Leftlanenews: Taurus SHO

[Nethead]

Meh:  'Nothin' wrong with the SHO's looks once you get past the excessive chrome, but nothin' exciting about them either.  That powertrain could honk in Mustangs, where some version of it will wind up in short order!

[CJ]

There's nothing wrong with the SHO's looks?  Have you SEEN the rear end?  It's quite ugly back there.  It's too big.  The whole car is too big.

[68_427]

I agree.  The front is round and the rear is square.  Doesn't work IMO.  I have to be honest I like the '09s better as a family sedan.

[Nethead]

There's nothing wrong with the SHO's looks?  Have you SEEN the rear end?  It's quite ugly back there.  It's too big.  The whole car is too big.

CJ:  CeejDude, read my comments upstream in this thread, and in some other Taurus SHO threads.  You'll see that I don't care for its size & weight--but that's true of any car that size and weight.  

Fords usually have overly busy rear ends--and that ain't pretty.  The cheese-grater grille is ugly, too.  However, there are no beauties in this slice of the marketplace, and none of them get enough of my attention for me to even bother to be critical of them.  Some things are just better left ignored, y' know?

[sportyaccordy]

Car is about a size too big. Motor would have been a much more interesting proposition in the Fusion with about 700-800 less pounds and prob close to the same level of practicality & comfort.

I love the new Fusion. I stare every time I see one.

[Catman]

Car is about a size too big. Motor would have been a much more interesting proposition in the Fusion with about 700-800 less pounds and prob close to the same level of practicality & comfort.

I love the new Fusion. I stare every time I see one.

If you like the size of the Fusion than Ford builds a car to your liking size-wise.  How is it that the Taurus is too big?  It's too big for you.  Why is this an issue with you guys.  I would assume there are people that actually want a large car.

[Raza]

If you like the size of the Fusion than Ford builds a car to your liking size-wise.  How is it that the Taurus is too big?  It's too big for you.  Why is this an issue with you guys.  I would assume there are people that actually want a large car.

NO!  Everyone has to like what I like.  Anything bigger than a compact is too big for everyone.  If it's smaller than a compact, it's too small.  Midsizers are for fags, full size cars are for even larger fags1121@!!23!!!!!!!!!!!!64.2!

[SVT666]

If you like the size of the Fusion than Ford builds a car to your liking size-wise.  How is it that the Taurus is too big?  It's too big for you.  Why is this an issue with you guys.  I would assume there are people that actually want a large car.

It's too big to be a Taurus SHO.  It's fast in a straight line, but that weight and size hamper the handling.

[Catman]

It's too big to be a Taurus SHO.  It's fast in a straight line, but that weight and size hamper the handling.

OK if you put it that way I agree.  The Fusion should get the SHO treatment.  It's a better candidate. 

[Cookie Monster]

I don't see why the Fusion couldn't have been named the Taurus and the Taurus named the Fusion.

[Raza]

It's the Taurus SHO; Super High Output.  Not the Taurus SHOAVGH.  (Super High Output and Very Good Handling). 

[GoCougs]

I like the car, size, looks and all, but it's really only for mega hardcore Blue Oval fanboys.

Unlike when the SHO first debuted, today there are similar performing sedans available from more upscale manufacturers for equivalent cost.

[sportyaccordy]

If you like the size of the Fusion than Ford builds a car to your liking size-wise.  How is it that the Taurus is too big?  It's too big for you.  Why is this an issue with you guys.  I would assume there are people that actually want a large car.

OK if you put it that way I agree.  The Fusion should get the SHO treatment.  It's a better candidate. 

[Catman]

Shut it 

[SVT666]

OK if you put it that way I agree.  The Fusion should get the SHO treatment.  It's a better candidate. 

Well, the SVT Fusion is still in works from what I hear.  365 hp, AWD, 6 spd manual, and the typical SVT suspension upgrades, seats, and subtle cosmetic changes.

[MX793]

Well, the SVT Fusion is still in works from what I hear.  365 hp, AWD, 6 spd manual, and the typical SVT suspension upgrades, seats, and subtle cosmetic changes.

I'll believe that when I see it.  I can only think of one FWD/AWD application of the Duratec 3.0 that Ford ever offered a manual gearbox and that was the early Escape (and the Mazda6, but that wasn't a Ford branded vehicle).  If memory serves, that drivetrain choice no longer exists.  Prior to that, the last time Ford coupled a stickshift with a V6 of 3.0L or greater in a FWD vehicle was in the 2nd generation SHO in the early 90s.  The current Fusion doesn't offer a manual/V6 combo, even on the 3.0L versions for which a mating manual gearbox already exists.  There has yet to be a manual tied to the newer Duratec35/37 (even in the Mazda6, which previously offered a manual with the 3.0L V6).  More than likely, the SVT Fusion will get the same tranny as the new Taurus SHO.

