[neeclindy]

Has anyone seen that Ford brought back the Taurus SHO? Here are a quick bit of the specs.

• Twin-turbo 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6
• 365 horsepower; 350 lb-ft of torque
• 6-speed automatic with paddle shifters
• All-wheel drive

I think they did a good job revamping the style of the car. It's about time made something that shined besides the mustang line!








http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=150686

[carfAball]

see why dont they use a by turbo config...

[M1iFiNmC]

Reminds me of the Impala.

[buchmausar]

Don't like it and it has a slight resemblance to a mustang. But then again, I just plain and simply don't like Ford so meh

[ZIZITOPER]

Reminds me of the Impala.

I was thinking the exact same thing, infact it reminds me of a cross between an Impala and a Fusion. Now, considering what the pricepoint may be, it might not be a bad thing. However, it's just not for my liking. Curious as to what the MPG is though...?

[Abaronos]

I was thinking the exact same thing, infact it reminds me of a cross between an Impala and a Fusion. Now, considering what the pricepoint may be, it might not be a bad thing. However, it's just not for my liking. Curious as to what the MPG is though...?

18/28 and 18/27 for FWD (3.5L 265hp V6)
17/25 for AWD for both 265hp and 365hp motors

So some pretty good numbers for a heavy car, and 265hp.
Same economy compared to the lighter and weaker Impala.

It is a great looking car, and I would love to buy one myself if I had the cash. Compared to the Impala and Charger, it has the most power baseline motor, and pulls the highest economy as well other than the weak 3.5L V6 from the Impala. The SHO though, I don't think that I could ever buy. I would much rather get a Charger, or even G8 GT to name just 2. And they are cheaper and give me my American V8 power.


Ford has been pushing a lot of good buttons here these past few years, and I hope that they can keep it up. GM, even though they are government owned and are down to just 4 core brands, they themselves are bringing out a few swings with their new hot models, and new motors to go a long with it as well. A 3.0L DI motor, and a 2.4L DI motor. One thing that I just CAN'T wait for, is the damn Cruze. That needs to get here ASAP to replace the retarded Cobalt.

[IRMartin]

I was thinking the exact same thing, infact it reminds me of a cross between an Impala and a Fusion. Now, considering what the pricepoint may be, it might not be a bad thing. However, it's just not for my liking. Curious as to what the MPG is though...?

Quite bad really.

Lest we forget the "Eco" side of the balance sheet, we should point out that the new engine is claimed to use fuel at 17 mpg city and 25 mpg highway — the same mpg rating as a standard AWD Taurus with the 3.5-liter Duratec that makes 102 fewer horses. Why does my 17 year old AWD turbo'd car get better fuel economy than either of the new AWD Taurus's?



Oh yeah,here's why:

It also weighs 4,368 pounds, between 100 and 400 pounds more than its AWD competition Seriously,cars today going on a HUGE diet would yeild better numbers all around for performance AND economy..I have no idea why every car's turned in to a lumbering dinosaur these days.

[ZIZITOPER]

18/28 and 18/27 for FWD (3.5L 265hp V6)
17/25 for AWD for both 265hp and 365hp motors

So some pretty good numbers for just a huge heavy car, and 265hp.
Same economy compared to the lighter and much weaker (3.5L/3.0L V6) Impala.

Yes, thoes are decent numbers.

But I would have loved to see 20/30 AWD & 24/35 FWD respectivly. I guess I am just to ambitious with my thinking...

[neeclindy]

Yes, thoes are decent numbers.

But I would have loved to see 20/30 AWD & 24/35 FWD respectivly. I guess I am just to ambitious with my thinking...

That's what it's rated. My 06 impala 3.5L gets much better than what it's rated. On a 800 mile trip I averaged 35.2MPG which is quite a bit more than what it's rated.

[Abaronos]

[QUOTE=tinomen;1175618Why does my 17 year old AWD turbo'd car get better fuel economy than either of the new AWD Taurus's?

Seriously,cars today going on a HUGE diet would yeild better numbers all around for performance AND economy..I have no idea why every car's turned in to a lumbering dinosaur these days.[/QUOTE]

What do you drive exactly? Fuel Economy numbers haven't really improved for some time actually. They have only been getting more powerful, plus the NEW EPA numbers also really helped to lower economy figures.
It seems that the car industry has a lot more to worry about economy, as they are worrying a lot more about CO2 emissions as well.

But economy wise to say the Dodge Charger, Taurus wins when you compare AWD vs AWD.

Yes, thoes are decent numbers.

But I would have loved to see 20/30 AWD & 24/35 FWD respectivly. I guess I am just to ambitious with my thinking...

24/35 is what small cars get with a 4-cylinder motor weighing 1000lbs lighter, lol.
Not even the V6 Fusion gets those numbers.


The Impala w/ 3.5L gets 21/31 FWD, not AWD, plus lacks 55hp compared to the Taurus 265hp and economy. Plus, the NEW EPA has these 211hp Impalas only rated at 18/28 these days, so the rating is no better than the more powerful Taurus.

[ZIZITOPER]

What do you drive exactly? Fuel Economy numbers haven't really improved for some time actually. They have only been getting more powerful, plus the NEW EPA numbers also really helped to lower economy figures.
It seems that the car industry has a lot more to worry about economy, as they are worrying a lot more about CO2 emissions as well.

But economy wise to say the Dodge Charger, Taurus wins when you compare AWD vs AWD.



24/35 is what small cars get with a 4-cylinder motor weighing 1000lbs lighter, lol.
Not even the V6 Fusion gets those numbers.


The Impala w/ 3.5L gets 21/31 FWD, not AWD, plus lacks 55hp compared to the Taurus 265hp and economy. Plus, the NEW EPA has these 211hp Impalas only rated at 18/28 these days, so the rating is no better than the more powerful Taurus.

Oh, I know. I am just thinking "2010", perhaps a bit optimistic...

[IRMartin]

What do you drive exactly? Fuel Economy numbers haven't really improved for some time actually. They have only been getting more powerful, plus the NEW EPA numbers also really helped to lower economy figures.
It seems that the car industry has a lot more to worry about economy, as they are worrying a lot more about CO2 emissions as well.

It's quite sad that economy numbers are worse now compared to a car from 1991 like Mine.

I drive a Turbo Subaru Legacy,and while it doesn't have the HP of the Taurus,it can easily,and doesn't really lose out on the fuel economy either when boosted more.

My last long trip I went 396 miles on a 15 gallon tank of gas cruising around 80-90mph for about half of the way,it equaled out to around 26,7mpg.

People with car's similar to mine have also passed state smog testing with de-catted exhausts.

Call me optimistic too,but for the state of fuel economy in cars standing still, in a 20 year time period is rather dissapinting to say the least.

Today's heavy cars are the problem there,it's not the engine tech,it's the fact that cars have gained around a thousand pounds thats a problem.

[Brewpralgar]

It's quite sad that economy numbers are worse now compared to a car from 1991 like Mine.

I drive a Turbo Subaru Legacy,and while it doesn't have the HP of the Taurus,it can easily,and doesn't really lose out on the fuel economy either when boosted more.

My last long trip I went 396 miles on a 15 gallon tank of gas cruising around 80-90mph for about half of the way,it equaled out to around 26,7mpg.

People with car's similar to mine have also passed state smog testing with de-catted exhausts.

Call me optimistic too,but for the state of fuel economy in cars standing still, in a 20 year time period is rather dissapinting to say the least.

Today's heavy cars are the problem there,it's not the engine tech,it's the fact that cars have gained around a thousand pounds thats a problem.

I love my Subarus like the next guy, it's all I drive... but to compare a 1991 Legacy turbo with this new Taurus is like apples and oranges. Your car weighs 1,200lbs less from the factory, has 200hp less from the factory, a manual transmission, and 1.4L less displacement from the factory. There is little surprise it has a better fuel economy. It's going to take more than a little work to make that car push the kind of power the Taurus is pushing, and when it is finally pushing that power, expect fuel economy less than the Taurus. I love Subarus, it's all I drive, but a 1991 Legacy is not really much of a comparison.

[IRMartin]

I love my Subarus like the next guy, it's all I drive... but to compare a 1991 Legacy turbo with this new Taurus is like apples and oranges. Your car weighs 1,200lbs less from the factory, has 200hp less from the factory, a manual transmission, and 1.4L less displacement from the factory. There is little surprise it has a better fuel economy. It's going to take more than a little work to make that car push the kind of power the Taurus is pushing, and when it is finally pushing that power, expect fuel economy less than the Taurus. I love Subarus, it's all I drive, but a 1991 Legacy is not really much of a comparison.

The sad part is that it won't take that much work any more,now that there's a company thatis offering a chip for them..well close to that much power anyway,maybe not exactly.

FE doesn't sink that dramatically either from what I can ascertain from people who've already done it.

The weight is what the main culprit is,which was my point,that car is as heavy as yesteryears suv's,undoubtedly if they focused more on lightening the monster up it would get better fe than 25mp from a far more sophisticated engine than was available in anything even just ten years ago...and it would undoubtedly perform better,with less hp too if it didn't weigh over two tons.

[neeclindy]

The sad part is that it won't take that much work any more,now that there's a company thatis offering a chip for them..well close to that much power anyway,maybe not exactly.

FE doesn't sink that dramatically either from what I can ascertain from people who've already done it.

The weight is what the main culprit is,which was my point,that car is as heavy as yesteryears suv's,undoubtedly if they focused more on lightening the monster up it would get better fe than 25mp from a far more sophisticated engine than was available in anything even just ten years ago...and it would undoubtedly perform better,with less hp too if it didn't weigh over two tons.

Would it be as safe though?

[temansertewek]

Would it be as safe though?

Could.

Yes.

[SeelaypeKet]

Seriously,cars today going on a HUGE diet would yeild better numbers all around for performance AND economy..I have no idea why every car's turned in to a lumbering dinosaur these days.

They weigh more due to higher safety regulations and more safety features. Having a 5 star safety rating is actually quite a good selling point, especially since insurance rates go down. Technically the engines are more fuel efficient when you consider the power behind them.

[twiffatticy]

You guys seem to miss the most important point: It looks booring

[beloveds]

Hot damn - that's one fugly car !

Reminds me of an old brogue shoe!

[vodaPlaps]

i think thats pretty good looking. looks more like a car you'd see over here. some kind of mondeo/accord type of look. might take a while before american tastes adjust. saying its 'eco' is a joke though. if a car has eco in the title over here it because it does 50mpg, not 20.