[Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure

[Ron Porter]

>From a mfrs standpoint, those are not a big deal.....not enough to call it a
New Generation. Some of that stuff was common across the Ford line, anyway,
and not unique to the Taurus.

FWIW, IMNSHO, etc, I still have some of my original hang-up with the '92
SHO. To that point, I had never kept a street-driven car for more than 3
years, and I was looking to buy again in '92. When the '92 SHO came out, I
became violently nauseated every time I saw one.....well, maybe I
exaggerate, but to me they were FUGLY. Based on that, I kept the '89 SHO
(for a total of 10 years). I have come around to where I think that Gen 2s
are OK, but '92s are still my personal least-favorite SHO. I actually like
the looks of the Gen 3 SHO better than the Gen 2 (although everything else
about the Gen 3 is inferior, IMNSHO).

Ron Porter 

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Prochilo [mailto:gr8sho@prochilo.myserver.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:47 PM
To: Ron Porter; 'Donald Mallinson'; shotimes@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure


Say what?  Obviously you missed the 6 digit odometer, available passenger
side airbag, new stereo.  <G>  The digital clock might have been different
too.

On a different point...  Don't know if it's just me, but sometimes I feel
that the steering wheel on the 92 is too darn big in proportion to the
interior.

Cheers,
Carl Prochilo
92 Ultra Red Crimson
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
To: "'Donald Mallinson'" <dmall@mwonline.net>; <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure


> I can see their point, though.
>
> Really, the '92 just had new sheetmetal, the interior was pretty much a
'91
> carryover,