What does GM have to compete with Taurus SHO ?

[Camino LS6]

Not what I meant, and I think you know it.

The statement was that brakes and ABS are your best friend when attempting to avoid an accident.

That simply isn't true.

[Intrepidation]

Common sense and being aware of your surroundings are your best friend at avoiding accidents.

[Camino LS6]

Common sense and being aware of your surroundings are your best friend at avoiding accidents.

Exactly.

[Robert Hall]

How about we get back on topic about what GM has that competes with the SHO and save the FWD bashing for the other hundred thousand threads that already exist and will no doubt exist in the future.

Where's 68? He'd be good for a 5000 word rant on the subject...

But back on topic, with the demise of Pontiac, it looks like the only performance sedans from GM in the foreseeable future will be from Cadillac.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Brakes actually lessen your control of the car, especially in a FWD.

sorry... but

LOL

[Camino LS6]

Just think about it a bit more when you finish laughing.

[Robert Hall]

Just think about it a bit more when you finish laughing.

Hmm..FWD tends to result in nose heavy vehicles with a propensity to oversteer. Which braking can exacerbate in some contexts. If you know how to drive, though, it shouldn't be a problem..

ABS is great...you just slam on the brakes and let ABS do it's job...remember in old cars having to pump the brakes in a hard stop?

Edited August 28, 2009 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Just think about it a bit more when you finish laughing.

Only in a car without ABS does your statement hold any water. If over use of the brake lessons control of a vehicle than so does over use of the gas pedal.

[Camino LS6]

Only in a car without ABS does your statement hold any water. If over use of the brake lessons control of a vehicle than so does over use of the gas pedal.

It's just more dramatic without ABS, but the loss of control is still there.

The weight transfer still happens.

The adhesion of the tires is compromised, especially the ones that do the steering.

[Camino LS6]

Think of an icy road...

[Robert Hall]

Think of an icy road...

I've driven on sheets of ice in a FWD car..the weight over the front wheels gave more traction than a loose tailed RWD would have, I suspect. Didn't go over 10 mph for 7 hours in heavy bumper-to-bumper traffic on ice.

Generally, though, I prefer the balance of 4WD (in 4 wheel low if really bad out) on snow, slush, or ice.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

I've driven on sheets of ice in a FWD car..the weight over the front wheels gave more traction than a loose tailed RWD would have, I suspect. Didn't go over 10 mph for 7 hours in heavy bumper-to-bumper traffic on ice.

Not when braking.

[Robert Hall]

Not when braking.

I think I rode the brakes the entire 7 hrs...put the car in low gear and crept along..

[Camino LS6]

I think I rode the brakes the entire 7 hrs...put the car in low gear and crept along..

Sounds like fun.

Ice is the nastiest of road conditions, I've driven through a few ice storms in which 4WD was actually a detriment. The kind where a car in park will slide sideways on a slight incline and nothing can be done about it.

But we digress...

[Robert Hall]

Sounds like fun.

Ice is the nastiest of road conditions, I've driven through a few ice storms in which 4WD was actually a detriment. The kind where a car in park will slide sideways on a slight incline and nothing can be done about it.

But we digress...

December 2006, Portland, Or on the beltline, Pontiac Grand Prix from Avis. Worst. ice. experience. of. my. life.

[Camino LS6]

Since we are digressing further...

Back when I had a fleet of plow trucks, we had a really nasty ice winter. A friend of the family called in a panic as the ice buildup had cause ponding of the freezing rain to flood into his basement through the chimney cleanout and kill his furnace.

I had already forbidden my guys to even try to go out in the mess, but I had to try to help the guy out so I went. Total nailbite of a drive to and from. I made it though, and plowed the built up ice and snow away from his house and chopped a channel through the ice underneath so the water would flow away from the house.

It was the only time I ever got paid to plow a lawn.

[Drew Dowdell]

Not when braking.

Nor when accelerating. Ice compromises everything.

In fact, unless you have AWD, when you're on ice the gas hurts you more than the brake. All cars are all-wheel-stop.

[Camino LS6]

On slick roads, I'd say that the different drive arrangements just crash differently.

FWD: goes straight off the road in whatever direction it was pointed

RWD: spins off ass first in a slide

4WD: sometimes rolls

[Blake Noble]

Yeah, I'll make sure I try not to use my brakes at the stoplights.

