[Shotimes] 93 sho limited edition
Ron Porter
ronporter@prodigy.net
Wed, 28 May 2003 21:06:34 -0400
I think you're missing the point on the 911, but I don't want to get into
it....some of the comments were directed toward the Gen 3 cam issue.
Coupla things....
The clutch was fixed in '91, and rather early in '91.
The SHO was never "world class" and "world's finest". Yeah, it was damn good
for a US car, but that's like saying Rosie O'Donnell looks good for being a
fat lesbian!!
I am a realist, and an analytical sort of person (probably why I ended up in
IT!!). I have been a SHO enthusiast for over 14 years, but I have never felt
that the SHO was more than what it is. It was a very good automobile in
1989. I did not progress, and the car market passed it by within a few
years. Doesn't mean that it still isn't fun, but it is anything BUT the only
game in town.
Ron Porter
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Prochilo [mailto:gr8sho@prochilo.myserver.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:08 PM
To: shotimes@autox.team.net; Ron Porter
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 93 sho limited edition
I'm sure Ford would be flattered to see a comparison between the SHO and the
911, but that is really comparing apples and oranges IMO although I
understand the point you are trying to make. A potential Porsche buyer
probably wouldn't even read CR in the first place, and even if they did
wouldn't care. That marque has an established reputation and people will
make buy decisions based on that alone, oil-fed tensioner problems or not.
Porsche's core business is building and selling performance sports cars.
The Ford Taurus is a mass market car, but the SHO version isn't. The
literature uses words like "world class" and "world's finest". Good stuff
except for some nasty gremlins.
On the SHO, the final clutch design wasn't really established until the 93
MY and the brakes weren't fixed until the 94 MY. Don't have to be a rocket
scientist to figure out that they finally succumbed to the the warranty
pressures and decided to fix those items, which in reality could have and
should have been introduced sooner. I know it's easy for me to sit here and
Monday morning quarterback, but this isn't really high tech stuff we're
talking about and having to wait 6 years to get these changes seems a bit on
the long side to me.
In the meantime the word is out that the SHO, while having a bad-ass motor,
will be trouble down the road in a few areas and I'm sure that people take
those things into consideration when having to spend $23 to $24K roughly
with discount and tax and tags applied to drive out the door.
Carl P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] 93 sho limited edition
> Your comment about Ford keeping the SHO off the consumers s**t list is not
> reasonable, IMHO. Yeah, they knew the clutch was weak from Day 1 (one of
my
> good buddy's was on the Prod. Dev. Team at the time), but a
> limited-production car is going to have some growing pains. Ford has had
> problems with brakes on many cars over the years, but they probably
weren't
> prepared for the SHO issues. All in all, they got things pretty well
squared
> away by '94-'95.
>
> By comparison, it took Porsche 20 model years to get the cam tensioner
> problem worked out on the 911. It wasn't until the '84 Carrera that they
> "finally" developed oil-fed tensioners (versus the 3-4 iterations of
> mechanical tensioners). I have not heard of Porsche ever replacing an
engine
> for anyone when the tensioners failed at the 40K+ mark. Nor do I hear
> whining on the list about how Porsche screwed up, or about how they have
> filed a lawsuit. Basically people fix the problem with new tensioners and
> move on down the road.
>
> Ron Porter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
> On Behalf Of Carl Prochilo
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:06 PM
> To: shotimes@autox.team.net; dmall@mwonline.net
> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 93 sho limited edition
>
>
> Comments below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald Mallinson" <dmall@mwonline.net>
> To: <shotimes-admin@autox.team.net>
> Cc: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 93 sho limited edition
>
>
> > There is a page on the club web site that details the SHO
> > Plus more than anywhere else. Production numbers, projected
> > color distribution (an educated guess) and more.
> >
> > http://www.shoclub.com go to the SHO History section.
> >
> > The Plus is worth a little more to some SHO people (like me)
> > than a regular '91, and Ron is right, a four door sedan with
> > FWD won't ever be a true high dollar collectible, but
> > people still buy and sell Edsel's when the Ford and Mercury
> > versions were much better, and there will be people that buy
> > and sell SHO's long after I and a lot of others are gone
> > from the earth.
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
> 2500 copies of that flavor SHO is still a fairly small number, so
> by any standard that is the most "limited" type of SHO you
> could get. And I do like this car too.
>
> It was interesting to read that brochure. Was there any
> equivalent consumer level literature published for that car?
>
> When I look at the 92 brochure and the SHO is just one
> of the trim levels of the Taurus, it really made me think that
> the program manager for the Taurus missed a great chance
> to enhance the image of that product line. I bet I would have
> loved to have been a project manager on the team for the early
> SHO years and probably less interested in the later years. I
> can only imagine that the car fell out of favor with management
> when the sales for the car didn't materialize the way they
> probably thought it would.
>
> If Ford had only done a better job to keep the SHO out
> of the the consumer reports sh!t list, and had done a good
> job designing a solid clutch and proper brakes at the
> beginning of the program instead of waiting until years later,
> I bet things would have turned out differently.
>
> > The main thing is that cars make a VERY bad "investment".
> > So if by "collectible" you mean investment, then no, the SHO
> > and 95+% of all cars made world-wide are not collectible.
> >
> > If by "collectible" you mean there is a market for the cars
> > and people still like to own them, drive them and look at
> > them, then yes, the SHO is a sure fire collectible long into
> > the future. Go to any car show or cruise-in and look at the
> > variety of old and average cars that people love to look at.
> > Anything nice, interesting and well maintained is a
> > collectible. Some people collect salt and pepper shakers.
> > I could care less about them, but they are collectible.
>
> If you have any experience selling on EBAY, you will know
> that people will buy just about anything and pay a rediculous
> amount of money to get stuff that really makes me wonder.
>
> > One thing the world of collectible "stuff" has taught me is
> > that you can't guess what someone will pay big bucks for in
> > the future. Comic books? lunch boxes? 2 door sedan ex
> > race cars? The SHO? maybe, but don't bet the farm on it.
> >
> > Keep and maintain your SHO because you like driving it, not
> > because you want to make money off it...
>
> Profit has never been a consideration I bet for most of us here.
> Just the fun factor, and for some of us, the practicality of toting
> around a small child.
>
> Carl P.
> _______________________________________________
> 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