By on July 16, 2010

Reviving a legendary nameplate inevitably invites comparisons. As is often the case, those for the new 2010 Ford Taurus SHO have not been favorable. Judging from reviews, forum postings, and (I’ll predict) the comments below, the 2010 lacks whatever made the original legendary. Well, I drove the original SHO back in 1989. And now I’ve driven the 2010 for a week. For better or worse, the similarities outweigh the differences. So, what’s missing in the SHO’s revival?

Yes, the 2010 Taurus SHO, while strikingly handsome, is notoriously BIG. At a glance it looks large. Then you walk up to it and realize that the unusual height of the car—like its Five Hundred antecedent essentially a crossover in sedan form—disguises just how large it is. The new Taurus is even larger than it looks. The 1989 SHO was far smaller, about the size of the today’s Fusion. And yet the old SHO was larger than imported midsize sedans back in the day. The 2010 SHO isn’t easily distinguishable from a Taurus Limited. Guess what? The 1989 was similarly criticized.

The interior of the 2010 SHO is the most stylish yet in a Taurus. Faint praise, perhaps, but the center stack sweeps cleanly back into a prominent center console much like it does in some very upscale sedans…and the new Buick LaCrosse. Unconvincingly faux upholstered door panels—they’re hard to the touch, and look it—leave room for Lincoln. Because of this and some other sub-premium details, the 2010’s interior isn’t quite that expected inside a $38,000 (and up) car. And yet it comes closer than the 1989’s did. The original SHO’s shoddily assembled, disjointed interior was less competitive aesthetically even by the much lower standards of its era. On the other hand, the layout and design of the 1989’s various controls approached ergonomic perfection. The dramatic center stack in the 2010 places the buttons towards the top well out of reach.

The 1989 SHO’s relatively large exterior enabled a roomy interior. Too roomy for my taste—I couldn’t quite connect with the car partly because it felt a little loose around the elbows. The 2010 Taurus’s absolutely huge exterior enables…sportier styling. Those seeking an expansive interior should hunt down the far more space efficient 2008-2009 Taurus. The prominent console, bunkerized beltline, and rakish C-pillar all rob the interior of perceived roominess. Yet a personal connection with the new SHO also proves elusive. As in many recent GM products, the instrument panel and base of the windshield are simply too far away. Adding injury to insult, the telescoping wheel is also overly distant even when fully telescoped, forcing a slightly knees-wide driving position.

Befitting the car’s all-around performance aspirations, the original SHO’s front seats were endowed with large adjustable side bolsters. Ford put in less effort (and investment) this time around. The seats differ little from those in the regular Taurus. They’re far too soft and formless for a sport sedan. In turns, the squishy side bolsters give way at the slightest provocation. The SHO’s faux suede center panels help, but do not sufficiently substitute for effective bolsters.

The new SHO’s moderately soft, underdamped standard suspension tuning further suggests that handling was a lower priority this time around. The driving position accentuates the car’s size. The large diameter typical of Detroit’s steering wheels makes the feedback-free steering seem slower than it actually is. On top of this, the chassis feels vague, indecisive, and unresponsive through the seat of one’s pants, as it does in all Fords and Lincolns that share this platform. Fit for family sedan duty, even luxury sedan duty, but not for aggressive driving in anything but a straight line. Roll and understeer aren’t excessive, and grip is decent, but there’s little joy to be had in the twisties. I certainly tried, to the tune of 5.7 MPG during my handling test loop. (The firmer suspension in the optional Performance Package should help, but the 9 to 20 percent changes probably aren’t large enough to make a dramatic difference.) In the 2010 SHO’s defense, it does provide a smooth and quiet (if sometimes insufficiently settled) ride.

The 1989 SHO felt much firmer, though still short of agile. Its 1980’s Detroit-style oversprung sport suspension was blessed with all of the finesse and refinement of a sledgehammer in turns and over bumps. (Ford softened the SHO up in later years.) You paid dearly for the original’s extra firmness, and the car still didn’t handle all that well.

Steering feel? Even two decades later Detroit can’t find it without the aid of a European subsidiary, and 1989 was just a few years out of the Dark Ages when spinning the wheel with a single fingertip was the ideal. The steering in the original Taurus was far better than any Ford had offered in a North American sedan before, but its feel and weighting were both somewhat odd.

The 2010 can be paired only with a six-speed automatic, albeit one shiftable via paddles (but not via the lever). The 1989 was offered only with a Mazda-supplied five-speed manual transmission, a sure sign of its superior purity. Unfortunately, in practice the shifter and clutch were even less congenial than the suspension.

So why the mystique of the original? Let’s recall what the letters SHO stand for: “super high output.” To earn this moniker, a car needs neither efficient packaging nor agile handling. In fact, it needs only one thing: a stonking powerplant. Ultimately, the SHO’s plot was simple: decent car, outstanding engine. The year the wall fell 220 horsepower from a 3.0-liter V6 easily qualified. After all, the “H.O.” V8 in that year’s Mustang GT cranked out only five more. The regular Taurus got by with 140.

Does the new car’s powerplant qualify? The turbocharged 3.5-liter V6’s 365 horsepower, a 102-horspower bump over the regular Taurus, would seem to render it worthy. At 4,400 lbs., the 2010 SHO might be over a half-ton heavier than the original, but the nearly lag-free “I can’t believe it’s not normally aspirated” engine’s additional oomph more than compensates. After a slightly sluggish start (first gear should be shorter) the new SHO feels very quick, and it’s even quicker than it feels. The standard Haldex-based all-wheel-drive system lacks a rearward bias or active rear differential, so it doesn’t help the car feel more agile. Much more could be done here. But AWD does nearly eliminate the torque steer that afflicted the original SHO. Fuel economy is high teens in typical suburban driving and can reach 25 on the highway, quite good considering the car’s power and mass.

So, with the engine’s output suitably high, what’s really missing from the 2010 SHO? Well, to start with, the quality of power delivery. Back in 1989 the zing of a fine DOHC engine was still fresh, and they didn’t come finer or zingier than the Yamaha-developed and –supplied V6 until Acura introduced V-TEC in the far more expensive NSX a year later. This was a sweet, sweet motor. In contrast, the new SHO’s EcoBoost V6 shares the regular 3.5’s pedestrian soundtrack and languid reactions to throttle inputs. Count on Ford to make the experience of 365 horsepower seem almost ordinary. I’ve never been more bored driving such a powerful car. The far more engaging (but also far more punishing) Acura TL SH-AWD suggests what might have been if the SHO had been gifted with a singing voice, handling-oriented AWD system, and razor sharp responses.

Then there’s the appearance of the engine. Ask a 1989 SHO owner for his favorite photo of the car, and it will likely be one of the engine. Crowned with a dozen interwoven satin silver-finished metal (yes, real metal) intake runners, the 1989’s engine looked even more special than it felt. A relic of the engine’s originally intended destination amidships a canceled sports car? Certainly an engine this beautiful couldn’t have been created with the Taurus in mind. Imagine discovering the legs of a dancer beneath a nun’s habit. (No, not a real nun, you’re not that sick.) Finding this beauty beneath the hood of a Taurus was even more of a pleasant surprise. Open the hood of the 2010 SHO, and you’ll also be surprised, but in the opposite direction. Black plastic abounds. You’ll find more visual thrills beneath the hood of an Aspire. (No, not a pink Aspire, you’re not that sick.)

So, mystery solved. The 2010 Ford Taurus SHO is huge, and it doesn’t engage or entertain on a curvy road. But Detroit ruled with this “stylish, big, quiet, soft, and fast” formula in the past, and Lexus has found that a healthy market continues to exist for such a car. What’s more, the original SHO achieved automotive sainthood despite larger sins. So what does the 2010 truly need that it doesn’t have? An engine that can smile pretty for the camera and sing, and not just dance.

Ford provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

Michale Karesh owns and operates TrueDelta, an online source of automotive pricing and reliability data.


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

154 Comments on “Review: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO...”


  • avatar
    xyzzy

    I saw a new Ford Taurus in person up close for the first time recently, and I was really surprised how small the greenhouse is compared to the car’s overall size. The Five Hundred was better, IMO.

    • 0 avatar

      I’ve been arguing with people like Nullmodo for the longest about how “SMALL” the MKS/Taurus’ greenhouse was compared to the E-class, Chrsyler 300 and Camry.

      http://www.epinions.com/content_482591084164

      Sure, they can point at interior dimensions, which the Taurus wins in virtually every measurement…but the inside of this car is built like a goddamned speed boat. TIGHTNESS EVERYHERE. Even the foot well… how the hell did the SHO’s foot well become tighter than the MKS?

      MIKE – you can easily tell the difference between the SHO and the “regular” Taurus if you check for the dual exhaust. The limited’s are together, the SHO’s are spread to either side.

      I’m so glad you pointed out the lame steering wheels Ford’s putting out.

  • avatar
    George B

    Way too big. Way too expensive. Much better cars with better brands are available in the >30k price range. Fail.

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      If you consider it too big, maybe that’s why it qualifies as too expensive for you. Typically it costs a premium to move up in size.

      It would be helpful if you included your examples of “better cars for >30k$” of this size.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      If you get into a SHO expecting a sports sedan you will likely be dissapointed. This isn’t a sports sedan, it’s a big luxury cruiser with lots of technology, a comfortable ride, a powerful engine, and handling that will let you get sporty here and there.

      Interior quality and performance compare well to similarly priced vehicles like the Hyundai Genesis Sedan or the Chrysler 300C. Compared to a BMW 5 series, Lexus GS, or Infiniti M the Taurus gives up some refinement, but also costs at least $10,000 less similarly equipped.

      I will continue to beat the horse and say there is nothing wrong with the sound or feel of the Duratec 35. It’s a smooth engine, and I find the revvy rorty sound pleasant and sporty.

