2010 Ford Taurus SHO V AUDI V8

csv8 · 12-05-2010, 03:15 PM

This is awesome performance from a V6 !!!
HOPEFULLY it will come here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsWvK92HNpM

BOSHOG · 12-05-2010, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

This is awesome performance from a V6 !!!
HOPEFULLY it will come here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsWvK92HNpM

it seems to be a great engine but i wonder how the rest of the car compares

The G6ET Spot · 13-05-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

it seems to be a great engine but i wonder how the rest of the car compares

This may give you an idea of what it is like.

Not hard to see where they got the design from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FvKB...eature=related

BOSHOG · 13-05-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The G6ET Spot

This may give you an idea of what it is like.

Not hard to see where they got the design from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FvKB...eature=related

i really like the styling of it, but what is that hole in the roof? it looks like something that lets light in....... i havent seen one of them in a ford in many many moons

calais · 12-05-2010, 03:57 PM

Hopefully, It doesn't come here.

It'd be the death of our own beloved turbo 6!

It's interesting to watch the presenter get suprised that a 6 cylinder whipped an 8 cylinder. Especially since its been happening here in Australia on a daily basis for the best part of a decade!

CFOUR · 12-05-2010, 04:25 PM

if it does make its way over here their going to have to rename it. Taurus is tainted from fords last horrible effort. its the same problem the mondeo has, but more extreme.

fordv8! · 12-05-2010, 05:44 PM

that engine would be great in the falcon, even though i am a fan of the I6 it seems inevitable with the global aspirations of ford this will happen imo

Chopped · 13-05-2010, 12:53 PM

That is only a 4.2ltr V8. The V8 seems to keep up without any turbos. Also averages 10-11 L/100km.

The F6 is more impressive than the SHO IMO.

jpd80 · 13-05-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chopped

That is only a 4.2ltr V8. The V8 seems to keep up without any turbos.
.

No it doesn't, the shots where you'd think that's happening were done as
"fill in" runs done with a camera car filming a neck and neck race.
The truth is that by 60 mph the SHO has a bout a 0.9 second
or roughly 30 metre lead...

Quote:

Also averages 10-11 L/100km.

Comparing apples to apples on US EPA city/highway cycles:
Audi A6 17/23
Taurus SHO 17/25
In real consumption terms there not too much different but the Taurus is still
$20,000 less which is irrelevant to buyers of the of European luxury marques
because Taurus and even Lincoln lacks their status .......

chevypower · 13-05-2010, 03:05 PM

Don't forget the SHO engine is detuned because of the transverse layout. It also runs on regular unleaded, has zero turbo lag, has diesel-like low-end torque, and is designed for towing and longevity. It gets the same fuel consumption as the same engine in non-EcoBoost version. All these things make the EcoBoost a winner in my opinion.

jpd80 · 13-05-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

Don't forget the SHO engine is detuned because of the transverse layout. It also runs on regular unleaded, has zero turbo lag, has diesel-like low-end torque, and is designed for towing and longevity. It gets the same fuel consumption as the same engine in non-EcoBoost version. All these things make the EcoBoost a winner in my opinion.

The SHO taurus is also 4300 lbs which is like 1960 Kg or there about, roughly 100 Kg more than a G6ET...

chevypower · 13-05-2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

The SHO taurus is also 4300 lbs which is like 1960 Kg or there about, roughly 100 Kg more than a G6ET...

good point, and driving all wheels which bogs down performance from resistance.

Quicksand · 13-05-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

Don't forget the SHO engine is detuned because of the transverse layout. It also runs on regular unleaded, has zero turbo lag, has diesel-like low-end torque, and is designed for towing and longevity. It gets the same fuel consumption as the same engine in non-EcoBoost version. All these things make the EcoBoost a winner in my opinion.

All good points chevypower, but these are things we have been enjoying for a while now with the I6T.

The Ford OZ I6T is massively de-tuned; in the current FG series, it can reach around 330RWKW tune ONLY (for the F6). It runs on PULP (which is more or less the equivolent to the USA ULP), has no lag in the 6 speed auto guise, has 533NM of torque available at 1900 RPM, has no issues towing with that 533NM and 270KW and the I6 has been proven to drive more than a million KM's (think taxi...) many times.

This is all with only 1 turbo too

Those are BIG shoes to fill, without even touching on the culture shift required. I am still very impressed with the new Taurus engine though, especially in AWD form. I'm a little concerned about pricing personally.

jpd80 · 13-05-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inducted_Breeze

Those are BIG shoes to fill, without even touching on the culture shift required. I am still very impressed with the new Taurus engine though, especially in AWD form. I'm a little concerned about pricing personally.

Prices between here and the US don't directly correlate, look at Camry $19K there and $28K here.
So if you think that way, a $37K Taurus SHO is roughly equivalent in price to a G6ET.
In the broad sense of buyer expectations in each market, that makes complete sense...

irish2 · 13-05-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inducted_Breeze

All good points chevypower, but these are things we have been enjoying for a while now with the I6T.

The Ford OZ I6T is massively de-tuned; in the current FG series, it can reach around 330RWKW tune ONLY (for the F6). It runs on PULP (which is more or less the equivolent to the USA ULP), has no lag in the 6 speed auto guise, has 533NM of torque available at 1900 RPM, has no issues towing with that 533NM and 270KW and the I6 has been proven to drive more than a million KM's (think taxi...) many times.

Do these 'tuned' cars still pass emissions requirements? I think not!

WASP · 13-05-2010, 04:46 PM

I'm not going to compare the Taurus SHO to our G6ET, but what I will say is that Taurus SHO looks to be a quality, competitive product. In my opinion Ford globally as a company is really making some fantastic, competitive class leading cars more recently. As a Ford enthusiast I'm delighted to see this happen.

MexicanBatman · 13-05-2010, 04:47 PM

i dont want that gay us garbage

if it were here now and we didnt have the G6E my money would have gone elsewhere

i've seen all the vids and they are no where near the FG even with the awd launch advantage

jpd80 · 13-05-2010, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDAA

I'm not going to compare the Taurus SHO to our G6ET

Neither was I, just discussing price relationship in their respective markets.

Any mention of Falcon and Taurus in the one sentence tends to draw an emotional response.......

SpoolMan · 13-05-2010, 07:50 PM

Selling cars on a drag race, I like it....

vztrt · 13-05-2010, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Selling cars on a drag race, I like it....

I guess it handles like a boat.....oh wait its American.....

chevypower · 13-05-2010, 11:12 PM

The Flex EB gets 22mpg using regular, last I read the Territory Turbo uses like 18l/100km using premium. The F150 with its 400hp EB engine is also supposes to see at least 22 mpg. I'm not using a converter, but I know 22mpg is around 10l/100, and 18l/100 is more like 13-14mpg. I'm sure the territory turbo can tow, but the engine wasn't designed for towing, it just had a turbo tacked on to an existing engine.
There is also a leaked article on the internet of a drag race between the 5.4 f150 and ecoboost f150. The eb leaves the v8 in the dust. Aren't the XR6 turbo and xr8 fairly close in performance? The eb f150 is only a 3.5L. And it's built for towing. Amazing.

jpd80 · 14-05-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

The Flex EB gets 22mpg using regular, last I read the Territory Turbo uses like 18l/100km using premium. The F150 with its 400hp EB engine is also supposes to see at least 22 mpg. I'm not using a converter, but I know 22mpg is around 10l/100, and 18l/100 is more like 13-14mpg. I'm sure the territory turbo can tow, but the engine wasn't designed for towing, it just had a turbo tacked on to an existing engine.
There is also a leaked article on the internet of a drag race between the 5.4 f150 and ecoboost f150. The eb leaves the v8 in the dust. Aren't the XR6 turbo and xr8 fairly close in performance? The eb f150 is only a 3.5L. And it's built for towing. Amazing.

Where to start...
1) Unmodified, the XR6T does a 13.2 quarter mile, Taurus SHO is a long way behind that.

2) Our 4.0 turbo absolutely clobbered the early 5.4 3Vs and still leads the 4V Boss engines.

3) Not really possible to compare US EPA city/highway/ combined
with Australian Euro Urban/extra Urban/Combined.

All you'll end up doing is cherry picking figures that suit your argument....

chevypower · 14-05-2010, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Where to start...
1) Unmodified, the XR6T does a 13.2 quarter mile, Taurus SHO is a long way behind that.

2) Our 4.0 turbo absolutely clobbered the early 5.4 3Vs and still leads the 4V Boss engines.

3) Not really possible to compare US EPA city/highway/ combined
with Australian Euro Urban/extra Urban/Combined.

All you'll end up doing is cherry picking figures that suit your argument....

I know the laws of physics are completely different across hemispheres lol. The Falcon uses 50l/100km in America, and the Taurus would use 1l/100 in Australia.
I lived in Australia and I beat a territory turbo with a C70 so I know they are not lightning fast. Official 0-100 is 7 seconds, it's 6.5 for the Flex. Look, there's nothing revolutionary about sticking a turbo on a standard engine. Keep arguing as I'm sure you will. In 5 yrs, the EB will be available in Australia, and everyone on here will be raving about it.

ltd · 14-05-2010, 08:10 AM

Nice, but I'd still rather my I6T

Yellow_Festiva · 14-05-2010, 09:12 AM

So a whiz bang TWIN TURBO 3.5 was faster than a NA 4.2 V8.... yawn what a revelation.

How bout we put a Suby Sti against a 5.4 / 6.2 V8?? If the boosted Suby wins do we say that a '4cyl' was faster than the V8 cars it was up against?

These comparisons are pure marketing and FAR from 'apples for apples' fair....

What does the boosted Audi V6 Engine engine do in the 0-100?

Quote:

The 213 kW V6 engine accelerates the A6 from 0 to 100 km/h in just 5.9 seconds

Oh... that's also a 3.0 not a 3.5.... Now why didn't they use this car for the test I wonder?

jpd80 · 14-05-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

So a whiz bang TWIN TURBO 3.5 was faster than a NA 4.2 V8.... yawn what a revelation.

How bout we put a Suby Sti against a 5.4 / 6.2 V8?? If the boosted Suby wins do we say that a '4cyl' was faster than the V8 cars it was up against?

These comparisons are pure marketing and FAR from 'apples for apples' fair....

What does the boosted Audi V6 Engine engine do in the 0-100?

Oh... that's also a 3.0 not a 3.5.... Now why didn't they use this car for the test I wonder?

I suspect that the the Taurus SHO or more likely Lincoln MKS was bench marked against Audi.
American luxury market has a preference for V8 engines so this
comparison is more about Ford trying to change that image..

while Scooby doos are pretty quick, they don't have the refinement or snob value of a luxury European.

chevypower · 14-05-2010, 09:34 AM

@jpd fair enough, it's why I would use the Flex vs Territory comparison rather than Taurus vs Falcon. Comparing 2wd to awd for acceleration and economy is even harder to compare.

jpd80 · 14-05-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

@jpd fair enough, it's why I would use the Flex vs Territory comparison rather than Taurus vs Falcon. Comparing 2wd to awd for acceleration and economy is even harder to compare.

I love the thought of FoA continuing parallel development of Falcon/Territory
and FNA with their Taurus/ Explorer. It's a great opportunity for each to meet
their own market needs and an excellent way of benchmarking each other's products internally...

So long as FNA and FoA both end up with the best vehicles possible....

mik · 14-05-2010, 09:38 AM

on the other hand the Audi is 20k more expensive so apples for apples , i`d say its pretty fair.

Yellow_Festiva · 14-05-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

on the other hand the Audi is 20k more expensive so apples for apples , i`d say its pretty fair.

Yes, the V8 is 20k more, the boosted V6 is 10k cheaper than the V8.

So now, the gap is only 10k.

And to the buyers of these cars, the badge creed along with (and I'm assuming here) the better build quality, better electronic aides / gadgetry, better safety features and better handling dynamics will tip most buyers to the Audi.

Put those 2 V6 cars side by side, list the specifications and say the Audi is only 10k more. Where do you really think the line of cheque books will be?