[Shotimes] RE: Gen I vs. Gen II

[Jim Ryan]

This argument can go on forever.


> Gen1:  15" basketweaves instead of 14" wheel covers (although the
> basketweaves were available on the SLO).  Obviously '91 had the
> non-directional slicers available (did they even have "SHO" on the
> centercaps?)

No the '91s did not come with those UGLY center caps.



> Gen2:  16" directional slicers with "SHO" on every centercap,
distinguishing
> it from a SLO very easily.
> Advantage:  Gen2, since there was no sharing of wheels between SHO and SLO
> and it provided more visible "SHO" markings.

Well that's if you can read what the letters spell.  FWIW, I think the ugly,
horizontal-line font that Ford chose makes it very difficult to read S H O,
especially if it's upside-down or vertical.

Advantage: Neither.  No one is going to look that close.



> Gen1:  Aggressive front clip with fog lights.
> Gen2:  Aggressive front clip with fog lights.
> Advantage: None.

Mmmmm....
Regular Grand Prix vs GTP nose - aggressive.
Mustang LX vs Mustang GT nose - aggressive.
Gen2 SLO vs Gen2 SHO nose - different but not aggressive.  You Gen2 owners
are biased because you look at it everyday.  The average person is not going
to notice the subtle  difference.

When I drive my '91+ and I pass another Gen1, I always get the obligatory
wave, headlight flash, or horn honk.  When I pass a Gen2 I get nothing
because it's usually driven by some "fart" who doesn't even know what
they're driving.



> Gen1:  Plastic door cladding with "Taurus SHO" on each side.
> Gen2:  Plastic door cladding with "SHO" on each side.
> Advantage:  Gen2, as the Gen1 clearly has "Taurus" visible 2 more times
from
> the outside of the car (which is not a good thing)

Gen1:  Easy to read "Taurus SHO"
Gen2:  See previous comment about ugly, hard to read font.  You Gen2 owners
are biased because you look at it everyday and you know what it says.  The
average person will ignore it if they can't read it.  IMO, it looks like a
bunch of deep scratches.

Advantage:  Gen1 on legibility alone.  What's wrong with it being known as a
Taurus?!?!?  What kind of confusion will ensue when the average person sees
"Taurus" on the trunklid of your Gen2 but no where else on the car?  How
would you explain that to a non-enthusiast?



> Gen1:  Aggressive rear bumper cover with "SHO" clearly visible.
> Gen2:  Aggressive rear bumper cover with "SHO" clearly visible.
> Advantage:  None.

Gen1:  Aggressive rear bumper cover with "SHO" clearly visible and LEGIBLE.
Gen2:  More of that ugly, hard to read font in an even larger size.  Now it
just looks like some really big scratches.

Advantage:  Clearly Gen1



> Gen1:  Turn-down exhaust tips that can't be seen due to the aggressive
rear
> bumper cover.
> Gen2:  Straight exhaust tips that can clearly be seen due to the
redesigned
> bumper cover.
> Advantage:  Gen2, purely from a visibility standpoint.

Fine, I'll give you that one.



> Gen1:  No spoiler, rear decklid exactly same as SLO (exception being '91+)
> Gen2  Spoiler standard (except '92), clearly differentiating it from the
> SLO.
> Advantage:  Gen2.

Subtle difference.  Actually, the design of the Gen2 decklid has a little
bit of a spoiler-look even without the SHO spoiler.



> Gen1:  Third brake light mounted on the rear dash, exactly the same as the
> SLO.
> Gen2:  Third brake light mounted on the spoiler; none needed on the rear
> dash (except '92).
> Advantage:  Gen2.

Who gives a flying F?  Again, the average person is not going to notice the
difference.



> Clearly any Gen2 SHO differs more from the same year SLO than did the
> Gen1's.  Although I've owned both, I can more easily spot a Gen2 SHO a
mile
> away.  Gen1's always make me take another look, at which point I ponder
"was
> mine that ugly?" ;^)

Well, to each his own.  I will tell you this though, back in 1989 I was in
college and working part-time at a gas station.  The first Taurus SHO I ever
saw was a black '89 and I immediately noticed that it looked different from
the never ending stream of SLOs that came in to get gas.  When I walked up
to the driver side and said, "How may I help you?", I saw the manual trans
shifter.  This encounter did not make me want an SHO, but I did recognize
the car as something different.  I graduated two years later and after
considering and test-driving many other cars, I decided on my oxford white
with mocha interior '91 Plus.

I've never been a fan of dark color cars, and in the case of the Gen1 SHOs
the dark color hides the lower body cladding.  But, my bright white '91 SHO
certainly showcases all of the exterior cues that make the SHO look
different than the SLO.  So, in that case "I" am biased because of the color
of my car.


James F. Ryan III
'91 Plus - white/mocha
formerly of Wayne, NJ
living in Long Beach, CA for the next month