By on August 8, 2009

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

77 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: I Love SHO Tunes Edition...”


  • avatar
    Runfromcheney

    The Audi will take it in the first corner.

  • avatar
    caliterp97

    I think they (Ford) have lost their mind. I saw this commercial last night and I can’t believe they called it a “show” (pronounced). The last time I checked the only Taurus with street cred was the S-H-O. Come on Ford…I am embarrassed for you. Who approved this spot, a 12 year old that didn’t know any better?

  • avatar
    RangerM

    They pronounced it “show”, not S H O.

    Sounds stupid.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Any SHO nut says S-H-O, not “show”…again Ford’s products being crippled by marketing…

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    I hadn’t seen that spot yet, I like it. I hear both S-H-O and ‘Show’ at the dealership, both versions from salespeople, techs, and customers. I think it might be one of those situations like ‘Porsh’ vs. ‘Porsh-a’ or ‘Bimmer’ vs ‘Beemer’ where either one is acceptable.

  • avatar
    paulie

    Look, remembering the shitty marketing they gave the TaurusX and the Ford500, I am happy to see this.

    What is this?
    The Truth In Advertising!?
    Since when should everybody start expecting The Truth?
    Come on, marketing is image with the end result getting you to buy something you don’t need.
    Do you really believe that you will be has handsome and successful with women if you drive a new Audi?

    When was the last FAT (weight challenged) person in a BMW ad?
    Never.
    Give it a break.

  • avatar
    UnclePete

    “eco-boostage” – is that a word now?

    “S-H-O” pronounced as “show” sounds odd to me.

    From the side, the SHO looks like the body is on stilts (for an example, see around 0:14 in the loop)

    Does that rig sound like it has a V8 in it, or is that a dubbed-in engine noise? It sounds more like my GTO.

  • avatar
    walksatnight

    The ‘show’ v. S-H-O thing is silly but Ford should be proud of that engine. It is an impressive piece of work.

  • avatar
    bunkie

    Funny, I had the same reaction to “SHO”. There’s a large part of me that really wants to like this car. But I think it’s too heavy, too big too expensive and (here’s the kicker) ugly. I think they Bangled it.

    They’re not too far from Cadillac CTS territory price-wise and, given the choice, I like the CTS better.

    But then back in ’89 I chose a 5-speed Maxima SE over the SHO because I thought it was a better overall car. That led to a succession of Maximas and I never looked at the SHO again.

  • avatar
    shabatski

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this style of marketing. It will elevate the brand image for those that were on the fence about the vehicle… as for the rest that snickered – you wouldn’t buy the car anyway.

    I think this Ford is a very credible car in the marketplace and is worthy of consideration for those in the large car market. I just hope they didn’t overshoot the price-point…

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    ‘Bimmer’ vs ‘Beemer’ where either one is acceptable...

    Or is it? Roundel, the source for the BMW enthusiast has made it clear that Bimmer is car, Beamer is bike. SHO entusiasts do say S-H-O but I don’t know if there is any sanctioning body that says it should be S-H-O.

  • avatar
    matt

    NulloModo:
    I think it might be one of those situations like ‘Porsh’ vs. ‘Porsh-a’ or ‘Bimmer’ vs ‘Beemer’ where either one is acceptable.

    Germans say Porsch-a, not Porsh. Of course, they’re both acceptable, but only one is correct. And I think I remember reading that Beemer is supposed to refer to BMW motorcylces and Bimmer refers to the cars. Can anyone confirm that?

  • avatar

    matt

    Confirmed.

  • avatar
    Strippo

    Or is it? Roundel, the source for the BMW enthusiast has made it clear that Bimmer is car, Beamer is bike. SHO entusiasts do say S-H-O but I don’t know if there is any sanctioning body that says it should be S-H-O.

    Then again, why would it even be open to debate? Ford told us how to pronounce it.

  • avatar

    17 city
    25 hwy

    Those are V8 numbers.

    2009 Chevy Corvette
    16 city
    26 hwy
    equipped w/ a 6.2 liter monster.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Dick – that not really an apples to apples comparison as the SHO is full size sedan while Vette is a two seat sports car.

    While the “show” ponunciation is somewhat unusual, the idea that a $40K SHO maybe better value than a $40K Audi is not totally absurd.

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    There’s no business like SHO business.

  • avatar
    drifter

    Love how they showed posuer Audi blown to weeds by former rental queen Taurus. Good job Ford.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Look at the 18 second mark of the video.

    The SHO is blowing past the Audi at 48mph and the engine spinning at around 1500 RPM. Extreme stuff man.

    Then the commercial dubs in sound to make it sound like the SHO is powered by a LS4.

    This is what the SHO really sounds like: SHO versus G37 . Not nearly as exciting.

  • avatar
    AdamYYZ

    They should have used a soundtrack by “Zed Zed Top”

  • avatar
    commando1

    The exhaust note of the ESS AICH OH as it pulls out ahead of the Audi was totally fabricated by the Foley artist. I swear he took the sound track from the Mustang in Bullitt.

    http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/soundfx/car_sounds/car_drag-car_wav.shtml

  • avatar

    1. Ford has promoted the pronunciation “SHOW” to dealerships ever since the GEN II model. Maybe earlier, but that’s what I remember.

    2. 17/25 is what a V6 gets? Even the gas hog G37 automatic gets 18/26…and the AWD variant gets 18/25. Forget about other V6s that actually are quite efficient.

    3. Sorry, that soundtrack doesn’t sound like a Duratec V6. And two turbos won’t make that sound either.

    Egoboost uber alles?

  • avatar
    ProfessorSlow

    For when you really need to pass an Audi in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    Also chiming in with “Ford needs to get this SHO on the road.”

  • avatar
    iceracer

    Audi could do an ad with one of their cars dusting off a Taurus. They could then say: Hey Ford, SHO me the money!

  • avatar
    autobahner44

    re Paulie: Do you really believe that you will be has handsome and successful with women if you drive a new Audi?

    Hey, it worked for me!

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    Ford is just plain delusional. Seriously.

    They make this ad, and then their PR people say “but we’re really not trying to make a direct comparison between such cars.”

    Then why have the ads? It’s silly.

    Ford should have marketed the ‘new’ non-SHO Taurus (same chassis as last one; same motor as last one; different sheet metal) against the V6 Camry, V6 Accord, V6 Mazda 6, etc. Those cars are nearly as bug inside, if not bigger, than the Taurus.

    But they couldn’t, because they’d lose on price by a wide margin. Loaded Tauri are 33k to 36k? You can get v6 versions of the Mazda6, which is just about as big inside as the Taurus, and makes more HP, for as little as 22k in real world prices (I know, because we bought one – MSRP was 26,700).

    As for the SHO, what is it’s purpose in life? I got the original SHO’s purpose. You know, the good one with the wicked Yamaha motor that cheaply priced to undercut other cars claiming the same market audience…

    But this new SHO with its fat around the midsection, still wrong end drivetrain, and teutonic price tag? 40k to 47k? 47k? Are they serious?

    Does anyone here really ‘get it?’

  • avatar
    paulie

    sajeev

    Is the G37 anywhere near the size and weight of the Taurus?
    Aren’t they two totally different cars?
    I didn’t even know adults could sit in the rear of G37s and 3 series cars.

    Why would these come to mind when dissing the mpg of a Taurus?

  • avatar
    Daniel J. Stern

    What’s wrong with this picture? Why, that’s easy; I can’t believe nobody’s yet remarked on it: The Taurushow is in front, but the Audi is more conspicuous by dint of its LED daylight running lamps. ;-)

  • avatar
    paulie

    Well, OK.
    Italian adults can.

  • avatar
    paulie

    ohsnapback

    Yes.
    I get it.
    But I also have a 2009 MKS.
    I LIKE BIG CARS.
    I like Torque.
    I like LOTS of room in the rear seat.
    I like large trunks.

    And, If I can get this…I will.

    Its the price that slows me.
    But I am fully expecting to see the SHO at low 30s before long.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    “But I am fully expecting to see the SHO at low 30s before long.”

    …as in CPO SHO, I expect…

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    What’s wrong?

    A Ford Taurus can pass a car going slower than it.

    What a breakthrough Ford!!!! You have done it. You have successfully made a car that pass an Audi.

    And it is pronounced S-H-O…not “SHOW”.

    And it’s a lame duck form a lame duck company.

    Ford should be proud of that engine. It is an impressive piece of work.

    Impressive??? How?

    The put DI and turbos on an engine. GM and many other manufactures have had this technology for years.

    Ford has done NOTHING innovative…except slap a stupid name on it.

  • avatar
    davey49

    The Mazda6 is not even close to being the same size as the Taurus

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    davey49 :
    August 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    The Mazda6 is not even close to being the same size as the Taurus

    Mazda 6/Taurus/Accord

    Front Headroom (in.) 38.1/ 39/ 41.4
    Rear Headroom (in.) 37.3/ 37.8/ 38.5
    Front Legroom (in.) 42.5/ 41.9/ 42.5
    Rear Legroom (in.) 38/ 38.1/ 37.2
    Front Shoulder Room (in.) 57.3/ 57.9/ 58.2
    Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 56.5/ 56.9/ 56.4
    Front Hip Room (in.) 55.1/ 56.3/ 56.6
    Rear Hip Room (in.) 55.9/ 55.8/ 54.3

    0-60 6.4/ 7.8/ 7.2
    1/4 Mile 14.6/ 15.7/ 15.3
    Skidpad 0.81/ 0.79g/ 0.83g
    Slalom 66.4mph/ 60.3mph/ 62.2mph
    60-0 126/ 131 ft/ 133 ft

    Check out those stats. See, the Taurus is the biggest, only on the outside.

    It gets smoked in acceleration by both the Accord V6 and Mazda6 V6, outhandled on the skidpad by both, the Mazda6 is practically as large inside (actually, larger in terms of front legroom and rear seat hip room), and the Accord is larger than the Taurus inside.

    The Taurus uses a carryover chassis, carryover drivetrain and a carryover motor.

    What’s its purpose?

    The V6 versions of the Accord and Mazda6 dust the Taurus in 0-60 and the 1/4 mile, but Ford is showing an incognito Audi in the ad.

    Hmmm.

  • avatar
    rochskier

    Those are V8 numbers.

    Dick already won the thread, but I concur 17/25 are V8 numbers.

    The Chrysler LX cars with the multi-displacement 5.7L V8 will do 17/25 under normal driving circumstances.

    There are also no 100k RPM-turning, heat-spewing, oil-incinerating turbos to worry about underhood.

    I guess people will have to revert to slobbering over the Flex.

  • avatar
    paulie

    Those are not V8 numbers with AWD.
    What V8 AWD gives this???

    And about these numbers…
    I have a 2009 Mazda6 and MKS.
    Size wise they do not compare.
    Numbers maybe…but in real life its not even close.
    Plus, the seats are plush in the MKS.
    I understand the Taurus is similar.
    The Mazda has the rack hard European masochistic seating they call “supportive”.
    Supportive my ass.
    They simply are not good for long drives.
    There is a sofa, and then there is a sleeper bead.
    You can sleep the same number of people in the same space, but one hurts!
    The Taurus and MKS offer dead silence and comfort.
    I am not that familiar with the Accord having only test driven a few times but not hours on the road.
    That’s the real test.

    Look, I am disappointed the Taurus was changed.
    I really liked to last version.
    But did anybody at TTAC?
    It never got the praise it deserved; now it gets bashed again.

  • avatar
    V6

    the fact that Ford Australia has been producing a turbocharged 6 cylinder with those power numbers in the Falcon since 2002?

  • avatar
    mpresley

    In 1978, according to these same people, a Grandada…uh…er…I mean Granada was indistinguishable from a Merc 280 SE. Now, 30 years later, their car is actually better than an Audi (or at least it can pass an Audi on a deserted road). Man, I can’t wait for the next 3 decades to pass. Look out, Bugatti.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    The Chrysler LX cars with the multi-displacement 5.7L V8 will do 17/25 under normal driving circumstances.

    There are also no 100k RPM-turning, heat-spewing, oil-incinerating turbos to worry about underhood.

    Or the Hyundai Genesis…with it’s 4.6L, 375 HP V8. 17/25.

    All Ecoboost proves is that Ford can make a 3.5 V6 get the same mileage as a 4.6/5.7/6.0/6.2 V8

    Mazda 6/Taurus/Accord

    Front Headroom (in.) 38.1/ 39/ 41.4
    Rear Headroom (in.) 37.3/ 37.8/ 38.5
    Front Legroom (in.) 42.5/ 41.9/ 42.5
    Rear Legroom (in.) 38/ 38.1/ 37.2
    Front Shoulder Room (in.) 57.3/ 57.9/ 58.2
    Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 56.5/ 56.9/ 56.4
    Front Hip Room (in.) 55.1/ 56.3/ 56.6
    Rear Hip Room (in.) 55.9/ 55.8/ 54.3

    Wow…so in addition to being overweight and overpriced…the Taurus has the same amount of room inside as a Mazda 6.

    Man…the more I read about these horrible D3 platform cars, the more I hate them. They drink gas, cost too much, don’t sell, have bland looks, and are small inside.

    I think it might be one of those situations like ‘Porsh’ vs. ‘Porsh-a’ or ‘Bimmer’ vs ‘Beemer’ where either one is acceptable.

    No…both are not acceptable. One is right and one is wrong.

    It’s S-H-O…not “SHOW”. Ford Taurus “SHOW” makes you sound like an idiot that doesn’t know what he is talking about. Ford Taurus S-H-O is the correct way to say uit and makes you sound like an intelligen thuman being.

    Same with Porsch and Porsche.

    Porsche is a two syllable word and the name of a German sports car company. Porsch is something an idiot would say when referring to that German sports car company.

  • avatar

    paulie: sajeev, is the G37 anywhere near the size and weight of the Taurus?

    Hey, it’s not my fault Ford is using the wrong platform to compete in the near luxury market where the G37 is one of the strongest men in the room.

    ————————
    Aren’t they two totally different cars?

    I guess if you design a car using parts lying around, without understanding the consequences of your action, then yes. Absolutely. But I’d also ask why Edmunds Inside Line lined these two up for a review. And why Ford didn’t think that’d happen.

    ————————
    I didn’t even know adults could sit in the rear of G37s and 3 series cars.

    And I don’t know why people buy them, and so many others aspire to own them. And why Detroit can never enter this space. The world is full of unanswerable questions.

    ————————
    Why would these come to mind when dissing the mpg of a Taurus?

    Dissing the SHO’s mpgs is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s just too easy. But then again, if I/we/you don’t tell Ford to wake up and smell the coffee (i.e. stop trying to polish a turd) I don’t know who else will do it.

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    I had an S-H-O, never called it a show, though I have heard others say that, sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me. So does Porsche without the “uh” though. I like Ford comparing it to the Audi; AWD, more power, just as much tech, lower price, less yuppie image.

  • avatar
    paulie

    Sajeev

    OK.
    I get it, you don’t like the Taurus or the platform.
    The Taurus doesn’t go after the G, or the 3.
    Not anymore than the Avalon does.

    But again, what’s with the MPG comparison when they are not both AWD.
    Don’t mean to be a stickler here, but what gives?

    Everybody wants to buy a G?
    The G only sold 4,500 units in July.
    I don’t know where to find the 3 numbers.
    The Taurus sells about the same…when its available.

    I rented a G37 for a full week about a month ago in Florida.
    The transmission was horrible.
    It constantly shifted down, almost as if the breaks were being applied when I approached red lights.
    For all the talk about its power, my 2009 Mazda 6 S has more torque and is easier, more fun to drive.
    And, get this, it has a rear seat for adults.

    But I admit, I never had the pleasure of spending time in a 3 series. Don’t plan on buying one as well for 40 grand.

  • avatar
    paulie

    Sajeev

    If I remember, you gave the Genesis V8 5 stars.
    5 Stars?
    Now, don’t get me wrong because I really like this car.
    Almost got one.

    But why would the RWD only Genesis be awarded 5 stars and then the Taurus SHO get dissed like this, and be gotten for lots less?

    I bet, even without driving the SHO, it will be more fun and handle significantly better than the Genesis V8.

    Any takers?

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    joe_thousandaire wrote:

    I like Ford comparing it to the Audi; AWD, more power, just as much tech … “

    Just as much tech?!?

    Have you driven an Audi lately?

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    If I remember, you gave the Genesis V8 5 stars.
    5 Stars?

    V8…RWD. Yes, it’s that simple.

    And the problems with the Taurus SHO are plentiful:

    1. Drinks Fuel. Ford simply lied when they said Ecoboost would have V8 power with V6 Economy. There are many V8s out there that make as much power as the 3.5 TT and get the same mileage.

    2. FWD-Based AWD. That’s just plain stupis and unnecessary.

    3. Small inside…no bigger than a Mazda 6.

    4. D3 platform. Ford has been dumping boat loads of money into this platform since 2005 in an attempt to make it sell. Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle—>(3 years later)Taurus/Sable/Taurus X—>(1 year later)Lincoln Taurus/Flex—>1 year later Lincoln Flex. How many models and after how much money does Ford have to lose on this terrible platform before they can it? The initial investment for the D3 platform (Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle) has not been paid off yet.

    5. The name. Taurus is a heavily damaged brand (much like Lincoln). It was a very boneheaded decision by Big Al to bring back the Taurus name. Ford has done too much damage to that name to even try to salvage it. Should have stayed Five Hundred.

    6. Ford already has a large car…the Panthers. If Ford would have spent HALF what they did in the initial D3 investment on the Panthers (in 2003), they would have millions of more dollars today.The Panthers could have gotten new sheet metal/new interiors/and a new powertrain for pennies compared to what they have in the D3.

    7. The Genesis is simply the better car. Better price, better power, better everything.

  • avatar
    paulie

    P71_CrownVic

    I surrender.
    Or rather, I give up.
    Once we start calling each other’s ideas and taste stupid, its a no win.

    The Genesis cost more.
    The SHO has better, much better MPG, since it HAS AWD. And some of us LIKE (and need) AWD and FWD.
    In fact, today’s cars require AWD to get the control from their systems.
    The SHO has better power:365 horsepower and 350 lb.-ft. of torque across a wide 1,500 – 5,000 rpm range
    Genesis:375-hp (using premium fuel) 4.6-liter V8.

    Look, I’m weary of this.
    Even the options on the SHO bury the Genesis.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    ZekeToronto – The only the that Audi has that Ford doesn’t technology-wise is the pretty cool speed sensitive adaptive-assist steering. Meanwhile Ford has a better Navigation/Bluetooth/Multimedia combo, air conditioned front seats, and massaging seats.

    P71 – There is nothing wrong with FWD biased AWD. FWD is preferable to RWD in most situations, better fuel economy, more traction, etc. Ford’s system allows 100% of power to be transfered to the rear wheels in less than one revolution of the tires, so when performance is needed, it comes instantly.

    A fully loaded Genesis is around 42K, while a fully loaded SHO is about 45K, but comes with features not availible on the Genesis – such as AC seats for both driver and passenger, adaptive cruise control, Sync, blind spot warning system, massaging seats, heated rear seats, more interior space, a much larger trunk, and AWD.

    As far as power goes, yes, the Genesis is rated a bit higher HP, but the Taurus makes max HP at lower RPMs, and max torque and much lower RPMs. Despite the SHO being heavier, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times slaughter the Genesis.

    As far as size goes, I’m not sure how Edmunds et al actually measure interior space, but having driven the most recent Accord, Camry, Fusion, Malibu, Taurus, Mazda6, Aura, and 5 series, the Taurus is easily bigger than any of them, front and rear. In these days of adjustable height seats, sunroofs vs no sunroofs, etc, it is hard to get real figures. Sitting inside the cars though it is clear as day, though the Taurus has given up some of its airyness to the previous model, it is still handily larger than any of the midsizers.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    The Genesis cost more.

    Umm…no. The Genesis STARTS at $37,250…and when I went to school, that was LESS than the SHOs $38,000 starting price.

    The Genesis also TOPS at $41,250…which, again, is less than the SHOs outrageous loaded price of $45,410. (Prices taken from Hyundai.com and fordvehicles.com)

    -A Lincoln MKS with the EcoBoost V-6 has 20 fewer ponies, less interior volume, and starts at $48,585. In short, you’re getting Mercedes S-class space for C-class money with the Genesis.

    The SHO has better, much better MPG

    No…the Genesis has a 4.6L V8 and 375 HP. That is 1.1L BIGGER, 2 more cylinders and 10 MORE HP than the SHO…and the Genesis gets the same mileage…with it’s V8 as the Ford does with it’s V6. And MANY reviews I have read on the SHO state that the observed mileage of the SHO was around 16 MPG…not anywhere near the 21MPG magazines got out of the V8 Genesis. (And AWD/FWD is not necessary…I know…I drove many years in Minnesota winters with a RWD, open-diff car and no traction control. NEVER had an accident)

    In fact, today’s cars require AWD to get the control from their systems.

    False. The SHO has the same skidpad numbers as the Genesis and the G8 GT out handles the SHO and stoips better to boot.

    The SHO has better power: 365 horsepower and 350 lb.-ft…Genesis: 375-hp/i

    Thank you for making my rebuttal for me.

  • avatar
    rochskier

    @ paulie:

    Those are not V8 numbers with AWD.
    What V8 AWD gives this???

    I do it all the time in my 5.7L Dodge Magnum R/T AWD.

    I calculate mpg at my fuel stops, and on long drives the 25 mpg highway has held up in the year I’ve owned the car.

    Other AWD Chrysler LX owners also consistently report similar numbers all over the pertinent message boards.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @NulloModo:
    Ford’s system allows 100% of power to be transfered to the rear wheels in less than one revolution of the tires, so when performance is needed, it comes instantly.

    Yes, but can I do this in a SHO? Charger SRT8 drift video.

    Would I want to even if I could?

    My hope for the SHO was that Ford would build a big 4-door Mustang GT. Something to make me forget all about Hemi Chargers and the dearly departed G8. Instead of giving me a fun full-size sports sedan, they gave me a quick and expensive executive’s car. Which is a segment the MKS with Ecoboost already filled.

    The fact that SHO fans have to tout the car’s luxury options like massaging seats and defend it to the Lexus-esque Genesis tells me all I need to about the car’s mission in life.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    P71 – Just using Car and Driver as a source (which somehow manages to get the worst fuel economy ratings of any publication) the SHO gets 16 vs the Genesis at 19, not 21. The Genesis 4.6 also did 0 – 60 in 6.0 vs 5.2 for the SHO, .8 seconds at those numbers is nothing to sneeze at.

    Ajla – I am with you in that the 2010 SHO doesn’t carry the mantle of SHOs past. There is nothing wrong with a quick, high quality, and full featured executive car however.

    I’d put serious money on the fact that a Fusion SHO (or perhaps Fusion SVT, Fusion GT, or some other monicker depending on how the SHO branding drives Taurus sales) will show up within a year or two, tuned and delivering both higher MPGs and more sporting dynamics.

  • avatar

    paulie : The Taurus doesn’t go after the G, or the 3. Not anymore than the Avalon does.

    Hmm! Avalon: given the size, nose heavy weight distribution, etc you can almost say that it’s the SHO’s competition. Nah, that’s just being mean. Toyota didn’t piss the money away on a AWD bi-turbo version of the Avalon for a reason. Or so we can assume.

    ———————————————–

    But again, what’s with the MPG comparison when they are not both AWD. Don’t mean to be a stickler here, but what gives?

    Paulie: I gave the G37 AWD fuel economy numbers in my original post. (Yes, it was there from the beginning) And it proves the point about V8 power for V6 economy: Ford doesn’t tell you that “the V6 economy” in question is another AWD V6, not the average V6 you’d assume given their blanket statement.

    And that both of these gas hogs get their butts handed to them by RWD V8s in both performance and economy. Doing more with less rules. And V8s rule for that exact reason.

    ———————————————–
    Everybody wants to buy a G? The G only sold 4,500 units in July. I don’t know where to find the 3 numbers. The Taurus sells about the same…when its available.

    Seriously? The Taurus has (almost?) never sold 4,500 units monthly ever since adopting the D3 platform. Cut that number by 65% and you’re closer to the average monthly units sold since 2008. And I am not holding my breath on the 2010 model doing any better.

    ———————————————–
    If I remember, you gave the Genesis V8 5 stars. 5 Stars? But why would the RWD only Genesis be awarded 5 stars and then the Taurus SHO get dissed like this, and be gotten for lots less?

    Because I, like most oldschool land yacht and/or late model performance minded folks, actually like the dynamics of front engine/rear drive layout. From the slowest Lincoln Town Car to the fastest BMW M5, it just plain works. And if you think an Avalon wafts like a Town Car, we will never see eye-to-eye.

    The nose-heavy SHO will never cut the mustard because it can’t defy the laws of physics. It’s heavy, large and all the weight is in the wrong place. Is it that hard to see where I’m coming from, Paulie?

    ———————————————–
    I bet, even without driving the SHO, it will be more fun and handle significantly better than the Genesis V8. Any takers?

    Certainly not me: the Genesis’ tuning is plush, like a proper luxury car. If they made a sport version, I wouldn’t be surprised if it will be more fun, and the numbers north of 0-60 runs will be closer than you think.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Sajeev – Considering Ford already had the plans in place for the EcoBoost version for the 3.5 V6, and that it was already designed to fit perfectly into the Lincoln MKS (which is nearly identical in powertrain to the Taurus), and that the Taurus already had an AWD system, the decision to throw one into the Taurus as well was probably of the low cost ‘why the hell not, let’s try this’ variety.

  • avatar

    NulloModo : Agreed. I’m sure the SHO business case materialized after the 2008 Five Hundred got a new set of badges for the Chicago Auto Show.

    But why even bother with Ecoboost with Lincoln? Lincoln is fighting bargain basement reskinned Camrys (Lexus ES) and a host of expensive, genuine RWD legends with Ecoboost. We will never know the true cost, but I doubt Ecoboost will pay for itself. Its expensive, but doesn’t give the well-rounded performance of smaller, lighter and RWD competition.

  • avatar

    Somebody, anybody, bring a Genesis to a road course somewhere so I can stick a Taurus S-H-O three feet up your ass. The notion that a Genesis will hang with this OMFG D3 PLATFORM monster Ford is plain fantasy.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    P71 – Just using Car and Driver as a source (which somehow manages to get the worst fuel economy ratings of any publication) the SHO gets 16 vs the Genesis at 19, not 21. The Genesis 4.6 also did 0 – 60 in 6.0 vs 5.2 for the SHO, .8 seconds at those numbers is nothing to sneeze at.

    No…it was 21 observed.

    Here are the stats…and where you got 0-60 in 6 seconds I’ll never know. The Genesis Sedan is MUCH faster than that.

    PERFORMANCE: NEW
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 12.7 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 22.5 sec
    Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.7 sec
    Standing ¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 104 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 154 mph
    Braking, 70–0 mph: 164 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.84 g
    EPA fuel economy, city/highway driving: 17/25 mpg
    C/D-observed fuel economy: 21 mpg
    Unscheduled oil additions: 0.5 qt
    *Stability-control-inhibited.

    So, the Gennesis gets better fuel economy, handles the same, and can stop 10 feet shorter, and is 21MPH faster in the top end than Ford’s so-called “flagship (and interestingly, the ORIGINAL SHO was 10 MPH faster top end than the new (faux) SHO)

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2009_hyundai_genesis_4.6-long-term_road_test_intro

    Somebody, anybody, bring a Genesis to a road course somewhere so I can stick a Taurus S-H-O three feet up your ass. The notion that a Genesis will hang with this OMFG D3 PLATFORM monster Ford is plain fantasy.

    Then I guess we live in a fantesy world…as the Genesis V8 pulls the EXACT same skidpad numbers as the SHO. So, yes, the big luxo-barge from Hyundai will hang with the SHO…at the same .84G.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    P71 – I got the 6 second number (and the 19 observed) here, from C&Ds road test:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/c972414b58e69646d25f08395b986d34.pdf

    Now, if two of their tests conflict that much on numbers, well, who knows what the real values are. Also, comparing MPG figures from a road test (where the car is pretty much flogged start to finish) to long term figures (where the car gets leisurely cross country stints so the journalists can write off their vacations as work expenses) is of course going to give you incongruous figures.

    Jack – I’m with you, and I’d like to see an A8, 7 series, S class, LS, and STS thrown in just for fun, especially if the cars were rated equally weighted not just for softness of leather and smell of interior but for ergonomics, tech features, and cost of overall ownership as well.

    Sajeev – Speakin’ of Lincoln, the MKS doesn’t attempt to compete with the ES, that is the MKZs job. The MKS compares to the GS, and maybe the frugal LS customer. As far as RWD legends go, Lincoln is targetting sales from Caddy’s STS, Acura’s RL, Infiniti’s M, and the aforementioned Lexus GS, none of which exactly light up the charts, which make them prime targets for an attack. While base prices may put some of these models close to 5/7 series and E/S classes, once those cars are configured as bought, and overall ownership costs are figured in, you are looking at two completely different demographics. True, Lincoln is targetting a strange segment in the ‘Luxury not-quite-flagship’ role with the MKS, but so far sales have been pretty good, so whose to complain.

  • avatar

    NulloModo : True, Lincoln is targetting a strange segment in the ‘Luxury not-quite-flagship’ role with the MKS, but so far sales have been pretty good, so whose to complain.

    That’s fair. I’m not sure what’s the definition of “good” sales these days, but the MKS isn’t the Sable. Or the STS, for that matter.

    Which shows the ultimate potential of Lincoln brand. Imagine how rich Dearborn could be if they stuck with a RWD V8 platform (non-panther), had the appointments of the MKS, and put it head-to-head to the BMW 5 and Mercedes E. Or, in the future, making a RWD platform with a Coyote V8, ditching this Ecoboost/D3 nonsense in the next 3-5 years.

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    Ford Taurus SHO, faster at 70mph than an Audi S6 when it’s doing 50. Seriously though folks, the big difference between these cars is that the Audi can turn a corner. And it can stop, more than once, without setting its brakes on fire.

  • avatar
    paulie

    P71_CrownVic

    I am going to try this one more time, thanks to strong morning coffee.

    I agree, the STARTING prices had Taurus more.
    But, the truth lies in the data.
    You see, you CANNOT get the options available on a Taurus on a Genesis.
    Yes, heated AND air front seats.
    Yes, massaging seats.
    They have value.
    There are quite a few more and THEY exist.

    At least in a Taurus.

    Torque.
    Do you require it?
    If you do, as I do, its nice to get it early and always.
    The Genesis cannot do this, thus, the Taurus has more power.

    MPG.
    You continually dismiss AWD in your equation.
    Why?
    If you get the same MPG in AWD than RWD…you get BETTER MPG.

    Come on, you’re killing me!

    Finally,
    This whole space issue has been addressed earlier.
    The data you (and others) keep quoting is meaningless in real life.
    There’s data, then there is the real live seating, shoulder and head experience.
    However, I did not address the Taurus vs Genesis space.
    I can’t speak to it with experience.
    I only have sat in the MKS and Genesis.
    I can’t remember the Taurus from the shows and none are available.
    But I am sure it’s to close to humanly care.

  • avatar
    paulie

    I really took a long time when deciding between the MKS, Genesis and the Lexus last fall.
    In the end, what finally sold me was the options and total package.
    And the AWD.
    The RWD car is praised on this sight as if the Chicago winter doesn’t exist.
    It sure as hell does.
    We had snow falls every other day this year!
    My neighbors and in-laws have the RWD Lexus and such.
    Their own words convinced me AWD, regardless of mileage, was a must.
    And after this winter, wow…I am extremely pleased with my decision.

    Now I am not enough of a car guy to understand the FWD AWD vs the RWD AWD.
    I suppose that can be significant.
    But it simply wan’t, isn’t, one of the options on any of these cars.

    Tell the truth, IF the Genesis had AWD, it would be a better selling car.

    Oh, and good morning all.
    This is great banter and have learned a good deal.

  • avatar
    paulie

    By the way…
    Why was FWD introduced?
    I know it was around, but not the main drive in mass production cars.
    What are the benefits for and against this drive that took over during the seventies?
    I hope TTAC does an editorial so I can read the thoughts of the B&B.

  • avatar

    paulie : Why was FWD introduced?
    I know it was around, but not the main drive in mass production cars.
    What are the benefits for and against this drive that took over during the seventies?
    I hope TTAC does an editorial so I can read the thoughts of the B&B.

    You are answering your previous question with this one. FWD became popular for space efficiency, economy and traction in a small car. But that was the 1980s when it really made sense. Cars were small back then, with less than 100hp. And cheap.

    The Taurus and MKS? Paulie, the price/size/competition in this particular market make FWD platforms (and FWD oriented AWD) an almost guaranteed second tier player. Unless you are the Lexus ES, of course, which probably owns the second tier market. Few (none?) of the benefits of FWD/AWD platforms show up when you spend $40k plus for a car: Audi’s decades long depreciation and sales numbers relative to BMW and Mercedes proves it.

    And if you like RWD performance but live up north: plenty of 3 series guys have dedicated snow tires and take full advantage of active handling/traction control to go anywhere.

    Tell the truth, IF the Genesis had AWD, it would be a better selling car.

    AWD versions of the BMW 3/5, Infiniti G/M, Chrysler 300, Lexus GS make up a tiny percentage of overall sales. My guess is less than 10% of sales for any of the cars from my last sentence. From the sales, I don’t think your theory that upper-middle class northerners need AWD holds water.

    Plus, it would be unbelievably stupid to make/sell an AWD Genesis given the model’s limited appeal, and Hyundai’s smart idea of very limited production. No company can afford a mistake like that right now.

  • avatar
    paulie

    This sight has a little bit of “car snobbishness” to it.
    Come on, how many folks do you know that can keep 2 sets of tires around?
    And since when do winter tires compare to AWD?
    And how many guys can get the First Tier car, which ends up around 55 grand?

    I guess I am just gonna have to live with being an average Tier 1 guy that finds the MKS and Taurus as extremely good values which no others offer.

    If there are those that think a Genesis is equal to the Taurus SHO, God Bless…
    That’s why we vote with our wallets.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    The FWD benefits can translate to large cars as well. You can’t get around the transmission/driveshaft tunnel needed for RWD, the space it takes from the interior, or the efficiency losses it brings to the table, no matter how big or small the car is. The only real drawback of FWD is the potential for torque steer, which has been virtually eliminated from most modern vehicles. Also given that the performance benefits of RWD only show up when you are driving your car to the limit, which 95% of people never do, FWD is a superior choice.

    RWD’s only benefit is in performance driving, and most people these days aren’t looking for performance cars. Yes, they might want to have the ‘sport’ edition, or a car with a firmer suspension, or more horses under the hood, but the extent that any of that gets used is usually limited to merging onto the highway or making ones-self feel cooler by having the racier model. For those that really do want a performance car, AWD, even FWD-biased AWD, is every bit as good as RWD when it can transfer all the power to the rear wheels in a couple milliseconds.

  • avatar
    commando1

    paulie :
    “I LIKE BIG CARS.
    I like Torque.
    I like LOTS of room in the rear seat.
    I like large trunks.
    And, If I can get this…I will.
    Its the price that slows me.”

    Paulie: Check Hemmings. Pick up a like-new, low mileage, Merc Maurader for chump change.

    In fact, you can buy an ’09 CV Interceptor DIT (Damaged in transit) for Ford Focus money
    (Yes, those are being sold to the public).

  • avatar

    paulie : This sight has a little bit of “car snobbishness” to it.

    Of course it does, when we’re talking $35-55k cars. If you can stomach a car at this price and buy a $45k SHO or $50+k MKS Ecoboost, you might be a better person than I. Neither feels special enough to me relative to the imports, or the Caddy CTS and my (formerly) $45k Lincoln Mark VIII…so we can forget about that anti-Detroit bias BS.

    And it gets worse when you drive even nicer cars. A bi-turbo V12 Benz turns you into a complete douche, trust me. :)

  • avatar

    NulloModo : RWD’s only benefit is in performance driving, and most people these days aren’t looking for performance cars.

    Did you say that back in 2000 when Ford was promoting the Lincoln LS? Come on now, the RWD, near lux market is one of the strongest cash cows for over a decade now.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @NulloModo:

    Also given that the performance benefits of RWD only show up when you are driving your car to the limit, which 95% of people never do, FWD is a superior choice.

    If you think most owners of RWD performance cars from American nameplates don’t love to invoke oversteer nearly every chance they get, you don’t know that market very well.

    Is Ford planning to change the Mustang to FWD because it “is a superior choice” and most people don’t “use” RWD anyway? They’ll just have to keep the styling cues so people feel cool.

    AWD is great for fast laps on track days, but unless I’m often driving on gravel, in the rain, light snow, or know every cop in town, I can have more fun with a RWD car.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Sajeev – While the LS is an interesting car, I can’t say it’s ever done much for me. Given the choice between an LS and a MKZ, I’d take the MKZ.

    You are right in that BMW makes some great money with the 3 series, as does Infiniti with the G, and Cadillac with the CTS. That is a great reason (IMO) to stay out of that market for now. It took GM and Nissan many tries before they made profitable offerings in the segment, and they are still playing second fiddle to the 3/5 series. Now isn’t the time for any automaker to waste money on something that may or may not crate positive cash flow.

    In another few years when it is time for a truly new Mustang platform, I’m sure IRS will come, and with it a chance to share that platform with something performance-oriented for Lincoln. Right now though, the big money is the mass market, and the mass market isn’t in performance oriented RWD sedans.

    ajla – The oversteer-loving driving enthusiast is probably one of the smaller portions of the already small RWD performance car pie. Most people tooling about in Mercedes, BMWs, or Jaguars are doing so because of the image and status more than the driving dynamics.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    In 1980 Ford ran commercials touting the new Mustang turbocharged 4 gave acceleration of a V-8 with economy of a 4 cylinder. Now they admit it has the “thirst of a V-6” with the power of a V-8

    And of course calling it a show is stupid.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    And the AWD.
    The RWD car is praised on this sight as if the Chicago winter doesn’t exist.
    It sure as hell does.
    We had snow falls every other day this year!

    If you know how to drive properly…AWD is unnecessary.

    My previous vehicle was a 2001 Ford Crown Vic. It had a V8 and RWD. I did NOT have traction control and I did NOT have a locking differential.

    I never ONCE got that car stuck…in MY Minnesota winter. And that included the winter I drove around on the horrid Goodyear RS-As that were bald.

    AWD is like having a huge handicap in a golf game. Does Tiger Woods have a handicap?

    And frankly, your AWD and gas mileage argument is moot…as the Genesis has MORE cylinders, MORE displacement, and MORE power.

    And since when do winter tires compare to AWD?

    Are you kidding me? Have you ever driven a car…on snow…with a good set of Blizzacks?

    Not only can you accelerate like you are on dry pavement, but, unlike AWD, you also have increased stopping power. All and all, snow tires make MUCH more sense than some limp-wristed AWD system.

    And the snow tires are FAR cheaper too.

  • avatar
    paulie

    Sajeev Mehta

    The SHO will be had at 35K, the MKS turbo at 45…trust me.
    And there are no BMWs or performance sedans below 45 grand.
    The 3 series gets you in the 40K’s faster than it gets you to sixty.
    And that’s what, tier 1?

    Actually, I do trust you.
    And look forward to your reviews.
    I know you are a much more knowledgeable car guy than I.
    I guess that’s what makes this sight so cool.
    We everyday knuckleheads can converse with you, Farago, Baruth, Niedermeyer and Williams…and others.

    And I didn’t mean snobbishness as meanly (?) as it sounded.
    I just think when we talk upper tier and lower tier we get to sounding a little funny.
    Most will never experience the upper tier.
    Few will ever experience the 55 to 65 grand cars, let alone those costing more.
    The so called performance sedan is a dream along with the second home.
    But when it gets down to it, we are all really looking to scratch our own itches.
    I like total packages.
    So when it comes to RWD vs FWD vs AWD and everything in between, we each buy with our hearts in the end.

  • avatar
    paulie

    P71_CrownVic

    What can I say…I suck at winter snow driving.
    I suck at high speed driving in the rain.
    I sometimes misjudge turns and have to panic and hope I make it through.
    I even cut people off because I didn’t see them in my blind spot.

    I like handicaps.
    In fact, most of the options on the modern car are really handicaps.
    Are you kidding me?
    From traction control to power steering to ABS to blind spot warning to…stop me please before I throw you to much.

    If I know how to drive well?
    What are you, Mario Andretti?
    Look, I have 4 kids and a wife.

    Sometimes I let them drive.
    But I am the one in the house who wears the Italian gloves and silk scarf.

    And I think Tiger really shops for the top equipment, whatever edge he can get…that is before he sold Buicks.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Paulie – Well said, except the Buick Rendezvous that Tiger used to shill was actually a pretty nice car, the practicality of the Aztek with a more consumer friendly face.

    Anyone could learn how to drive a RWD car with bald tires in the snow, but why would you? Cars, like anything else today, are about convenience.

    You don’t really need A/C, you can always roll the windows down, and you don’t need that CD player or iPod jack, everywhere has free radio stations, and who really needs heated seats when your good old 98.6 degree ass will warm that seat up in no time.

    Similarly its incredible that Boston Market stays in business when anyone with half a brain, a $5 cookbook, and an extra hour before dinner could recreate anything they make for half the price, or that people pay someone else to mow their lawn when a small investment in a couple sheep would have it neat and trim in perpetuity (plus, with the small additional expense of a spinning wheel and loom you won’t have to pay all that extra to Walmart, Target, Macys, or Old Navy for your clothes).

    Everyone could learn to drive stick, to drive in the rain or snow, and to do a multitude of other things behind the wheel, but in the end most people don’t want (and shouldn’t have to) expend the time and effort to do those things when modern solutions exist for those problems. The average car buyer doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of switching out summer tires for winter, or having to drive completely differently just because there is some snow on the road. FWD and AWD make it so that the car can be used just like any other appliance, a way to get from point a to point b with little extra thought having to go into it.

  • avatar
    paulie

    Sajeev

    I have only used this sight once when purchasing and it was pretty nice.
    It was still a lot of bull with the dealer, but you get pretty close.
    Here, and I predict will soon be even less, the SHO with pretty much what I want, comes in around 36K.
    That’s a nice 36K car.

    http://cars.overstock.com/configurator.html?makeId=2229&modelId=354&upfrontPricing=Y

  • avatar
    aamj50

    NulloModo-
    Everyone could learn to drive stick, to drive in the rain or snow, and to do a multitude of other things behind the wheel, but in the end most people don’t want (and shouldn’t have to) expend the time and effort to do those things when modern solutions exist for those problems. The average car buyer doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of switching out summer tires for winter, or having to drive completely differently just because there is some snow on the road. FWD and AWD make it so that the car can be used just like any other appliance, a way to get from point a to point b with little extra thought having to go into it…
    …and so they can put their energy in to important tasks like texting and checking their stock portfolios.
    Cars are not appliances. Your refrigerator and stove require almost no participation on your part. Leave the house for a week or a month and as long as you haven’t left the stove on or the fridge door open everything will be fine.
    Cars, on the other hand, will cause great harm to you and others if left to their own devices while their operator is distracted by their iPhone. Cars can also produce high levels of enjoyment not offered by an iron or dish washer, but in my opinoin this enjoyment is filtered out by unnecessary crap like heated seats and “rain sensing” wipers that add extra weight.
    I wish people who “just want to get from point a to point b without any extra thought” would ride the freaking bus and let those of us intent on the proper use of our cars (and motorcycles) have the road to ourselves. I’m sure highway fatalities would drop immidately.
    Oh yeah… I really liked the first generation SHO. You know, the one that didn’t even offer an auto trans.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Luke42: @Inside Looking Out: “So American made means both USA and Canada? If yes why Mexico is not...
  • Luke42: It’s a global business. People still seem surprised by this.
  • slavuta: krhodes1, nice try. Let me tell you -tool calibration. I wouldn’t trust …
  • krhodes1: Except a base Corolla is about $20K these days. Not that I disagree with you in any way. But a Corolla...
  • krhodes1: I would genuinely like to meet the person who would buy one of these, especially the $29K version.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber