You have 13 items in your cart.
I was wondering if there was anyone on here with experience with these cars. gotta love the sleeper effect!
-
Sept. 26, 2008 12:52 a.m. wherethefmi2000 New Reader
-
Sept. 26, 2008 3:50 a.m. tuffburn New Reader
i can tell you my freinds broke in front of my house and that they are made of rust. the sho is tossable, and fun, but theres just something that i don't like about driving them. i do know for a fact that the wagon is more fun in the snow then it would appear. rallycross it, but hope the control arms don't break.
-
Sept. 26, 2008 8:33 a.m. MiatarPowar Reader
I had a '92 that was my DD for a couple of years and my autocross car for a full season. IT was loads of fun, had no rust, and the engine is bulletproof. The rest of the car is typical Ford - bland with mediocre build quality. The engine is the star of the show, and jeebus do I miss it. The car itself... I don't miss so much.
-
Sept. 26, 2008 8:59 a.m. RoadWarrior New Reader
Yep, I had a 90 Oxford white. Found a plus hood for it, plus spoiler. Fun as hell. transmission made of glass. Can do the 143 mph on that speedo (only done on a closed course of course) Btw...if you'r ein the market. I still got a plus package spoiler, and front and rear bumpers for one.
-
Sept. 26, 2008 9:18 a.m. therex SuperDork
The engine really is the star of the show. It's beautiful in every way.
The transmission (especially the manual) is the weak link. They didn't have an LSD, so if you did alot of pegleg burnouts the diff pin would work it's way out, slowly, and then BANG! Shoot out the side of the trans case: fbxrd.
And also, it's a Taurus.
-
Sept. 26, 2008 9:31 a.m. P71 Reader
I had a cursed 92...
Transmission WILL fail if you even look at it funny. The rest of the car is still a Taurasaurus (especially the interior) and it handles like an oil tanker. That engine sure is sweet though...
Have to take care of the engine though (lots of oil changes) or the rod bearings spin.
Best advice is to yank the motor and stick it something good, like a Fiesta!
-
Sept. 26, 2008 9:42 a.m. mattmacklind PowerDork
Riding in the backseat will give the passenger motion sickness during regular driving. I thought I ate something bad until I ran across ana rticle somewhere that indicated there was in fact a design flaw ergonomically speaking, so if you pull the trigger, don't let anyone drive you around in it!
-
Sept. 26, 2008 12:32 p.m. geowit Reader
My '92 had 190K when I retired her. One clutch, exhaust and motor mounts were about the most serious problems I had. Thing was fast and that Yamahauler was a sweet powerplant. Check out SHOTimes if you really want the skinny. Some hard core folks on there.
-
Sept. 26, 2008 12:41 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork
That motor is some kind of sweet.
It was on the short list of possible powerplants for the J-H race car.
I worked for a Ford dealer when they first came out and we were putting clutches in them at ~6K miles. I think the clutch was originally intended to be a fuse.
-
Sept. 26, 2008 7:32 p.m. TOZOVR New Reader
The original clutch was 9.25". The recall bumped it to 9.75"
They are great sleepers, but you walk a fine line of modding to run Auto X or where ever and looking like a 16 year old with a tuarus that has the APC catalog thrown at it.
The MTX isn't a BAD tranny. It's not the slickest thing out there, but show me a FWD transaxle from the late 80's that could handle the Yamaha's punch. The diff pins can be an issue but I've only personally seen it happen to one car. The "Bad tranny" rep, in my opinion, comes from the cars now being 20 years old (23 or so in design if not actual age) and such a low entry fee. I just sold my VERY clean '89 with sensible mods for $3k and I was one lucky SOB. Too many kids get their hands on these and just abuse them. A shame. The Rod bearing thing is more an issue of these being old cars.
Anyhow, that said, they're not the most competitive things this days. In '89-93 you couldn't touch them. In the late 90's you stated seeing some cars that could hang and some that could beat it...now you can swing a dead cat around and hit 15 cars on your way to the mall that will hand you your ass. On the Autox course, they're heavy as hell and outclassed, even when stock. Toss on some aluminum subframe bushings, adjustable Konis and a set of eibachs and you're doomed to run in Street modified LOL. The after market SUCKS. SUUUUUUCKS
At the end of the day though, if you can find one that has been maintained, they are FUN.
I replaced it with a '95 Volvo Turbo Wagon. It will beat the crap out of the SHO in a straight line and stock for stock, handles better...but opening the Volvo's hood just ain't like seeing that Yamaha V6 ;)
-
Sept. 27, 2008 2:35 a.m. wherethefmi2000 New Reader
TOZOVR wrote:
The original clutch was 9.25". The recall bumped it to 9.75"
They are great sleepers, but you walk a fine line of modding to run Auto X or where ever and looking like a 16 year old with a tuarus that has the APC catalog thrown at it.
The MTX isn't a BAD tranny. It's not the slickest thing out there, but show me a FWD transaxle from the late 80's that could handle the Yamaha's punch. The diff pins can be an issue but I've only personally seen it happen to one car. The "Bad tranny" rep, in my opinion, comes from the cars now being 20 years old (23 or so in design if not actual age) and such a low entry fee. I just sold my VERY clean '89 with sensible mods for $3k and I was one lucky SOB. Too many kids get their hands on these and just abuse them. A shame. The Rod bearing thing is more an issue of these being old cars.
