behind the wheel of a 3.2L. Although I'm in the market for a car real soon, the SHO is not on my list because it's too old. I want something newer than '00...preferably atleast '02. But it gives me a good excuse to drive one!

And I always wondered, from a roll, a V6 SHO will outrun a more powerful L67 GTP or GS, even with the lack of power. Why?

Blackout
03-22-07, 11:02 PM
Hmmm... so lets say we get a '94 3.2L SHO and a '94 STS and race 'em from a 60 mph roll, what'd win? I dunno but I would probably say the STS.


And I always wondered, from a roll, a V6 SHO will outrun a more powerful L67 GTP or GS, even with the lack of power. Why?If it's a stick shift SHO then the SHO if it's an automatic then I'd say it would be a close race. Your losing a gear by having the auto and you would have to worry about getting the downshift and not it bogging down. I raced a guy in my old 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V from a dig and I had him through 1st and 2nd gear and then he started to pull on me once I hit third. I followed him to the 7-11 and turns out he had some mod's done but I don't remember so I'm not going to even bother trying to act like I do know. But when I told him my Spec V was stock he was shocked. The SHO is as fast as my Spec V if not faster so stock for stock I would think the SHO would beat a GTP or Regal GS without any problems from a dig or a roll. Racing from a roll with a car that has a blower isn't the best idea since blowers usually die in the upper rpm's (unless you have a 2003-04 Cobra and it just pulls no matter where the hell your at in the rpm's!)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-22-07, 11:21 PM
The SHO is as fast as my Spec V if not faster so stock for stock I would think the SHO would beat a GTP or Regal GS without any problems from a dig or a roll. Racing from a roll with a car that has a blower isn't the best idea since blowers usually die in the upper rpm's (unless you have a 2003-04 Cobra and it just pulls no matter where the hell your at in the rpm's!)

I think a GTP/GS would win from a stop, due to the L67's far vaster (is that even a word?) torque, but the DOHC motors naturally pull better at high RPM/ high speeds, and that would make it very close. I've heard there are mods for the L67 to increase the top end power, I think new rocker arms were part of it..

Destroyer
03-23-07, 01:27 AM
It could be faster then a Mustang GT (Hell the original one was also)
No it was not.

Jon
03-23-07, 02:21 AM
They will never make anything as sweet as the gen 2 SHO. I'm still trying to find a clean 94/95 with the manual.

Blackout
03-23-07, 10:22 AM
No it was not.Ummm.....yes it was

Florian
03-23-07, 10:41 AM
It's a photoshop from the website that is across the top of the windshield

Oh, ok...then its still ugly. I do hope they build it...


F

thebigjimsho
03-23-07, 04:03 PM
No it was not.If you're talking the early SHOs and the GTs of their time, the SHOs were faster. I repeatedly was beating a classmate in his '90 LX 4.9 with cams and exhaust. And I had a stock '92 at the time. The 4.9 had to be corrected in the hp rating because for years, Ford was overestimating engine power. So the 302 was rerated from 220hp to 205. Since Yamaha built the SHO engine, it was always correctly rated.

Destroyer
03-23-07, 05:42 PM
Ummm.....yes it wasNo, it was not. I raced them when they were new in my stock '88 GT and beat them all the time. :thepan:

thebigjimsho
03-23-07, 07:23 PM
No, it was not. I raced them when they were new in my stock '88 GT and beat them all the time. :thepan:If "all the time" means once against an 18 year old borrowing daddy's SHO and driving nervous, then yeah I believe you. LXs were having tough times against the SHO, nevermind the GT.

Destroyer
03-23-07, 07:41 PM
If "all the time" means once against an 18 year old borrowing daddy's SHO and driving nervous, then yeah I believe you. LXs were having tough times against the SHO, nevermind the GT.What?. This isn't worth getting all nuts about but the SHO was not a fast car. When new there were plenty of them around and I raced a few. It was overhyped, just like the SC Thunderbird was when it came out in '89. Owners kept saying those were faster than 5.0 Mustangs but they weren't. With regards to the GT vs. LX, again what are you talking about. There was not a big disadvantage to having the GT, it was a drivers race as the ground effects were the only difference. I was an avid racer in the late 80's and early 90's and owned many cars. When I had my stock Mustang, occassionaly I'd have a close race with a 5.7 Iroc/GTA/Formula/Vette and usually got beat by Grand Nationals. The Taurus was no threat. How much torque did the SHO Taurus have again?.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-23-07, 07:58 PM
From what I've heard, the stock V6 SHO's would lose to a stock 5.0 Mustang in the short run, but in the long run, the SHO would win because of the inherit top end power of the Yamaha V6, and the 302's specialty was low end.

