Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
1989 Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance|2018 Chevy Colorado Z71
Joined
·
6,421 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
None now...1972 Challenger=my pride and joy.
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
Nah, the SHO is actually pretty bad ass. A buddy of mine had one years ago and we'd rip around in it like no other. Expensive as all hell to find parts though...something like three hundred bucks for a water pump...
 

·
Registered
1992 STS / 2005 MB G500 / 2003 STS / 2006 XLR-V
Joined
·
11,694 Posts
I'd stay away from the pu$$y SHO with the V8. Its got some known problems with the valvetrain or the timing chain or some such thing, and overall, the pre 96 SHO was the REAL enthusiasts car. The post 96 was only available with an automatic and it was really softened up.

Both motors from both generations were Yamaha designs, but the six was much more reliable.
 

·
Registered
1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
I gave thought to a 93-95 ATX SHO, but never got around to buying one. I think the first and second gens were much better looking than the third, and from what I hear, they really softened 'em up for the third gen...like Spyder said, they were only available with autos, and they didn't handle nearly as well as the earlier ones....it's like they went from "bonafied sports sedans" to "a big highway cruiser with a pretty powerful DOHC V8". The V8's have a problem wiht their camshaft sprockets or somethin' like that...the camshafts literally come apart while driving them! Thereby destroying the motor, and those aren't cheap to come by, so if I was in the market for a SHO, I'd definetly go for one of the V6 models.
 

·
Registered
1992 STS / 2005 MB G500 / 2003 STS / 2006 XLR-V
Joined
·
11,694 Posts
Yea thats it, Camshaft sprockets, I knew it was something completely stupid. It's about a 1500-2500.00 repair IF you can get it fixed.
 

·
Registered
1995 FTS
Joined
·
4,577 Posts
3rd Gen's are junk. Don't even waste your money. IMO the SHO's got softer with each generation. 1st gen was stick shift only then in 1992 when it got switched to the 2nd gen body style only had a stick but once 1993 hit that was the beginning of the end when they started offering a automatic as a option. Once 3rd gen hit it lost it's purpose. I'm hoping with the new Taurus they make a SHO version with the twin force V6.
 

·
Registered
None now...1972 Challenger=my pride and joy.
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
Crap...gonna have to go look at the thing again. Is it a post 96? The one my buddy had was a 94, I believe. 6 cylinder stick...
 

·
Registered
None now...1972 Challenger=my pride and joy.
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
...like Spyder said, they were only available with autos, and they didn't handle nearly as well as the earlier ones...
Thanks for the credit...but it wasn't me. I wasn't even aware that there was a first, second and third gen. I just assumed they only built the ones like my guy in Sacramento had. :D
 

·
Registered
1995 FTS
Joined
·
4,577 Posts
Crap...gonna have to go look at the thing again. Is it a post 96? The one my buddy had was a 94, I believe. 6 cylinder stick...
It's a post 1996. I believe it was a 1997. But the popular engine swap to do was to have a 1st or 2nd gen and take out the 3.2 liter V6 that came with the automatics and swap them into the cars that had a manual.
 

·
Registered
'03 STS (RIP), '89 Eldorado, '13 Malibu, '89 Grand Wagoneer
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
typical Ford product - generic, boring, lackluster. Suitable only for Grandma and her blue-haired brigade.
 

·
Registered
ZIP
Joined
·
51,864 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,297 Posts
Long ago, I almost bought a lightly used early 90s SHO. I bailed at the last minute in favor of a new Maxima. Though I loved that 97 Maxima, I admit I regret not having bought that SHO.
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Ahhh, I didn't know the '89 style and the '95 style were 2 different generations, I thought it was just a facelift...

in that case i like the 2nd gen.... 1st gen I've just always thought was a very ugly looking car, but the 2nd gen... for the era, was a nice looking family sedan... SHO with manual is just even better :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,297 Posts
Ahhh, I didn't know the '89 style and the '95 style were 2 different generations, I thought it was just a facelift...

in that case i like the 2nd gen.... 1st gen I've just always thought was a very ugly looking car, but the 2nd gen... for the era, was a nice looking family sedan... SHO with manual is just even better :)
2nd gen was def the looker. All the regular Taurus were ugly. The body kits they added to the SHO, even 1st gen, made them at least look decent. But looks were not what the SHO was known for.
 

·
Registered
1995 FTS
Joined
·
4,577 Posts
2nd gen was def the looker. All the regular Taurus were ugly. The body kits they added to the SHO, even 1st gen, made them at least look decent. But looks were not what the SHO was known for.
1st gen was the fastest but I liked the 2nd gen body style the best. But my 1991 SHO+ was by far the best looking 1st gen by far! I wish I had some pics of my SHO+
 

·
Registered
1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
What did they change in '92? I know they changed the dashboard, but what else?
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top