(first posted 12/21/2015) The first generation Taurus was a daring move by Ford, and they were deservedly successful with a great looking, great driving, comfortable, practical and well-priced design. The Taurus earned plenty of critical acclaim with its 1986 introduction, and quickly became a best seller from coast to coast. Ford could have easily rested on their laurels with an already excellent car. But instead they decided to apply a classic U.S. high performance strategy by putting a powerful engine in a mid size family car, and thus the Taurus SHO was born. This time, however, the platform was front wheel drive and the high output engine came with an exotic Asian twist. Aimed directly at enthusiasts’ hearts, it was a modern day muscle machine, and the period buff books weren’t shy about singing its praises.
Car and Driver featured the new SHO on the cover of their December 1988 issue, and inside gave an extensive preview test. The article trumpeted the Taurus SHO’s impressive performance as well as its aggressive price point: it was the fastest four-door sedan on the market for less than $50,000 (which would equal $95,700 today).
In fact, the Taurus SHO, with its sophisticated Yahama designed and built powertrain, would retail for around $20,500 or $39,327 adjusted. That was a fantastic price for such sizzling performance.
Yahama worked wonders on the basic Taurus 3.0L V6 to create the “Shogun” engine that powered the SHO. For the time, it featured exotic hardware including dual overhead cams for each cylinder bank, 4-valves-per cylinder and a sophisticated intake manifold. With 220hp and 200 lbs-feet of torque, the Shogun was a far cry from the 140hp/160 lbs-feet of the Taurus 3.0L it was based on.
Channeling that power through the front wheels was one of the most challenging aspects of developing the Taurus SHO. Ford did an excellent job trying to minimize the adverse effects of FWD on the handling characteristics, but dynamically the car still suffered in comparison with RWD platforms, and there was no getting around torque steer on take off and understeer at the limit.
One criticism of the SHO that Car and Driver noted was regarding its lack of styling differentiation from other Taurus models. Only a truly keen observer would even notice the SHO was any different than a Taurus LX from the outside—hardly the best way to announce that you had America’s best super sedan.
Looking at the test results, it’s striking to see how far performance has evolved since the late 1980s. The exotic Taurus SHO, one of the fastest sedans in the world at that time, did zero-to-60 in 6.7 seconds, which is comparable to what a plain-Jane 2015 Taurus with the EcoBoost 4-cylinder delivers today. Nor did the Ford have airbags or ABS, which would soon be expected equipment.
Road & Track featured a preview of the Taurus SHO in their October 1988 issue, and included the Acura Legend sedan in the write-up as well. While they were two very different cars, they were sized and priced about the same and both were very up-to-date designs targeting affluent, sedan-seeking Baby Boomers.
While the SHO was the performance champ, the Acura was praised for its smoothness and refinement. The choice boiled down to whether the buyer wanted a powerful, almost brutish sports sedan or a responsive luxury car with a light touch. One advantage the Acura had, at least for fans of one pedal driving, was the availability of an automatic. Even for performance car fans, the Taurus SHO being a manual only likely limited its sales appeal, given the predominance of shiftless American drivers.
Another comparison test with the SHO could be found in the January 1989 issue of Automobile Magazine, where Ford’s super sedan was pitted against the new BMW 535i. Was the top Taurus America’s answer to the 5-Series BMW?
One enormous advantage the Ford had was price. The as-tested Taurus SHO stickered for $19,870 ($38,031 adjusted) while the BMW checked in at a whopping $46,085 ($88,207 adjusted), and that was for a regular 535i (the M5 would have been $54,500 or $104,313 adjusted). These were the last days before the Japanese dramatically disrupted the German’s nosebleed-level pricing strategies…
Thankfully the SHO did away with the fake wood grain accents found in other Taurus models, replacing it with metallic trim. Lear Siegler sport seats were also standard SHO fare, though Automobile’s editors found them lacking in thigh support.
The interior ambiance of the 535i was highly praised, along with its slick shifter and super smooth inline six. While the Ford was given the nod for having an edge in handling and performance, the BMW was given high accolades for the refinement and integration of total package. The holistic finesse of the BMW was tough to beat (and still is today—just ask Cadillac).
Still, Automobile’s editors had tremendous praise for the SHO, and were careful to note that Ford’s mission—creating a value-priced American super sedan—was very different than BMW’s goal of beating Mercedes as the builder of the world’s best expensive luxury sport sedans.
