2010 Taurus SHO: Twinturbo 365hp AWD

I never knew Ford had it in them to produce a car like this. Their sedans have been mediocre at best for the past 10 years.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/11/officially-official-2010-ford-taurus-sho/

Very impressive features list on the loaded SHO... but I also notice Ford have conveniently left out the curb weight of this model. With AWD and a full features list, I'm guessing it won't be a lightweight... so any fuel savings over a V8 will be negated to a large degree.

Very impressive. Not a fan of the seats though.

AWD is nice, but without a left pedal I feel it's doomed from the start, though I hope I'm wrong. Having a stick and a well handling car is what made the original so much fun.

Very cool. Nice to see a performance sedan back at Ford.

Jesus, with all these new cars coming out I need to get this Head/Cam install wrapped up... :lol:

Neat car. Not real fond of the rear. Probably end up weighing about the same as a G8...ie...it will be quite heavy.

With two turbos and the associated hardware, plus all-wheel drive? I'm guessing a couple hundred pounds heavier than a G8 GT. I notice they didn't list any gas mileage numbers either; surely it won't get a gas-guzzler tax like the G8 GXP.

No stick.........

Wow, starts at $38K. Cars are expensive these days. I like it, even with the auto. People would be tearing through transmissions left and right if they put a stick in there.

I think it will be heavier than the G8 GT as well. Also, at $38k, you are closer to G8 GXP pricing. Might be better equipped for all I know in terms of options / creature comforts, but that's a lot of dough. And the GXP offers a stick.

Still, I hope it does well. Team USA needs all the hits we can get! :usa:

Still, I hope it does well. Team USA needs all the hits we can get! :usa:

I'm with you Joe.

Let me be the first to rain on this parade...

STARTING at $38k...

That pretty much does it right there.
AT LEAST this unit appears to have the muscle that the T-bird did not, otherwise, I see another situation that will throw this car into the same basket that now holds the remains of the Thunderbird, the Lincoln LS, and others that were incredible cars, but priced out of their market.

IMO, someone that can write a check for $40k for a 4-door car that is loaded with features will likely write a check for $35 for a Mercedes or BMW.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a great car and is going after an upscale crowd with all the goods it's got, but I think this vehicle could command the price better if it wore Lincoln ior Mercury badging instead of Ford on it. Otherwise, do like the original Taurus SHO... put in the engine, but drop all the fancy, high-dollar stuff and keep the price tag a "Taurus" price.

GREAT CAR... Bad Marketing Choice.
Based solely on price-point, I have fears. :think:

Let me be the first to rain on this parade...

STARTING at $38k...

That pretty much does it right there.
AT LEAST this unit appears to have the muscle that the T-bird did not, otherwise, I see another situation that will throw this car into the same basket that now holds the remains of the Thunderbird, the Lincoln LS, and others that were incredible cars, but priced out of their market.

IMO, someone that can write a check for $40k for a 4-door car that is loaded with features will likely write a check for $35 for a Mercedes or BMW.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a great car and is going after an upscale crowd with all the goods it's got, but I think this vehicle could command the price better if it wore Lincoln ior Mercury badging instead of Ford on it. Otherwise, do like the original Taurus SHO... put in the engine, but drop all the fancy, high-dollar stuff and keep the price tag a "Taurus" price.

GREAT CAR... Bad Marketing Choice.
Based solely on price-point, I have fears. :think:
The original SHO was alot more money than your standard Taurus. This price is in line with other AWD luxury type sedans from VW and Subaru among others that have lesser performance and lesser features. I think it's priced well and i like it. I especially like the interior.

To those clamoring for a manual tranny............ ummm.............. how many large cars have a manual available, and what is the take rate???

If this was a Fusion, I could see a manual offered, but not in the fullsize Taurus. Picture an Impala with a manual............... nahhhh.

Fuel economy, with the ecoboost engines, is supposed to be pretty much the same as the standard V6 versions. Thus, look at the fuel economy for the AWD V6 Taurus, and the SHO will pretty much be the same (maybe 1mpg less).

Proud, Ford is not expecting to sell alot of these cars, and the entire Taurus product line does not depend on them. This is in contrast to the Lincoln LS, and the Thunderbird. Ford knows that the majority of Taurus buyers, will buy the standard engine. The SHO is just a bonus for those of us who like more fun in our vehicles. I can't imagine that it is costing Ford much money to produce, as the V6 Ecoboost is going in many different vehicles.

I want one. Where I live, it has to be AWD, and I always had a thing for the SHO's of past. To get a large AWD car, with every option known to man, with a ton of power, and no mileage penalty................ woo hoo!!! In 2-3 years, I will have my SD paid off, and I can see this as my driver.

Weight is going to be a hair under 4000 pounds, about 250 to 300 pounds over the base Taurus. Engine is lighter than a V8, but as was correctly noted, the AWD system (along with the car coming pretty much loaded with everything) packs on weight.

Acceleration should be a tick over 5 seconds. No clue on quarter mile or top speed, though I'm almost certain it will be governed.

Dead right on fuel economy, and that's going to be the draw with this car: This level of performance with unexpectedly high fuel economy.

The price seems astronomical on the surface, but shouldn't surprise anyone who knows the history of Ford's non-Mustang GT performance vehicles. Ford's SVO Mustang, original Taurus SHO, Thunderbird Turbo Coupes, Thunderbird SCs, & Cobras were all somewhat mature and very high priced toys.

The thing with these type of Ford cars is that they are aimed at guys who wear suits to work, not the person who just got out of apprentice training, or has gotten his 1st raise at the job.

Of course, the rest of us pick one of these things up used when the price drops to our level, then we go out hunting for a large troves of people who forgot or never heard of these stealthy and unexpectedly Fast Fords.

As an owner of 3 previous Thunderbird SCs, I know. :devil:

There are exactly TWO 4 door sedans that get my blood pumping just by looking at them. A Chrysler 300C is one...


This is the other. Well done, Ford :bow:

There are exactly TWO 4 door sedans that get my blood pumping just by looking at them. A Chrysler 300C is one...
Really?

I guess if you like to look like you are driving an Abrams tank without the big cannon... :p

Give me a G8 over both of 'em (not that the new Taurus is bad).

Is this engine still going into the Mustang as was the rumor before?

Really?

I guess if you like to look like you are driving an Abrams tank without the big cannon... :p

Give me a G8 over both of 'em (not that the new Taurus is bad).

Don't get me wrong, I like the G8. A lot. For me personally, that mini-Bentley, slit-windowed 300 just screams badass and luxury at the same time. I've loved the car since it debuted in '04 as an '05 model...2 years before I started working here. And once you drive one, you want one even more IMO...

It may be 5 years old now, but the design of the 300 C is still gorgeous to me. I realize though it isn't for everybody. I've tried to get my wife to let me trade her Comp G in on either a new V6 Challenger or used 300 C...she doesn't like the look of the 300, sadly :(

too bad they didn't do this to the fusion.

It would be great if they put this engine in the Mustang. I'll hold out to see what they do with the Fusion. Even the ecoboost 4cylinder would be great in that. If it doesn't have a stick though, my next car will probably be a Mazda.

The front looks great. The rear not so much, but it isnt horrible. I hate the steering wheel but the rest of the interior looks nice. I hope it does well. I think it will.

Dang! :thumb:

I'm very interested in the powertrain. Ford should put the DI TT V6 into everything that moves... well almost everything if it lives up to the promise. :)

Very impressive features list on the loaded SHO... but I also notice Ford have conveniently left out the curb weight of this model. With AWD and a full features list, I'm guessing it won't be a lightweight... so any fuel savings over a V8 will be negated to a large degree.

The heavier Lincoln MKS AWD Ecoboost will be rated at 16mpg city and 25mpg highway. The N/A MKS AWD is rated at 16/23 for comparison. The N/A MKS AWD is also 500lbs heavier than the N/A Taurus AWD (currently rated at 17/24).

My guess: if Ford managed to get 16/25 in an MKS that's about 500lbs heavier, the taurus should be good for around 17/26. Not bad for a full-sized 365hp AWD sedan.

This engine would get much better fuel economy figures in a lighter rwd car *mustang*;)

My only gripe would be pricing. It isn't unreasonable but a starting price under 35k would have been better.

I'm already looking forward to the Ecoboost Fusion. I'm sure that'll carry a much cheaper price tag and a what i'm hoping will be class-leading performance and fuel economy.

It would be great if they put this engine in the Mustang.

It could happen.



GT350.

