Shoman594 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 (edited) The time is now for BOLD MOVES! www.BringbacktheSHO.com Edited February 25, 2007 by Shoman594 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictor Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Saw this earlier on Autoblog. Very well recieved. If Ford product managers read these things, pay attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Good luck guys. I recon a simple start would be a high helixS/C for the 3.5 AWD. That would be 350-360 hp and 330 lb ft, not as good as a TTDI 3.7 V6 but a good start. That's similar to the Aussie XR6 Turbo Falcons, they put down 0-60 mph in 6.1 sec and a 14.1 1/4 mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Good luck guys. I recon a simple start would be a high helixS/C for the 3.5 AWD.That would be 350-360 hp and 330 lb ft, not as good as a TTDI 3.7 V6 but a good start. That's similar to the Aussie XR6 Turbo Falcons, they put down 0-60 mph in 6.1 sec and a 14.1 1/4 mile. The transmissions in this platform can't handle the torque you are suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) The SHO would be great, but that should be the REAL Taurus, not the fat jaw/boring headlights that's coming to market. Refresh for 2009? If only Ford were that bold. Edited February 25, 2007 by focus05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The SHO would be great, but that should be the REAL Taurus, not the fat jaw/boring headlights that's coming to market. Refresh for 2009? If only Ford were that bold. I'd prefer New for 2010, one refresh after 3 years and new after 5 years...............not what ford likes to do which use to be a refresh after 5 and new after 10, or worst in the escapes case a unnoticeable refresh after 5 and then another refresh after 8 with no indication of when a new one will arrive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) The transmissions in this platform can't handle the torque you are suggesting. Good question. A powerful engine needs a good transmission. What transmission does the Volvo 4.4 V8 run? could that be used? BTW, the existance of a TTDI 3.7 V6 and NA DI 3.7 V6 would suggest new transmissions coming. Edited February 25, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96 Pony Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 First off, I LOVE that pix of the Taurus :shades: Yes, bring back the SHO. I would buy one! This is the bold move that Ford needs. Even tho it may be a flash in the pan, offering customers choices of engines and drivetrains worked well for awhile for Chrysler with the 300 and brought back interest in the company. Perhaps part of the reason it continues to gain sales while others don't . . . Giving the customers a choice - what a concept! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) The transmissions in this platform can't handle the torque you are suggesting. I see the Ford Edge is using the 3.5 V6 and a new 6-speed transmission at the Van Dyke Plant: I'm sure a stronger variant of this 6F will be developed for forced induction Variants. http://www.blueovalnews.com/index.php?cate...p2_articleid=38 When the Edge and Aviator vehicles hit the market next year, they will be equipped with Ford Motor Company's newest 6-speed, front-wheel-drive automatic transaxle - the 6F. Jointly developed with General Motors and built at Ford's Van Dyke Plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., the 6F will represent Ford's fourth 6-speed automatic transmission application, which the automaker says further establishes it as a leader in fuel-efficient, advanced automatic transmissions. 6-speed automatics, such as the 6F, deliver up to four percent improvements in fuel economy compared to traditional four-speed automatics while delivering improved performance. The 6F was designed to cover a wide range of variants. It can handle up to 300 horsepower and 280 ft.-lb. of torque, making it compatible with many different engines. Edited February 25, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Any of the forced induction 3.5-3.7L v6 engines from the cyclone family will be at the 325 lb of tq power point or higher. The Volvo 4.4L V8 uses a tranny sourced from Aisin (as referenced in another thread on this site). From what little I could find out about it, it can handle around 340 lbs of torque a design limits. As the TT 3.7L is rumored to be pushing 370+ lbs of torque in some threads, they'd better be talking to Audi about trannies as they're the only ones out there with a transverse auto setup dealing with that kind of torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 While no readily available 6 ATX for a High powered AWD set up is apparent, I'm sure the new 6F has far more capacity left in it. Maybe it's as simple as adding more clutch plates to the drive packs and bigger drive shafts, we won't know unless a HP model is released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I'd prefer New for 2010, one refresh after 3 years and new after 5 years...............not what ford likes to do which use to be a refresh after 5 and new after 10, or worst in the escapes case a unnoticeable refresh after 5 and then another refresh after 8 with no indication of when a new one will arrive. I'd prefer new for 2010 as well. I'm not letting them off the hook for that, either. Although my guess is we'll have to wait until MY2011 before we see something new. But when your ship springs a leak (is sinking), you don't wait until your next overhaul to fix it. You patch the holes, assuming the economics are right. Otherwise, you let it sink and abandon ship. However, I think the economics of updating the front-end a little - again - are fairly good. A bit of character goes a long way. The powertrain is there. It just needs some character to get people into it. Sort of like the Fusion with the upcoming MY2008. It needs an higher output 3.0L or the 3.5L, otherwise it is uncompetitive. Is Ford willing to let its midsize sink? And although the average buyer won't know the difference, the car mag reviewers will jump all over it. Is it worth it to wait until MY2009? If MY2009 is in Feb or March, maybe. If MY2009 is in September, I don't know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Good question.A powerful engine needs a good transmission. What transmission does the Volvo 4.4 V8 run? could that be used? BTW, the existance of a TTDI 3.7 V6 and NA DI 3.7 V6 would suggest new transmissions coming. My comment was NOT a question - it is a declarative statement. The Aisin boxes that Ford is using on that vehicle will NOT handle the torque of the turbo V6s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 My comment was NOT a question - it is a declarative statement. The Aisin boxes that Ford is using on that vehicle will NOT handle the torque of the turbo V6s. Sorry. I turned your "declarative statement" into a question nobody had asked or cared about. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I see the Ford Edge is using the 3.5 V6 and a new 6-speed transmission at the Van Dyke Plant:I'm sure a stronger variant of this 6F will be developed for forced induction Variants. http://www.blueovalnews.com/index.php?cate...p2_articleid=38 No there is no stronger box being developed. The box that was planned for use with the Yamaha based V8 had higher torque capability than the new inhouse (and shared with GM) design. No stronger box is in the plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) What we need is a good letter, posted as a PDF, that we can print off and send to Ford via snail mail. Being a big SHO fan, I would print, sign & mail such a letter. I would volunteer for the PDF conversion and posting. Who wants to write it? Edited February 25, 2007 by NLPRacing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The transmissions in this platform can't handle the torque you are suggesting. Which is why (as no one else has pointed out) it should have a manual transmission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WXM69 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I'm down for a SHO just leave the Marauder wheels off please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Which is why (as no one else has pointed out) it should have a manual transmission. When the first SHO had a MT, it was an internal transmission. After the SHO was deleted (with the V6) all MT capability was purged from the company. All MTs are now outside purchased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) When the first SHO had a MT, it was an internal transmission. After the SHO was deleted (with the V6) all MT capability was purged from the company. All MTs are now outside purchased. I know there are other alternatives but a viable near future performance Taurus could be NA DFI 3.7 V6 with the new 6F transmission. That would give 300 Hp and 300 lbft of torque, pretty close to a V8 and usable when coupled with AWD. I think this is the whole purpose of that Lincoln DFI 3.7 V6, to replace the 4.4 and 4.6. With a short set of gears, I think that would be real fun. Now if they were to use the ZF 6HP26A, a FWD/AWD version of the strong 6-speed auto used by Ford in their HP RWD cars, anything's possible. Btw, ZF also make manuals too! (sorry guys, I'll leave the forum so Americans to discuss their own cars in peace.) Edited February 26, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 No there is no stronger box being developed. The box that was planned for use with the Yamaha based V8 had higher torque capability than the new inhouse (and shared with GM) design. No stronger box is in the plans. So how they planning to fit the Twin Force Cyclone into the MKS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Dude, there's a 6AT behind the yamaha v8 in the XC-90. And its AWD preped. Its just made by a third party and not an inhouse design. A vehicle as pricey as the MkS twinforce will be will support that added expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I know there are other alternatives but a viable near future performance Taurus could be NA DFI 3.7 V6 with the new 6F transmission. That would give 300 Hp and 300 lbft of torque, pretty close to a V8 and usable when coupled with AWD. I think this is the whole purpose of that Lincoln DFI 3.7 V6, to replace the 4.4 and 4.6.With a short set of gears, I think that would be real fun. Now if they were to use the ZF 6HP26A, a FWD/AWD version of the strong 6-speed auto used by Ford in their HP RWD cars, anything's possible. Btw, ZF also make manuals too! (sorry guys, I'll leave the forum so Americans to discuss their own cars in peace.) 1. The 3.7 could never take the place of a 4.4L or 4.6L. There isn't enough torque. It can be a good engine; just don't believe it can take the place of a larger V8. quite frankly, if this is the belief, it doesn't say much for Yamaha's ability to develop high output engines if a 3.7L is somehow better than their 4.4L. but that obviously isn't the case. 2. Besides the fact that re-engineering a platform to accept a RWD transmission is tantamount to redesigning the ENTIRE platform, do you know how expensive ZF transmissions are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 So how they planning to fit the Twin Force Cyclone into the MKS? The key is "torque truncation". The power of the engine is limited when in lower gears so that the transmission is broken. But it kind of defeats the whole purpose of putting the higher HP engine in in the first place doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) Dude, there's a 6AT behind the yamaha v8 in the XC-90. And its AWD preped. Its just made by a third party and not an inhouse design. A vehicle as pricey as the MkS twinforce will be will support that added expense. That's right, the Aisin box can barely handle the torque of the Yamaha 4.4L. The twin turbo V6 however puts out lots more torque and is too much for that same box. Edited February 26, 2007 by bb62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.