Motor Week Review of the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO
9/21/09, 10:47 PM
#1
Cobra Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/22/09, 12:28 AM
#4
The problem is it isn't your grandmothers Taurus anymore. It has the name, but the car is just in a whole other price point now. It's a full size luxury car now. I've seen the SHO in person in Tuxedo Black and it is gorgeous. I sat in it and it's like no Taurus I've ever seen.
9/22/09, 02:09 AM
#6
9/22/09, 02:56 PM
#10
Spam Connoisseur
I got هَبوبed
I got هَبوبed
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Sun City AZ
Posts: 9,703
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
a few grand more for something that will have resale.
The sho I priced out was going to be almost 50k
The sho I priced out was going to be almost 50k
Last edited by Flagstang; 9/22/09 at 02:57 PM.
9/22/09, 03:17 PM
#11
GT Member
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Taurus is HUGE. Sure, if you don't want/need a FULL size car, you could pick up a G37 or something for a little less (with fewer features, btw).
However, look at what a FULL size, AWD, ~365hp, luxury sedan costs... it's a lot more than a comparably-equipped SHO.
The SHO is a good deal if it matches what you want. Obviously, if you only want/need 2 seats, a Corvette/GT500 is going to offer better bang-for-the-buck, but that's not apples-to-apples.
9/23/09, 09:41 AM
#13
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very nice, capable and competent car, but just doesn't have the panache or spirit of the original version. I'll wait for a Fusion SHO with the same drivetrain but a whole lot less weight and bulk and a whole lot more spunk.
9/23/09, 10:45 AM
#15
But that begs the question, if you didn't need the interior room a full size car brings to the table why even bother looking at the SHO in the first place? If I'm looking for a sport sedan and the relatively small interior of the M3 will do the trick nothing the size of the SHO is going to even be on my radar.
9/23/09, 12:44 PM
#17
Needs to be more Astony
9/23/09, 01:02 PM
#18
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Producing an upscale car under a downscale, well, midscale, moniker has often been a problem for manufacturers selling to often myopic customers. Subaru had that problem with the SVX as did VW with the excellent Pheaton (an $80K VW?!?!, even if it was pretty much the equal of an $80K Audi). Honda, Toyota and Nissan created whole new badges to dodge that shallow perception issue.
So is the new Taurus SHO a viable $40K car? Objectively, yes, its a very good car, but trying to get hidebound American consumers to accept that may be a touch difficult, at least initially.
As whether to fork out another $10-15K for and M3 sedan, well, if I had that kind of scratch and weren't 6'10" with 5 kids (actually 5'9" with no spawn), in a heartbeat. Americans, too, tend to buy there cars by the pound and foot and thus, get all befuddled paying more for a physically smaller ride. While an M3 might not impress the truck scale or tape measure like a Taurus, dynamically, it is in a whole other realm and I think its tidier dimensions represent a significant asset for a performance car.
Now, were Ford to package the TT3.5 into the tidier Fusion box, tweak it up to 400hp and tune the chassis a bit more tautly, well, they very well might have a viable M3 or (R)S4 competitor at a working-man's price.
So is the new Taurus SHO a viable $40K car? Objectively, yes, its a very good car, but trying to get hidebound American consumers to accept that may be a touch difficult, at least initially.
As whether to fork out another $10-15K for and M3 sedan, well, if I had that kind of scratch and weren't 6'10" with 5 kids (actually 5'9" with no spawn), in a heartbeat. Americans, too, tend to buy there cars by the pound and foot and thus, get all befuddled paying more for a physically smaller ride. While an M3 might not impress the truck scale or tape measure like a Taurus, dynamically, it is in a whole other realm and I think its tidier dimensions represent a significant asset for a performance car.
Now, were Ford to package the TT3.5 into the tidier Fusion box, tweak it up to 400hp and tune the chassis a bit more tautly, well, they very well might have a viable M3 or (R)S4 competitor at a working-man's price.
9/23/09, 02:34 PM
#19
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Wake County, NC
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might be onto something there. I own a 2004 Taurus SEL which, according to KBB and Carmax, is worth next to nothing even though it's in great shape with 50k miles.
9/23/09, 05:48 PM
#20
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sat in new SHO few days ago and it was pretty small for a full-size.
Somehow I felt more comfortable at the driver's seat of my Fusion than Taurus.
Somehow I felt more comfortable at the driver's seat of my Fusion than Taurus.