Sign In Join 



To Fix Up or Trade Up, That is the Question

536 messages,  Last post on Jul 24, 2009 at 9:12 AM

You are in the Maintenance & Repair Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Car Safety, Tires, Wheels, Auto Body, Brakes, Engine, Interior, Paint, Transmission, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Buying Insurance, Coupe, Convertible, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV, Van


Messages Page 51 of 54
1
...
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#499 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [Mr_Shiftright] by srs_49
May 06, 2009 (3:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 05, 2009 10:50 am)

Well a '95 SHO is no faster than most cars these days. It's not like a real zoom-zoom car, like a Mustang or EVO or some such. It's probably 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. That's about 2.5 seconds faster than a Prius, and it's an automatic besides. It's bizarre to say a 7.5 second car is dangerous but a 9.5 second car is "safe"
 
Geech, Shifty - 7.5 sec to 60 is slow??? That's as fast as my '69 Z-28 ran. Of course that is not what it was set up for, as the engine really didn't start to run until 4,000 rpm, so 0-60 and quarter miles times were not a quick as a lot of the other big-block muscle cars.
 
But, there is a big difference, IMO, especially for an inexperienced driver, between a 7.5 sec 0-60 car and a 10 sec one. That's not to say that one is dangerous and the other is not, but it's a lot easier to get into trouble by "punching" the throttle at the wrong time (into a curve, in the rain, etc) with the former than with the latter.
#500 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [srs_49] by jipster
May 06, 2009 (5:08 am)
Reply

Replying to: srs_49 (May 06, 2009 3:51 am)

But, there is a big difference, IMO, especially for an inexperienced driver, between a 7.5 sec 0-60 car and a 10 sec one. That's not to say that one is dangerous and the other is not, but it's a lot easier to get into trouble by "punching" the throttle at the wrong time (into a curve, in the rain, etc) with the former than with the latter.
 
Exactly. But, the SHO is quite a bit faster than shifty indicated. The first generation ran 0-60mph in 6.6 seconds (quite a bit faster than a Honda Accord). And while not a sports car, it is a high performance car. To a teenage or younger driver it is all about perception. He is given a "fast" car, therefore there is implicate permission to go fast... and I doubt the handling characteristics of the car equals that of it's acceleration/speed.
#501 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [jipster] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
May 06, 2009 (8:04 am)
Reply

Replying to: jipster (May 06, 2009 5:08 am)

You're thinking of the first ones...by 1995 the SHO was porkier and pokier, I believe, for whatever reason.
 
I actually had my Scion xA TIMED at 0-60 in 8.5 seconds---that's with a 1.5L engine and me getting off a really good launch and a clutch dump...nonetheless, to gain 1 second on an SHO for all the complexity of it seems like no big deal in this day and age.
 
For a teenager, driving a slow car is way more of an education than driving a fast car. I'd buy him/her the slowest car I could possibly find, as long as it had air bags.
 
Yeah. 7.5 is not a fast car anymore. There are mini vans out there that would mop up many a 60s muscle car.
 
Even 6.6 isn't very fast. Many new pocket rockets can do that. There are cars in dealers' showrooms right now that are in the 4s & 5s---quite a few of them. A 15 year old Mazda RX TT is faster than 6.6.
 
#502 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [Mr_Shiftright] by srs_49
May 06, 2009 (9:00 am)
Reply

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 06, 2009 8:04 am)

For a teenager, driving a slow car is way more of an education than driving a fast car. I'd buy him/her the slowest car I could possibly find, as long as it had air bags
 
Yep. Maybe one of the early 70's Scamps with the slant 6. Or a 78 Ford Fairmont with the straight 6. No danger of any speed related issues there . Of course, they don't have the airbags
#503 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [srs_49] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
May 06, 2009 (9:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: srs_49 (May 06, 2009 9:00 am)

Gotta have air bags. Teenagers are very accident prone and one should pretty much count on a mishap of some sort.
#504 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [srs_49] by maryh3
May 06, 2009 (10:26 am)
Reply

Replying to: srs_49 (May 06, 2009 9:00 am)

You might want to read this article:
 
http://carfamily.wordpress.com/category/hummer/
 
What did GM say years ago? Something to the effect of "If safety was all that mattered we'd build a tank that floats, wouldn't go over 25 mph and forced everyone to be strapped down when in motion --- but it would never sell. It's not what people want."
 
