The SHO vs the world

[audivwdave]

http://www.fordvehicles.com/2010taurus/?id=/demos/video03&bannerid=233434|33040551|218681596|0&refer rer=N3016.Yahoo

[1FastB5]

yeah i went through that site a few weeks ago. i actually like the new taurus, i think its going to be a good car for ford that they really need.

granted, i'd still rather have the mondeo, but its still a great car -- its miles ahead of the previous crap they've been churning out. i grew up with fords for the most part and given the choice between domestic brands, its ford.

i think the new taurus will do quite well and when you look at the prices, you get a lot of car for the money. i mean literary, the thing is HUGE.

[Digital K]

it really doesnt seem too bad.

[audivwdave]

Haha look at the gravel truck video they claim their paint is better,never seen that comparison before.

[TTaM]

granted, i'd still rather have the mondeo, but its still a great car -- its miles ahead of the previous crap they've been churning out. i grew up with fords for the most part and given the choice between domestic brands, its ford.

The Mondeo is smaller, more Fusion sized, which is also been rather popular since the redesign with the press.

[teddymac]

Although, I agree that it's a much better Taurus, comparing the new SHO to the Audi A6 is a joke. Comparing a 'sport tuned' model to a standard model isn't a comparison.

There is a reason it wasn't compared to the S6.

[liketheword]

Although, I agree that it's a much better Taurus, comparing the new SHO to the Audi A6 is a joke. Comparing a 'sport tuned' model to a standard model isn't a comparison.

There is a reason it wasn't compared to the S6.

I see your point. But, even with the A6 being not the S6 it still is 20k more then the SHO as quoted in the video. Even with that stat Ford went easy on Audi as you can see below:

A6 V8 base MSRP $61K*

Taurus SHO base MSRP $37K*

Differential: $24K*

Take the S6 into account you have a $76K* base MSRP. (You could have 2 SHO's for that price along w/ 2k left over!)

*Rounded to the nearest 1K. All of this is based of 2009 model info.

If we are looking at manufacture claimed 0-60 times the SHO does it in 5.2, the S6 5.1. (We all know 0-60 isn't a true measure of performance, but it is certainly funny to see the marginal difference all things considered.) One this is for sure, S6 vs. the SHO in performance isn't worth x2 the price. It's as simple as that. Sure, the 2009 Audi S6 is fast and luxurious, but costs nearly $30K more than the base A6 and still can't keep pace with more direct competitors like the BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac CTS-V, Jaguar XFR, and E63 AMG. It's more on par with a Lexus IS-F in overall performance. It's only truly unique feature out of this group of it's actual direct competitors is the AWD. If that's your bag the S6 is your car. If not there are better bangs for the buck in the category namely the CTS-V. The SHO doesn't even attempt to play in this arena. It's funny that it actually comes close in some ways to actually doing it considering it's almost cut-rate cost vs. the cars in this catigory.

[Jack]

Why couldn't they just name it anything other than Taurus. It just loses all credibility as a cool sporty car.

[liketheword]

Why couldn't they just name it anything other than Taurus. It just loses all credibility as a cool sporty car.

Actually Ford brought back the name Taurus, because of the complete opposite reason you state.

For those of us who can remember the fan-fair around the 1986-1991. It was well received by almost all avenues of the motoring press and the Taurus's success ultimately led to an American design revolution based on aerodynamics. Chrysler and General Motors soon developed aerodynamic cars in order to capitalize on the Taurus' success. All importers into the US started to follow suit as well. The launch then the subsequent 1992-1995 refresh along w/ the SHO being introduced. Starting in 1994 the Taurus was the first car of its kind to have standard dual front airbags. This generation was also the best selling car in the US though-out it's run.

Many of us remember this. The younger generation just recall the oldness of these models in relation to now. The only thing of note to the younger generation is the occasional enthusiast ranting about his SHO. Not to mention subsequent failures of the 3rd & 4th generations to deliver in any category other then mass production.

Many name plates have been resurrected to recall the glory days past. Name the manufacture and they have a guilty example. Some succeed others fail. Ford tried the different naming scheme and it was deemed a failure. They decided to go the way of changing back to a familiar name plate. Thus we have the Taurus name again. That's all there is to it.

[vweezly]

too bad the car is ugly...

[liketheword]

too bad the car is ugly...

Subjective and not relative, as the thread seems to be talking bang for the buck thus far.

To start on that tangent of a subjective stand point the styling is "meh" to me. But, that seems to be the goal of most large modern sedans. Sad but true... Also, the frontal impact standard to pedestrians isn't helping the styling of things either...everything will end-up looking like a soap bar before you know it!

[weltzinm]

the new taurus is better the they have been of late but I would still hands down rather have the audi 1st off the audi will hold its value for alot longer but in the end just buy and 2003 rs6 for around the same price as the sho and have a track proven beast that would out perform the sho even in reverse

[liketheword]

the new taurus is better the they have been of late but I would still hands down rather have the audi 1st off the audi will hold its value for alot longer but in the end just buy and 2003 rs6 for around the same price as the sho and have a track proven beast that would out perform the sho even in reverse

Matter of preference I understand. As for buying a car for "holding it's value" that is one of the dumbest reasons around. If that's a major criteria for you, I recommend looking at Toyotas or Hondas. Just saying... The fact is, nobody really makes a car purchase decision on resale alone. All things being equal it maybe a reason to go with one car vs. another, but that's about it. I can guarantee you the percentage loss in value will be similar to the Taurus if not greater. Because, cars with a higher initial price new always suffer greater in this manner. Just another fact of cars. As for the performance of the 2003 S6 it is no doubt a great performer. As for in reverse...

Also, justifying the used 2003 S6 purchase price vs. a brand new 2009 SHO is really apples and oranges in economic terms.

[CaRJoE0220]

1st off the audi will hold its value for alot longer

I lost 40% in 1 year of owning my A4...

[Lucas]

Actually Ford brought back the name Taurus, because of the complete opposite reason you state.
...
Many name plates have been resurrected to recall the glory days past. Name the manufacture and they have a guilty example. Some succeed others fail. Ford tried the different naming scheme and it was deemed a failure. They decided to go the way of changing back to a familiar name plate. Thus we have the Taurus name again. That's all there is to it.

Exactly. See "Ford Five-Hundred".