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

    You can register to join the community.

1998 contour svt vs 2010 taurus SHO ecoboost

M

mnewxcv

Hard-core CEG'er
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
2,030
Location
Cape Cod, MA
more a thread to discuss what you think of the new sho, but I felt like comparing the two cars, spec for spec, test to test. Sources: March 1997 Car and Driver; September 2009 Car and Driver


category - Contour/Taurus

engine: DOHC 24-valve V-6, 155ci (2.5L), alum. block and heads, Ford EEC-V ECS with port fuel injection / Twin-turbocharged and intercooled V-6, 213ci (3.5), alum. block and heads, 4 valves per cylinder, direct injection, 12.0psi boost

power: 195bhp @ 6625 rpm / 365bhp @ 5500rpm

torque: 165lb-ft @ 5625 / 350lb-ft @ 3500rpm

redline: 6750rpm / 6200rpm

transmission: 5-speed manual / 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

gear ratios(1-5/1-6): 3.42, 2.14, 1.45, 1.03, 0.77 / 4.48, 2.87, 1.84, 1.41, 1.00, 0.74

final drive ratio: 4.06 / 3.16

curb weight: 3110lb / 4346lb

lb per horsepower: 15.9 / 11.9

weight distribution (front): 63.5% / 59.5%

wheelbase(in): 106.5 / 112.9

length: 183.9 / 202.9

width: 69.1 / 76.2

height: 54.5 / 60.7

fuel capacity(gal): 14.5 / 19.0

front interior volume(cu ft): 52 / 55

rear interior volume: 39 / 47

trunk volume: 14 / 20

front suspension: ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs, anti-roll bar / ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs, anti-roll bar

rear suspension: ind, strut located by 2 lateral links and 1 trailing link, coil springs, anti-roll bar / ind, 1 lower control arm, 1 trailing link, 1 lateral link, and 1 toe-control link per side; coil springsm anti-roll bar

brakes(F;R) vented disc; vented disc, anti-lock control / vented disc; disc, anti-lock control

tires: goodyear eage GS-C, P205/66ZR-16 / goodyear eagle F1 supercar, P245/45ZR-20 99Y

0-60mph: 7.1s / 5.2s

0-100: 19.4 / 12.8

0-120: 33.3 / 19.8

1/4 mile: 15.4 @ 91mph / 13.7 @ 103mph

5-60: 8.0 / 5.7

top gear 30-50: 9.6 / 2.8

top gear 50-70: 9.9 / 3.8

top speed: 140mph / 133mph(gov ltd)

braking 70-0mph: 164ft / 174ft

roadholding 300ft skidpad, g: 0.85* / 0.84

interior sound level, dBA, idle: 50 / 47

sound level, full throttle: 78 / 73

sound level, 70mph cruising: 72 / 70

EPA city, mpg: 21 / 17

EPA hwy: 31 / 25

observed fuel economy: 19 / 16



done with that. So its clear these are two very different beasts, and for the taurus to be a viable replacement to a CSVT owner, I think it needs at least a diet and a stick shift. Well, hope someone else is interested in this at least, it took me a bit of time to type it all up :crazy:
 
Yet another SHO thread... :rolleyes:


Let me summarize the responses you're going to get.

Hard core Ford 4-door guys love it no matter what.

The rest of us think it's too fat, too heavy, too big, and/or too expensive for what it's supposed to be.
 
Tex said:
Yet another SHO thread... :rolleyes:


Let me summarize the responses you're going to get.

Hard core Ford 4-door guys love it no matter what.

The rest of us think it's too fat, too heavy, too big, and/or too expensive for what it's supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Now...I'm not a huge Ford Fan...but I think it's too heavy, too big, and too expensive...but I still love it.
 
Have any of you guys that think its too big and heavy riden in one?????? Cause that WILL change your mind for sure:cool:
 
After actually looking through the numbers, you have many of the performance numbers for the SVT Contour wrong.
 
Tex said:
After actually looking through the numbers, you have many of the performance numbers for the SVT Contour wrong.
Click to expand...

mnewxcv said:
pulled directly from car and driver. care to tell me which ones?
Click to expand...

yeah, i was just thinking the same thing OP. looks about right to me. the only figure thats debatable is the 0-60 number which have come out different depending on the testing company. i.e car n driver, sport compact etc:shrug:. i think tex is just exaggerating if u ask me.
 
shongut submersibles

shongut submersibles

How do they even compare?

My 2008 Taurtus X is basically the 2010 Taurus with a huge rear end. The belt line is about 6" higher on the Taurtus, the top of the mirrors about 8". The H-point...


Oh yeah, the MTX-75 vs. 6F?


Again, how do they even compare? :crazy:
 
BAD SVT said:
yeah, i was just thinking the same thing OP. looks about right to me. the only figure thats debatable is the 0-60 number which have come out different depending on the testing company. i.e car n driver, sport compact etc:shrug:. i think tex is just exaggerating if u ask me.
Click to expand...

He does have almost everything wrong.....it seems mixed between a 98 vs 99-00 model...

1998
195 hp
TQ = 165
0-60 was 7.8 seconds
1/4 was 15.8

1999-2000
200 hp
TQ = 169
0-60 = 7.6
1/4 = 15.6 @89.4 mph

Now some other road testers hit 15.2's tooooo 15.8 from what i read. But these were widely used when svt made comparisons. :shrug:
 
Harrry said:
He does have almost everything wrong.....it seems mixed between a 98 vs 99-00 model...

1998
195 hp
TQ = 165
0-60 was 7.8 seconds
1/4 was 15.8

1999-2000
200 hp
TQ = 169
0-60 = 7.6
1/4 = 15.6 @89.4 mph

Now some other road testers hit 15.2's tooooo 15.8 from what i read. But these were widely used when svt made comparisons. :shrug:
Click to expand...

like I said, the numbers were pulled right from the physical magazine. If it makes a difference, motor trend got these for the 1998 contour svt:

195hp
165TQ
0-60: 7.5
1/4 mi: 15.7/88.7
 
Tex said:
0-60, top speed, roadholding, and mileage, unless those changed for later years.
Click to expand...

I know its the lowest recorded 0-60, but thats what it says. Maybe they had a great driver or an error. Roadholding came from motortrend since car and driver didnt have one due to snow(cold weather testing, might have helped with that 0-60, not traction wise but power). mileage, again, straight out of car and driver. Motor trend lists the same ones, maybe thats what ford told them? For top speed, car and driver: "Ford claims a top speed of 143 mph; 140 was the best we could do."
 
mnewxcv said:
I know its the lowest recorded 0-60, but thats what it says. Maybe they had a great driver or an error. Roadholding came from motortrend since car and driver didnt have one due to snow(cold weather testing, might have helped with that 0-60, not traction wise but power). mileage, again, straight out of car and driver. Motor trend lists the same ones, maybe thats what ford told them? For top speed, car and driver: "Ford claims a top speed of 143 mph; 140 was the best we could do."
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, 200 HP FWD sports sedans with only 165 ft-lbs of torque and good tires (Contour SVT) typically do not experience traction issues in a straight line.

You know, magazines aren't gospel. Mine never had any trouble hitting that magic number. Maybe it was a windy day when they tested. Ford also said that it took 7.9 seconds to get to 60 "with four people and a full tank of gas," which is why magazines consistently got 6.9-7.5 second runs.

Roadholding was 0.92g's stock from what I understand. Mileage was 20/29. We won't even go into the 1/4 mile.
 
Last edited:
Thank you mnewxcv for the post! I think that it is interesting to see the specs along side one instead of hunting through a list and then going back and forth to find the same spec for the other vehicle.:laugh:

It makes perfect sense to get your sources from the same magazine. In this way you hopefully get the same kind of test that was done before, with a little luck even the same driver (chances might be slim given the 14 year difference, but still more likely than two completely different reviews)

To everyone else, I think it was pretty clear at the beginning of the post where it says something to the effect of: I just wanted to talk about the SHO, but comparing it would be cool too.

Some of the spec might be off, but who cares? now that the contour has been out for so long we have better data to pick and choose from, but since the new SHO has not been released yet (or has it? IDK) we will not know how well it performs "every day".

And there are some small thinks that we are being picky about (like the manual transmission vs the auto-manual-steptronic-crap, but if i recall, the SHO is only available with that, so it does compare) and I think that the fact that the magazine tested the 1998 and not 99+ was already made clear (in terms of the specs).

While we are pointing out "why they do not compare" why did no one say anything about the 14 year difference? (I'm pretty sure that is going to count for something).

Back to the SHO, I think it looks good, but will agree with those that say it is too big. (and maybe to heavy if no one points out that i have not driven one:laugh:). The thing that gets me is that it is relativley easy to get a lot of HP out of a big engine, That is why i think that my 2.5 is cool. (yeah, Ill have to agree that it is pretty sweet, 365Hp out of a 3.5, but the EVO IX (according to wiki is rated at 286hp), so Mitsu: 143Hp/L Ford: 104 Hp/L (but I'm partial, I really want an evo too :crazy:
 
The thing to remember here is the car is a Taurus and was built to be a larger, well built car (in it's base trim, it's not meant to be the leanest and most limber). Yes there is the SHO package which makes it a Taurus that will be fun to drive and will perform, despite its size. I think it's a great car and personally I really like it. It is a little bigger than I want at this point in my life, but I were a little older and needed more room then I would buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top