Blackout
03-23-07, 08:43 PM
What?. This isn't worth getting all nuts about but the SHO was not a fast car. When new there were plenty of them around and I raced a few. It was overhyped, just like the SC Thunderbird was when it came out in '89. Owners kept saying those were faster than 5.0 Mustangs but they weren't. With regards to the GT vs. LX, again what are you talking about. There was not a big disadvantage to having the GT, it was a drivers race as the ground effects were the only difference. I was an avid racer in the late 80's and early 90's and owned many cars. When I had my stock Mustang, occassionaly I'd have a close race with a 5.7 Iroc/GTA/Formula/Vette and usually got beat by Grand Nationals. The Taurus was no threat. How much torque did the SHO Taurus have again?.When my SHO had just a K&N cone filter and a Flowmaster cat-back exhaust I raced my buddies Camaro IROC-Z with an exhaust and STS and we were next to each other the whole time until I hit 4th gear and started slowly creeping away. The SHO's are fast whether you want to admit it or not but for their time they would beat GT's. As for the power numbers for the SHO they were 220 hp and 222 tq

Destroyer
03-23-07, 09:10 PM
When my SHO had just a K&N cone filter and a Flowmaster cat-back exhaust I raced my buddies Camaro IROC-Z with an exhaust and STS and we were next to each other the whole time until I hit 4th gear and started slowly creeping away. The SHO's are fast whether you want to admit it or not but for their time they would beat GT's. As for the power numbers for the SHO they were 220 hp and 222 tqOh, you owned an SHO, that explains why you are so defensive. They were ok for what they were but your personal feelings for the car would not win a race. Putting my experience actually racing them on the streets aside, just look at the numbers. The 5.0 had 300 ft/lbs of torque and probably weighed less. Off the line I would absolutely destroy an SHO and on a roll it was a similar story. As for the Iroc Z race you had, was the Iroc a 305 or 350?. Either way the Irocs ran out of steam in the top end as did the TPI Vettes. As far as the STS goes I just cant see the Taurus pulling ahead @4rth gear over the Northstar. Car guys need cars to place on pedestals and more often than not these cars were faster in memory than reality.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-23-07, 09:21 PM
Actually, after looking at 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the 5.0 Mustangs and V6 SHOs, the Mustang is quite a bit quicker. Hmm. Odd. I guess it must be in speeds in excess of 90 where the SHO shines...

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

For example:
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 14.4 (Automobile, April 87)
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0 (MT Jan '88)
1989 Ford Mustang GT 5.0l Manual 6.2 14.8 (MT Jan '89)
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.4 14.9
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8

1989 Ford Taurus SHO 6.6 15.2
1991 Ford Taurus SHO 7.7 16.2 (odd, seems real slow)
1992 Ford Taurus SHO 7.5 15.4 (must be auto)

Now I know what you'll say about being a magazine racer, but these numbers must account for something.. I'm sure if we had 0-100 times and 0-125 times, the SHO would shine. And IIRC, the SHO had a higher top speed than the 5.0 Mustangs...something like 145 v. 125.

Blackout
03-23-07, 09:27 PM
1992 Ford Taurus SHO 7.5 15.4 (must be auto)1992's only came in manual. The automatic didn't come out until 1993.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-23-07, 09:32 PM
1992's only came in manual. The automatic didn't come out until 1993.


Ohh my bad! So lemme get this straight, '92 was the 1st year for the 2nd gen, and the last year it was only available with the clutch?


Blackout, you're pretty good with this stuff so I'll ask you: How does a 2nd gen 3.2L SHO compare with a GTP/GS in terms of ride/handling/power? From what you've said, and I've read in other places, the SHO seems more hard core, more of a driver's car, better, tighter handling. The GS/GTP don't seem as tight/sporty as the SHO does, but I'd assume they'd ride better (softer).

weister42
03-23-07, 10:04 PM
I love the Taurus and our family owns two of them(2000 w/Vortec and 1998), another one(1989) was my first car but that was just too much of a rust bucket but ran great. I hope they bring back the SHO because Taurus is a great daily car, and if Ford ever make them RWD it might just attract the tuner crowd. An used SHO is cheap too, fix the camshaft problem and you're set.


btw here's a 1990 SHO with a turbo that outruns a 2004 CTS-V all day long :eek:

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/sho/4/bdce5075-516c-4619-bdf8-c8021e1cd78c.htm

thebigjimsho
03-23-07, 11:03 PM
I love the Taurus and our family owns two of them(2000 w/Vortec and 1998), another one(1989) was my first car but that was just too much of a rust bucket but ran great. I hope they bring back the SHO because Taurus is a great daily car, and if Ford ever make them RWD it might just attract the tuner crowd. An used SHO is cheap too, fix the camshaft problem and you're set.


btw here's a 1990 SHO with a turbo that outruns a 2004 CTS-V all day long :eek:

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/sho/4/bdce5075-516c-4619-bdf8-c8021e1cd78c.htm
Damn it! Put that away!! There are few SHOs that can put out the power that turbo can. He has 50 more hp and a lot less weight. I was on a cross country trip when we stopped to visit. With 3 people and a months worth of luggage I was up around 4600 lbs. That empty SHO with 2 people was around 3500 lbs.

thebigjimsho
03-23-07, 11:08 PM
Actually, after looking at 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the 5.0 Mustangs and V6 SHOs, the Mustang is quite a bit quicker. Hmm. Odd. I guess it must be in speeds in excess of 90 where the SHO shines...

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

For example:
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 14.4 (Automobile, April 87)
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0 (MT Jan '88)
1989 Ford Mustang GT 5.0l Manual 6.2 14.8 (MT Jan '89)
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.4 14.9
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8

1989 Ford Taurus SHO 6.6 15.2
1991 Ford Taurus SHO 7.7 16.2 (odd, seems real slow)
1992 Ford Taurus SHO 7.5 15.4 (must be auto)

Now I know what you'll say about being a magazine racer, but these numbers must account for something.. I'm sure if we had 0-100 times and 0-125 times, the SHO would shine. And IIRC, the SHO had a higher top speed than the 5.0 Mustangs...something like 145 v. 125.C&D was repeatedly getting 6 seconds flat 0-60 in 1991 and 1992. A healthy MTX SHO with good driver(FWD is a bitch) can get high 14s. And the SHO DESTROYS those earlier Mustangs once rolling.

Personal experience in my stock '92 against a '90 LX 4.9, from 80-135 I put about 10 lengths on him.

thebigjimsho
03-23-07, 11:14 PM
What?. This isn't worth getting all nuts about but the SHO was not a fast car. When new there were plenty of them around and I raced a few. It was overhyped, just like the SC Thunderbird was when it came out in '89. Owners kept saying those were faster than 5.0 Mustangs but they weren't. With regards to the GT vs. LX, again what are you talking about. There was not a big disadvantage to having the GT, it was a drivers race as the ground effects were the only difference. I was an avid racer in the late 80's and early 90's and owned many cars. When I had my stock Mustang, occassionaly I'd have a close race with a 5.7 Iroc/GTA/Formula/Vette and usually got beat by Grand Nationals. The Taurus was no threat. How much torque did the SHO Taurus have again?.Your revisionist history is spotty. The SHO was nowhere near overhyped. Ford's problem was noone knew what the SHO was. Most people found out what it could do by accident. Even now, most people have never heard of it.

Ground effects can be a huge detriment at speed. Nevermind that an LX notchback was a good couple hundred lbs lighter than a GT.

And I guess a dyno sheet reader never does understand what a straight, tall torque curve can do. High RPM and proper gearing can make up for a lot.

thebigjimsho
03-23-07, 11:22 PM
I was an avid racer in the late 80's and early 90's and owned many cars.
So, when did you get your license, 1987? Yeah, I was an avid racer when I was 16, too. I was flippin' Mario Andretti's illegitamate son. I was 10 feet tall and bulletproof.

Glad to see you're so avid and owned so many cars.

Blackout
03-23-07, 11:30 PM
Ohh my bad! So lemme get this straight, '92 was the 1st year for the 2nd gen, and the last year it was only available with the clutch?Yup. That's why I said earlier that IMO the 1992 SHO was the last true SHO. It went down hill from there


Blackout, you're pretty good with this stuff so I'll ask you: How does a 2nd gen 3.2L SHO compare with a GTP/GS in terms of ride/handling/power? From what you've said, and I've read in other places, the SHO seems more hard core, more of a driver's car, better, tighter handling. The GS/GTP don't seem as tight/sporty as the SHO does, but I'd assume they'd ride better (softer).Like I said earlier I never drove a 3.2 SHO but I'm assuming that other then the bigger engine and it being an auto that everything else with the car is the same so saying that the SHO would destroy a Regal GS or GTP in the twisties. The only thing that the GTP/GS have over the SHO is the ability to make cheap horsepower with doing a pulley swap. But a friend of mine back in high school picked up a 1999 GTP about a month after I got rid of my SHO and got my Spec V. It would have been interesting to race him but I'm sure I would have beaten him pretty good. The biggest disappointment with the SHO's at this point as like thebigjimsho stated that nobody really knows about them and people would pick them up (used) and treat it as if it were any other Taurus and just beat the dog piss out of them. I've seen more ratty SHO's than I care to even remember because it's one of those cars that is a hell of a vehicle but it never truly got the recognition it deserved. Another one I'd have to toss in there would have to be the Dodge Spirit R/T but that was more of a straight line car versus the SHO being great in both performance and handling as well

weister42
03-24-07, 12:12 AM
I've seen more ratty SHO's than I care to even remember because it's one of those cars that is a hell of a vehicle but it never truly got the recognition it deserved.

Kinda like all the FWD N* powered big body sedan like ours? I mean talk about the non-existent off-the-shelf aftermarket support...

Destroyer
03-24-07, 01:23 AM
So, when did you get your license, 1987? Yeah, I was an avid racer when I was 16, too. I was flippin' Mario Andretti's illegitamate son. I was 10 feet tall and bulletproof.

Glad to see you're so avid and owned so many cars.I was driving with my permit at 15 and had my license at 16. I too felt like I was 10 ft tall and bulletproof which is probably why I did a lot of racing. By the time I was 20 my Mustang was running 12.0 in the 1/4 mile and had been through at leat half a dozen T5's and on its 2nd motor with mods (finally got those pesky Grand Nationals). I ran in the Mustang vs GN shootouts at Englishtown NJ and most of my friends were racers. All that on a busboy's salary (which wasn't bad actually). Everytime I ran across a cool old car like my '73 Challenger 340, '67 Mustang fastback, '68 tbird I made an offer and bought them (cheap). My very first car was a '78 Monte Carlo with a '70 LT1 that ran low 13's. I'd race at Heampstead Turnpike in NY every night. Hope you had fun with Mrs. Andretti. :thumbsup:

thebigjimsho
03-24-07, 01:47 AM
I was driving with my permit at 15 and had my license at 16. I too felt like I was 10 ft tall and bulletproof which is probably why I did a lot of racing. By the time I was 20 my Mustang was running 12.0 in the 1/4 mile and had been through at leat half a dozen T5's and on its 2nd motor with mods (finally got those pesky Grand Nationals). I ran in the Mustang vs GN shootouts at Englishtown NJ and most of my friends were racers. All that on a busboy's salary (which wasn't bad actually). Everytime I ran across a cool old car like my '73 Challenger 340, '67 Mustang fastback, '68 tbird I made an offer and bought them (cheap). My very first car was a '78 Monte Carlo with a '70 LT1 that ran low 13's. I'd race at Heampstead Turnpike in NY every night. Hope you had fun with Mrs. Andretti. :thumbsup:Good stuff. Like you, I was getting my ears wet. At 20 I bought my SHO and have raced it on a number of road courses such as Road Atlanta, Mid-Ohio and Lime Rock. Even though it was a larger, FWD car, its suspension could be heavily modded. I started autocrossing it right away. By the time I sold it in 2003, after 10 years, it had been thoroughly massaged with Eibachs and Konis, proper sway bars to get a titch of oversteer, wider wheels and slicks, subframe connectors, front and rear strut tower braces and a Quaife LSD. On tighter auto-X courses, I was eating Cobras, Vipers, M3s, Boxsters, etc...

And since beating 80s and early 90s Mustangs were getting old, a Powerdyne added some fun...:bouncy:

thebigjimsho
03-24-07, 01:52 AM
As for being 10 feet tall and bulletproof, I once jumped a bridge that crossed railroad tracks. It had a steep approach angle and was probably 50ft across the top. I hit that bridge at 82mph in my 1980 Chevy Citation. Since the road leaving the bridge was going downhill, I was lucky enough to come down on all 4 tires on the decline.

To this day I can't believe I was THAT dumb...:thepan:

AlBundy
03-24-07, 05:00 PM
Forrest Gump
Quote: Stupid is as Stupid does...:histeric:

Jonas McFeely
03-26-07, 09:34 AM
Always loved the SHO.Something about it.I'd love to have one.

Blackout
03-26-07, 12:48 PM
Always loved the SHO.Something about it.I'd love to have one.These are what sold me on my SHO
http://www.cartunes.com/installs/ford/1990SHO/images/engine.jpg

and my oxford white SHO+

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Taurus-SHO-2.jpg/250px-Taurus-SHO-2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Taurus-SHO-1.jpg/250px-Taurus-SHO-1.jpg

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-26-07, 02:28 PM
What is that? Like a '90? '91?

Blackout
03-26-07, 05:31 PM
What is that? Like a '90? '91?
It's a limited edition that came out in 1991. I was one of 3076 people to own a oxford white SHO+

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-26-07, 05:46 PM
Nice! Was '91 the first year for those "slicer" wheels or are those of a later model car?

Jon
03-26-07, 05:50 PM
Nice! Was '91 the first year for those "slicer" wheels or are those of a later model car?
Not sure if they came out in '91, but I know you could get them on first gen SHOs. I'm pretty sure the slicers debuted in '91, but I could be wrong.

Blackout
03-26-07, 06:18 PM
Nice! Was '91 the first year for those "slicer" wheels or are those of a later model car?They were the first SHO's to come with the slicer wheels which later became the standard wheel for the SHO's. These are the features the SHO+ came with compared to a normal SHO.

The package was cosmetic only and consisted of :

* Plastic hood with a "power bulge" in the middle area. Not highly visible from outside, but really noticable on the inside. If a fridge magnet sticks to your hood, you don't have the Plus hood. Note that due to the plastic hood, the brass metal ground

* device on most SHO's had to be replaced with a ground strap that connected to the metal foil backing of the hood pad (not needed on the steel hood) and attached to the same spot as the metal spring ground device. All black mirrors instead of body color top insert.
* Black B and C pillars. These were covered with a black vinyl tape.
* Line in the body cladding around the lower portion was body colored not black.
* Taurus emblem on the trunk lid was body color instead of chrome.
* 24 V DOHC badges on the front fenders behind the wheels, between the accent line and body cladding.
* SOME plus's got a subtle plastic spoiler on the trunk very similar to the factory ones on 93/95 models except it did NOT have a CHMSL (Center High Mounted Stop Light) - that was still on the package tray. This spoiler was in short supply when the package was released and thus did not get on all of them.
* White SHO plus packages got white wheels, all other plus's/SHO's got silver wheels.
* Some regular SHO's in 90 and 91 somehow got the plastic hood, and several 89/91 regular SHO's have it now like my 89 since I ordered the hood from my local dealers parts department. I doubt if you can still get them.
* There was a dark green color in 91 that was only available with the plus package.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-26-07, 06:37 PM
Wow, I just looked at my '91 SHO brochure, and it has a picture of your exact car on the back cover, SHO with the plus package in oxford white.

Blackout
03-26-07, 08:09 PM
Wow, I just looked at my '91 SHO brochure, and it has a picture of your exact car on the back cover, SHO with the plus package in oxford white.It was such a hot looking car! As soon as I saw it I was in love!