      There is clearly a market for cars like this as SHO sales have been far in excess of what Ford predicted.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      The Infiniti G37 might be a worthy alternative, with similar size, price, and performance.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      The G37 is down about 40hp and close to 100lb/f of torque to the SHO, and it also a lot smaller – close to two feet shorter, 6″ narrower, 3″ less tall, and less interior space in pretty much every measurement except for front leg room (which is odd, as the Taurus has a lot of leg room).

      The M would be the closer competitor, but it is still smaller.

    • 0 avatar
      Doc

      This car competes with the Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger (with Hemi engine) and that is about it, being that it appears that there is not a high performance version of the Chevy Impala anymore (was not sure had to check the GM website). To my knowledge a loaded up 300C is about $4,000 cheaper and there is an all new version of this car and the Charger coming out this fall. With the older version of the Charger currently outselling the Taurus, it does not look good for Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      A 300C AWD is right around $41K vs. about $38K for the SHO. The Charger is about $35K for the AWD R/T, but the interior quality and amenities don’t match those of the SHO. The Charger is selling well due to steep discounts at the moment. If Chrysler can pull off an upgrade similar to what they did with the Grand Cherokee it will certainly be a player in the market, but since they won’t launch a new version with tons of cash and special financing on the hood, the Charger may lose the edge in sales, time will tell.

      The Genesis seems to be a natural competitor, roughly equivalent levels of luxury and technology (the Genesis might be trimmed a bit nicer in some areas than the Taurus, but the Taurus has more technology features) and the Genesis 4.6 starts at about $39.5K.

      I’ve had more customers cross shopping the SHO, and the Taurus in general, with the Genesis than anything else, but given that the Taurus outsells both Genesis models combined by a wide margin, that isn’t a huge threat at the moment.

    • 0 avatar
      Doc

      Interesting. for some reason I was under the impression that the SHO was closer 44k with nav and everything else. Good point on the Charger discounts.

      You are absolutely correct on the poor interior in the 300 and Charger. It will be interesting to see if they step up their game this fall.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Doc –

      Whoops, I missed where you said loaded. Loaded up a SHO is about $45K, but so is a 300C AWD, and it doesn’t have as much stuff as the loaded up SHO has. Plus, Chrysler’s current bluetooth and nav setup in the 300C is awful, hopefully those get a major upgrade along with the interior in the new one.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree with you GEORGE B.

      The Tuarus is too expensive to be considered a deal. Had this car come out 5 years ago during the launch of the 300C, maybe I’d think differently. Even so, who is this car really for?

      Its not as comfortable for big men as a Camry, a 300 or a Maxima and its much too big for smaller women.

      Frankly, I see the Taurus as the sedanification of the crossover… This thing feels as tight inside as the EDGE but as huge overall as the FLEX.

    • 0 avatar
      Sam P

      The Camry and the Maxima are smaller in the interior than the Taurus, and the Chrysler 300 series needs a refresh.

      The Taurus is very competitive for its class, and if I needed the room, I’d totally pick one up. As it stands, the wife and I are served well by a Subaru Outback and a BMW 330i.

  • avatar
    zerofoo

    I do not like the rear of this car. Did Chris Bangle get hired at Ford?

    Otherwise – not a bad looking car. Shame it’s too heavy, too boring, and too expensive.

    -ted

    • 0 avatar

      The main bit I don’t personally care for is the crease just ahead of the tail light, but apparently I decided to save my nitpicking for the comments.

    • 0 avatar

      Agreed, Michael… there’s no reason that crease should be there, it does nothing for “design purity.” And today’s SHO-spec wheels are atrocious compared to the first-gen weathervanes.

      That said, in my opinion these cars look far better in person than in photos (and far more stylish than Impalas and, again IMHO, Chargers.) Dark colors help too.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      zerofoo:
      Seriously?!

      This is where it came from…
      http://www.desktopcar.net/wallpaper/26711-2/Ford_Interceptor_Concept_2007_02.jpg

      This damn car.. is such a $#@@%$ aggravation in so many ways.
      Of all of the design work.. that they put into making that concept.. how EFFED UP is it, that the rear clip.. (light cluster) is all that made the final design.

      I call B.S
      This is a S.H.O.
      Its a tub of lard.

  • avatar

    Before anyone has a hissy, I’m aware that the photos of the older SHOs are not of the 1989. We hope to have appropriate photos up shortly.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    Definitely a big front wheel driver cruiser with blandness thrown in at no extra cost. Which would you rather have from Budget Rental an Impala or a Taurus?

    With regards to purchasing one new, the depreciation costs on a Ford are worth noting during the first five years.

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      I would have no hesitation choosing this over an Impala at Budget Rental.

      The Impala is a refresh job on the Lumina, which was no winner itself. Anyway, which Impala has 365hp and 4 wheel drive?

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      Somehow I doubt that you’ll get an SHO at Budget. At least I have yet to see one as a rental.

      On the other hand, I had a Camry from Hertz this week — with 48K miles on the clock. Highest I’ve seen yet at the major rental companies (and the car felt like it, too).

    • 0 avatar

      The new SHO is clearly superior to the Impala, even the last Impala SS. But this is faint praise.

      Reliability for the 2010 Taurus has been on the high side of average so far, about where the Flex and MKS were a year ago. So a year from now it’ll probably be solidly average.

      http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php

  • avatar
    ajla

    Obligatory mention of the Ford Falcon being awesome, is way better than this, and that Australians are lucky.
    ___________________________________________________
    Although you touched on it in your review, the main difference is this: the old V6 SHOs were fun, the new one is not.

    The 2010 SHO proves that big speed does not always equal fun. It is closer to a bad sounding Lucerne Super or Genesis than a sports sedan.

    Somehow the S80 T6 manages to be more entertaining.

    Very poor use of the SHO name.

    • 0 avatar

      Yes, your second sentence does sum it up quite succinctly. Except that the original wasn’t as fun as I expected it to be. The engine was amazing, but the rest of the car didn’t come close to measuring up to it.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      @MK:

      Well, unless you were driving one that had been kept in a bubble, an original V6 SHO would have a good amount of years and abuse on it.

      But, yes, the SHO’s V6 is where most of the original car’s joy came from.

  • avatar
    turbobeetle

    I got the chance to drive a fully loaded 2010 SHO about a month or two ago, and yes I totally agree that it is a little on the boring site for a car with that much power, it is still a remarkable improvement over the old SHO or most other older Ford cars for that matter. The one I drove had more options than I knew what to do with, including auto-on high beam headlights and blind spot warning devices, in fact driving it was a bit like flight a space shuttle. And with that said it was oh just so much fun to pull up next to a sports car on the highway doing about 70mph, hammer the thing and watch the other guys on the highway wonder what hit them! That car pulls very hard from highway speeds with its 6 speed tranny and twin turbos.

    The SHO is not something you buy if you want a sports car, but rather like a sport touring motorcycle is to a sportbike. Comfortable, and yet won’t get sent home with its tail between its legs if you decide to go play on the highway with it.

    I was very impressed with it.

  • avatar
    jmo

    It’s an Avalon SE Turbo All-Trac – nothing wrong with that! There’s certainly a market for a big, safe, comfortable, powerful, slightly sporty, full size American sedan. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea – but, what car is?

  • avatar
    john.fritz

    I rode in the front of one of these recently. I felt like I was sitting in a coffin. That center console is ah-huge.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I agree on the center console. I sat in a $45k SHO in the SHOwroom, and was very offput by that wall (not to mention the price).

      I agree with psarhjinian, this car has gone American Maxima.

    • 0 avatar

      The Maxima has a much better sounding, more responsive engine and quicker steering (or at least a much smaller diameter steering wheel).

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I should qualify that there’s nothing really wrong with being the American Maxima. The SHO’s problem is that it’s not quite as sporting as the Maxima is and it really ought to be.

      It is roomier, though.

      In retrospect, it recalls the Bonneville SSEi (though with a much nicer interior) or Grand Prix GTP.

  • avatar
    MSil34

    One of the main problems with this car seems to be the SHO moniker. If they had decided to call it the Taurus Platinum or something like that, the driving experience would make more sense. However, marketing the car as sporty and fun to drive seems to have been a mistake. Hopefully Ford will change this in the next few years and create a more appropriate Fusion SHO.

  • avatar
    mjz

    I hate that side crease just ahead of the tailights too.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    This is yet another car that Ford severely botched.

    The exterior is as bland as beige. And, while not offensive, the exterior is awkward. For one, the car is FAR too big. And what exaggerates that is the comically high rear end and black lower classing. This car competes with the Honda Crosstour in terms of awkwardness. And the rear quarter panels are far too busy. They have lines and crap that come pot of nowhere…and the rear does not blend with the rest of the car. And the windows are stupidly small. I really hate how Ford is giving form priorarity over function. It has ruined the Taurus and Fiesta.

    The interior is ok…nothing more and nothing less. The car has some seriously cheap materials in places for a (outrageous) $38K. And, like the exterior, the interior is very bland. Nothing class leading to see here…

    The engine is decent for what it is…a performance V6 making V8 power (with V8 mileage). There is nothing ECO about this engine…as proven by the V8 mileage. Also, the engine is far too complicated…and will likely cost a lot to repair and maintain. My grandparent’s TWO SHOs (1989 and 1994) were both as reliable as the day is long requiring little maintence. It was the best part of the car…too bad that great engine was brought down by the blue oval on the front. Sadly, the new car ditches the good engine. Plus, the new engine looks like crap.

    The drivetrain is completely wrong. 100% FWD until the wheels slip…then it finally turns into a AWD appliance. A far better solution would have been RWD-based AWD.

