3.4l Ftw
- Thread starter Slushi
- Start date
to tell you the truth that was sorda slow.
In response to your above smugness towards the other SHO owners :
1. You had NO gas in your car. Nothing like starving the fuel pump under acceleration....
2. You may have a V-8 but 8 out of 10 people will tell you the earlier SHO's look much better than the newer SHO's...
3. Horsepower difference with you greater displacement and 2 extra cylinders? Like 35? Not to much to brag about considering your car is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier
Otherwise, decent sounding SHO....
1. You had NO gas in your car. Nothing like starving the fuel pump under acceleration....
2. You may have a V-8 but 8 out of 10 people will tell you the earlier SHO's look much better than the newer SHO's...
3. Horsepower difference with you greater displacement and 2 extra cylinders? Like 35? Not to much to brag about considering your car is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier
Otherwise, decent sounding SHO....
Couldnt have said it better. The only thing good about the late model SHO is their exhuast sound, otherwise nottasaleen09 said:In response to your above smugness towards the other SHO owners :
1. You had NO gas in your car. Nothing like starving the fuel pump under acceleration....
2. You may have a V-8 but 8 out of 10 people will tell you the earlier SHO's look much better than the newer SHO's...
3. Horsepower difference with you greater displacement and 2 extra cylinders? Like 35? Not to much to brag about considering your car is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier
Otherwise, decent sounding SHO....
Yeah, the only fast G3 I've seen belongs to Carter Fujibayashi.
i'm only bragging about the sound of my car, i was at half throttle and my car i know for a fact is slower than the 3.0's - i'm not denying it, but a V6 SHO will never sound like a V8 so while i'm heavier and slower than the MTX SHO I will sound better
BTW i am looking for a V6 MTX as a DD so it's not like i think the older, TRUE yamaha's are crap, i was posting this as more or less of a joke.....
9 out of 10 people will tell you that ANY taurus looks retarded, regardless of the year - but that doesn't make it true.
i like the looks of Gen I's and II's, i dont think III's are better but I don't prefer any generation over any other - I simply believe the Taurus in general is better looking than the Lumina, Impala, Intrepid, Stratus, Camry, Avalon, Accord, and Altima (new ones and the Maxima's are pretty good looking though....)
BTW i am looking for a V6 MTX as a DD so it's not like i think the older, TRUE yamaha's are crap, i was posting this as more or less of a joke.....
9 out of 10 people will tell you that ANY taurus looks retarded, regardless of the year - but that doesn't make it true.
i like the looks of Gen I's and II's, i dont think III's are better but I don't prefer any generation over any other - I simply believe the Taurus in general is better looking than the Lumina, Impala, Intrepid, Stratus, Camry, Avalon, Accord, and Altima (new ones and the Maxima's are pretty good looking though....)
Last edited:
First of All, The V8 SHO only has 15 More horsepower then the V8's.
And to whoever said that they were much more Heavy, You are wrong.
A Generation 3 SHO is a Great Comparison to a Generation II Automatic SHO. I myself would rather have a Gen 3 over a Gen 2 ATX. However I would take a MTX over both of them.
-Sam
And to whoever said that they were much more Heavy, You are wrong.
A Generation 3 SHO is a Great Comparison to a Generation II Automatic SHO. I myself would rather have a Gen 3 over a Gen 2 ATX. However I would take a MTX over both of them.
-Sam
v8 is 57 pounds lighter :thumbsup:
as much as i like the SHO V6 series, I don't think the duratec series is a bad line of engines, and if the AX4N wasn't such a piece of junk the V8 may have made more power. V6 guys should understand this with all the issues the V6 has on the AXOD.
But to be honest I really don't think a taurus is worthy of the V6 SHO, it should have gone into the Thunderbird or Cougar or something more performance oriented where it could really be appreciated by a larger group of people. It's not the Taurus itself is lame or stupid, but look at the approach of all the other companies when making a performance sedan, ford was the only one that used a totally custom and original engine. Dodge and Chevy both used F/I vehicles, i think a 2.2L Turbo or 2.3L turbo or heck even a 3.8L Supercharged would have been a better choice, and then put that SHO in the GT-40 (twin turbo'd of course!)
as much as i like the SHO V6 series, I don't think the duratec series is a bad line of engines, and if the AX4N wasn't such a piece of junk the V8 may have made more power. V6 guys should understand this with all the issues the V6 has on the AXOD.
