Anyone see the new SHO?

[BlackBII]

Hmm...My Fiat weighs around 1800lbs, and is pumping out over 300 horses, I wonder if it could give the SHO a run for it's money?

Silly automakers and their heavy-ass vehicles.

 

[Jay FX4]

I think my ZX2 was under 2400 lbs.

 

[RustedRanger]

The gears for the Performance package are 3.16 to 1. Without a speed limiter it would have a killer top end.

 

[Louisville86]

Pick up the new (September '09) Car & Driver ("SHO Got Big!") for an interesting feature on the new SHO (it includes a shot of a couple of Gen I and II SHOs). Here's the gist:

THE HIGHS: SHO-worthy engine, effortless acceleration, quiet refinement, low-profile performance.

THE LOWS: Dull steering, tame handling, brake fade, big-boy curb weight, sometimes too adult for us.

THE VERDICT: An agreeable car that mixes horsepowerful bliss with occasional moments of boredom.

The tested car stickered at $43,280

The final paragraph suggests that Ford put the SHO powertrain in the Fusion and sell it for under $30K. Great idea!

 

[Captain Ledd]

4400lbs....that like, what, almost a grand more than the Ranger?

I've had my red Ranger on the scales before at the scrap yard.

2.3L 2wd M5OD, std. cab/short bed clocked just barely over 3,000 with me in it and 3/4 of a tank

That thing weighs a lot... Where do they put all that steel?

 

[li7in6]

I've had my red Ranger on the scales before at the scrap yard.

2.3L 2wd M5OD, std. cab/short bed clocked just barely over 3,000 with me in it and 3/4 of a tank

That thing weighs a lot... Where do they put all that steel?

AWD drivetrain, big OHC V6 with twin turbo's, intercoolers, charge pipes, etc., cushy luxury features like power windows, doors, power/heated/cooled seats, sound insulation, not to mention the 16 airbags and additional crumple zones/safety measure regulations.

It adds up, by comparison your ranger is a pretty bare bones vehicle.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Um, my colorado with all its OHCs and VVT and whatever else they think is nessacary on an engine nowadays redlines at 6......

But i guesss 350ftlbs at 1700 is pretty good for a 2.0L

 

[Will]

Im sorry guys, but no manual, no way. In the 50s and 60s (too young to remember but ive been told) If you wanted an automatic trans you sat in the passenger seat. real enthusiasts piss on automatic transmissions. Ive never owned one and hope i never will have to

Your opinion was given to you by the as you've been tolds.

We are seeing the fastest muscle cars ever right now. People have all these romantic memories--but a 2010 Dodge Charger Hemi will whip a 1968 Dodge Charger Hemi. I've looked up the magazine tests for both. And the new one is heavier, does it with air conditioning and such--not a stripped out rattle wagon. Automatics were part of the popular muscle car days. The pistol grip shifter controlling the TF727--the Powerglide is still in use professionally. An auto with a hard hitting shift programming and a high stall converter will leave a manual in the dust on a dragstrip.

 

[li7in6]

But i guesss 350ftlbs at 1700 is pretty good for a 2.0L

Its actually a 3.5 liter V6.

 

[li7in6]

Your opinion was given to you by the as you've been tolds.

We are seeing the fastest muscle cars ever right now. People have all these romantic memories--but a 2010 Dodge Charger Hemi will whip a 1968 Dodge Charger Hemi. I've looked up the magazine tests for both. And the new one is heavier, does it with air conditioning and such--not a stripped out rattle wagon. Automatics were part of the popular muscle car days. The pistol grip shifter controlling the TF727--the Powerglide is still in use professionally. An auto with a hard hitting shift programming and a high stall converter will leave a manual in the dust on a dragstrip.

People like manuals becasue they are more involved in the driving experience. Nowadays they don't perform any better than a modern automatic or dual auto-clutch sequential manual box that can be ran in auto mode. Modern auto's are getting to the point where they can shift harder, faster, and more consistently than a person could ever dream of, especially when we talk about dual clutch automated manuals. They can rev match on downshifts like a pro. Traditional auto's still suffer from efficiency penalties due to the additional rotational inertia and by virtue of the torque converter. But its nonsense that someone picking the more practical performance car, or even the more practical higher performance performance car is not a true enthusiast. It's just pride as far as i can see, people don't want to admit a damn machine can shift better than they can .

 

[West]

Does anybody else think that these graphs are a little skewed. A real torque/ hp curve doesn't go basically straight up, flat, then drop rapidly back down. It is more of an actually curve where it goes up gradually and goes back down gradually. Maybe there is some sort of spike from the turbo lag, but I'm pretty sure it would not be that drastic.

 

[Captain Ledd]

I've seen some slick cam work done, even on older cars without fancy VVT.

For example:

1966 Mustang with a Ford 200ci I6 with their fancy new aluminum head and some other mods (although fairly mild)

Dyno graph:
http://www.classicinlines.com/images/Tech_images/PC480graph.JPG

numberd chart: (check out the torque over the RPM range)

So I imagine with a super budget like Ford has and actually letting the engineers do their job I have no doubt that curve may actually be fairly accurate. Maybe not QUITE that flat, but close to it.

 

[li7in6]

Does anybody else think that these graphs are a little skewed. A real torque/ hp curve doesn't go basically straight up, flat, then drop rapidly back down. It is more of an actually curve where it goes up gradually and goes back down gradually. Maybe there is some sort of spike from the turbo lag, but I'm pretty sure it would not be that drastic.

Any dyno graph that isnt actually a dyno graph, you should expect it to be doctored. They probably averaged the torque from across its powerband and applied that number across its power band on the new graph, then trailed it off a bit a 5300-5400rpm to have it match up with the motors actual power peak. No enigne makes torque THAT flat then trails slightly to peak power then completely and dramatically drops off thereafter. Definitely a doctored graph.

 

[Hahnsb2]

That's ridiculous that it weighs more than my Dakota!

 

[Chance]

That's ridiculous that it weighs more than my Dakota!

What??? It weighs less than my ranger...