: Saw a new SHO yesterday and got to see what they were all about



Blackout
06-13-09, 12:50 PM
I got my haircut after work yesterday and as I was pulling out of the parking lot a new Taurus went by and I thought it was a nice looking car because I have yet to see one of the new Taurus' in person. But as it went by I kept my eyes on the back of the car to see the SHO nameplate with the Ecoboost logo under it. So I took off after him and he pulled onto Route 130 in Hamilton and it's two lanes. So I came flying up next to him and there were two guys in the car with Michigan plates on it and the car was a green color similar to the green color available on the Mustang. But I got next to them and then hit it and this bitch went flying by me like I was standing still. I got it up too 110 mph and he was still pulling away. I'm now officially on board with looking at this car once it comes out. With it weighing less then the Lincoln MKS and having a higher output version of the 3.5 Ecoboost engine and the MKS running 13.9's stock I'd have to say that this is a 13.5 car at least. It has a very good sleeper effect too it but at the same time I have yet to see a non SHO Taurus yet so I can't tell what kinda cosmetic differences there are between them but it had a nice look too it but it didn't scream "performance car" but it wasn't bland by any stretch of the imagination. The one part of the car I didn't like in the pictures was the back end of it but it looks much nicer in person. When the hell are these things coming out anyways? I'm thinking that it may have been either Autoblog or Jalopnik since both of them are based out of NJ and they have been talking about test driving the SHO on their sites for awhile now. But I can't wait to see what this thing will do with just a nice tune on it. I'm thinking high 12's

Jesda
06-13-09, 03:26 PM
Most importantly: It doesn't look like a dumpy MKS.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-13-09, 06:19 PM
Ford is finally building some of the best cars in their respective categories. The Taurus is looking to be another class leader, especially in SHO guise.

Playdrv4me
06-14-09, 12:32 AM
Cliffs?

caddycruiser
06-14-09, 11:22 AM
Even without yet seeing let alone touching one in person, I'm a HUGE fan of the new Taurus. The last/current gen, albeit stinky from a design perspective, was a great example of modern Ford quality and refinement, so take those excellent bones and running gear and make a car with an exterior and interior as well done as the new Taurus, let alone with the new drivetrain touches, and hopefully it's a winner.

The regular '10 Taurus's have started shipping to dealers and this news article of one at a dealer had a few great pics:

http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/2009/06/05/frisco_enterprise/news/417.txt

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii192/jpd80/BlackTaurus.jpg

There's nothing that can compete with this and the total package, really, at all. The Impala right now would be about the furthest from it, in the worst of every way.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-14-09, 11:25 AM
Take that, Nissan Maxima!

caddycruiser
06-14-09, 11:48 AM
And now a driving review of the SHO:

http://www.esquire.com/features/cars/2010-ford-taurus-SHO-0709

I like new Ford stuff so much, it's highly likely one in some form will be a replacement or additional car for me some day. The "polish" throughout is the best part, and then backed up with quality that really stands up. I like how things have been turned around properly in the past few years, and hope the new GM can pull the same. Maybe we'll get an Impala with cred to go against this car, someday.

Rodya234
06-14-09, 12:07 PM
or maybe we'll get a G8 renamed "Impala SS"

caddycruiser
06-14-09, 02:16 PM
or maybe we'll get a G8 renamed "Impala SS"

If only, but highly unlikely if not definitely a no. It's an absolutely killer car, and still relatively fresh into it's lifespan down under and here, but they just don't want to take it and put it elsewhere with another new nose. Shame, because actually if Pontiac hadn't been cut, one plan was to actually start making it over here on the same line as the Camaro in Canada.

There's to be a mid lifespan refresh of the Holden VE cars very soon, and if it just got the typical light detail refreshes and potentially a new or much updated interior, along with the DI V6 powerplants that are already confirmed (like the CTS and Camaro), it could be a very useful car elsewhere. But, you know. The VE/Commodore/G8 is one of those cars that aces most all of the marks at once, from price, to platform solidity and refinement, to massive interior space, to a range of powerplants actually with nice fuel economy numbers, etc., etc. Keep it updated with the DI V6's, a more refined interior, etc., etc., and the pricing the same or better, and it'd compete nicely and offer something unique against the Taurus.

