Think of the Challenge potential of a $700 Taurus SHO V8. SHO-Gun 2?
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:11 p.m. pinchvalve UltraDork
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:20 p.m. 2002maniac Reader
Are there any manual trannies that will bolt up?
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:24 p.m. m4ff3w Dork
2002maniac wrote:
Are there any manual trannies that will bolt up?
I think the MTX-75 (tranmission from the Contour & Focus) will.
I don't know how well it will hold up though.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:24 p.m. ditchdigger Reader
IIRC the V8 SHO was actually slower than the V6 version. At least that is what all the car reviews at the time said.
Was it just the heavier chassis bogging it down?
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:35 p.m. m4ff3w Dork
ditchdigger wrote:
IIRC the V8 SHO was actually slower than the V6 version. At least that is what all the car reviews at the time said.
Was it just the heavier chassis bogging it down?
Heavier car & autotragic.
The V8 SHO was a high speed tourer more than anything.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:38 p.m. mndsm Reader
v8 locost..... yes.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 7:59 p.m. djsilver New Reader
In reply to m4ff3w:
Both the V6 and the V8 were built by Yamaha and were both sweet motors. The V8 had an issue with the cam gear slipping on the cam (it was a swaged fit) but there's an easy fix (welding the gear to the cam). The real problem seems to be replacement parts, as Ford only bought a fixed amount from Yamaha. If he did a rebuild I'd want to see the receipts. I was looking into one of these and heard stories of $7k in rebuild costs!!!
-
Dec. 1, 2009 8:02 p.m. mndsm Reader
Yamaha built another v8....... but I do believe this one said Corvette on the flanks. ZR-1 IIRC. Almost bought one, but then I saw it on a rack, the thing had been in a swamp. It would never have run correctly.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 8:06 p.m. patgizz Dork
mndsm wrote:
Yamaha built another v8....... but I do believe this one said Corvette on the flanks. ZR-1 IIRC. Almost bought one, but then I saw it on a rack, the thing had been in a swamp. It would never have run correctly.
yeah, ummm NO.
gm and lotus developed the LT5 and it was built by mercury marine.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 8:24 p.m. m4ff3w Dork
mndsm wrote:
Yamaha built another v8....... but I do believe this one said Corvette on the flanks. ZR-1 IIRC. Almost bought one, but then I saw it on a rack, the thing had been in a swamp. It would never have run correctly.
Yamaha did build another V8, but it says Volvo on the side...
Oh, and Noble uses it as well.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 8:57 p.m. mndsm Reader
CRAP- I knew it was someone odd that built the ZR-1 engine. My fault.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 8:59 p.m. JFX001 Dork
m4ff3w wrote:
mndsm wrote:
Yamaha built another v8....... but I do believe this one said Corvette on the flanks. ZR-1 IIRC. Almost bought one, but then I saw it on a rack, the thing had been in a swamp. It would never have run correctly.
Yamaha did build another V8, but it says Volvo on the side...
Oh, and Noble uses it as well.
I thought the Noble's were TT V-6's?
-
Dec. 1, 2009 9:12 p.m. pigeon HalfDork
The Noble I parked next to at an autocross this summer had a twin turbo Ford V6 (IIRC it's the same 2.5L unit from the Contour) and I'm pretty sure that was the standard mill.
I have one of those Yamaha V8s in my wife's Volvo XC90. Nice, smooth, powerful unit that just loves to rev. I think it may sound better than the 4.8L in my 750. But, the earlier models are starting to show a couple of bad design issues resulting in either expen$ive repair or dead motors. I hope the '07 I have will stand the test of time.
-
Dec. 1, 2009 9:12 p.m. m4ff3w Dork
JFX001 wrote:
m4ff3w wrote:
mndsm wrote:
Yamaha built another v8....... but I do believe this one said Corvette on the flanks. ZR-1 IIRC. Almost bought one, but then I saw it on a rack, the thing had been in a swamp. It would never have run correctly.
Yamaha did build another V8, but it says Volvo on the side...
Oh, and Noble uses it as well.
I thought the Noble's were TT V-6's?
The M600 will use TT Yamaha-Volvo V8.
-
Dec. 2, 2009 1:44 a.m. jpod999 Reader
The V8 in the SHO is an amazing motor. I ran a '96 SHO at 2 lemons events and it handled it beautifully. I did the events with my auto tech teacher who had chipped it, I thought it had a rev limiter but alas it did not. I got it up over 8k a couple of times and it didn't balk at all. There is a special place in my heart for the third generation SHO and it palpitates every time I see the car magazines speak down on it.
-
Dec. 2, 2009 9:38 a.m. Buzz Killington Reader
still though. 235hp in a revvy 3.4L V8? i expected more.
but that would still make a sweet Lemons mill...maybe in an MR2?
-
Dec. 2, 2009 9:44 a.m. ReverendDexter Dork
m4ff3w wrote:
JFX001 wrote:
I thought the Noble's were TT V-6's?
The M600 will use TT Yamaha-Volvo V8.
Yeah, but for the time being, don't they use Ford Duratec engines?
-
Dec. 2, 2009 3:17 p.m. m4ff3w Dork
ReverendDexter wrote:
m4ff3w wrote:
JFX001 wrote:
I thought the Noble's were TT V-6's?
The M600 will use TT Yamaha-Volvo V8.
Yeah, but for the time being, don't they use Ford Duratec engines?
Correct.
Though one could argue that the Yamaha/Volvo/SHO V8 is in the Duratec family as well.
-
Dec. 2, 2009 11:05 p.m. Vigo New Reader
235hp in a revvy 3.4L V8?
All about transaxle warranty and always has been. The stock rev limiter is only ~7k. exhaust is ~2.25". Stock tune=best tune? doubt it. It only had to make a big enough number to meet the expectations of people who would consider buying a taurus in the first place...i.e. LOW. :p
That said, i found a broke down 96 v8 sho for my GRM $2009 partner mason for $500 and we snapped it up. It will be awesome by the time it is mounted up in his 03.
-
Dec. 3, 2009 12:28 a.m. jpod999 Reader
Buzz Killington wrote:
still though. 235hp in a revvy 3.4L V8? i expected more.
but that would still make a sweet Lemons mill...maybe in an MR2?
My teacher told me that when they first designed the motor it produced over 400HP, they were told to detune it as not to horn in on the Mustangs action.
-
Dec. 3, 2009 7:24 a.m. RossD HalfDork
Thats the story/rumor since the begining.
-
Dec. 3, 2009 9:21 a.m. CarKid1989 HalfDork
RWD SHO engine?
Is this an easy thing to do?
I thought it required a bellhousing from a rare aerostar manual transmission van or something...
info>
-
Dec. 3, 2009 10:41 a.m. Schmidlap Reader
RossD wrote:
Thats the story/rumor since the begining.
That was the rumor about the 2.5L Duratec V6 as well. "It was originally designed by Porsche and made over 300hp, but Ford redesigned it to have a lot less power because it was embarassing the Mustang." I always wondered why, if Ford could get all these small engines to embarass the big V8's in the Mustangs year after year after year, why didn't they just have the small engine guys design the big V8s and get a 600hp 5L V8? These rumors also completely ignored the fact that, the 2.5L engine in the Boxster was barely cracking 200hp, so why would Porsche design a 300hp 2.5L engine for Ford but keep theirs so much lower? Porsche Engineering Services in Troy, MI (a division of Porsche) did provide a lot of design support for the Duratec, but it was more as a supplier of contract design support (CAD workers), not the brains behind the engines in Porsches.
Also, Yamaha, Volvo and Ford all claim that the only thing the Volvo V8 and the SHO V8 share is the 60 degree angle of the block (to fit in a front drive application), and nothing else so while the SHO V8 shares a lot of common parts with the Duratec V6s, the Volvo probably does not. I tried looking up bore spacing of the Volvo engine to compare, but couldn't find anything.
Bob
-
Dec. 4, 2009 11:11 a.m. Vigo New Reader
I thought it required a bellhousing from a rare aerostar manual transmission van or something...
Or one from a ubiquitous 3.0 ranger... but i could be wrong.
As i said, all about transaxle warranty and always has been. This is the story of FWD performance through the 90s.
Remember when GM built the quad4? got it up to 190hp n/a w/ warranty, but low torque, so fairly easy.. After they did Quad4 they built DOHC heads for the 3.1L v6 block, thus creating the 3.4 DOHC. That engine was emissions certified on the dyno at 281hp iirc. This was circa 1990. Because of their transaxle limitations at the time, it was detuned all the way down to 215hp.. Now compare the power/displacement ratio of the 2.3/190 quad 4 to the subsequent 3.4/215 3.4L.. the design was hampered by the transaxle. Then in 93 they finally built a decent transaxle for the northstar, which was 290-300hp 4.6 through the 90s. Good for the time but not what it could have been, even back then. It was all about the torque number going through the trans. For the same reason, the supercharged 3.8 buick motor didnt leave the factory with anything near the power it would make with simple mods.. due to transaxle warranty. It eventually went up in the 2000s, and when the transaxle could handle the 280hp version, that was right about the time they hooked the 5.3L v8 to it in the grand prix GXP and impala SS. If you look back at the torque numbers of those motors over the years you see a steady, linear rise through that succession of motors, and it all had to do with transaxle warranty costs being kept low.
IF gm had been able to build a stronger transaxle back in 1990 and released a 280 hp 3.4, i can almost guarantee the Nissan VQ wouldnt have achieved hero status.. it only beat that hp in the last few years, most of 2 decades later.
There are other examples besides gm but the gm one is a very demonstrative scenario.