So what did car buyers think of the Taurus SHO? For the 1989 model year, Ford sold 16,561 SHOs, about 4% of total Taurus output. For 1990, SHO sales were down to 8,609 units, representing a mere 3% of all Taurus models sold. Sales ticked back up slightly for 1991, the last year of the first generation SHO, when 9,136 found homes (still 3% of total Taurus output). Still, while the total sales volume wasn’t huge, these were respectable numbers for a unique, high performance variant of a family sedan. Ford also took feedback to heart, as the 1992 Taurus refresh brought more unique exterior styling elements to better differentiate the SHO from its lesser stablemates, and an automatic transmission arrived for 1993.
Without a doubt, the Taurus has to be considered one of the milestone cars of the 1980s, and the SHO was its brazen flagship. Even if the car was a bit rough around the edges, the SHO was a bold engineering play coming from a confident company. The resulting highly unique car could certainly hold its own against some pretty impressive competition, and it rightfully earns a place in the car enthusiast’s Hall of Fame.
“Yahama worked wonders on the basic Taurus 3.0L V6 to create the “Shogun” engine that powered the SHO…the Shogun was a far cry from the 140hp/160 lbs-feet of the Taurus 3.0L it was based on.”
To what extent was the Yamaha engine related to the Vulcan? The reliable but uninspiring Vulcan was an iron-block pushrod motor. It was previously my understanding that the Yamaha engine was an entirely separate design. The R&T article is somewhat vague on this topic, stating that
“Initially, Ford wanted some low-volume, high-performance cylinder heads from Yamaha that it could bolt on to the US-built 3.0-liter Vulcan V-6 cylinder block. But as development progressed, Yamaha took over more and more of the project, now building complete engines to Ford specifications”
and continues
“The water manifold lives where the camshaft would on a pushrod V-6”
I’m curious as to the details of what was common between these engines, and what was not.
I’ve always been a fan of the Taurus and Sable, and would have loved to build an SHO Sable station wagon. The ultimate family sleeper circa 1990.
I’ve never dug deeply into the relation between them, I imagine they’re slightly related, but extensively modified, that meh DOHC Twin-Cam 3.4 that GM used in the W-bodies was related to the 3.1 OHV V6, but just barely.
Same bellhousing pattern, bore, and stroke.
Since both engines share the same bore and stroke, it’s clear that the SHO engine is heavily based on the Vulcan and not a “clean sheet” design. If any internal parts interchange is another story. But Yamaha obviously started with a Vulcan.
Paul, Live Long and Prosper.
The major telltale would be if the bore spacing is the same. Which I assume it is, although none of these articles specify.
I remember first reading about the Taurus SHO, and while I was impressed with its overall performance, I didn’t like the horsepower/torque ratings of the engine. It had plenty of horsepower, but I didn’t think it had enough torque. 220hp is perfect, but I felt it should’ve delivered 240 ft.-lbs. of torque.
Do you understand how engines work? Without being boosted, it’s not possible to design an engine to just belt out some arbitrary ampount of torque from a given amount of displacement. 200 lb.ft is an excellent number for 182 cubic inches (1.1 lb.ft./cubic inch), and is still competitive today. Ford’s current 3.5 L V6 manages 240 lb.ft from 215 cubic inches, or 1.16 lb.ft./cubic inch. That’s very little improvement in 25 years.
Some good points. The torque peak is also at 4800 rpm, and it’s always tough for car companies to design an engine that everyone likes. Some of the gripes about the SHO is that there’s not enough low end grunt (in contrast, Ford’s Thunderbird Super Coupe has a massive 315 ft lbs at 2800 rpms). But also, the Super Coupe doesn’t breathe as well in the upper rpms because of that emphasis on low end power. But there’s no denying that the SHO was a helluva car and is still a great car, today. I do agree with Car and Driver that a few more custom touches would have been great for the SHO, to differentiate it from the regular Taurus a bit more.
I remember driving an SHO Taurus when they first came out (a good friend was a salesman at a Ford store and invited me to drive one). Of course this was a good number of years ago but the two things that I remember most about the SHO was that it was very quick on takeoff and it understeered like a pig. Several times during my drive I found myself approaching a curve at too high a speed and had to jump on the brakes to slow down enough to keep from running off the road. Of course this may speak to my driving ability more than the Taurus. I had just purchased a 1988 Mustang GT convertible (for several thousand dollars less than the SHO’s sticker), and I would not have been willing to swap the Mustang straight up for the Taurus. I give Ford credit for trying to sell a high performance FWD vehicle but the result left much to be desired.