Again, this Taurus is clearly extremely well done, and from the already powerful and very efficient regular 3.5L to the Turbo variety, to the 6-speed to available AWD, to build quality and refinement that really is better than just about anything it might compete with, what a nice package. I hope it's a great success.

thebigjimsho
06-14-09, 05:03 PM
I got my haircut after work yesterday and as I was pulling out of the parking lot a new Taurus went by and I thought it was a nice looking car because I have yet to see one of the new Taurus' in person. But as it went by I kept my eyes on the back of the car to see the SHO nameplate with the Ecoboost logo under it. So I took off after him and he pulled onto Route 130 in Hamilton and it's two lanes. So I came flying up next to him and there were two guys in the car with Michigan plates on it and the car was a green color similar to the green color available on the Mustang. But I got next to them and then hit it and this bitch went flying by me like I was standing still. I got it up too 110 mph and he was still pulling away. I'm now officially on board with looking at this car once it comes out. With it weighing less then the Lincoln MKS and having a higher output version of the 3.5 Ecoboost engine and the MKS running 13.9's stock I'd have to say that this is a 13.5 car at least. It has a very good sleeper effect too it but at the same time I have yet to see a non SHO Taurus yet so I can't tell what kinda cosmetic differences there are between them but it had a nice look too it but it didn't scream "performance car" but it wasn't bland by any stretch of the imagination. The one part of the car I didn't like in the pictures was the back end of it but it looks much nicer in person. When the hell are these things coming out anyways? I'm thinking that it may have been either Autoblog or Jalopnik since both of them are based out of NJ and they have been talking about test driving the SHO on their sites for awhile now. But I can't wait to see what this thing will do with just a nice tune on it. I'm thinking high 12's
The National SHO Convention is going to be the last week of July in Nashua, NH. The new SHO is suppose to go on sale just before or just after that event. But if anyone wants to come see it, Ford will have at least one there...

Playdrv4me
06-14-09, 07:20 PM
The SHO looks ALOT better than the MKS, but man I wish we could get away from this Tall Ass syndrome on modern cars. I don't know if it's a safety thing, or some designers wet dream or what but I was standing next to an MKS on display at the mall today and the decklid was nearly up to my chest. Ruins the entire proportional beauty of car design.

Fortunately, the Taurus manages to do its best to pull this design trend off.

I must say however, after reviewing the window sticker on the MKS, I can see why there are so many of them littering the roads already. A FULLY loaded to the GILLS MKS with EVERY factory option including the curiously optional "wood door panel" package (a HUGE swath of wood), is $46,770. With dealer discounts and rebating that could realistically be a 38k out the door vehicle with everything from heated and cooled seats to adaptive cruise control. Once it gets the eco-boost it should be on a more even keel with the CTS, despite being a FWD architecture. It will never touch the CTS sales-wise, but it will be worth looking at.

Blackout
06-14-09, 09:43 PM
We shall see. Some people prefer FWD to RWD just because they're crappy drivers but if I was in the market the CTS would be more up my alley just because of the RWD. But the MKS with the Ecoboost doesn't need to worry about that since its AWD

Destroyer
06-15-09, 12:29 AM
Wow, I just did not see this coming............ a Taurus I like!

Blackout
06-15-09, 06:50 AM
Some pics of the dyno graph provided by Ford and some pics of the car

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg129/illegalmachine3/2010_Ford_Taurus_SHO_EcoBoost_Power.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/016_2010taurussho.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/036_2010taurussho.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/039_2010taurussho.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/046_2010taurussho.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/045_2010taurussho.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/047_2010taurussho.jpg

Rodya234
06-15-09, 08:15 AM
We shall see. Some people prefer FWD to RWD just because they're crappy drivers

The best drivers don't have a bias towards any drivetrain. :thumbsup:

Submariner409
06-15-09, 10:32 AM
You'll notice that it also runs 5W-20 lube oil - like most other Ford car and light truck engines.

CIWS
06-15-09, 12:27 PM
But I got next to them and then hit it and this bitch went flying by me like I was standing still. I got it up too 110 mph and he was still pulling away.

Too bad you weren't driving a Hyundai Genesis, you could have given him a run for his money. :yup:

Blackout
06-15-09, 01:35 PM
Too bad you weren't driving a Hyundai Genesis, you could have given him a run for his money. :yup:

Huh? The V6 Genesis coupe is the same in the 1/4 as my FWB, but at the most maybe a tenth or two quicker. You would need a Genesis V8 swap into the coupe and then supporting mods to maybe keep up with the SHO.

The Tony Show
06-15-09, 01:45 PM
I like everything about that interior except the horrible "T" handle shifter- it looks so out of place and ugly.

CIWS
06-15-09, 03:19 PM
Huh? The V6 Genesis coupe is the same in the 1/4 as my FWB, but at the most maybe a tenth or two quicker. You would need a Genesis V8 swap into the coupe and then supporting mods to maybe keep up with the SHO.


