2013 Taurus SHO

Dangit. I've got no sound on my computer at work. Can't hear the wrong-wheel-drive vid. But seriously, it makes not a hill o' beans to me. I don't care if God himself tells me that he drives a FWD car (good thing that'll never happen, God drives Rear-Wheel-Drive cuz FWD is the work of satan:D), I still would never own or even consider the possibility of owning a wrong-wheel-drive POS.

And I was figuring about 292fwhp taking into account about 20% driveline loss. Notice how they had to use the wrong wheels to get the dyno figure. The rear wheels were sitting on the lift. There was apparently absolutely no power going to the rear wheels in that video. Despite the AWD, the SHO is still primarily a wrong-wheel-drive car under 99% of normal driving conditions.

Edit - Oh! That's the video where they put a twin turbo MKS against some NA Euro sedans at high altitudes. That was an unfair test to say the least. Everybody knows that a turbocharged engine will almost always out perform an NA engine at higher altitudes. While the NA engine is struggling to breathe, the turbo engine will compensate for the low oxygen by forcing more air into the cylinders. I remember seeing that and going to the website. There were nothing but negative comments saying just exactly what I just said. That test was basically and advert for Lincoln because that's the only way the wrong-wheel-drive biased AWD MKS was going to beat these premium luxury sport sedans from Europe, in an unfair test. But, even with an unfair advantage, the MKS still couldn't beat the mighty Bimmer!!!

However, once again, I would like to know the torque split of the 2013 SHO. That commercial I saw on TV the other day with the SHO smoking one of its REAR tires while drifting around a curve seems to suggest that they may have altered the torque bias more toward the rear wheels (this may also have been in response to the torque steer problems reported by various automotive publications). Now that I wouldn't mind seeing. That's what they did with the old Jag X-Type. It had a sideways engine and was based on the Mondeo platform, but it had rear-biased AWD because Jag knew its customers would never buy a Jaguar that was FWD. I haven't been able to find any specs for torque split on the '13 SHO yet, though.
 
Sometimes I wonder about you Thywood. First its an AWD dyno. Second the SHO while putering around is 55/45 because that makes the car the most stable and gives it the best driving charechteristics. When loaded the car can put almost all the power to any one corner.


I like RWD and dont care for FWD but there is nothing wrong with a properly engineered AWD car. Then again what do Porsche, Lamborgini, Bugatti, Skyline, STi, EVO know about performance right?
 
LaserSVT said:
Sometimes I wonder about you Thywood. First its an AWD dyno. Second the SHO while putering around is 55/45 because that makes the car the most stable and gives it the best driving charechteristics. When loaded the car can put almost all the power to any one corner.
Click to expand...

Okay, I stand corrected. I didn't know it was an AWD dyno. Like I said, no sound on this computer:) However, I disagree that 55/45 F/R torque split is ideal. Theoretically, 50/50 would be best for more neutral handling characteristics. However, RWD vehicles handle worlds better than FWD (just ask any car magazine tester). Therefore, in my opinion, a 45/55 F/R split would be more suited to better handling. Anything that sends more power to the rear would be better as far as I'm concerned. You drive a BMW, one of the best handling makes in existence. You of all people should be well acquainted with the superior handling characteristics of Rear-Weel-Drive:) If even one percent more power goes to the front under normal conditions, it's FWD. But that's just me.

LaserSVT said:
I like RWD and dont care for FWD but there is nothing wrong with a properly engineered AWD car. Then again what do Porsche, Lamborgini, Bugatti, Skyline, STi, EVO know about performance right?
Click to expand...

Nor do I have any problem with a "properly engineered" AWD car. However, my idea of "properly engineered" is a longitudinal engine with transmission behind it sending the majority of the power to the correct (rear) wheels under normal driving conditions. Actually, Porsche, Lamborgini, Bugatti, Skyline (Nissan), and STi (Subaru) among others (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Chrysler et al) produce "properly engineered" AWD cars. These cars are all rear-biased AWD with longitudinal engines mounted either front, rear, or midships (I left out the EVO because it's FWD with a sideways engine). I stand by my feelings and opinions of the SHO and MKS. Until Ford turns the engine 90 degrees and puts the power to the rear, they'll still be wrong-wheel-drive junk as far as I'm concerned.
 
chris2523 said:
yeah i was looking for those numbers on darelli's car. thanks for posting that up! his car is just awesome. waiting on a bigger direct injection pump for the SHO engines.
Click to expand...

