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 52 of 55
1
...
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#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.
#509 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [jipster] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
May 06, 2009 (12:59 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jipster (May 06, 2009 12:14 pm)

I drove a tank one time. I traded the driver for a spin in my 5 ton wrecker. It was great fun but there was no ammunition
#510 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [maryh3] by bolivar
May 06, 2009 (1:30 pm)
Reply

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

My 1991 SHO had very nasty torque steer if you did try to launch it fast. Or even jump on the throttle in 1st or 2nd. The car would instantly jump sideways and you better be ready to saw away at the steering wheel to get it back into your lane.
 
The car did have some maintenance items. It also had only a 12/12,000 factory warranty, probably just before manufactors went to the 36/36,000 warranty. So, I was happy I had purchased an extended warranty. But actually, even with a few 'issues', I think I only broke even on what the repairs cost verse the cost of the warranty. But, it still had over a year left on the warranty, and I strongly suggested to the guy I sold it to that he should pay the $50 transfer fee so he could have about 18,000 mile and 18 months of warranty on the car.
 
Overall, the car was very nice. The interior looked great. Ours was black, and looked nice outside until the paint started to evaporate off. It was very quiet and stable at speed. I actually compared it to a Lexus - until you slamed a door - then it sounded like a Ford. But driving the car - it was great.
 
Problems - various things failed, I actually don't remember what at this time - AC clutch failed and leaked, motor mount loose, etc.
The biggest problem was the clutch, an even bigger problem on the 1989 models. It just required more and more effort to push as the car aged. We drove it from the midwest to NJ area one summer, hitting some extended traffic slowdowns on the trip, and the clutch was terrible, inching along in trafffic with constant upshifts/downshift with high effort for miles and miles of construction zones, heavy traffic, etc. This trip made me decide the car had to go.
 
And, this motor had no torque at all. To get any speed, you had to really get it into the higher rpms, or it was dead. At 3,500rpm the valves on the secondary set of intake runners opened, and the engine came to life. But cruising on a two lane, even with a long passing opening, you better drop down from 5th to 4th, or you would take forever to pass at 65mph. Several times at more moderate speeds, like 45 or 50, I got the car into a place where it was almost dangerous because it had no acceleration available in the gear I had it in - you had to downshift, at times more than one gear, and go to full throttle to get it to move. And then the torque steer jumped up. You just can't beat big iron, high torque motors for these situations. And, this is why I don't really like to drive a manual, you have to be thinking about what you need to be doing with the gears and throttle all the time - with an automatic you just mash to throttle and let the auto tranny decide how far down it can downshift.
 
It was fast. I can attest to 135mph and this was not topped out.
 
A car that was nice to own, but I was happy to sell.
#511 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [Mr_Shiftright] by jipster
May 06, 2009 (2:06 pm)
Reply

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 06, 2009 12:59 pm)

It was great fun but there was no ammunition
 
Well, of course. Without any ammunition, the marketabillity of the things go waaaaaayyyy down.
#512 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [jipster] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
May 06, 2009 (2:18 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jipster (May 06, 2009 2:06 pm)

Tell me about it. 3 gallons to the mile, too. You can knock down trees real easy though, so that was some consolation. I have been around them when they fire, and they are freakin' LOUD. War movie soundtracks don't do it justice.
 
I would certainly run a CARFAX on any used tank. You just don't know where they've been.
#513 of 536
Re: 1995 Taurus SHO Body Damaged [Mr_Shiftright] by fezo
May 06, 2009 (2:22 pm)
Reply

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 06, 2009 2:18 pm)

I remember being in a tank when I was kid. This would have been very late 50s or early 60s. The one thing I could say for it was that it was certainly claustrophobic. Are they still that cramped? I would guess so.

Messages Page 52 of 55
1
...
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
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