Qs about the Taurus SHO

Maybe against a 5.0 GT convertible with an automatic and 2.73 gears. But any 5-liter 5-speed GT or LX would cream a SHO. SHOs are 15.0 @ low 90 mph cars.

Patrick Former original owner of an '87 5-liter 5-speed LX hatch (14.2 @ 98 mph - stock & unpower shifted) '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick
Loading thread data ...

The new Goat is only rated at 350 horsepower.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

And it's going to weigh 3800 lbs, I think the Mach's will give it a good run for the money. The Cobra will kill it. There are ruhmors of a GTO "Judge" with horsepower in the 400+ range.

Reply to
Mike King

You are quoting standing 1/4 mile times! Most of the time speed comparisons on the street don't work that way...

Bring your 5-liter 5-speed GT or LX, and I'll show you in person what I'm talking about.

Like I said the The 3.0 liter manual transaxel V-6 SHO flat walks away from your 5-liter 5-speed GT or LX! If you don't believe it, it's just because you haven't tried it yet!

Reply to
Joe Camel Toe

The Neon based SRT-4 comes with four doors, base under $20K

Reply to
Bill 2

No, the SHO's would not walk away from a Fox 5.0. I had an '89 GT that I bought new in late '88. I heard that about the SHO's over and over again through the years, but guess what? None of them could keep up with my heavy GT from a standing start, rolling start, or from any speed. Sorry, the SHO's were fast for what they were, but a

5.0 would out run it every time.
Reply to
Michael Bolden-King

The big problems I see are the lack of feedback and the lack of fine control; there's no way you're going to be able to engage the clutch smoothly with a simple system.

OTOH, you'd think that with all the electronic sensors and controls nowadays, an automatically-controlled standard clutch wouldn't be all that hard (for a car company) -- it could rev-match, clutch and declutch. Must be harder than it looks, though, as I think there's only one such system available.

Reply to
Matthew Russotto

There were so many I can't even count the number of dumbfounded looks on the faces of smoked 5.0 drivers as they try to figure out how that big old 4 door whatever it was just walked away from them...

Next time you try it you really ought to have the SHO drivers participation...

Like I said Bring your 5.0 by, I'll SHO you how its done...

bought new in late '88. I heard that

None of them could keep up with my heavy

SHO's were fast for what they were, but a

Reply to
Joe Camel Toe

"Matthew Russotto" wrote

I believe it's commonly referred to as an "automatic transmission"

Reply to
Bill 2

Not the same thing. Totally different method of operation, which is why I mentioned an "automatically-controlled standard clutch".

Reply to
Matthew Russotto

Wouldn't the defeat the entire purpose of the "clutch"? If it could even be done, and that is a big "if", what would be the advantage of that over a manually operated clutch or even over an automatic transmission for that matter?

Reply to
Joe Camel Toe

The advantage over the manually operated clutch would be that you wouldn't have to operate it manually. If you did it well enough, you could make the clutch last longer because the system could do a rev-matched shift every time. The advantages over the automatic would be the lack of a fluid coupling, along with smaller size and weight.

Reply to
Matthew Russotto

You guys do know that VW had an "automatic stick" in the late 60's and early

70's? When you wanted to shift you pushed down on the shifter to disengage, then shift and let up. I have never driven one so I can't comment on how well or bad it worked.

Gumby619

Anybody wanna buy a 85 ranger 4x4?

Reply to
Gumby619

"Matthew Russotto" wrote> Not the same thing. Totally different method of operation, which is

Isn't that something like the road rally racers use? The gear switch/paddle on the steering wheel?

Scott W. '66 HCS

Reply to
Scott Williams

"Matthew Russotto" wrote in a message:

Early VW's had something like that. It was a manual tranny, but no clutch pedal. When you started to move the shifter, it would automatically engage the clutch, and as soon as you left go of the shifter, it would automatically disengage the clutch. My sister had one of those in the early

70's.

Gary

Reply to
GEB

It's also a compact front wheel drive. Not exactly anything that interests me, thought it's no doubt fast.

--Aardwolf.

Reply to
Aardwolf

For what it's worth the Ford Taurus is an extremely solid platform. It's a robust design for a FWD, plenty of body rigidity. Corners really well for such a long wheelbase compared to the compacts.

