NickF1011 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I wasn't that complex. It was 4V with DOHC. The cool part was the dual intake runners. Each cylinder had a short and long runner going to it. The long runners were open all the time and were used to build low-end torque. The short runners were closed by a butterfly valve at low RPM and opened at around 4K. You could actually feel it surge when the butterflies opened. It was also redlined at 7K. Very nice engine and damn near bullet-proof. The earlier 4.6 4-valves used a similar setup with the dual runners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8A4RE Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I have read in numerous accounts that it would go well beyond 7,000 rpm, like past 8,000 rpm, even. I remember reading how they would flat-out scream the SHO motors on the dynos and the alternators would be the first thing to granade. Other wise, yes, the SHO motor could handle 8000+ RPM's. The engeneers would get sick of hearing the motors screaming and gave up on trying to blow them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 funny how some criticize the 3.5 and applaud the SHO....... When the SHO first came out, there really wasn't anything like from the domestics. I mean, you had a V6 powered, family sedan making as much power as the V8s of the day. Don't get me wrong, the D35 is a great engine but it doesn't stand out quite as much as the Yamaha did back in 1989. Right on Tom. I don't see some puny "sport" package Fusion running with V8 Mustangs. Here are some of my favorite quotes from the 1988 Car and Driver full test of the SHO: Welcome the latest automotive breakthrough: the 1989 Ford Taurus SHO. The Taurus SHO earns its spot in the breakthrough brigade for one reason: it turns the high-performance four-door-sedan class on its head. If that sounds like an overstatement, consider the SHO’s qualifications. It has a 24-valve V-6 engine that produces220hp. From a standing start it can reach 60 mph in 6.7 seconds. Its top speed is a hair-straightening 143 mph. It has room for five adults and a healthy allotment of luggage. And it can be purchased for less than $20,000. Still not impressed? Than you should know that no sedan in the under $20,000 price range can touch the SHO’s sizzling performance. In fact, the only production four-door sedan faster or quicker than the SHO are BMW’s $71,000 750il and the $51,000 M5. The SHO outperforms such premium-priced performance sedans such as Mercedes’ 300E and 560SEL, the Audi 200 Turbo, and the Saab 9000 Turbo. And it completely out classes all other sedans in the $20,000-$30,000 range. Two double-overhead-cam, four-valve-per cylinder heads crown the V-6. The aluminum head castings each contain three pent-roof combustion chambers; each combustion chamber is equipped with two 35mm intake valves, two 30mm exhaust valves, and a centrally located 60,000-mile platinum –tipped spark plug. Twin camshafts lie above each row of combustion chambers; they actuate the valves via bucket tappets. A single belt, driven by the front of the camshaft, rotates the intake cams in both heads. A chain at the back of each head links each driven intake cam with its adjacent exhaust cam. An elaborate intake manifold, nearly large enough to hide the engine that lies beneath it, makes the most of the heads’ high-rpm breathing abilities without compromising low-rpm performance. The manifold incorporates to interconnected plenum chambers and twelve intake runners. Each plenum feeds three short and three long runners; the short runners are connected to the cylinders directly below each plenum, and the long runners are connected to the cylinder in the opposite cylinder bank. Below 4000 rpm, a butterfly throttle in each short runner remains closed-forcing the engine to breathe through the long runners, which are optimized for low-rpm breathing. Above 4000 rpm-where the engine’s demand for air exceeds what the long runners can provide-the butterfly valves open, activating the short runners and allowing the engine to breathe freely through all twelve runners. The Shogun engine is rev-limited to 7300 rpm-not to protect the internal components, but to keep the accessory drive system from flying apart. (The engine itself is safely able to turn more than 8500 rpm.) The engine’s durability comes from its forged-steel crankshaft and connecting rods; a high-strength cast-iron cylinder block with reinforced main-bearing supports and deck faces; and a cooling system that offers full, 360-degree water jackets around the cylinders, extra-large cooling passages, and an oil-water heat exchanger. Yamaha didn’t skimp when it designed this engine. The Shogun engine is as powerful as is efficient, producing 220hp at 6000rpm and 200 pound-feet of torque at 4800. The power is transmitted to the front wheels by a Mazda-manufactured five-speed manual transaxle. No automatic is offered. This power-train makes the Taurus SHO the world’s most powerful front-drive car. In the SHO's case, though, those limits are admirably high, the tires hold on long enough to reach .82 g on the skidpad, and the chassis always remains reasonably close to neutral balance. Above 5000 rpm, the Shogun engine sings like an exotic Italian V-12. Compared with the potent Ford Mustang V-8, the SHO is a mere 0.3 seconds slower in the quarter mile. And all of that loss of time occurs at the start; once rolling, the SHO keeps pace with the Mustang and finishes the run at the same 95-mph trap speed. Above 100, the aerodynamically superior SHO steadily pulls away from the Mustang. The Taurus SHO is one fast five-passenger family sedan. Because the Taurus SHO can outrun any other four-door sedan costing less than $50,000, it completely upsets the performance-sedan pecking order. The Taurus SHO is the first sedan to combine top-rank, autobahn-ready performance with great handling, everyday utility, and a price within the reach of mere mortals. Those qualities make this dazzling car the most important automotive breakthrough in years. What a great read. And, yes, the D35 puts out more power...but the difference is that the D35 is just another, everyday, bland V6. The Yamaha 3.0/3.2 was a work of art that sounded great, was durable as all hell, looked great, and extremely efficient. Plus, it was extremely unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Right on Tom. I don't see some puny "sport" package Fusion running with V8 Mustangs. Here are some of my favorite quotes from the 1988 Car and Driver full test of the SHO: What a great read. And, yes, the D35 puts out more power...but the difference is that the D35 is just another, everyday, bland V6. The Yamaha 3.0/3.2 was a work of art that sounded great, was durable as all hell, looked great, and extremely efficient. Plus, it was extremely unique. was awesome, but from what i understand cost ford a pretty penny per unit....sounded FANTASTIC, funny how seemingly "bland" V6's have leapfrogged, i have no doubt these will be as durable....not as exotic by any means...anyone remember the small V6 Mazda put in their compact? kinda along the same lines..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 was awesome, but from what i understand cost ford a pretty penny per unit....sounded FANTASTIC, Well...yeah. You don't get a engine that nice 'on the cheap'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Well...yeah. You don't get a engine that nice 'on the cheap'. which leads me to this question...would you rather have an engine that looks exotic...or on ethat is blah and out-performs? I guess the V8 Yammie in the Volvo Suv was a spendy unit too, but the turboed "less" exotic came damn close...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 which leads me to this question...would you rather have an engine that looks exotic... Only if you put a plexiglass cover in the hood or leave it exposed so it becomes a chick magnet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 which leads me to this question...would you rather have an engine that looks exotic...or on ethat is blah and out-performs? Well, with the 1st and 2nd gen SHOs, you had both. However, if I had to choose one.....I'll take the horsepower! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 anyone remember the small V6 Mazda put in their compact? kinda along the same lines..... 1.8 liter 6 cylinder in the MX3 I believe it was. I was pretty surprised when i learned it was a V6 also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Well, with the 1st and 2nd gen SHOs, you had both. However, if I had to choose one.....I'll take the horsepower! The 3.0/3.2 was not 'blah'. It was exotic and outperformed everything in the class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 The 3.0/3.2 was not 'blah'. It was exotic and outperformed everything in the class. I never said it was "blah". I said that with the 1st and 2nd gen SHOs, you got both the exotic looks and performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I never said it was "blah". I said that with the 1st and 2nd gen SHOs, you got both the exotic looks and performance. Ah... The way Dean worded it was confusing. I read it as you can have an engine that looks exotic, or you can have an engine that is 'blah' and outperforms. would you rather have an engine that looks exotic...or one that is blah and out-performs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Ah... The way Dean worded it was confusing. I read it as you can have an engine that looks exotic, or you can have an engine that is 'blah' and outperforms. Yeah, it was a bit confusing. For what it's worth, I remember several people in the SHO community that experimented with boring and stroking the 3.2L up to 3.6L. They were pushing 270-280HP and that's without VVT or any other current tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Yeah, it was a bit confusing. For what it's worth, I remember several people in the SHO community that experimented with boring and stroking the 3.2L up to 3.6L. They were pushing 270-280HP and that's without VVT or any other current tech. I recall reading the Ford severely restricted the output of the 3.0/3.2. And 280 HP out of a 1993 3.2 is absolutely amazing. Like I said...that is how you build an engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I recall reading the Ford severely restricted the output of the 3.0/3.2. That was a topic of much discussion when I was in the SHO community. There was never any actual proof but plenty of rumor and conjecture as to how much power it originally put out but I suspect it was significantly more than 220. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 That was a topic of much discussion when I was in the SHO community. There was never any actual proof but plenty of rumor and conjecture as to how much power it originally put out but I suspect it was significantly more than 220. I believe it could. But then the SHO would really hand the Mustang it's ass...plus, it took Ford many years to design an auto tranny to handle 220HP...let alone 280+. My only wish was the the SHO was RWD. That would have made the car perfect. I think the Lincoln LS was the closest thing we would see to a mid-sized, RWD sport sedan from Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) I think the Lincoln LS was the closest thing we would see to a mid-sized, RWD sport sedan from Ford. I currently own an '02 LS V8. Great car. I usually drive the Fusion to work because of the gas mileage but occasionally I just gotta have a V8 fix! :burnout: Edited March 20, 2008 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCobra Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Right on Tom. I don't see some puny "sport" package Fusion running with V8 Mustangs. Here are some of my favorite quotes from the 1988 Car and Driver full test of the SHO: What a great read. And, yes, the D35 puts out more power...but the difference is that the D35 is just another, everyday, bland V6. The Yamaha 3.0/3.2 was a work of art that sounded great, was durable as all hell, looked great, and extremely efficient. Plus, it was extremely unique. Nice flashback. I still remember the day I read that Car and Driver issue. And I still remember the car... Red SHO... I believe. Either way, it had one of the most advanced V6 engines ever put into any Ford. Later they came out with the Yamaha V8 SHO which would have also been a great motor had they not strapped it to a crappy slush box. The V8 Couldn't even out run the original manual V-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Nice flashback. I still remember the day I read that Car and Driver issue. And I still remember the car... Red SHO... I believe. Either way, it had one of the most advanced V6 engines ever put into any Ford. Later they came out with the Yamaha V8 SHO which would have also been a great motor had they not strapped it to a crappy slush box. The V8 Couldn't even out run the original manual V-6. Yep...red in the article and black on the cover. And I thought the 'auto rags' "hated" American cars... Edited March 20, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I currently own an '02 LS V8. Great car. I usually drive the Fusion to work because of the gas mileage but occasionally I just gotta have a V8 fix! :burnout: Beautiful car... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I liked the pitch that Lee Iacocca had a few years ago with Chrysler I believe...something about (to paraphrase) "if you find a better car, buy it"... He was right, I did....just wasn't one of his products LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) I think the SHO V6 maxed out at about 220 HP. Even the V8 SHO was only rated 234 HP if I recall (which was more than the Mustang GT at the time at least :lol: ) In other words, the D35 puts the Yamaha engines to shame, as it should. The original Yamaha 3L engine made around 300 hp. Ford asked Yamaha to tone it down because a ) their transmission could not handle the power b ) they did not want a mere V6 making more ponies than their Mustang GT ... Yamaha's engine of course, was very high strung too .. so reliability probably would have taken a hit. My point is: the engine was very powerful for the time, but it really did not demonstrate the upper bounds of what Yamaha could truly do. I honestly do not doubt that Yamaha could surpass Ford's horsepower given any displacement size .. Yamaha makes some amazing motors. Edited March 20, 2008 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Another Cool Ford Intake 2.5L Duratec (sorry, the pic's ginormous): Edited March 20, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Another Cool Ford Intake 2.5L Duratec (sorry, the pic's ginormous): Nothing says 'cool' like black plastic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Nothing says 'cool' like black plastic... '95 models were cast aluminum (I had a '95 Mercury Mystique for 22 hours. Then the waterpump grenaded). They must've switched by '98, as that's when the SVT model came out. The interweb has no easily discovered photos of the cast aluminum intakes. Edited March 20, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.