I am always looking for something new (to me) and recently the idea of SHO (not the new one) popped into my head. I read a period road test and checked the specs. But what is the real life experience with these cars?
What about the differences among the first three versions . Which version is best, the V6 with the 5 speed manual or the V8 with the automatic?
What about reliability, what goes wrong?
What about performance?
What was the competition or better yet what is the competition today?
Looking forward to reading your comments.
Thanks
Robbie
PowerDork
12/14/17 10:22 p.m.
My uncle in Canada had a v8 auto one from new till 300k kilometers or something. He really liked it as a DD.
He worked as an engineer in big three suppliers most of his career and has had an air-cooled 911 and an 85 Camaro since the mid eighties so he is definitely one of us.
His biggest complaint was that it sucked off the line!
Now his DD is an srt8 300c
A guy I work with has 7 of them. Literally. He's a big time ford fanatic and though I can't ever get a concrete number out of him I bet he owns more than 100 cars, only two that I know of are not blue ovals.
Anyway. out of the dozen or so cars he keeps insured and drives regularly, two are Taurus SHOs. He swears by the cars. He owns several v6 models, auto and regular, and at least one v8. I see a v6 auto at work pretty regularly and he says none of them have ever given any major problems. That being said, he is borderline compulsive about maintenance and catching problems right away and fixing them immediately, be it noisy water pumps, pulleys, oil leaks... and that goes for his whole fleet.
Though maybe I trust him too much (he IS my favorite co-worker), and he IS a strange one. His big thing is collecting Ford Tempo's. Loves the damn things. So... odd.
Vigo
UltimaDork
12/14/17 11:57 p.m.
Those v8 SHOs really were cool cars for the day, but geared way too tall as you alluded to. They took gearing that worked on a 4800rpm motor and attached a 7000 rpm motor to it. 
I personally like the really early ones the most unless you're talking enough money to buy a new twin turbo 3.5 model in which case i recommend you buy the Lincoln version instead. 
I thought the V6 5 speed SHO cars were cool, but I haven't seen a first gen Taurus on the road for fifteen years. Is there a place they don't rust into an early grave? Even the second gen are gone, except for the ones driven by 80 year olds.
I race 24 hours of lemons with a 1993 (second gen).
The first and second gen cars use the 3.0L (manual trans) or 3.2L (automatic) Yamaha v6 that wind to ~7000 rpm. Our car has over 250k miles and the engine is bone stock. No replacing main bearings, no seals, no problems.
The cars haven't aged well in my opinion - the chassis dynamics are poor (large heavy family sedan. The interiors are comfortable - ours was power everything and leather.
Rust seems to be a big issue on them up here in the salty north - the SHOs have plastic cladding sideskirts over the rockers that typically do a good job of hiding rust, so look under them.
Most of the car uses standard taurus parts, but some of them are unique. The struts had different spring and damping rates that are no longer available, but normal taurus parts fit in place.
I know that multimatic had some success road racing the first gen with Scott maxwell. The second gen are kinda underpowered when you think of it. 220 hp with the v6 and only 235 with the v8. You could get 240 hp supercharged 3800 from gm in various models with better low end and it probably cost less to buy and build.
My wife had one, bought new around '95 I think, and she said the automatic transmission blew up after a couple years. I told her she should have bought the manual.
Otherwise a nice DD. Of course, that was her experience buying new back in the day. I don't see the early cars anymore. Not many left, and I have no idea how they would age. My guess would be "not well."
Even so, I would favor the original V6 with the 5-speed manual. Probably could be considered marginally collectible at this point.
Back in the day (late 90s) they were the car to have at my high school. Probably 4 or 5 of them in different flavors, all first and second gen ones, none of the third gen v8s. They were pretty much the fastest thing in the lot, with the exception of a well done V8 S10 , a V8 240Z, and a Z34 Lumina 5 speed.
I would say they are collectible, at least to the right person. The first and second gen ones were pretty special.
Vigo
UltimaDork
12/15/17 2:32 p.m.
The second gen are kinda underpowered when you think of it. 220 hp with the v6 and only 235 with the v8. You could get 240 hp supercharged 3800 from gm in various models with better low end and it probably cost less to buy and build.
I believe they were primarily limited by the transmission hooked to them, just like many earlier attempts at high powered mass production FWDs. GM's 3.4L was supposedly emissions-certified in a tune that made 280hp, but by the time it made production it was down to 215. If you follow the progression of early GM dohc FWDs through 2.3L (quad4), 3.4L, and 4.6L (northstar), you notice the power per displacement actually went DOWN as the technology 'progressed'. This was all due to transmission warranty concerns. Chrysler left a LOT of easy power on the table with their two 200-220hp DOHC 4cyl designs in the years prior as well, even on premium products that would have sold better with more prestigious spec sheets.
Ford may also have limited the power/trq of their 'jap' () engine to preserve the image of their own larger 4.6L DOHC v8 which was only making 260hp in the 'premium' Lincoln brand's Continental during the same time period. That right there is pure conjecture, though.
Friend of mine had a first gen automatic. He really liked it, but sold it out of frustration after the fifth steering rack replacement. I don't remember the problem, but as I recall, all of the replacements were under warranty. There was a modification that would resolve the issue he was having, but despite being a fairly competent amateur wrench (taught me to swap heads and build engines), he refused to fix something that was under warranty. Can't say I blame him.
I drove the car once. I have always had pretty slow cars, so when I put my foot in it at about 30 and it rapidly rolled to 100 I was impressed.
I had a '92 (first year of second gen) I bought new. Had a car allowance that required a midsize, American car, and this was the only sporty one with a manual transmission. The engine was great. Handling greatly benefited from a gen 1 rear sway bar (noticeably thicker) and Koni strut inserts. The shifter was ok, but not great. Something in the clutch broke and had to be fixed. The interior didn't age all that well. The pneumatic seat bolsters leaked, and the HVAC buttons cracked.
All in all, it was a pretty good car and quick for its day. But as others have said, they seem to have all returned to the earth, at least here in Michigan. I might see one once a year now, and in the mid-90's, they were all over the place.
I had a 93, my first new car. I loved it, it was quick (for the time), comfy, and with the intake silencer removed, that Yamaha V6 sounded glorious. Not to mention it being one of the best-looking engines of all time. I put a Hypertech chip in it (remember those?) that made the secondary intake runners open up 500 rpm sooner, and I manged to squeeze it into the high 14s in the quarter.
But man... that thing was a lemon. Constant electrical issues with things like power windows and the sunroof and ABS and myriad other things. All of which were fixed under warranty, but it got to the point where my service writer and I were becoming almost friends, I was at the dealer so much. Driving a Plymouth Acclaim rental for a week because the SHO you are making payments on is in the shop is a less-than-ideal situation. I dumped it and bought a Ranger after about a year or so.
FWIW, I consider all of the 89-95 cars to be "first generation" as they were all the same basic car, they just got a refresh in 1992. The later V8-powered cars were a whole different animal, being on the DN101 chassis.
Will
UltraDork
12/15/17 6:15 p.m.
Unless I'm mistaken: the third gens (3.4-liter V8) all self destruct because the cam lobes are pressed on and eventually slip, taking the whole engine with it. And good luck finding parts.
Hey guys thank for your responses. I have been searching CL and they are not easy to find. I did find a couple of 3rd gens with the automatic tho in pretty sad shape. Read a road test comparison of a '97 SHO vs a Pontiac GTP. It had the 3.8L supercharged engine and the writers gave the SHO the thumbs down. From what I have read so far I tthink the first gen with the 5 speed manual is the way to go. That is if one pops up in decent condition.
While we are it what do you guys think of the Focus and Contour SVTs?
Thank you for all your comments keep them coming.
My SHO knowledge comes from a buddy that had a mild SHO obsession about 10 years ago.
First off: make sure you wanna work on it yourself. Finding someone that will take money to work on one is difficult. Finding someone to take money to work on it twice is next to impossible.
Second: Cam cover gaskets, namely the seals around the spark plugs, on the early cars was an issue. Also, I've heard the term "glass transmission" bandied about.
Third: The egg SHO (V-8) cars had cam breakage problems. The shaft was hollow, and I believe the pressed-on lobes were powdered metal. There are solid cams available, though.
By the way, my buddy's SHO burned to the ground when his catalytic converter plugged up.
fortee9er said:
While we are it what do you guys think of the Focus and Contour SVTs?
I've often thought that it would be cool to take the 2.5 DOHC out of a Contour, and replace it with a 3.0 DOHC from a 98-05 Taurus. I think they're the same size, but I'm not sure.
3.0 Vulcan swaps are popular among Contour guys.
Appleseed said:
3.0 Vulcan swaps are popular among Contour guys.
Not Vulcans, Duratecs. The 3.0L Vulcan actually had less hp stock than the 2.5 in the Contour. The hot ticket is the 3.0 Duratec from the Taurus or Escape with the Contour SVT intake (and heads, maybe?)
Had a 1989 auto. Used to N drop it at rev peg. Destroyed in a month. Best 30day ownership ever.
Trackmouse said:
Had a 1989 auto. Used to N drop it at rev peg. Destroyed in a month. Best 30day ownership ever.
Must have been a later one, the auto didn't come out until '93.
In reply to fortee9er :
From a vehicle standpoint, the Contour and especially the Focus are far better cars than the Taurus was. Even the DN101 Tauruses I thought were inferior to the Contour from an overall vehicle standpoint. I'd lean to an SVT Contour over a SHO unless you can find a really good SHO car- so that all of the problems were either already fixed or well tended to.
The Focus to get is one of the 2.3 PZEV ones- they have very similar performance to the SVT ones, and are quite a bit cheaper. Not all that common, but manuals are not impossible to find.
Also, a DN5 SHO has the same suspension as an DN5 cop car. Better than stock, but not all that overwhelming.
The DN5 SHO with the 3.2l engine in it had a very big impact on my carreer.
alfadriver said:
In reply to fortee9er :
From a vehicle standpoint, the Contour and especially the Focus are far better cars than the Taurus was. Even the DN101 Tauruses I thought were inferior to the Contour from an overall vehicle standpoint. I'd lean to an SVT Contour over a SHO unless you can find a really good SHO car- so that all of the problems were either already fixed or well tended to.
True. I've had the aforementioned 93 SHO and a 2000 Contour SVT, and while the SHO was a bit quicker in a straight line, the CSVT was a MUCH better car dynamically. IMO, the Contour had one of the best FWD chassis of any 90s car, they are a lot of fun to toss around. You must remember that the DN5 Taurus came out in the mid-80s, that chassis is very dated by today's standards.
Also, a DN5 SHO has the same suspension as an DN5 cop car. Better than stock, but not all that overwhelming.
There were DN5 cop cars? I don't remember seeing any, other than this one, of course:
