1989 Taurus SHO - Car and Driver

[Bob]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/198 ... est-review

Great read! I love the intake on that engine. It looks like it really means business.

[kevm14]

Yes that intake is awesome.

The performance stats are weird. 0-60 in 6.7 and 15.1 1/4 mile are no faster than the Maxima. And what's with the curb weight? This says 3,348 but I thought the first gen ones were actually right down at 3,000 (hence making it faster than the Maxima). But given the weight, the performance is perfectly in line...hmm. Though it does trap 95 mph, so I guess launching just sucks.

But even so, this car hails from a time when Detroit could put out these sleepers and they were the fastest thing around. Look at the 80s GN. Or early 90s Sy-Ty.

Wow, platinum spark plugs.

Yet another way to do overhead cam. The intake cam is belt driven from the crank, but the intake and exhaust cams are linked by chain at the back of each head.

[kevm14]

Comments:

I had a '93 Taurus for years that I loved until it succumbed to it's 3rd transmission failure. I gave up after that.

He should have gotten the Essex 3.8L, that way the engine and transmission can fail together, romantically (like a suicide pact).

What's funny is how many of these engines have been swapped into Rangers & Tempo's of all things. Considering the price now one could mix and match with a wagon shell and the 3.0 or later 3.2.Giggling all day thinking of Shopaz & Shempo....

Rangers? Go on...

Well let's see...The "shogun" engine was basically similar to the Vulcan and the Ranger accepts a Vulcan (it was an option).

[kevm14]

2nd gen but this is classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uukjz0Gyv8s

There is a Brad Pitt scene that I need to find.

Also, Conan checks out a 2010 SHO. I haven't seen this. http://vimeo.com/9052292

60 Minutes segment with the car: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/03/vide ... #continued

[kevm14]

I agree with this.

This article is very different from current Car and Driver reviews.

Here they went into technical details that make a very large difference to the enthusiast. Because memorizing stats is one thing. Understanding why a car behaves like it does is completely different.

Modern Car and Driver reviews don't so much as even gloss over most technical details. Sure they have the odd article here and there. But that's it. Its a shame. I want depth like this with every review I read.

You're absolutely right. The articles were longer and more in-depth. I was a faithful C&D reader for decades. I'm a Gen X'er and I have to say my generation hasn't done as good of a job as the boomer guys like Csere and Phillips did during their watch. Great memories of the mag from the 80s and 90s.

[kevm14]

On quality:

LOL at your post "rolling junk pile"! Truer words were never spoken! It's a pity the quality control on that car was so God-awful, bc it had lots of nice features for back in the day (I just wished they all worked lol)! The JBL stereo was very clean and crisp. But the build quality was deplorable. I remember I had to screw in the door hinge thing just so my door would shut properly It was so terrible. I traded it on a 97 Nissan Maxima SE (5 spd!!) in 99 and the quality difference was absolutely astounding! It was like switching to a Lexus LS!

[Adam]

Don't forget about this SHO application
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiTgody2XdA

[kevm14]

I remember the SHOGUN.

[Adam]

Here is it driving around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B77ufAzVRWw

Sounds like an SHO.