Many resources are needed to download a project. Please understand that we have to compensate our server costs. Thank you in advance. Project price only 1 $
You can buy this project and download/modify it how often you want.
From: [email protected] (Gene Kim)
Subject: REVIEW: 1989 Ford Taurus SHO
Review of 1989 Ford Taurus SHO -- By Gene Kim
=============================================
Background:
Last week, I bought a 1989 Ford Taurus SHO, moving up from driving
a 1987 Toyota Celica ST and a 1975 Oldsmobile Cutlass. I have been
interested in buying a SHO for about five months and have been combing
the classifieds in Denver and Chicago every week. I bought a
remarkably clean maroon/red SHO with 92K miles on it for $6800.
As far as I can tell, this is about $2000 under Blue Book and I still
have another 8000 miles before the Extended Service Plan runs out.
As one should with any pre-1991 SHOs, I made sure that the car was
already refit with the upgraded clutch and pressure plate, as well as
having been recalled for upgraded rotors and seatbelt attachments.
However, my SHO does not have the newer rod shifter -- I understand I
can get this for $230 from any Ford service center. In addition, the
car received the full tune-up at 60K miles, receiving new platinum
plugs and valve adjustment.
For a car with 92K miles on it, the car was virtually immaculate.
The clearcoat paint job was devoid of any large chips or dents,
although the front air-dam/molding was covered with lots of small
scratches -- not surprising since most of the miles were spent on the
highway.
Having driven a smaller two-door coupe for so long, I was a bit
concerned about whether I could get used to driving a larger car. To
my surprise, the size of the car doesn't bother me at all -- it seems
just as nimble as my Celica! (No comparisons with my Oldsmobile. :-)
Visibility from the driver's seat is excellent, helped mostly by of
the small the quarter-windows, aft of the back-seat door windows and
in front of the C-pillar and rear window. Parallel parking is a bit
more difficult, but other than that, I love the size.
In fact, I'm starting to appreciate the large trunk as I pack up
for a 14-hour drive to Washington, DC for the summer. More on the
ride later in this review.
Engine:
As with anyone even slightly interested in SHOs, I was very
interested in the 24-valve 3.0L Yamaha "Shogun" engine. I was not
disappointed. Base performance of the engine under 4000 rpms is
good. You can even do reasonable launches from second gear, although
I don't make a practice of this. The engine revs smoothly and eagerly
-- tooling around town does not require many shifts. This is good
since the shifter is definitely one of the weakest points of the car.
(More on this later.)
While the performance of the engine under 4000 rpms may be
unremarkable, it undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde transformation once you hit
higher revs. At 4500 rpms, a butterfly valve opens and you can
literally hear and feel the geometry of the engine changing as twelve
more valves open up. The engine soars to its 7000 rpm redline, and
you are treated to, in my opinion, the sweetest sounding V6 around.
The engine inexplicably sounds OVERJOYED to be at 6500 rpm!
I've noticed that when I drive around town, I constantly watch the
tach to see how far below 4000 rpm I am. To go from 2000 rpm to 4000,
you may have to punch the accelerator -- while torque is more than
adequate, it doesn't come fully online until those other 12 valves
are used.
Transmission:
When _Car and Driver_ first reviewed the car in 1988, they
marvelled at how Ford had put such a wimpy clutch and balky shifter
into the car. I remember driving a friend's parent's SHO in 1990, and
remember thinking about whether I had the leg strength to drive the
car in traffic -- the clutch was that stiff. That was back then.
The entire clutch assembly on my SHO has been replaced under a
Ford recall in 1991. The clutch on the SHO feels no stiffer than the
one on my Toyota Celica. In fact, the friction point seems a bit
larger and more forgiving.
When playing with the shifter with the car parked, the shifter
felt very reasonable. The 1-2 and 3-4 gates were where you'd expect
it to be, and the shifting action was smooth. On the road, it's
much the same -- but you have to shift SLOWLY! Make no mistake, it's
a clumsy shifter.
When hurrying shifts, like when I was initially trying to impress
friends, I consistently miss the 1-2 shift, often grope clumsily for
the 2-3 shift, and sometimes even muff the 3-4 shift. I find this
pretty amazing in a car like this.
It also took me several days to realize that you get the smoothest
shifts when you take your time. Seems obvious, but compared to my
Toyota and my friend's Honda, this seems atrocious and clumsy.
Someone on rec.autos noted that CRXs should blow SHOs off-the-line
because of the incredibly clumsy shifter.
I now shift much more sedately, and the shifter seems more
reasonable. When you play within these bounds, the shifter works
smoothly with no surprises. I don't know whether the rod shifter
upgrade would help at all.
Along these same lines, I initially had trouble shifting gears
smoothly. Again, slowing down the shifts and taking more care to
match revs when letting out the clutch helped immensely. This took
several days for me to get the hang of. (I think some of my problems
were because I've never had a car with enough power to balk at bad
shifts in higher gears.)
Occasionally, I have trouble shifting into reverse. The shifter
refuses to enter the gate, and I often grind the synchros trying to
get it into gear. I'll be watching this carefully in the next couple
of months.
A quirk: When I upshift and the engine drops back to 1000-2500
rpm, I hear a whirring and then a grinding noise coming from the the
engine compartment. Not terribly loud, but the passenger can
definitely hear it. I asked about it when I was looking at the car,
as do all my passengers. Apparently, this is a definitely a "SHO
sound" and is the gearbox -- apparently called "gear rollover".
Replies to my queries on rec.autos are at the end of this review.
Exterior:
As I mentioned before, I am astounded by how well the body of this
SHO has stood up. Paint chipping on the front bumper and grille are
virtually non-existent. Looking at how older Tauri sometimes
don't age so gracefully, I wonder what the guys at Ford did
differently to the SHO bodies.
The body, in my opinion, is extremely attractive with matching
color body moldings than the stock Tauri. For some odd reason, the
SHO seems different enough from vanilla Tauri to get stares at
stoplights -- of course, this could be my overactive imagination.
:-) SHOs get fog lights, a more open grille, a completely
monochromatic exterior, and a deeper ground skirt in the back with
"SHO" stenciled in relief. I've seen a couple SHOs whose owners have
colored these in with florescent colors or in black. Yuck.
I don't think the car is flashy. I like it that way. I feel
almost anonymous with all those Tauri out there, but different and
distinctive enough to those of us who care. :-)
Interior:
The interior is what really makes me feel like I don't deserve the
car. The seats are grey leather, the steering wheel and shifter are
covered with black leather, and the entire instrument panel is done in
a black/grey/metallic scheme.
The instrumentation is stock Taurus, except for the 140 mph speedo
and 8000 rpm tach. You get a center console with two cupholders, a
large compartment under the radio (great for a CD player), an armrest
that contains yet another compartment, three appropriately sized coin
holders for tollways (I think), and a compartment for holding
cassette tapes. There's map-holders in the doors, and an oddly small
glove compartment.
I spilled a whole can of Coke in the cupholder and was delighted
to find that the entire rubber holder can be removed and washed in a
sink. Hey, I'm really impressed with the ergonomics and
thoughtfulness that went into its design. And it's a 1989, before the
interior was upgraded!
The backseat is bigger than any car I've had. Why do they need so
much space? :-) (No smart-ass comments, please. :-)
The driver and passenger seat have lumbar and side bolsters. From
what I hear, it's not uncommon for the side bolsters to show wear.
Mine is no exception. The left side bolster on the driver's has
cracked and I'm not convinced the right bolster is inflating all the
way.
A big surprise for me: I forgot that SHOs don't have a normal
hand parking brake. Instead, they have the regular parking brake that
you press with your left foot. Too bad. Again, I'm getting used to
it, but it seems a bit anachronistic to me.
Ride:
The suspension is nice and stiff. Too stiff? It's stiffer than
any car I've had. A friend's new 1993 Toyota Celica ST seems tauter
and is still able to soak up bumps better. The SHO seems stiffer with
less ability to soak up bumps. Driving over railroad tracks is a
noisy and jarring affair. On the other hand, taking turns feels
wonderful because the body is so rigid and doesn't flex at all -- I
listened for that before I bought the car.
On the highway, the ride is great. When I drove the car from
Chicago back to Purdue, I had trouble keeping under 85 mph, let alone
from trying to see what 100 mph really feels like. It's a relatively
quiet ride, but the sunroof rattles. I've tried to find out what
exactly makes all the noise up there, but it seems to be the window
that rests on the rails. No easy way to get rid of it, I think.
Over the past three days, I've oscillated between thinking the
suspension is wonderful and perfect and thinking that the ride is way
too rough. (Not for me, mind you. But I wonder whether I would
advise my dad to buy one for himself.) But, I've discovered, as with
the shifter, if you take your time with shifts, you'll have no reason
to complain. Let me explain...
The ride is worst when turning and applying lots of power to the
wheels. I feel the wheels scrabbling for traction and torque steer
making the car skitter left and right. After I understood this, I
avoid the limits of traction -- and I'm a happy camper again.
It's not body rigidity, but the composure of the car.
As if matching the suspension, the steering feel is quite heavy.
My first impression of driving my SHO was how hard you had to turn the
wheel at highway speeds. It tracks straight as an arrow, but when
driving around a parking lot, the high-effort steering didn't seem so
useful. However, it's reasonable, but it doesn't communicate the road
to the driver as well as a 1993 Ford Probe GT. IMHO, it's much better
than the steering on my Celica ST.
I wonder how bad this car is during winter?
Miscellaneous notes:
GRIPES:
The rattles from the sunroof is intermittent -- some days it rattles
loudly, other days I look up wondering where all the noise went.
Activating the sunroof is sometimes very noisy -- loud squealing as
it retracts on its rails. I wonder if there is a quick fix for this.
Again, other days it completely disappears. (Function of humidity?)
Once I made the connection between the sometimes awful feeling suspension
and torque steer, I've never complained about ride.
I wish the seats had more support under the thighs. Also, I wish the
side bolsters would close more tightly.
I hear that tires for this car can get really expensive. I
currently have Goodyear GT+4s that cost the previous owner $500
for four.
I used to hate the Ford stereo systems -- whose idea was it
to use a volume *paddle*? Now, to my amazement, I don't
really mind... and sometimes think it's an okay idea!!!
Pretty ridiculous, though.
Getting up to 4000 rpm sometimes seems to be a chore. But,
this is no big deal. There is more than enough torque
down low.
I often goof up the shifting when driving with friends. It
took me a couple of days before I could really shift
smoothly from 2nd to 3rd gear. (Hard to believe, isn't it?)
My car has almost 93,000 miles on it. My parents noted that
it is almost impossible to find a low-mileage SHO.
Astute observation, IMHO. I wonder how long I can make
my SHO last -- I just bought a book titled "Drive It Forever"
for tips in this department. :-)
The goofy parking brake pedal still throws me for a loop. I once
parked the car in gear, and then accidentally let out the clutch
after I started it. The car jolted forward, and bounced off
the car in front of me -- no paint damage at all, but starting the car
is a whole new ritual for me with that fangled pedal! Also, I began
to wonder how strong that brake really is. (Today, I backed out of
parking spot today and started to drive away before I noticed
the glowing brake light. Oops.)
The driver's power window creaks when closed all the way. The same
thing happens in my parents 1989 Mercury Sable. Oddly, all the
other windows work smoothly.
LIKES:
I'm liking the interior amenities more and more each day. The
cupholders are great.
I didn't expect to use the keyless entry buttons so much, but
it really is handy. You can lock all the doors by
pressing the 7/8 and 9/10 buttons together! Neat! And
you can never lock yourself out of the car.
I really feel like I don't deserve this car. I really can't
believe that I could afford it. I got this car ten years
ahead of schedule. :-)
I love this car so much that I've been telling my parents to
look into buying one. I love this car so much that I
wrote this 13K file -- I meant to write a couple of lines
and ended up with this.
If there were a J.D. Powers Survey for used car owners, I would have
an opportunity to express my incredible satisfaction of owning this
car. I don't like thinking about getting another car, but at this
point in time, I'm sure I'd buy another SHO. For under $7000, you
can't beat it. (Next time with an airbag and ABS, though.)
Insurance-wise, this car is also a big win. I pay the same premiums
as on my 1987 Toyota Celica -- despite that it has nearly twice
the horsepower.
Other Odds and Ends:
Much to my amazement, there is no SHO mailing list anywhere.
Maybe because the _SHO Registry_ publication has filled this void. I
haven't joined yet, but I've noticed that queries about SHOs still
appear on rec.autos about once a month. Owners of SHOs are always
quick to respond, and are very vocal fans of the cars. (Maybe some
of the most vocal on rec.autos. :-)
I've put together the responses to my questions about the cars, as
well as other posts with useful information on these cars. I'll be
posting this in the form of a FAQ soon.
If anyone is interested in starting a mailing list, please speak up!
I don't know if I have the resources here at Purdue to start one, but
maybe someone out there does.
Gene Kim
([email protected])