Anyhow, that said, they're not the most competitive things this days. In '89-93 you couldn't touch them. In the late 90's you stated seeing some cars that could hang and some that could beat it...now you can swing a dead cat around and hit 15 cars on your way to the mall that will hand you your ass. On the Autox course, they're heavy as hell and outclassed, even when stock. Toss on some aluminum subframe bushings, adjustable Konis and a set of eibachs and you're doomed to run in Street modified LOL. The after market SUCKS. SUUUUUUCKS
At the end of the day though, if you can find one that has been maintained, they are FUN.
I replaced it with a '95 Volvo Turbo Wagon. It will beat the crap out of the SHO in a straight line and stock for stock, handles better...but opening the Volvo's hood just ain't like seeing that Yamaha V6 ;)
I don't even care if it handles like a turd or is slow on that AutoX course, the engine is that great, sometimes fun is more important than all out speed. I don't strive to be uber competetive just out to have some cheap fun. But the maintnance woes are already biting me in the butt, I found what I think is going to be a good deal from a guy who is quitting the SHO and picking up one of his parts cars for 300 bucks (major body damage involving a COW) plus a much nicer set of seats. I'll see what it looks like, it might be easier to do the body work than swaping the engine, but I love the way the 90 looks.
Just felt like showing off my 77mpg rocket lol
-
Sept. 27, 2008 8:42 a.m. TOZOVR New Reader
That is the thing. Fun. The car is a BLAST to drive. When those secondary runners open up, you'd think God Hisself just came down and gave you a push ;)
-
Oct. 2, 2008 5:43 p.m. mikephilpott New Reader
I bought a black '90 SHO new and drove it for 10 years before giving it to my brother in Atlanta, who still owns it.
I very much enjoyed attending the annual SHO Registry rallies, which were a blast. I remember the one in Atlanta in '93. With Ford's help, the club rented the Atlanta Motor Speedway for the day and hired Skip Barber and several of his drivers to put on a day-long driver's school for us. Had a ground school, an autocross, lapped the road course and the oval at speed (no racing, however) and had a concours. Car & Driver took each driver's photo with his/car in the winner's circle and presented us with the photo superimposed over the cover of a C&D magazine, with the caption, "Driver of the Year." Pretty cool.
The car itself was pretty much as described by others. The engine was a work of art - both to look at and in its preformance. I never got tired of showing it off. The tranny was notchy but okay otherwise (I never had any problems with it) but the clutch was a real weak point. I put in four of 'um. The small size, the springs and the throwout bearing were all part of the problem.
I kept mine pretty much stock. Mine was the prototype development car for the very first SHO Superchips chip, which only added around 10 horsepower, but it kicked in the secondary intake runners almost 1,000 rpm sooner and that made a noticeable difference. Plus, I added a Borla exhaust system with gutted cats, aluminum subframe bushings and a shift-rod kit.
A high maintanence car but tons of fun. I miss it.
-
Oct. 4, 2008 9:46 a.m. noisycricket New Reader
The cradle mounts are bad. Guaranteed. They're either bad, or brand new.
Really, it's a Taurus with a sweet engine. All the normal Taurus problems apply. (horrible frontend part longevity, horrible tire wear, electrical problems, rust, you can't change the radiator without voodoo magic)
The kicker is that of all of that generation Taurus remaining on the roads, probably more than half are SHOs because of the desirability, so there's a lot of old-car problems with them that would have made a lesser model scrapworthy.
-
Oct. 4, 2008 10:57 a.m. cwh Dork
Is there a rear wheel drive tranny that adapts to this engine? I know the standard Taurus V-6 is also the V-6 in the Ranger, and that the SHO engine is "loosely" based on that engine.. Solution, or just a dream. How heavy are they?
-
Oct. 4, 2008 11:50 a.m. noisycricket New Reader
The RWD and FWD versions of the 3.0 pushrod engine are different bellhousing patterns. I know that much.
The SHO isn't very loosely based on that engine, AFAIK. Maybe it's loosely based in that they both have blue ovals on them, and displace about 3 liters, and have six cylinders. The bellhousing pattern is different from anything else Ford made.
I don't mean to crap on your parade, but a 302 is smaller, lighter, and much cheaper. And you can find them in rear drive configuration.
-
Oct. 4, 2008 4:54 p.m. cwh Dork
Yeah, and I KNOW the SBF, having built up 3 of them. Crazy power for cheap. Another fantasy exposed.
-
Oct. 4, 2008 5:06 p.m. racinginc215 New Reader
3.0 ranger trans will bolt to the SHO motor the 2.9 Aerostar bellhousing will as well. I have one of each generation SHO at the house a 91 Plus a 95 and a 99. And a 3.2 mated to a Ranger trans waiting on a the right ranger. The bellhousing is standard 60* V6. Shotimes should still have the info. or Shoforum if you can get into with registering. Change the rod bearings FIRST.
-
Oct. 4, 2008 8:38 p.m. noisycricket New Reader
I thought the 60deg was the same as the 2.3 except the dowels were a different size. Unless it's the 2.0 I'm thinking of, and the ol' mental hard drive is having some crosslinked files again.
I also thought the 3.0 RWD was the same as SBF. But, hell, wrong once already, what's one more...
-
Oct. 5, 2008 10:34 a.m. sergio New Reader
Here's my 89 SHO at Motorsport Ranch Houston last Nov. at the Cobra nationals. Stock motor(212k), Konis, V700, Quaife LSD, 11.6" brakes, 16x7.5 wheels, aluminum suframe bushings, subframe connectors.
