Last post on Feb 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM
You are in the Infiniti G37
What is this discussion about?
Infiniti G37, Ford Taurus, Car Comparisons, Sedan
Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO vs. 2009 Infiniti G37 Journey - Put the spec charts of the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO and 2009 Infiniti G37 Journey next to one another, and there are good reasons to believe these two sport sedans are peers — on paper, at least.(more)
#16 of 35 Re: Just read the article [charlesb]
Jul 08, 2009 (7:07 pm)
As someone noted earlier in this thread the SHO's biggest problem is the fact that without a seriously hefty, say something in the seven to ten thousand dollar range, 'market adjustment" or incentive acting to lower these announced retail prices the new Taurus SHO is just way, way too much money for this segment. Either Ford's brass is kidding themselves, or just misreading the market horribly. Because I don't see the current market as craving an overtly large, under performing domestic "sport" sedan in the $45K+ range ( with or without the wonderful green-tinted snake oil of Ecoboost.)
As you know the Hyundai Genesis V8 is doing OK at the price its quoted, very close to the SHO in fact. Just because its not your piece of cake doesnt mean its not a jewel to someone else and I believe you are very ignorant here. Lets wait and see, am sure Ford wont miss you money and those who choose the SHO will absolutely love their rides
#17 of 35 Re: This is a Joke [curt1234]
Jul 08, 2009 (7:16 pm)
I can buy a couple year old Mercedes Benz CL63 or E63 that would flat smoke either one of these cars, look better, ride better, ect.
A 2007 E63 (the first model year it was available) currently runs at $55k-60k (assuming low miles and good condition). It's not even remotely comparable to the SHO or the G37.
The Infiniti is a good car but not better than the 335i, Ive driven the BMW, the new Audi and the Infiniti and I place the Infiniti in third, its not as refined, gets terrible gas mileage and is over priced.
Who claimed the G37 is "better" than the 335i? Apples-to-apples, however, the Infiniti has a $12k price advantage over the 335i. When the value is considered in the equation, I find the BMW hard to justify. And I've drive the Audi as well; to each his own, I guess, but its power, handling, features, and value didn't come close to the G37's.
#18 of 35 Re: Just read the article [charlesb]
Jul 08, 2009 (7:27 pm)
The "X" doesn't perform as well. With more weight, higher center of gravity, inferior brakes, (and on) the RWD G37S with 6MT will eat the "X's" lunch and kick sand in its face on any surface short of snow or ice. And most of the advantage that the "X" has there would evaporate if snow tires were fitted to the G37S.
I won't dispute the G37S performs better than the G37x(S), but AWD traction often minimizes (and sometimes completely overcomes) the weight penalty on acceleration tests; has anyone professionally tested the two back-to-back?
And, while snow tires can certainly make a big difference for a RWD car, AWD systems make a huge difference in any condition short of perfectly dry asphalt. That includes morning dew, rainy days, oil-slick spots, loose sand/debris, etc...not just snow and ice. For the track, I agree the G37S would prove superior (although it's not exactly a track car), but for real-world, day-to-day performance driving anywhere but Palm Springs, I think the G37x(S) is the better choice.
Car and Driver's testing numbers are, in a word, garbage.
You have evidence of this?
Jul 09, 2009 (3:25 am)
Giving that Car and Driver tested the SHO with the performance pak this tests outcome would be different. For one the SHO with performance pak would have won the speed test 0-60 in 5.2 would dust the G37.
#20 of 35 Re: Wrong SHO [cobra32]
Jul 10, 2009 (4:24 am)
Problem is MT has the G37 5s to 60 and 13.5s 105mph through the 1/4 mile. These are all better results than the SHO they tested.
Another thing you need to realize is when CD tested the G37 alone, they got a 5.2s time, when they did the comparison test with the 328i, naturally the G37 became slower and now they have it 5.4s. (The 328i became faster as well, instead of the 6.1s they always posted, its now 5.9s, but who cares, LOL). This is the same time I do in my G35X with only 306HP. I am not implying anything but just calling them as I sees them.
I think with the kind of performance numbers the SHO has, its going to turn a lot of heads no doubt. I like the tech in it as well. Competition is heating up, but I am happy where I am.
#21 of 35 Re: Wrong SHO [sjaieve]
Jul 10, 2009 (5:28 pm)
Funny observation--they definitely are partial to the Bimmers over at C&D. I drove the G37X and the 328iX back-to-back (both autos), and the difference in power was huge. The 328i felt barely faster than my 4-cyl Accord.
#22 of 35 Re: Just read the article [sjaieve]
Jul 11, 2009 (9:36 am)
Yes, with gas at $4.00 Ford came to the realization that "snake-oil" labelled "TWINFORCE" couldn't be marketed so they switched the label to "EcoBoost".
I'm tremendously encouraged that the buying public is seeing through the Ford marketing FOG and recognizing the gas guzzling Ecoboost engine for what it really is...
#23 of 35 Saw an SHO
Jul 15, 2009 (7:27 am)
I really like the looks of the SHO but I thought there wasn't enough leg room in the backseat. There is also no way I would pay $45,000 for one. I might go as high as $35,000 but even that is a stretch for a Taurus. I don't care how powerful it is.
I have always thought that Infiniti was the successor to Pontiac. Basically, guys that would have bought a Pontiac are now buying an Infiniti. Also, what is with the embroidered seats on the Infiniti?
#24 of 35 SHO = Simply Highly Overpriced
Jul 23, 2009 (1:52 pm)
Big Ford and Domestic car fan, but even I find the SHO to be dramatically overpriced. If Ford had brought it in folly loaded, no options (NAV, Performance Pkg., heat/Cool/massaging seats, radar cruise) at $39,900 I think they could have made an argument as the most completely equipped AWD sports sedan under 40k. But getting into the 40's means consideration with not only new G, 3-series, A4 and others, but also certified pre-owned 5 series, E350, Lexus GS, etc. As good as I hope the SHO is, there's no way it competes with those cars from a prestige or image standpoint. And at 40k +, image is a part of the deal, no matter how hards someone argues to the contrary. Worse than that, I believe Ford will have to resort to huge incentives to move these, depresssing what will already be poor resale, compared to the Japanes and German competition.
What I don't understand however is the reference to EcoBoost being "Snake Oil". Snake Oil is a term reserved for products that are sold under false claims of doing something they cannot. Ford states EcoBoost provides the power of a V-8 (it does) with the economy of a V-6 (it does, according to EPA). So where's the Snake Oil?
#25 of 35 Re: SHO = Simply Highly Overpriced [wjtinatl]
Jul 24, 2009 (8:09 am)
I agree with what you said, but where Ford may have missed the boat is the target audience. Its unlikely to be the 3 series, A4, C Class buyers. if you take a step back and compare the SHO with:
Lincoln MKS (for now)
Genesis (both v6 & v8)
The SHO starts looking attractive. Its a big car with very good performance numbers (other than handling) and for those into this kind of stuff, it may be able to pull buyers from the cars above.
On another note, the G and the IS350 are probably the only 2 cars that comes well equiped with the performance numbers that are arguably better than the SHO at the 45k level. The rest, TL, A4, 328i, you name it are not even close (335i is better but you cant get it well equiped in the low 40s). That kind of performance does turn heads, not mine or yours obviously but there will be others. I wouldn't write it off just yet. I love the competition and I can assure you the SHO drivers will enjoy the 350+ horses