Well, I replaced my 92 SHO with a 98 SVT Contour, so I have a bit of experience with both cars. The best way to sum it up: the Contour was much more refined that the SHO, which I found to be a very crude car.
Comparison of the two:
Engine: the SHO's Yamaha engine with 220 HP and 210 ft-lbs of torque is just a masterpiece of the automotive art. The SHO is faster, sounds meaner when spun up, and just plain gets up and goes! Lots of torque steer, though. Advantage: SHO.
Handling: the SHO feels like exactly what it is: a souped up family sedan. While the SVT Contour is technically the same, it started with a better platform. The SHO has tons of cowl shake, has a less stiff chassis, and has numb steering compared to the SVT. Of course, the SHO is several hundred pounds heavier, and you can feel it in the turns. Advantage: SVT Contour.
Interior: the SHO's interior is roomy, with more passenger space and better accoutrements. I did have a problem with headroom in the SHO though, as my head (I'm 6'3") always lightly brushed the headliner. If you get the JBL audio system, the sound is better than the stock SVT system, and the automatic climate control system is better. The seats in the SHO were more comfortable, at least to me. Lots of trunk space, too. I thought the layout of the Contour's instruments was better. Advantage: SHO, barely.
Braking: weight is the enemy here. The Contour's brakes are far better, and they last a long time. My Contour turned 100K and still had the original front pads. Advantage: SVT Contour.
Safety: the Taurus does better in crash tests than the Contour, and I had lower insurance rates, even with only one airbag. Advantage: SHO.
Transmission: the Mazda-developed transmission in the SHO belongs in an eighteen wheeler. What a piece of junk! The SHO is notorious for burning up clutches, the pedal feel is excessive, and the shifter is just plain embarrasing for a performance vehicle. By comparison, the SVT Contour's clutch is excellent, light in touch, smooth in operation, and lasts a long time. Advantage: SVT Contour.
Reliability: Neither are anything to write home about. The SHO eats up clutches, has problems with its crank position sensor, and leaks oil from the oil pressure sensing switch. The SVT's problems are even more numerous. Consumer Reports lists both cars as "used vehicles to avoid". Advantage: none. Get a Honda.
Summary. The SHO is a crude car compared to the SVT Contour. Of course, they represent nearly a decade's difference in automotive technology. The SHO is roomier, but at the expense of more weight, poorer handling and braking, and inferior steering and shifting. The SVT Contour outhandles the SHO, and it also outshines it in regards to driving refinement. The only glaring weakness is the SVT's engine, wich is not as good as the SHO's engine, which is really something. That's not to say that the Duratech is bad, as it's not. But it has been outclassed by lots of engines since then. The E1 SVT's officially published (Car & Driver) 0-60 time is 6.9 seconds (it needs to shift to third at 55 MPH) compared to the SHO's 6.4 seconds. Quarter mile times are 15.4 versus 15.1.
In the end, I found driving the SVT Contour to be more relaxing, more involving, and worlds better in regards to refinement than the SHO. It's a lot of words to say that, but I think you need to look at the SVT Contour in that light. It will not impress you with its straight line speed, but it will knock your socks off in the twisties.
Last edited by Lee K; 12/24/04 04:25 AM.