[SVT666]

I'll believe that when I see it.  I can only think of one FWD/AWD application of the Duratec 3.0 that Ford ever offered a manual gearbox and that was the early Escape (and the Mazda6, but that wasn't a Ford branded vehicle).  If memory serves, that drivetrain choice no longer exists.  Prior to that, the last time Ford coupled a stickshift with a V6 of 3.0L or greater in a FWD vehicle was in the 2nd generation SHO in the early 90s.  The current Fusion doesn't offer a manual/V6 combo, even on the 3.0L versions for which a mating manual gearbox already exists.  There has yet to be a manual tied to the newer Duratec35/37 (even in the Mazda6, which previously offered a manual with the 3.0L V6).  More than likely, the SVT Fusion will get the same tranny as the new Taurus SHO.

No other Mustang comes with 6 spd manuals except for the SVT cars.  So I think it's entirely possible.  However, you could be entirely right as well.  We'll have to wait and see.

[565]

It's too big.  It's too heavy.  It's a six.  It's AWD.  It's thru the lights in under 14

VIDEO: 2010 Taurus SHO breaks into the 13s
by Chris Shunk (RSS feed) on Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:57 PM

The 2010 Taurus SHO packs 365 horsepower courtesy of its twin-turbo EcoBoost V6 engine, but something about the sheer size of Ford's full-size sedan tells us that it doesn't quite belong on the track. That didn't stop one man from taking the 21st century SHO to New England Dragway in Epping, New Hampshire to try his luck in a straight-line foot race.

The massive SHO took its spot at the left starting gate against a Fox body Mustang of undetermined modification, and when the tree turned green, the 4,300-pound Taurus gave its fellow Ford all it could handle. Hit the jump to watch the 2010 Taurus SHO notch a credible 13.92 at 100 mph at Epping. Since we've already seen the 350 horsepower EcoBoost MKS hit 13.9 at Milan dragway in Michigan, we're guessing the SHO Taurus was either bone stock or only modestly modified. Hat tip to Brian.

100mph traps for 40K?  Man that's pretty slow and certainly nothing to brag about.  The 13.9 ET is deceptive because of the AWD launch.  Short of a full bore stoplight launch, the SHO is disappointing.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q1/the_quickest_cars_of_2009_20_000_to_25_000-feature

Toyota Camry V-6
Base Price: $24,935
0-to-60-mph time: 5.8 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.3 sec @ 99 mph

Mazda 6 s
Base Price: $24,800
0-to-60-mph time: 6.1 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.7 sec @ 98 mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/07q1/the_quickest_cars_of_2007_20_000_to_25_000-feature/fourth_place_3a_2007_nissan_altima_3.5se_page_3

Altima 3.5SE
Base price: $24,615
0-to-60-mph time: 5.9 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.6 sec @ 99 mph

The SHO is a joke.  For a supposed high performance machine, any one of thus sub 25k family sedans with similar interior space would give it a run for its money on the highway.

[The Pirate]

Well, the SVT Fusion is still in works from what I hear.  365 hp, AWD, 6 spd manual, and the typical SVT suspension upgrades, seats, and subtle cosmetic changes.

If it comes exactly as you describe, then I would totally start hocking all my possessions for one.

[ChrisV]

Toyota Camry V-6
Mazda 6 s
Altima 3.5SE

Wow. Did not know that Fusion competitors were the Taurus SHO's target demographic. Mazda 6? Really?


I guess as a full size sedan owner I have a different perspective on it than you guys. And I like the way the new Taurus looks. In fact, it's the first Taurus that I've actually liked the looks of ever.

[ifcar]

Wow. Did not know that Fusion competitors were the Taurus SHO's target demographic. Mazda 6? Really?

He said that these are cars with comparable performance and interior space. People are too often bound by class distinctions based on irrelevant metrics like exterior size and how a car fits into an automaker's lineup. Really, no one is going to say "I like the way the Mazda6 drives and it has plenty of space for me, but despite all else being equal it is imperative that I have a physically larger vehicle."

[Raza]

He said that these are cars with comparable performance and interior space. People are too often bound by class distinctions based on irrelevant metrics like exterior size and how a car fits into an automaker's lineup. Really, no one is going to say "I like the way the Mazda6 drives and it has plenty of space for me, but despite all else being equal it is imperative that I have a physically larger vehicle."

I'm not so sure about that.  Exterior size affects how people view the interior.  Those words may not come out of their mouths, but they may view the smaller car as smaller on the interior as well, even if it's not. 

[ifcar]

I'm not so sure about that.  Exterior size affects how people view the interior.  Those words may not come out of their mouths, but they may view the smaller car as smaller on the interior as well, even if it's not. 

There's certainly a chance it wouldn't occur to people to look at a smaller car with as much space or more. (If people did, no one would buy Chevrolet Impalas.) But once they've looked, I'd find it difficult to believe that they'd still gravitate toward the bigger vehicle, especially in one as claustrophobic as the latest Taurus seems to be.

[ChrisV]

He said that these are cars with comparable performance and interior space. People are too often bound by class distinctions based on irrelevant metrics like exterior size and how a car fits into an automaker's lineup. Really, no one is going to say "I like the way the Mazda6 drives and it has plenty of space for me, but despite all else being equal it is imperative that I have a physically larger vehicle."

You can have similar interior volumes, but have completely different amounts of useable "space" due to the arrangement of the space and components. Kind of like a 10"x10"x6' tube will have different/less useability than a 30"x30"x30" box, even though the 10" tube has more volume.

Looking at the rear seat area, even in person, it looks much larger, with more legroom, and easier ingress/egrtess than the listed cars:



i really like the way this car looks inside and out.

[ifcar]

I'm going entirely by usable space. The Altima has little, definitely, but the Camry and Mazda6 are quite spacious. A photo of the SHO interior doesn't say otherwise.

[ChrisV]

I'm going entirely by usable space. The Altima has little, definitely, but the Camry and Mazda6 are quite spacious. A photo of the SHO interior doesn't say otherwise.

I've tried to get in and out of the rear of the Mazda 6s when my buddy was looking at buying one a couple months ago. Nowhere NEAR as much room there as the Taurus, nor is it easy to get in and out without bumping your head on the low sweeping roofline.

I posted the photo becasue I've been in both. And the legroom shown in the photo, while not up to my 740iL standards, is still much more than cars like the 6 and Altima. And the trunk of the taurus is more useful than the 6 or Altima, too (though if the 6 was still available in hatchback form, that would take the kake, there).

yeah, I do tend to compare everything to this:



Hehehehehe.

[Raza]

There's certainly a chance it wouldn't occur to people to look at a smaller car with as much space or more. (If people did, no one would buy Chevrolet Impalas.) But once they've looked, I'd find it difficult to believe that they'd still gravitate toward the bigger vehicle, especially in one as claustrophobic as the latest Taurus seems to be.

People see safety in size regardless of reality.

[565]

The SHO has all of .1 inches of rear leg room over the Mazda6.  38 inches vs 38.1 inches.  Plus total room is just .4 cubic feet of difference 101.9 vs 102.3 cubic feet.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2010/mazda/mazda6/i_touring_sedan/1869/specifications/index.html

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2010/ford/taurus/sho_sedan/1353/specifications/index.html

Plus the Mazda has more front leg room as well, so total leg room, assuming you move the seats about, is greater for the Mazda than the Taurus.  Interior room between the two cars is about the same.  You can talk about the psychological effects of having a car over 200 inches long all you want, but the fact is the new Taurus had its interior room severely compromised by styling (compared to the 2009 Taurus of similar footprint which was indeed huge inside).

The SHO's room is nothing to brag about subjectively either.  Edmunds remarked it feels smaller than an Accord (because it is).

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=153146

"2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 has a subtly more spacious cabin. The beltline is lower, the seats are wider and, whether you're driving or riding in back, the cabin has an airier feel. Here we are back at the personal space argument again."

[sparkplug]

The SHO has all of .1 inches of rear leg room over the Mazda6.  38 inches vs 38.1 inches.  Plus total room is just .4 cubic feet of difference 101.9 vs 102.3 cubic feet.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2010/mazda/mazda6/i_touring_sedan/1869/specifications/index.html

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2010/ford/taurus/sho_sedan/1353/specifications/index.html

Plus the Mazda has more front leg room as well, so total leg room, assuming you move the seats about, is greater for the Mazda than the Taurus.  Interior room between the two cars is about the same.  You can talk about the psychological effects of having a car over 200 inches long all you want, but the fact is the new Taurus had its interior room severely compromised by styling (compared to the 2009 Taurus of similar footprint which was indeed huge inside).

The SHO's room is nothing to brag about subjectively either.  Edmunds remarked it feels smaller than an Accord (because it is).

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=153146

"2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 has a subtly more spacious cabin. The beltline is lower, the seats are wider and, whether you're driving or riding in back, the cabin has an airier feel. Here we are back at the personal space argument again."

The 2008 Taurus was so huge. What happened?

[ifcar]

The 2008 Taurus was so huge. What happened?

Styling. Ford is gambling that people would rather have a sleek fullsize sedan than a useful one. We'll see if that works out for them.