8th Aug 2001, 08:16
The Taurus SHO's SUCK. To list everything that went amiss with the car after only 3 months out of the show room would take entirely too long. Even Ford employees will tell you what a piece of crap this car is. I'm keeping mine for 1 more year, to get the full use out of the engine I replaced, and then I'm selling it to some stupid guy who likes fast cars so he can kill it whatever way he likes.
5th Sep 2001, 21:42
SHOs do suck, you better have at least enough money for a new motor. Have a list of replacements such as timing belt that will cost a good amount, then buy a clutch, brakes every year because they suck, and the valves at 60k... and the list goes on.
26th Oct 2001, 10:27
1991 SHO, purchased by me in November of 1990 new. Now have 165,000 miles, have had trouble with the centerforce pressure plates (2), stock clutch started to slip at 65,000 miles. Now running a centerforce disk with stock Ford pressure plate. Crank poss sender failed at 140,000 miles. Those are the only trouble I have had, I drive this car hard and would buy a new one if it was still made.
1st Nov 2001, 08:30
I have a 1991 Ford Taurus SHO Plus with the slicer wheels, fiberglass hood, ground effects, and rear deck spoiler.
All I have to say to all those guys who said the Taurus SHO's suck, you really don't know the car or don't like Fords. The motor from the SHO is one of the best, if not the best 6-cylinder engines made. Name one other domestic 6-cylinder based car that would be able to smoke an SHO. The Camaro RS's are slugs, the Mustang's with the 6's are slugs as well.
The thing that is the worst with the SHO's is the brake rotors because they are undersized and warp easily. You can get the 96 brake upgrade from any SHO club page pretty much, but they are expensive. They can run you up to $1200.
The car does have a lot of time in the shop, but once it's running up to speed no other 6-cylinder can stand up to it. And please will nobody be like OHH an NSX will smoke it and all. NO DUH! That's why it cost up to $80K and the SHO's are around ehhh... for a 91 around $3k, so which is the better deal?
14th Jan 2002, 15:24
I have a 91 SHO which I bought new in June 91. I have 52,000 original miles and I drive the car hard. The body and engine /transmission/ clutch are original and in perfect condition.
The only thing I have done in 11 years is front brake pads and rotors, spark plugs, the rear brake balance valve, CV boots, tires and new dash CD player.
Everything on the car has endured perfectly. It is still in showroom condition as it does not go out in the rain. This car runs, corners and brakes like a race car, which it is.
You people who say that SHO's suck don't have a clue. Maybe you bought one that was severely abused. Where else can you find a performance sedan that will run circles around all factory productions in the past 10 years, get 30 mpg, 140 mph, 14 sec 1/4 mile, 0.95 G and stop on a dime.
Maxima's are what sucks, as they are trying to compete with the SHO. Toyota does not even try.
21st Jun 2002, 19:18
Go to SHOForum.com and you'll know everything good and bad about the SHO. They can be money pits, but just about everybody continues with them because these cars have soul! I have never driven a car with more personality. And think about this, what other sedan has a V6 with the HP/liter numbers this beast has. Think about it, in 1989, 220hp out of 3 liters. The new Maximas have 255hp out of 3.5 liters. 13 years later and no company gives its sedans that power, unless you need to supercharge or add turbos.
O.K. I am forgetting about the M5 of the early 90's with the 3.5 inline 6. But look at that price.
21st Jun 2002, 20:20
I have owned 4 SHOs, including a Vortech Supercharged 95 MTX. These cars are not for the average driver, but are for the enthusiast. They are cars that appreciate maintenance. They do have their shortcomings (brakes, chassis flex), all of which can be addressed. Aftermarket & stock parts are expensive & hard to come by. The 89-95 Yamaha-built V6 is a work of art. The 96-99 3.4L all-aluminum Yamaha/Ford built V8 is surprisingly quick, especially when you consider it's moving a 3600+ lb land yacht. All in all, these are great sleeper cars, and those that appreciate & work with the cars will reap a bountiful reward. RIP Jezebel (95 MTX SuperSHO).
21st Jun 2002, 22:33
I've owned 19 cars in my 11 years of driving. Of those 19, which includes 5 Mustangs, 2 trucks, 3 Z cars, 3 Thunderbirds and others, the 2 SHOs I have owned have been great cars. I currently drive the 8 cylinder "GenIII" model and the car has been rock solid, even at 6 years old it still rides like new. I've been happy to have such a unique vehicle, these SHOs are few and far between, all the sports sedans you see today in the 20K price mark have this car to call their pioneer.
28th Jun 2002, 22:00
The SHO's are one of the greatest cars ever built. They were haul ass fast, could cruise at a buck twenty no problem, and got sick gas mileage. What else could you ask for in a big four dour sedan with a small displacement, high-revving 6. This was probably the best idea that Ford ever had. I'm thinking they should resurrect the SHO out of the SVT garage to go with the Lightning, Cobra, and Focus SVT. It would be fitting to fill out the SVT line with the car that started it all for Ford.
24th Aug 2002, 20:30
This car is truly remarkable. In 1989, the first year, it had the third highest power-to-displacement ratio out of any American or import, even turbo and supercharged cars.
Those who say they are a piece of junk and the motors are trash are simply not the sharpest knives in the drawer. The Yamaha built motor is one of the longest lasting motors, due partly to the fact that it is Japanese. And these will take out a Mustang GT. I won 20 bucks in a race against one, it was a convertible and an automatic, but its the principle here. Those cars cost 4 times as much, eat twice as much gas, look half as good, have a motor displacement 1.5 times bigger than the SHO's- can anyone here do math???
I have had one for 3 years, and have done nothing but the oil changes and air filter. And the 60k service (valves) is completely doable for anyone with the least amount of brains. And history shows that the valve shims need adjusting after an average of 130,000 miles, although it is recommended to check them at 60 and 100k. This car is unique, and the lines will hold for years to come.