Very impressive. Looks good and seems to back it up with ample power. I think the price is a coupe $k too high but in this economy everything is negotable if one can get the credit they need.
It would be nice if it had a manual trans. I remember enjoying the thrill of clicking off gears in a '94 SHO.

The new engine looks great and almost GTR like!

Very impressive. Looks good and seems to back it up with ample power. I think the price is a coupe $k too high but in this economy everything is negotable if one can get the credit they need.
It would be nice if it had a manual trans. I remember enjoying the thrill of clicking off gears in a '94 SHO.

The new engine looks great and almost GTR like!


Nothing is quite as beautiful as the old SHO V6 though.


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/91shov6_opt.jpg

Nothing is quite as beautiful as the old SHO V6 though.


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/91shov6_opt.jpg

I see an intake manifold that looks like a dieseased set of intestines... WTF is so beautiful? :think:

Indeed, to bad there is no real easy bolt on stuff for the old SHO motors (definetly an engine for the hard core hot rodder since everything is pretty much made from scratch).

I've got a 3.4 SHO V6 collecting dust in a shed and I really cant decide on what to do with it (although I've always had the itch to do a SHO Foxbody)

It's alarming the number of naysayers who have canned the car before it even hits the streets.

Spiel 7:56AM (2/11/2009)

And the excitement stop there.

$38K? You get a Mercedes C Class, BMW 3 Series, Volvo S80, and you get a Ford Taurus? Yeah I don't think so. It may look nice on the outside, good design on the inside, with a heck of a motor to pull it, however, it's a Ford with the cheapest looking material on the inside. I can see that plastic shine from the images.

So, get a 365hp powered, cheaply made and so-so (at best) engineered car, or get a 268-300hp powered very nicely made and engineered car that will handle just as nicely?

Had this car been priced at $28K, definitely be worth it. But $38K, it will be fun (or sad) seeing this car setting on dealer lots.

This from autoblog and no matter whether you agree or not, some of the criticism has to be taken into account. People are very price sensitive and putting a Ford into BMW, Merc territory... where others have failed (Cadillac and Pontiac to name just two) is really asking for trouble. :think:

Time will tell of the SHO's fate.

too bad they didn't do this to the fusion.

My thoughts exactly. That engine and awd in a Fusion would cross over to so many different groups it wouldn't even be funny.

Nothing is quite as beautiful as the old SHO V6 though.


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/91shov6_opt.jpg

You think so?
http://www.dd-designgroup.com/LT_5_0.jpg

It's alarming the number of naysayers who have canned the car before it even hits the streets.



This from autoblog and no matter whether you agree or not, some of the criticism has to be taken into account. People are very price sensitive and putting a Ford into BMW, Merc territory... where others have failed (Cadillac and Pontiac to name just two) is really asking for trouble. :think:

Time will tell of the SHO's fate.

Touche.

This was my point earlier.
I think the work on teh car is awesome, and the package is awesome, and the price may not be all that bad for what is offered, but it should be a Mercury or Lincoln offering at that price - not a Ford one. It should be aimed/marketed to affluent folks that can drop $40K+ for a ride.
It's simply a target merketing faux-pas IMO.

Sorry... "Taurus" does not ring loud with "luxury/performance" buyers. :no:

"Taurus" DOES ring loud and strong with common folks from the lower-middle to upper-middle class that want a quality vehicle at a great price to haul the family of 3 or 4 around in... and frequent travellers that rent lots of cars at airports. :( (stupid Ford of yore. :mad:)

Touche.

This was my point earlier.
I think the work on teh car is awesome, and the package is awesome, and the price may not be all that bad for what is offered, but it should be a Mercury or Lincoln offering at that price - not a Ford one. It should be aimed/marketed to affluent folks that can drop $40K+ for a ride.
It's simply a target merketing faux-pas IMO.

Sorry... "Taurus" does not ring loud with "luxury/performance" buyers. :no:

"Taurus" DOES ring loud and strong with common folks from the lower-middle to upper-middle class that want a quality vehicle at a great price to haul the family of 3 or 4 around in... and frequent travellers that rent lots of cars at airports. :( (stupid Ford of yore. :mad:)

Yes, I did read your post, PP. :D

But I just wanted to add another post in support of your comments. ;)

I'm one of the most disappointed and disillusioned G8 fans on the planet as I know how good that car is... but they aren't selling in the US for one reason or another, no matter how good their owners believe they are. And I don't need to remind people how traditional BMW and Merc buyers are not cross-shopping with Cadillac. :no:

I'm sure the new SHO will kick some goals (and most of us want this car to succeed BADLY) but will it be the all important sales goals? That's the $38K question. The RRP alone would be enough to scare some potential buyers away... and last I checked, Ford isn't even the designated luxury division of the FoMoCo.

Two questions though................ could the G8's problems be indicative of Pontiacs problems/image??

While Ford may not be a luxury brand, I don't think that their image is nearly as damaged as Pontiacs. When someone thinks of getting a new family car, they may think Ford............... but I rarely hear the name Pontiac every mentioned anymore. When they had the Grand Am, and the Grand Prix, yes............... now................ never.

Second, might the look of the G8 be too boy racer??? You talk about BMW's and Mercedes, and the first thing I think of, when thinking of those brands, is understated elegance. Its not about big hood scoops, thats for sure.

One thing that this SHO does right, to me (who is in the purchasing demographic), is it doesn't scream how fast it is, or how powerful it is. I find the regular 2010 Taurus to be an elegant design, and the SHO emits the same understated elegance that I want in my performance car. I am a 44 year old mother, with a 6-year-old............. and I love performance. This is why this car has me intrigued.

BTW, I someone stated, on another forum (a very well knowledged insider), that Fords internal goals for this car are WELL under 10K a year. They know it will not be a volume seller by any means, and they don't want it to be.

You think so?
http://www.dd-designgroup.com/LT_5_0.jpg


Looks wise, this one does it to me:
http://www.newcoolcars.com/dodge-viper-engine.jpg

Weight is going to be a hair under 4000 pounds, about 250 to 300 pounds over the base Taurus. Engine is lighter than a V8, but as was correctly noted, the AWD system (along with the car coming pretty much loaded with everything) packs on weight.


I've not seen any specs on the weight. But I'll be astounded if this comes in under 4000 pounds when the N/A MK-S is 4200. I'm betting on at least 4200 for the SHO.

Cars are heavy these days.

Edmunds test n/a AWD MK-S was 4349
Base model AWD 2009 Taurus is 3930

I would have no issue rocking one of these. Remember..some here will be paying $40 large for a Camaro. Hell people paid $34-38K for 4th Gen SS's and Firehawks. IMO..aside from raw power numbers and a sexy wrapper...you obviously get a lot more for your $40K with this Taurus than you do the Camaro. It's like $40K is the new $30K. This is the Ford brands flagship sedan..it will cost.

Touche.

This was my point earlier.
I think the work on teh car is awesome, and the package is awesome, and the price may not be all that bad for what is offered, but it should be a Mercury or Lincoln offering at that price - not a Ford one. It should be aimed/marketed to affluent folks that can drop $40K+ for a ride.
It's simply a target merketing faux-pas IMO.

Sorry... "Taurus" does not ring loud with "luxury/performance" buyers. :no:

"Taurus" DOES ring loud and strong with common folks from the lower-middle to upper-middle class that want a quality vehicle at a great price to haul the family of 3 or 4 around in... and frequent travellers that rent lots of cars at airports. :( (stupid Ford of yore. :mad:)

In 1989, the first Taurus SHO had a base sticker price of $19,750.
That same year, the starting price for a Taurus was $11,800/
The '86 V8 Camaros cost $11,895.
IROC Zs cost $14,145 that year.

The 1998 Ford Taurus SHO started off at $28,920.
The same year, the Taurus LX started at $18,245.
Camaro Z28s ran $20,995.

Again, the Taurus SHO (along with the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and later the Thunderbird SC) were high priced "Executive Toys", and not cars for families, young enthusiasts, or rental companies. These were rather sophisticated machines with intresting & powerful engines and suspensions that not only handled with the best of the day, but also rode very well.

Since 1998, a V8 Camaro has increased nearly $10,000.
Incidently, the Taurus SHO has also grown nearly $10,000.

With inflation and the current price of cars, it's going for the same price it was in 1989 & 1998.

It was never cheap. It was never a normal family sedan. Yet it created a loyal following.


http://members.tripod.com/~TaurusSHO/MSRP.html
http://www.5thgen.org/camaromsrp.htm

BTW, I someone stated, on another forum (a very well knowledged insider), that Fords internal goals for this car are WELL under 10K a year. They know it will not be a volume seller by any means, and they don't want it to be.

I think that we've read the same thing. It really seems to be a pretty brilliant business plan.

Regardless of price and transmission, it's still nice to see performance vehicles like this from the "Detroit Three." I like the G8 GXP, but 365hp from a V6 is impressive.

It was never cheap. It was never a normal family sedan. Yet it created a loyal following.

I've seen the loyalty the first ones generated. My only hope is that this one is a true-blooded SHO. And if the low production goals are true, Ford may have nailed a double-whammy with the new Taurus.

And this new driveline in a Fusion (with a stick) would also rock.

In 1989, the first Taurus SHO had a base sticker price of $19,750.
That same year, the starting price for a Taurus was $11,800/
The '86 V8 Camaros cost $11,895.
IROC Zs cost $14,145 that year.

The 1998 Ford Taurus SHO started off at $28,920.
The same year, the Taurus LX started at $18,245.
Camaro Z28s ran $20,995.

Again, the Taurus SHO (along with the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and later the Thunderbird SC) were high priced "Executive Toys", and not cars for families, young enthusiasts, or rental companies. These were rather sophisticated machines with intresting & powerful engines and suspensions that not only handled with the best of the day, but also rode very well.

Since 1998, a V8 Camaro has increased nearly $10,000.
Incidently, the Taurus SHO has also grown nearly $10,000.

With inflation and the current price of cars, it's going for the same price it was in 1989 & 1998.

It was never cheap. It was never a normal family sedan. Yet it created a loyal following.


http://members.tripod.com/~TaurusSHO/MSRP.html
http://www.5thgen.org/camaromsrp.htm


You are preaching to the choir.
You don't have to sell or convince me of what the car was or what it has become.

But I think even you are missing my point now...
In 1989, you did not have Mercedes-Bens C-class 2.3's starting at $20k (roughly 20% LESS than the SHO as it is TODAY - by that I mean that today's C starts at about $30K compared to the $38K SHO).
You also did not have the BMW 3-series starting at $11k (again roughly 20% less than this SHO offering TODAY).
There are LOTS of BMW's, Mercedes, Volvos, and other "luxury"-oriented players on the lots today at VERY competitive prices, far more that there were 20 years ago. POINT = the game has changed.

Ford was competitive against those foreign marques with other vehicles, and was playing the game of the day - at that time. Town cars, Continentals, LSCs, and a slew of other names were competitive in the high-end... today, not the same. In addition, Mercedes and BMW have done a great job of making smaller, coompact, luxury cars with I-4, I-5, and V6 power that are aimed dead-at the GM, Ford, and Chrysler mainstream markets... the middle-class families that "want to ride in a Bimmer" but couldn't affor a 5-series or 7-series.

I am complaining about this SHO just like I am complaining about the Mustang, and most of the others coming out recently... they cost too d@mn-much IMO.
Trying to place them "relative" to other offerings is only good for a point of reference, but does not "justify" the price.
You can stand 3-feet east of me, and we are close together, right?
NOT if I am on the 75th floor of a building and you are on the ground floor.
Relativity is just that... relative.

FORD is not a luxury name in the USA. Lincoln is. Mercury is to a point.
Ford = raw value, some features
Mercury = some value with some nice upgrades
Lincoln = Luxury

Marketing a $40k family car as a Ford (I don't care if it has 450hp or 950hp... it still has "Taurus" on it's fenders) just doesn't fit. Neither does a $40k Mustang, but that's another thread. And if you ask me, neither does a $30K base Taurus.

IMO, cars are becoming too expensive across the board - we've had these discussions before on this forum, and I have shown the rediculous margins that are available in these vehicles. I've also shown the pricing strategies that they use - with 2 identical vehicles costing as much as $10k difference between sales districts simply because they are priced to what the market/region will bear. I don't give a doo-doo about inflation, deflation, reflation, adjusted this and that... poop on it all. What I know now is that I can spend $20k on a base V6 Mustang stripper car or I can buy a house out of foreclosure for the same. When Hyundai is offering a 4-door sedan starting at $8988 but Ford and GM can't offer me anything under $12k, something's not right. At the bottom of the worst automotive recession in 19 years, and the 2nd worst automotive recession EVER, and with the 3 domestics all within earshot of bankruptcy, I'm thinking now is probably not the time to start trying to upscale everything you offer. Lot's of good it does me to ask for $40k on this car, only to turn around and have to offer you $6k cash-back, 0% financing, and a free vacation at the beach to get you to come look at it/buy it?!?!

Look, I am 100% advocating that Ford has some great product(s) out right now and coming too - NO DOUBT. I don't dislike the SHO, or what it is. In fact I love the cars - I can site the Yamaha numbers to you, and I have seat time in 2 of them myself. I am also not arguing that the vehicle isn't worth the $38-$42K they are asking for it. WHAT I AM SAYING is that most people fortunate enough to have a job that will allow them to buy a $40k family car, and are actually shopping in the $40k category, are probably NOT looking for it on a Ford dealer's lot. They are setting themselves up for another situation like the SVO Mustang, the Merkur, the LS, the last T-bird, and others in which the target buyer/market for such a vehicle is not where they are putting the vehicle... that's my opinion.

If they have a business model that only needs to sell 5-10k units - GREAT! Shame they couldn't sell 20K and slam the profit margin through the roof. :shrug:

Likewise, if they have some kind of advertising plan to get the word out to potential buyers of $40k cars - GREAT!
That advertising money comes from somewhere - it better return itself and more.

I guess I'm just the old curmudgeon, and I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a car-price discussion. I simply let my thoughts/opinion be known about the price-point of this particular vehicle. If you want to discuss why cars are overpriced (again), let's dig up the old thread and rehash it separately. Otherwise, I've said my peace... let's sit back and see what happens. :cool:
I'm not going anywhere. :thumb:

IMO, cars are becoming too expensive across the board - we've had these discussions before on this forum, and I have shown the ridiculous margins that are available in these vehicles.
Agreed 100%. Its off topic, so I won't go into it much, but I honestly believe that once more and more Chinese manufacturers begin selling vehicles stateside and if the quality of those vehicles is not suspect, then I think we will see prices come back closer to reality. The average automobile needs to be treated more like an appliance and not some status symbol. Remember when computers were so gosh darn expensive? The same needs to happen to the automobile. Don't get me wrong, luxury/performance cars will still exist; they just won't make up the majority of everyday commuter appliance-vehicles.

Back on topic. I truly like this new Taurus, and the SHO might make me reconsider my "no buy" stance on Ford. However I'm still a bowtie and Camaro guy to the bone, so that will be difficult. (Not to mention my bad experiences with Ford dealers in the past.)

Can someone track the price of cars vs. inflation and wages? I think they have always been pretty expensive compared to a year's salary. I agree they are damn expensive, which is why I buy used, but I don't know that they are getting more expensive compared to other staples. I could be wrong though, certainly.

Besides, when loaded Tahoes, Expeditions, Land Cruisers, and so forth, from non-lux brands, easily approach or exceed $50k... as do big crew cab pickups...

That always struck me as completely insane.

$38k is a lot, but to my cheap ass, $30k is an insane amount of money to spend on a car. Plus, $38k = buy for $33k or so. :shrug:

at $38K, i would buy a used C6 Z06. :D

You are preaching to the choir.
You don't have to sell or convince me of what the car was or what it has become.

But I think even you are missing my point now...
In 1989, you did not have Mercedes-Bens C-class 2.3's starting at $20k (roughly 20% LESS than the SHO as it is TODAY - by that I mean that today's C starts at about $30K compared to the $38K SHO).
You also did not have the BMW 3-series starting at $11k (again roughly 20% less than this SHO offering TODAY).
There are LOTS of BMW's, Mercedes, Volvos, and other "luxury"-oriented players on the lots today at VERY competitive prices, far more that there were 20 years ago. POINT = the game has changed.

Ford was competitive against those foreign marques with other vehicles, and was playing the game of the day - at that time. Town cars, Continentals, LSCs, and a slew of other names were competitive in the high-end... today, not the same. In addition, Mercedes and BMW have done a great job of making smaller, coompact, luxury cars with I-4, I-5, and V6 power that are aimed dead-at the GM, Ford, and Chrysler mainstream markets... the middle-class families that "want to ride in a Bimmer" but couldn't affor a 5-series or 7-series.

I am complaining about this SHO just like I am complaining about the Mustang, and most of the others coming out recently... they cost too d@mn-much IMO.
Trying to place them "relative" to other offerings is only good for a point of reference, but does not "justify" the price.
You can stand 3-feet east of me, and we are close together, right?
NOT if I am on the 75th floor of a building and you are on the ground floor.
Relativity is just that... relative.

FORD is not a luxury name in the USA. Lincoln is. Mercury is to a point.
Ford = raw value, some features
Mercury = some value with some nice upgrades
Lincoln = Luxury

Marketing a $40k family car as a Ford (I don't care if it has 450hp or 950hp... it still has "Taurus" on it's fenders) just doesn't fit. Neither does a $40k Mustang, but that's another thread. And if you ask me, neither does a $30K base Taurus.

IMO, cars are becoming too expensive across the board - we've had these discussions before on this forum, and I have shown the rediculous margins that are available in these vehicles. I've also shown the pricing strategies that they use - with 2 identical vehicles costing as much as $10k difference between sales districts simply because they are priced to what the market/region will bear. I don't give a doo-doo about inflation, deflation, reflation, adjusted this and that... poop on it all. What I know now is that I can spend $20k on a base V6 Mustang stripper car or I can buy a house out of foreclosure for the same. When Hyundai is offering a 4-door sedan starting at $8988 but Ford and GM can't offer me anything under $12k, something's not right. At the bottom of the worst automotive recession in 19 years, and the 2nd worst automotive recession EVER, and with the 3 domestics all within earshot of bankruptcy, I'm thinking now is probably not the time to start trying to upscale everything you offer. Lot's of good it does me to ask for $40k on this car, only to turn around and have to offer you $6k cash-back, 0% financing, and a free vacation at the beach to get you to come look at it/buy it?!?!

Look, I am 100% advocating that Ford has some great product(s) out right now and coming too - NO DOUBT. I don't dislike the SHO, or what it is. In fact I love the cars - I can site the Yamaha numbers to you, and I have seat time in 2 of them myself. I am also not arguing that the vehicle isn't worth the $38-$42K they are asking for it. WHAT I AM SAYING is that most people fortunate enough to have a job that will allow them to buy a $40k family car, and are actually shopping in the $40k category, are probably NOT looking for it on a Ford dealer's lot. They are setting themselves up for another situation like the SVO Mustang, the Merkur, the LS, the last T-bird, and others in which the target buyer/market for such a vehicle is not where they are putting the vehicle... that's my opinion.

If they have a business model that only needs to sell 5-10k units - GREAT! Shame they couldn't sell 20K and slam the profit margin through the roof. :shrug:

Likewise, if they have some kind of advertising plan to get the word out to potential buyers of $40k cars - GREAT!
That advertising money comes from somewhere - it better return itself and more.

I guess I'm just the old curmudgeon, and I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a car-price discussion. I simply let my thoughts/opinion be known about the price-point of this particular vehicle. If you want to discuss why cars are overpriced (again), let's dig up the old thread and rehash it separately. Otherwise, I've said my peace... let's sit back and see what happens. :cool:
I'm not going anywhere. :thumb:

I see your point in that you see these Fords as being too pricey. The SHO Taurus is certainly outside my budget. But at the same time, I'm not the target market, and these types of Fords aren't made to sell in large numbers or to mere mortals. Just because it has a blue oval on it doesn't mean it's cheap.

To be honest, after having Thunderbird SCs and having friends in my military days who had SHOs, the consensus is that we're glad there were very few of these cars, and that you can actually tell there was money attached to these things.

I fully understand your position, and to a large degree, I agree with it. But 38 grand seems like a fair price for this twin turbo, AWD, fully stocked 4 door full sized, Q-ship, even with a Ford badge. :shrug:

But going to the root of the issue you bring up, when you can finance cars over 6 years instead of the 36-48 months you were once limited to, that gives the opportunity to jack up prices without affecting monthly payments. In short, we wouldn't really notice.

Can someone track the price of cars vs. inflation and wages? I think they have always been pretty expensive compared to a year's salary. I agree they are damn expensive, which is why I buy used, but I don't know that they are getting more expensive compared to other staples. I could be wrong though, certainly.

Besides, when loaded Tahoes, Expeditions, Land Cruisers, and so forth, from non-lux brands, easily approach or exceed $50k... as do big crew cab pickups...

That always struck me as completely insane.

$38k is a lot, but to my cheap ass, $30k is an insane amount of money to spend on a car. Plus, $38k = buy for $33k or so. :shrug:

From 1998 I believe, inflation is 97%. In short, something that cost $100 then costs $200 today.

New car prices have stayed flat against inflation for most of this decade. Mustang GTs cost about 23K when Camaro left the stage for the 2003 model year. They just only recently reached $28K.

Used C6 Z06 for $38K? Where did you find that?

Another thing to consider about the SHO. Look at some of its closest competitors and the msrp isn't so shocking....
*Avalon - top of the line Limited model starts at 35k and can pass 40k with options and that's without the added expense of AWD or twin-turbo v6.
*Buick - The Lucerne super starts at 40k and that's with 292hp, Fwd, and a 4spd auto.The 300hp Lacross super is $34k+ and is also Fwd and 4spd auto.
*Nissan - the Maxima SV with the sports package starts at $35k and can cost 38+k when optioned with the tech package. And you get Fwd and 290hp v6.
* Chrysler - 300C AWD starts at 39k and go upto 45k loaded. 360hp, AWD, and 5spd auto.
* VW - 4motion Vr6 passat starts at around 38k and is a much smaller car than the SHO.

So for a near-luxury full sized sports sedan, it represents a pretty good value considering what you get. Yes you can get a base 4matic C300 for under 38k but you'll have to be satisfied with 228hp in a smaller car and the germans are known for charging a leg and arm for options so who knows what a comparably equipped C-class costs.

At the same time, i see proudpony's point on how expensive cars have gotten. Times have changed and the cars themselves have changed. More tech and features = more expensive cars. No one really makes base cars anymore. Todays base cars would be considered loaded by 90's standards.

Another thing to consider about the SHO. Look at some of its closest competitors and the msrp isn't so shocking....
*Avalon - top of the line Limited model starts at 35k and can pass 40k with options and that's without the added expense of AWD or twin-turbo v6.
*Buick - The Lucerne super starts at 40k and that's with 292hp, Fwd, and a 4spd auto.The 300hp Lacross super is $34k+ and is also Fwd and 4spd auto.
*Nissan - the Maxima SV with the sports package starts at $35k and can cost 38+k when optioned with the tech package. And you get Fwd and 290hp v6.
* Chrysler - 300C AWD starts at 39k and go upto 45k loaded. 360hp, AWD, and 5spd auto.
* VW - 4motion Vr6 passat starts at around 38k and is a much smaller car than the SHO.

I think I'm surprised at how much everyone is surprised at the price of this SHO. If we are talking about a SRT8 or G8 then there doesn't seem to be as much opposition to those cars costing around 40 large. I think the interior is way better, from the pics, in the SHO that it is in the SRT8 or G8 costing similar numbers.

Used C6 Z06 for $38K? Where did you find that?Seriously. Plenty of used C5 Z06s for under $30k around here; but you can't touch a C6 Z06 for less than $46k in these parts.

Another thing to consider about the SHO. Look at some of its closest competitors and the msrp isn't so shocking....
*Avalon - top of the line Limited model starts at 35k and can pass 40k with options and that's without the added expense of AWD or twin-turbo v6.
*Buick - The Lucerne super starts at 40k and that's with 292hp, Fwd, and a 4spd auto.The 300hp Lacross super is $34k+ and is also Fwd and 4spd auto.
*Nissan - the Maxima SV with the sports package starts at $35k and can cost 38+k when optioned with the tech package. And you get Fwd and 290hp v6.
* Chrysler - 300C AWD starts at 39k and go upto 45k loaded. 360hp, AWD, and 5spd auto.
* VW - 4motion Vr6 passat starts at around 38k and is a much smaller car than the SHO.

So for a near-luxury full sized sports sedan, it represents a pretty good value considering what you get. Yes you can get a base 4matic C300 for under 38k but you'll have to be satisfied with 228hp in a smaller car and the germans are known for charging a leg and arm for options so who knows what a comparably equipped C-class costs.
Thank you. Agreed.

Like I said, I'm a cheap ass and all of those are crazy expensive to me (at MSRP at least). But the SHO isn't out of line compared to the competition. I'd rock one over any vehicle you listed there, easily (but not over the G8 GXP).

Seriously. Plenty of used C5 Z06s for under $30k around here; but you can't touch a C6 Z06 for less than $46k in these parts.