I tend to think completely opposite of what some are saying concerning "perception". Reality is the goal. A teen driving a V-6 Honda with its yawn image probably has no idea his car is powerful so he might have no idea how fast he is going. He might feel the need to prove his car has muscle via the accelerator. The SHO OTOH has the perception of being nastier and faster than it really is by today's standards so his ego is satisfied and he thinks he is going faster than he really is and has nothing to prove. "Slow" cars tend to have smaller engines so they weigh less -- not good in a multiple vehicle accident. Little cars lack metal and weight which can act to protect in accidents. Talk to your insurance man and he will have tons of stories about some family who gives their kid an Escalade only to have them total it the next week. Many teens roll SUV's. Most of the fatalities I've heard of involving teens happened when they were driving some type of SUV. And unless mom and dad are made of money gas mileage needs to be considered.
 
My sons have driven the SHO for a few years and who is the one who wrecks it? Mom, the experienced driver, of course.
 
Won't be buying the new SHO though -- this one really IS a beast:
 
http://njection.com/blogs/jalopnik/archive/2009/02/11/2010-ford-taurus-sho-live-- - and-with-a-ridiculous-torque-curve-ford-taurus-sho.aspx
 
Makes my SHO look like a pansy:
 
http://www.shotimes.com/php-bin/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&mo- de=thread&order=0&thold=0&sid=22
#505 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [maryh3] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
May 06, 2009 (10:44 am)
Reply

Replying to: maryh3 (May 06, 2009 10:26 am)

Statistics for teenager injuries and death in cars are very very grim. Fact is, no car is "safe". Some are just less dangerous than others, and it's hard to even count on that, even all the complex dynamics of car accidents.
 
Oddly enough the best car statistically for a teenager is one without a back seat! That's not off-color---what it means is that he/she can only carry one passenger---less distraction, trouble, etc.
#506 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [Mr_Shiftright] by maryh3
May 06, 2009 (10:56 am)
Reply

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 06, 2009 10:44 am)

Now that really IS informative. We can put lots of emphasis on air bags, weight, handling, body type etc -- but the biggest factor turns out to be driver distraction. And this something we parents do have SOME control over. Interesting.
#507 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [maryh3] by lokki
May 06, 2009 (11:47 am)
Reply

Replying to: maryh3 (May 06, 2009 10:56 am)

My theory on the best teen car is a pretty decent looking 69 Camaro with a rod sticking through the block. He owns it; it's "HIS" car, but it just doesn't run right now. Can't stick any old engine in such a nice car, so he needs to get a job to buy a nice small block to put in there. In the meantime, he can drive the minivan until he saves the money. However he can tell all his friends that he owns a nice camaro.
 
By the time he's saved the money, and actually gotten the thing to run, he'll be 22
 
I rest my case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
#508 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [maryh3] by jipster
May 06, 2009 (12:14 pm)
Reply

Replying to: maryh3 (May 06, 2009 10:26 am)

If safety was all that mattered we'd build a tank that floats, wouldn't go over 25 mph and forced everyone to be strapped down when in motion --- but it would never sell. It's not what people want."
 
Hell, I'd love to drive a tank. If they can build a 48 ton Sherman series tank for under 20 grand, and get 26 mpg hwy on it... sign me up! Wouldn't matter if it only got 25mph... the shortest distance between 2 points thing.

Messages Page 51 of 54
1
...
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement