Last post on Oct 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Automotive News
#42 of 61 Re: Ford SHO [emmanuelchoke]
Jan 30, 2007 (11:26 am)
That's overstating it some, but it was 1988. Nissan didn't put a DOHC mill in the Maxima until 1992, and no one else had an FWD sedan that could outrun its grandma back then.
Jan 31, 2007 (7:29 am)
For the time it was phenomenal and Mr.Csere was probably guilty of hyperbole.
But the worm does turn and by the last V8 incarnation journalists couldn't scrape it off their shoe fast enough. By then SHO was a 'Shouldn't Have Oughta'.
Yesterday evening while driving to work, I saw a late 80's CRX (excuse me, Honda Civic CRX ) with what looked like 20 inch, honeycomb style rims. Horribly, horribly ugly, but it reminded me that I once owned a CRX, a 1984, the first year it came out. With 1.3 liters of Honda muscle it passed no one but the gas station. It was a true 50 mpg car.
#44 of 61 Re: Yes indeed.. [emmanuelchoke]
Jan 31, 2007 (8:28 am)
buddy of mine in college had a 84 base civic ( the 1.3 with 4 sp). The fastest the car can go with 5 guys on board is about 60. But the darn thing starts every morning, whether it's 100 or -20 outside and it also got somewhere in the high 40's mpg. And like hondas of that era, the engine is bulletproof.
I wish I have a car like that today.
#45 of 61 If anyone needed proof I'm square...
Jan 31, 2007 (11:29 am)
the fact I wish I still had my 1993 Volvo 240 would convince them. To this day when I see a 240 I pine over my old car. It was boxy, but it was good. Functional simplicity.
#46 of 61 Re: If anyone needed proof I'm square... [displacedtexan]
Jan 31, 2007 (1:09 pm)
Funny, I think that's how my wife describes me...
#47 of 61 Re: Ford SHO [british_rover]
Feb 01, 2007 (9:24 am)
When I bought my 94 SHO, I test drove both the Manual and Automatic.
I went in wanting the Manual.
I test drove the stick and was very surprised by the apparent lack of torque.
Comparing it to my 1989 Chevy Z24, I feel that the Z had more off the line and 0-60 power, although I have never compared the specs.
I walked back into the dealer and explained my surprising disappointment and he then asked me to drive the Auto.
It had power I had never felt in a car before and I was very surprised.
It was bought on the spot.
Years later, I was told by a neighbor that this particular SHO had some sort of rare, optional Auto Transmission... the same as in his.
I have no idea what it was, have not been able to find any info on it since, but that SHO ate all other SHOs on the road.
And for that reason, I wish I never got rid of it.
It started to get expensive to repair, and it absolutely stunk in the rain and snow.
#48 of 61 Rare, optional auto transmission
Feb 01, 2007 (10:54 pm)
Rare, in that it actually worked? Sorry, but if I didn't say it....
#49 of 61 What a trip down memory lane...
Feb 02, 2007 (10:30 am)
Reading these posts has been a treat, as I can relate to so many of the vehicles. Of all the ones that got away from me, I'd say that the three Mach 1 Mustangs are missed the most. Two '69's (351/390) and a '71 (351C), all 4-speeds. The 1988 CRX that I bought new was amazing- it seemed so far ahead of its time and turned heads for months. A 1980 Plymouth Champ with the "Twin-Stick" transmission (remember those?), and an '89 Taurus SHO 5-speed that ran to its 7500 RPM redline with eager abandon, even with 130,000 miles on the clock. Lastly, a '90 Dodge Shadow we ordered for my wife, a four-door with the 2.5 Turbo motor, 5-speed stick, and 4-wheel discs on top of the luxury packages. So "weird" (especially the manual tranny) that the dealer wouldn't order it without a serious chunk o' cash down. I later contacted the Chrysler historical archive folks about its rarity and they said that there were only 70 non-ES pkg. four-doors made with that engine/tranny combo. (I guess that and 50 cents will get me a cup of coffee, eh?). No wonder the dealer was a little nervous!
#50 of 61 Re: Ford SHO [scottm123]
Feb 02, 2007 (10:38 am)
The automatic tranny version of the SHO had a 3.2 liter DOHC engine, while the manual version used a 3.0. Both of them had 220 hp, but the 3.2 had 215 ft-lb of torque, versus 200 for the 3.0.
15 extra lb-feet of peak torque might not sound like much, but I guess if it gave you more torque across the entire rpm band, instead of just at some peak, that could make a noticeable difference.
As for the automatic, I dunno how "special" it was, but I'd imagine that it was beefed up to handle the power of the SHO engine. Back in 1994, the regular Taurus V-6 only put out 140 hp, so I'd imagine the extra 80 hp would be a strain.
#51 of 61 '90 Dodge Shadow (mmcnamara)
Feb 02, 2007 (2:58 pm)
How did the Shadow compare to the SHO in terms of refinement? Specifically, how was the engine in terms of smoothness, and the shift linkage?