Yup. An 02-04 low mileage Z06 is VERY tempting right now.

Like I said, I'm a cheap ass and all of those are crazy expensive to me (at MSRP at least).

I'm no different to your good self. I'm also a cheap ass and usually buy the base model of whatever it is I'm after. Then I begin to realize I should have stretched the budget a little farther and opted for the better mousetrap with better engine, brakes and suspension etc... it would have cost me around the same given my petulance for converting the base model into a 'heavy hitter'... but without the admiration one assigns to a 'halo' car.

the SHO looks like good competition to the SRT8 LX cars. It is a few grand cheaper, 60hp short, but it also adds AWD and the potential fuel economy of a V6. It would definitely be an easier car to live with every day, especially if you live where that weird white stuff falls when it gets cold outside :D

Yeah, but if you turbocharge a G8...

;) :D

Too many posts to copy them all in a reply, so here goes ONE MORE TIME...

I DO NOT THINK THE PRICE IS UNFAIR FOR WHAT IS THERE.

I DO THINK THIS IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE A FORD.

I DO THINK IT SHOULD BE OFFERED ON THE LINCOLN/MERCURY LOT WITH ANOTHER BADGE ON THE FENDER.

IT IS A GREAT CAR.

IT IS COMPARABLY PRICED TO COMPETITION.

Just because other companies have an identity crisis, does not mean Ford needs to screw theirs up too. Is Pontiac = performance or not? Is Mercedes into performance luxury or inexpensive transportation for the masses? Is BMW exclusive, or cheap and common? If Toyota is the common-mans car and Lexus is the luxury/performance division, does this Taurus compete against an Avalon or a LS460?

PLEASE GUYS... understand what I am trying to get across here... there are 2 separate points.
1) This car is breeching traditional Ford territory with it's price point. It's a great car but is in the Mercury/Lincoln pricing brackets of Ford Motor Co offerings.
2) I think all cars are getting too expensive - especially base units.

One last thing to consider... does the aspiring executive that has a good job but has not made the big time yet want to be seen driving up in a Taurus, a BMW, or a Mercedes at the Country Club the first time he is asked to play with the big boys at the office? Does "image" come into play in this selection?
Considering the travel that many do, there's not many folks who have not been stuck into a rental Taurus in the last couple of years that wouldn't think that you just bought a rental release car at an auction. My point is, there is still some image repair that the Taurus needs in the world. This car will be a great step in fixing that image - no doubt, but we have to get there first.

Proud, I don't think a $38k (MSRP) car is necessarily just for the rich or up and coming executive. Look how many regular Joes (heh) plunked down way more than that for full size pickups and SUVs (wearing Ford badges and bowties) by the jillions. Yeah, those are "more" vehicle going by space / size, but MANY of those full size SUV owners bought bigger than they needed. If just a handful of Expedition buyers decide that they just don't need a big ass SUV this time around...

Ford sells the Mustang GT500 for over $50k. The Ford GT (I know, different market, but still) was way over 6 figures.

I think it would be crazy to call it a Mercury. To me, Mercury is among the most damaged / diminished brands on the market. They have no single vehicle that isn't a direct rebadge of a Ford. Not "platform sharing" like a Malibu to an Aura (no body panels shared, completely different interiors), but actual rebadges with minor grille / detail changes. Is the Sable even being redesigned for 2010 like its Taurus counterpart? Going away? Or soldiering on as-is? They could put this powertrain in such a car, but the SHO has a known and fairly respected history.

Also, not everyone with money is inclined to buy BMW / Lexus / other lux brands, as you well know. I personally think it is insane to pay $50k for a 4000 lb, 500 hp Mustang when the world beating Corvette can be had for similar money, but there are Ford fans out there who have decent money (or spend more than they should ;)) and buy such cars. I mean, yeah it's got a back seat, but otherwise, the Vette is superior in ANY measure possible. There are people with money who still choose to buy domestic, and people with money for whom the badge isn't critical (or for whom the Ford badge is a plus!).

8-10k such people will hopefully be inclined to pick up a Q-ship SHO. :shrug:

Yeah, cars are expensive (like I said, I'm a used buyer primarily), but they've been that way for a long time, adjusting for inflation and such. :(

Agree with ^^^^

Lincoln already has its own version in the Ecoboost MKS and it'll be priced significantly more seeing as how the base N/A MKS already costs $37k. You are not going to find a Lincoln of this caliber for the SHO's price. You will pay a bigger premium for that Lincoln badge.

Mercury brand as mentioned has less prestige and value than Ford. At least the Ford brand has in the past and present sold many cars costing close to and in excess of 40+k. The most expensive mercury is what? the 31k Mariner hybrid? A sub40k mercury is an even harder sell than a sub-40k Ford imo. And no taurus = NO SHO. I don't think Ford has to badge this car as something else just to appease badge elitist. Btw, those same elitist most likely wouldn't be caught dead in a Lincoln or Mercury either.

Who's going to buy this? same guys that buy 45-50k GT500's, 70k GT500KR's, and 160k Ford GT's...pretty much Ford/domestic enthusiasts with a extra income and i think there's enough of them out there to move enough units to keep Ford satisfied.

pretty much rehash of what 94B4c posted since i agree with his stance.

From 1998 I believe, inflation is 97%. In short, something that cost $100 then costs $200 today.





http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Even though it only goes to 2008, you have to go to between 1984 and 1985 to get a 2-1 margin according to this calculator. $1 in 1998 was worth about $1.30 last year.

Who's going to buy this? same guys that buy 45-50k GT500's, 70k GT500KR's, and 160k Ford GT's...pretty much Ford/domestic enthusiasts with a extra income and i think there's enough of them out there to move enough units to keep Ford satisfied.

pretty much rehash of what 94B4c posted since i agree with his stance.


GT500 guys? Maybe, but if they have 50k to burn on a fun car, they probobly have something a big higher end.
KR? Eh...you might see one or two, but thier other car is most likely a 550i or a E550.
GT? Deff not. They take thier GT out on the sunniest of summer days, but the rest of the time they are in the S class.

This is a good car, at the wrong time, at the wrong price point. They didnt bring enough to fight off cars like the G8 GXP and the SRT8 twins.

GT500 guys? Maybe, but if they have 50k to burn on a fun car, they probobly have something a big higher end.
KR? Eh...you might see one or two, but thier other car is most likely a 550i or a E550.
GT? Deff not. They take thier GT out on the sunniest of summer days, but the rest of the time they are in the S class.

This is a good car, at the wrong time, at the wrong price point. They didnt bring enough to fight off cars like the G8 GXP and the SRT8 twins.
The car is priced competitively and it will hold well against those Muscle cars. What the SHO may lack in all-out speed compared to those,it beats them in features and luxury......epecially the Charger. The G8 is a dead man walking,so it's basically pointless to bring it into the discussion.
When does the new Charger arrive? I'd like to see if they improve the interior and exterior styling. That car would be the one to match against the Taurus.

The car is priced competitively and it will hold well against those Muscle cars. What the SHO may lack in all-out speed compared to those,it beats them in features and luxury......epecially the Charger. The G8 is a dead man walking,so it's basically pointless to bring it into the discussion.
When does the new Charger arrive? I'd like to see if they improve the interior and exterior styling. That car would be the one to match against the Taurus.

Oh, so because the G8 doesnt have much of a future means that it shouldnt be compared to the SHO? Thats stupid.
The SHO does not have what it takes to make in the 40k sports sedan market. Sorry.

Oh, so because the G8 doesnt have much of a future means that it shouldnt be compared to the SHO? Thats stupid.
The SHO does not have what it takes to make in the 40k sports sedan market. Sorry.Luckily it is in the $38k market, not the $40k market. :p

GT500 guys? Maybe, but if they have 50k to burn on a fun car, they probobly have something a big higher end.
KR? Eh...you might see one or two, but thier other car is most likely a 550i or a E550.
GT? Deff not. They take thier GT out on the sunniest of summer days, but the rest of the time they are in the S class.

This is a good car, at the wrong time, at the wrong price point. They didnt bring enough to fight off cars like the G8 GXP and the SRT8 twins.

It doesn't have to be buyers of those specific vehicles. It seems you're more concerned with the details/semantics...truth is, we're both speculating on what owners of those high$$ Ford's actually drive on the side with no factual data or figures. My overall point was that a Ford enthusiast with extra income is the most likely target...a point you either disagree with or failed to note in my previous post. This vehicle is NOT for the brand/badge elitist.

