Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Is anybody getting excited about the new SHO?

Old Jun 20, 2009 | 11:03 AM
  #76  
Aaron91RS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 162
From: St. Louis, MO
The AWD is the thing that makes this car worth considering.
Until you drive a powerful AWD car you can't realize how much going back to RWD sucks.
Beyond that any twin turbo that big can make and easy 500hp and harder 700+HP.
Unfortunatly they felt the need to wrap it in a ford bronco class frame at a whopping 4400lbs. And price it at $10 a lb after tax.
It's look OK. I'd like to see what the lincoln/mercury equivilant looked like. But either way the G8 looks 10x better.
Sticking with my sub 3000lb DSM's.
Knowing how few turbo awd cars sold with past brands when a cheaper NA fwd was offered(like in the DSM case)
I think any thoughts of selling 10k a year is VERY optimistic past the first year.

Last edited by Aaron91RS; Jun 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM.
Old Jun 20, 2009 | 11:14 AM
  #77  
94LightningGal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
They are anticipating selling LESS than 10K a year.

The car will be very profitable, no matter what, as all the work was done on the MKS.
Old Jun 21, 2009 | 11:49 AM
  #78  
TheV6Bird's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,040
From: New Haven, CT
I think it would've been cooler to have the SHO as a Fusion model. Not so much for the nameplate, but for size. All the old Taurus cars were mid size, and then Ford screwed up with their "F" names (Taurus sized car became the Fusion). Fusion turns out to sell well, but Ford needs the Taurus name because no one gave a **** about a Five Hundred.
Old Jun 21, 2009 | 11:52 AM
  #79  
patriotpa's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 22
Not really my thing. Don't like Fords. Had four of 'em. All had MAJOR problems.
Old Jun 21, 2009 | 10:35 PM
  #80  
bossco's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Originally Posted by patriotpa
Not really my thing. Don't like Fords. Had four of 'em. All had MAJOR problems.
Never buy one again because of that experience?
Old Jun 21, 2009 | 11:29 PM
  #81  
formula79's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Well it is a Ford..so it will have rebates at some point. It's funny how you can throw all that money at DOHC, twin turbo, AWD, and so forth, and come out with a car that weighs more, costs more, gets worse gas milage, and performs worse than a G8 GT.
Old Jun 21, 2009 | 11:50 PM
  #82  
slt's Avatar
slt
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,024
amen
Old Jun 22, 2009 | 01:17 AM
  #83  
Gold_Rush's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by formula79
It's funny how you can throw all that money at DOHC, twin turbo, AWD, and so forth, and come out with a car that weighs more, costs more, gets worse gas milage, and performs worse than a G8 GT.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to say that just cause it uses Dohc, TT, AWD, extra features, and so forth that it should somehow weigh less as well as cost less and get better performance/fuel economy?

There's no real surprise here, but your post makes it sound like you're almost surprised with the results. Less complex and smaller car with similar output > More complex and larger car as far as weight and cost is concerned and we all know that weight will in turn affect things like performance and fuel economy. In that regard, it's easily G8 > SHO.

Maybe i read your post wrong.

Last edited by Gold_Rush; Jun 22, 2009 at 01:23 AM.
Old Jun 22, 2009 | 10:13 PM
  #84  
formula79's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally Posted by Gold_Rush
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to say that just cause it uses Dohc, TT, AWD, extra features, and so forth that it should somehow weigh less as well as cost less and get better performance/fuel economy?

There's no real surprise here, but your post makes it sound like you're almost surprised with the results. Less complex and smaller car with similar output > More complex and larger car as far as weight and cost is concerned and we all know that weight will in turn affect things like performance and fuel economy. In that regard, it's easily G8 > SHO.

Maybe i read your post wrong.
I am pointing to the idea that you can throw a bunch of money at technology and still not come out with a better result than old cave man technology.
Old Jun 24, 2009 | 09:35 PM
  #85  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by formula79
I am pointing to the idea that you can throw a bunch of money at technology and still not come out with a better result than old cave man technology.
Some would argue that cave man technology is more efficient than high tech. Can you imagine how much more metal is used to build a DOHC V8 than a comparative OHV V8? A waste of the earth's resources in my view.
Old Jun 24, 2009 | 11:45 PM
  #86  
onebadponcho's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 954
From: Shelton, WA
Old Jun 24, 2009 | 11:54 PM
  #87  
Gold_Rush's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Good read on the new taurus/SHO and the articles shine some light on the kind of car it really is.

Autoblog on the SHO.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/23/f...-without-emot/

AutoBlog on the regular Taurus
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/22/f...d-future-king/
Old Jun 25, 2009 | 12:40 AM
  #88  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
GR, a good read? You kidding?

Damning with faint praise comes to mind.

They're part of the reason the SHO has such a composed ride, but they aren't terribly athletic shoes, and we found they protested too early and too often when pushed hard into corners.

To be fair, if we had nearly 4,400 pounds of metal bearing down on a few square inches of our contact patches, we'd probably take to howling with a quickness, too. Simply put, retuned suspension or no, uprated tires or no, the SHO simply possesses too much mass to feel tossable, too much heft for sporting drivers to want to grab it by the scruff and chuck it into a corner *****-nilly. The car's all-wheel drive system is a great safety net and pulls it through corners faithfully when carrying inadvisable amounts of speed, but we couldn't find much joy carving up the otherwise inviting roads that spaghetti around the Great Smoky Mountains.

Ford's suspension tuners are among the best in the business, but they aren't magicians, and they can't suspend the laws of physics. Maybe Dearborn's SVT team could've exacted some more engaging behavior out of the suspension (they were not a part of the SHO's development), but even that's a stretch. The bottom line is the SHO weighs more than a Mercury Grand Marquis (with 60% of the burden looming on the tires that steer) and combined with a front-biased all-wheel drive system, well... it's a recipe for push, not entertainment.

If we are beginning to sound a bit disappointed, well, we are. But perhaps it's our fault. By fixating on the "SHO" badge glued to the trunk lid, we duped ourselves us into thinking that this car would be different than what it turned out to be – despite the fact that we already understood that the regular-strength 2010 model intentionally orbits a wholly different planet than it did in the Eighties and Nineties. We thought we were getting something emotional – a genuine sport sedan. But real sport sedans respond to quick changes in direction like an Olympic gymnast. Real sports sedans ferret out corners like washing machines seek out pocket change. Real sport sedans are drawn to a pointed edge. But this SHO is safe-as-houses – it's all smoothed-off curves.

Don't get us wrong, Blue Oval faithful. There's plenty of meat here to get worked up over, but there's just not enough flavor to slake our red-meat enthusiast side. What Ford has wrought with the SHO isn't really a sports sedan at all – it's a four-door cruiser with sporty undertones. It's an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to high performance. And while this big bull generates some pretty handsome numbers, it fails to inspire drivers to push harder, something that we desperately hoped it would do.

In the end, we prefer to think of Ford's highest-spec Taurus as a compellingly priced full-size luxury car for those who aren't hung up on expensive labels. It's an exceptional executive express, and it'd surely be a monumental partner on a transcontinental journey. It's even a great sleeper in the grand tradition. But it isn't a sport sedan. And to us, at least... that means it isn't really a SHO.
Old Jun 25, 2009 | 04:25 AM
  #89  
Gold_Rush's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
It's a good read if you get the point behind the article. It seems people were expecting a G8, but this is NOT a G8 kind of car. It's more of Hyundai genesis v8, Cadillac STS v8 AWD, or 300c type of car. Think all-weather fullsized luxury cruiser with a host of tech-features and better than average performance.
Old Jun 25, 2009 | 12:32 PM
  #90  
cjmatt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 983
From: Motor City
Originally Posted by Gold_Rush
It's a good read if you get the point behind the article. It seems people were expecting a G8, but this is NOT a G8 kind of car. It's more of Hyundai genesis v8, Cadillac STS v8 AWD, or 300c type of car. Think all-weather fullsized luxury cruiser with a host of tech-features and better than average performance.
exactly. people forget that the first sho was 1000lbs lighter and had 220hp. If thats what they wanted, Go get a fusion sport, it weighs 3300lbs and has 260hp. IMO The fusion SPORT shouldve been the Fusion SHO. This is a sporty Luxury car. 5.2 to 60 is awesome for a 4400lb vehicle, it comes with every option available too, were talking heated and cooled massaging seats. you cant expect that to not weigh a bunch. Go take a look at the interior of a G8, its sparce black hard plastic and has no options

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.