Let's see the Taurus is a sedan, so it only seems fitting I would use the Hyundai Genesis sedan for the reference, not the coupe. I don't remember mentioning the coupe in the post. :)


Taurus = 365 HP at roughly 4000lbs of weight.

Genesis = 375 HP at roughly 3900lbs of weight.

Pretty even match. Even though the Genesis is getting slightly better gas mileage with its N/A V8 over the twin turbo "ecoboosted" 6 cyl.

Blackout
06-15-09, 04:44 PM
Let's see the Taurus is a sedan, so it only seems fitting I would use the Hyundai Genesis sedan for the reference, not the coupe. I don't remember mentioning the coupe in the post. :)Understandable but either way there are tow different variants of the Genesis so it would be like just saying a Dodge Ram. Which version?



Taurus = 365 HP at roughly 4000lbs of weight.

Genesis = 375 HP at roughly 3900lbs of weight.

Pretty even match. Even though the Genesis is getting slightly better gas mileage with its N/A V8 over the twin turbo "ecoboosted" 6 cyl.It should be pretty good but the SHO will blow the Genesis away. The Genesis isn't marketed as a performance vehicle so the whole package isn't performance oriented like the SHO is. As for the gas mileage the numbers for the SHO are projected. The official EPA numbers aren't available yet. The MKS with the Ecoboost sports the same fuel mileage numbers as the 4.6 Genesis so with the SHO weighing less it's numbers should at least match those.

CIWS
06-15-09, 05:03 PM
It should be pretty good but the SHO will blow the Genesis away.

It very well could beat it, but blow it away ? I doubt it with the numbers being that close. Like my original statement said, if you were driving one you'd give him a run for his money, nothing more.

Edit- Looks like an owner pulled a 14.0 at the track with a stock Genesis back last Sept. That should give some idea where it would end up.

Blackout
06-15-09, 05:13 PM
Well the heavier less powerful MKS runs 13.9's. So like I said expect 13.5's or possibly faster with the SHO
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/22/drag-racing-with-ecoboost-at-milan-dragway-w-video/

Mark0101
06-15-09, 06:00 PM
I must say however, after reviewing the window sticker on the MKS, I can see why there are so many of them littering the roads already. A FULLY loaded to the GILLS MKS with EVERY factory option including the curiously optional "wood door panel" package (a HUGE swath of wood), is $46,770. With dealer discounts and rebating that could realistically be a 38k out the door vehicle with everything from heated and cooled seats to adaptive cruise control. Once it gets the eco-boost it should be on a more even keel with the CTS, despite being a FWD architecture. It will never touch the CTS sales-wise, but it will be worth looking at.
MKZ is the CTS competitor. The MKS competes with the STS more then the CTS and IMO, MKS beats the STS by miles.

thebigjimsho
06-15-09, 06:12 PM
MKZ is the CTS competitor. The MKS competes with the STS more then the CTS and IMO, MKS beats the STS by miles.
And it's only 5 years newer a design...

thebigjimsho
06-15-09, 06:14 PM
Understandable but either way there are tow different variants of the Genesis so it would be like just saying a Dodge Ram. Which version?


It should be pretty good but the SHO will blow the Genesis away. The Genesis isn't marketed as a performance vehicle so the whole package isn't performance oriented like the SHO is. As for the gas mileage the numbers for the SHO are projected. The official EPA numbers aren't available yet. The MKS with the Ecoboost sports the same fuel mileage numbers as the 4.6 Genesis so with the SHO weighing less it's numbers should at least match those.The SHO, being AWD, is going to tip the scales at about 4300lbs...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-15-09, 07:07 PM
Jesus that's hefty. I used to think the ol' S-Class was heavy at 4500, but I guess not anymore..

Blackout
06-15-09, 07:38 PM
The SHO, being AWD, is going to tip the scales at about 4300lbs...

I doubt that. The MKS weighs in at like 4200 lbs. I can't imagine their sport sedan is going to weigh more then the luxury variant of it. If it does then that's ashame but either way better gearing makes a lot of difference seeing that they're saying 0-60 times for the MKS are 6.0 seconds

Mark0101
06-15-09, 07:51 PM
And it's only 5 years newer a design...
Huh??
Last time I checked, MKS is only a 1 year newer style then the STS

Playdrv4me
06-15-09, 08:49 PM
I assure you no one is cross-shopping the MKZ with the CTS LMAO. Seriously, the MKZ is a JOKE. It's the kind of car that will make a great "$6995" used car buy LATER, but as usual with Lincoln's NEW cross-plaformed vehicle offerings, they play one segment beneath their "intended" segment. Realistically, the MKS -IS- going to be cross shopped with the similarly powered and similarly optioned CTS, even the SIZES aren't so far off anymore. The MKZ doesn't offer HALF the amenities the CTS does, doesn't LOOK anywhere near as upscale, and let's not even talk about power. As such, looking at the sticker prices of both the CTS and the MKS I assure you... the MKS WILL be cross shopped with the CTS. Their loaded up sticker prices are nearly DEAD even for similar content.

Also, just as Jim said... STS is now a 5 year old (debuted in 2004 as an '05 model) car with no current replacement in the immediate pipeline. When/if a replacement DOES come along, it's going to be moving further upscale and unified with the next DTS. Cadillac knew what they were doing with the new CTS' market position in preparation for all this.

Sadly, that silly MKZ does a TOTAL dis-service to the Lincoln LS that came before it... a vehicle left to languish and killed before its time.

Rodya234
06-15-09, 09:04 PM
Huh??
Last time I checked, MKS is only a 1 year newer style then the STS

The MKS began production for the 2008 model year. There was an MKS concept in 2006, but no production car till '08.


As for the SHO vs. Genesis, gearing is going to be a HUGE factor in that duel. I suspect the SHO will be able to blow out the Genesis just because of gearing.

thebigjimsho
06-15-09, 11:07 PM
Huh??
Last time I checked, MKS is only a 1 year newer style then the STS
Give me some of what you've been smokin'...

Mark0101
06-16-09, 01:03 AM
I assure you no one is cross-shopping the MKZ with the CTS LMAO. Seriously, the MKZ is a JOKE. It's the kind of car that will make a great "$6995" used car buy LATER, but as usual with Lincoln's NEW cross-plaformed vehicle offerings, they play one segment beneath their "intended" segment. Realistically, the MKS -IS- going to be cross shopped with the similarly powered and similarly optioned CTS, even the SIZES aren't so far off anymore. The MKZ doesn't offer HALF the amenities the CTS does, doesn't LOOK anywhere near as upscale, and let's not even talk about power. As such, looking at the sticker prices of both the CTS and the MKS I assure you... the MKS WILL be cross shopped with the CTS. Their loaded up sticker prices are nearly DEAD even for similar content.

Also, just as Jim said... STS is now a 5 year old (debuted in 2004 as an '05 model) car with no current replacement in the immediate pipeline. When/if a replacement DOES come along, it's going to be moving further upscale and unified with the next DTS. Cadillac knew what they were doing with the new CTS' market position in preparation for all this.

Sadly, that silly MKZ does a TOTAL dis-service to the Lincoln LS that came before it... a vehicle left to languish and killed before its time.

While I do agree that the CTS is definitely a lot better in looks then the MKZ, but the MKZ does offer as much amenities as the CTS and some which are not found in the CTS. The only thing the CTS offers more is the 40 GB vs 10 GB for the MKZ and the ultra sunroof thing. I would like to know the other half you’re talking about. People do look at the other possibilities, and they will be looking at the Lincoln MKZ. While it might not be a better product, it will still be considered.

While the prices for the CTS might be about the same with the MKS, they are in a different category. CTS is MUCH smaller car then the MKS. IMO, MKS is not going to draw many people from the CTS crowd as they are looking for sportiness, fun to drive car. MKS is a cruiser for the long drives with comfort in mind. The Ecoboost engine and all the other bells and whistles are there like in any other luxury car. Yes it might be fast and all but that is just there for that moment where you wanna beat a cocky driver on a stop light. That is why I believe that the STS or the DTS (NOT the CTS) are the only Cadillac's that are in the same category and price range. (MKS being the better product then both)


Give me some of what you've been smokin'...

Have you guys forgot that the STS was updated in 2008???? That is what I was saying. The car is not a 5-year-old model, it did receive an update which does not make it 5 years old. so in theory the MKS is one year ahead of the STS "new" design.

Jesda
06-16-09, 01:42 AM
Have you guys forgot that the STS was updated in 2008???? That is what I was saying. The car is not a 5-year-old model, it did receive an update which does not make it 5 years old. so in theory the MKS is one year ahead of the STS "new" design.

http://smiliesftw.com/x/ThisFkGuy.gif

Playdrv4me
06-16-09, 01:47 AM
CTS is MUCH smaller car then the MKS.

I suppose you're going to tell me you were comparing the 2007 CTS?