I was pleasantly surprised when I bought mine. A '02 Taurus SEL 24 V. Best bang for the buck and has so far surpassed my expectations. Not a single problem, just nadda. No recalls either.

My car came with tons of accessories as standard. It's the little things here and there that make the car feel so solid.

Like the sound when you use the power door locks. "THUMP!" Or when you open the glove box and if you look closely inside the dashboard from there you see a solid piece of metal welded in there that gives the cars body more support and more protection for the passenger in the event of a collision.

I just got so sick and tired of those flimsy paper cars that sell so much these days. The class of car I'm talking about are the corollas, and civics that basically weigh nothing. You sacrifice safety all for the sake of a little more fuel economy. The money you would save driving one of those is just petty cash really even for the blue collar workers. What's more important? A chance to survive an accident (because you have dependents who need you alive) or $20? I can't even call that class of car and smaller "cars". Not in my dictionary they are not cars. Anything smaller than a Taurus isn't a car but rather a toy for pleasure but not for practical reasons. In a car the size of a Taurus there is no mistaking that you are inside a real car when crusing down the interstate. The vehicle actually weighs something. In any car smaller then that you start to get

*wheel hop*. And as soon as you reach the magic speed the lightweight contraption starts to give you a floaty lack of control feel. Not safe at all and in a rain storm you WILL hydroplane and so it becomes mandatory to slow down to 55 and below. Some screwup drivers who can't drive by the seat of their pants won't slow down and from there you should know what happens... 4 cylinder a NO GO. I am sold on the V6. I will never and I mean NEVER EVER go back to a 4 banger again. They are harsh, noisy, unrefined, inefficient and underpowered. On the new TOYota Celshiticas there is the issue of the #4 cylinder blowing out on the 4 bangers when they are new.

TOYota V6 isn't any better. They are notorious for coolant gasket problems and the nasty oil sludge that haunts many owners who follow the TOYota owners guide stateting 6,000 miles between oil changes. Now how dumb is that, dumb enough for it's target buyers to understand LOL.

For you I would say go for it so long as the price is right and if the car has the right options you want.

Reply to
Eastward Bound

Camel Joe,

Please explain to me how it is on the street. Maybe in my 25 years of street racing I missed something. But anyways... what I've learned is that a car that runs higher 1/4 mile trap speeds will pull away from a car that runs lower traps speeds. (Trap speeds are a good indication of power-to-weight.) (Exception: Flat-out top-speed runs are different because gearing, aerodynamics, etc. can change the outcome.) But from say a 20 mph roll (with drivers of equal driving ability), again, the car that runs higher traps will win. (Another note: drag strip E.T (elasped time) is more about driving ability.)

Where are you at?

I've driven SHOs before. They run okay, but they they won't beat a well-driven 5-liter.

Yes, I have. He saw my tail lights.

Reply to
Patrick

Are you sure the 5.0 drivers knew you were racing them?

Love to. Then you'd get to see how much of a difference 5.0 mph, or more, trap speed makes.

Patrick '93 Cobra 13.40s @ 102

Reply to
Patrick

I own a 2000 Taurus SE. Bought it 1 year used equipped with several convenience features that aren't on all of them (ABS, power seats, pedals, keyless entry). The price was through the floor. Toyota fans always point out the high depreciation in the Taurus, but that only affects you if you buy it new and sell it in a year. If you buy it one year used it still has warrantee, is in good condition, and you save a bundle.

I agree that it is a good car, and it does seem solid. I've notice the doors seem pretty solid sounding compared with my old '95 Taurus, are they much better? Hard to tell. Mine has the old Vulcan 3L 12V engine. It may be old but it has an excellent reliability history. Oddly enough back in '86 it was the upgrade engine and now it's the base.

Then you started ranting. Yes smaller cars aren't as safe, don't have as much room, but that's why they are cheaper. Some people can't really afford more. Some might argue a Crown Vic isn't that much more expensive and is even safer. Should everyone buy one? However I don't necessarily agree about bigger cars handling exceptionally better.

No 4 cylinders aren't as smooth as a V6. They can still power a car fine. There are I-4s that accelerate much better than your V-6. Hahaha, you made fun of a car's name, that's so funny and mature *not.* There have been Tauri with crappy transmissions (1991) and crappy engines (3.8 V8). At least Toyota admitted to the oil sludge problem, which is better than some manufacturers.

Reply to
Bill 2

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.