[snakeeyes]

Ya I know. Little V8,handles a little better than a non sho. Do they have any more horsepower than a Duratec? Gimme some numbers! I just cant see the big thing about them. Now I want my car to be quick and have good power,BUT, Id buy a Mustang before I bought a SHO.


P.S. Not trying to P.O. you SHO guys(and girls), Just trying to figure outWHY???

 

[baby sho]

depends on the mustang...my duratec is within .1 sec of a v6 mustang, and i bet a sho is on par with a gt mustang.

Brad

PS.

Vulcan 145/155 hp depending on year
Duratec 200hp
SHO 235 hp

All these are numbers for the 96-05 taurii

 

[Xmann01]

Originally posted by Baby SHO@Jun 6 2004, 07:03 PM
depends on the mustang...my duratec is within .1 sec of a v6 mustang, and i bet a sho is on par with a gt mustang.

Brad

PS.

Vulcan 145/155 hp depending on year
Duratec 200hp
SHO 235 hp

All these are numbers for the 96-05 taurii

Car-Stats.com Report for 2001 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from MT June, 2001
0-60: 5.4 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 14
1/4 Speed: 100

Car-Stats.com Report for 1999 Ford Taurus SHO
Obtained from Web
0-60: 7.2 Transmission: Unknown
1/4 Mile: 15.4

Car-Stats.com Report for 1991 Ford Taurus SHO
Obtained from
0-60: 7.7 Transmission: Unknown
1/4 Mile: 16.2

I'd take the Mustang GT. I was also considering getting a gen 3 SHO but I'd rather have the mustang with the 5 speed manual. Don't get me wrong, the gen 3 SHO is pretty sweet but it's not going to hang with a mustang gt stick.

*edit*

Mustang GT:
4.6L 16V V-8 260 Hp & 302 Ft-lbs

 

[HighTecRedneck]

I don't have a SHO but here are those number you wanted:


3.0 liter OHV, V-6: Horsepower, SAE net: 140 @ 4800 rpm
Torque, SAE net: 160lb.-ft. @ 3000 rpm

3.8 liter OHV, V-6: Horsepower, SAE net: 140 @ 3800 rpm
Torque, SAE net: 215lb.-ft. @ 2200 rpm

Yamaha 3.0 liter, V-6: Horsepower, SAE net: 220 @ 6200 rpm
Torque, SAE net: 200lb.-ft. @ 4800 rpm

Yamaha 3.2 liter, V-6: Horsepower, SAE net: 220 @ 6000 rpm
Torque, SAE net: 215lb.-ft. @ 4800 rpm

DURATEC 3.0 liter DOHC, V-6: Horsepower, SAE net: 200 @ 5750 rpm
Torque, SAE net: 200lb.-ft. @ 4500 rpm

3.4 liter DOHC, V-8: Horsepower, SAE net: 235 @ 6100 rpm
Torque, SAE net: 230lb.-ft. @ 4800 rpm

 

[Tman]

where the heck did you get those times from for the 91 sho? Man those are WAYYYY off. A decent stock sho will run high 14's possible a 15 flat. and most early 90's gt stangs ran the qmile in 14.5. They came with only 240hp and not sure the tq but a good modded sho can whip a gt stang's a**

 

[snakeeyes]

Originally posted by Tman@Jun 6 2004, 07:12 PM
where the heck did you get those times from for the 91 sho? Man those are WAYYYY off. A decent stock sho will run high 14's possible a 15 flat. and most early 90's gt stangs ran the qmile in 14.5. They came with only 240hp and not sure the tq but a good modded sho can whip a gt stang's a**

Ya but ncan it whip a "good modded" GT? Then there is the reliability factor. I dont see the SHO as being built to handle the power, whereas the Mustang is.

 

[Xmann01]

Originally posted by snakeeyes+Jun 6 2004, 07:18 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (snakeeyes @ Jun 6 2004, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tman@Jun 6 2004, 07:12 PM
where the heck did you get those times from for the 91 sho? Man those are WAYYYY off. A decent stock sho will run high 14's possible a 15 flat. and most early 90's gt stangs ran the qmile in 14.5. They came with only 240hp and not sure the tq but a good modded sho can whip a gt stang's a**

Ya but ncan it whip a "good modded" GT? Then there is the reliability factor. I dont see the SHO as being built to handle the power, whereas the Mustang is. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, a "good modded" GT will be very quick. I know the older SHO's are quick but stock for stock... the SHO is not going to beat a stick GT (im talking 99 - up). It could be a close race for the older GT's but I still find it unlikely. But yeah... right now i'm in the process of finding a decent GT with a 5 speed. Fun times my friends... fun times.... :banana:

*Edit*

Actually now that I think about it.... a friend of mine told me he was challenged to a race by an SHO (gen 1 , 2) and he was surprised that it was able to keep up... (he still beat it). That was with his 98 mustang gt with an auto trans, non-modded. Those gt's only had about 225 hp where as the new GT's have 260 hp and the 05's will have 300 hp. I'm not even going to bring the 03 cobra into this..... :lol:

 

[Kermit]

The sleeper factor....

 

[Tman]

for the fun to drive factor and that as soon as the road curves the sho will walk away from almost any stang no matter how fast they are. The sho was built to handle road corses, not straightways. I wanna see someoe with a highly modded gt stang take a hairpin turn at 50 mph while the sho can do so with ease.

 

[sixfofalcon]

The SHO doesn't handle "a little better" than the SLO. :blink:

And if you are interested in a drag car or absolute power, you aren't going to get it from ANY Taurus unless you plan on plunking down a few grand. Sure, a Gen1 or 2 SHO with ALL the bolt ons will get you into the lower-14s (13s with NOS), but the real appeal of the SHO is that it is a family sedan with balls, and it handles better than any other family sedan.

The Gen3 SHO doesn't have a whole lot of aftermarket performance stuff like the earlier SHOs. Shaving off a full second in the quarter mile is difficult to do. Forget about getting into the 13s n/a... it just isn't going to happen. However, suspension mods like bigger sway bars, aluminum subframe bushings, and a front strut tower brace will make the SHO outhandle most sports cars, while remaining practical enough to haul the family around.

 

[Xmann01]

Originally posted by Tman@Jun 6 2004, 07:51 PM
for the fun to drive factor and that as soon as the road curves the sho will walk away from almost any stang no matter how fast they are. The sho was built to handle road corses, not straightways. I wanna see someoe with a highly modded gt stang take a hairpin turn at 50 mph while the sho can do so with ease.

Eh.... I'm still getting a Mustang so :lol: :banana:

 

[spragers]

...because I can fit five large adults comfortably along with a trunk full of luggage, with a 235HP V8 under the hood, and handling that rivals a high percentage of everything else on the road.

Plus, the insurance is a lot cheaper on a "family sedan" than on a "sports car" h34r:

 

[Xmann01]

Originally posted by spragers@Jun 6 2004, 08:11 PM
...because I can fit five large adults comfortably along with a trunk full of luggage, with a 235HP V8 under the hood, and handling that rivals a high percentage of everything else on the road.

Plus, the insurance is a lot cheaper on a "family sedan" than on a "sports car" h34r:

My purpose for the mustang would be my fun car. I'll still keep the taurus as my daily driver, no doubts about that one. It sure as hell would be more comfortable than the mustang any day.

 

[sfblacksel]

I can't fit my sub box in a stang, so that is what turned me to the bull years ago. Ever ride in a stang for an hour and you know how uncomfortable the seats are, even the leather isn't as nice. Insurnance is cheaper with the bull, as it is a much safer car. The bull can park in tighter spaces since it is a 4 door and the doors open out less. The bull give you many less speeding tickets, since it is a sleeper. With a Gen IV, bull you can be mistaken as a goverment car h34r: , and those sleep by many speed traps. :banana: Try that in an 04' yellow stang gt convertable with the top down. :lol2:

This is similar than comparing a Porshe Cayane, with a 911 Turbo, it just doesn't make sence.

 

[TrueBlue]

Originally posted by snakeeyes@Jun 6 2004, 06:53 PM
Ya I know. Little V8,handles a little better than a non sho. Do they have any more horsepower than a Duratec?  Gimme some numbers! I just cant see the big thing about them. Now I want my car to be quick and have good power,BUT, Id buy a Mustang before I bought a SHO.


P.S. Not trying to P.O. you SHO guys(and girls), Just trying to figure outWHY???

Originality. You'll see 10 Mustangs before you see 1 SHO.

Well, I gues that depends on where you live and the year of the cars, but still. :wink:

And yeah, those quarter times for the '91 must have been run uphill. :lol:

 

[bco1206]

Here my 2 rambling cents about the v6 Stang and "Tec'd" Taurus.
(apples and oranges, I know)

I have a 2000 "tec" sel with a jet chip and a k&n filter with a modified stock air box. A friend just bought a 2003 banana yellow :lol2: v6 mustang convertable (all stock right now). I've been out in it quite a few times already with him riding and just got back from wildwood, nj (shore) which is about a 2 hour ride with traffic. We took the stang down. The mustang is a sports car. Its suspension is tight to feel the rode which i like and i think his seats are more comfy then my leather seats. Stang seats hug you better. Again a sport car obvious trait.

When it comes to power. I have raced mid 90's v6 stangs and left them behind from a red light. His 2003 stang has better 0-60 torque then my 'tec, I feel. But if we ever get out on the highway and run and gun after 60mph i think my 'tec will leave him behind. I might even say this before the Jet chip and K&N. I'm hoping to do this reeeallll soon too.

My plan is to beef up the taurus with SHO sways and kyb's and eibach springs. I like being able to feel the rode better under me. A stock 2000 rolls way to much. The sleeper factor is great too.

 

[spragers]

Originality. You'll see 10 Mustangs before you see 1 SHO.

I drove about 80 miles on Sunday afternoon, I saw ONE Gen 3 SHO, I saw Mustangs every time I turned my head.

 

[jedhead]

Originally posted by snakeeyes+Jun 6 2004, 07:18 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (snakeeyes @ Jun 6 2004, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tman@Jun 6 2004, 07:12 PM
where the heck did you get those times from for the 91 sho? Man those are WAYYYY off. A decent stock sho will run high 14's possible a 15 flat. and most early 90's gt stangs ran the qmile in 14.5. They came with only 240hp and not sure the tq but a good modded sho can whip a gt stang's a**

Ya but ncan it whip a "good modded" GT? Then there is the reliability factor. I dont see the SHO as being built to handle the power, whereas the Mustang is. [/b][/quote]
You can go here to see some video's of SuperSHO's.

http://www.shocago.com/multimedia/video/index.shtml

Bob

SHO's will never be good drag racers because of the car having FWD and they are pretty heavy. I have ran down and pasted several Mustangs on the freeway with my 1991 SHO. The SHO held Ford's proving ground track record for stock cars for many years. SHO's have an aerodynamic and high rpm power advantage that allows them to accelerate better at over 100mph. Ransom holds two speed records for his SHO. From a stop to the end of a mile at over 160mph.

http://www.landracing.com/records/maxton/carecs2.htm

look for D/BGC and E/BGC.

If I wanted a car strickly for the 1/4 mile, I would go with a Mustang. But I like the sleeper aspect of the SHO and the ability to carry passengers comfortably. To each his/her own.

Bob

 

[lithium100]

If I wanna drive a family sedan with balls I'd buy a GTP over a Gen 3 SHO, just because of the amount of modifiactions for the GTP as opposed to the newer SHOs.

 

[TrueBlue]

:whythis:

Oh boy, you're askin' for it... :grin2: