so last night on the way home from the lake this Fort Taurus pulled up next to me. I obviouslt had exhaust and a turbo (why would anyone do this to a taurus???) anyways, he was revving his engine and the car sounded mean. I knew i couldnt win but my g/f was like "Kick his ***" (she thinks the RS is fast lol) Anyways, the light turned green and we both hit it, i bneat him to the punch but he pulled me in QUICK, at the end of 2nd gear he was 1/2 a car ahead of me, and then by mid third gear he was 2 cars ahead, and then by 4th gear he was pulled over. I think that means i win

definitly a win on your part


on a side note, was the Taurus a SHO?

never heard of sho taurus. very well could have been though. I was super suprised at how quick it was.

If memory serves me correct, a Taurus SHO at one time had a Suzuki V8 engine option. A friend of mine had a SHO, and it was real fast... till he wrapped it around a tree.

the sho's move out pretty good

First generation SHO's had:
3.0 liter DOHC V6
Horsepower: 220 hp @ 6200 RPM
Torque: 200 lb-ft @ 4800 RPM

Curb weight 3380 lbs.
Wheelbase 106 in.
Length 192 in.
Fuel tank 18.4 gals.
Oil (with filter change) 5.0 qts.

From R&T:
0 to 60 mph.6.6 seconds
1/4 mile 15.2 seconds @ 92.5 mph
Lateral acceleration, 200 ft skidpad .81g
Braking distance, 60 to 0 mph168 ft.

A TBI f-body would lose to a stock sho.

Sounds like you raced a stock or near stock SHO. A 2nd gen one, with the 3.2 and a 5-speed is a low 15s, maybe high 14s car. Enough to walk by a TBI with ease.

The final generation SHOs had 3.4 V8s with 235HP if i remember correctly.

lol, not enough to get by a sheriff's charger. taurus's arnt supposed to be fast, stupid ford.

taurus SHO added to RS kill list. Along with Geo metro and Izuzu NPR dielsel truck! lol.

Between 2 of my friends they have owned 3 SHOs. They are pretty quick for what they were back in the late 80s early 90s. The 1st gens and second gens were just as fast as the mustangs were of the time. The third gen SHOs (V8s) were actually not all that quick, due to automatics being they only option and the cam gears being pressed on, so later on the engines would blow. The fastest ones are the 5 speed 2nd gens, and if he had a turbo like you said that would be pretty quick because SHOs respond like crazy when boosted!

Kevin

Very true, the V8 SHO's were slower than the V6's considerably.

My buddy saw the 15.2 time in a magazine for the SHO and told me he'd beat me in my '88 T/A LB9/auto (I had SLP 1 3/4 headers, SLP 2otl, cold air intake, 1.6 Crane Gold rockers). Unfortunately for him, his was an auto and quite worn out. I want to say he went 16.8 as his best. I don't know if driver skill is involved in an auto car that can't turn the tires over I ended up running a 14.9@93 with a 2.2 60'. On a 60-shot I went 14.7@97 with a 2.4 60' lol

3.2 SHO's were the automatic engines and the 3.0 was for the 5 speeds for the second gen and possibly the first. as for the v-8 later model ones they were much slower. remember stock SHO motors had forged parts. i knew one with a 3.0L 5 speed 2nd gen that had a catless y pipe only on it that dynoed 200whp and 200wtq. in the end its still a ford and we all know what i mean by that.

o sorry i do not hate ALL mustangs just most because of the owners. the cars themselves were the only decent thing that ever came out of ford.

From my understanding most turbo SHOs are documented and I've never heard of one around your region. The fastest SHO is a second gen auto and it runs low 12s.

The third gen SHO is faster then a 2nd gen with an auto for what its worth. The first gen had little options and were light thus are the fastest ones out of the box

The engines are Yamaha in design.

it was probably stock SHO one of those put buslengths on my stock LO3 actually it was worse then busses it was like a whole highway. although he mightve been spraying.

I'd expect that on a highway. From a dig it'd be a closer race. SHOs do respond very well to spray as well as boost. There is a lack of low end, but all have top speeds of 140+ stock.

Mine of course isn't stock and I have no idea what my true top speed is as I tuned out the electronic speed limiter. I'll probably do a top speed run on the dyno some day.

Umm, you mean an SHO, although got pulled over, added you to his kill list! After all if he got pulled over, it means he was ahead! Stupid Ford who made a sedan faster than some of the GM sports cars.

yeah this is no kill.

There was also a 3.2L V6 with an automatic in the first gen SHO. BTW---Yamaha made the engine,

V8 SHOs were pathetic. A NA 3800 Pontiac Grand Prix beat one in a MT road test.

the v-8 never stood up to their previous reputation thats the first 2gens created that shouldve never happened putting a good motor in a crap car. and my race was from a dig and no i didnt spin the 5 speeds if you know how to launch can move.

I raced an SHO with my 4.3 v8 Caprice and i beat it pretty good.... walked right past it... it was a 95' i think.....

either it wasnt a SHO or he wasnt even trying unless youre talking about the v8 one then you could be right. but other than that ive seen a stock 94 demolish 5.0 and 4.6 mustangs along with a bunch of other cars.

The 3.2 as stated earlier were put in 2nd gen which are 92-95. The first gen (89-91) were all 3.0 manuals. The increased size was to offset the parasitic loss of the automatic transmission.

An NA 3800 GP stands no chance against the 3.4 V8. Don't believe everything you read.

Though If it were a poorly maintained auto SHO I can believe a Caprice could stay with it.

1. Thats what I meant

2. Why not? At least when your reading a magazine you know they were racing.

I read tons of BS "kill" stories. When either: A--the other car wasn't even racing

B. They cannot drive

So sorry but magazines are far more reliable. Now say they don't get the best times for arguements sake.
(some timea are total ****---I have an 87 Formula test--5 speed TPI car--16.0! As if!

When they race 2 cars the difference should still be valid and observable.

Heres the road test I was refereing to

http://motortrend.automotive.com/380...ted-vs-na.html

and yeah I was wrong Memory must be fading. The V8 SHO did beat the 3800 NA--but barely

Well my story was no bs cause we were going down the road at like 80 then they would start to pull away and i would hit it and catch up to them.... and i did this numerous times so theres no way they wouldn't have hit it at least once.

It looked like this. It wasn't in shitty shape either it looked nice.

so how did you beat a 220hp car thats about 500lbs lighter with a heavier car.

Your also down 20 hp. Face the facts its wasn't a SHO or he wasn't racing.

Simple HP to weight ratio.

You have no idea they wouldn't hit it once or not. That is speculation.

I will bet you money they hit it..... then why the hell would they been been doing like 80 then start taking off? just b/c its a caprice doesn't make it slow. I still beat them whether you think i'm lieing or not... o and is that why it said SHO on it? face it the SHOs were **** anyways... also look at how the caprice makes alot more torque than the SHO and not so far off hp numbers... HP isn't everything...

I never said you were lying

But SHOs are 15 sec cars---4.3L Caprices are not.

Contiue to live in your world and ignore the scinentific side that I presented. Down 20hp and 500lbs more.

You cannot explain that--can you?

You will believe what you want to

Next you'll beat L98 F-bodies!

do you think your cool or something? you are basically telling me i'm lieing when i'm not... i'm saying i beat it, whether or not it was running right idk but we didn't race from a dig we were driving down the road.... Most V6s die at higher speeds....


AND AGAIN Horsepower is not everything...

Stop making this a pissing match. I was trying to educate this world of a different vehicle. A poorly maintained auto SHO could be beat by a 4.3 caprice. I've seen them run 17s at the dragstrip. SHOs require maintenance that people refuse to give it.

With that being said the picture is of a 2nd gen. It could have an auto or manual. Depending on that fact it could run low 15s stock or low 16s stock. That green is the most common color for a 2nd gen.

These cars lack low end torque, but have top end out of the ***. This V6 does NOT die at high speeds. This is where its happiest. Obviously you've never been in an SHO at 70-150.

No offense but i refuse to believe an SHO can reach 150 stock... and with what i saw the SHO was slow as hell accelerating from 80mph....

All are electronically limited to within 10 MPH of 150. This is easy to look up and see for yourself. Go find a race with more of them and you'll come back to me humbled.

Its true they are not governed. I was in my buddys when it got up to 140.


Kevin

HP isnt just as you said, BUT...

The SHO is lighter, better aerodynamics, in it's powerband more so than a Caprice...

So everything in that race was geared towards the SHO, no chance a good running one would have lost, maybe he had a flat tire?

Hell when I was running mid 14s I beat a C5 Vette 5 times at the drag strip... ANYTHING can happen, trust me when I say the SHOs are a lot faster than your Caprice.

well actually i'll bet the caprices have better aerodynamics... lol but again i still beat it...

Come race this one in your Caprice.





My limiter is tuned out btw. Let's go have some fun.

what do you think caprices are slow as hell? race my friends 9C1 caprice it would eat that thing alive! i'm not saying the 4.3 is fast but it still beat that SHO... and i heard those 3.4 v8s are pretty doggy motors...

I have money on it that you've never ridden in any SHO in your life. I also have money on it that I don't care what your friend has. We are talking about your car not his.

You can hear all you want, but they can easily be opened up.

There are a lot of SHO clones with the vulcan 3.0 and the 3.8 Essex. Why? I have no idea.

