Advertising Last completed movie pages
1992 Ford Taurus SHO [DN5] Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2008-06-26 11:07 |
1992 Ford Taurus SHO Its a 1992 only because it does not have the spoiler or chrome exhaust tips which both came in 1993. And since its a '92 that means that it can only have the manual transmission, and not that weak automatic that also came in '93  |
|
◊ 2008-06-26 11:55 |
I love the Taurus SHO  |
|
◊ 2008-06-26 19:59 |
Did it even have a column shifter too?  -- Last edit: 2008-06-26 19:59:49 |
|
◊ 2008-06-27 00:06 |
I love driving mine, its just soo FUN I don't get it  |
|
◊ 2008-06-27 00:20 |
Well, you said it was weak, and a column shifter is associated with old fashioned weak cars. But did it have a column shifter though? |
|
◊ 2008-06-27 00:47 |
Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. The transmissions in the automatic SHOs are weak because the engine is too powerful for it and overheats the transmission if you drive it like an SHO should be driven. And than you need to buy a whole new transmission. Although you can get an upgraded one which will last a long time. I have one with a 5spd manual and it is awesome. And nope the SHO is alot sportier than the regular Taurus so the auto cars only came with a console shifter. I've got a few videos on my youtube channel about the SHO if you wanna check those out http://www.youtube.com/user/91Taurus |
|
◊ 2008-06-27 02:17 |
Yes, I have looked at your Tauruses, they are both very beautiful cars I'm quite envious. It's nice to see someone who taking such good care of nice, old cars like that. .gif ":)") Maybe I'll own a Taurus some day. My Grandfather has a '93 Taurus GL, it's nice but it's starting to show its age.  My favorites are the 1994-95 models. |
|
◊ 2008-06-27 12:24 |
Indeed Johnny both of your Tauruses are great, very well cared, they SHO is great |
|
◊ 2008-06-27 23:36 |
Thanks guys  |
|
◊ 2008-07-01 06:51 |
The automatic trans SHOs had a "floor console mounted" automatic. Plus they had an exclusive 3.2L V-6 that provided more low end power than the regular 3.0L SHO. -- Last edit: 2008-07-01 06:53:14 |
|
◊ 2009-06-16 04:36 |
I really see no need to give the SHO it's own "section" as it's only a more powerful version of the Taurus, much like the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is a more powerful version of the regular Crown Victoria. I know you've brought this issue up to with the Dodge SRT-10's, but I personally disagree. |
|
◊ 2009-06-16 06:50 |
Well, the section for the Taurus SHO already exists. |
|
◊ 2009-06-16 09:23 |
Well obviously that is something we have not agreed on here yet, much like with the SRT's, in the sense that some are listed separately and others aren't. I think I've made my position clear already so it would be nice to hear from others about what they think... |
|
◊ 2009-06-16 16:17 |
Hmmm.... We really do need to decide on this. Many cars on IMCDB have this issue. For example, BMW M models have their own pages, as does every single version, be it a 328i, a 330i or a 335i. |
|
◊ 2009-06-16 16:50 |
Oops I made the change for all SHO without seeing the discussion here They do not really have a "page": all the info here are built dynamically from a database. When you see a "page" for the 328i, it is just the result of a search done automatically when you click on the model name. Currently trim/versions do not allow that because I still did not had time to improve that. In the meantime some versions were still mentioned in model name when considered as separate model, I do not know if SHO justifies that or not. |
|
◊ 2009-06-17 02:45 |
I don't know...I mean couldn't you make the same argument for other models such as the R/T, whose performance and looks differ a bit from the "base" or "regular" models just as with the SHO? I think that we're making it more complicated than it has to be, as far as having to decide which ones would be considered part of the name and which ones would be considered just a trim/version. SHO fits perfectly under the trim/version field. If you decide to keep it like this, it's fine by me. But I think that this argument will keep on coming up for other models/versions. |
|
◊ 2009-06-17 15:15 |
Often we were keeping the "sportier" version of models separately, as it usually it was that model which interested people. Like "GTI" version for some European cars, if you see what I mean? |
|
◊ 2009-06-17 20:09 |
Fair enough then, as long as we're consistent with this |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
![1992 Ford Taurus SHO [DN5]](i181761.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
