By on September 11, 2009

[Thanks to Ron Larsen for the link.]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: EcoBoost This Edition...”


  • avatar
    yankinwaoz

    For what it is worth, he is being interviewed by tech columnist John Dvorak.

  • avatar
    mistercopacetic

    Is it officially the Taurus “SHOW” now? It is pronounced that way in all the commercials I’ve seen, and this guy is the chief engineer of the car, pronouncing it “SHOW.” I always thought it was the S-H-O, as in “super high output.”

  • avatar

    Echo-boost?

  • avatar
    greenb1ood

    Always been pronounced SHO-W

  • avatar
    npbheights

    So SHO is pronounced “Show” “S-H-O”
    and
    MKZ is pronounced “M-K-Z” not “Mark Z”

    Who is in charge of car names over there?

  • avatar
    npbheights

    I ment to say -Not “S-H-0” but can’t edit for some reason…

  • avatar
    celebrity208

    LOL Sajeev!

  • avatar
    fusionpilot23

    He got the numbers wrong! base Taurus has 263hp not 249hp and the SHO has 365 not 350…For a lead designer he’s not very up on his numbers!

  • avatar
    wmba

    Pretty good explanation. Makes sense to me as an engineer, anyway, since I already knew what turbocharging and DI does.

    The problem with the Taurus SHO is 4400 lbs of road-hugging excess weight, and a hulking look.

    My Subaru Legacy GT has a turbo, but not DI, and weighs 3600 lbs, maybe. It gets about 23 to 25 mpg US on average. With DI, it would probably be 7 to 10% better. However, if you keep on giving it the gun, mileage plummets as all the 250hp has to be fueled. Same story here. There’s nothing to be had for free.

    So, sorry, can’t see what’s wrong with the above picture.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Uggg…where to begin…

    First, they Peaty got the name wrong…it is not the Taurus SHOW…it’s the Taurus S.H.O.

    Second, it has two turbos…not one like is implied.

    Third…Eco-boost is a joke…nothing ECO about it. The Hyundai Genesis gets the SAME mileage (17/25) as the SHOW. And it has a MUCH more desirable 4.6L, 375HP V8.

    Fourth…Reyes is a moron.

    Always been pronounced SHO-W

    NO IT HASN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There are FORD ads from the original S.H.O. that pronounce it properly…S-H-O.

    Ford…in their never ending quest to do EVERYTHING wrong…cannot even get this car’s name right.

  • avatar
    jmo

    P71_CrownVic,

    The Hyundai Genesis gets the SAME mileage (17/25) as the SHOW. And it has a MUCH more desirable 4.6L, 375HP V8.

    The SHO is 600lbs heavier than the Genesis and it has all-wheel drive.

  • avatar
    Cavscout

    According to Fords website the non EcoBoosted Taurus gets 18/27 mpg. The EcoBoosted SHO gets 17/25 mpg. Close but not the same.

  • avatar
    mistercopacetic

    Here’s a 1989(?) ad where the announcer clearly pronounces the letters “ess aich oh” twice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4S7oVi06V0. Here’s one where he says it S-H-O three times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYdS0DxNu90. And here’s a dealer training video where it’s called the S-H-O: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEh0OQWZN4.

    Cavscout: actually I think they’re referring to the AWD versions of the Taurus. EPA rates both the regular AWD and Eco-Boost AWD Taurus as the same 17/25. (can’t find a direct link but it’s at fueleconomy.gov)

  • avatar
    findude

    At 1:30 he says “as the cylinder goes down.” I’m thinking he meant to say piston instead of cylinder.

    I like the concept of turbocharging as a substitute for displacement. But an engine the same size with forced induction of any kind will simply encourage the sort of driving that consumes more fuel. Been there with both turbochargers and superchargers. Believe me, you’ll get worse mileage unless the displacement is reduced.

  • avatar
    redrum

    According to Fords website the non EcoBoosted Taurus gets 18/27 mpg. The EcoBoosted SHO gets 17/25 mpg. Close but not the same.

    18/27 is FWD. The SHO has AWD standard, and the non-SHO AWD Taurus gets 17/25.

  • avatar
    davejay

    Call me when I can get a 1.4l 4-cylinder with the turbo and direct injection, so that I can get 1.4l fuel economy numbers with 1.8l performance.

  • avatar
    dwford

    davejay:

    +1 on that. In a new Focus plz.

    Whats wrong:

    Lets start with the look of the motor. That isn’t how an S.H.O. motor is supposed to look.

    The guy doesn’t know the spec’s of his product.

    He basically admits the Ecoboost is designed to game the EPA test.

  • avatar
    folkdancer

    The SHO is 600lbs heavier than the Genesis and it has all-wheel drive

    Thank you for bringing this out. Two good reasons for picking the Genesis.

  • avatar
    HEATHROI

    Look You know its S-H-O, I know its S-H-O But some arse in For’s marketing dept thought calling it SHO(-W) would appeal to the urban hipster douchebag of the market.

    no scratch that, this is probably pitched at soccer moms looking for replacement for their SUV (heavy, AWD, “has great pick up” etc)

  • avatar
    Spike_in_Irvine

    no scratch that, this is probably pitched at soccer moms looking for replacement for their SUV (heavy, AWD, “has great pick up” etc)

    Pronounced ‘Soove’ and ‘oared’.

  • avatar
    Ole Stang

    om my god

    S-H-O

    or

    Show

    who cares

    yes it is not the Yamaha Super High Output

    when we sold them in the 80’s and 90’s customers and sales people called it both ways

    now MOST EVERYONE says SHOW,

    it uses regular fuel and when driven reasonable well gets decent mileage

    Drive on ehten decide for your selves

    more of this tech to come in the future

  • avatar
    mistercopacetic

    I don’t know about the target audience, but personally I would rather drive a car with a “super high output” engine than one that is merely for “show.”

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    I don’t think I would be interested in a 1.4 with 1.8 liter power, but if they can really get 250hp+ out of the EB 2.0, that has a lot of potential.

    I hear S-H-O and SHO(w) from customers, I just go with whichever one they prefer. I remember when the Subaru WRX came out there were some people who said W-R-X and some who pronounced it as ‘Rex’. Overtime the W-R-X camp seems to have won out, and if the SHO sticks around for a while, I’m sure one or the other will become the accepted version.

    Also, in no way is the Hyundai V8 a much more desirable engine. Yes, it makes 10 more horsepower, but requires a higher RPM to do so, and it also makes 17 less lbs/ft of torque and requires much higher RPM to hit those figures. Having 350 lbs/ft on tap from 1500rpm and up is a beautiful thing. Added to that, from what I have been told so far by the Ford product specialists (haven’t had an opportunity to look through the service manuals of a SHO yet) the turbochargers require no extra maintenance. They are oil and water cooled, and are being used so far below their maximum output that hardly any strain is being put on them.

  • avatar
    BillySeward

    Ummm how about Taylor Swift playing in the background at a car show? Criminal I say.

  • avatar

    I call it “the SHO”

    I like calling it “SHO” cause people know exactly what I’m talking about. Why argue over this?

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    The SHO is 600lbs heavier than the Genesis and it has all-wheel drive.

    Two very good reasons to SKIP the SHOW.

    The Genesis is lighter, makes more power, gets the same mileage, and is not saddles with a limp-wristed FWD-based AWD system.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Or… the Genesis makes less power throughout the majority of the usable rev range, and has less torque available throughout all of it, and doesn’t have the benefit of one of the most advanced AWD systems on the market, which through communication with the tilt, descent/ascent angle and yaw sensors in combination with the traction and stability control can route 100% of said power to the front or rear wheels in less time than it takes one of the wheels to make even an eighth of a turn to insure that you always have full power when you need it going to the drive axle that will do you the most good.

  • avatar

    NulloMondo:

    Who needs AWD? If it’s snow, give me front wheel-drive. If it’s dry pavement, give me rear wheel drive (with a disable-able Nanny). If I’m going off-road—hang on, why would I go off-road?

    I’d rather have proper tires—summer and winter shoes—than a trick AWD system. Any day.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m still waiting for an independent dyno test of the 3.5L Ecoboost.

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    @jmo
    “The Hyundai Genesis gets the SAME mileage (17/25) as the SHOW. And it has a MUCH more desirable 4.6L, 375HP V8.”
    The SHO is 600lbs heavie
    ———————————
    And, Taurus is not same class car with Genesis sedan.

    Total Interior Volume:
    2010-xxxx Taurus = 102.3 sq ft
    2006-2010 Hyundai Sonata = 105.4 sq ft
    2006-2010 Hyundai Azera = 106.9 sq ft
    2009-xxxx Hyundai Genesis = 109.4 sq ft

    The new Taurus may be huge and heavy in your book, but Hyundai owners have seen bigger… Even Hyundai sonata have large Interior Volume than Taurus.

  • avatar

    Robert Farago.

    Yes, you’re right about summer and winter shoes, but I live in NYC and the people here try to go to the shops as little as possible to do their tire maintenance. Most don’t even get their rotations regularly due to the cost.

    Having AWD on a car with a set of all seasons makes it so we can get away with it. NO ONE wants to suddenly have to go out and change their tires because it decides to snow.

    In fact, I put the 22″ rims on my car too early this year because i thought the snow and ice was over. Suddenly we had more snow storms and I ended up getting some seal leakage and corrosion.

    Not to mention the “psychological desire” to have “AWD” on the car as a luxury feature.

    I got my S-class with 4-matic simply because I felt it was better than the S-class without it and the extra $ didn’t bother me.

    I’d also go so far as to say, many city folk have no idea what sport driving, and great handling mean. Think about how many of us commute in PRIUS, and Camry and other Japanese appliance cars. That’s why the first time we drive a BMW or Benz we have an orgasm.

    Most of us city folk’s ideas of “sports cars” are Front wheel drive cars with a spoiler on back.

  • avatar

    v7rmp7li :

    I own a 300 and an S550. As far as I’m concerned, they are the largest interiors on the market for a full sized luxury sedan. I’m over 6’6 and I need it in the shoulders and hips.

    What are the interior volumes of both cars?

    I’ve tested the Lincoln MKS which is the same size as the SHO, and I’ve tested the Genesis. Because of the console design I didn’t have enough knee/leg space. I hated them both.

    I’d rather have a Lincoln MKS Ecoboost than the Genesis because I perfer the MKS styling.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    v7rmp7li –

    Measuring total interior volume in one figure is a useless statistic, it’s the individual measurements that count. That being said, the Sonata, Azera, Genesis, and Taurus are all very very close in all individual measurements (aside from trunk space where the Taurus handily trumps them all) and I do have to wonder where the extra room in the Taurus goes on paper. Having sat in all of those cars though, the Taurus certainly feels roomier than the Sonata or Azera. In the Sonata my head brushes against the ceiling, not so in the Taurus. With lots of different trim levels and different amounts of seat adjustability on all of them I wonder how some of those figures are measured across different vehicle lines.

    Robert –

    True maybe no one really needs AWD, but for that matter no one needs ABS, traction control, or a number of other vehicle features either. Aside from those who live in regularly snowy climates the vast majority of drivers don’t go out and buy two sets of tires, one for summer and one for winter. Whether they should or not is a whole other debate, but all things being equaly, AWD is superior to FWD or RWD with a set of all-seasons on ice. Plus, ice isn’t the only thing that can lesson grip on a roadway. It doesn’t ever snow here, but it isn’t out of the question to get 6″ of rain in an hour’s time. No one is going to buy separate tires just for the occasional torrential downpour, but AWD can come in handy to prevent hydroplaning.

    From a performance driving standpoint RWD is usually the enthusiasts choice, and an AWD system that can bias fully to RWD mode handles that nicely, plus, should the driver take a corner with a little too much speed and break traction from the rear, or hit a bit of rough pavement that causes one or both of the current drive wheels to lose grip, the AWD system steps in and seamlessly transfers that power to the wheel that can keep the car going on its intended path.

    It’s no coincidence that the newest crop of supercars are embracing AWD, from the Audi R8 to the Lambo LP560-4. New England winters aren’t the target of those AWD, they are there for enhanced performance in all driving situation.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Snow tires will ALWAYS be superior to AWD. All AWD allow is people who have deficient driving skills to get up to speed as fast as they can…and then they can’t stop and they crash.

    It masks poor driving skills. As I have said before, if you cannot safely drive a modern RWD car in the snow, you shouldn’t be driving.

    Snow tires are cheaper than AWD, help you stop (unlike AWD) and help you turn (unlike AWD).

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    @NulloModo

    According to EPA class:

    *2010 Ford Taurus SHO AWD
    EPA Class : Mid-Size

    *2010 Hyundai Sonata
    EPA Class : Large

    —————-
    Hyundai can make more light, stiff, solid, better aero dynamic, better gas mileage with more larger interior volume.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    and I do have to wonder where the extra room in the Taurus goes on paper.

    Well…the so-called “new” Taurus lost 3″ of rear leg room from the 2009 model:

    ’10 ’09

    Head Room – Front (in.) 39 – 39.6
    Head Room – Rear (in.) 37.8 – 38.8
    Leg Room – Front (in.) 41.9 – 41.3
    Leg room – Rear (in.) 38.1 – 41.2
    Hip Room – Front (in.) 56.3 – 53.7
    Hip Room – Rear (in.) 55.8 53.6
    Shoulder Room – Front (in.) 57.9 – 57.8
    Shoulder Room – Rear (in.) 56.9 – 57.6

  • avatar

    P71_CrownVic :
    Snow tires will ALWAYS be superior to AWD. All AWD allow is people who have deficient driving skills to get up to speed as fast as they can…and then they can’t stop and they crash.

    That’s an over simplification. What about the people who simply want to be able to drive from long island new york to manhattan and back without getting killed slipping off a road?

    What about the people who live in the Poconos or other mountains who can’t get their car out of ice, or, need AWD for the rocky mountain graded driving ( I was in the Poconos during labor day, that’s why I mention this)

    When I bought a Ford Expedition back in 2001, I didn’t get 4X4 to drive fast. I got it cause it had power to go from one terrain to the next without the need for major transitions of equipment.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    v7rmp7li – You need to check your figures, according to the EPA site the 2010 Taurus has 108 cubic feet of space (for whatever that is worth) but it is also classified as a large car, not a midsize. Now where you are getting your claims that Hyundai’s are more aerodynamic or stiffer is anyone’s guess, I’d like to see a some measured stats on any of that.

    P71 – Given two cars with the same drive axle snow tires are better than all seasons on snow, agreed. Given an AWD car with all seasons and a FWD on snow tires, eh, I might even give the edge to the FWD with snow tires in that case, but its a close one. AWD on all seasons vs RWD on snow the balance tips to AWD. Also, AWD can most certainly help you turn more effectively under limited traction situations. You need grip for a car to change direction, but if the gripping wheels aren’t moving because the drive wheels are spinning uselessly, you aren’t going anywhere.

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    @NulloModo :

    Please show us any evidence beofre spread ‘lie’.

    According to EPA class:

    *2010 Ford Taurus SHO AWD
    EPA Class : Mid-Size
    http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_ford_taurus_sho_awd/

    *2010 Hyundai Sonata
    EPA Class : Large
    http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_hyundai_sonata_limited_v6-specs/

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    2010 Ford Taurus SHO AWD

    Wheelbase 112.9 in (2868 mm)
    Length 202.9 in (5154 mm)
    Width 76.9 in (1953 mm)
    Height 60.7 in (1542 mm)

    2010-xxxx Taurus = 102.3 sq ft (!)
    ———————-
    2004 Hyundai Sonata

    Wheelbase 107.4 in (2728 mm)
    Length 188.9 in (4798 mm)
    Width 72.1 in (1831 mm)
    Height 58.0 in (1473 mm)

    2006-2010 Hyundai Sonata = 105.4 sq ft

    ———————-

    The new Taurus may be huge and heavy in your book, but Hyundai owners have seen bigger… Even Hyundai sonata have large Interior Volume than Taurus.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    v7rmp7li – Well, I suppose you could look at the information that was (incorrectly) regurgitated by Yahoo, or you could to straight to the horse’s mouth:

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=28669

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    NulloModo :
    Well, I suppose you could look at the information that was (incorrectly) regurgitated by fueleconomy site.

    http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/specifications/capacities/

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    Check Passenger Volume.
    not trunk size itself

  • avatar
    v7rmp7li

    Anyway, I check that site, Even Sonata 3.3 Fuel economy is much better than taurus 3.5

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Well, the fuel economy site is the EPA site, so, your statement that the EPA classifies the 2010 Taurus as a midsize is patently false. I will admit that it is odd that Ford’s own measures of the car differ from the EPAs, and I can only chalk that up to differing methods of measuring interior space.

  • avatar

    Who needs AWD? If it’s snow, give me front wheel-drive. If it’s dry pavement, give me rear wheel drive (with a disable-able Nanny). If I’m going off-road—hang on, why would I go off-road?

    I thought the Ecoboost ess aich oh Taurus received all wheel drive to help prevent all the power from the turbo engine from causing the vehicle to spin out.

    I’ll admit I’m not the most well versed “car guy”. Plus I don’t really care about the Taurus all that much.

    Regardless, why is it that the Taurus ess aich oh has awd standard anyway? The regular Taurus doesn’t come with it standard.

    I hope the F-150 doesn’t have 4wd standard when its Ecoboost comes out. 4wd for a Southwesterner is essentially just wasted gas.

  • avatar
    Gunit

    Great engine, love the idea of low consumption most of the time, but the power when you want it. With both my cars I drive pretty sedately most of the time, but love the extra power when I ‘need’ it.

    Love the look of the new Taurus as well (and no, I don’t work for Ford).

    And can we please dedicate another thread to whether it’s S-H-O or Show, cause that’s really important, while were at it let’s make sure everyone knows it’s awd and not odd…. okay, back to making sure all your placemats are in perfect alignment.

  • avatar
    jmo

    The Genesis is lighter, makes more power, gets the same mileage, and is not saddles with a limp-wristed FWD-based AWD system.

    600lbs is a lot of metal. All things being equal, I’d rather take my chances against a drunk driver in an F-150, in a Taurus than a Genesis.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    Did I miss when they passed the law against putting snow tires on an AWD vehicle?

  • avatar

    The Luigiian : I thought the Ecoboost ess aich oh Taurus received all wheel drive to help prevent all the power from the turbo engine from causing the vehicle to spin out.

    Not spin out, that’s a RWD thing. Its to avoid massive torque steer that could lead to massive amounts of understeer. This is the band aid you must wear when putting “lipstick” on the “pig” that is the wrong wheel drive Ford D3 chassis.

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    Count me, like Mr. Farago, as a true believer in snow shoes.

    I am in Michigan with a RWD sports car (limited slip diff in the rear plus ESC and the standard ABS nanny-gear), and I now understand why I’d never even have a front wheel drive car (if I ever do, again) without snow tires.

    I am absolutely amazed what a dedicated and modern snow tire allows one to accomplish, while not having to sacrifice any driving dynamics in warmer weather with summer rubber swapped on.

    Even AWD on a poseur or real performance sedan (whatever one’s opinion of the SHOW) shod with summer rubber will do one no good in ice and snow, so what’s the advantage over RWD?

    The only advantage I can see is not having to swap tires twice a year, but then again, if you have a performance sedan with high performance tires and AWD, you’re still going to have to do this, and using all season tires year round defeats the purpose of having such a car.

  • avatar
    bts

    For those comparing the gas mileage between the Taurus SHO and Genesis 4.6 keep in mind the Taurus runs on regular grade gas while the Genesis needs premium. So most of us would save a few hundred dollars a year in the Taurus.

  • avatar
    Brock_Landers

    Really nice engine. Quite similar specs to BMW-s N54. Six cylinder, twinturbo, direct injection. BMW has .5 less capacity and 50 less horsepower. But torque band is similar, Ford has really nice wide max torque band 1500-5000rpm.

    With aftermarket software it shoud be fairly easy and safe to take the power to 450hp. 37K USD larger AWD Sedan with 450hp sounds really nice to me.

  • avatar
    cpmanx

    Sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a thread about the EcoBoost engine, not a windy debate about the curb weight and interior volume of the Taurus.

    I expect we all agree that the Taurus is overweight. I suspect we all agree that RWD is the classic setup for good handling but that AWD has advantages in putting power to the ground and avoiding torque steer in high-performance FWD-based cars. Clearly Ford made design compromises in basing the new Taurus SHO on the D3 platform.

    None of this has anything to do with the engine, however, which seems like a sweet piece of engineering. If it can match the Genesis’s mileage ratings in a substantially heavier car (while running on regular gas), that tells me that it is indeed a more efficient engine. I’d be very interested to see what the EcoBoost 3.5 could do in a Fusion instead.

  • avatar
    morbo

    The debate over FWD / AWD / RWD + snow tires is funny because global warming (oops I mean ‘climate change’) will render snow a memory. Can’t wait to replace my NJ tomato garden with oranges.

  • avatar
    Cougar Red

    Genesis doesn’t need premium. In fact, Hyundai even quantified the difference in HP using non-premium (375 v. 368).

  • avatar
    umterp85

    Dr. Doom (aka P71)…says “Ford…in their never ending quest to do EVERYTHING wrong…cannot even get this car’s name right.”

    Hey Dr. Doom. I work on facts. Fact….Ford has been increasing share every month for the better part of a year. Fact….Ford’s product is better than at any time in recent history, is on par and arguably better than market leader Toyota, and will be even better over the next 12-18 mos. Fact….on every reliability / quality survey I have seen including Consumer Reports, Ford quality has improved to the point to where it is virtually indistinguishable from Toyhonda.

    Now….is Ford perfect. No. Do they have a ways to go before they are out of the woods…yes. But to say they do EVERYTHING wrong is just plain stupid and errrr ummmm WRONG !!!!!

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    For those comparing the gas mileage between the Taurus SHO and Genesis 4.6 keep in mind the Taurus runs on regular grade gas while the Genesis needs premium.

    Genesis doesn’t need premium. In fact, Hyundai even quantified the difference in HP using non-premium (375 v. 368).

    And let’s not forget that if you put regular in the SHOW…it has 355 HP…not 365.

    Hey Dr. Doom. I work on facts. Fact….Ford has been increasing share every month for the better part of a year. Fact….Ford’s product is better than at any time in recent history, is on par and arguably better than market leader Toyota, and will be even better over the next 12-18 mos. Fact….on every reliability / quality survey I have seen including Consumer Reports, Ford quality has improved to the point to where it is virtually indistinguishable from Toyhonda.

    Well…we all know that Ford paid for some of those quality studies…and consumer reports has ZERO credibility. Using them in an argument is like using the old “I’m rubber you’re glue” line.

    But…as Ford becomes more and more like Toyota, should we call the Fusion the Camry? The F-150 the Tundra, the Escape the Rav-4, the Taurus the Avalon?
    —-

    It is pretty sad when the automaker cannot even get the cars name right. I mean…Ford would do less damage if they just came out and said “we don’t care…we really don’t. Please, just buy our overpriced anonymous appliances so we don’t have to borrow more money from the government.”

  • avatar
    umterp85

    Dr Doom P71…

    First, are you saying that fellow commentator Michael Karesh has been paid off by Ford ?

    Michael seems to be coming to the same conclusion with his survey regarding increasingly strong Ford quality and reliability that EVERY other study (not just 1 or 2) has shown. Said another way…please give me a link to ANY quality survey that does not show increasingly strong Ford quality.

    Second, let’s get back to your “everything Ford does is wrong” hypothesis. You simply cannot quantify this statement. It is banal hyperbole plain and simple.

    Last, can you please be transparent about your obvious emotional disdain for Ford. I think it would help explain why you hate the company so much and mix 50% thoughtful analysis with 50% baseless hyperbole in your commentary.

  • avatar
    petergottlieb

    All I’ve got to say is good on Ford, they have produced the first sedan I’ve found interesting in a decade, and have a decent power
    plant to put in it to boot.

  • avatar
    akear

    It is nice to see an American carmaker actually doing some engineering.

  • avatar
    Monty

    P71_CrownVic :
    September 12th, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Well…we all know that Ford paid for some of those quality studies…and consumer reports has ZERO credibility. Using them in an argument is like using the old “I’m rubber you’re glue” line.

    “Ford paid for some of those quality studies” I assume that you can provide proof of this?

    “consumer reports has ZERO credibility” Ummm…So by your metric CR conclusions of problems with GM products is wrong? Or does it mean that Toyota’s legendary quality is pure bunk? Are you claiming that I should entirely discount CR as a research tool for purchasing a new car? Please elaborate on your claim.

  • avatar
    Darth Lefty

    So how much power does it make once you uncork the turbos?

    (Typically the gains are pretty good, a 2.0 WRX with a pipe and a reflash goes from 227 to 260+, a 335i goes from 300 to 370-ish)

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Here you go:

    Of course, you have to read all the way to the end, and Google a bit, to see that this PR exercise is Ford-subsidized.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-quality-almost-tied-with-honda-and-toyota-or-not/

    As for CR…they are not credible in any way, shape or form. Unlike the Ford cheerleaders…who will trash a publication when they praise Toyota or Honda and then, praise and use that publication to prove something when they say something positive about Ford, I believe that if a publication has nop credibility…they have no credibility.

    Selective credibility (as used by the Ford cheerleaders) is not a way to prove a point.

    For instance, there is a Ford site out there that has a bunch of two-face people on it. Why do I say that? Because they trashed Motor Trend up and down when they awarded the Tundra their truck of the year. It was an endless trail of drivel as they cried and whined over that award.

    Then, for 2009, they praised Motor Trend, talked them up and down for awarding the 2009 F-150 reskin as the truck of the year. It was a Motor Trend love fest.

  • avatar
    umterp85

    Dr. Doom P71—I guess both Ford and EVERY quality and reliability survey do EVERYTHING wrong.

  • avatar
    Carzzi

    Love how Dvorak pronounced “engine”… sounds like “injun”. Quite amused, as I’m an Injun too, of the South-Asian variety.

  • avatar
    bts

    Horsepower numbers aside, the Taurus SHO still beats the Genesis to 60 by about 0.3sec, but run around the same quarter mile times. Living at a high altitude like I do the gap will be wider and no matter where you are an ECU flash to the SHO will add more.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    What’s wrong with this picture? They spend five minutes talking about the motor and we never see the motor. Its hidden under that trash can lid with SHO stenciled on it. We never see the car either.

  • avatar

    There are people out there who’d never buy a Hyundai ANYTHING. and I’m one of them. I’ve been with Ford Lincoln Mercury for a very long time and just jumped to Mercedes Benz. Frankly, I loved my Ford’s and the only problems I ever had were caused by me. Driving too hard off-road and damaging the suspension, blowing fuses with subwoofer systems, etc.

    I have had a B+ experience with Ford and I’d trust the SHO long before the Genesis.

    Not to mention I feel the Genesis rips off the LS460 and my S-class. That’s unforgivable.

    I don’t buy posers.

  • avatar
    Power6

    Who needs AWD? If it’s snow, give me front wheel-drive. If it’s dry pavement, give me rear wheel drive (with a disable-able Nanny). If I’m going off-road—hang on, why would I go off-road?

    I’d rather have proper tires—summer and winter shoes—than a trick AWD system. Any day.

    Didn’t you just buy a Benz GL? Damn that useless AWD too bad they don’t make a superior FWD version.

    It is hard to tell if you are being serious, 365hp and you would be wishing for FWD??

    Re: AWD vs Snow Tires debate: One doesn’t preclude the other. AWD wasn’t meant to replace snow tires. In fact most climates where you need one, you are better off with both.

    Given the same tires, AWD beats 2WD. In the snow. In the rain. In the dry depending on how much power you need to put down. AWD is more predictable, forgiving, and stable on a wider range of surfaces. For me, I only want to own 1 car and I live in New England, and it is important to be able to swerve around that dynamically superior Boxter on a rainy drive to work, so I use AWD.

  • avatar
    Power6

    All of you Snow Tire snobs should give it up. First they are called Winter tires, and with good reason, they are designed for more than just snow. Second, I counted the days I had to drive in “snow” here in Boston for a few winters, and it ranged from 3-8 depending on the year. Unless you live in Canada, or near a big lake, you can see why most people stick with all seasons, why would they swap tires for a few days a season, they can just skate by or skip work those days.

    The snow tire snobbery is reduced to a few days a season. The rest of the days when it is dry or wet, I am willing to bet the all-season tires perform better. Anyone who has experience driving on multi-cell Blizzaks knows this is true.

    So it turns out the same “compromise” criticism the snow tire elitists level at all-seasons is just as true of the snow tires, which give up good performance when it isn’t snowing, to be superior when it is.

    Funny thing is I do run snow(winter)tires myself. Just after some years of real experience, I have learned my lessons. Use the full size of tire, don’t downsize for better traction, and unless you *really* need the multi-cell compound, skip it and run a performance blizzak or other winter tire instead, you will thank yourself every day that it isn’t snowing, which where most people in the US live, is the majority of the time in the Winter.

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    In reality the Ecoboost V6 gets about the same gas mileage as a modern V8 generating comparable power so what is the Ecoboost advantage?

    Without question the Ecoboost will be much more expensive to repair when the miles are high.

    Using the Ford engineer’s logic the Taurus NA V6 should have been an Ecoboost I4 no?

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    A little over 12 years ago I had to deal with Pete when he was a PD Chassis Eng Spvr on the U137 Ford Valdez (aka Excursion) … my experience was that, like a number of Ford hi-pots he was more interested in telling than listening or deeply trying to understand an issue … figures he would be a Chief E by now … and boy did he get grey in that time …

    Regarding EcoBoost, why didn’t Ford assign a PTO Chief to sell the engine instead … reminds of when the Ford 500 was introduced and the Chassis Engrg Mgr., Ray Nicosa, was quoted as saying his favourite part of the car was, not the fine suspension, steering, brakes, or even the CVT, but … wait for it … the big trunk!

  • avatar
    Power6

    I admit, I just got around to watching the video now. Pete does make a great point about Direct Injection allowing the turbocharging without lowering the Compression Ratio. That is the key to getting the same gas mileage because the engine is just as efficient as the NA model off boost.

    He falls down at the end when he says you can “tip it towards the Eco” with an I-4. This EPA ratings gaming strategy only works when the extra boosted power is compeltely superfluous for normal driving.

    Besides, this “fuel economy of a V6, power of a V8” crap was played out in the 80s. Back then Buick said sequential injection and distributorless ignition was the key. The difference was the Grand National was truly remarkable, and this new SHO is not.

  • avatar
    cpmanx

    In reality the Ecoboost V6 gets about the same gas mileage as a modern V8 generating comparable power so what is the Ecoboost advantage?

    Without question the Ecoboost will be much more expensive to repair when the miles are high.

    Using the Ford engineer’s logic the Taurus NA V6 should have been an Ecoboost I4 no?

    The advantage here is that the extra power in the EcoBoost comes with no economy penalty over the non-boosted Ford V6 it’s based on. You make a good point–the EcoBoost 3.5 still isn’t much more efficient than a well-engineered, nonboosted V8, which is another way of saying that the base 3.5 is not a terribly efficient engine to begin with. But getting a substantial power gain with essentially no loss in economy at least lifts this engine into the top tier, and it bodes well for the other EcoBoost engines.

    Replacing the conventional V6 with an EcoBoost I4 does in fact seem to be the Ford strategy. VW and GM (and very likely a number of others) seem to be moving the same way, toward smaller-displacement turbocharged engines.

  • avatar
    micmig

    LOL
    Audi came out with that in 2005, you’re a bit late Ford, nothing new about it. I have it in my A4 and Loving it.

    http://www.audiworld.com/news/05/060705b/content.shtml

  • avatar
    ping

    The SHO is 600lbs heavier than the Genesis and it has all-wheel drive.

    where is this (mis)information coming from?

    Curb weights:

    Taurus SHO: 4368 lbs. (Source:AutoWeek)

    Genesis V8: 4012 lbs. (Source:Hyundai USA

    4368 – 4012 = 356 pound difference.

  • avatar
    Monty

    P71_CrownVic :
    September 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Here you go:

    Of course, you have to read all the way to the end, and Google a bit, to see that this PR exercise is Ford-subsidized.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-quality-almost-tied-with-honda-and-toyota-or-not/

    As for CR…they are not credible in any way, shape or form. Unlike the Ford cheerleaders…who will trash a publication when they praise Toyota or Honda and then, praise and use that publication to prove something when they say something positive about Ford, I believe that if a publication has nop credibility…they have no credibility.

    Selective credibility (as used by the Ford cheerleaders) is not a way to prove a point.

    For instance, there is a Ford site out there that has a bunch of two-face people on it. Why do I say that? Because they trashed Motor Trend up and down when they awarded the Tundra their truck of the year. It was an endless trail of drivel as they cried and whined over that award.

    Then, for 2009, they praised Motor Trend, talked them up and down for awarding the 2009 F-150 reskin as the truck of the year. It was a Motor Trend love fest.

    I really didn’t want to continue with this; I thought you would answer on the first attempt. However, you responded only to the first question I’ll give you this one; even though you referred to plural studies, you were only able to link to one. The cynic in me sees this as a tactic every car company engages in; Ford would not be the only company guilty of skewing data to it’s benefit.

    However, I specifically asked you to elaborate on your claim that Consumer Reports has ZERO credibility (your emphasis), and you responded with a rambling, vague point about a Ford specific fan forum. Was your comment about selective credibility pertaining to Consumer Reports or a “Ford site”?

    I am not trying to flame you, and in fact I usually find your comments to be informative (with the exception of your transparent hate for all things Ford); I really just want your explanation as to why Consumer Reports has zero credibility. My partner and myself, and also my wife and myself have purchased several Toyota products based on CR ratings, and have found the vehicles to be everything claimed in the magazine, and generally find CR’s testing of other brands to be reasonably accurate, so I’m curious as to how you arrived at your conclusion.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ajla: There are some classic vehicles where I think doing an EV conversion would be a questionable choice. All...
  • MRF 95 T-Bird: There’s a lot of 50’s-60’s Virgil Exner in that dashboard and steering wheel. Maybe it’s a new retro...
  • DenverMike: It’s not that VWs are “unreliable” necessarily except unscheduled service like window...
  • Lie2me: They are a $100K and above in Escalade or Denali trim, just like any truck can get to a $100K if you want it...
  • EBFlex: TRUTH! There’s a reason that transmission goes into Bentleys and Audis. I love how it shifts in sport mode....

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