Actually, what I think Camino is implying here is that you really don't need to moderately use your brakes when, say, you're going around a gentle curve, no matter what its length. I know that I never use my brakes going around curves like that. Instead I just let up off of the gas and steer.

Yes, you are going to want to use your brakes to come to a complete stop or go around a set of really nasty s-curves. That's just common sense. However, I've noticed that other drivers use their brakes in situations where they really just don't need to. If you just let up off of the gas and steer the car, you're fine in most cases (this is also what you should do in a skid of course, no matter what drivetrain layout you have; I think a lot of people fail to realize that brakes are meant to bring the vehicle to a complete stop, not correct what direction the car is going in).

Edited August 28, 2009 by whiteknight

[Intrepidation]

Actually, what I think Camino is implying here is that you really don't need to moderately use your brakes when, say, you're going around a gentle curve, no matter what its length. I know that I never use my brakes going around curves like that. Instead I just let up off of the gas and steer.

Yes, you are going to want to use your brakes to come to a complete stop or go around a set of really nasty s-curves. That's just common sense. However, I've noticed that other drivers use their brakes in situations where they really just don't need to. If you just let up off of the gas and steer the car, you're fine in most cases (this is also what you should do in a skid of course, no matter what drivetrain layout you have; I think a lot of people fail to realize that brakes are meant to bring the vehicle to a complete stop, not correct what direction the car is going in).

Well of course, if you don't drive like a maniac, go 70mph in a 30, and don't tailgate like an @$$ you don't need to be riding the brakes.

[Intrepidation]

I know what he's talking about, but this lunacy lately about FWD is the SUX and all that drivel is really, really, getting old and really, really annoying., and some of the excuses being made for why RWD is amazingly better are just stupid. It's like a bunch of 68's have started trolling the threads telling us what we've already heard elventy billion times before.

You don't like FWD? Fine, go buy something RWD and let those of us who aren't as hung up about which wheels do the work enjoy the cars.

This thread has gone way off track, let's get back on it, for third time.

[Justin Bimmer]

A 2003 Australian study[8] by Monash University Accident Research Centre found that ABS:

* Reduced the risk of multiple vehicle crashes by 18 percent,

* Reduced the risk of run-off-road crashes by 35 percent.

On high-traction surfaces such as bitumen, or concrete, many (though not all) ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better (i.e. shorter) than those that would be easily possible without the benefit of ABS. In real world conditions even an alert, skilled driver without ABS would find it difficult, even through the use of techniques like threshold braking, to match or improve on the performance of a typical driver with a modern ABS-equipped vehicle. ABS reduces chances of crashing, and/or the severity of impact. The recommended technique for non-expert drivers in an ABS-equipped car, in a typical full-braking emergency, is to press the brake pedal as firmly as possible and, where appropriate, to steer around obstructions. In such situations, ABS will significantly reduce the chances of a skid and subsequent loss of control.

Ok, you kinda win the "slippery conditions" portion of the arguement. . .

In gravel, sand and deep snow, ABS tends to increase braking distances. On these surfaces, locked wheels dig in and stop the vehicle more quickly. ABS prevents this from occurring. Some ABS calibrations reduce this problem by slowing the cycling time, thus letting the wheels repeatedly briefly lock and unlock. Some vehicle manufacturer provides an "off-road" button to turn ABS function off. The primary benefit of ABS on such surfaces is to increase the ability of the driver to maintain control of the car rather than go into a skid — though loss of control remains more likely on soft surfaces like gravel or slippery surfaces like snow or ice. On a very slippery surface such as sheet ice or gravel, it is possible to lock multiple wheels at once, and this can defeat ABS (which relies on comparing all four wheels, and detecting individual wheels skidding). Availability of ABS relieves most drivers from learning threshold braking.

But, I can't remember the last time I drove on gravel, and we can all talk about horrific winters, but really, how much driving on ice does the average person do?

[Lamar]

OK, I'm gonna jump in here and hope to get us back on topic.

I followed that link to the Insignia VXR drive by Inside Line. It's actually not much lighter than the SHO and, probably because of that, isn't faster than it at all. Plus, it's a size class too small to effectively compete with it.