Specifications Comparison
Lincoln MKS vs. Cadillac CTS
Model Year 2009 2009
Model MKS CTS
Body 4dr Sedan 4dr Sedan
Wheelbase 112.9 113.4 <======== LULZ
Length 204.1 191.6
Width 75.9 72.5
Height 61.6 58.0
Curb Weight 4276 4001
Fuel Capacity 19.0 17.0
R1 Headroom 37.9 38.8 <========= MOAR LULZ
R1 Shoulder Room 58.6 56.6
R1 Hip Room 55.3 55.1
R1 Legroom 41.9 42.4
R2 Headroom 38.6 37.2
R2 Shoulder Room 57.4 56.2
R2 Hip Room 55.3 54.1
R2 Legroom 38.6 35.9
Cargo Volume 18.4 13.6

So what we have here is a car with more exterior bloat, that doesn't translate to much usable space inside unless you have a trunk fetish.

I should note that the chart above came straight from one of MANY pages where the MKS and CTS were SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY being compared. I don't think a few cubes of trunk space and a couple inches here and there are QUITE enough to qualify as "Much".

And the obligatory Youtube video for good measure:

GAueDbcdLUk

My case... it has been rested.

Rodya234
06-16-09, 02:07 AM
I can't see the MKS winning in that review in any way possible, considering that's a CTS-V. :drool:

Mark0101
06-16-09, 02:09 AM
go sit in both, you will see.

Playdrv4me
06-16-09, 02:16 AM
I can't see the MKS winning in that review in any way possible, considering that's a CTS-V. :drool:

Yea I thought that was odd, but I figure these are the demonstrators each manufacturer provided. Unfortunately that wasn't an accurate representation of a base suspension equipped CTS which has a much smoother ride. I didn't feel the CTS review was TOO heavily weighted on its performance aspects but really both of the guys were pretty dopey and not real accurate. Still, the gist gets across.

hueterm
06-16-09, 09:05 AM
Huh??
Last time I checked, MKS is only a 1 year newer style then the STS


The '08 changes were a refresh at best -- a new clip, fender ports, and a tweaked interior really don't qualify as a redesign.

Not that I don't really like the '08 -- I think it looks as good or better than the CTS...

MauiV
06-16-09, 01:19 PM
I have looked at a couple MKS on various lots and I just cant get past the sheers size of that monster and it sits entirely to high with an ass end that is higher than a Challenger, and that is saying something. I am still upset Ford cancelled a car as beautiful as the LS and builds shit as ugly as this.

CTS-V or MKS econoboost? Not even a fuggin debate and I get Fords on A-Plan pricing and dont own one.

The Tony Show
06-16-09, 02:06 PM
The MKZ sells very well as a cheaper alternative to the CTS for people who couldn't care less about performance or RWD.

Blackout
06-16-09, 03:01 PM
CTS-V or MKS econoboost? Not even a fuggin debate and I get Fords on A-Plan pricing and dont own one.Well it's been about an hour since you've said that last so you were due

thebigjimsho
06-16-09, 03:06 PM
go sit in both, you will see.
I have. The MKS was surprisingly not large in the back seat. The CTS has a roomier back seat than the 1st Gen. And that 1st Gen was pretty decent.





























Oh, hey! The Focus got a new chin spoiler! It's all new for this year...:cookoo:

Lord Cadillac
06-16-09, 03:22 PM
Ford is really hitting 'em out of the park lately. Regardless of what people think about Lincoln's new look - Cadillac certainly needs to watch them carefully.

Lord Cadillac
06-16-09, 03:27 PM
...and in regards to the SHO blowing the Genesis out of the water in a race - not gonna happen. It'll beat it - but it certainly won't embarrass it.

Blackout
06-16-09, 06:08 PM
...and in regards to the SHO blowing the Genesis out of the water in a race - not gonna happen. It'll beat it - but it certainly won't embarrass it.

It will and it will. But either like I said the Genesis sedan isn't marketed as a performance vehicle like the SHO. I'm sure you could mod up a Genesis pretty damn good but the SHO should eat up and spit out a Genesis with little to worry about. a half a second or more in the 1/4 is a decent sized gap especially once you start getting into the 13 second range. But the difference with the Genesis and the SHO is that the SHO will be able to do it in any and all conditions because of it's AWD setup

Jesda
06-17-09, 03:19 AM
Genesis V8 sedan does 0-60 in about 5.5s. Thats nothing amazing for a full size car with 375hp. The 2003 Infiniti M45 ran 0-60 in 5.7s with 320hp.

The SHO will spank the Genesis, because its primary task is moving quickly.

AMGoff
06-17-09, 01:40 PM
Will the SHO prove to be a little bit faster than the Genesis? Probably... Will it "spank" it? I can't see how whatsoever... They're virtually matched in terms of power with the Genesis getting the edge in HP and the SHO getting the edge in torque. However, I can't see how the SHO is going to weigh dramatically less than than the AWD MKS Sport... Which means its going to probably weigh in around the 4300lbs mark, or - 300lbs more than the Genesis.

So as others have already said... it'll will most likely come down to gearing. Here's how the Genesis is geared:

First - 3.52
Second - 2.04
Third - 1.40
Fourth - 1.00
Fifth - 0.72
Sixth - 0.59
Final Drive - 3.90

And the SHO:
First - 4.48
Second - 2.87
Third - 1.84
Fourth - 1.41
Fifth - 1.00
Sixth - 0.74
Final Drive (without optional Performance package "Sport" mode) - 2.77 (Same as MKS Sport)
Final Drive (with option Perf package "Sport" mode) - 3.16

So... Draw your own conclusions...

Lord Cadillac
06-17-09, 10:53 PM
Will the SHO prove to be a little bit faster than the Genesis? Probably... Will it "spank" it? I can't see how whatsoever... They're virtually matched in terms of power with the Genesis getting the edge in HP and the SHO getting the edge in torque. However, I can't see how the SHO is going to weigh dramatically less than than the AWD MKS Sport... Which means its going to probably weigh in around the 4300lbs mark, or - 300lbs more than the Genesis.

So as others have already said... it'll will most likely come down to gearing. Here's how the Genesis is geared:

First - 3.52
Second - 2.04
Third - 1.40
Fourth - 1.00
Fifth - 0.72
Sixth - 0.59
Final Drive - 3.90

And the SHO:
First - 4.48
Second - 2.87
Third - 1.84
Fourth - 1.41
Fifth - 1.00
Sixth - 0.74
Final Drive (without optional Performance package "Sport" mode) - 2.77 (Same as MKS Sport)
Final Drive (with option Perf package "Sport" mode) - 3.16

So... Draw your own conclusions...
Don't waste your breath.

Jesda
06-18-09, 11:06 AM
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/06/il-track-tested-2010-ford-taurus-sho-vs-pontiac-g8-gt.html?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..2.*

THE SHO IS A LETDOWN.

The Tony Show
06-18-09, 11:17 AM
$45,000 for the SHO- without the sport package? Yowzers.

There's a whole ton of cars out there that will give you similar acceleration and a lot more luxury and handling than the SHO for that kind of change.

Jesda
06-18-09, 11:18 AM
Ford needs to hope for miracle marketing, because these cars are going to pile up in this auto market.

The Tony Show
06-18-09, 11:34 AM
:yeah:

You'd have a difficult time explaining to me why I should get a SHO instead of a Corvette at that price. If you need the 4 doors, cars like the G8 GT can be had far cheaper (or a low mileage 07 CTS-V for half the dough).

Rodya234
06-18-09, 11:42 AM
50k for a flippin Tarus? :histeric:

I could have an Audi S5 for that much. The SHO would be a kick ass car.....if it cost about 10k less.

Playdrv4me
06-18-09, 01:06 PM
Well, let's be honest. After the initial hype dies down, realistic transaction prices for those monsters fully decked out will probably be around 35-38k. I have high doubts many will leave the lot at full sticker.

People balked at the XLR-Vs 100k sticker price, but by the time Employee Pricing rolled to all models they were going out the door in the 80s.

Of course... there's still alot of cars you can have that much fun with at 35k too...

CIWS
06-18-09, 02:24 PM
Some of you folks must have thought I was kidding when I said the SHO would Start at 38K. The price at which you get a pretty much fully loaded Genesis.

CIWS
06-18-09, 02:28 PM
Well, let's be honest. After the initial hype dies down, realistic transaction prices for those monsters fully decked out will probably be around 35-38k. I have high doubts many will leave the lot at full sticker.

People balked at the XLR-Vs 100k sticker price, but by the time Employee Pricing rolled to all models they were going out the door in the 80s.

.

Like many other Ford "performance" cars, you'll actually probably see the dealerships wanting full MSRP on them, plus a possible premium, at the start. After they realize they're not going to sell well for that they begin to offer some discounts, like with the XLR-V. However Cadillac still didn't sell enough of the cars to keep them around and it got canceled. The SHO will probably make a good car to catch 2-3 years from now and then mod it to respectible levels.

Lord Cadillac
06-18-09, 03:09 PM
Well, I don't want to say I told you so... But...... :nyanya:


It will and it will.


The SHO will spank the Genesis

Mark0101
06-18-09, 04:12 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2010_ford_taurus_sho_ecoboost_road_test/(page)/1

0-60 5.2
maybe they can't drive

Jesda
06-18-09, 04:15 PM
Well, I don't want to say I told you so... But...... :nyanya:

Technically, *I* told me so. :cool:

CIWS
06-18-09, 04:46 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2010_ford_taurus_sho_ecoboost_road_test/(page)/1 (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2010_ford_taurus_sho_ecoboost_road_test/%28page%29/1)

0-60 5.2
maybe they can't drive

Maybe they can drive better than most of the people out there who call themselves drivers too ?

They actually list the Genesis sedan as one of it's competitors. :D

Lord Cadillac
06-18-09, 10:37 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2010_ford_taurus_sho_ecoboost_road_test/(page)/1

0-60 5.2
maybe they can't drive

5.2 sounds nice. That's very respectable...


Technically, *I* told me so. :cool:

You are correct, sir!

Jesda
06-19-09, 12:38 AM
So, where does that leave the standard Taurus? Its a good-looking car with a nice interior. How much more than the Malibu?

thebigjimsho
06-19-09, 01:15 AM
$45,000 for the SHO- without the sport package? Yowzers.

There's a whole ton of cars out there that will give you similar acceleration and a lot more luxury and handling than the SHO for that kind of change.
The problem is you get near zero options when you check the Performance Package. Heated and cooled seats? Nope. High end stereo? Nope. Way too big dubs? Yep.


And V8 performance at V6 mileage? Hey, the power is great, the mileage is where a 360hp, 4350lb car should be...

thebigjimsho
06-19-09, 08:49 AM
The SHO, being AWD, is going to tip the scales at about 4300lbs...


I doubt that. The MKS weighs in at like 4200 lbs. I can't imagine their sport sedan is going to weigh more then the luxury variant of it. If it does then that's ashame but either way better gearing makes a lot of difference seeing that they're saying 0-60 times for the MKS are 6.0 seconds
And...........did anyone notice the weight??

Blackout
06-19-09, 08:57 AM
And...........did anyone notice the weight??

Shut up Jim :thepan: lol

thebigjimsho
06-19-09, 09:57 AM
:1337:

dwight.j.carter
06-19-09, 10:20 AM
I must say that is one Ford vehicle I would be proud to own ! They are really starting to come on strong at Ford.

Lord Cadillac
06-19-09, 05:44 PM
When all is said and done, I really do like the new SHO. I like it much better than the dated 300C - but I have a feeling the replacement is going to be really, really nice. I'd probably take the Genesis over the SHO only because I'm seriously into luxury cars. Still, I have to get a ride in the SHO or at least some seat time to really know that for sure.. It looks very nice inside...

The Tony Show
06-19-09, 05:59 PM
Heck- if performance isn't important, I think the MKZ is hard to beat. I personally don't care for the car, but someone looking for a plush luxo-cruiser could do a lot worse for $40k.

Playdrv4me
06-19-09, 06:12 PM
Heck- if performance isn't important, I think the MKZ is hard to beat. I personally don't care for the car, but someone looking for a plush luxo-cruiser could do a lot worse for $40k.

I dunno, with that ugly tail-end and knowing that it's just a glorified Mazda6 underneath, I'd rather take that 40k and just buy the all new 2009 Mazda6 decked out instead. Really under-appreciated car as far as I'm concerned, and quite spacious and comfortable.

AMGoff
06-19-09, 07:55 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2010_ford_taurus_sho_ecoboost_road_test/(page)/1

0-60 5.2
maybe they can't drive

It has nothing to do with anyone's ability to drive... Unlike Edmunds, Car & Driver's SHO came equipped with the optional Performance package. So let's take a third source and use Motor Trend's numbers for both.

So the shorter gears and extra cost of the performance package are good for .6 seconds to 60 over the regular SHO.

But I suppose with the additional performance package that is a whole .3 seconds quicker than the Genesis in both 0-60 and th 1/4 mile... I see what you mean - total spanking :rolleyes: Although, it appears the Genesis must have a little more mid-range grunt, since it edged the performance SHO by about the same from 45-65.

However... It seems that even with the performance package upgrades on top of the SHO's AWD drivetrain, it's all for naught when it comes to out-handling the Genesis... They pulled an identical .87g on the skid pad.

Wow... I'm convinced... The performance SHO is capable of total spankage, what with its equal if not higher price and suckier warranty than the Genesis.

Completely convinced...

Playdrv4me
06-19-09, 11:02 PM
http://www.q45.org/cpg/albums/userpics/10001/2009_hyundai_genesis_press_image006.jpg

Jesda
06-19-09, 11:07 PM
However... It seems that even with the performance package upgrades on top of the SHO's AWD drivetrain, it's all for naught when it comes to out-handling the Genesis... They pulled an identical .87g on the skid pad.

Wow... I'm convinced... The performance SHO is capable of total spankage, what with its equal if not higher price and suckier warranty than the Genesis.

Completely convinced...

.3s feels a lot quicker than it sounds. Consider how much more it has to move all the way from a dead stop to achieve that improvement.

I have a feeling the SHO will sell many thousands of units to its installed base of fans.

Rodya234
06-19-09, 11:25 PM
http://www.q45.org/cpg/albums/userpics/10001/2009_hyundai_genesis_press_image006.jpg


No, it's actually more like this:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8540/2009hyundaigenesispress.jpg (http://img34.imageshack.us/i/2009hyundaigenesispress.jpg/)


:lol: :lol: :lol:

thebigjimsho
06-20-09, 12:54 PM
I have a feeling the SHO will sell many thousands of units to its installed base of fans.
I think what's happened is that over the years, a good group of people have come to know the stigma of the SHO. However, the SHO faithful were faithful for pretty much one reason...the Yamaha motor. SHO faithful dwindled as the automatic, introduced in '93, increased sales but lost some soul. The V8 in the Gen III('96-'99) was a decent motor on its own but was becoming outclassed by new V6s and newer, more powerful V8s. The '89 SHO was about the fastest sedan you could buy that year except for the M5. It was fast enough to trounce any plebian sports version of the common family sedan up to '95. It even took the pony cars a few years to get enough hp to be faster than the V6 SHO.

But now, most of the original fan base has moved on or they keep their original SHO. Most SHO owners are now younger kids or people who like to have a cheap, fun DD. There are certainly a few who will buy this car simply because of the name. Plus, it is pretty quick. But very few kids have the money and a good portion of the enthusiasts want a manual.

I think it will sell pretty well, but with very little in sales from the "faithful"...

AMGoff
06-20-09, 06:29 PM
.3s feels a lot quicker than it sounds. Consider how much more it has to move all the way from a dead stop to achieve that improvement.

I have a feeling the SHO will sell many thousands of units to its installed base of fans.

Still... It hardly qualifies as a total thrashing or "spanking." Had it been something like a full second or even half a second quicker... Or if those numbers were attainable from a standard SHO, then I'd give the car it's due. Either way, as it stands... The SHO itself (ie - non-PP) is slower than and can be out-handled by the Genesis, despite any prior assertions of AWD-prowess.

Anyway... I don't even really see the point of having a "performance package" to begin with... This is the "Super High Output" version of the Taurus, isn't it? Why even bother with the optional package? They should all be equipped with such as standard...

Instead, depending on how deep your wallet is, you can have either a Super High Output Taurus or... a Super-Duper High Output Taurus.

They should all be "Super-Dupers" or none at all...

Regardless of any performance specs or figures... I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that's an awful lot of money for a Ford Taurus.

Jesda
06-20-09, 09:10 PM
Still... It hardly qualifies as a total thrashing or "spanking."

I agree.

Playdrv4me
06-21-09, 01:05 AM
I thought the "Performance Package" was kind of silly too, Adam. "SHO" is a brand that already represents performance, much like "V", or "Corvette".

So you can only surmise from that that the aim of this SHO is not really on the same plane as the original one. A non performance-pack SHO is really just the top of the line, biggest powerplant Taurus.

Jesda
06-21-09, 08:15 AM
From Jalopnik:

"Ford has benchmarked the $60,950, 350 HP Audi A6 4.2 and the $37,995 SHO exceeds expectations by being better to drive, faster, larger inside and nicer looking. Even the interior is nearly on par with that of the Audi."

thebigjimsho
06-21-09, 03:36 PM
From Jalopnik:

"Ford has benchmarked the $60,950, 350 HP Audi A6 4.2 and the $37,995 SHO exceeds expectations by being better to drive, faster, larger inside and nicer looking. Even the interior is nearly on par with that of the Audi."
I can agree with part of that. However, nicer looking is purely subjective and the clean, sharp lines of the A6 are hard to beat. The SHO is nice, but nicer? As for the interior, I sat in an MKS that looked fairly nice but wasn't luxurious to the touch and had a hollow feel. Give a good push to the dash surface and you'd hear creaks. I hated that...