But to be honest I really don't think a taurus is worthy of the V6 SHO, it should have gone into the Thunderbird or Cougar or something more performance oriented where it could really be appreciated by a larger group of people. It's not the Taurus itself is lame or stupid, but look at the approach of all the other companies when making a performance sedan, ford was the only one that used a totally custom and original engine. Dodge and Chevy both used F/I vehicles, i think a 2.2L Turbo or 2.3L turbo or heck even a 3.8L Supercharged would have been a better choice, and then put that SHO in the GT-40 (twin turbo'd of course!)
Last edited:
Slushi said:
Your bashing the SHOs heritage bro,
The SHO was the first performance sedan made, made over 15 years ago and it can still hang with many of the performance cars/sedans today.
the cool thing about it is that no one knows what it is esp. when you blow them out of the water. lot of people think its a taurus that has a body package, but its alot more
Meh, sounds OK. Better at full throttle tho.
My old '97
Intake sound...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=664373718
Exhaust sound...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=664432730
And gettin' rowdy...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=683211214
It was a fat automatic but it still clicked off 14.8 at 1200ft alt. I think it was one of the best looking of most SHO's Iv'e seen. Of course, I'm a bit bias;-)
My old '97
Intake sound...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=664373718
Exhaust sound...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=664432730
And gettin' rowdy
...http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=683211214
It was a fat automatic but it still clicked off 14.8 at 1200ft alt. I think it was one of the best looking of most SHO's Iv'e seen. Of course, I'm a bit bias;-)
i'm not bashing anything, i said that they could have gotten the same effect with a much simpler engine, and reserved the SHO engine for a vehicle actually worthy of it. A supercharged SHO engine in a Super Coupe would have been awesome, or an SHO edition Probe or something along those lines.
i know what a SHO is, I own one. the SHO has very minimal body differences compared to a taurus, which is why it's amazing because nobody knows it's an SHO they just think it's a regular taurus. I'd much rather have my engine in a Cougar or Thunderbird though - or something where it can be used to full potential (preferably RWD and manual), and leave the 3.0 vulcan in my taurus as a daily driver.
Last edited:
saleen09 said:In response to your above smugness towards the other SHO owners :
1. You had NO gas in your car. Nothing like starving the fuel pump under acceleration....
2. You may have a V-8 but 8 out of 10 people will tell you the earlier SHO's look much better than the newer SHO's...
3. Horsepower difference with you greater displacement and 2 extra cylinders? Like 35? Not to much to brag about considering your car is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier
Otherwise, decent sounding SHO....
The difference in the torque made a large difference in acceleration, regardless of the slight increase in horsepower.
I personally prefer the the last generation SHO body style, and so did Ford in NASCAR. I don't think the first generation Taurus body style was ever used.
As far as not much to brag about. Check with any shop that works on the SHO and they'll tell you that the brakes, body structure, and handling were also better.
Ford/NASCAR ran out of options for bodies to use as the TBird was killed in 97. Since Chevy was running the Monte Carlo / Lumina, Ford decided the Gen III Taurus would give them an advatage in aerodynamics. I don't think it had anything to do with the SHO.wheelhopper said:
I hope any shop, or anyone that knows anything about the Taurus platform says the Gen III Taurus had better brakes, etc...since it was a new platform. If you take a step backwards that's just stupid.
RTStabler51 said:
My point was that Ford had the option of using the first generation Taurus body style for NASCAR, and did'nt. I never said it had anything to do with the SHO. Ford did use the last generation of body style for NASCAR, because it was a better design aerodynamically than the first. You answered this yourself.
My response to the better brakes, chassis, and suspension was due to the earlier post stating that other than a V8, the last generation SHO had nothing to brag about. It was'nt me that did not get the new technology/improvements.
I'm not sure whether your agreeing with me or disagreeing with me on this.
$hit, double post
Last edited:
motoman991
Banned
I have a genIII, it sounds good but I liked driving my 92 sho way more.
3.4L sounds mean w/ a set or magnaflows...but then again my mahc sounds better then my friends SHO IMO
I have a 98 and like them better than the boxy look plus the seating is more comfy
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