Yeah NP, I'm on shoforum here and there for my Gen2 "NO SHO" and make it a point to see whats going on in the Gen4 SHO threads. It's very intriguing to me what they do with barely any mods. Can't wait till the serious mods come out, should be interesting :D

Well thaywood I'll give it to you that you are very PASSIONATE, can't take that away from you! :D
 
I still agree with thaywood the AWD needs to be rear biased the jaguar is 40/60 (about perfect) .
I have heard complaints about audi pushing in corners cause of the 50/50 split .
 
slowmkviii said:
I still agree with thaywood the AWD needs to be rear biased the jaguar is 40/60 (about perfect) .
I have heard complaints about audi pushing in corners cause of the 50/50 split .
Click to expand...

Another problem with the Audi is that the engine is set ahead of the front axle causing it to be front heavy (hence the long front overhang on some older Audi's and the understeer problem). Audi has addressed this issue with some of its newer offerings. The engine has been moved back to even out the weight distribution and create less front overhang to give the cars much better overall proportions (unlike the Taurus and MKS which have obviously FWD body proportions). Audi is one of my favorite makes. I think they make absolutely beautiful cars. Audi is also one of the few (maybe only) companies that still make FWD cars with longitudinal engines. I'm not a bit interested in those, but the longitudinal engine/transmission layout is naturally suited to an AWD drivetrain.

Audi FWD.JPG

Audi FWD.JPG
 
thaywood said:
Okay, I stand corrected. I didn't know it was an AWD dyno. Like I said, no sound on this computer:) However, I disagree that 55/45 F/R torque split is ideal. Theoretically, 50/50 would be best for more neutral handling characteristics. However, RWD vehicles handle worlds better than FWD (just ask any car magazine tester). Therefore, in my opinion, a 45/55 F/R split would be more suited to better handling. Anything that sends more power to the rear would be better as far as I'm concerned. You drive a BMW, one of the best handling makes in existence. You of all people should be well acquainted with the superior handling characteristics of Rear-Weel-Drive:) If even one percent more power goes to the front under normal conditions, it's FWD. But that's just me.



Nor do I have any problem with a "properly engineered" AWD car. However, my idea of "properly engineered" is a longitudinal engine with transmission behind it sending the majority of the power to the correct (rear) wheels under normal driving conditions. Actually, Porsche, Lamborgini, Bugatti, Skyline (Nissan), and STi (Subaru) among others (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Chrysler et al) produce "properly engineered" AWD cars. These cars are all rear-biased AWD with longitudinal engines mounted either front, rear, or midships (I left out the EVO because it's FWD with a sideways engine). I stand by my feelings and opinions of the SHO and MKS. Until Ford turns the engine 90 degrees and puts the power to the rear, they'll still be wrong-wheel-drive junk as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
I agree, RWD is better then FWD. I also should have explained more. Under NORMAL driving conditions the SHO is 55/45 because thats what works best for that platform. So normal tooling around getting the kids or groceries then it splits it as previously stated. But when you need power to the rears then the computer puts it there.
 
LaserSVT said:
But when you need power to the rears then the computer puts it there.
Click to expand...

to a certain extent, but i hear the rear clutches can only hold around 150 ft lbs of torque or so, it becomes problematic when launching on the drag strip on slicks and the front tires don't hook up. it starts moving more power to the rear and the awd drive clutch system can't handle it.
 
LaserSVT said:
I agree, RWD is better then FWD.
Click to expand...

Dang skippy!

LaserSVT said:
I also should have explained more. Under NORMAL driving conditions the SHO is 55/45 because thats what works best for that platform.
Click to expand...

I know this. However, why should it work best for that platform? The SHO's engine is mounted sideways with the transaxle under/behind it. Most of the car's weight is over the front wheels. This leads to understeer. It would seem more logical to send more power to the rear to counteract the understeer. However, it's still just a Taurus. A soccer mom grocery getter. So driving dynamics really don't matter that much.

LaserSVT said:
So normal tooling around getting the kids or groceries then it splits it as previously stated. But when you need power to the rears then the computer puts it there.
Click to expand...

I understand that too. I've read quite a bit about the new SHO. From what I understand, from various magazine road tests, the (current) SHO has a tendency to understeer massively and suffers from severe torque steer under hard acceleration. That's what happens when that much power is put to the wrong wheels. Apparently, the computer doesn't put enough power to the rears when it is really needed.It's possible that Ford has addressed these issues with the '13 SHO. Let's hope so.