There's always something bigger, higher, better, etc... Not everyone uses the same rationale or reasoning in justifying their purchase. The corvette is without a doubt a better, superior, and prestigious car than the GT500 in just about every imaginable aspect, but about 12k people a year (enough to keep Ford satisfied) justify spending their 50k on the GT500 instead of the Corvette. You can't assume everyone's in it for the badge, performance, or whatever X or Y factor that comes to mind. If that was the case, Ford wouldn't be able to move a single 40+k vehicle and the GT500 would be an utter failure and long dead.

And for the record, i'd have NO trouble picking this SHO over the Gxp and SRT8 if i had 40k to spend on a car. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Again, everyone has their reasons.

Oh, so because the G8 doesnt have much of a future means that it shouldnt be compared to the SHO? Thats stupid.
The SHO does not have what it takes to make in the 40k sports sedan market. Sorry.

G8 buyers are looking for an engine, not a luxury car.

I honestly doubt that many people will cross-shop the two. Otherwise, why would GM even bother with the Lucerne Super.

One thing about the Taurus SHO...

It is a BIG, HONKIN', fullsized car. I can see people cross shopping it with a 300C or Charger or G8.

I wonder what Chevy might one day bring to the party to compete with it?

I'm not convinced this car will be cross-shopped with the Charger, 300C, and G8 GXP. However, I do agree they are in the same market.

The Taurus is such a bland, boring, blend in with the crowd kind of car compared to the others. Someone looking for this type of car would not be the same person looking at a G8 with huge flared fenders and hood scoops in my opinion.

I personally have never understood a car like this new SHO. I mean, I get the sleeper idea, but I'm not even sure it this is really a sleeper. It is just a basic 4-door sedan that they threw some nice features at and then gave it a pretty powerful engine and saddled it with AWD and roughly 4,300 pounds of weight. It still basically looks like a cheap, every man's Taurus, yet costs almost twice. I just don't see how people spend this kind of money on a car like this when there are so many other better options in my opinion. Oh well. I guess I am not the target, haha.

I personally have never understood a car like this new SHO. I mean, I get the sleeper idea, but I'm not even sure it this is really a sleeper. It is just a basic 4-door sedan that they threw some nice features at and then gave it a pretty powerful engine and saddled it with AWD and roughly 4,300 pounds of weight. It still basically looks like a cheap, every man's Taurus, yet costs almost twice. I just don't see how people spend this kind of money on a car like this when there are so many other better options in my opinion. Oh well. I guess I am not the target, haha.

It doesn't sound like you get the idea of a sleeper at all.

I wonder what Chevy might one day bring to the party to compete with it?

It already has the Impala SS.

I found the following interesting article about the Impala and Malibu. Supposedly there will not be a new Impala until after the Malibu is redesigned.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-gm16-2009feb16,0,7854952,full.story

I don't think I'd call the redesigned Taurus / SHO "bland." :think:

The styling may not be for everyone, but they definitely went a bit more aggressive with the new version! Quite distinctive, IMHO.

It still basically looks like a cheap, every man's Taurus, yet costs almost twice. I just don't see how people spend this kind of money on a car like this when there are so many other better options in my opinion. Oh well. I guess I am not the target, haha.

Do you think that Ford should have added some fake scoops and cladding?

In person, the car looks agressive (mostly due to it's wheel/tire combo), in a very understated way. Personally, I like that kind of stuff.

One last thing to consider... does the aspiring executive that has a good job but has not made the big time yet want to be seen driving up in a Taurus, a BMW, or a Mercedes at the Country Club the first time he is asked to play with the big boys at the office?

I've seen quite a few Chrysler 300Cs mingling with Beemers, Benzes, and Ferraris over at Pebble Beach back when I was living in Monterey a few years ago, and I've seen more SRT8 Chargers down in Monterey than I've seen any other single location. SHOs and SC's buyer demographics was far richer than any other Ford.

I recall reading a piece on the SHO's and SC's buyer about 10 years ago (it was in relation to Ford's SVT division. They tended to be business people and older adult males who perhaps had a Mustang or previous Ford they had fond memories of, but had outgrown the possibility of having that type of vehicle again, and wanted more than a typical Ford would offer, but didn't want the stigma (I'm sure they used a different word) that Lincolns and Mercurys had.

The point isn't sales volume or being a BMW or Mercedes. It's having something in the showroom to frame the car that us mere mortals are gonna buy. The person buying a family Taurus is going to get to check out that new SHO in the showroom just like that Dodge Charger buyer got to look over that SRT8 and that Grand Prix buyer (retail, that is) got to check out the GXP while they were waiting for the paperwork to go through.



Here's my observation on this.

Original SHO's never generated discussion over it's price, despite the fact that from the day it came out till the day production ceased a decade ago, the price was just as outrageous relative to other cars on the market as perhaps this new one is. Yet here we are in this discussion over price, and if it belongs in a Ford showroom, which till the last decade, routinely carried something in it's showroom (sometimes multiple cars) that was typically more expensive than anything Mercury had, and well within the price of entry Lincolns.

I feel the issue isn't a matter of price or showroom (save Thunderbird roadsters, SVT Mustangs were the most expenive cars in Ford showrooms... and the current GT500 is over 40 grand...pricey for just a Mustang). I feel the issue really boils down to how far into the pits Ford let the Taurus name fall the last few years it was around. Taurus was sold only to rental companies it's final year of production.

It takes years to build up a great reputation, and a very short time to ruin it. Running the exact same design for 7 years is a long time to ruin a reputation that took 15 years prior to build, perhaps? :shrug:

To those clamoring for a manual tranny............ ummm.............. how many large cars have a manual available, and what is the take rate???
I don't know what the take rate, but G8 GXP is manual only, and I'm going to guess that each and every one GM builds will sell. BMW builds manual versions of the 5- and 7-series, and those sell too.

It's important that they do their demographics research and figure out how many manuals to build, but I think that every performance-oriented vehicle should have a manual transmission as an option, regardless of size.

I think that we've read the same thing. It really seems to be a pretty brilliant business plan.
While correct, I don't think having enough brain cells to realize that performance versions of mainstream cars sell in limited numbers warrants calling it "pretty brilliant."

The SHO does not have what it takes to make in the 40k sports sedan market. Sorry.
What does it take that the SHO doesn't have? Let's get specific.

I wonder what Chevy might one day bring to the party to compete with it?
I was really looking forward to the Zeta Impala (and a subsequent SS version) to fill this role. Perhaps someday it will get un-cancelled...

It doesn't sound like you get the idea of a sleeper at all.
:lol: :yes:

It doesn't sound like you get the idea of a sleeper at all.

No, no, no. A sleeper does not have upscale content and luxury type items like this SHO does. Atleast not in my opinion. This is more of an upscale luxury touring sedan based on a cheap Taurus. It just isn't a sleeper.

To me the SHO is more of a cheaper American version of the 535i. You wouldn't call a 535i a sleeper would you?

:confused:

No, no, no. A sleeper does not have upscale content and luxury type items like this SHO does. Atleast not in my opinion. This is more of an upscale luxury touring sedan based on a cheap Taurus. It just isn't a sleeper.

To me the SHO is more of a cheaper American version of the 535i. You wouldn't call a 535i a sleeper would you?

Did the GN have upscale content? Yes, did the Turbo Regals? Yes would you consider one a sleeper compared to the other? The Turbo Regal is probably THE sleeper of all time. Just because something has some upscale features doesn't make it a sleeper, it does however make it more than engine in a box. The SHO is no more a 535i than it is a base Aveo. They are two different calsses and two different quality trims. Now if you would have said R34 VW compared to a standard VW or an RS trim Audi vs an A type. BTW a 535i would be a mid model of the 5 series line, far and away from what the SHO represents to the Taurus model.

No, no, no. A sleeper does not have upscale content and luxury type items like this SHO does.

A sleeper is a fast car that the unsuspecting onlooker doesn't expect to be fast. That's all -- content is irrelevant.

Did the GN have upscale content? Yes, did the Turbo Regals? Yes would you consider one a sleeper compared to the other? The Turbo Regal is probably THE sleeper of all time. Just because something has some upscale features doesn't make it a sleeper, it does however make it more than engine in a box. The SHO is no more a 535i than it is a base Aveo. They are two different calsses and two different quality trims. Now if you would have said R34 VW compared to a standard VW or an RS trim Audi vs an A type. BTW a 535i would be a mid model of the 5 series line, far and away from what the SHO represents to the Taurus model.

I see what you guys are saying and by your definition the SHO is a sleeper, but to me the SHO is simply a luxury sedan with good performance. That is why I compared it to a a 535i.

Also, in your example, the Regal T-type had a more extravagant brother, the Grand National, that took all the attention. This is what allowed the T-type to be a sleeper. If there was no GN, like there is nothing higher than the SHO, the T-type would have got all the attention and would not have been a sleeper. The T-types and GN's also had a TON of power and performance relative to other cars on the road back then. 360hp in a 4200# car is not that impressive these days.

A 535i is a four door luxury sedan with 300hp+ and costs $50k
A Taurus SHO is a four door luxury sedan with 360hp and costs $40k

Why would you say these are different classes of vehicles? It doesn't matter tha the 535i is the mid model of the 5-series, what matters is how equivalent it is to the Taurus SHO. I think people would cross shop these two. They are certainly more similar than the less luxurious and 415hp V8 powered G8 GXP would be.

What do you think the Taurus SHO competitor is?

Also, in your example, the Regal T-type had a more extravagant brother, the Grand National, that took all the attention. This is what allowed the T-type to be a sleeper.
Hardly anyone knows a GN when they see one. This was slightly less true in 1987, and it will be much less true after F&F4 comes out. My point, though, is that it was and still is a sleeper, regardless of the existence of the T-Type.

Admittedly, T-Types are even more of a sleeper.

360hp in a 4200# car is not that impressive these days.

It's not about being impressive, it's about being unusual.

I'll bet the SHO will run the quarter mile in the mid 13s, which makes it significantly faster than 99% of the cars on the road.

I don't know what the take rate, but G8 GXP is manual only, and I'm going to guess that each and every one GM builds will sell.

The G8 GXP is available in auto form as well.


-Mike

Hardly anyone knows a GN when they see one. This was slightly less true in 1987, and it will be much less true after F&F4 comes out.

I wonder how many T-types and Turbo Regals will get 'riced out' after the movie comes out. :(

The theft rate jumping wont be that awesome either.

Hardly anyone knows a GN when they see one. This was slightly less true in 1987, and it will be much less true after F&F4 comes out. My point, though, is that it was and still is a sleeper, regardless of the existence of the T-Type.

Admittedly, T-Types are even more of a sleeper.

It's not about being impressive, it's about being unusual.

I'll bet the SHO will run the quarter mile in the mid 13s, which makes it significantly faster than 99% of the cars on the road.

What! I think you misunderstood me. The GN was NOT a sleeper! Are you saying the GN was a sleeper?

Its not about being "unusual" its about being "unknown". The Taurus SHO will be known.

My point was that the T-type WAS a sleeper because of the GN. It was the Plain Jane, boring version of the GN, but with the same power. It was the "unknown", not covered by magazines or hyped by dealers.

IF the GN did not exist and there was only a Regal and a Regal T-type (like Taurus and Taurus SHO) then the Regal T-type would have got all the attention/hype and it would NOT have been a sleeper because people would have known about it and how fast it was, the way they did the GN.

What! I think you misunderstood me. The GN was NOT a sleeper! Are you saying the GN was a sleeper?

Its not about being "unusual" its about being "unknown". The Taurus SHO will be known.

My point was that the T-type WAS a sleeper because of the GN. It was the Plain Jane, boring version of the GN, but with the same power. It was the "unknown", not covered by magazines or hyped by dealers.

IF the GN did not exist and there was only a Regal and a Regal T-type (like Taurus and Taurus SHO) then the Regal T-type would have got all the attention/hype and it would NOT have been a sleeper because people would have known about it and how fast it was, the way they did the GN.

So basically you have your own definition of a sleeper and are arguing with us that yours is right and we are using the more common definition of sleeper. So lets just stop this now you just want to use your own definition vs the one others are using.

We can stop this argument.

What! I think you misunderstood me. The GN was NOT a sleeper! Are you saying the GN was a sleeper?

A GN absolutely is a sleeper. Check my sig -- I own one. When I drive it around, most people don't notice it. My non-car-enthusiast friends see me driving it and ask why I'm driving that old car instead of my Camaro.

Don't want to get into the definition of a sleeper....but....by 1988, the GN definately was NOT a sleeper! It was well-known as one of the most bad-ass rides of the time.

Nowadays....different story, as there just aren't many of them around, and they are quite a bit more obscure to the "younger" generations.

One of these days, maybe I'll have one....

Don't want to get into the definition of a sleeper....but....by 1988, the GN definately was NOT a sleeper! It was well-known as one of the most bad-ass rides of the time.

My dad, a mild car enthusiast who turns 60 this year, had never heard of a Grand National until I bought one.

Bob, I think you're just the right age to have been aware of the GN when it was new. Go just a few years younger/older, and far fewer people will remember it.

When I drive it around, most people don't notice it. My non-car-enthusiast friends see me driving it and ask why I'm driving that old car instead of my Camaro.

That's just sad. So sad.

That's just sad. So sad.

It's okay, I tell them to hop in and then I surprise the crap out of them. Good times! :D

A traditional sleeper used to be a car that looks almost dull but performs like mad. The original GTO was a sleeper (it simply had the fake hoodscoop identifying it from regular Pontiac Tempest... and even that was eventially available on other Tempests as well).

The Grand National was by no means a sleeper. The Turbo Regal, maybe. Grand National? EVERYONE knew what a Grand National was up till about 10 years ago.

Now-a-days, it seems to be anything without a wing or is bigger than an Accord. My Thunderbird SC evidently was a sleeper (though I didn't think it was at the time) because it seemed that every ricer in the area mistook it as another Thunderbird with aftermarket ground effects, and wanted to show me a thing or 2.

Personally, I define a sleeper as a car that looks identical to the massive number of regular versions while both having shocking performance and little public knowledge of the car.

The current Cobalt SS sedan is the car that pops to mind as a model of a modern day sleeper. However, I'd also include the new SHO as well. It looks identical to the regular run-of-the-mill new Taurus, and unless Ford breaks with tradition and advertizes the hell out of it, it's going to have only modest recognition and fully capable of making potential challengers mistake it as a regular V6 family car.

My dad, a mild car enthusiast who turns 60 this year, had never heard of a Grand National until I bought one.

Bob, I think you're just the right age to have been aware of the GN when it was new. Go just a few years younger/older, and far fewer people will remember it.

Isn't that the time period we were talking about? If we're discussing whether or not the NEW SHO will be a sleeper, and then comparing to the GN, should we not decide if a NEW GN was or was not a sleeper? Should it matter that someone didn't know what one was a few years ago?

I would suggest that what generation it was should not matter. And a lot of the "older" crowd back then didn't want anything to do with that EFI thing that "couldn't be modified like a car with a carburator!"

I bought a new 89 SHO in 1990 (program car). It took a LOT of people by surprise.

Didn't mess with many GN's though. ;)

EVERYONE knew what a Grand National was up till about 10 years ago.
I'm telling you, outside of car enthusiast circles, that's just not true. Your impressions are skewed by your environment. If you were male and ~20 years old in 1987, you probably remember it; anybody else probably doesn't.

Everyone knows about Ferrari and Porsche. They also know Corvette and Mustang. Sadly, fewer people know Camaro, but I think it's still enough to call it "everyone".

Outside of car enthusiast circles, you'll find that most people can't even identify a car that's sitting right in front of them without reading the nameplate. If you think they have any idea what's under the hood, you're wrong. They assume cars are fast or slow based on their shape and stance. The cars I listed before are presumed to be fast, because they look fast.

A Grand National does not look fast. It's the same boxy style as every other car from the 80's, so that's what the average onlooker sees: an 80's POS. In my case, maybe they wonder why I bother to keep the paint looking so nice, and if they're close enough to read the badges, they wonder what "INTERCOOLED" and "3.8L SFI TURBO" mean.

Personally, I define a sleeper as a car that looks identical to the massive number of regular versions while both having shocking performance and little public knowledge of the car
It doesn't need to look identical to the regular version. It just needs to not stand out.

Isn't that the time period we were talking about? If we're discussing whether or not the NEW SHO will be a sleeper, and then comparing to the GN, should we not decide if a NEW GN was or was not a sleeper? Should it matter that someone didn't know what one was a few years ago?
That's a fair point.

I think we've strayed far enough from the point. I feel like the SHO is going to be a sleeper. Can't say for sure until I've seen one sitting next to a regular Taurus, but that's my guess.

Weight is going to be a hair under 4000 pounds, about 250 to 300 pounds over the base Taurus. Engine is lighter than a V8, but as was correctly noted, the AWD system (along with the car coming pretty much loaded with everything) packs on weight.

Acceleration should be a tick over 5 seconds. No clue on quarter mile or top speed, though I'm almost certain it will be governed.
Old thread, I know, but a comment in the more recent SHO thread made me think of the speculating going on about the SHO. Looks like the 4000 lb number was a little low...

Car and Driver reports 4346 lbs and a 5.2 0-60 (aided by AWD of course), 12.8 0-100, and a 13.7 @ 103 mph 1/4 mile. Braking from 70 mph in 174 feet, 0.84 on the skidpad (still think the Vette is a 0.83 car? :p ;) ).

It is more like a G8 GT than the GXP in terms of performance.

:)

I remember back in '97 or so driving my friends '96 BOSS Mustang, graphics only, A4 on the freeway and attempting to pass what looked like just a regular Taurus in traffic. Well it was an SHO and he was keen to what I was up to and held off the great Mustang. The worst part is his family in the car had no clue we were racing.

I handed the keys back to my friend afterward and just told him to add SHO's to his ever growing leave alone list and happily drove my Z home.

My dad, a mild car enthusiast who turns 60 this year, had never heard of a Grand National until I bought one.

Interesting my dad, mild car enthusiast 67 years old, bought a '87 Turbo-T with 5k miles in 1987 and still has it today. Occasionally I still here the story or two of Mustangs and Camaros that seem to know what the car is as they sit next to him at a light clutches depressed and tachs bouncing over 5k.

Old thread, I know, but a comment in the more recent SHO thread made me think of the speculating going on about the SHO. Looks like the 4000 lb number was a little low...


I knew it would be. No one has a magic bullet for weight, and the Taurus is a big car.

I've not seen any specs on the weight. But I'll be astounded if this comes in under 4000 pounds when the N/A MK-S is 4200. I'm betting on at least 4200 for the SHO.

Cars are heavy these days.

Edmunds test n/a AWD MK-S was 4349
Base model AWD 2009 Taurus is 3930

I knew it would be. Me too! I think it will be heavier than the G8 GT as well. Also, at $38k, you are closer to G8 GXP pricing. Might be better equipped for all I know in terms of options / creature comforts, but that's a lot of dough. And the GXP offers a stick.

Still, I hope it does well. Team USA needs all the hits we can get! :usa::D

I think the ultimate sleeper from the 90s would be a Caprice with the LT1. B-body LT1s had amazing low end torque, I remember blowing the doors off of plenty of Mustangs from the day at stop lights. And with the top-speed limiter off the cars could touch 150 mph.

Taurus SHOs were a hoot to drive with the manual transmission and the Yamaha V6 sounded sweet. I almost pulled the trigger on a '94 model back in 1996 for $12K.

Taurus SHOs were a hoot to drive with the manual transmission and the Yamaha V6 sounded sweet. I almost pulled the trigger on a '94 model back in 1996 for $12K.

They were pretty neat, Fusion Sport would be the closest thing to an early 90's SHO today.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/000_fusion2010garage_opt_opt.jpg

edit: I thought the Sport came with a manual, looks like it doesn't only 2.5L 4cyl cars do

^^
That looks much better.

and this is what it looks like smashed:
http://jalopnik.com/5300201/first-smashed+up-2010-ford-taurus-sho-in-chi+town

I've been familar with this car since it was out in the 90's with the Yamaha engine, but I just saw a commerical for the new one(Which I knew they were making).

But the commericial announcer called it the Taurus SHO(Pronounced like show). I ALWAYS thought it was S.H.O, each letter read individually. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as if 'show' was a single word, always just say S H O.

I've been familar with this car since it was out in the 90's with the Yamaha engine, but I just saw a commerical for the new one(Which I knew they were making).

But the commericial announcer called it the Taurus SHO(Pronounced like show). I ALWAYS thought it was S.H.O, each letter read individually. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as if 'show' was a single word, always just say S H O.

I noticed that too...:confused:

I noticed that too...:confused:

Glad I'm not the only one. Anyone else have input on this? I'd hate to think I've been saying it wrong for the last 15 years :lol:

I call it S.H.O. as well, and always laughed at peopel who called it "show".

:lol:

I've been familar with this car since it was out in the 90's with the Yamaha engine, but I just saw a commerical for the new one(Which I knew they were making).

But the commericial announcer called it the Taurus SHO(Pronounced like show). I ALWAYS thought it was S.H.O, each letter read individually. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as if 'show' was a single word, always just say S H O.


Yeah, it was always S...H...O. When people used to pronounce it Sho, that always annoyed me. Just like it annoyed me in the commercial.

Pronouncing it as a word is stupid. It is in all caps because it is an acronym. (Of course, sometimes acronyms become words - scuba, laser, sonar, etc.)

Is the Lincoln MKT the "Lincoln Mickt"? Would a BMW 325is be the "three twenty five is" (is what?)?

Taurus Es Aych Oh.

I call it S.H.O. as well, and always laughed at peopel who called it "show".

:lol:

It's akin to "Fast and Furious" people referring to NOS (the brand name En-Oh-Ess) as "NAWS" and therefore all nitrous oxide as "NAWS".

It's apparently ricer lingo that caught on at Ford. :o

Ok, I def. don't feel as stupid anymore :lol:

I had one of the original S.H.O.s.....it was definately NOT a "show".

Yes, I noticed too.

I noticed it as well. You know there were countless discussions on how to refer to it in that new spot.

I didn't think it was "show" either. Sounds stupid in my opinion. I thought it look pretty good, but "sho" just doesn't work for me.

You know there were countless discussions on how to refer to it in that new spot.

Well they chose wrong :lol:

I always thought it was supposed to be pronounced "show"....but I never owned one of those cars.

This Taurus "show";) is as fast as my G8 GT according to the magazines, and it gets the same or better gas mileage, with AWD and acres of interior space. But it doesn't do anything for me.

Maybe that's just my RWD bias???

This Taurus "show";) is as fast as my G8 GT according to the magazines
Which magazines??? All of the ones I read said the G8 GT was faster and handled better. They also say that the Taurus is more luxury than sport.

I call it S.H.O. as well, and always laughed at peopel who called it "show".

:lol:

Agreed, doesn't SHO stand for Super High Output?

Which magazines??? All of the ones I read said the G8 GT was faster and handled better. They also say that the Taurus is more luxury than sport.

Dedpends. The regular SHO with the all-season tires, regular taurus brakes, softer suspension, and 2.77 gears probably is little slower and won't handle as good but the ones equipped with the $990 track pack option are putting up #'s comparable to the G8 GT.

MT.
0-60 in 5.2sec
1/4 mile in 13.7@103mph
60mph-0 braking - 112'
skidpad - 87g's

I think C&D ran a similar time with theirs as well.

I call it S.H.O. as well, and always laughed at peopel who called it "show".

:lol:

Me too, I was disappointed when I heard it called "show" in the new Ford commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xJqzoNVxc8

I knew it was an acronym as a kid but that never stopped me from calling it show. Just comes out easier i guess.

Dedpends. The regular SHO with the all-season tires, regular taurus brakes, softer suspension, and 2.77 gears probably is little slower and won't handle as good but the ones equipped with the $990 track pack option are putting up #'s comparable to the G8 GT.

MT.
0-60 in 5.2sec
1/4 mile in 13.7@103mph
60mph-0 braking - 112'
skidpad - 87g's

I think C&D ran a similar time with theirs as well.

I believe so. I looked up the R&T times. R&T hasn't tested a SHO yet, but their MK-S times are identical to the G8 GT they tested, which was a relative lightweight base model that actually came in well under the factory advertised weight.

http://wot.motortrend.com/6523462/editorial/by-the-numbers-ford-taurus-sho-vs-pontiac-g8-vs-chrysler-300c/index.html

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/06/il-track-tested-2010-ford-taurus-sho-vs-pontiac-g8-gt.html

The track package seems to help the SHO in acceleration, not just handling, due to the ratio change, presumably.

I think the ultimate sleeper from the 90s would be a Caprice with the LT1. B-body LT1s had amazing low end torque, I remember blowing the doors off of plenty of Mustangs from the day at stop lights. And with the top-speed limiter off the cars could touch 150 mph.

I agree. The LT1 powered Buick Roadmaster would have been even more of a sleeper.

The Caprice was better aerodynamically than the Roadmonster, but it would only top out around 140ish.

Yeah I thought WTF when they said "show" in the commercial, and that is pronounced W.T.F. not "what-if." ;)

Really sounds pretty idiotic, unlike "S.H.O." which sounds pretty cool.