[Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure

[Ron Porter]

Well, the '95 was an unemployment-let's-dump-the-car-payment-on-the-'99
deal, as there is absolutely NO way I would have bought a green SHO
otherwise! Randy's '94 was too good a deal to pass up, plus I knew the car.
I was going to go with a lifetime southern car, but the blue one came
up......

'89s & '91s are my favorite. '89s have the edge because they have my
favorite dash, plus no airbag or ABS. In the Gen 2, '94-'95 is nice for
bigger brakes, R134a a/c, body-color door handles, and no chrome around the
windows. If the Gen 3 had a manual tranny, I would still have the '99, as I
do like the Gen 3 looks better than Gen 2. Can't get past only having an
ATX, though, plus that V8 is suspect.

The SHO was way too stealth anyway!! The nice thing about the '91 and
'93-'95 is that they don't look like a SLO!! IMHO, stealth is overrated. 

Ron Porter 

-----Original Message-----
From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
On Behalf Of Carl Prochilo
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:35 PM
To: shotimes@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure


You know I was pulling your leg.  I agree those are minor changes.

But you did eventually buy a 95 and then a 94, so obviously there is
something about the gen 2 (I don't give a sh!t what Ford calls it) you like.
These points are really very subjective.  When I went shopping for my new
SHO, I came across a dealership in Albany, NY that had a Mocha/Black SHO
they couldn't get rid of.  It was there so long it had a flat tire.  In
hindsight I should have pursued that car given that the color was rare.  The
salesman convinced me to wait for the 92s because they had a nicer body
style.  When I saw the car (green was the first color I saw) I agreed and
wanted one.  Badly.  When I saw a Red one, I switched and decided to get
that one.  By 2Q92 Ford had decided to offer Mocha as an interior color and
the decision was made.  Remember that 92s are excellent stealth sedans.  No
straighout pipes, no spoiler.   However, when the 93s came out, I decided I
had to get a spoiler since that really completed the look of the car for me,
so I ended up having one installed.  The Walker Dynomax got me the stainless
tailpipes.

Before the Gen 3s came out, Ford sent me a survey and asked me as a current
owner that had bought new what would I like to see in a new SHO.  The survey
looked really amateurish.  It was written in such a way to encourage you to
respond that a V8 was the most important attribute of a new SHO.  I wrote
back indicating that a 6-speed manual gearbox was what was really needed.  I
might as well have wiped my a$$ with it.  But if Ford had offered the Gen 3
with a stick, I would have upgraded or just bought a new one to add.  (Ron,
I seem to recall that you very much disliked the gen 3 when it came out.)

Cheers,
Carl Prochilo
92 Ultra Red Crimson
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure


> 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,
> _______________________________________________
> 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