[Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure

Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:49:05 -0400

Rotating headrests? My 93 doesn't seem to have something like that, what am 
I missing here??

--Kevin

At 01:17 PM 7/8/2003 -0400, Ron Porter wrote:
>And '96 SHOs still had the rotating headrests like the earlier SHOs, IIRC
>(one of my favorite SHO features).
>
>Ron Porter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
>On Behalf Of Paul Nimz
>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:01 AM
>To: shotimes@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure
>
>
>My '97 has double sun visors and a door nets.
>
>Paul Nimz
>'97 TR
>'93 EG mtx
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James White" <greensho@crown.net>
>To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure
>
>
> > I sorta' agree with Ron, but having had a gen I SLO wagon, which looked
>OK,
> > but I liked all of the gen IIs better, and was completely revolted by the
> > gen IIIs altogether. And to top it off was, no MTX, no door pockets, and
>no
> > second sun visor!
> >
> > Wonder if anyother car ever had a double sun visor?
> > I worked for a company for all of 2 months and had actually ordered  an
>'87
> > SLO 4 cyl. No 6's allowed for lowely sales folk. The form had a note, that
> > if you were in mountains or even hills, a 4 cyl Taurus was not
>recommended.
> > The corporate bean counters then suggested a Pontiac GP.  The color choice
> > was only black or white, because the other colors were clear coat and
>extra
> > cost.
> >
> > I quit these cheap as****  before the SLOOOO... came to go to work for a
> > small company that paid at the time $.29/mile for my own new car.  Bought
>a
> > '88 SLO 3.0L wagon. After 5 years, the SLO 3.0L wagon was paid for and I
>had
> > a net gain of about $1000.  Then sold the wagon, for another gain of
>$2400,
> > after I bought the '93 SHO, to a poor guy who thought that it had 143k
>when
> > it actually had 243k.  However it looked good and ran good (he had
>somekind
> > of tech check it out) so we were both happy as the tailights went down the
> > road....
> >
> > Jim White - greensho@crown.net
> > Valparaiso, Indiana
> > '93  5 SPEED   280k few mods
> > '95  5 SPEED   250k lots of mods
> > "double clutch"  it's good for both you and your SHO
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
> > To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:59 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
>_______________________________________________
>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