Ask the Car People.SM


2010 Ford Taurus

493 messages,  Last post on Oct 05, 2011 at 8:37 PM

You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Taurus, Automotive News, Future Vehicle, Sedan

Messages Page 5 of 50

#41 of 493 weight numbers for SHO by pod

May 06, 2009 (5:50 am)

I was able to find the numbers. A 2000 Merecury Sabkle (Ford Taurus) weighed 3325 and had 200 hp for a weigh to hp ratio of 16.6.
the SHO is advertised in this story as 4365 pounds and 365 hp for a weight/hp ratio of 11.9, so it should move better than the earlier generation of Tauruses. Still imagine if they had held the weight down to 3500 then the weight to hp ratio would be less than ten and the thing would move. All Wheel drive and the size increase and the heavier engine must be the difference.
As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO.
What I fear is that the enormous weight rise will water down the new engine so as to make the SHO just another large sized sedan compared to the top of the line V6 competition (Honda, Toyota, etc).
 
However you slice it the Ford is Porky compared to its peers and about 80 horses are tied up trying to move that extra weight. In the end it will perform like a 280 HP lighter competitor. That is a huge advance over the prior Taurus/Sable models but hardly a new champion in the sector. Why can't they shed some of these pounds?

#42 of 493 Re: weight numbers for SHO [pod] by akirby

May 06, 2009 (7:06 am)

Replying to: pod (May 06, 2009 5:50 am)
Go compare the torque curves of those engines and you'll find that the Taurus produces WAY more torque at low RPM (say 1500) than the Accord. The Accord's V6 is a peak HP engine designed to rev high. The Taurus eb 3.5L is a torque monster - putting out 350 lb/ft starting at 1500 rpm or so. And it's a bigger car than the Accord which is in between the Fusion and the Taurus.
 
Mfrs are always looking to reduce weight because it helps with fuel economy. They don't make them Porky on purpose. AWD, turbos, airbags, door reinforcments, moonroofs and gadgets all add weight.

#43 of 493 Re: weight numbers for SHO [pod] by brucelinc

May 06, 2009 (7:47 am)

Replying to: pod (May 06, 2009 5:50 am)
As an example the 2010 Honda Accord EX-V6 weighs 3109 (also a full sized sedan car) and has a HP rating of 271 for a ratio of 11.4. A little better than the SHO.
 
That weight you quote for the Honda sounds way low. I think the curb weight for a well equipped Accord V6 is closer to 3700 pounds. Where did you get the 3109 number?

#44 of 493 Re: weight numbers for SHO [brucelinc] by akirby

May 06, 2009 (8:12 am)

Replying to: brucelinc (May 06, 2009 7:47 am)
3600 for a loaded Accord according to KBB. Torque for the Accord is 254 compared to 350 for the Taurus. There will be a big difference.

#45 of 493 Re: weight numbers for SHO [pod] by thegraduate

May 06, 2009 (9:33 am)

Replying to: pod (May 06, 2009 5:50 am)
3230 / 3289 (LX) 3236 / 3298 (LX-P) 3349 / 3408 (EX) 3373 / 3433 (EX-L) NA / 3567 (EX-V-6) NA / 3600 (EX-L V-6)
 
Accord numbers (5MT/5AT) for 2009, straight from their website.

#46 of 493 weight and SHO by pod

May 06, 2009 (10:34 am)

I found the weight quotes just by goggling the 2010 model for weight and HP and agree that the 3109 sounds too low. The point stands however tht the SHO is going to be 600-700 pounds more than the Accord which is now rated as a full size sedan (no longer qualifies as mid-sized). I have read that AWD adds about 200 pounds.
 
The points about torque are well taken and I had not considered them. The SHO should have more mid-rpm zest for sure and that is a big plus.
 
I like the car and the idea and will certainly shop it when it is available. There is no question that it is a significant improvement over the Homer Simpson taurus (Mullaney's own words) that bored so many people in the past. I liked that version as a good value and wasn't bored at all so imagine my anticipation of the new model.
 
The taurus and sable have been great values for about 6 years and the mercury version has consistently finished at or near the top in initial customer satisfaction. After 130,000 miles in my 2000 Sable I am still impressed at how reliable and powerful it is after ten years and there have been no major surprises at all. (the spark coils and tie-rods were weak points in the 2000 version but were corrected later.
 
I firmly believe that the taurus and sable (if it survives) will continue to represent great value for people who intend to keep their cars for a long time. The rapid depreciation is unlikely to change for years even if the quality continues to shine.
 
Ford has done a very good job on these cars for the typical family car. Sports enthusiasts should look elsewhere----although maybe the SHO will change that. I wonder how much it will cost? If it goes over $30K (and it seems it will have to) then the market may shrink since there are true sporty cars starting to appear at that price.

#47 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [pod] by brucelinc

May 06, 2009 (12:08 pm)

Replying to: pod (May 06, 2009 10:34 am)
The 2010 SHO has a MSRP of around $38,000 to start, IIRC. The Ford Vehicles website has the prices, standard & optional equipment, colors, etc.

#48 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [brucelinc] by kernick

May 06, 2009 (12:47 pm)

Replying to: brucelinc (May 06, 2009 12:08 pm)
So the typical SHO will be over $40K? That's a lot of money for a Ford, that doesn't have a Shelby emblem.
 
That sort of price means there are very few people who will consider it seriously, no matter how nice it is.
 
If I were Ford, I would be concentrating more on vehicles like the Fiesta and an inexpensive small pickup/SUV.

#49 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [kernick] by brucelinc

May 06, 2009 (1:30 pm)

Replying to: kernick (May 06, 2009 12:47 pm)
I agree it sounds high but if you want a higher performance sedan with decent luxury equipment and lots of room, what else is there in that price range? Pontiac G8 will soon be dead. Chrysler 300C and Charger R/T have an iffy future. I don't know what foreign nameplate offers the same combination of size, luxury, and performance for less.
 
No doubt, the Taurus is moving up-market. Some people might go to a Ford showroom interested in the SHO but drive out in a Fusion Sport, instead. That would still be good for Ford. They haven't had anything interesting to draw much of a crowd for quite some time. Some good press and some interesting cars like the SHO could generate lots more showroom traffic.

#50 of 493 Re: weight and SHO [kernick] by akirby

May 06, 2009 (1:40 pm)

Replying to: kernick (May 06, 2009 12:47 pm)
So the typical SHO will be over $40K? That's a lot of money for a Ford,
 
It's also a lot more car than any previous Ford sedan - way more. Show me a full size sedan with the same features and power and I guarantee it will cost at least that much and probably way more. An Audi A6 Quattro starts at $62K (and it's smaller).
 
A fully optioned Accord or Camry goes for $32K (with a lot less power and without AWD). Perhaps you haven't looked at new car prices in a while?

Messages Page 5 of 50

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement