OMG! Official 2010 Taurus SHO

[Quiky]

Goddamn, QUIT TROLLING THIS THREAD ALREADY. I am going to delete posts if you people can't keep it civil in here.

 

[Spectre]

The problem with the Genesis, is that you are still buying a Hyundai that is trying pass off as a Luxury cruiser.

Change that to "LS400" and "Toyota" and you have the exact same situation as in the 80s - and you are still just as wrong.

Especially since one of my clients just bought one. It's a *really* nice car to drive. Interior is on par with current Mercedes and BMW, not to mention Lexus. The base car, not so much, but the V8 models are nicely appointed.

You have to admit, that 10/100 warranty is a huge advantage over the Ford if you take TCO into account. Especially since we *all* know that the Taurus is going to have a *lot* go wrong with it after about year four.

Yes, Ford has gotten better, to the point where they're not embarrassing any more, but they're still not all the way there on all their models. The outgoing Taurus is a example of "ugh", the current Focus is another "bad" example too. And, let's be honest, they need to take whoever it was that designed the current Escape interior out back and shoot him.

 

[Topgearfanatic]

I've sat in a Genesis, quite a nice place to be! I don't think ford has stepped up their interiors, their only good at making cheap interiors for inexpensive cars.

 

[bartboy9891]

Why on earth would you buy a SHO? If the SHO was the bargain rocket it used to be (around $25K in today's dollars,) sure, but $38K????? For a Taurus??????

The price is pretty much the same as the most recent SHO though.

Motor Trend We're eager to test the performance claims and see if this largest-of-all-SHOs can turn and stop as well as it scoots, but at first glance, this looks like a worthy heir to the SHO badge. Oh, and if the $37,995 base price sounds high, it's within $200 of the price of the last V-8 SHO sold in 1999, accounting for inflation. Clearly the power and performance have greatly outpaced inflation, as that 235-hp front-driver lumbered to 60 mph in a leisurely 7.5 seconds. Ah, progress.

Plus:

So equipped, acceleration is said to meet or exceed that of a BMW 550i (4.8 seconds to 60 mph and 13.3 seconds at 105.1 mph in the quarter, in our last example), while EPA highway fuel economy bests the Bimmer by nine percent, at 25 mpg.

Which sounds optimistic. But if it's true, it's easily quicker than the Genesis V8 which takes 5.5-6.0 seconds to 60mph.

 

[Spectre]

We'll see. Ever since the 1999 Cobra debacle, Ford's numbers cannot be trusted until a significant number of examples are out in the wild for fair and impartial testing.

 

[p0w3r]

Audi/VW uses front biased AWD, so does Volvo and Acura. And most of the cheap crossovers/wagons that say they have AWD have front-biased AWD.

??? Audi quattro is a full time 4wd system. It splits power 50/50 on most cars, 40/60 on RS/S models and the new A4 i believe.

 

[bartboy9891]

We'll see. Ever since the 1999 Cobra debacle, Ford's numbers cannot be trusted until a significant number of examples are out in the wild for fair and impartial testing.

It's not completely implausible, the G8 GT has similar hp/torque and weight figures and does 0-60mph in the low 5 second range.

??? Audi quattro is a full time 4wd system. It splits power 50/50 on most cars, 40/60 on RS/S models and the new A4 i believe.

This is not true for all Audi's, there were several different systems that were used

From Wikipedia entry for quattro (four wheel drive system)
The main advantages of the Haldex Traction LSC system over the Torsen-based system include: a slight gain in fuel economy (due to the decoupling of the rear axle when not needed, thereby reducing driveline losses due to friction), and the ability to maintain a short engine bay and larger passenger compartment due to the transverse engine layout. A further advantage of the Haldex, when compared to just front wheel drive variants of the same model, is a more balanced front-rear weight distribution (due to the location of the Haldex center "differential" next to the rear axle).

Disadvantages of the Haldex Traction system include: the vehicle has inherent front-wheel drive handling characteristics (as when engine braking, load is only applied on the front wheels, and due to the reactive nature of the Haldex system and slight lag time in the redistribution of engine power), and the Hadex LSC unit also requires additional maintenance, in the form of an oil and filter change every 60,000 kilometres (37,000 mi) (whereas the Torsen is completely maintenance free). Another important disadvantage of the Haldex system, is the requirement for all four tyres to be of nigh-on identical wear levels (and rolling radii), due to the Haldex requiring data from all four road wheel speed sensors. A final significant disadvantage is the reduction in luggage capacity in the boot (trunk), due to the bulky Haldex LSC unit necessitating a raised boot floor by some three inches.

 

[Spectre]

Oh, I'm not saying that it couldn't do it.

What I'm saying is that Ford has been caught lying about their numbers in the recent past, so accepting their numbers at face value is a bad idea.

 

[Ezbok58a]

Oh, I'm not saying that it couldn't do it.

What I'm saying is that Ford has been caught lying about their numbers in the recent past, so accepting their numbers at face value is a bad idea.

Yeah in 1999 You hold GM in the same light because the 1970 LS6 454 was listed at 'only 450hp' from the factory?

And Ford Fixed the problems of the 99 Cobra's I don't know of another manufacturer who actually made right on their own cars power claims.

And the 2003-04 Terminators were actually putting 390hp To the fucking wheels bone stock... Yeah they aren't to be trusted according to you. :lol:


And since you keep bringing up that the Genesis, have you actually driven one or even better, seen one on the road?

I have driven one, and it was the most uninspiring car I've been in, a Sx4 Suzuki was more enjoyable to drive than that.

And the Genesis has been out for several months now, how many have I seen on the road? None, zip, nada.

