 2010 Ford Taurus SHO. Click image to enlarge |
|
Related articles on CanadianDriver
Manufacturer’s web site
|
Join CanadianDriver’s Facebook group
Follow CanadianDriver on TwitterReview and photos by Paul Williams
Find this vehicle in CanadianDriver’s Classified Ads
Photo Gallery:
2010 Ford Taurus SHO
Asheville, North Carolina – The Ford Taurus SHO. Ah, I remember it well (owned one, actually). Introduced in 1989, it was a Ford Taurus family sedan with a powerful Yamaha-derived V6 engine (220-horsepower, twin-overhead camshaft), stiffer suspension, dual exhaust, fancy wheels, a five-speed manual transmission, all the Taurus options and some discreet badging on the exterior: a real sleeper, and very cool.
It was followed in 1992 by a second generation SHO (that’s Super High Output, by the way) with the concession of an available automatic transmission, and in 1999 with a V8 version that we’ll just forget about, okay? And then it went away, consigned to history books and enthusiast websites.
But wait, apparently all good things don’t come to an end. Along with introducing an all-new Taurus for 2010, Ford has revived the SHO. Well, who’d a thunk it?
This SHO is all that the original cars were, and much more. And don’t worry, SHO-timers, they haven’t screwed it up… it’s the same concept and it’s a hoot to drive.
 2010 Ford Taurus SHO. Click image to enlarge |
But I get ahead of myself. Let’s take a look at what separates the SHO from a mainstream Taurus before we get to driving impressions.
Under the new-for-Taurus domed hood, you’ll find Ford’s first application of its new “EcoBoost” V6 engine, making 365 horsepower at 5,500 r.p.m., and 350 lb.-ft of torque at 1,500-5,250 r.p.m. This is genuine V8 power, and lots of it, in a V6 package (expected fuel economy is 13.9/9.4 L/100km, city/highway, premium fuel is recommended, but not required). The engine is twin-turbocharged, direct injected and mated to a performance tuned six-speed automatic transmission with paddle shifters (the final drive ratio is a low 2.77-to-1 for relaxed cruising). While the original SHO was built on the front-wheel drive Taurus platform of the day, this SHO uses all-wheel drive.
| next >> View full article on one page
|
at 6:28 am
Good job Ford! Looks nice I think.
at 6:41 am
I am aware of the Taurus history and the fact that it was one of the best selling north american cars of all time, and Ford’s falling back to that name it he hope that it will re-kindle people’s memories, but for me the name itself invokes little more than a ‘yawn’. When I think of the Taurus, I think of those ugly designs of the 80’s, 90’s, and pretty much everything up to the Ford 500. I’ve never understood the desire for a car company to take a nice looking, redesigned vehicle like this one, and give it such a mediocre badge of distinction. I guess they are banking on people that maybe owned one in the 80’s to buy another? Heck, even my Dad, who cares nothing of style and drives a Camry like everybody else, would not touch one of these with a ten foot pole just because of the name.
at 6:48 am
I DO NOT drive Camry like everyone else. As a matter of fact camry looks like pregnant potato and would not touch one with 20 foot pole. On the other hand I would take this ford anytime of the day but I do agree about the name. They should have given a different name.
at 7:19 am
I love this car! Enough room for my 4 Y.O.’s child seat but more power than my Mustang. Just wish I could afford it.
at 7:39 am
Paul…how were the acceleration times? mileage?
at 7:59 am
Premium fuel required?
True dual exhaust as in each pipe leads to headers rather than a ‘Y’ split?
at 8:06 am
“V8 power with V6 economy” We’ve all heard that before. I sincerely doubt that the SHO gets economy equal to non-turbo Taurus. Also, the author fails to mention if the all wheel drive system is full time or a useless reactive system. And no matter what hyper-aggressive driving journalists say, 20″ wheels equals brutal ride quality on real streets.
at 8:08 am
I’ll be surprised if Paul averaged more than 18mpg with the SHO (unless you did nothing but highway driving, in which case I’ll give you 20mpg)
There’s still two tons of Detroit iron there to throw around, which means those blowers are going to be spinning away a lot of the improvement from the downsized motor.
at 8:16 am
Toronto has it bang on……Park the Camry and drive the Taurus. The style is soooo sweet. The designers at Ford really earned their paycheck here…inside and out.
Hey Paul…Can you suggest to “Inside Story” and local “Pegger” Micheal Clark to feature this car?
Thanx….. “)
at 8:24 am
Ford is on a roll with good product lately. The new Fusion, sub compact Fiesta, and this Taurus SHO are real lookers, and seem to finally have the driving dynamics and quality that Ford has failed to deliver on in the past. But the name “Taurus” for me conjures up salmon inspired exterior styling, with cheap beige rental car interiors. Ford’s biggest challenge will be to change the mindset of many that this is not just a new Hertz rental car.
at 9:11 am
Thank you Winterpeg.
Another note if I may.
When did Canada switch from miles to km’s and from gallons to liters and from inches to cm’s?
Why the heck are we still using them?
Liters per km’s, stop with the miles per gallon and the other nonsense metrics which are horribly confusing. one tenth of an inch. WHAT?
at 9:45 am
They could have at least slapped the “Mondeo” badge on it. I know the European Mondeo is more “Fusion” size, but with Ford on a push to bring its Euro cars over the pond like the Fiesta, they could start phasing in some Euro names too. Nice car, I hope the whole Taurus line sells well for Ford.
at 10:18 am
The interior pictures on this page are not the SHO.
at 10:46 am
What’s wrong with on tenth of an inch? Look at a micrometer maybe?
.100″ = one tenth of an inch.
at 11:03 am
Wouldn’t touch it with a 30 ft pole. Sorry, I wouldn’t touch it with a 9.144 meter pole. I owned a 1993 SHO and it was more broke down then performance or economy or anything else.
at 12:11 pm
@Larry… this is the 2010 model.. not the 1993. It shares the name, and only the name. That’s nearly two decades between the cars you are refering to.
Ford has made some real gains in quality, and automobiles in general are better made today than 20 years ago. I don’t really think the ‘93 model has much to do with discussions of the ‘10 model, save for the positioning in correct historical context.
at 12:15 pm
1993, 2010. See the difference? That’s what we are trying to say.
what’s wrong with tenth of an inch?
It’s one tenth of 2.5 cm
how about
1mm
100mm
1000mm=1meter
1ml
10ml
1000ml= 1 liter
1km per hour
Simple and easy
10 liter per 100km’s
Not 30 miles per gallon. nightmare
and plus if you are in CANADA we no longer use them officially. so give it up.
at 12:25 pm
Eco Boost is nothing but another marketing gimmick. We are being sold a bag of goods (again) by a company that insists that bigger is better. They try to have us believe that physics don’t apply to their products. It takes X amount of kinetic energy to propel a body that weighs Y amount of pounds, period. When you increase Y, you have to increase X. And increase they did, look at the size of this whale! Just compare it to original SHO and you will see.
Yes, i will agree that we made incremental progress in the area of extracting energy from gallon of gasoline, but marginal. North American market continues to consume larger and larger cars and any technological improvements are eaten by their added weight. Look at any make and you will see what i mean, modern Corolla is larger then ’90s Camry and they are supposed to be in a different class! does it have to be this way?
at 12:46 pm
Toronto; the reason MPG is stll used is because it’s an easier metric for people to grasp. Most people find multiplication easier than division (amount of fuel X times MPG rating Y, versus amount of fuel X divided by L/100km rating Y) as well as the human tendency to prefer direct rather than inverse relationships to “how good something is.”
If you tell someone your car gets “4.7L/100km” they’ll look at you as if you’ve got two heads. If you say “50mpg” they’ll nod and go “Wow, that’s impressive.”
at 1:50 pm
@Dave: how so?
at 1:56 pm
If 4.7L per 100km is more complicated then 50mpg then I live in a different world of numbers.
the list above I gave is RRROOOOOOOUUUUUNNNNDDDD. 50mpg is and please pay attention:
80.4671 km’s per 3.78541178 liters
WHILE:
4.7L per 100km’s
IS
4700ml per 1000 meters
all is round and easy to calculate.
WOW
at 2:01 pm
Back on topic, thanks:
Estimated fuel consumption numbers are now in the article. Got overlooked when the article was published. For the record: 13.9/9.4 L/100 km, city/highway.
at 2:21 pm
Okay, last derail. It’s funny, though.
toronto: “4.7L per 100km’s IS 4700ml per 1000 meters”
Really? Because I could have sworn that while 4.7L is 4700mL, 100km is definitely NOT 1000m, or 1km.
It’s so easy, even you can foul it up.
@Chris – Thanks for the update, but I think people are looking for real-world observed numbers. Turbo engines tend to gulp a lot more fuel if the driver has even the slightest penchant for the loud pedal. I’d still call the rated numbers “V8 fuel economy” though. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Yet.
at 2:30 pm
@K24 – won’t be much in the way of real-world data till the SHO makes it onto the press fleet. You’re right, though: even driving this car normally as a commuter, real-world consumption will easily reach 15 L/100 km in the city. And in fact, the numbers quoted are almost exactly the same as those for a 2009 Mustang GT with automatic, though the EcoBoost engine is more powerful.
at 2:57 pm
Nice looking car and Ford has stepped up to deliver a competitive product!
My concern would be the reliability of the Taurus, because I have 2 friends who had owned previous generation Taurus (on of which was SHO model) and both had problems with their cars. That turned me off Ford ‘cars’ as I heard first-hand from owners griping about the annoying repair costs. Granted, those were really old model Taurus…
at 3:24 pm
It’s priced at $48,199 plus $1,350 for destination and delivery. Wow,what a great deal. $50k for a Taurus.
at 4:54 pm
If you’re opting for the SHO, the performance package is apparently a must according to other reviews I’ve read. Without it the SHO drives pretty much identically the the regular Taurus just with more power and that added power really requires the better brakes, suspension and steering.
at 6:37 pm
The SHO is overpriced, for sure. Especially when a FWD ‘base’ Taurus can be had for $30K before incentives. I would bet that the SHO will be overpriced at dealer lots. For another $5K I could get a brand new supercharged mustang with a manual transmission.
Still, the SHO is more of a show car. I can see it competing with the upcoming 2010 Buick Allure (redesigned). It comes standard with the usual 3.6L 280hp DI V6, which can easily be built to well over 300hp. If you haven’t seen the new Allure, it’s what I call a ’show’ car as well.
As for mileage, this is what I think, not necessarily on the SHO, but in general. My Durango, 360ci (5.9L) V8, 4×4 with low range averages 18L/100km. All the new vehicle tests I’ve seen, down to VW GTI with the 2.0L DI engine averages 15L/100km. I can see the new Taurus, especially the SHO getting more V8 like fuel economy numbers, close to the 18L/100km range. Full boost can be had at a mere 1500rpm, so as the engine cruises at 1600rpm at 100km/h in top gear, one can easily assume that the vehicle will consume more fuel than predicted. Both at city speeds, and highway speed. EPA tests cars at 96km/h (60mph), the old test method was 55mph, or roughly 88km/h, in which case the SHO would easily get better EPA ratings as the boost would be minimal as it would be below the cruising speed in top gear. Anyway, I’d easily expect 15-16L/100km with a light foot in an SHO. and 1-1.5L/100km less in a standard Taurus. Power+Weight=poor mileage, no matter how you calculate it.
Also, for those interested in performance numbers, MotorTrend recently published an article in their magazine with 0-60mph time at 7.0seconds for the SHO. The standard Taurus was a touch over the 8 second mark. Not much difference really, as the standard Taurus can also be had with AWD and longer lasting higher profile tires.
at 7:50 pm
What market segment does this bloated behemoth hope to attract?
It’s not going to do much to sway the true sport-sedan crowd, so is it just for the 50-something guy who can’t talk his wife into letting him get a Mustang? A dying breed…
This is yet another nail in the Ford coffin. If they were smart, they’d offer true performance in a package that gives the Euros and Japs a run for their handling money.
And to offer it only with a slushbox tranny? C’mon, Ford… weak…
at 4:34 am
Domestic manufacturers make such god awful looking steering wheels and the Taurus SHO is no exception. FUGLY.
at 1:16 pm
Interesting review but if I’m looking at this or a Fusion Sport AWD, I’d probably pick the Fusion.
Sure it wouldn’t have the high HP numbers that the new Taurus SHO does. But the Fusion doesn’t require premium fuel and doesn’t use turbocharging to get its numbers (turbocharging is inherently a more complex process and more prone to breakdowns)
I can only see this car hurting sales of the Lincoln MKS (Or maybe Mustang sales as “Need Ford Speed” meets “Need For Babyseat”)
at 7:06 pm
@ Tim about Larry.
Well… I think that Larry’s comments are absolutely relevant… in fact, more so than most here.
The point is that Larry ponied up the cash on a halo Ford product and came away disappointed. You say it’s 20 years later and things have changed. Well… that may be true but 50 large is a lot of cash when you’ve already been burned once.
That is the reason why the Detroit 3 are in trouble in the first place.
at 1:34 pm
Looks like a great vehicle but too big and uses too much fuel in my opinion. I am however overall impressed with what Ford has done lately, (ahem). A couple years ago Ford would have been last on my list – now they are up in the top 5 for sure !!
oh btw – “toronto”. I’m with you – let’s all use metric but could you at least please spell “litre” the correct way instead of the American spelling ?? lol
at 4:21 pm
did we ever think that maybe the car that was tested was an american car. mpg, mph, gal. etc. Maybe you need to give it up and be a little more flexible. I’m talking about my feelings toward fords in general not just the SHO. I’ve owned 4 Fords in my 47 yr. old life and every single one was nothing but grief.
at 11:49 pm
Wow lots of messages, thought everyone hated Ford.
Toronto, you are too advanced, please just go away, you are a pain in the ass.
350 zed…i guess i am on my death bed at 53 eh? you little punk, if you actually drive a 350 thats great, a taurus won’t tickle your fancy – understood. so i guess the question is why bother coming on this discussion forum. you are a shit pump, good bye.
metric is for pussies
if anyone pays 50k for one of these show me your paperwork, i would appreciate it.
i have only owned 3 fords since 1985 and i have never had a problem. owned 4 honda’s and only one problem (boots, waterpump bullshit), and have owned 1 nissan with no issues. the only car that pissed me off was a toyota so i won’t buy one of those, they are money traps especially the dealers.
love the styling of the taurus, can’t wait to drive one.
jd
at 1:25 am
Not a bod looking car. Is it based on the Mazda 6 platform like the Fusion? Will it be built in Canada? I try not to drive imports. Not sure I’d buy a Ford just yet, but you can see the improvements with this car. Good effort.
As for the metric imperial debate, God who cares, the worlds moving forward with or without you. I got a good handle on L/100 and have no issues with using it. I’ve lived in Australia and power numbers are stated in Kilowatts. Didn’t take long to get a handle on that either. MPG is a bust in my mind what with US MPG and Cdn MPG, but if it works for you go for your life. After living around the world coming back and getting people tell me mpg figures, its a bit like getting told how many cubits it is to Toronto. But if thats what the locals speak, I’ll get my head around it again.
at 1:10 pm
Someone said mentioned 0-60mph in 7 secs for SHO , actually it is 5.2 seconds.
at 12:47 pm
I like the new design, yea its a bit big, but its perfect for my 6′8″ frame.
at 11:56 am
Great job Ford! Just what Detroit neeed, another rental fleet vehicle. P.S. you can drop a turbocharged engine, or V10 or V12 into a rental car, but it is still a rental car at the end of the day.
at 12:10 am
Hey Al! Fact is idiot that ‘taurus’ is nothing more than a name. This car is volvo based, loaded with tech not found in cars 10 – 30 K more! It actually is a really cool ride for the money. Get over the name dufus! I bet your the guy who doesn’t mind paying 55K for a rebadged/reskinned, pregnant, awd accord with an acura TL badge on it! Ditto for crap can camry based lexus 450 or a likewise ancient chassis based overpriced Avalon with trunk hinges like my grandpa’s ‘69 merc! Now we’re talking overpriced crap! Hell the sho drives so much better than the pregnant accord it’s positively laughable – more utility/power/room/features and far easier on the eyes and less money than the TL!…..you we’re saying?!!
at 12:14 am
Jim – your plainly just another honda/toyota driving moron. Check out who the number one car company is in N.A. Jim! I suggest you bring what you drive to the Ford lot and park it beside a new sho. Then drive the sho. Until then – shut your dated mouth that is likely rivaled by the 20 yr. old dated chassis your ‘new/er’ toyota/honda rides on. At the end of this day in 2009, Toyota is the most recalled car company since ‘06!
at 12:17 am
Jack daniels, the Taurus is based on the volvo S80 platform. Likewise, acura TSX, TL, RL ride on 20 yr. old civic, accord platforms of modifyied incarnations. Ditto for many lexus and toyota products. The highlander, rx 350 , Venza etc. are are crapbox camry based. People who like Toyota products are completely void of auto enthusiast acumen or talent.
at 12:35 am
Nick! Pull your head from your ass at once! The stock awd taurus can turn 0-60 in 7.6 while the sho without option axle an fitted with all season tires did the trick in 6.0 sec. with the 1/4 mile at 14.0 sec flat! With performance option tires and axle pkg the sho will easily be in the 5.5 sec. range. Nick did you bitch out the sh awd TL that Acura claims sub 6 sec. times 0-60 but no actual production car ever gets near 6.5 sec.? Most new TL sh owners are pretty disappointed as production cars are woefully slower than acura published stats. Kindly explain to us all how pregnant awd accords with acura tl badges and reskinned camrys with lexus badges on them justify 55K and up stickers. Apparently there’s a lot of idiots that are impressed easily by a myth of greatness, a badge and little else whilst shelling out 55k plus Guys like you make me laugh. Your talking from your ass!
at 9:32 am
Way to go Ford! Nice to know that the new Ford Taurus was totally developed without any government subsidized money. The safety features are borrowed from Volvo and nice to have. Like the new look. The car looks and feels solid. Let’s hope Ford does well with this new Taurus.
at 12:34 pm
Darin,
Foolish angry child. Haven’t you heard. If it walks, talks, swims, and looks like a duck, well it is a Taurus rental car. May we recommend anger management therapy.
at 2:42 pm
The rental fleet taurus is a bloated pig, it weights in over 4200 lbs. OINK! OINK!