By on April 20, 2011

Ford fans, rejoice! The Blue Oval Brand has been promising to do more to differentiate its “all go, no SHO” 365 HP Taurus SHO since the fall of 2009 (shortly after it debuted). After all, why drop nearly $40 large on a Ford if nobody realizes that it’s the high-po Ecoboosted version? Sure enough, Ford has updated the regular Taurus for the 2013 model-year, and its gone and visually differentiated the SHO while it was at it. But though the SHO now looks different from the standard car, can you actually tell which is which? (Hint: it’s the Kia-looking one) It’s one thing to simply differentiate the SHO… but does a mesh grille and some black trim justify the SHO’s high price or represent its potent power? Q-ships are cool, but they don’t have a great sales record.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

37 Comments on “SHO Me The Differentiation!...”


  • avatar
    mjz

    Isn’t this supposed to be the 2012 Taurus?

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    No SHO – no go.
    Make it look the part!

  • avatar
    86er

    (Hint: it’s the Kia-looking one)

    That doesn’t help.  First I’d have to know what a Kia looks like.

  • avatar
    KitaIkki

    It’s hard to see any advantage the Taurus has over the Australian Ford Falcon.  It appears to have worse space efficiency despite being an FWD design.  For example, the huge center console dwarfs Falcon’s, even though there is no transmission under it.

  • avatar
    ilikecorn

    no, no, no.  Get rid of SHO (nothing against the SHO itself).  just sayin’ from a brand perspective.

    Ford should be prodding SHO buyers into Lincoln showrooms.

  • avatar

    It looked so much better before.  With piddly sales I can’t see the SHO sticking around much longer unless it really catches on with the version they are offering to police. 

    Ford is bringing so much from Europe to America, why can’t they bring the Aussie Falcon here to fill the Panther void?  They can bring the Aussie Ranger and Territory while they’re at it too.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    The question this poses, among many, is why would you buy this car instead of the new Chrysler 300C, which, in photos at least, looks better.  I doubt that the fuel economy increase of the V-6 over the big Chrysler V-8, by the time its weighted down with AWD, is material.
    And, I’m looking for news that — apart from the new Mustang — Ford has ended its tradition of inadequate brakes on its “performance cars.”

  • avatar
    carguy

    Ed – that argument would only fly if the SHO wasn’t selling. But it is so I don’t see the need to change the styling to be any more aggressive.

  • avatar
    mjz

    I’d rather have a new Doge Charger or Chrysler 300.

  • avatar
    artinidis

    lol, the Kia comment was right on. that front looks a  lot like the Kia Frote Coupe

  • avatar
    slance66

    I think this car, and the normal Taurus for that matter, is much, much better looking than the Charger or 300.  Normal one has the best front end on any Ford Sedan. I wish they’d dump the over chromed monstrosity on the Fusion and Edge with this.  That said, a car this big should really be a RWD platform.

  • avatar
    fredtal

    You want flash then sell them some body kit and gold emblems.  Just let me have my “sleeper”

  • avatar
    Omnifan

    The original 1985 Taurus had a 4 as standard equipment.  Arf!

    I know the answer to my next statement, but I’ll ask anyways.  Ford needs to take this car off the Volvo platform and make it’s proportions more reasonable.  The 500 (later Taurus) looked like it was on steroids, and the current one just looks to chunky.  Stretching the body to fit the Volvo chassis was a mistake in the first place and still is.

    Sorry Alan.

  • avatar
    pauldun170

    I’ve been in the Lincoln version…
    I couldn’t find anything about the MKS that would make me drop 50K on it
    Keep the SHO a Ford. Its a nice car with plenty power and the MPG isn’t too bad considering the actual size of the car.

  • avatar
    gessvt

    I think this is where SVT’s design signatures would come into place again.  It’s fairly easy to tell a Cadillac V or Chrysler/Dodge SRT model from their less sporting siblings.  Back in SVT’s heyday, all of their products had round foglights, unique front bumpers and wheels, etc. to differentiate them.
     
    I’m also aware that the SHO is not an SVT product.  My question is: why not?

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      I’m also aware that the SHO is not an SVT product.  My question is: why not?
       
      Because Ford would rather ruin the SHO name with this fat, bloated pig.  The current SHO is an insult to real SHOs everywhere.  The SHO used to be something special…not it’s just another trim level on an already overpriced appliance.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    And which Kia does this look alike again? Don’t understand this statement.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Well…this re-skin should remove any remaining doubt that Ford is incapable of designing a decent looking vehicle.
     
    The Taurus went from anonymous and bland to downright ugly.  Obviously this redesign was to try and boost sales….but in the end, the sales will stay the same or get worse….because it looks terrible….plus, now Ford has done even more damage by fitting the problematic and amazingly complicated MyFord touchy thingy into it.  That system makes BMW’s 1st gen iDrive seem as simple as an iPod.
     
    And we caught Ford in yet another lie.  The SHOW does NOT have 400HP like they said it would.
     
     

  • avatar

    Okay, in 2013 Malibu post it was said that new Malibu looks like Taurus. In this one Edward says Taurus looks like Kia Sporte. So we have equivalence class here:
    1. Reflexivity – each car is similar to itself.
    2. Symmetry – if Taurus is similar to Kia then Kia is also similar to Taurus.
    3. Transitivity – If Malibu is similar to Taurus and Taurus is similar to Kia then Malibu is similar to Kia. And by symmetry Kia is similar to Malibu.

    I could extend it also further to and say that all these three cars have congruence relation, but will not provide prove here.

  • avatar

    Thats from Detroit News:

    “Last year, Ford sold 68,850 Tauruses. By comparison, Chevrolet sold 172,078 Impalas, Dodge sold 75,397 Chargers, Nissan sold 60,569 Maximas, Chrysler sold 37,116 300s and Toyota sold 28,390 Avalons. However, both the Charger and the Impala are popular as rental car options.”

  • avatar
    LXbuilder

    Six months from now the big Dodge and Chrysler sedans will be outselling the Taurus 3 or 4 to one, and it won’t matter what the public thinks of Ford vs Chrysler because beautiful product always out sells meh.

    • 0 avatar
      SP

      Well, Dodge and Chrysler are doing their best to ruin those sedans with the misguided styling (to my eyes) of their mid-cycle refresh.  But I think they will still top the Taurus, yes.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheeljack

        The market doesn’t seem to agree as the new Charger is off to a good start in its first month of decent availability. I personally think the new Charger is awesome looking, especially the tail end. 

  • avatar
    SP

    Well, if you downsize it, then you are eating the Fusion.  So, Ford is kind of stuck here.  Can’t keep the CV, but must keep the Fusion.  What to do?

    Maybe instead of calling a SUV by a car’s name, as in the Taurus X (decent vehicle, if a little dumpy), they should go the opposite direction, and call this …

    The Explorer Y!

    Or Explorer Lite!

    Or something like that.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    Call me crazy, but… if I’m getting a car that handles well and goes fast, I’m doing it because it handles well and goes fast. What the hell do I care whether other people know how fast it is? If I care enough to want them to know, they’ll find out when I’ve stopped at the next light down before they’ve gotten across the intersection.

    If I like how a car looks, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether it’s got carbon this or blacked out that or nuclear puke green leather stitching. Just give me a good car that looks nice, for f**k’s sake! Complaining because a performance car doesn’t come with an appropriately obnoxious vanity appearance package is somewhat bizarre – by which I mean, utterly hypocritical – coming from a group of guys who most likely despite the ‘rice rocket’ big-wing-and-underbody-neon set. It’s pretty lame to knock those guys for paying so much attention to looks when you’re concerned about a factory appearance package on a Taurus. At least they’re putting the schlock on their cars themselves instead of making the factory do it…

  • avatar
    ajla

    Sporting up the exterior is all well and good, but could Ford maybe also fix the lame exhaust and get rid of some sound insulation material?
     
    And throw some slicer wheels on it!

  • avatar
    armadamaster

    Following their redesign schedule for the D3 sedans since 2005, shouldn’t 2013 be time for a total redesign?


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
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India