It'd still make a nice Regal Super though, if Buick were to resurrect that trim level.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Lamar

[SAmadei]

Two words: Mini Cooper

Two more... too slow. The Mini is OK... and is on my short list of compromise vehicles should I continue to need to park in the city... but a hot rod, it is not. It also got squirrelly on cobblestone streets and curb-to-curb potholed streets.

[ShadowDog]

As far as I'm concerned, FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD... all have the same potential to end up in the ditch, depending upon the driver.

FWD and good tires vs. RWD and 'meh' tires - I'd go with the tires and to hell with which wheels are driving me. Of course, don't brake on corners. That's just unreasonably dumb. Most people just have that instinctual habit to want to immediately stop at the first sign of wheel slide, so naturally the brakes are their answer to the problem. Obviously, they're not, so ABS can provide SOME benefit to prevent the natural outcome of these bad habits. In the straight, I have no issue with ABS. Sometimes it annoys me; however, for those moments when I know I'm just not going to come to a stop before hitting something, ABS is nice just to give me the ability of control to steer around what other people are hypnotized into hitting.

In my experience, with plenty of incidents witnessed and dealt with first-hand, the RWD truck spun itself into a lovely circle of doom when the gas was applied in a poor spot of ice. The FWD made like a swimmer doing the butterfly stroke and spun its tires, dragging its way from harm. The 4WD doesn't count here because it had a massive plow up front and a huge sanding spreader on the flat deck. That thing could stop itself AND the car in front of it with a chain attached. I love that truck, but I hate getting it stuck... too heavy, it always gets stuck.

There's everything out there on the road when it comes to drive wheels. The only thing that matters is that one is no better than the other. To say one is better is to say that one can be driven more aggressively and manage to avoid getting into trouble better. Where's the logic in that?

[Intrepidation]

OK, I'm gonna jump in here and hope to get us back on topic.

I followed that link to the Insignia VXR drive by Inside Line. It's actually not much lighter than the SHO and, probably because of that, isn't faster than it at all. Plus, it's a size class too small to effectively compete with it.

It'd still make a nice Regal Super though, if Buick were to resurrect that trim level.

What GM has as a direct competitor is the Impala, only it's not worth comparing. Even though both are large cars sold under bread and butter brands, the Impala is on an ancient, uncompetitive platform with a bargain basement interior, old tech powertrains, boring style, and poor driving dynamics. The Taurus is thoroughly modern.

The Impala goes for fleet sales and bargain hunters, the Taurus is the flagship that goes for people who want a luxury sedan like an Audi for the a fraction of the price.

The Lucerne and DTS would be better competitors in the sense that they are "premium cars" but even these both fall short with the bland styling, old tech powertrains, uninspired interiors and low "gadget content"

I would say the new LaCrosse 3.6 is the best competitor to the SHO.

[ShadowDog]

OK, I'm gonna jump in here and hope to get us back on topic.

I followed that link to the Insignia VXR drive by Inside Line. It's actually not much lighter than the SHO and, probably because of that, isn't faster than it at all. Plus, it's a size class too small to effectively compete with it.

It'd still make a nice Regal Super though, if Buick were to resurrect that trim level.

Cool, the topic. Something to finally read. So, in your opinion, would this car be worth bringing in to compete and still manage to sell enough to profit by? To me, that's all that is important. Anything else is just for the benefit of market-share. How big is this market anyway?

[regfootball]

December 2006, Portland, Or on the beltline, Pontiac Grand Prix from Avis. Worst. ice. experience. of. my. life.

that could have been the cheaper than $h! and perform like $h! goodyear eagle LS tires common on the GP.

check tire rack, that tire has horse$h! winter rating.

i had an 01 and an 02 diamante. the 01 had cheap bottom feeder yokohamas, the car would do 360's on a moderately glazed flat parking lot.

the 02 i had had i think either bridgestones (no gem brand either) or michelins, either way it was worlds better and was not at all treacherous.

Edited August 28, 2009 by regfootball

[Justin Bimmer]

that could have been the cheaper than $h! and perform like $h! goodyear eagle LS tires common on the GP.

check tire rack, that tire has horse$h! winter rating.

i had an 01 and an 02 diamante. the 01 had cheap bottom feeder yokohamas, the car would do 360's on a moderately glazed flat parking lot.

the 02 i had had i think either bridgestones (no gem brand either) or michelins, either way it was worlds better and was not at all treacherous.

Very good point!

[regfootball]

basically, ford decided they would not replace the crown vic. they did not want to make a platform for one car. primarily because in the showroom, a rwd only mainstream car does not sell like a fwd one does.

once the crown vic was killed, they knew they had to plug the large car gap with something. thus, the supersize taurus begun.

ford was working on the ecoboost and knew that they had to spread the cost of it and sales out over several models.

they also knew that to load up a fwd car with 365 hp would not work.

they also had to amortize the AWD system. they knew they had to have an AWD offering to be credible there. especially with the great take rates on 500/freestyle/taurus/fusion, as well as the europeans and subaru.

they knew they could not make a new rwd car platform that would not sell in the showroom or the north belt and not have it being a losing proposition.

reusing and refining the P90 or whatever, a lot of the work was done already prior. its a good platform and they can build many salable models off it. also they can compete at lower price points and in the snow belt with fwd standard.

so they determined that a SHO model would help fill the taurus lineup and amortize the ecoboost.

this SHO will be the highest performing SHO ever. its no slouch, and to advertise that it has AWD helps because now they can say its a budget audi or something. if it were fwd it would crucified.

ford only sold 20,000 of the 96-99 SHO. they are pretty sure they can easily attain that with this new model. Like i said, many models have the ecoboost AWD and its entire program is not dependent on the one model with unique motor like prior SHOs.

Much like the way GM spreads its high per v8s across many models it helps pay for it all. There would be no CTSv if there were no ZR1.

Once they become discounted I would not be surprised to see ford move about 7-8000 SHOs a year. and its no big deal because ford cares about how many ecoboosts they sell across their entire product line. If they sell 30-40,000 ecoboost v6's a year for 5 years that is a lot of units to pay off that technology. All on a platform that is shared likewise with many other models.

So even if they STILL can keep the price up then its simply more profit.

Whereas GM builds a nice g8, has to discount it because they didn't advertise it or it got bad mpg, or people said F this its RWD i wont make it up my driveway in powder.

or, because they couldnt figure out how to make it profitable as one car on one platform in the US and had to ship it half way across the globe out of a pricey environment to begin with.

Like it or not the bulk of the car buying public sees the AWD is a feature advantage over RWD only. So even if the G8 is a better track car, it really doesn't mean much when only a tiny subset of the population who didnt already get a BMW is interested in RWD.

it kind of goes to show the silliness of GM. they have a great 3.6 litre motor, yet they insist on selling an inferior 3.0 in the same vehicle that detracts from the experience. they sell a 2.8 turbo which cant outperform the 3.6 in any way either. why dont they simply make a 3.6 and a 3.6 turbo, the Insignia / SRX / Saab 2.8 turbo can't come close to touching this ecoboost. Is the insignia turbo the same as the SRX or saab?

in the mustang they will prob tune the ecoboost for 400hp. i can't wait for that.

ford doesnt care how successful the SHO is, because it just is an image builder for the taurus line and the ecoboost technology. they can easily make as much $$$$ off a fwd taurus limited as they can a moderate equipped SHO. they will pay for the ecoboost with MKt's, the most (the ones that need it the most).......but they do need to sell enough of the ecoboost across the ford line to pay for it. in the meantime they get 17/25 against cafe and bragging rights about a sophisticated AWD system like europes best, as opposed to 13/20 cafe numbers, and a stigma of a car with limited market appeal (rwd only for the smoky burnout and bling crowd cough).

Edited August 28, 2009 by regfootball

[Lamar]

What GM has as a direct competitor is the Impala, only it's not worth comparing. Even though both are large cars sold under bread and butter brands, the Impala is on an ancient, uncompetitive platform with a bargain basement interior, old tech powertrains, boring style, and poor driving dynamics. The Taurus is thoroughly modern.

The Impala goes for fleet sales and bargain hunters, the Taurus is the flagship that goes for people who want a luxury sedan like an Audi for the a fraction of the price.

The Lucerne and DTS would be better competitors in the sense that they are "premium cars" but even these both fall short with the bland styling, old tech powertrains, uninspired interiors and low "gadget content"

I would say the new LaCrosse 3.6 is the best competitor to the SHO.

True on just about everything else you said... except the last line. The LaCrosse 3.6 IMO is actually more matched up with the Taurus Limited, which is the top trim as far as luxury. The SHO is the sport trim that, although probably comfortable enough (like the G8), says "screw luxury... let's go FAST!"

Cool, the topic. Something to finally read. So, in your opinion, would this car be worth bringing in to compete and still manage to sell enough to profit by? To me, that's all that is important. Anything else is just for the benefit of market-share. How big is this market anyway?

While it'd be nice to be profitable on a car like this, I don't think that's Ford's MO with the SHO (or Chrysler's with their SRT models). Besides satiating an enthusiast urge and filling that niche, the hi-po models have a halo effect on the rest of the model lineup. I mean, Mitsubishi sells Lancers more so due to the Evo effect than the competitiveness (lol) of the base Lancer itself. (Basically, what Reg said.)

I don't know how big the market is for full-size 350+ HP sedans though. We could find out how many Chrysler 300Cs and Dodge Charger R/Ts have left the lots and then go from there...

[hyperv6]

FWD vs RWD is like Apple vs a regular PC. Both are good in their own ways and neither are bad just a little different

One is more user friendly but the other is more capable in extreem performance conditiond. For every day use bot perform similar to most buyers expectations.

Brakes.. can leave home with out them. Todays systems are very good on both FWD and RWD. My Comp G GTP on Goodyear triple treds is to the most not a real fun car in winter with the traction aids as it goes through anything with little drama. Same for the HHR SS.

The Bosch system on the GTP is one amazing and balanced brakes system and is the best I have seen on an average American car. Even under hard use of my wife we still saw near 65,000 miles wear on the pad. Front ans read wore even. THe electronic balancing system works very well.

Now back on topic. To say GM will not have any performance models in the future is very ignorent as few if any here do not know what all GM is planning or going to do. In fact at this point I don't think GM knows all it plans to do yet since they are just now putting their plans together. They have a lot of programs to choose from. THey can start up or kill any in a few days time so right now they are making those choices.

[Camino LS6]

Hey DF: my points in here had very little to do with FWD vs, RWD.

I was talking about braking.

[hyperv6]

Pssst ... get someone to make more performance parts for 305s.

Cutlass: $3,000 to buy, roughly about $3,200 to mildly restore.

Monte: $2,200 with about another $3,000 to mildly restore (after all is said and done).

I paid for the Cutlass working part-time and selling a few other things that I no longer needed (an ATV mainly). The Monte was paid with savings.

I know where quite a few pre-1972 cars are at, and for a cheap price. They do need some work, but nothing incredibly serious.

Old, cheap cars are out there for my generation to buy. You just have to really look for them.

Additionally, I have two friends that own classic cars. I have a friend with a '66 Mustang (that now has a fresh 302; it cost $4,500 and the body is in great shape) and another friend with a '71 Cutlass Supreme (came from the factory with the 455 Rocket; this cost $2,500 with some mild rust, which my friend repaired himself).

Import tuners were a fad. Just about everything my generation (as a collective) likes is a fad. I don't like to say it, but my generation is probably going to be the most shallow yet.

No surprise here.

I guess I'm the last of an endangered breed then.

I can only hope that, by some chance, it can change.

Most parts of the country any of the late 60's early 70's A bodys are not cheap. I have found rusted restorable Chevelles and Cutlasses for $8K-15K as the norm. Once in a while you may find a bargin but they are becoming rare in a 2 door.

By the time you do good paint and replace the interior and needed body panels often the price will reach $20K for a nice car. Often it is cheaper to buy a restored car. the days of a $2,000 Chevelle are over unless it is a parts car.

The cars that are affordable are the A bodys from the late 70's-late 80's but parts are at times hard to find for the interiors on some. Also few people under 30 years old really care for them. The Malibu makes for a good race car and the Grans Am was a nice looking car but hard to find today.

As for 305 performance parts.... they are everywhere. They are small block Chevy and take all the same parts. Most people do not bother with the 305 when there are plenty of 350's to build. Cubic inches are cheap HP. That 45 CID is just too easy not to pass up.

As for the present gen being shallow.... It is just different times. Most young people today have short attention spans and a lot more things to take their attention. It is a electronic world today. Facebook, Playstation and I phone give them power to do things in life not on the street. These things have rendered the car to the point it is just a way to get from point A to B for most.

It is tough times in the performance industry with Goverment regs, Economy and Changing Interest.

[regfootball]

FWD vs RWD is like Apple vs a regular PC. Both are good in their own ways and neither are bad just a little different

One is more user friendly but the other is more capable in extreem performance conditiond. For every day use bot perform similar to most buyers expectations.

Brakes.. can leave home with out them. Todays systems are very good on both FWD and RWD. My Comp G GTP on Goodyear triple treds is to the most not a real fun car in winter with the traction aids as it goes through anything with little drama. Same for the HHR SS.

The Bosch system on the GTP is one amazing and balanced brakes system and is the best I have seen on an average American car. Even under hard use of my wife we still saw near 65,000 miles wear on the pad. Front ans read wore even. THe electronic balancing system works very well.

Now back on topic. To say GM will not have any performance models in the future is very ignorent as few if any here do not know what all GM is planning or going to do. In fact at this point I don't think GM knows all it plans to do yet since they are just now putting their plans together. They have a lot of programs to choose from. THey can start up or kill any in a few days time so right now they are making those choices.

what are the tires on the HHR SS? the dealer i bought my aztek from has an 09 SS Manual which i have been eyeballing, and it will ROT on their lot. but its overpriced by far to begin with, when they get desperate to unload it and i can actually buy a car again, i would be curious to know if its good in snow or not.

HHR SS is a great stealth speedster. and it cruises well on the highway at 70-80 mph.

i wish i had the means to get my third SHO, but at 45k sticker, it won't be anytime soon.

interestingly enough....the 89 I bought used, had an original sticker of 21 grand or something. 20 years later, the same car with AWD and 100+ mre hp is only twice the price. so technically the SHO is not priced out of range.

the 89 was packaged masterfully. big trunk. comfy large rear seat. the 89 SHO had bolstered seats that rocked. I'd rather have those deep bolstered seats than the stupid suede and the stupid massage. the 89 had a neat swing up armrest and nice large space to put stuff between the seats. and i loved the simple dash.

my biggest regret was selling my 89. of course it was rusting a lot, but the engine was like it was new!

Edited August 28, 2009 by regfootball

[hyperv6]

what are the tires on the HHR SS? the dealer i bought my aztek from has an 09 SS Manual which i have been eyeballing, and it will ROT on their lot. but its overpriced by far to begin with, when they get desperate to unload it and i can actually buy a car again, i would be curious to know if its good in snow or not.

HHR SS is a great stealth speedster. and it cruises well on the highway at 70-80 mph.

i wish i had the means to get my third SHO, but at 45k sticker, it won't be anytime soon.

interestingly enough....the 89 I bought used, had an original sticker of 21 grand or something. 20 years later, the same car with AWD and 100+ mre hp is only twice the price. so technically the SHO is not priced out of range.

the 89 was packaged masterfully. big trunk. comfy large rear seat. the 89 SHO had bolstered seats that rocked. I'd rather have those deep bolstered seats than the stupid suede and the stupid massage. the 89 had a neat swing up armrest and nice large space to put stuff between the seats. and i loved the simple dash.

my biggest regret was selling my 89. of course it was rusting a lot, but the engine was like it was new!

18" Michelin Pilots. Not the good ones either. They are ok in dry but in the wet they are trash.

I ran 16 inch Triple Treads last winter on steel retro wheels I got at work cheap. The HHR was a tank and plowed throught everything. I was worried about the low nose but it would even push the snow in 7" or more. I never had any issues here in the snow belt with the SS.

There are a lot of 09 SS around and you can get some good deals if you shop around.

When I got mine the first dealer would only come off about $1500 and the next dealer came off $5K plus even when they were in demand.

You should be able to get one now new for $20K-21K loaded. One with a few miles even less.

Just look on the web at how many are around.

With my tune I can run with a Mustang GT with no issues. It makes a great daily driver and a vehicle I still can haul things in.

[Intrepidation]

True on just about everything else you said... except the last line. The LaCrosse 3.6 IMO is actually more matched up with the Taurus Limited, which is the top trim as far as luxury. The SHO is the sport trim that, although probably comfortable enough (like the G8), says "screw luxury... let's go FAST!"

While it'd be nice to be profitable on a car like this, I don't think that's Ford's MO with the SHO (or Chrysler's with their SRT models). Besides satiating an enthusiast urge and filling that niche, the hi-po models have a halo effect on the rest of the model lineup. I mean, Mitsubishi sells Lancers more so due to the Evo effect than the competitiveness (lol) of the base Lancer itself. (Basically, what Reg said.)

I don't know how big the market is for full-size 350+ HP sedans though. We could find out how many Chrysler 300Cs and Dodge Charger R/Ts have left the lots and then go from there...

Very true, as far as power goes the SHO trumps the LaCrosse's 3.6. However I'm not sure that a potential buyer is looking for a huge power advantage the LaCrosse would be counted out. Where it gets tricky though, is that the MKS is the more natural competitor to the LaCrosse. However Ford has made a conundrum for themselves: unless you really prefer the looks of the MKS and interior, why pay extra for it?

As far as the LX cars, at one point the take rate for the V8 vars was greater than 50%. That's dropped off considerably I'm sure, but there's still a market for them.

[Blake Noble]

Most parts of the country any of the late 60's early 70's A bodys are not cheap. I have found rusted restorable Chevelles and Cutlasses for $8K-15K as the norm. Once in a while you may find a bargin but they are becoming rare in a 2 door.

By the time you do good paint and replace the interior and needed body panels often the price will reach $20K for a nice car. Often it is cheaper to buy a restored car. the days of a $2,000 Chevelle are over unless it is a parts car.

I got pretty lucky with the Cutlass. It did have some rust, but it was nothing that required any sheetmetal to be replaced. Interior parts, though, are pretty reasonable to buy in my opinion. It only cost seventeen bucks for a new package tray cover and another fifty bucks for a new headliner. The only thing the Cutlass really needs for its interior now would be a new set of door panels.

I also know why my Cutlass was in such good shape; it had been restored at some point in time before I got it.

I also had a chance to pick up a '71 Cutlass S before I got the Monte. Again, the body was in about the same shape as my '72 when I first got it, if not actually a little bit better, and the interior was in great shape (it only needed new front seats and a new headliner). I didn't buy it, though, because I was worried the original Rocket 350 might have a cracked head. It's price would have been $3500 if I decided to take it home. I actually regret not buying it a little bit now.

The cars that are affordable are the A bodys from the late 70's-late 80's but parts are at times hard to find for the interiors on some.

Ha! You're telling me. Try finding any A/G-Body in any junkyard in the state of Kentucky for parts. It's like those cars never even existed.

I actually found another hood I could use for the Cutlass in a junkyard and yet nothing I could use for my MC/SS.

Also few people under 30 years old really care for them. The Malibu makes for a good race car and the Grans Am was a nice looking car but hard to find today.

A/G-Bodies are starting to go down the route of their more popular late '60s/early '70s cousins. Hard to find and the prices are starting to go up.

As for 305 performance parts.... they are everywhere. They are small block Chevy and take all the same parts. Most people do not bother with the 305 when there are plenty of 350's to build. Cubic inches are cheap HP. That 45 CID is just too easy not to pass up.

I can see your point, but I guess I'm the kind of guy who appreciates an older car a lot better when the powertrain is numbers-matching.

As for the present gen being shallow.... It is just different times. Most young people today have short attention spans and a lot more things to take their attention. It is a electronic world today. Facebook, Playstation and I phone give them power to do things in life not on the street. These things have rendered the car to the point it is just a way to get from point A to B for most.

It is tough times in the performance industry with Goverment regs, Economy and Changing Interest.

Well, you can bet that if I ever have kids (although I almost completely hate them), they will at least know how to do a basic oil change ...

[Lamar]

Very true, as far as power goes the SHO trumps the LaCrosse's 3.6. However I'm not sure that a potential buyer is looking for a huge power advantage the LaCrosse would be counted out.

If you're in the market for a SHO, though, chances are you're looking for the power with it. Those letters still stand for Super High Output. :AH-HA_wink:

Where it gets tricky though, is that the MKS is the more natural competitor to the LaCrosse. However Ford has made a conundrum for themselves: unless you really prefer the looks of the MKS and interior, why pay extra for it?

