silvrsvt Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 (edited) Lets just say that the past track record does not bode well for this coming to pass. Unless one counts the Adrennalin whatever sticker and badge job as being true to the concept... The Adrenaline name was used as a trim level on the 2004 Explorer Sport Trac before it was used on that concept.... The XLT Premium Preferred Equipment Package ($2130-2190) combines the Premium and Comfort groups described above with a monochromatic exterior treatment. The Adrenaline Package ($1810) combines a 510-watt Pioneer stereo with chrome wheels, chrome step bars, and body-color bumpers and fascias. The Pioneer stereo is also available as a stand-alone option ($510), but only on the XLT. So is a power glass sunroof ($800). Leather seating ($795) is available only with the XLT Premium Preferred and/or Adrenaline packages. http://www.automallusa.net/2004/ford/explo...ac/reviews.html Edited May 10, 2008 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedc3 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 The cam's were only bad in the V8. The V6 was a lot better engine. A little slower off the line, but faster overall than the V8. You have that backwards. The v6 was much faster off the line than the V8. The V8 would catch up and then walk away from the v6 cars after they got going. Too bad Ford didn't have a trans to stand up to the v8 better, The v8 prototype had over 300HP but there was no trans that could handle that much power. I had a 97SHO that I saved from the crusher (cam failure) for a few months. What a nice car!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 You have that backwards. The v6 was much faster off the line than the V8. The V8 would catch up and then walk away from the v6 cars after they got going. Too bad Ford didn't have a trans to stand up to the v8 better, The v8 prototype had over 300HP but there was no trans that could handle that much power. I had a 97SHO that I saved from the crusher (cam failure) for a few months. What a nice car!!!! The 94-95 5-speed SHOs would trap upwards of 95 mph, the V8 SHOs trapped bottom 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 well the commercial was of a guy that works on engines at ford, he was talking about the advantages of EcoBoost but in the commercial he was driving an Edge(which im pretty sure is not getting an EcoBoost anytime soon) he said that once you drive the EcoBoost V6 you will forget about the V8....i guess i will have to "drive one".....LOL Hmmm....Edge huh? Surprise EcoBoost launch in the 09 Edge Sport? That'd be cool and very secretive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fbmphil Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) Hmmm....Edge huh? Surprise EcoBoost launch in the 09 Edge Sport? That'd be cool and very secretive. Yeah, I don't see that happening. I'm guessing V6 EcoBoost will go MKS (definitely), then most likely F-150, then Flex. Edited May 12, 2008 by fbmphil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Yeah, I don't see that happening. I'm guessing V6 EcoBoost will go MKS (definitely), then most likely F-150, then Flex. Thats what I see too based on what I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Yeah, I don't see that happening. I'm guessing V6 EcoBoost will go MKS (definitely), then most likely F-150, then Flex. I know it's not happening, but my guess is Edge may be in line to get an EcoBoost motor at some point if it's in an EcoBoost commercial. Maybe Edge and MKX will recieve the 3.5 EB for their 2010 MCEs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 The way ford explains its ecoboost program, the 3.5 V6 ecoboost is meant to be a fuel efficient alternate to a V8. Makes sense for Lincolns, the F-150, Explorer, Mustang, future large sedan, etc, but in a Flex or Edge? A 300+ engine in either of those crossovers would be interesting but there is no precedent or competition for that kind of power in either of their segments and I'm not sure if there would be demand either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 I very much doubt we'll see a V8 of any kind in the Taurus ever again, as I also doubt the Taurus will ever find its name being used on a RWD vehicle. This is probably more focused on the 3.5 Ecoboost which has been more or less confirmed to be going into the Taurus around 2011. I know it's a CGI but there are always alternatives: Courtesy of www.cgiautomotive.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 The 94-95 5-speed SHOs would trap upwards of 95 mph, the V8 SHOs trapped bottom 90s. Yep...here is a quote from the first test that Car and Driver did of the 1989 SHO: 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 THAT...is what the new SHO should be able to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 I know it's not happening, but my guess is Edge may be in line to get an EcoBoost motor at some point if it's in an EcoBoost commercial. Maybe Edge and MKX will recieve the 3.5 EB for their 2010 MCEs? Rethink the Ecoboost on the Edge...think the 2.5L I4 going into it instead of the 3.5L EB engine, would make alot more sense then 3.5L EB engine, since the 2.4 I4 would put out the same power as the current 3.5L engine with better gas mileage. The current Edge could use a boost in MPG, since it gets about the same MPG as my 06 Mustang GT does. If it could put down say 20-27 in AWD form with the EB 2.5L, it would be the alternate car besides getting a Fiesta or EB powered Fusion on my next car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Yep...here is a quote from the first test that Car and Driver did of the 1989 SHO: THAT...is what the new SHO should be able to do. The SHO outperforming a Mustang in 1989 wasn't really much of a feat. '89 Mustang GT's ran 1/4 miles in the 15's, slower than a lot of V6 4-door sedans today. Heck, even the Ford Five Hundred would stay pretty close to an '89 Mustang GT in a straight line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 The SHO outperforming a Mustang in 1989 wasn't really much of a feat. '89 Mustang GT's ran 1/4 miles in the 15's, slower than a lot of V6 4-door sedans today. Heck, even the Ford Five Hundred would stay pretty close to an '89 Mustang GT in a straight line. Sure it was...in 1989. And I still contend that if Ford decides to go ahead with the SHO, it should be able to walk away from the Mustang above 100. Talk about retro! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 1989 was the year the Thundebird Super Coupe came out, MT's Car of the Year. 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. That's not that much quicker than todays 4 cylinder Fusion (8.1). The 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe had a 0-60 time of 8.5 seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Sure it was...in 1989. And I still contend that if Ford decides to go ahead with the SHO, it should be able to walk away from the Mustang above 100. Talk about retro! Would take some work. And likely a hefty price tag. I don't know if Ford wants to back to the days when an SHO cost more than an SVT Cobra, which they did in 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) The SHO outperforming a Mustang in 1989 wasn't really much of a feat. '89 Mustang GT's ran 1/4 miles in the 15's, slower than a lot of V6 4-door sedans today. Heck, even the Ford Five Hundred would stay pretty close to an '89 Mustang GT in a straight line. I've seen stock 94-95 M5 SHOs run 14.6 - 14.7s @ 96-97 mph. That was fast for it's time, and extremely fast for a FWD V6 family sedan. The V6 SHOs would hold their own against the previous generation 3.5L M6 Altimas and Maximas from a rolling start, and everybody raves about how badass the VQ is even in today's high horsepower world. The SHO was offering VQ performance 10-15 years earlier, pretty impressive anyway you slice it. And the D30 Fusions only trap low 90s, the 3.5L Taurus traps high 80s - low 90s so neither could hold off the V6 SHO for long. Edited May 13, 2008 by White99GT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescoent Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 1989 was the year the Thundebird Super Coupe came out, MT's Car of the Year. 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. That's not that much quicker than todays 4 cylinder Fusion (8.1). The 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe had a 0-60 time of 8.5 seconds. 1989 was a great year to be a Ford performance guy. Mustang GT, Escort GT, Thunderbird Super Coupe, and Taurus SHO... what a line! I can only imagine what would have happened if Ford let off the "Thou shalt not outperform the Mustang" decree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) I know it's a CGI but there are always alternatives:Courtesy of www.cgiautomotive.com Hmm....I do and don't like that. I don't really know how to explain what I'm thinking, I just know that I do and don't like it. Edited May 13, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 Hmm....I do and don't like that. I don't really know how to explain what I do and don't like, I just know that I do and don't like it. i understand what you are saying....it's because they are using the NA 3 bar grill on the more "kinetic" designed Falcon which IMO does not go well i like the Falcon body but i do not like the 3 bar grill so i do and do not like it :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 i understand what you are saying....it's because they are using the NA 3 bar grill on the more "kinetic" designed Falcon which IMO does not go well i like the Falcon body but i do not like the 3 bar grill so i do and do not like it :happy feet: I think if done right, the 3-bar could work on the Falcon. I think what's wrong with that chop is that there's too many conflicting shapes. Look at the lower intakes, too many different angles, IMO. I also think the bars on the upper grille should be equal size, at least on the bottom two. The small --> medium --> large size bars doesn't look all that great, IMO. The bottom two may be the same size, but to me they look different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 I think if done right, the 3-bar could work on the Falcon. I think what's wrong with that chop is that there's too many conflicting shapes. Look at the lower intakes, too many different angles, IMO. I also think the bars on the upper grille should be equal size, at least on the bottom two. The small --> medium --> large size bars doesn't look all that great, IMO. The bottom two may be the same size, but to me they look different. i think if the 3 bar grill was more like the chop of the Edge in the photochops section, it would look good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 i think if the 3 bar grill was more like the chop of the Edge in the photochops section, it would look good Yes, that design would work on a Falcon. That Edge chop looked very good. Maybe whoever did that chop could do a Falcon chop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) It's pretty hard to integrate kinetic straight into Bold American without some panel changes. The Falcon's nose rolls over so maybe a new hood and front guards are needed to meet a higher front. New Falcon advertising campaign has just started: Edited May 13, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) It's pretty hard to integrate kinetic straight into Bold American without some panel changes.The Falcon's nose rolls over so maybe a new hood and front guards are needed to meet a higher front. New Falcon advertising campaign has just started: I like the ad at least it shows a bit of the car in the commercial for a change, most Fiesta ads in the UK feature a dog and not the car as if Ford are a bit ashamed of it's car. I love reading those Aussie down to earth wit and up front comments posted on you tube in the XR Series commercial, l hope the Falcon comes to the UK but l can't help but think EU legislation will ruin it for us. I wish Ford would remember the commercial supposed to be about about a FORD CAR not two fingers or a dog. Edited May 13, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Hmm....I do and don't like that. I don't really know how to explain what I'm thinking, I just know that I do and don't like it. Here I can help you explain: The car looks great but the FUCKING UGLY three bar goofy grille ruins the whole damn thing. 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.