Motor Week Review of the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.