The world knows that doggy motors come stock with 235 hp and 230 foot pounds. The power comes on sooner then the v6, but weighs a lot more considering its a bigger car, it's rare to find one without leather, the frame and unibody are more solid.

and yet GM's econo cars can walk the sho W41 olds (1991 14.7 1/4), 90-91 Vin A grand ams (little slower but not much)... ect

v8 sho's are slow but would spank that caprice all over the road/track. im not ford fanatic but damn man you gotta give credit where its due and youre just ignorant.

to v10viper04^

Wow you need to learn how to read buddy.. first off an SHO could not "Spank" a caprice it might beat it but not destroy it.... and also guys you did not specify what kind of caprice and a 9C1 would waste an SHO and also a V8 SHO could not spank a 4.3 caprice as you say... and i'm not ignorant at all... i'm just saying what happened and you all are calling me a lier.. plus isn't this a third gen site? seems like you all defend ford alot. whats with that? and credit? an SHO is a gay looking sedan that isn't any faster than a standard sedan of the day or nowadays... plus shows that Ford can't even build their own engines as they always turn to a diff company to build their engines for them, and the SHO motor is still crap.. it takes major maintenance every 60,000 at least!! F that! so end of story... and i did beat it! it might have been running like **** but i still beat it.. "Doesn't matter if you won by an inch or by a mile, winnings winning"

did you get all that? lol

Can't we all jsut agree a New CTS-V eats both of them alive?





if not, then I'm going with the SHO cause i've been in one and they are potent little b******.

omgomgomgomgomgomg LMFAO. everyone stop arguing with this guy, he just quoted Vin deisel from fast and the furious. LMAO. Ill tell u this right now, i have an earlier thread about my RS vs Caprice, and it was a pretty dead even race, this taurus wasted my car, like nothing. I am willing to throw down three grand that i have right now, your caprice, vs the first SHO i can find. no matter condition or mileage, it will still walk all over your heavy arse caprice. I hate ford taurus's, cant stand em. Ugly, uncomfy, and it beat my camaro! I dont like ford, but that car can move, and i would be scared to see what it could do with a couple grand into it, anyone ever notice that vipers got like this super caprice that walks around every car on the road? i think i saw him take an enzo not too long ago.

ok there DOM chill. i dont like ford either but you cant go around saying your car is faster than this or that however you please. im just telling the truth from experience and have seen what a 3.0 5 speed 2nd gen SHO can do. doesnt mean im all into ford it just means i know what they can do and good for them. the car itself might be crap but its a potent motor that can hold its own easily.

Idk why this is such a big deal (stories are stories without video), but I have to say you shouldn't down the Caprice in general. The 9C1 Caprice, the one the guys said was sluggish in your RS vs. Caprice thread is every bit as "potent" as that SHO, and yes I know what an SHO is (a friend went through like 3 of them) and I was going to buy one before I picked up my 94' 9C1. I'm not saying that the 4.3 wouldn't lose I'm just saying your downing Caprices in general because you never specify. A SHO has a power to weight ratio of what 15.4-15.6? and the 9C1 has one of about 15.8, that's not very far off. Plus SHO 0-60 like 6.6-7.0 ~15.2 in the 1/4 and Caprice 0-60 ~6.8-7.2 ~15.4 1/4. So if your willing to put up this much fuss about how great a sleeper and what not the SHO is, why put down the 9C1 Caprice? Maybe the SHO in this story did in fact lose? The SHO is recommended to have a good sized maintenance every 60k and you can pick up an SHO pretty cheap so those two factors tells me people who beat cars and don't maintain them would be inclined to buy one and beat it around like that person probably was, meaning they ignore the 60k schedule. They both are good sleepers and are quick for what they are. I know this wasn't about the 9C1, but it seems like people are downing all Caprices. Yeah, the 4.3 isn't the fastest, but for 200 hp and ~4300 lbs, it moves pretty nicely. Anything can happen, you never know who did what to their car or how it was running, etc etc so without at least a vid, no one can say anything for sure. And yes I will agree that the CTS-V will kill all these cars, lol

I agree with 5.0 blackbird and you guys need to accept the fact that i beat that particular SHO. and stop whining. and when have i said i have walked all these cars? seriously grow up. And for being horribly heavy the caprices can hold their own. o and why is it when ppl get into arguments everyone decides to step in a talk smack? whenever some ppl need help i notice there are no replys... (i would reply but idk what to tell them if i don't know)

I definately agree, a L99 caprice can definately hold their own. They are a small bore, short stroke engine, but they have a nice roller cam profile and a good set of heads on them. The L99 cars mostly run 3.42 gears as well which helps them get off the line and get rolling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1CV0rDXvZw

Ha lol thats actaully my caprice!! Nice to see its being watched too

seen this post while doing a google search, i own a 92 SHO 5speed with 100k miles , clutch was replaced once in 95 under warranty from a issue i had since new, drop in K&N and 75 shot, aftermarket Ypipe, stock cat back, and ive had my 60k mile service and the car has had religious oil changes since new so i mite be running a "good cond SHO" compared to some out there, i run pretty consistent mid-high 13's@100-102ish on street tires, and the stock yamaha motor can easily handle a 100 even 150shot, ive herd of some guys with SC and turbo setups making almost 500hp on stock internals!! and ive topped my speedo out a few times which goes to 140 and she still had some go power so 150mph i dont think is a issue, not hating on the fbods, ive owned a few 3rd and 4th gens, figure id just give you guys some info on the SHO's