2010 Taurus SHO

Actually... the number tossed around for the Vortech that I had on my

4.0L was round 40HP to get 10PSI... You have to remember that an SC will spin freely since there is no resistance due to building up air pressure in the intake....

true, this gets back to efficiency of the compressor, I think the KeeneBell takes about 12 HP for 8# (about 75 - 80% efficient) Roots are about 50% efficient forgot what the Vortechs are (60%?), the less efficient add more heat to the air. got some books on it somewhere around here

Michael Johnson wrote in news:gtp9vs$ui7$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive side as well.

Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:

I can't imagine that you can spin them with your hand to make any boost at all. It takes about 50 hp to make 10# of boost with a centrifugal sc. And I don't think that heat soak is as bad as it was back in the 80s. Better bearings and oiling.

I've been arguing for that for the last dozen years.

The EPA, USDOT, and UAW all make things difficult to mix the regional product lines. It's not like a car from Austrailia or Europe is going to be unsafe... 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other at worst. Then there is the idiotcy of US corporations regional marketing that demands they don't mix.

It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then maybe it is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with one car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to be an industry wide phenomenon. At least Ford seems to be moving in the right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate back shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.

Michael Johnson wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1 @news.motzarella.org:

therefore

The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would sell better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really think the Taurus platform is superior?

True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford lineup that moves me.

I think back to the last time an auto company tried the transplant route and it didn't work so well. That was with the GTO. While it looked great on paper it never lit a fire over here in the USA. Maybe the Falcon would meet the same fate. The trouble is ford can't afford to get the Taurus wrong again. I think there is a lot riding on this car for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire company. I can see why they may not want to put that much faith in an Aussie chassis.

If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with the Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat upscale model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a V-8, RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny thing is the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL these traits. I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We had 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again, the Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a supercharged V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks, big brakes etc. Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with it one of its longest running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin to killing off the Mustang, IMO.

Michael Johnson wrote in news:gtqfkm$nl$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now seems to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines this IMO. Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the new Taurus and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda already has on the road.

Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution; I'm only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.

What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG factor.

I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after the SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder that Ford came through it all as well as they did.

I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high performance variant. I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't have the Obama boot up their ass and the good mojo of taking no taxpayer bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want to buy domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are in, of soon to be, in bankruptcy and they have pissed away billions of taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands likely for the rest of my life.

I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where the car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including a manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car that could be expanded on in the future.

Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s.

You are right... it's all the regulations that make it impossible... A good friend of mine is an engineer at Ford... way back in the late

80's or early 90's he got stuck on a project to work on a world car... he said it was simply impossible due to the wildly varied regulations between the countries...

A co-worker from Belgium was here in the States for 3 few years. He bought a VW Jetta while he was hear and then shipped it back to Belgium when he transfered back to Belgium... The officials there made him change the tail lights! Seems they weren't up to their regulations... so that should give you a taste of what you would run into... LOL

Michael Johnson wrote in news:gtqn7f$u24$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k, I'd probably jump at the chance. ;)

I'm not sure that the marketplace would support a car like that from Ford. I think that the higher-end coupe segment is pretty full right now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford to produce a car with a good price point.

Indeed. ;)

Therein lies the rub with the Taurus market segment. Make it too sporty and you fail to capture your target market. I think the car is about spot on for styling considering who will be likely to buy it.

With Obama calling the shots at GM now, what are the odds the Corvette will survive or continue to get the funding and special treatment in has enjoyed in the past? It doesn't meet the "green" agenda he has planned for GM and Chrysler. Obama has cut the balls off the management of any corporation he has gained control over. He has already said Chrysler will be a green automaker. Say goodbye to the Viper, Challenger, 300C, Charger and anything with an SR/T badge on it.

I think they could hit a home run with a Thunderbird that takes the Mustang strategy of providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck. They can take a page from Hyundai's play book with their Genesis cars.

Not as bad a line of mistakes as GM and Chrysler though. ;)

Michael Johnson wrote in news:gtted3$715$1 @news.motzarella.org:

Two questions:

a) How is the current Taurus doing?

b) What's different about the "new" Taurus (not the SHO, but the "family" car)?

All of that remains to be seen. There is a small but certain market for powerful vehicles which, if American makers ignore, will be captured by foreign makers.

I don't believe Obama is "calling the shots", either. The government may be involved in general, high-level business planning (i.e., ousting Wagoner), but I don't think it's going to get down to the level of dictating what models to cut and keep.

nameplate

I'd have to disagree here. I don't think Ford can out-Hyundai Hyundai.

Good point!

All in all, I agree with you in that I'd be hard-pressed to buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle. However, I'll be most likely shopping later this year and I'll leave no stone unturned.

I don't know how it is doing. It is a rebadged 500 and was never intended to fill the roll the Taurus was designed to fill, IMO. The 500 is just too milk toast (way more milk toast than the 2003 Taurus my wife drives). Ford just wanted to get the Taurus name back in the showrooms ASAP and the 500 was the only way to do it. The new car has been designed as a true Taurus replacement so it will be interesting to see how well it does. I think Ford has designed a decent car. Now the question is, can they market it?

Styling is MUCH better. Inside and out. That in itself is a good start. The 500 based car made the Camry look like a Ferrari. Plus, if the bones are there to allow for a good SHO then that speaks well for the base Taurus, IMO.

Obama has said Chrysler will be a green automaker. With Fiat, UAW and Obama calling the shots the days of torquey V-8s are gone for Chrysler, IMO.

Obama forced the resignation of GM's CEO and told Citi's CEO he is out too. He is definitely calling the shots for Chrysler, GM, Citibank, Freddie, Fannie etc. We are in the midst of having whole industries and business sectors nationalized right before our eyes and most Americans could care less. They will once it is too late and jobs are scarce for decades and their taxes are at the level of Sweden's. ;)

.... and they can start with a new value minded Thunderbird.

The biggest reason I won't be buying a GM or Chrysler is I don't think they have a prayer of surviving. Chrysler isn't really "Chrysler" but a subsidiary of Fiat or, in reality, a subsidiary of another POS automaker. GM is next on the butcher block. I have ZERO faith in the UAW in collaboration with the federal government being able to run an automaker and delivering cars anyone wants to drive.

Look for Ford to be put in Obama's cross hairs after he castrates Chrysler and GM. He can't have a domestic automaker building cars that the public wants and pushing GM and Chrysler further into the whole. If he controls the Big Three then the tariffs will roll out on the foreign automakers and we will be forced to drive the shit boxes mandated by a socialist government. Don't be so naive to think this isn't coming if Obama runs unchecked long enough. ;)

If Obama and the Car Czar have their way, the performance car will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to increase performance in future cars you'll have to add another battery.

"Fred Brown" wrote in news:4a32585e$0$213 $ snipped-for-privacy@newscene.com:

One day the performance car will be back with a vengeance - only it'll be electric. Check out the torque curve on an electric motor. It's completely flat.

They're here already, but expensive. Check out the Tesla site at:

"Dick R." wrote in news:Y6adne2mNPdGvanXnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.visi:

Yeah, been there before. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Once battery technology gets better you can bet on more electrics becoming available and at lower prices.