SHO or NO NO NO?

i will be trading my 3rd gen f body (not running) for a 93 (maybe 95?) taurus SHO automatic , with a/c ,nice leather interior and well mantained,(i'm a mechanic and it's my boss's) for my wife to drive , i still have to get all the info on it but what is the general concensus on them ? i don't know all the details on the engine but i know it's a yamaha massaged v6 and all that ...

The engine is awesome, but beware the automatic. They had a reputation for going away early.

In reply to 1988RedT2: And owners have been known to buy good-running, complete SHOs, just to get THAT transmission, so I've read. Very rare tranny, I''ve heard. Now for the engine, it screams power. Deserved to be in a better car. Still, not a bad package, but, yes, that tranny is a weak, expensive link.

get it. theyre fun

Sounds like a good deal if it is well-maintained like you say. I almost had a 5 speed SHO couple years ago, but I hesitated too long and someone else snatched it. So I bought something else, and now I can't even remember what. It was weird driving a Taurus that felt like a muscle car, but in a good way. SHO!

AXOD/AXODE/AX4N/AX4S all equal steaming piles of crap.

Only way I would get it is if it was free. Nickel and dime vehicle plus all the odd SHO parts.

Brian

I wouldn't as an only car, but to replace a non running car it sounds fun. They have done OK in Lemons when they don't blow up.

The engine is pure gold. The rest of the car is pure E36 M3. That's the only performance car I've ever sold and NOT missed in any way, shape, or form. Horrible cars, horrible transmissions, VERY spendy for parts, some stuff is just NLA period, and not reliable at all.

That 6 sure was pretty though.

A friend once told me that he was very happy the day he bought his SHO...and happier the day he sold it.

I've wanted one since they came out, but I'm leery on the quality of everything that surrounds the engine.

a v8 SHO smoked my MKIV NA Supra...that's really all I have to ad.

hhm , wow i may have this a short time till i find something better then,

5-speed, $2500. LOW miles. This is one you might want to consider. In Ct. No affiliation, etc... http://nwct.craigslist.org/cto/2018438764.html

My daily driver is a 1995 SHO 5-sp with 161k on the odometer. I have owned it since 1998. I have a laundry list of small things that need attention, but the drivetrain has been pretty much bulletproof. My former job required me to routinely drive to county seats of surrounding counties year round, and the car never did let me down. I have no direct experience with the automatic transmission, but knew a local mechanic who owned an automatic-equipped SHO that was a sharp example and ran extremely well.

If I remember correctly, the reason that all of the early SHO's had standard transmissions was that Ford really didn't have a suitable automatic in their parts bin. If that was the case, then it would seem to follow that the automatic transmission that later showed up in 6 cylinder SHO's was engineered for that purpose.

terp83 wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason that all of the early SHO's had standard transmissions was that Ford really didn't have a suitable automatic in their parts bin. If that was the case, then it would seem to follow that the automatic transmission that later showed up in 6 cylinder SHO's was engineered for that purpose.

The other possibility is that the bean counters were appalled at all the money that they weren't making selling the SHO to slushbox buyers, so they rushed a marginal solution out the door.

1988RedT2 wrote: The other possibility is that the bean counters were appalled at all the money that they weren't making selling the SHO to slushbox buyers, so they rushed a marginal solution out the door.

Which is exactly what happened.

In reply to triumph5:

I hate you for posting this. I still got parts from my 90 I sold a few years ago, including the uber rare 91 "plus" package spoiler .... Hmm....so tempting.

1988RedT2 wrote:

terp83 wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason that all of the early SHO's had standard transmissions was that Ford really didn't have a suitable automatic in their parts bin. If that was the case, then it would seem to follow that the automatic transmission that later showed up in 6 cylinder SHO's was engineered for that purpose.

The other possibility is that the bean counters were appalled at all the money that they weren't making selling the SHO to slushbox buyers, so they rushed a marginal solution out the door.

But it did get a bigger engine....

When I started working at Ford, my first test cars that I "owned" were 3.2l SHO's- we were doing ETC development. Didn't have any issues with them, but that not to say that the issues being brought up are not real.

Eric

Cotton wrote: a v8 SHO smoked my MKIV NA Supra...that's really all I have to ad.

I had one of those with a built transmission. At 75k my trans took a crap and had one built by some shop in GA. It shifted ridiculously quick and took all the "IDK what gear I need to be in" searching out of it. It was a whole new car. Aside from that I never had a problem with it. I actually saw it a few months ago 6 years after I sold it. The trans and my weld job on the cams have held up. IMO, the V8 cars are much better built than the V6's, even if their engine is a bit more lively.

I had one of the 2k Tarus SHO's. Great car, but could drain the tank quicker than a legislator on a spending spree. I dumped it because I just couldn't take the gas mileage.

I just totaled a V8 SHO for a guy. Not hit bad, just needed a fender and rt frt suspension mostly but the strut was listed as discontinued which is a scary thought. For has to be one of the worst for dropping parts for stuff 10 years old.

alfadriver wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote:

terp83 wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason that all of the early SHO's had standard transmissions was that Ford really didn't have a suitable automatic in their parts bin. If that was the case, then it would seem to follow that the automatic transmission that later showed up in 6 cylinder SHO's was engineered for that purpose.

The other possibility is that the bean counters were appalled at all the money that they weren't making selling the SHO to slushbox buyers, so they rushed a marginal solution out the door.

But it did get a bigger engine.... When I started working at Ford, my first test cars that I "owned" were 3.2l SHO's- we were doing ETC development. Didn't have any issues with them, but that not to say that the issues being brought up are not real. Eric

Spoke to the team that ran a 1st-gen 5-speed SHO at the ChumpCar race this weekend. They were under strict orders from the owner/builder of the car to never, ever allow wheel spin, or suffer the wrath of spitting the diff pin out of the case.

Considering they had banners up for a couple of different SHO-centric performance parts places, I figure they might have had some experience to draw from :)

With that said, our turbo 2.2 4-cylinder was just as fast, just like last year.

In reply to ddavidv:

Any way I can get the engine?

racinginc215 i really appreciate the info , my wife is not going to be racing the car at all, but all the info you gave me does prove useful in keeping the car running.

Isn't there some magic combination of aerostar or something parts that'll let you put the SHO motor in a proper RWD configuration?

The SHO engines share a common bell housing pattern with the following Ford engines: the 2.3/2.5 L FWD HSC I4, the 3.0 L FWD/RWD Vulcan V6, and the 3.8 L FWD Canadian Essex V6