[Shotimes] RE: Gen I vs. Gen II

[David P]

Three-headed turtles get plenty of looks, too...


David P

95MTX



~
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Tyner" <shospeed@bigplanet.com>
To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 13:55
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] RE: Gen I vs. Gen II


> I don't know about you guys, but my SHO's get plenty of looks.  MIght have
> to do with the 17's and the cowl hoods though:D
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: David P
> Date: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:40:48 AM
> To: shotimes@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] RE: Gen I vs. Gen II
>
> Damn, get over your Gen1! ;)
>
> The reason you get acknowledged by Gen1 drivers is that the cars are to
the
> age that only people that have an interest in maintaining them are willing
> to drive them. The rest have either sold them or drove them into the
ground.
> It will be the same for the Gen2 in another 5 years, and you Gen1 owners
> will be whining about how rare your cars have become. Still.
>
> Anyone with half-a-brain can spot the front end of a Gen2 SHO as it's the
> only one that came with fog lamps, and the headlamps "seem wider". Sure,
the
> lower valance is not gigantic. Big deal. There's a lot to be said for
> subtlety. If you go by count, then Gen2 SLO has more differences in the
> front than the Gen1. Fact of matter, though, is that 90% of the people we
> pass look at NEITHER of our SHOs. Neon lights don't get attention these
> days.
>
>
> David P
>
> 95MTX
>
>
>
> ~
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Ryan" <av8r567@optonline.net>
> To: "Steve Tatro" <stevetatro@att.net>; <shotimes@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 21:15
> Subject: RE: [Shotimes] RE: Gen I vs. Gen II
>
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Shotimes mailing list
> > Shotimes@autox.team.net
> > http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> .
>
> [demime 0.99d.1 removed an attachment of type image/gif]
>
> [demime 0.99d.1 removed an attachment of type Image/jpeg]
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes