I replaced my '92 SHO with a '98 SVT Contour, so I have a lot of experience with both cars. As such, I have these observations:
1. The Contour is everything the SHO should have been but wasn't because of imperfect execution. The clutch action in the SHO is ridiculously stiff (Mazda by way of a truck, I believe). The SVT clutch is smooth and robust. The SHO's chassis isn't even close to the SVT-tuned suspension set-up. The SHO feels like what it is, a Taurus with a big motor. SHO steering is clunky, and the 400 pound weight difference between the two cars is very noticeable. The SVT can literally rungs rings around the SHO. It feels like a true sports sedan, albeit hampered by its front wheel drive setup.
2. Reliability is a weak point for both cars, but the SHO is worse than the SVT, statistically. That stupid clutch in the SHO requires replacement, and other things like the oil pressure sending unit and the coolant reservoir will fail. Brake rotors regularly warp, and the valves require frequent adjustment. The SVT's brakes are better and last longer. Of course the SVT Contour has its own problems like the front wheel bearings, radio antenna retraction, a trunk that will leak, a weak water pump, and an almost guaranteed failure of the catalytic converter. Little things break with depressing regularity on both cars.
3. Interior space in the SHO is obviously better, but the SVT isn't too shabby. The back seat is more cramped in the Contour, but the trunk is roomy, the front seats are equally comfortable and the driver's view is better in the SVT. The JBL audio system in the SHO is pretty good, but I have to say that the Contour's isn't all that awful. I know people will disagree with me here, but I kept the stock Contour system and only added a powered subwoofer (and a head unit five years later when the original failed). I think it's fine for my needs.
4. The SHO is a crude car in comparison to the SVT Contour. It has a wonderful motor, though. The first iterations of the SVT Contour did have the same engine, although SVT thought it was too expensive and opted for the 2.5L instead with polished intakes. The SHO's cowl noticeably shakes during hard acceleration, the tires howl mightly in hard turns, and the car feels heavy. The Contour is a better platform for performance, and it is reasonable quick. The stock SHO (according to Car and Driver) posted 6.4 seconds 0-60, and 15.1 secs in the 1/4 mile. The first generation SVT was 7.1 (because of the need to shift from 2nd to 3rd) and 15.4, respectively. No question the SHO is faster, but the SVT is much more refined.
5. Depreciation and resale value are terrible on these cars. That is good news for anyone buying one. Insurance rates are also low and carjackers/thieves tend to ignore the car.
Even though I drove the SHO for many years, I was so much happier with the SVT. Both are cult cars. Both can be driven hard and respond with delight. But the SHO is a 15 year old design, while the Contour is now 10. Those five years in automotive technology and execution are huge, just like the difference between a Contour and what is offered today
Lee K
92 SHO (ex)
98 SVT Contour, silver
03 Evo, red