I simply prefer a longitudinal engine driving the rear wheels (or all four, if it's rear-biased). No sideways engine wrong-wheel-drive vehicle will ever disgrace my driveway. You can talk at me all day about how a front-biased AWD system is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it'll go in one ear and out the other. Now give me a Mercedes 4Matic or an AWD Bimmer or even an AWD Audi and I'll be a seriously happy camper (personally, I'd love to have a Ford Sierra Sapphire Cosworth AWD...drool...). Anyway, that's how I feel about it. Everybody's gonna have differing opinions on the subject. I'm just extremely avid about mine.

chris2523 said:
to a certain extent, but i hear the rear clutches can only hold around 150 ft lbs of torque or so, it becomes problematic when launching on the drag strip on slicks and the front tires don't hook up. it starts moving more power to the rear and the awd drive clutch system can't handle it.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. But it makes sense. And I kind of assumed such anyway. The Taurus, even the SHO, is still a family sedan. Most people who drive it aren't going to put it through its paces like some of us would:D
 
thaywood said:
I didn't know that. But it makes sense. And I kind of assumed such anyway. The Taurus, even the SHO, is still a family sedan. Most people who drive it aren't going to put it through its paces like some of us would:D
Click to expand...

oh absolutely. and the guys with these problems are making over 400 hp at the wheels. its not something that is an issue on stock power level cars. and its obviously not a seriously limiting factor, they're getting close to 11s.
 
thaywood - Do you have this much to say for the Gen1/Gen2 argument? Judging by your signature I'd be 100% behind you on that one :D
 
SCTBIRD1173 said:
thaywood - Do you have this much to say for the Gen1/Gen2 argument? Judging by your signature I'd be 100% behind you on that one :D
Click to expand...

:)I've owned both. I had a '96 that I drove for 10 years. And I loved it. I've only had the '97 LSC for 2 years. And I love it too. I love them both. The '96 was faster and better handling. But the '97 is more luxurious and upscale looking. I wouldn't say no to either. Personally, I've never met a Mark VIII I didn't like:D

chris2523 said:
oh absolutely. and the guys with these problems are making over 400 hp at the wheels. its not something that is an issue on stock power level cars. and its obviously not a seriously limiting factor, they're getting close to 11s.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But with that kind of power going to the front wheels, I wonder how hard they're having to fight the steering wheel to keep the car straight?
 
keVIIIn said:
fixed your statement...lol...yea yea i know im a GM fan...with all of this technology and displacement on demand sh*t you'd think they could produce a v8 gasoline engine with more than 330 cubic inches ie. the 5.4, and the whole mod motor OHC thing which started in the early 90s is completly unnecessary when pushrod v8s have proven to be reliable and powerful and much cheaper and EASIER to work on, and same is true with the ford small block windsor engines.
Click to expand...

i would mostly agree with your "no need for modular ohc engines" statement until the new Mustang 5.0 came around, that engine kicks pushrod ass,power for displacement is great and the fuel mileage absolutely kills the gm v8 and the hemi, its got hp, torque and mpg all in one,plus it feels like a gem compared to the chevy small block.
before the new 5.0 i agree,the mod motor was great,but didnt show improvement over gm's pushrod tech, but now, different story.
 
SCTBIRD1173 said:
It's very intriguing to me what they do with barely any mods.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call twin turbos "barely any mods".:p The new SHO is not a naturally aspirated vehicle if it comes with the turbos. It's modded right off the assembly line brosef. :D That's just their way of replacing displacement with something other than actual displacement. That's why you see V6 Regals and Grand Nationals run 9s in the 1/4 mile. :)
 
Kirk it is factory twin turbo though so that would indeed be barely any mods. :rolleyes: The turbo 3.8L GMs of late were good for straight line performance only and nothing like the amazing cars built today. I prefer a more well rounded car like my SC, excels at nothing but good at everything. :D
 
Simple reminder NHRA rates non intercooled turbo at a 1.5 rating and intercooled turbos at a 2 times rating. Meaning a 231ci turbo intercooled would race against 462ci N/A engines.
 
Smoke and mirrors. Consider the traction advantage out of the hole with AWD. I came across one the other day and the idiot tried to jump on me from about 55mph. No 4300lb Taurus is going to pull away from a healthy 3800lb V8 LS sitting in the manual 3 hole from 55mph. About those curves...nah!
 
KStromberg said:
I wouldn't call twin turbos "barely any mods".:p The new SHO is not a naturally aspirated vehicle if it comes with the turbos. It's modded right off the assembly line brosef. :D That's just their way of replacing displacement with something other than actual displacement. That's why you see V6 Regals and Grand Nationals run 9s in the 1/4 mile. :)
Click to expand...

smh.. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 184 (members: 1, guests: 183)
Back
Top