There is an interesting quote in the Automobile article…
“Ford has now disproved the superstition that 200bhp was the uppermost limit for a front wheel drive car”
I thought that had been disproven in 1966…..
Umm; it’s about how many lbs each hp has to deal with. The SHO had 13 lbs/hp; the Toro 15 lb/hp. Cars the size and weight of the Toronado were history by 1989; they were talking about contemporary cars.
I have always wondered why torque steer was never mentioned in relation to the early Toros. Even adjusting to net hp it was much higher than 200.
I remember R/T when talking about the then new quad four in 1987, said Olds targeted 150hp because that was as high as they could go without lots of torque steer.
Torque steer is more associated with transverse mounted engines and coupled with FWD – packaged for space efficiency, but generally not optimized for driving characteristics.
The GM E-body FWD cars used longitudinally mounted engines from 1966 through the 1985 model year. The Chrysler LH FWD cars also utilized a longitudnially mounted engine. These are the only two (that I can think of)mass produced modern era FWD that used this configuration. In a sea of transverse mounted FWD cars, the Chrysler LH cars stood out for their handling and avoiding torque steer.
Chrysler’s longitudnially mounted engine was a big draw for me in finally succumbing to a FWD car.
Audi, does, or sort of does, their engines sit Nord-Sud.
I always thought it was related to the suspension geometry (they mention the scrub axis etc being changed for the SHO) and uneven driveshaft lengths allowing for more deflection on the longer shaft.
Weren’t the transmission and differential was still offset on the Toronado/UPP cars?
The experience as reported by “just plain joe” is a familiar one to thise raised on RWD. But it was deceptive in the Taurus SHO. To me the SHO first felt like it was going to plow out of a curve but then it would hook itself up and round it. Probably at even higher speed it would have terminally understeered, maybe at a somewhat different speed range it would feel different, as Chrysler’s LH sedans would, a few years later…understeering at sedate speeds but lightening up nicely in more enthusiastic driving. When familarizing myself to FWD, I had to force myself to get to where the SHO, and even the stock Taurus, felt “right.”
Ford did have an interesting hit with these. Unfortunately the probably never took off and much as they wanted. Considering how much performance you got, I forgot how well priced these were, pretty cheap for the time. Knowing then what they know now I wonder if offering an automatic from the get go would have been a better choice.
Perhaps they didn’t have one ready at the time that could handle the power, it was a similar story for the Twin-Cam 3.4 from GM, which had been able to get up to 275 on the dyno, but had to be dialed back to 210-215 for production. At one time, the 3.4 was going to be the top engine option for the “never happened” FWD GM80 F-body.
Unfortunately, the 2nd gen of these didn’t live up to the rep of the first gen. Loosing the manual, with the combination of the ugly as sin styling, didn’t help.
The second gen never lost the manual. The automatic was introduced with the second gen with a displacement bump to 3.2 and the manuals soldiered on with the 3.0 until the V8 powered 3rd gens came along. The third gens were auto only.
I disagree about the styling too, the second gens look cleaner IMO
I don’t really think that should be considered a second gen, its like Taurus 1.5, to me the real 2nd gen is the 1996, which did lose the manual.
I don’t think the refreshed early 90’s ones are bad looking.
Ah gotcha, I totally agree in that case. I just go by the established definition on the matter, but I don’t necessarily agree with it either. Really I group the original midsize Taurus into two generations instead of four, the 3rd and 4th are even less different from each other than the 1st and 2nd
It was interesting how the used the Sable headlights on the SHO, the nose looks a little weird though, there were always rumors of a Sable SHO, though they never made one, they probably should have.
I have that exact sho. Im selling for 2500.
As an owner of a 1986 Mercedes 300E, in 1989 my eyes strayed for the first time. both of these cars were very attractive. I seriously wondered whether I should have waited for the new E34 BMW 535i, as the E28 was just to long in tooth and boxy.
And then there was the SHO. But having read this review, I soon came to realize that while the SHO was a great effort and undoubtedly a fun drive, like too many American performance cars, too much of the emphasis was put on superlative track/skid pad numbers, and not quite enough on being well balanced for every day driving and the long haul. I would have tired of it, like I did with my T-Bird Turbo Coupe. I never got tired of my 300E.
