• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

the new sho makes an appearance

WRX STI is only 305 hp and MSRP is 35k almost, a lancer evo is a lot closer in size to a taurus than a wrx but that is still 74 short at 291 33k starting price tag. The new SHO is very competively priced when you look at it like that.

My only complaint about it is 1 no manual and 2 if you look at the fuel economy figures it is giving, they would have been able to get similar efficiency out of a tuned 4.6 V8 and had less parts to fail. Turbochargers arent cheap to replace. Although it does give you a factory tuned turbo vehicle, which makes power adding a bit less complicated.

BTW I see turbos all the time with ford logos stamped into them, guess you gotta work in a truck shop to say that though. :D
 
FunInNorthDakota said:
WRX STI is only 305 hp and MSRP is 35k almost, a lancer evo is a lot closer in size to a taurus than a wrx but that is still 74 short at 291 33k starting price tag. The new SHO is very competively priced when you look at it like that.
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? The Taurus is over TWO FEET longer than the EVO...they're very different cars unlikely to get many cross-shoppers.
 
FunInNorthDakota said:
WRX STI is only 305 hp and MSRP is 35k almost, a lancer evo is a lot closer in size to a taurus than a wrx but that is still 74 short at 291 33k starting price tag. The new SHO is very competively priced when you look at it like that.
Click to expand...

But no one is going to look at it like that. The WRX and Evo are sport compacts while the Taurus is a loaded full size cruiser.
 
FunInNorthDakota said:
WRX STI is only 305 hp and MSRP is 35k almost, a lancer evo is a lot closer in size to a taurus than a wrx but that is still 74 short at 291 33k starting price tag. The new SHO is very competively priced when you look at it like that.

My only complaint about it is 1 no manual and 2 if you look at the fuel economy figures it is giving, they would have been able to get similar efficiency out of a tuned 4.6 V8 and had less parts to fail. Turbochargers arent cheap to replace. Although it does give you a factory tuned turbo vehicle, which makes power adding a bit less complicated.

BTW I see turbos all the time with ford logos stamped into them, guess you gotta work in a truck shop to say that though. :D
Click to expand...

STI weights half a ton less the the Taurus
 
I didnt say they were the same size. I was just comparing prices, and I said the EVO was larger than the WRX. In other words, closer in size to the taurus than the WRX is.

edmunds says the STI curb weight is 3232 with the taurus SHO weight supposedly somewhere under 4300. So power to weight ratio is not that far off.

No the SHO is not a compact car, but it is a good car for a reasonable price considering other cars in its relative class and similar classes, and a very good option if you have a family, are tall, or have any other reason to want a few extra cubic feet.
 
Dyoel182 said:
I'm not hung up on the name, I'm hung up on the idea of the price and power pushing the Taurus into the ranks of an Audi or BMW. I just dont see them as direct competitors and thats not saying its not a nice car or wont be a great performer. I've driven my parents car with the same awd system and can honestly say you cant tell its working. It still feels like the front wheels are driving and only when its real slick do you get the rear tires to do some work as well.
Click to expand...
It is not a "direct competitor". It is a BUDGET ALTERNATIVE. Do I need to stamp this on your forehead? This car is aimed at the same market as the original. Also the same maret, if not a matured one, as the very CSVT you have come to know and love. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to catch the ex-owners and current owners of Contours as they evolve into an older, more size-friendly crowd.
 
cobrawannabe said:
It is not a "direct competitor". It is a BUDGET ALTERNATIVE. Do I need to stamp this on your forehead? This car is aimed at the same market as the original.
Click to expand...

Please dont. Save it for someone who doesnt get that point. I agree that the car is aimed at the same market that bought the SHO before but do not agree that Ford tried to push it up market to compete with other brands.
 
Having used to own an SHO I'm glad to see it coming back. As for the price... it's probably priced the same as what the old SHO's were considering inflation. I believe the base Taurus back in the early 90's was around $15-18k with the SHO being $23-25k.

Now the interior looks nice, but I hate that 'T' Handle shifter.. ugly. Also as a few others mentioned, I would love to see a manual trans offered as an option. The car really to needs to lose some of that chrome on the rear. Another nice exterior feature that could be added is some sill extensions and a nice front lip spoiler to set it apart from the standard Taurus.

All that said if I had the money I would consider buying the new SHO.
 
FunInNorthDakota said:
edmunds says the STI curb weight is 3232 with the taurus SHO weight supposedly somewhere under 4300. So power to weight ratio is not that far off.
Click to expand...

Are you F'ing kidding me? My dad's 2002 GMC Envoy and my 2003 Silverado weighed less than that!

PurpleMystique said:
I'm really glad we have like three SHO threads going.
Click to expand...

No :censored::censored::censored::censored:. The great part is that it's the same people arguing the same point in all three. Can we just lock two of them? Mods?
 
TX00SVT said:
Are you F'ing kidding me? My dad's 2002 GMC Envoy and my 2003 Silverado weighed less than that!
Click to expand...

no the 2002 envoy starts at 4417 for a 2wd and goes on up to 4600 for a 4X4 and the 2003 silverado only weighs in at 4142 but thats only if you are buying the short box standard cab 4X2 with a manual and the smallest engine. Any options above that are all over 4200 lbs

the new models are all way over 5000 lbs, and arent you one of the guys arguing the same point on all 3? If you look at them they are all going in a bit different directions so you are getting plenty of variety between the threads without making one thread thats 80 pages long that noone can follow. Its fine, its not like people are clogging the duratec performance section with 800 threads asking where they can buy headers or something like that.

edit: also if you look, there are even more threads about Obama, and half the people in there arent saying anything remotely intelligent, just that they hate the guy or hate democrats or something like that, half the posts are just nonsense or have nothing to do with facts or anything else.
 
Hmmmm... Are you going to believe some website's generalized info, or an owner of the said vehicle? If you ask Ford, the SVT did 0-60 in like 7.9 seconds IIRC, yet every outside source that tested it reported 0-60 in 6.9-7.1 seconds.

And for your info, I DID have a short bed, regular cab, 2WD Silverado...with a V8 auto. Damn I miss it.

Regardless, you're talking about 100 f'ing pounds between an SUV and a "sports car." Pretty poor.
 
TX00SVT said:
Hmmmm... Are you going to believe some website's generalized info, or an owner of the said vehicle? If you ask Ford, the SVT did 0-60 in like 7.9 seconds IIRC, yet every outside source that tested it reported 0-60 in 6.9-7.1 seconds.

And for your info, I DID have a short bed, regular cab, 2WD Silverado...with a V8 auto. Damn I miss it.

Regardless, you're talking about 100 f'ing pounds between an SUV and a "sports car." Pretty poor.
Click to expand...


yes I am sure you drove it over a scale and weighed it and proved GM wrong. I would have written a strongly worded letter to them for improperly rating their vehicle in figures they send to NHTSA and DOT.

Plus now days, ALL CARS ARE HEAVIER. Seriously a new SVT focus weighs more than a 20 year old ford taurus. My Escort GT weighed 1950 lbs on the truck scale at the farm. Can you find a new car today that weighs that? Those same trucks and SUVs you were talking about earlier weigh far north of 5000 lbs now. A new silverado with NO options, short bed, standard cab, V6 2wd is the lightest you can get with them and that weighs in at 4,453.
BTW short bed regular cab v8 2wd AUTO weighs 4,227 with an empty gas tank. they only dip under 4200 lbs if you have a 5speed. Even a new mustang weighs in at 3,483 lbs. Cars are just heavier these days. A new mustang weighs twice what they originally weighed. Now days COMPACT cars are over 3000 lbs.

/discussion
 
I personally like the new SHO. I thought on a forum of a dead platform with as strong of a following the SVTC has, there would be a better response to Ford doing something new with a sports sedan type vehicle. I cant wait until the modding of these cars begins. I can see the new SHO putting down some serious numbers without much modification.
-tropictour
 
tropictour said:
I personally like the new SHO. I thought on a forum of a dead platform with as strong of a following the SVTC has, there would be a better response to Ford doing something new with a sports sedan type vehicle. I cant wait until the modding of these cars begins. I can see the new SHO putting down some serious numbers without much modification.
-tropictour
Click to expand...


Open up the exhaust a bit, change out turbines, little reprogramming. I bet you it would be pretty nice. You know though tropic you are right, a lot of these guys put more time and money into their cars than I do, I cant see why they would be so offended by a revived SHO.

I am wondering though, how long will it be before you see one driving around with a 3 foot tall aluminum wing.
 
I find it very hard to believe that somebody would buy one of these and put a bunch of money into modding it. I see this as ending up in the hands of the 40 year old father of two who whats his DD to have a little more pep. It just seems like to much car to do anything on a track or autox course. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top