 

[Spectre]

Yeah in 1999 You hold GM in the same light because the 1970 LS6 454 was listed at 'only 450hp' from the factory?

Going *over* claimed power is fine; the claimed number is supposed to be an "at least".

Going under.... not so much.

And Ford Fixed the problems of the 99 Cobra's I don't know of another manufacturer who actually made right on their own cars power claims.

That's because nobody else in recent memory has made an error like that. In fact, some makers like BMW underrate their engine outputs deliberately, just in case of problems like that.

And the 2003-04 Terminators were actually putting 390hp To the fucking wheels bone stock... Yeah they aren't to be trusted according to you. :lol:

Not all of them. Many produced at or around the rated number, not 390 at the wheels. Quite a few did produce more, including my friend merp's Cobra, but really - the majority of them just didn't make 390 at the wheels out of the box.

How do I know? I show up at SVT club dyno days occasionally (since Jaguar R-models were technically SVT/SVO cars under Ford):

Dynos don't lie.

And since you keep bringing up that the Genesis, have you actually driven one or even better, seen one on the road?

Skip post 62, did we?

And the Genesis has been out for several months now, how many have I seen on the road? None, zip, nada.

Seen seven in the last month alone, all different. Maybe it's just that NJ doesn't have an economy any more so nobody's buying cars there - still doing well down here in the Lone Star State.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

That's because nobody else in recent memory has made an error like that.

To be fair, not as well-publicized, yes, but the change to SAE HP ratings made a few manufacturers a bit more honest about fudging their power figures. I remember in 2005 when Road and Track did SAE dyno testing for a number of cars and compared the results to the published figures. The Acura RSX-Type S was rated at 210HP but actually made only 176. I still have the numbers for a few cars but I don't think they ever put the article online.

 

[Crazyjeeper]

To be fair, not as well-publicized, yes, but the change to SAE HP ratings made a few manufacturers a bit more honest about fudging their power figures. I remember in 2005 when Road and Track did SAE dyno testing for a number of cars and compared the results to the published figures. The Acura RSX-Type S was rated at 210HP but actually made only 176. I still have the numbers for a few cars but I don't think they ever put the article online.

I remember that article. A bunch of American cars got more power and a bunch of Japanese cars lost power. The STS-V went from 440 to 469 and the Z06 when from 500 to 505. :lol:

 

[Spectre]

To be fair, not as well-publicized, yes, but the change to SAE HP ratings made a few manufacturers a bit more honest about fudging their power figures. I remember in 2005 when Road and Track did SAE dyno testing for a number of cars and compared the results to the published figures. The Acura RSX-Type S was rated at 210HP but actually made only 176. I still have the numbers for a few cars but I don't think they ever put the article online.

Yes and no. That was a change in the testing procedure - if you did it the older way (which is what they used when they built the car and what was used to make the claims), it really did make the claimed horsepower. Unlike the Ford Cobras which *didn't* make the horsepower that was claimed if you used the same test that they used to make their claims!

It should be noted that Ford also didn't fix the problem until several people threatened to sue them and (IIRC) someone actually filed a suit.

 

[Dogbert]

Dynos don't lie.

Hmm. To get into the DynoJet vs. Mustang vs DynaPack discussion...

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Yes and no. That was a change in the testing procedure - if you did it the older way (which is what they used when they built the car and what was used to make the claims), it really did make the claimed horsepower. Unlike the Ford Cobras which *didn't* make the horsepower that was claimed if you used the same test that they used to make their claims!

Again, yes and no - before SAE there was no standard for HP numbers, and as such manufacturers could do whatever they wanted to increase the numbers they got - testing at sea level in artificially cooled environments was a well-known trick for eking out some inflated HP numbers for a naturally aspirated engine. It should also be noted that almost all of the American cars in the test gained HP from the SAE test over their claimed numbers, indicating that sort of thing wasn't going on in Detroit.

 

[Spectre]

Hmm. To get into the DynoJet vs. Mustang vs DynaPack discussion...

Heh, well, that's a point - but if you test and calibrate against known quantities, (which you need to do with all precision tools), then you can be sure the results are accurate. On a warm day, my then-stock XKR pumped out 320hp at the rear wheels through that Merc 5 speed auto. It was originally rated at 370hp; other calibrated dynos of different makes in the area seem to agree about the RWHP figure and a 50hp loss through the driveline is reasonable.

 

[Cellos88GT]

Especially since we *all* know that the Taurus is going to have a *lot* go wrong with it after about year four.

and you know this because you've had a SHO sitting in your driveway for the past 4 years?

Let the car hit the road first and net a few reviews before you start spouting off asinine comments about it's reliability.

 

[Cellos88GT]

That's because nobody else in recent memory has made an error like that.

*cough* Nissan GT-R *cough*

 

[Spectre]

and you know this because you've had a SHO sitting in your driveway for the past 4 years?

Let the car hit the road first and net a few reviews before you start spouting off asinine comments about it's reliability.

No, because one of my clients made the mistake of buying 500s and Tauruses for salesdroids' cars.

Ford's current track record on those things isn't so great.

*cough* Nissan GT-R *cough*

Please point out where Nissan made a horsepower claim in the US for the GT-R that the USDM GT-R didn't meet or exceed?

 

[Cellos88GT]

No, because one of my clients made the mistake of buying 500s and Tauruses for salesdroids' cars.

Ford's current track record on those things isn't so great.

The SHO has an entirely different power plant and transmission that you nor I know nothing about in terms of reliability.

Please point out where Nissan made a horsepower claim in the US for the GT-R that the USDM GT-R didn't meet or exceed?

I was referencing the launch control fiasco which IMO is equally ridiculous to the '99 Cobra fiasco.