    And then Ford’s failure of a marketing department calling it the SHOW. It’s called S.H.O…not SHOW…boneheads.

    And then there is the issue of calling this car Taurus. It was a bonehead decision to bring back the Taurus name after Ford ruined it for 11 years. Ditto for Explorer. This car should have stayed Five Hundred. The Taurus is a mid-sized car…not a whale.

    All in all, it’s a half hearted effort from Ford. They try to cover up the glaring deficiencies by loading it with electronic gimmicks. As a die hard fan of the older, proper SHOs, this new one is an impostor and not worth the money charged for it.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Nguyen Van Falk

      Z71_Silvy doesn’t like a ford product! In other news, oxygen is good for you!

    • 0 avatar
      gsnfan

      And then Ford’s failure of a marketing department calling it the SHOW. It’s called S.H.O…not SHOW…boneheads.

      I know. S.H.O sounds cool, “Show” sounds like it’s a showy car that people buy for image.

      It’s also kind of awkward. Not as awkward as a Crosstour, but there are many big sedans in the price range that look better, such as the Maxima.

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      Every time I see the comment like yours, “And the windows are stupidly small”, or “Gunturret windows”, or “slitlike windows”, it cracks me up. One of the main reasons cars got so ugly for so long is the stupidly OVERSIZED windows so many of them had for a couple of decades! If you look at all the great cars of the past, they all had windows that weren’t oversized. There used to be a website where some photoshop wiz shrunk the windows on 80s and 90′s cars down and they looked tremendously better.

      As far as the Taurus goes, IMO, it’s OK looking, the weird crease in front of the rear tail lights is just odd, to say the least. Compared to any Ford product from 1989, including the old Taurus, it’s a winner, looks wise.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    As a 9-year owner of version 2 of the original SHO (1992), +1 to MSil34. The Fusion feels like the right size platform on which to base a true heir to the original Yamaha V-6 SHO. Of course, the “secret sauce” of the original SHO was the motor. The transmission and clutch were acceptable (although the clutch was quite fragile) as was the handling . . . given that it was a front-driver. What was not acceptable were the brakes, which were too small and made of cheap metal that warped. Apparently FoMoCo has decided to continue this tradition with the new SHO.

    I would be delighted to see what a 3 liter, 4-cam, direct injected engine with a 7500 rpm redline would do in the Fusion platform … coupled, of course, to a 5 or 6-speed manual. Or, if that’s too expensive, the new V-6 put in the Mustang, which is a little bigger but otherwise fills the bill.

    When it comes to fun-to-drive, weight is always an enemy, no matter how well compensated for in suspension, brakes and engine output. To be sure, vehicles like the Porsche Cayenne are the automotive equivalent of bumblebees (“the amazing thing is that they fly”), but at a high dollar cost.

    Why not do it the easy way? Build something that’s not massive and carries 4 people well. The Fusion is that platform, not the Taurus of 2010.

  • avatar
    Dr Strangelove

    The grille makes me think of silicon-injected lips or cold sore. On a nun.

  • avatar
    Contrarian

    Agrred. I also thought that the Fusion should be the base for the new SHO. It’s not 1973 any more.

  • avatar
    Lemmy-powered

    Jutting, bulky rear bumper that makes the car look like it’s wearing a diaper = I cannot want.

    (This is by no means a problem unique to Ford)

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    I don’t mind it being called a SHO.
    But it should not be compared to the older car.
    It SHOULD be a Fusion SHO.
    In fact, Ford can make SHO a symbol for all extra performance models.
    The MKS Ecoboost should have been the MKS SHO.
    It would really begin to make sense all along the Ford line up and help explain the pricing.

  • avatar
    jj99

    Ford coughed up a hairball with the Taurus. No question.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Any EcoBoost should be SHO.
    It would help the consumer understand the pricing and make the buyer feel a little more special when driving.

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    I mumbled Fusion as I scrolled through the comments, but someone beat me to it.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Great review, Karesh. You get to the heart of the problem. To me, Taurus really works best as a bread-and-butter big car. It’s too big and numb for a “sporty” SHO, at least not in the way an Infiniti M35 or the heavy German megabucks stuff is.

    I recently rented a new Taurus SEL on a business trip. It made me think back to the Seventies and my old man’s belief that when you’ve got miles to go, nothing soaks up the time like a big Ford sedan. Forty years later, he’s still right. It was great at tracking down interstate – equally good or better than an Avalon, LaCrosse or 300. Nice job Ford.

    I don’t know what SHO sales figures look like, but if past history is any indicator, expect the SHO salsa to be removed from the Taurus menu in the near future.

  • avatar
    mrcrispy

    38K for this huge fat pig? Did Ford think this is like the zillionth special edition Mustang, where the name alone would sell the car?

    I can’t think of any objective or even subjective reason to buy this car, unless you really really like Ford.

  • avatar
    Russycle

    With all the retro-mobiles being made these days, I’d love to see Ford redo the original Taurus. Pretty up the front end a bit, don’t botch the interior, and they’d have one of the nicest sedans on the market.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    SHO in 1989 meant “Specific High Output”, not “Super High Output”…also, little known fact: The first car with the SHO designation was NOT the Taurus….it was the Tempo. It had a SHO designation for the engine (it was NOT the Yamaha engine, it was the ubiquitous (for then) Ford 2.3l 4 with a massaged cam, slightly bigger exhaust ports and FI….

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I don’t recall “SHO” ever standing for “Specific High Output”. And I’m pretty sure the Tempo’s uprated engines were called “HO” for “High Output”, meaning the SHO tag has only ever been applied to a Taurus.

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      You’re all wrong. SHO stands for Several Hundred Oxen – Oxen being a new unit of power that Ford proposed to replace the old-fasioned ‘horse power”. The Tempo’s uprated motor was called POS.

  • avatar
    thesal

    When I think of a buyer of this car, here are his vital statistics

    - 50-65, bald, on the large side
    - Used to own a last gen Camry SE with blacked out letters and not much more in the way of sport or power
    - Is surrounded by other people who don’t know much about cars and look up to his “daring and powerful” new ride
    - Has never driven around a corner at more than 3/10ths, gripping the steering wheel at 11 and 1, leaning into the corner

    It’s “that kind of american car” built of for “that kind of” american…

  • avatar

    The old SHO (does anyone really call it a “Show”? We called the old ones “S-H-Os”) was a stoplight-racing sleeper, an unusually fast car when most cars were total weeny mobiles. And it had that “box of snakes” intake that guys came over to ogle. I remember lusting after one when I had my Mitsubishi Eclipse GS Turbo (which was 203 lb-ft of torque-steering fun).

    The new one is just another $40,000 sorta-well-appointed barge with no moves that merges quickly into traffic and then disappears. I pulled up behind one in my Boxster the other day; the thing is positively huge. No thanks.

  • avatar
    tparkit

    This three-years-and-gone disposamobile has “company car” and “lease” written all over it. Who would buy one with their own cash for their own use?

  • avatar
    Dr. Nguyen Van Falk

    Apropos of nothing: with mercury going the way of the dodo (and deserving it), I thought they should make one last Cougar. Stretch and soften a mustang, use the explorer rear differential and hook it up the the twin turbo 3.5. I think it would be a fitting send off to a car that was cool at its inception and quickly courted geriatrics with a bad heart. Give the cat one more life and then bury it in a shoe box in the back yard.

    • 0 avatar

      The Taurus is a unique car, most likely because it is built on a Platform that isn’t suited to it. The interior bunkerization doesn’t match the exterior’s promise of massive interior space. The only reason this car rises above any other is because its been stuffed with technology and a very powerful engine. An engine that could have offered alot to another car which had been designed with handling in mind.

      I’m not going to say this is a bad car, but its certainly not for me. Ultimately SALES DATA is going to show what buyers think about the Taurus. I just don’t think most buyers are racing to Ford to buy a car this size, that gets small SUV like fuel economy. I’m willing to bet crossovers – especially cheaper crossovers will continue to outsell it.

      This car plays like a luxury Ford for people who don’t crosshop to other car makers. I’d still take SHO over the MKS though.

      LOL – my uncle’s only had his MKS ECOBOOST for a few months and ITS CURRENTLY IN THE SHOP FOR MAINTENANCE FOR THE PAST FEW DAYS. IT WAS BRAND NEW WHEN HE BOUGHT IT.
      http://www.epinions.com/content_506248924804

  • avatar

    Very good review – you caught all the big problems head-on. Morbidly obese weight, gun-slit windows, pointless seats, as tall as a crossover, soft handling and engine response.

    But, worse, it’s actually 1000 pounds heavier than the original.

    And don’t forget the first press reviews for the magazines, where the SHOs lost their brakes in both track driving and back-road driving. Tiny disks don’t work with 4368 pound (base model SHO) cars. This isn’t a performance sedan, and it’s certainly of no interest to enthusiasts.

    -Jeff
    DrivingEnthusiast.net
    Owner of original Gen-1 and Gen-3 SHOs (and will not be getting a Gen-4)
    (website & blog with SHO category and RSS feed)

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      The only failure of the SHO is in comparison to the original. The Taurus is no longer in the same place in Ford’s line up as the old Taurus, and this SHO is not meant to be a rehash of the original. It is by no means an American 3 series competitor, and it wasn’t designed to be. When you can get past expecting it to have ultra-athletic handling, a very firm enthusiasts suspension, and fade free brakes ready for track use, you can start appreciating what is so nice about it.

      The seats aren’t pointless, they are actually quite comfortable, and have an optional massaging feature that will get more use out of the targeted buyer than extra lateral support ever would have. The small windows still provide a good view outside, but you don’t really need it anyway. With blind spot monitoring and back up cameras you can afford to cut down on your view of the road, the technology is there to replace it. The tallness of the sedan gives you a better view down the road, and makes it more palatable to those coming down out of SUVs. The handling isn’t soft – it handles as well as anything else in the segment, this segment just isn’t generally known for performance and ultra-nimble handling. The weight and size also help with safety, this is one of the safest big fast cars you can buy, and it rides down the road with a steadyness and smoothness that many competitors lack.

      No, this car isn’t probably of interest to enthusiasts as a primary vehicle. However, for the middle aged or older enthusiast who maybe tracks a Cayman, Miata, S2000, or something similarly great on the track, but not quite so comfy on the real roads, the SHO presents a nice option for a comfortable full size sedan with plenty of luxury and technology that can still be hustled here and there when the mood strikes.

    • 0 avatar

      Yup, that’s what an enthusiast wants to hustle – a 4368-pound minivan-tall car with a lousy shifter, soft brakes, and soft suspension. One that a G37S will blow away and a 335 will leave in the dust. Both far better money spent.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      Who, WHO.. W H O…

      WHO compares a G37 or a 3 series.. against a TAURUS!?

      Ford has to be smoking something BAD.. if that is their object.

      1. A 3 series is too damn big to be driven spiritedly.

      2 The G is a decent car.. but against a 3 series.. but not a Taurus.

      3. 4400lbs… for a Taurus. For an SHO. = No

    • 0 avatar

      I had a G37S the same week I had the SHO. Similar price, and the G37 is only down 35 horsepower, so the power-to-weight is actually in the Infiniti’s favor. Especially when you factor in its shorter gears.

      I greatly preferred the G37, but my wife preferred the Taurus. Handling vs. room and ride comfort.

    • 0 avatar

      Edmunds did it.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      jwfisher:
      Edmunds id the same yahoos who put the Accord against the Taurus.. with I believe the Accord winning for b.s reasons.

      Im sorry..
      I denounce the Taurus as being competitive against a G37 or a 3 series.

      3 series starts about 33g I think.. with the G being at about that price range.

      Taurus used to be the midsizer.. now its replacing the Crown Vic as the resident fatass at Ford. Its not a fun car. Its not a sporty car. Its not light weight. Its just an expensive alternative to anything in that price range.

      And to place it against a G.. No.

      Against a Altima 3.5 SL, or a Maxima 3.5 SL… not a G37.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      The Taurus doesn’t compare to the G or 3 series, because it isn’t supposed to. The Taurus is a whole lot bigger than either of those cars, and anyone shopping for a G or a 3 isn’t going to cross shop the Taurus.

      The SHO can be fun to drive, the handling and suspension aren’t nearly as lazy or lacking in feeling as the review seems to make out. You can hustle the car and it can be rewarding, just not in the same way that a 3 or a G can. The SHO targets the type of buyer who might shop an S class or 7 series if they had $80K+ to spend. It’s a big comfortable car that can go fast, and handles well for its size.

      For the buyer Ford is aiming at the size is a benefit, not a detriment. You can’t expect a 3 series getting into a SHO and be happy, they are completely different types of vehicles aimed at completely different segments of the market.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s a joke… it’s not at all the SHO so many of we prior owners knew and loved. And we know Ford did this because it’s all they could do – this gargantuan and deathly heavy Taurus was the only platform they could use. The SHO moniker on a Fusion would make for a better true SHO, but the Fusion is a goner in another two years so the investment would not be returned.

      And we same types are indeed cross-shopping for a G37S or 335 now. Once glance at the SHO makes it clear this isn’t the car for us.

      The enthusiast motoring press has given up on this car after giving it a fair look (and ending with smoking brakes, more often). The only ones left who marvel about it on the net are dreamers, the ones who haven’t driven it, or the ones who don’t have any experience with anything else. I don’t see anybody coming to this from outside of Ford, unless they like the nearly as tank-like 300C, but I do see Ford fanboys dreaming about it. If all they’ve known for their whole automotive life is Fords, then this looks good.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      jwfisher:

      In case you didnt hear…

      Fusion and Mondeo are going to become one.. built at the same Kansas factory the Aura/ Malibu is / was.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      jwfisher –

      You have it correct in that this is not the SHO that you may have grown to love in the past, and if you expect it to be, you will be dissapointed. That being said, it wasn’t designed to be the SHO you had in the past, and if you look at it for what Ford has positioned it as – a big, comfortable, fast, cruiser that can blow the doors off of an Avalon and other cars in that class, it holds up a lot better.

      Don’t get so caught up in the name, just because this is a Taurus SHO, doesn’t mean it has to be, or even should be, the same as the previous version. I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but if you are in the market for something like a G37 or a 3 series, this clearly isn’t a car you should be looking at, and it wasn’t designed to go after people looking at those cars. Ford could have easily based it on the Fusion platform, given it a stick shift, dropped the price, and then watched as it languished on the lots. Hardcore performance enthusiasts aren’t a huge market, and Ford doesn’t have enough draw in that market to make a dedicated car for them and make money. Aging boomers and affluent younger families (but not so affluent that they have to have a German luxury nameplate) are a much bigger slice of the pie, and those are who this car is aimed at.

      The SHO was made to be a halo for the new Taurus, which is a premium large car, not a volume model like the current Fusion or the old Taurus. Given that Ford has stated many times how SHO sales have far exceeded their expectations, it seems like they went the right way with it.

      Also, as ACC said, the next gen Fusion and Taurus will merge to the same platform (well, likely two variations on the same platform) so I would expect that the new Taurus will come pretty soon compared to the new Fusion. Remember this Taurus is a facelift of the Taurus that came out in ’08, which was a redesign of the 500 that came out a couple years before that. This platform has been around for a while, and while it has aged gracefully and is still more than competitive with other cars in its class, it is due for replacement soon.

      Anyway, the point I am making here is that this isn’t a bad car because it doesn’t meet your expectations, your expectations are would simply be better met by an entirely different kind of car. You don’t buy a Lexus GS460 expecting to get an IS-F, neither do you buy this SHO expecting to get a direct evolution of a completely different model. It’s a bit confusing since Ford decided to stick the Taurus name on a car that shares absolutely nothing, not even market segment, with the previous one, but if you can make that clear distinction, it makes a lot more sense.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      @Nullo:

      Don’t get so caught up in the name, just because this is a Taurus SHO, doesn’t mean it has to be, or even should be, the same as the previous version.

      I disagree 10000000%. Calling it the SHO means it should remind the driver of the original! Otherwise call it something else. Would “Taurus Ecoboost” really have killed the car? Did Ford miss the sh*tstorm GM caught when they decided to call the Holden Monaro a “GTO”? Car enthusiasts are a passionate group and misusing a nostalgic name is treading on dangerous ground.

      The new SHO is like Ford throwing a giant Diesel motor in a F-450 and calling it the “Lightning”.

      With this car, Ford is wrecking the SHO badge. It is the same way GM trashed the SS moniker, and how Dodge spat on the R/T name. Honda is doing it with the CRZ too. It is just a fast cash-in with no thought for fans of the original.

      You don’t buy a Lexus GS460 expecting to get an IS-F, neither do you buy this SHO expecting to get a direct evolution of a completely different model.

      That’s a different issue because Ford is the one setting up the enthusiast car expectations here with the name.

      If Lexus called the GS460 the GS-F , Daimler called the E550 the E55 AMG, or Buick called the new Regal turbo the GNX, then I would be complaining the same way.

    • 0 avatar

      The Fusion and Taurus are *not* merging to the same platform.
      The current Fusion platform is coming to an end, the next Fusion will be a Ford of Europe Mondeo.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      jw –

      The next gen Fusion and next gen Taurus are both supposed to be based off of an evolution of the EUCD platform that currently unerpins the Mondeo.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Don’t get so caught up in the name, just because this is a Taurus SHO, doesn’t mean it has to be, or even should be, the same as the previous version.

      Is that what Ford has trained you to say? Because if so, I personally have been giving Ford FAR too much credit lately.

      That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

      The original SHO was a nimble car with an exotic engine (Ecoboost is about as exotic as sand on a beach) and hoghly impressive speed…only being outrun by the fastest cars on the planet.

      The new SHOW (as Ford calls it) is a pig…that can’t dance. The exterior is a mess, the interior is ok. It’s not a good effort (and I use that term loosely).

      Really, form an enthusiast point of view, there is no reason to waste all of that money on a SHOW, when you can get the Impala SS…with a PROPER V8…for far less. And the Fuel economy is virtually the same.

      Saying we shouldn’t compare the SHOW to the old SHO is like saying we shouldn’t compare the Mustang’s (extremely bland) retro look to the old ones.

      Ford ruined yet another name…S.H.O. They should have called it the TwinForce Taurus….or SVT Taurus.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      The small windows still provide a good view outside, but you don’t really need it anyway. With blind spot monitoring and back up cameras you can afford to cut down on your view of the road, the technology is there to replace it.

      What a great improvement. I can’t wait to have a windowless car and a windowless home where I can monitor my surroundings with cameras and displays. Now that’s progress!

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      rpn –

      Slightly smaller windows is hardly windowless. Given the choice of traditional side mirrors or cameras fed to LCDs that provide a better view and don’t get foggy, I’ll take the cameras every time. In fact, there have been some recent concept cars that do just that.

      As for homes, the windows are the biggest source of energy loss in the average home. With the cost of electricity going up every year I wouldn’t be surprised to see builders starting to trend to fewer and smaller windows soon. I have friends who have purchased homes with huge plate glass windows, skylights, and big airy open floorplans that let all that light through, and their summer A/C bills are ridiculous. Unless your home overlooks some magnificent vista you are likely to keep the curtains drawn most of the time anyway, so what’s the point?

    • 0 avatar

      NulloModo should work for Obama instead of a Ford dealer. Then he could persistently explain away that idiot’s vacation while the Gulf crisis still has thousands of people out of work and pollution we’ll have to face for years to come. At least as many years as we’ll have to look at the grotesque SHO in the marketplace.

      -Jeff
      DrivingEnthusiast.net

    • 0 avatar
      newcarscostalot

      “NulloModo should work for Obama instead of a Ford dealer. Then he could persistently explain away that idiot’s vacation while the Gulf crisis still has thousands of people out of work and pollution we’ll have to face for years to come.”

      How does this have anything to do with your dislike of the SHO?

      “At least as many years as we’ll have to look at the grotesque SHO in the marketplace”

      NulloModo can defend himself I’m sure, but combining these two statements seems odd as they have nothing to do with each other.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      jw –

      All I am doing is offering some information and an opinion that happens to differ with yours. If you don’t like the car that’s fine, some people do, some people don’t, nothing is going to appeal to everyone.

      As for Obama, I fail to see the point. I live on the Gulf and yes I am distressed to see what is happening, but unless our President has some superpowers I’m unaware of, there isn’t a whole lot he can do about the situation here vs. somewhere else.

    • 0 avatar
      newcarscostalot

      Z71_Silvy:

      I checked the Chevy site and clicked on the ‘build your own’ option for the Impala, and they no longer offer the SS trim or a ‘PROPER V8.’ Also, you might try Firefox as it corrects spelling errors. Just a thought.

  • avatar
    Boxofrain

    SHO aside, I think the buyer for the new Taurus has changed. I don’t see many of them on the road, but when I do it’s not the typical family that you used to see. That segment seems to be buying the Fusion. The typical driver I see in a Taurus now is a more elderly retired type you used to see in the Town Car or bigger Cadillacs.

  • avatar
    educatordan

    Yes the Fusion is now the size of the old Taurus. I consider the Fusion Sport V6 AWD to be the true SHO in my mind. This might as well be the Taurus GT or Taurus “Hey I’m Old and Can Afford the Insurance, Suck it Whippersnapper!” But then I guess that wouldn’t have fit on the trunk.

  • avatar
    ronin

    I had heard a lot about this, and how huge it was inside, and couldn’t wait to sit in it.

    Whoa, it’s just the old Ford Five Hundred as far as inside dimensions. Which means the driver’s elbow, hip, and shoulder room is way too cramped for the size of the vehicle. I know Ford has a thing for overhigh center console bulkheads (the Mustang is the winner)and small interior space surrounded by a large exterior shell (Crown Vic), but it’s a shame to carry it on to this model. It would have been cool to have delivered a comfy highway cruiser with a large inside. At least the Impala can still be had with a front bench seat, not the Taurus’s seat that feels like you’re shoe-horned into a Project Mercury capsule.

    A nit, but since when did anything non-turbocharged become ‘naturally aspirated?’ I’ll grant you that a carburetor is indeed naturally aspirated, since it uses the venturi effect. But fuel injection is most certainly not ‘naturally aspirated.’

    • 0 avatar

      The Five Hundred was smaller on the outside and roomier on the inside.

    • 0 avatar
      Truckducken

      I believe ‘aspiration’ refers to the pressure of the air/fuel mix prior to engine compression, which in the case of a typical carb or FI engine is pretty much atmospheric. It takes a supercharger or turbo to change the game. But if the pressure inside the FI system concerns you, don’t forget there’s probably a fuel pump feeding your old carburetor!

  • avatar

    Considering our drivers on the road now, this is a SAFE sporty transporter. Most dads just want to punch it on the onramp; when the family is aboard. For one car families, this is a good start.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      Wow..

      Safe, sporty, transporter.

      This Taurus.. ISNT.

      Its not sporty.
      Its barely a transporter.
      And SAFE.. is an illusion.

      This thing weights 4400lbs.. back when the original from 89 weighed 29-3300. 400lbs is one thing in variants. But to weigh that now.. as a TAURUS is a travesty.

      Nothing is sporty.. and weighs that much.
      Nothing is sporty and weighs even 4000lbs.. you’d have to tick down to at least 3500 to have a car thats light weight enough with a decent 3ltr 6 from the Japanese to THROW around.. that IS sporty.

      A transporter…
      Any car is a transporter.
      Its a travesty to USE the words: SPORTY and Transporter in the same sentence. Ya doing the car a MASSIVE disservice.

      As far as SAFE..
      Its big, its HEAVY. DOESNT mean.. AT all, that its “SAFE”. That word for many people has spawned the need for Expeditions and Tahoes for 2 kids and a set of parents.. the up-sizing of vehicles never ends.. because of peoples POOR perception of SAFETY.

      I was safe in my 92 Accord.
      Im equally as safe in my 00.
      Safety is about how you drive, how aware you are.. not the car you are in.

      Buying this 4400lb piece of domestic garbage.. doesn’t say you are safe. It says ya don’t want to drive, and that ya had a Crown Vic before or any number of the current Taurus’ FULLSIZED competitors.

      Id like the ability to have / buy a MUCH lighter car with a MUCH lighter motor.. to be ABLE to GET OUT of an accident because I have the ability to avoid a collision.

      To say its a:
      Safe, Sporty, Transporter..

      Says LESS than nothing.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    The two things I recall about this edition of the Taurus were the multiple, small and indistinct buttons on the console (the Flex suffers for this as well) and the very, very dim headlamps.

    Other than that, it seems a nice car. Comfortable and solid. The Impala was cheaper, the Avalon roomier and the Maxima sportier, but holistically this was the best of the class. I’d personally take the Avalon, but cleaving to the middle is never a bad idea.

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    Having read all the comments thusfar it seems like all the criticism is either because the current version shares only its name with the previous models or because the car is the size it is.

    Ford was stupid to drop the Taurus name, it was one of the most recognized names on the market. They squandered a lot of brand equity and Mulally corrected the mistake by reviving the name plate.

    This version was never intended to be a replacement of any of the models previous either as a Taurus or a Taurus SHO. Using the Taurus name is using the name recognition/brand equity. Period, that’s it, that’s all.

    The intended market for the current model isn’t the same as most of us that post here. Personally I am very lukewarm about the styling, don’t want a car this large and would buy many other vehicles in its price range over it.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      But that’s the point you see. Didn’t nearly all enthusiasts decry GM for the names it has trampled over the last 2 decades?

      Ford should have left the Taurus name buried until it was time to replace the Fusion and then MAYBE revived it. This car could have been the Galaxie XL and then we wouldn’t be screaming about it.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      You’re missing my point. Ford isn’t trying to sell the current version to previous buyers, it’s too large and expensive. They’re taking benefit of a well known nameplate. Stop and think about it, from a business standpoint why would Ford not want to use the Taurus name right now?

      They made a huge mistake when they retired the nameplate, in the meantime the Fusion has taken the place of the previous Taurus models in Ford’s line up. Ford is better off using the Taurus nameplate now then to wait several years for a new model because the Fusion will be that new model. The other choice is to retire the Fusion nameplate and that doesn’t make any more sense then retiring the Taurus nameplate did.

      As I think about it GM’s resurrected nameplate escapades are a good example in the case of the Impala. Look at how many years they retired it and how many they sell today. And today’s version bears no resemblance to the original resurrected version. Same scenario with the Taurus except no hope of Impala numbers.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      They squandered a lot of brand equity and Mulally corrected the mistake by reviving the name plate.

      No, that was yet another bonehead decision made by Big Al. ‘Taurus’ was not worth saving…after Ford had been ruining it for 10+ years.
      And then, he puts ‘Taurus’ on the wrong car. ‘Taurus’ was a brand that was built on a mid-sized car that gave a lot for your money…not an overweight pig that is stupidly large and extremely overpriced.

      If ‘Taurus’ was worth saving, the Fusion would be called ‘Taurus’. But ‘Taurus’ was not worth saving, thus the introduction of the ‘Fusion’ name…and Ford’s obsession with shaving appliances.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      Silvy you don’t understand brand name marketing or if you think the Taurus name isn’t marketable you’re obviously wrong as Ford is selling cars using the name.

      Ford is much better off using the Taurus name than Five Hundred or resurrecting another retired nameplate or coming up with a new one.

      Why? Because buyers, especially the target market recognize the name. It’s really that simple. No potential buyers are removing the car from consideration because it is called a Taurus. They may be removing it from consideration because of the car itself (i.e the styling, the size or the price for example) but not because it is named Taurus.

      There is zero downside using the Taurus name for this car, only upside. Anyone complaining that the car is too different from previous models to use the name doesn’t understand the previous Taurus buyers are not the target market for this car.

      Again, the Impala is a perfect example of using a well known retired name on a vehicle that in the Impala’s case bears no resemblance to the original or the resurrected original.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Silvy you don’t understand brand name marketing or if you think the Taurus name isn’t marketable you’re obviously wrong as Ford is selling cars using the name.

      Ford is much better off using the Taurus name than Five Hundred or resurrecting another retired nameplate or coming up with a new one.

      Then by your logic, the Fusion should have been called ‘Taurus’…

      But then, what would we be calling the pig that is the ‘Taurus’ now?

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      @Z71_Silvy, if you insist on renaming Fusion the Taurus because it’s the same size as the original Taurus, then you should also be asking for other manufacturers to do the same. The Corolla should be renamed the Camry as it’s now six inches longer than the original Camry, and the Civic needs to be called an Accord as the current Civic is more than a foot (!) longer than the original Accord.

      The reality is that these are just marketing names, and often the new generation has little to do with its predecessors. (Corolla started as a small RWD two-door with a longitudinal pushrod engine and a solid axle in the back. About the only thing it has in common with today’s Corolla is the McPherson strut front suspension — and the Corolla name. Which has huge brand equity, regardless of the car it’s attached to.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      I don’t disagree that the Fusion should have been called the Taurus but it wasn’t and in the meantime Fusion established itself as a well known nameplate.

      It’s not my logic it’s the reality of the current market place. Whether you agree or not that the Taurus name has brand equity is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is it does. Ford could have called this car anything they wanted to but nothing would have had more instant name recognition than Taurus.

      I am not defending the car itself as I don’t like it. I am simply pointing out basic brand marketing is the reason Ford used Taurus. You think Mulally made a mistake I don’t. The mistake was made when Ford retired the name. Taurus is/was as well known a name as any in the industry since it’s inception.

  • avatar
    geeber

    Interesting review…I see a fair number of Tauruses on the road around here (without the rental car barcode stickers), so this car must be satisfying a slice of the market.

    I have to disagree about the fit-and-finish of the original Taurus interior. For a domestic of that time, it was definitely far above the norm. Compared to a contemporary GM or Chrysler product – even a Cadillac – the Taurus interior was far superior.

  • avatar
    baggins

    +1000 on the console.

    When the 2010 Taurus came out, I was really looking forward to driving one. I liked the looks of it, I like a big / safe car and at 6’4″ 230 I thought the big Taurus might be my next ride. I knew I would have to skip the sunroof to get headroom, but that’s true of most cars.

    I sat in one in the auto show, and immediately stopped thinking of the Taurus. My right knee was hard against that HUGE console. And the car felt cramped. Its about the largest car on the road, but the driver is bottled up like in a econobox.

    Nullo – why, why did Ford do this???

    • 0 avatar

      They must have taken the focus group’s suggestion at heart that people want to be bottled up in their cars a la cocoon. Or maybe they were the same folks who really went for the Olds Aurora’s first gen interior.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I’m a big guy too, and I like the cockpit feeling in the Taurus. Yes, my right knee is against the console when I’m in the seat, but more in a supportive manner than a cramped one. Plus, the high console is good for bracing your body against during hard cornering.

      Then again, I did like that first gen Aurora interior too…

  • avatar

    The biggest problem with the SHO is that it is NOT the car that most enthusiasts remember it being. In fact, it’s not even a car for enthusiasts, PERIOD. It’s for the 55-60 sect who want a comfortable highway cruiser that won’t get humiliated by other similar sedans at the onramp.

    These guys should be petitioning Ford long and hard for a Fusion SHO. Bundle of snakes and all.

    • 0 avatar

      The bundle of snakes will never make it past the accountants again. That must have been an incredibly expensive intake manifold. Far cheaper to mold a single piece out of plastic.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Sad but true. The only thing appealing about the REAL SHO was that 3.0/3.2 Yamaha plant.

      Not, with that absent….nothing about the car is desirable.

    • 0 avatar
      newcarscostalot

      You do realize that Ford uses the Taurus and SHO name for marketing reasons and to attract customers, just as GM uses the Impala and Malibu names for marketing reasons and to attract customers?

      “Sad but true. The only thing appealing about the REAL SHO was that 3.0/3.2 Yamaha plant.

      Not, with that absent….nothing about the car is desirable.”

      This statement makes no sense considering the difference in age of the two cars and the fact that the new Taurus is on a completely different platform…

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    The problem here is everybody who loved the old SHO was expecting the same type of car.
    It’s not.
    What it is simply, is a V8 version of a large car like in the old days.
    Ordering an 8 vs a 6.
    Just with a 6 twin turbo with early power.
    We all agree that it is an outstanding engine, but a misleading name.
    Enough of the bashing for its size already, please.
    It’s a BIG CAR for people who like BIG CARS.
    But it offers a fast engine for those who like the old V8 feeing, only now with early power.

    Ford promised from the beginning that the ecoboost engine was going to fill almost 50 percent or more of it’s line up.
    I for one wish they had a better plan for the SHO label.
    I feel it would be better as a replacement for the V8 label.

    And I personally dislike the ecoboost name.
    Twinforce will always be my preference as it was during the development.

    • 0 avatar

      This is close to the truth. What you’re missing is that there’s no inherent reason such a car should be as boring to drive as this one is. My father owned a Lincoln Mark VII LSC back in the mid-80s. That car had character. The new SHO does not.

      As the review notes, tuning the EcoBoost for a much better sound would be a good first step. Refining the suspension tuning could also help, though there must be some inherent limitations to this platform. The Fusion/MKZ feel like an Elise compared to the Taurus/MKS.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Michael…
      I guess what I want to say is boring is a little harsh.
      I guess that when the ecoboost becomes part of the Fusion, then we can begin to expect a little more performance.
      It is. after all, a more reasonable sixe for performance.

      When I spoke to the people at Hennessey about their upgrade on the SHO for my MKS, they laughed when I remarked about my worry for the trans taking on the 425 HP.
      It seems they think this car was purposefully tuned down for future increases on future models.
      In other words, feed the people slowly.

      Many auto manufacturers have the base, the sport…then the performance.
      Take the BMW M (AMC for MERC). It is the third step, something Ford could have done with the SHO.

    • 0 avatar

      Oddly, I found the MKS less boring. The Lincoln oozes luxury and gadgetry. It has a character that fits its size.

      I actually first drove the SHO the week I had the MKS EB. People claim all of the time that the Lincoln isn’t worth the extra $8,000 or so. But stepping from the MKS into the SHO highlighted the lesser luxury of the latter.

  • avatar
    probert

    I prefer a real nun, or no nun at all.

  • avatar
    european

    i’d bet 10 bucks, Z71 silvy got a tattoo that says
    “i hate ford”.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    “…The only failure of the SHO is in comparison to the original. The Taurus is no longer in the same place in Ford’s line up as the old Taurus, and this SHO is not meant to be a rehash of the original…”

    Nullo, the Taurus SHO may not be in the same place as its original but when Ford chose to name this car with the old moniker, they are in a sense forcing the customers to think that way. As it stands by itself, it is not a bad car, but by using a past name AND a performance “icon” you are setting the stage for disappointment simply because this car does not play in the same arena as the old one. Despite of what Silvy says, there was still equity in the Taurus name. Had this not been true we wouldn’t all be having this discussion. Ford should have called the Fusion the Taurus, and this car could have been whatever else they wanted to call it.

    Considering this car without the baggage of the name, I was a bit disappointed. Why? One, for its size, the interior felt somewhat claustrophobic. Two, a car of this class and price should be RWD or, for those who desire it, AWD. I rather not have to deal with the handicap of AWD in order to avoid driving a FWD car. Three, it is just too damn heavy. In fairness, Ford is not alone in curb weight bloat, but even if you are not an enthusiastic driver, excess weight compromises mileage, dynamics, and active safety. I have no problem with the engine choice but, yeah the “snakes” of the oldie were pretty cool.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I can see your point, but it hasn’t come up much with actual customers. The original SHO slowly morphed into something more like the current version throughout the original run. The third generation SHO was automatic only and no longer had the Yamaha V6. You could construe the current model as the logical next step from the third gen vehicle.

      The handling again is not nearly as numb or clumsy as MK might have you believe from this review. There are plenty of journalists who have found it perfectly capable for providing some thrills. There is also the http://www.6versus8.com test that, while admittedly was done with a Lincoln MKS, shows that this engine and platform have plenty of competence on a twisty road course. The MKS EcoBoost and SHO share enough that the results from that test should apply to the SHO as well.

    • 0 avatar

      Drive the SHO and the Acura TL SH-AWD back-to-back and you’ll see what I mean. Both are large AWD sedan with prices around $40,000, but the Acura provides a far more visceral driving experience. It’s a much more exciting car to drive. The TL has its own faults, namely exterior styling and a harsh ride, but somewhere between these two cars lies a happy medium.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      The third generation SHO was automatic only and no longer had the Yamaha V6.

      So that’s why the engines fail…

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      There is also the http://www.6versus8.com test that, while admittedly was done with a Lincoln MKS, shows that this engine and platform have plenty of competence on a twisty road course. The MKS EcoBoost and SHO share enough that the results from that test should apply to the SHO as well.

      Oh please. That was a paid advertisement with the MKTaurus having a severe handicap. NOTHING of any value came out of that test due to it’s lack of objectivity and fairness.

      Figures you would bring up such a biased test to support an argument.

    • 0 avatar
      relton

      Didn’t Lincoln lose their own rigged comparison to a BMW 550?

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    The current Taurus is one of those cars that I want to like but can’t get past the over 4000 LB girth, the F-150 sized center console that takes up nearly half the front seat room that was available in the 2009 model and the over priced sticker on the SHO and Limited models. The 3.5 V6 is a good engine and in FWD form obtains reasonable mileage considering the weight. The big trunk is another asset.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    For everyone complaining about curb weight, keep in mind the A6 V8 Quattro, E550 4Matic, 300C AWD, and Jaguar XJ are all over 4000 lbs as well, and the Taurus is larger than all of them. The BMW 550i and Lexus GS460 are both over 3900lbs without AWD. The Taurus isn’t abnormally heavy for this class.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      They are heavy, no doubt, but they aren’t really in the same “class” as the Taurus (with the exception of the 300C), as can be easily seen by comparing the MSRP stickers. Premium and luxury vehicles tend to weigh more for a given set of dimensions, given additional weight for chassis rigidity, sound deadening, thicker sheet metal and so on …

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      Ya said 3 things in that sentence that dont make any sense:

      1. A6 V8 Quattro, E550 4Matic, 300C AWD, and Jaguar XJ…
      2. BMW 550i and Lexus GS460…
      3. The Taurus isn’t abnormally heavy for this class.

      Taurus DOESNT DESERVE to be in this price class.

      Even mentioning those names.. means its competitive.

      Which means.. who in the world.. compares the aforementioned vehicles (by you), to a Taurus.

      It belongs.. surrounded by a MUCH cheaper audience.
      And.. who puts a 300C AWD–(is comparable against a Taurus for price) against a XJ even for a weight comparo? Its the price comparo that strikes me.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I have to disagree. The problem with the Taurus is that it’s nearly as heavy as the Flex, and about as heavy as the Sienna.

      Think about that. The Sienna. There’s a serious discrepancy in useful interior space, there.

      Personally, I have no real issue with the Sienna being over 4000lbs because it’s got the useful space to rationalize it. The Taurus (and the G8 and 300/Charger) seat at least three fewer people, lack a whole lot of cargo space and are pretty cramped. There is a problem when the Avalon is several hundred pounds lighter and yet manages to both feel and be much more spacious.

      For the record, I like the car and the platform, and I don’t often complain about mass because it’s often appropriate for the class (eg, the Accord may be big, but it’s not appreciably heavy for the class of car) but the Taurus, much like the Jetta, is pretty hefty next to it’s actual competition.

      I think we’re seeing issues with the D3 not scaling up well.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I meant class mainly to refer to size, but as it happens the Taurus does stack up well with those vehicles where it comes to sound dampening, thickness of sheetmetal, resistance to chassis flex, etc. No, the Taurus isn’t as expensive as an Audi or Mercedes, but it rides just as solid, is just as quiet, and can be had with the same luxury features. You lose a bit on interior materials
      compared with the Germans, and the badge doesn’t have as much panache, but for a car built to the same level of mechanical quality as they are, the Taurus is an outstaning value for many thousands less.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    You know what I like about this comment? The timeless elegance of a Ford dealer selling “road-hugging weight.” It doesn’t make the sale with a TTAC audience, but I’m sure it works on someone.

    FYI, I saw a brand-new long wheelbase Jaguar XJ on my bike commute up Manhattan’s First Avenue this morning. I can’t say it’s any more distinctive a car than an S-Class or A8L. But FWIW, the driver was picking his nose!

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      Just hearing that..

      Makes me want to SLUG the salesman.. while my wife holds me down.

      How dare ya tell me WEIGHT is a good thing.
      TAURUS SHO is about CORNERING, POWER, lightweight 29-3300lbs and FAST.

      THIS.. is a behemoth.

      And I wouldn’t buy it JUST because of that.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Though this does remind me of my Dad’s friend, the car salesman who says things like “The quality remains after the price is forgotten.” And once sold an old lady a Buick Park Avenue because she needed something with a hood ornament (she used it to find the center of the road) because the Century she came in to look at didn’t have one.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Hey, Acc azda atch – Chill out, no need to threaten violence. Ohm!

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      The shit salesmen say.. that I have to decipher, aggravates me to such a point.

      The concept.. of selling people.. MORE WEIGHT to increase their SAFETY… is a FARCE!

      Like saying cigs and tobacco cant kill ya. — When THEY knew for DECADES how bad they are for you. A bit extreme.. but the concept still exists.

      SAFETY.. is NOT more weight!
      SAFETY is knowing how to handle the damn car, and it not being a OBESE #(@*!

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I never used the term road hugging weight, nor did I try to sell the weight overall as a goods thing, I just pointed out the Taurus isn’t appreciably heavier than other similar cars.

      As far as safety, I held my tongue on your comment earlier, but since you bring it back up –

      You are right in one sense that lighter cars with nimble handling can be safer, at least as far as active safety goes, by avoiding an accident in the first place, in the hands of a skilled driver.

      However, for the average driver who isn’t trained in how to handle emergency maneuvers, or who, like most, would just panic and do the wrong thing anyway, extra weight, along with extra features that add weight such as more airbags, side intrusion beams, and high strength steel body cages do make the car safer. In your previous example you would be much more likely to walk away alive after being plowed into by a drunk driver in your ’00 Accord vs the ’92, and even more so in a ’10 due to the increased number of airbags and advances in crash severity and location sensors that use those airbags to greater effect. Most drivers are also less likely to run off the roadmor flip their cars due to modern traction, stability, and anti-roll control.

      Adding weight alone doesn’t mean everything, a big ’70s DeVille is probably less safe in a crash than a modern Malibu, but all things being equal physics tells you that being in 4000 lbs
      modern car will be safer than in a 2000 lbs modern car when younger broadsided by a 5000 lbs modern truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      NulloModo:

      While I appreciate your comments and with all due respect..
      The 4th gen Accord I had.. vs the 6th gen Accord I have are very similar in practically every measure.

      They BOTH get DWARFED by the 8th gen Accord, tells me RIGHT there, that its TOO big to get out of its own way!

      Ive driven for a number of years and have had my fair share of scrapes, ntm avoided quite a few.

      Ya have to learn on the first car.. what to do and HOW to do it, much later in the 1st’s life did I figure out how to use the weight and size to my advantage.

      I don’t WANT to RELY on my vehicle to do the “safety” for me.
      I don’t want to just TAKE IT.

      I dont want the nanny systems.
      I dont want traction control.
      I dont want the dozen airbags.
      I dont want the extra electronics for blind spots.. and cameras on my car.

      This vehicle.. called Taurus.. isn’t just a ordinary vehicle.
      This is the culmination of the past 5+yrs of branding, of production, of management, of figuring out how to do CARS and SUVS/ CUVS equally, of platform engineering, of doing a QUALITY FORD.

      This.. is also everything I hate about the class its in.

      Ya mentioned earlier about the german garbage that is priced thousands higher… and ya mentioned the word VALUE, for thousands less.

      THATS another point that aggravates me.
      Ya buy the car ya want.. cause its the car ya need.

      Buying for VALUE, means ya getting a cheap POS that ya buying to save MONEY.

      Ya “should” buy the car. cause its what ya need.. not the cash on the hood.

      Im not a Taurus customer, I was. Im not anymore. This car is for people who think their Camry XLS or the SE isnt sporty enough, or their Avalon *cough CAMRY cough* isnt safe / sporty enough.

      I dont buy safety.
      I buy the ability to get my ass out of the fire.. how I drive, vs what the car can do.

      Accord cant do that, not anymore.

      As far as the “modern truck” goes.
      We arent talking about cab-overs.. or semis..

      We are talking about Pathfinder Armadas, Navigators, Expeditions, Pilots, Veracruz’, X5s, Cayennes, L.R’s, Tahoes and their copies, Burbans and their copies, Vues, TBs, etc etc etc.

      They only weigh that much.. because of the inability to put size and safety in the right frame of mind. DO remember.. “the kind automakers” didn’t BLESS us all by making these hunks of crap. Its accounting and marketing that roll the money in.

      Those @(@&@&! bought the damn thing because they are scared of the big semis on the road.
      But.. those aforementioned vehicles.. OUT NUMBER the semis.

      In the end.. its all a matter of scale… and how competent of a driver you are, and how adequate of a vehicle you think you bought, to bring home your 2 kids.

      In the end..
      I refuse to buy a larger vehicle.. to protect myself from the big bad incompetent meanie bastards roaming the roads.

      Learn how to drive.. and ya wouldn’t have that problem.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Michael or Nullo,

    How is the interior noise levels vis a vis the MKS?

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Acc azda atch – I strongly recommend a sedative (and no driving). You’re getting way too worked up.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    No doubt – but it’s just a friggin’ car, and one that he’d never buy (me either). Why the rumpus?

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      Why?

      Because its not just a freakin CAR.

      Its a Taurus, look back in the past 5yrs.. and how much the name, the company, the factories that got axed, the whole involvement of Mulally, shit.. even even the entire One Ford Concept.. started with Taurus.. and Focus.

      Its not just a CAR.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Nguyen Van Falk

      Dude, why are you so worked up about a company who makes business decisions you disagree with? It is just a car. And your post about it affecting hundreds of millions of people is absolutely ridiculous. You do know there’s only about 6 billion people in the world, so to say redesigning an American sedan that was once very popular and now is a little more niche affects that many people is preposterous and you’re insane for saying this.

      Do you get proportionately more irate about the gulf oil spill which is caused by a bad business decision that will actually have an impact on a lot of people. If you did, I fear you’d go on a murderous rampage.

      Did you get fired from the Taurus design team or something?

      You don’t like the car. We all get it. You need to reevaluate your priorities or take some yoga classes because to get apoplectic over a car you don’t particularly care for is the action of someone who is totally detached from reality.

  • avatar
    George B

    Basic problem here is the Ford Taurus SHO fails the valet test badly. What is the reaction of your friends waiting for their cars when the valet brings you your $45k Taurus SHO vs. the reaction you could get if you spent your money more wisely. For about $3k more you can buy a new for 2011 Infiniti M37 that will turn heads. You can save money and get a better reaction if you buy a Cadillac CTS. If you’re willing to risk buying CPO, real German luxury can be purchased for $45k. However, if you admit to your friends that you just spent $45k on a 2 ton Ford, based on a decade old platform and proudly built by UAW members from Chicago’s South Side, they’ll think you’ve completely lost your mind.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      What a brilliant post George.

      That last sentence sums it up very nicely.

      One of the (many) problems with the porky Taurus is that the SHOW does not look any different than the regular Taurus. Now…while that makes it a great sleeper (because the Taurus is a very bland car), for the (outrageous) $45K, I want my car to look like the $45K sport sedan that it’s supposed to be.

      Ford botched the SHOW…and the Taurus big time…but the old people should love it.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      George B –

      Nothing against the M37 because it is a great looking car, and from all the reviews it sounds very impressive, but optioned out the same as an SHO at $45K a M37 AWD is about $55K, and has one or two options the SHO doesn’t. You can take the M37 even higher of course, but I tried to get it as close as I could to a loaded SHO.

      You do certainly get more luxury panache with the Infiniti, and higher grade interior appointments, as you would expect with the M being a luxury car. If impressing the valet and your friends with your car is worth the extra $10 grand, then by all means go for it. There are plenty of people who would rather have the premium sound system, hard drive navigation and music storage, adaptive cruise, and blind spot monitoring, and AWD for the $45K rather than the standard 2wd M37. To me getting more for your money is the wiser choice, as I am the only one who needs to understand or appreciate my choice of vehicle, let the valet and my friends pay more for a badge if they want to.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      @NulloModo, to each his own … I almost never use valet parking, and I don’t buy cars to impress my friends (if I did, I wouldn’t still be driving my 2004 model). But for me the quality of the interior (design, materials, switchgear and seating) matters more than the toys: I sit in my car for hundreds of hours each year, and to me the quality of the interior is real value.

      Of course, I am not a typical buyer, so relatively few cars have the emphasis in the same areas as I do.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      There are plenty of people who would rather have the premium sound system,

      Nothing about Sony says ‘premium’. Sony is low end (which makes it a perfect match for Ford).

      You go to any electronic store…and Sony will not be one of the brands featured in their high end entrainment section. There you will find proper brands brands like Bose, Harman/Kardon, Denon, etc.

      But…if it makes you feel better…Sony is probably high end at Wal-Mart.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Acc azda atch – You’re letting apoplexy overtake you. Let people get you agitated, not inanimate objects. A Taurus is steel, rubber and plastic…a car. Same as the hundreds of others reviewed and dissected here.

    Is Taurus selling and making money? Apparently yes. It pays bills. That’s why I can’t work up much outrage. It accomplishes its mission, which to me is a continuation of the LTD and Crown Victoria. There’s always a market for marshmellow cars. If this one can steer and stop better than an Avalon, what’s the harm?

    The SHO just doesn’t make sense, that’s all. There’s plenty of good Ford stuff coming up that’s more to your liking and mine: Mustang, Fiesta, Focus, C-Max and next-gen Fusion.

    It’s about perspective, you know.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      No.. “I dont know.”
      I’m seeing, that you dont get the concept of the history of the last 5-6+yrs of the Taurus Story within Ford.

      Shit, this story goes back to 2003 on just the Current Taurus / 500 / Freestyle with Fusion plan. Then it goes back further, involving the Doraville Ga plant, that was at top efficiency, but got canned.. cause they were going to cann the car.. after spending 10yrs on the market, and not updating it, that very angle reaches into.. what is important for Ford. At the time, the SUV was important, and the Taurus.. Ford’s crowing jewel was shoved aside. (That is why Mulally was brought in TO RUN FORD, SPECIFICALLY because Bill Ford Jr, couldn’t say no to the SUV running the show.)

      Which then goes back to 1996, and the giant internal corporate struggle involving the Egg design of the car… and how the Camry.. by doing what the Japanese do.. constantly / consistently updating the body.

      I’m afraid you aren’t getting the prospective / concept.

      Some cars that are produced its a one and done show from the domestics.. others.. their story means a lot.

      Taurus.. is one that’s political.
      This is a story that involves hundreds of millions of people’s lives.

      It isn’t just about the makeup of how the car comes together.
      Apparently, youve had your head in the sand or not been listening to the plants closing, or the people out of work.

      How would you feel, if you got canned from your job at the (top efficiency) Doraville GA plant, making the 02 Taurus.. when they decide to can it. Then they bring it back a yr or two later as the 500.. at another factory up in Chicago. Only for the car to be resurrected completely as the ROOK in the game.. because Mulally stepped in and dished out a RASH OF SHIT to EVERYONE for canning that car.

      Seriously.. ya gotta be pretty damn stupid to throw away almost 30yrs of production on their longest lasting sedan.. to focus on the EXPLODER.

      The car.. is political.
      Its vastly more important.. than the F-150, than the Stang, even the Exploder. Why.. cause this is the car.. in its 86 format.. that brought FORD out of the brink of bankruptcy. This is the car.. that put Ford on the map.. to fight against Camry and Accord. Only for Ford to give it up in 96, cause they took the eye off of the prize.. to “focus” on Explorer.

      Its not about the materials…
      Maybe you haven’t taken notice of that.

      But the biggest pisser.. that REALLY pisses me off…
      When the article talking about the specs of the car came out for the LA times / NY Times.. they completely glossed over the concept.. that this isn’t just another car.

      This literally.. is as important to the company.. as the Model T or Model A.
      Its really nauseating to think about.. THIS car as such a political device, and how much it stands for.. (and it does) for two of the most reputable Democratic-leaning-papers to miss the concept.. of how juicy.. and important this car actually is, and for them TO BOTH GLOSS right over it, as if its a review for some overpriced, grey / dark blue german garbage.

      This is the Taurus.
      Here is a nice little piece.. of just ONE book that I own.. about this car.
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393318613/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0525933727&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0HW9AM997FA6ZKBTSQCR

  • avatar
    concord83

    Correction gslippy,

    Specific High Output really meant, High Specific Output in reference to the Ford Tempo inline OHV 4. The other version was HSC, High Swirl Combustion which was the regular version of that engine.

    High Specific Output only netted an extra whopping 2 HP and 6 FT LBS. of Torque, over the regular HSC motor.

    Off topic a bit, Ford in retrospect would been better off in terms of quality reputation if they avoided; the Tempo/Topaz and Contour/Mistake episodes. They really should have done as what was done in Australia in the 80′s, offer a re-badged Mazda 626 aka Ford Telstar.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Ach,

    I’m sorry I can’t feel it as personally as you, but that’s only because I didn’t live it. I can only conclude that Ford’s awful handling of Taurus in the Nineties affected you personally. Did you, or family members, work in Doraville?

    I know the plant had an excellent reputation and remember it closing for good back in 2006, only to have the Taurus name resurrected just months later.

    For whatever it’s worth, I’m very aware of the situation you describe. I remember the launch of the ’96 Taurus/Sable, and the big talk from Ford that accompanied it. I’ve read pieces of Mary Walton’s book over the years. I know the design failed in the marketplace and was propped up by incentives and fleet sales. I’m certainly aware of how Ford destroyed the Taurus’ brand equity over the next 10 years. They essentially abandoned passenger cars in favor of SUV/truck expansion. It was an injustice, and a perfect example of snapping defeat from the jaws of victory. And you’re right, Bill Ford was too weak to put a stop to it.

    Enter Mulally. Did you expect more from him? Clearly. But he’s a businessman, not a knight in shining armor. Mulally’s first obligation is Ford shareholders. The 2010 Taurus is a calculation that bigger is better. They’ve taken a heavy and not all that distinguished design – the D3 – tweaking it and blinging it out to get a few more viable sales years and higher transactional profit. So far, that calculation seems to be the right one.

    It sucks, but guess what? The Fusion is a high-volume, good quality mid-sized car. It takes over for Ford’s neglect of Taurus. And other good stuff is coming to market.

    Yes, the folks at Doraville clearly got screwed over. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all too often. But you do have to move on. Yoga is a good idea.

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      bomberpete:

      I buy cars.
      You buy cars.
      WE ALL BUY CARS.

      I go on this site.. to get the LOW down into WTF is going on inside Ford / GM / Chrapsler. To know what is going on and how. I look at a car, not JUST as a way to get from here to there. This isn’t Edmunds, or CARS.com or any of the other blog sites. I want to know.. the pulse in the auto industry. I want to feel its heart.. through what it makes.

      I’m not personally involved.. but that doesn’t make me an outsider. if you buy the car, or ya even follow the industry… it matters. Maybe its just the concept, that ya know whats going on. Ya on the same field as the dealership or the employees.. ya know what they are going through.

      The concept is..
      This is a vehicle.. that at one point meant something to a coupla hundred thousand people. This vehicle is responsible for the closure of a factory.. and how badly they got screwed over.

      Maybe Im poed.. cause as a “consumer”, wouldn’t ya’d like to know what went into this vehicle.. and how can I learn more about it. Where did it come from, what company produced it..

      But again..
      Two newspapers.. gloss over it.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      We should clarify something here.

      I would be amazed that the Doraville, GA plant would be assembling Tauruses (Tauri?), as it was a GM plant that assembled the Venture, Trans Sport/Montana, Silhouette and other GM U-vans.

      The Ford Atlanta plant (which was really in Hapeville, the home of Jeff Foxworthy and Chick-fil-a) pumped out the Taurus model, in conjunction with Chicago Assembly for the duration of it’s lifespan.

      Carry on.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Honestly, I’m out of ammo here. Acc azda atch is just way too involved for me to keep up. I fold.

  • avatar

    I really want Ford to take this engine and make a Fusion SHO with it. That I could be tempted by.

  • avatar
    lawmonkey

    Surprised by the level of emotions this car is raising. Based on our own little microcosm, I guess Ford was more intelligent in bringing back the Taurus nameplate than I first thought. Love is preferred, but hate is better than indifference or ignorance as to its existence.

    Haven’t sat in one, have rarely seen them on the road here in Austin. The idea of a big, quiet, powerful cruiser is good. Looks are good. Maybe a more base Taurus would be just as good at what the buyer needs?

    The reality is the payment – much ink has been spilled on what exact class Taurus competes in, but I get the feeling I’m not alone in just trying to see what kind of cool car I can get for $X. T-SHO might be a screaming deal when used, but the local Lexus dealer has some CPO current-gen LS460s lurking around this price range, actually a little lower.

  • avatar
    suzane

    2010 ford taurus is stylish and nice looking full size sedan car, that can seat up to five people. It’s front buffers are marked, with headlamps and and markers that roll around the wings. And I think Ford Cars are the most searched and preferred cars in U.K. & Australia.

    ==>> 2010 Ford Taurus


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India