I agree here. If Ford slipped up anywhere, they made the top trim levels of the Taurus way too close to the base MKS. I'm thinking they'll address that when it comes time for the MKS to be refreshed.

As far as the LX cars, at one point the take rate for the V8 vars was greater than 50%. That's dropped off considerably I'm sure, but there's still a market for them.

And stat-for-stat, the SHO fits in quite nice with that market, small as it may be. I think you can spec out a SHO, Charger R/T, and a 300C and they'll be really close.

The G8 was GM's closest competition performance-wise, but it wasn't close as far as content. Right now a small part of me hopes actually to see an Impala SS worthy of the badge to come back to make this once again an all-American fight, but who knows what GM will not do in the name of saving money and gas...

[hyperv6]

I got pretty lucky with the Cutlass. It did have some rust, but it was nothing that required any sheetmetal to be replaced. Interior parts, though, are pretty reasonable to buy in my opinion. It only cost seventeen bucks for a new package tray cover and another fifty bucks for a new headliner. The only thing the Cutlass really needs for its interior now would be a new set of door panels.

I also know why my Cutlass was in such good shape; it had been restored at some point in time before I got it.

I also had a chance to pick up a '71 Cutlass S before I got the Monte. Again, the body was in about the same shape as my '72 when I first got it, if not actually a little bit better, and the interior was in great shape (it only needed new front seats and a new headliner). I didn't buy it, though, because I was worried the original Rocket 350 might have a cracked head. It's price would have been $3500 if I decided to take it home. I actually regret not buying it a little bit now.

Ha! You're telling me. Try finding any A/G-Body in any junkyard in the state of Kentucky for parts. It's like those cars never even existed.

I actually found another hood I could use for the Cutlass in a junkyard and yet nothing I could use for my MC/SS.

A/G-Bodies are starting to go down the route of their more popular late '60s/early '70s cousins. Hard to find and the prices are starting to go up.

I can see your point, but I guess I'm the kind of guy who appreciates an older car a lot better when the powertrain is numbers-matching.

Well, you can bet that if I ever have kids (although I almost completely hate them), they will at least know how to do a basic oil change ...

On numbers matching I am good if it is a car that matters but a stock 305 Monte that they made thousands off I always opt for the better engine.

I have started to get my kid to help me on the cars. If he does want to do the work at least he will know enough not to get ripped off.

I also got him racing a Soap Box Derby car this year. So far we have done better than we should have. He seems to have the touch when it comes to driving. It was fun to watch him win the last award. It was 50 inches tall and he is only 51 inches tall. He had to carry it out himself.

When he is old enough I would like both of us to go to the Bonderant School and go out and have fun while he learns. Who know it may just save his life. Too many people today lack the basic driving skills. The electronics controls today have dumb down the new drivers.

I always wanted a SHO engine in some kind of a kit car. Something light and that handeled well. The Shogun Fords were a neat ride. Leno has the only one I know of around yet.

[The O.C.]

Only in a car without ABS does your statement hold any water. If over use of the brake lessons control of a vehicle than so does over use of the gas pedal.

Oh BUT......I get his point.....ABS has nothing to do about it.....it's the transfer of even more weight from the rear of the car to the front in a FWD vehicle, when hitting the brakes (aggressively) that further lightens the rear end of a FWD car....

.....in low-traction conditions, in a curve, that could lead to some oversteer capabilities.

I used to inflict that, willingly, in my Mazda6 when I had it a few years back......storm HARD into an off-ramp, and just as the front-end is starting it's traditional understeering role, a sharp jab of the brakes nicely brought the rear end around.....making the Mazda quite playful......actually if going fast and hard enough into the off-ramp, an aggessive lift off the throttle would be enough to bring the rear end around....(lift-throttle oversteer.)

It never felt dangerous to me, just made the handling more playful......

[The O.C.]

I would say the new LaCrosse 3.6 is the best competitor to the SHO.

I would say the Taurus Limited ($39K-$40K loaded) is the closest competitor to the LaCrosse CXS.

[Intrepidation]

I would say the Taurus Limited ($39K-$40K loaded) is the closest competitor to the LaCrosse CXS.

I agree, the Limited and LaCrosse are closer, but that's really all that GM has to go up against the SHO. The CTS is smaller and I think so is the STS...plus its more expensive.