While watching football today the ad for the Ford Taurus SHO popped up claiming it's 365 hp Eco V6 Dual Overhead Cam Turbo had the "power of an eight with the fuel mileage of a six". Then the numbers popped up; 18 city, 25 highway....ye old Chevy 6.2 OHV eight; more horses, more torque
and much better fuel mileage.....interesting....
Not to mention those V6's make a lot of HP (High HP numbers make better adverts!) but have lower torque numbers. Who needs torque anyway ?
My '94 300ZX/Twin Turbo had a 3.0L V6 that made 300hp at 6,000 rpm. It was a real hoot once I got the engine spun up above 2,500 rpm. But frankly, below that it was a sleeping dog. Even with direct injection, electronically variable valve timing, dual overhead cams, and a few other goodies not yet available for LSx engines, that car -- and all of its turbocharged brethren -- had no bottom end at all.
The moment I felt the monster torque of my pushrod V8 as I drove away from the Museum I knew I was going to have a right foot woody for the rest of my life. And getting 5mpg better highway mileage than the ZX was gravy.
My '94 300ZX/Twin Turbo had a 3.0L V6 that made 300hp at 6,000 rpm. It was a real hoot once I got the engine spun up above 2,500 rpm. But frankly, below that it was a sleeping dog. Even with direct injection, electronically variable valve timing, dual overhead cams, and a few other goodies not yet available for LSx engines, that car -- and all of its turbocharged brethren -- had no bottom end at all.
The moment I felt the monster torque of my pushrod V8 as I drove away from the Museum I knew I was going to have a right foot woody for the rest of my life. And getting 5mpg better highway mileage than the ZX was gravy.
... had the same car and it was a dog at the bottom end. Had to get it cranking before any power really showed up. Love my vette so much more all the way around including fuel mileage!
Isn't it also odd that they can't build a decently powered engine N/A? Everything they have with respectable power has a supercharger or turbos. Take away the power adders and.....slow.
The new Taurus is definitely a nice ride - but it's too heavy and too expensive. Silver medal try, though - and a car that many will no doubt buy based on the hype. Odds are they'll be happy with it, too - especially depending upon what they traded from.
Location: Currently somewhere in IL,IN,KY,TN,MS,AL, or FL
It isn't the engine's fault. The problem is wind resistance. Corvettes have gotten great mileage since the C4 simply because of their aerodynamic shape. The Taurus is a box that has to move a lot of wind. Then add 1000 pounds... Getting 365hp and 25mpg on the highway means this is a VERY efficient engine.
What you should learn from this is what it will take to get the Corvette to the required 50mpg that will be its share of the new CAFE standard in just a couple of years. Tiny, aerodynamic, light, and low powered is how you get good mileage.
how can you even compare the SHO with the vette....2 totally different cars in different segments.....funny how a lot of people here bash Ford (and no, I don't own one), but at least they're profitable....
I've owned 2 Taurus and they were ok basic transport but they both rusted away fairly quickly.
I was shocked to see the size of the new one compared to other years of the car. I realize the new one is closer to the camera but even so.
I also just don't get the increasing weight of new cars.
Location: Near Houston, Texas I like the Big Butt Corvettes
Good try Ford. At least their trying and not waiting on a government handout. The SHO is a very nice car, although it could be better. I never seen a car that didn't have some setbacks. I've owned many Fords including 3 F-150's and they've all been great automobiles.
Good try Ford. At least their trying and not waiting on a government handout. The SHO is a very nice car, although it could be better. I never seen a car that didn't have some setbacks. I've owned many Fords including 3 F-150's and they've all been great automobiles.
Ford is turning a profit and did not need billions in taxpayer $$$$'s to survive like GM
Ford is turning a profit and did not need billions in taxpayer $$$$'s to survive like GM
x's 3. Also for the person complaining about it needing a supercharger or turbo to put up good numbers......welcome to the future my friend. You're going to see more and more cars doing the same thing. V6 with a power adder to get good MPG and still retain the power of a gas guzzling V8. European cars have been doing it for years this way.
Corvette Store
Ford makes me wonder