How time flies,
When the SHO debuted, 220 horsepower from 3 liters of V6 was considered to be “high performance” and the engine was “exotic” and the car that carried such an engine had a premium price attached. Today, large 4 cylinder engines approach and meet that number….and in “bread and butter” sedans. Ford’s “slightly” larger V6 in the Mustang produces nearly 50% more horsepower.
I have never driven an SHO, just several different “regular” Tauruses of different vintages/generations. The regular Taurus is a fairly good car, I would guess that the SHO was worth the premium price.
As others have said: too bad Mercury didn’t get a similar car, though they did come close, and too bad there was no wagon bodystyle offered.
When us Brits got the Sierra Cosworth in 85 200hp was considered exotic! . The Taurus never made these shores but the 2nd gen SHO was sold in Japan with RHD. Yes I saw one one Ebay a few years ago .
I know all about torque steer …. had a job keeping a Fiesta RS Turbo in a straight line .
I’m sorry but Shogun badges appear on twin turbo Fuso Mitsubishi V8 trucks, its hard to relate the name to a performance Ford with 230hp less. It is however interesting to compare this SHO to the original development wide body Camry which also had roughly 200 neddies and a 240 kmh top speed tyre smoke if you floored it at 100 mph was no problem at all, however Toyota detuned it quite severely before anyone else saw one, sounds like it might have had a market if they’d left it as originally built.
Kiwibryce:
Probably not really worth explaining BUT….
The Ford Taurus SHO got it’s name from the Super High Output engine. It should have been more properly called a Taurus S.H.O.
The Mitsubishi is (obviously) named after a Japanese warrior.
A more incongruous name is used on Mercury’s version of the Taurus, Sable. As much as I like the cars and the name, when I think Sable I think fur coat.
The shogun was more of a political figure, a generalissimo or military dictator. Thus, after the surrender, the Japanese called Douglas MacArthur “gaijin shogun,” or “foreign generalissimo.” He must’ve loved that.
Tire smoke when flooring it from 100 MPH? In a Camry of any kind? Uh huh.
New Zealand horsepowers are wayyyy more powerful than “regular” horsepower, due to the same phenomenon that causes their toilets to flush counter-clockwise. Vaporized fuel entering the combustion chamber at a slight counter-clockwise rotation is said to be as much as 5x or 6x more potent (as opposed to clockwise or neutral). That’s why Bryce is able to regularly blow the doors off BMWs, Hondas and all manner of sports cars in his 73HP Citroën.
So why “73HP” rather than “438HP”? Well, it was only PSA and certain other manufacturers with a strong presence in New Zealand (like Toyota in the early ’90s) that discovered this quirk of internal combustion, and since they didn’t want the government or insurance companies coming down HARD on them for selling such dangerously powerful vehicles, they exploited an obscure loophole in the country’s arcane automotive regulations.
In the early days of the horseless carriage, HP ratings in NZ were given in both best and worst case scenarios, and if a manufacturer prefers, they can still revert to the “minimum”, non-SAE rating if they choose. It requires stuffing at least one fully grown Feijoa plant into the exhaust path and running the engine on top of Mount Cook while a local sheep farmer smashes jugs of bathtub Hokonui moonshine over the throttle body until the engine stalls. Every year, the first car off the ships with the newly approved powerplant is then ceremonially burned in the city center of Christchurch, for good luck.
For most manufacturers, NZ is too small a market, and they haven’t yet invested in developing their own Coriolis compensator technology.
Don’t forget the magical handling bestowed only upon French vehicles destined for the kiwi market as part-restitution for the rainbow warrior incident… Too soon?
Thanks Sean, I had a good chuckle! It’s exhausting enough reading Bryce’s posts, let alone coming up with such a great response. I’ve long since given up trying.
How could I forget?!
There is one side effect, though… prolonged exposure to the eXtreme G-force permanently remaps a part of your brain to misidentify any unfamiliar car as “a rebadged Mitsubishi”
Thanks Sean; you managed to put a smile on my crotchety old face this dark, cold,foggy morning. I needed that!
Yes unfortunately the development model sold only in NZ went much better than the redesigned world model which was much slower but had lower fuel consumption, that you dont know about those cars doesnt surprise me thyey didnt go anywhere else in 89/90.
It was 2007.
My next-door neighbor came into a ’93 SHO that had been sitting for a few years. It was for sale at a reasonable price and my 15-year-old son wanted it. I would work on it and have it ready for when he got his license.
It was the most difficult vehicle I’d ever wrenched on. Tight clearances, Ford anomalies a GM guy like me wasn’t used to, diagnostics that required plugging in a “breakout box” – something I’d never seen in any GM I’d owned. But finally I got it running and run it DID.
Only the Cadillac STS4 I’d driven a couple years earlier felt as sure footed on the highway at 125 MPH. I was impressed and wondered why GM couldn’t – or wouldn’t – build a FWD that felt as solid and planted as this.
(Of course GM would but again this was 2008)
The automatic transmission was the weak spot, and it was a blessing in disguise when it let go. We’d already figured out that maybe it was a little too much car for a 16-year-old. Plus the electrical system was taxed due to improper installation (by my son and his friends) of a subwoofer and it would just cut out whenever the mood hit it. He got tired of that really fast and began driving my ’97 Blazer instead. The SHO went to the scrapyard.
The next-door neighbor came across Chevy’s “equivalent” Lumina Z34 for that year and fixed it up for their 16-year-old son. The part that made me want to weep was that even by casual observance, by that time Chevrolet had given up (for that moment anyway) even the pretense of trying to compete with Ford in the mid-size segment. I’d driven enough Tauruses to know that much of their solid feeling derived from the car’s superior design…the Yamaha V-6 and extra suspension tuning was icing on the cake. 15 years before, it was totally different, Chevy’s Malibu was a competitive and even desirable offering compared with Ford’s Fox-body Fairmont, no slouch itself.
In retrospect I probably should’ve never even entertained the notion. But I didn’t want to be hypocritical…I’d owned one Ford before, only one: a 1960 2-door sedan that was rusted out and never ran. But it was only $5. It was 1970, I was thirteen. I wanted my folks to grab one of the two Tri-Five Chevies my uncle next door was about to scrap. They would’ve also been $5 but Dad refused, and I ended up with the Ford. If I ever share my COAL story you’ll find after that ’60 Ford, it’s filled with Bowtie after Bowtie over nearly five decades. Today wifey drives an Equinox; I own a 14-year-old Tahoe.
So for me, bringing a Ford into the family was expanding my horizons, I was growing as a person and a dad. Sadly, working on it validated about every suspicion I ever had about working on Blue Ovals.
“The next-door neighbor came across Chevy’s “equivalent” Lumina Z34 for that year and fixed it up for their 16-year-old son. The part that made me want to weep was that even by casual observance, by that time Chevrolet had given up (for that moment anyway) even the pretense of trying to compete with Ford in the mid-size segment.”
I think had you tried working on that Z34, you might have wanted to weep also. The SHO engine in the first and 2nd Gen SHO were a pain to work on but that DOHC 3.4 in the Lumia and Monte Z34 was even more of a pain.
Unfortunately, with a more complex engine that deviated from a standard pushrod setup, things just are more difficult. People want more power and something that’s exotic and unique, but they also need to realize that anything exotic and unique is usually going to cost a lot more in terms of maintenance, and that includes when the engine breaks down. Also, when the SHO’s started losing value, that’s when the conundrum of the “fix or scrap it?” comes into the equation.
I saw an SHO just last week, pulling out of a parking lot as I was walking by. It was in immaculate shape and being driven by a very elderly woman (!)
I did not have a chance to chase her down yelling “Hey, do you want to sell your car?!!!)
The opportunity was missed. I hope that I see it again.
This one I got here last month. Still clean.
Other pic.
So for the price of the 535i you could have his and hers Taurus SHO’s and a used 3k pickup for home depot and camping trips. Think I would go that route.
I thought it was a great car when it came out, wish I had been able to own one back then.
It’s funny how things are relative. The SHO was another harbinger that the Malaise era was being swept away by new and updated cars and drive trains.
The SHO always seemed to be treated as somewhat exotic by Ford and the press, which may be why is was never a very relvant part of the Taurus sales picture.
By 1995, a quick 220 HP family sedan had become more or less commonplace if you were willing to spring a few extra bucks. The ’95 Chrysler Concorde I purchased had the 215 HP 3.5 engine, and was not only quick, it handled very well with its “normally” mounted engine. Chrysler promoted the car as a logical step up in performance and luxury, nothing exotic, and their various 3.5 equipped cars sold quite well.
Ford seemed to contually struggle with selling their premuim priced FWD cars until the current post recession era – where high end Fusions seem to do pretty well.
What really kinda sucked the wind out of the SHO was the much prettier Grand Prix GTP with the blown 3800 that came out in 1997, there was no comparison between the 2.
We sold these faster than $10 A in TJ…..
Compared to the V8 jellybean SHO, the GTP really was superior in every way. Quite a feat for a 10-year old platform up against a clean sheet design.
The previous generation SHO (especially the ’92-’95) was a different story. I owned a ’97 GP GT coupe (test drove a GTP but it was more than I could spend at the time) and absolutely loved it. A coworker of mine in those days had a ’93 SHO 5-speed which he let me drive one day. To this day it’s the fastest I’ve ever driven on a public road – over 140 mph. (IIRC the GTP was governed at 124-ish) Everything about it felt like Ford really was out to build the proverbial “poor man’s BMW”, while the GTP seemed more like a late ’90s interpretation (albeit a well-done interpretation) of a ’60s muscle car.
Funny thing was that the SHO was actually his wife’s daily driver. His other vehicle was a ’98 Expedition that he bought to pull an RV. Its trailer-towing prowess, even with the 5.4L, was rather lacking in the mountains of New Mexico, so he had a Kenne Bell supercharger installed. What a sleeper!
Grand Prix’s were always sharp cars. I could care less about the 4 doors, but the coupes in GTP form and with whatever hi-po V was available were always an appealing package. Shame they never hooked the S/C 3800 V6 to a Getrag 5 spd. That package in a coupe would be a sweet setup as fwd V6 cars go.
I really liked the GTP coupes too, but I utterly hate the sedans, I didn’t even know the GTP was made as a sedan until my neighbor’s parked theirs in front of my curb and saw the badge on the door while I was mowing the lawn. The proportions are really weird looking on them IMO, like a limo conversion done to a coupe. The Gen 1 and 2 Taurus were much better proportioned as far as 4 doors to my eye.
And not that the Ford interiors of the time were anything to write home about the Poncho was just miserable. That glossy black plastic, those blobby grey buttons, those lite bright gauges – No thanks, been there done that. I liked seeing those cars on the roads, but I know better than to get into another one again if I don’t want that whiff of rubbery plastic to asphyxiate me.
Pontiac had bad interiors down to a science in the 90’s. The whole theme was just off-putting and the orange illumination made it look like Halloween. Bulgy round vents, strange surfaces, no thanks. While out with a friend car shopping, I briefly sat in a early 00’s Grand Prix, and about 60 seconds was enough to decide that it was not worth consideration IMO. He was upgrading from a ’94 V6 Firebird and, regrettably, the design theme was consistent between the two!
He ended up with an Infiniti I30 which was on a different planet interior-wise.
Ford’s issues with cars after 1995 was due to incompetent leadership from Jacques Nasser and Henry Ford (what numba?). It was not until Alan Mulally took over that things started to get straightened out and brown nosers were fired and problem solvers were hired and retained.
We can thank Mr. Mulally for the One Ford concept where the good stuff that was being built in Europe soon became the standard that is now being sold around the world.
Only ever seen one in the car park at a show in Cheshire. I’m sorry to say I never paid it much attention as a new yellow Challenger caught my eye at the same time.
Sounds like you chose wisely!
My 1990 SHO was one of my favorite rides. It taught me that a relatively large 4-door sedan could be fun. I was lucky enough to have one with the inflatable seat bolsters that I could adjust perfectly. I could set the side bolsters so that the seat felt like a racing seat when the shoulder harness would “ratchet” tight around my chest when taking a high speed turn perhaps a little too fast. The magazine articles reminded me of the brake issues and the “notchiness” of the manual transmission. What the magazine writers did not know at the time was that these cars would not be known for their longevity (although hard use might have played a part.) It was very difficult to find a good 89-91 version even in the late 90s. I am also lucky enough to own another American-made, fast (for its time) 4-door sedan, a 2nd generation CTS-V (also with a manual transmission.) As much as I enjoy my “V,” I think I had more fun in my SHO.
My 1989 red Ford Taurus SHO, which I bought new, was the most unreliable car that I’ve owned. Everything failed…I do mean everything…other than the Yamaha engine. The quality of materials, construction, and fit and finish was dreadful. I kept it for 102,000 miles because I bought the zero-deductible 100,000 mile, including parts, labor and a loaner car, warranty. In hindsight, keeping that car, which should have been painted bright yellow, wasn’t worth the trouble. An engineer at Valeo, the manufacturer which made the clutch, two of which failed, told me that Valeo had told Ford that the clutch fitted to the car was undersized for the output of the engine. In its day, with sticky summer tires, the SHO was a nice cruiser and was fun to drive for its size, other than the wretched gear-shift linkage and ferocious torque-steer…when it wasn’t in the shop.
The small clutch was well known weak point and was upgraded in 1990.
It’s astounding that Yamaha could hit such a home run with the V6 SHO, and then come up with that shit-grenade of a V8. The cam gears were only pressed on, and failed frequently. Owners had to resort to businesses which would either “pin” the sprockets, or preferably, weld them. A large number of the V8 SHOs met their demise this way.
I had a black ’89 SHO bought new from Beach Ford in Va Beach, VA while I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy. Had the car almost 5 years and about 80K miles as a DD. Don’t recall having any clutch trouble, although I do remember they were considered a weak spot. It wore out front tires at a ferocious rate, not surprising considering the abuse they took. Yes, the shifter (or trans) was very notchy and the brakes weren’t up to the performance of the car. Otherwise, it was reliable and didn’t give me any problems. It was a comfortable and very fast cruiser. I didn’t lost many stoplight drag races either. Opening the hood and gazing at that gorgeous Yamaha V6 was icing on the cake. Overall, one of the better cars I’ve owned. I supposed part of the soft spot I have for my old SHO was that we brought our first child (daughter) home in it, so what’s not to like…?
I have to wonder if the shift linkage in the SHO was the same used in the MT5. Shifting my wifes car was more hunt and push than snick, snick. Horrible thing to do to an otherwise impressive performance vehicle.
I own a MT-5…never driven a SHO…so I can’t answer that question…but my MTX III shift linkage seems ok to me…but I drive Semi’s which are rubbery so thats what I’m used too.
Was third owner of ’89 SHO from 1994 to 2006. Daily driver from 66K to just under 250K miles. That was a CAR!. It went where you wanted it to go, and stopped when you wanted it to stop. No tricks. Once on a long,straight&fully clear sight lines WI paved,county road reached 130MPH, but only once since was father to small child,mortgagee,&very happily married. The SHO’s top was not yet evident. Two 1000+ miles days. Very comfortable seating. Hair above 30MPG. Did have to replace clutch <150K miles, but relatively cheap repair.Other than that there were only consumables' expenses. The electrical system finally failed and gave to eagle scout in my wife's scout troop who repaired that&drove for a while longer. Some rust damage had started to appear. Did read for sale advertisement for it about two years later that said the important ~70K rebuild had been done to it. Embarrassed to admit had not known of the need for the repair when purchased the SHO (prob why it was for sale, plus that second owner admitted it was costing him too many speeding tickets, that it just drove faster than you would think it was going) and did not worry RE doing it until something went wrong since I read in more than one place that failure following from not doing the rebuild would not fatally damage engine, just would have to do the rebuild at that point. Curious when it would fail, but it never did. Was serviced regularly. Experience with this SHO convinced me that TheStates' auto companies could build a car equal to any other produced any where.
As a fan of the “regular” Taurus, I really loved these. You never see the 1st gen cars anymore…2nd gen, on the other hand, still seem to be running around, if not plentiful.
If I ever run across a good one, though, it’s still a car I’ve always wanted…
When these came out, I found it completely stupifying that this fantastic motor wasnt stuffed into something more appropriate…like the contemporary Probe. Nowadays, I get it that a sedan with a pulse is something that just has to exist. Some enthusiasts are cornered into having to make a practical choice yet dont want to drive completely brain dead, so this type of car is how its gotta be. Still, Ive always seen so called sport sedans as the ‘butterface’ of the automotive world. Everyone knows that one girl who has a smoking hot body, a great personality, she’s smart, fun, kind, witty…awww, but her FACE! Thats how these are. Arguably its a well rounded, affordable package that on paper should make the perfect DD and toy for an enthusiast….IF you can get past the sedan bodystyle. Just too clunky and frumpy, even when its pulled off as cleanly as the 1st gen Taurus.
I remember the first time I laid eyes on that intake manifold.
It looked as though it was designed by Medusa. Downright sensual!
It is interesting that the Automobile test says the BMW is 500 pounds heavier than the SHO, then quotes a curb weight 400 lb lighter than the other articles. Also putting the manufacturer’s quoted 0-60 times in the table rather than their own recorded times!
The car certainly sounds impressive, by contrast a few years later Ford (with Tickford) would create the XR6 version of the Falcon. They went to considerably less effort… I think most areas they just selectively chose regular parts, eg the stiffest 10% of the valve springs, and used minor changes like a higher pressure fuel regulator and free-flowing exhaust. Power went from 198 to 216 hp, while torque rose from 262 to a 274 lb-ft peak slightly lower in the rev range. Weight was 3330lb, and performance was a match for the 5.0 XR8, slightly better in some areas, including handling with less weight on the front end.
“Only a truly keen observer would even notice the SHO was any different than a Taurus LX from the outside—hardly the best way to announce that you had America’s best super sedan.”
Not a problem in my book–I like sleepers!
The late eighties were a pretty exciting time for Ford, at least to my eyes. Sales were great, quality was improving, the new T-Bird was out, the Probe, Festive, a passable Tempo (to my eyes), the updated Mustang. Times were good.
When the SHO was first released, I was fourteen years old standing at a magazine rack at a mall bookstore, reading the featured article in Car and Driver. My dad saw me at the rack and assumed I was looking at naughty magazines.
He was angry at me for hours until I informed him that I was reading a car magazine. His demeanor changed immediately.
Conan’s Taurus SHO. He supposedly still owns it.
After a string of used Opels and a Volvo 245 handed across by my wife I finally had a brand new car as my daily driver. Admittedly it was a company car, not mine. Importantly it was a 1995 SHO, hunter green over tan leather, and with the proper number of pedals in the footwell.
Did I like it? Well, company policy was to turn a car in for a replacement at about 75-80,000 miles. I overruled the fleet manager and gave it back at about 125,000. Over that time period it was dead-on reliable. The only significant service was a brake job at about 100,000 miles.
The SHO was a great car at the time, indeed. Especially to me.
Around this time it was hard to find a high-performance version of a standard car like the Taurus that didn’t force you to take tacky spoilers/ground effects/wheel opening cladding outside, and dull grey or black interiors with uncomfortable “sport seats” with scratchy upholstery inside to get the performance upgrades. I would have loved this car if it looked like a Taurus LX inside and out.
I agree. The standard ’86 Taurus had the Euro look baked in. It looked German inside and out as is. Why they would tamper with that is anybody’s guess.
2 stories.
#1 My daily driver back around ’90 was a BMW Bavaria. Quick for it’s day and still a relative stud in the still recovering domestic HP market, although not nearly king of the hill. A car turned down a country road just in front of me, he made a right, I made a left following. I took off briskly, not nearly full throttle, but not grandma either and he just flat out disappeared. I romped on it and caught up, not to race but just to see WTF took off. A SHO obviously. I’d heard of them, but this was the first I’d seen in action. I was impressed.
#2 After my Dad passed, my stepsister made the trip out to California from KC. Car conversation came up and her husband had an SHO. She was not fond of it. Seems he was always lighting up the tires, it was always in the shop and never for less than $800. Almost like real money back in the midwest in 2000, especially if repeatedly. Don’t know what for.
I think I’ve seen 3 in the past year. 2 running and one sitting, perhaps a project. All rough. While never a domestic car fan, I’d have liked to have seen better for a one time BMW M5 fighter. They may have been in a disposable body, but they deserved better.
The 89-91 SHOs are the most common version of the Gen 1 Taurus/Sable that shows up for sale now. I constantly find new listings of those SHOs for sale but barely any for the regular sedan and wagons. Makes me sad.
I had a co-worker who bought one of these new around 1990. He had I mid 80’s Buick Century and had to learn how to drive standard transmission after buying the SHO. My Father had the more conventional Mercury Sable with the 3.0; and I remember talking to a mechanic about the SHO…he kind of admired it from afar, but also seemed to be wary about repair cost…being younger, it really didn’t sink in, but now (I’m decades older than my Father was at the time) I appreciate it…speed costs money, and undoubtedly the SHO was more exciting than a garden variety Taurus or Sable. Of course the 3.8 litre was known to be troublesome, but the 3.0 was pretty safe…but my Father was leasing cars back then (for some reason, only the Sables, he went back to purchasing afterward) so he didn’t own any long enough to have any problems, I think his last one had the 3.8.
I have a green 1992 sho that I’m selling for 2500.
00 yes it runs it just needs tlc