TomServo92 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Link :reading: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) Richard Jensen's list of the top 10 'rags that don't deserve their press passes: Autoblog Jalopnik Motor Trend Car & Driver Business Week AutoWeek Fortune Money Edmunds New York Times TTAC (assuming they even get invites to Ford press events) LA Times Automobile Ooops. Is that more than ten? Well shoot, I guess I can't count. Edited December 30, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 What a junk article! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share Posted December 30, 2008 What a junk article! That pretty much describes most of what's on Autoblog... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 My beef with the Marauder was that it shouldn't have been a niche vehicle, rather, the engine should have been phased into all panthers, specially Town Cars. The 210-220Hp seemed embarrassing next to a Cadillac Northstar. As for the Taurus SHO, they obviously didn't take into equation WHAT was the competition out there. If they think the vehicle was junk, they should have driven the competition which was laughable. The competition couldn't handle that type of power...they were playing with 135HP I-4s at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I'm not even in the States and I can tell that article is nothing but crap. There's only one car i can comment about on that list: The first Taurus saved Ford's bacon and sold in droves for a good reason - it was a good car. Conversley, the SHO engine had a problem that cost owners dearly when the cam drives failed. Any journalist worth his salt knows this stuff, how could this buffoon get it so wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCobra Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Hmmm.... that was interesting. I think they left a few out: 1. 1995 to 1999 Nissan Maximas 2. Buick GNX (awesome car by the way) 3. 2004-Present Acura TSX (deserves an RWD chassis like the S2000) 4. 1998-2002 Lexus GS300 5. 1999-2002 Chevrolet Silverado w/285 hp 4.8L V8. Tons of power in a small fuel efficient motor. Should have used it everywhere. 6. 2006-Present Toyota Camry w/268 hp 3.5L V6. 0-60 6.1 sec (MT) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I'm not even in the States and I can tell that article is nothing but crap.There's only one car i can comment about on that list: The first Taurus saved Ford's bacon and sold in droves for a good reason - it was a good car. Conversley, the SHO engine had a problem that cost owners dearly when the cam drives failed. Any journalist worth his salt knows this stuff, how could this buffoon get it so wrong! I think the 2nd SHO engine had the cam problem, not the first. But then, you're not a journalist, so you can be forgiven your ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 they have an issue with Lambo stuffing HiPo engine in the SUV? That was the whole appeal of it. To go offraod faster than most cars could on road. what trash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I think the 2nd SHO engine had the cam problem, not the first. But then, you're not a journalist, so you can be forgiven your ignorance. Yep, the early SHO Yamaha V6s were bullet proof... the clutch was it's weakest link (and FWD in general). Fun car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) I think the 2nd SHO engine had the cam problem, not the first. But then, you're not a journalist, so you can be forgiven your ignorance. Thankyou for the correction, I knew it was one of them. All those early Tauri were brilliant little cars, our EA-ED Falcons followed the styling too. I drove one of the 1990 series II (?) versions in 1993 whilst in your country and it was just like a FWD version of our Falcons of the same era - a very familiar feeling indeed!! Edited December 30, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share Posted December 30, 2008 Yep, the early SHO Yamaha V6s were bullet proof... the clutch was it's weakest link (and FWD in general). Fun car! The only problems I had with my '95 (other than normal wear items) was the crank position sensor (which is a BITCH to change) and the EGR "tube" (for lack of a better term) in the intake manifold kept clogging. That too was a BITCH to fix. I finally found that B-12 Chemtool and compressed air did the trick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Ah, it seems that only the last, series 3 ('96-'99) that had the cam problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share Posted December 30, 2008 Ah, it seems that only the last, series 3 ('96-'99) that had the cam problem. Yes, the V8 models had the cam problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 I wish Ford would have added the Yamaha v6 in the Probe as well as the Taurus. Marauder would have come with the 5.4 in my fantasy world too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 I wish Ford would have added the Yamaha v6 in the Probe as well as the Taurus. I don't know if it would have fit, but that would have been an awesome motor got the Probe GT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 I don't know if it would have fit, but that would have been an awesome motor got the Probe GT. This guy was doing a Probe SHO DIY project. Not sure how it turned out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 This guy was doing a Probe SHO DIY project. Not sure how it turned out. reminds me of the SHO Festiva back in the 80s. These guys crammed it into the trunk and made it a rear driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 reminds me of the SHO Festiva back in the 80s. These guys crammed it into the trunk and made it a rear driver. SHOgun! Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01FOCI Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 (edited) "Ford actually flew Taurus shells to Japan to have the Yamaha 3.0L V6 installed and then flown back." Is this really true? Or are the journalist misinformed. Seems rather expensive to fly every SHO there. Edited December 31, 2008 by 01FOCI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 "Ford actually flew Taurus shells to Japan to have the Yamaha 3.0L V6 installed and then flown back." Is this really true? Or are the journalist misinformed. Seems rather expensive to fly every SHO there. The entire time I owned my '95 ('94 - '01), I participated in an online SHO forum and this is the first time I've ever heard that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Come on guys. The article isn't all that bad. All he's saying is that the engines are that good, not that the cars are that bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Next article: The top ten ways to trash American cars in a top ten list! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 The entire time I owned my '95 ('94 - '01), I participated in an online SHO forum and this is the first time I've ever heard that one. If that factoid is wrong, it wouldn't strike me as odd coming from AB. That site is almost as bad as Edmunds when it comes to reporting accurate information. I seriously question if their bloggers even read through the comments there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 If that factoid is wrong, it wouldn't strike me as odd coming from AB. That site is almost as bad as Edmunds when it comes to reporting accurate information. I seriously question if their bloggers even read through the comments there. Yeah, I'm not surprised either. They aren't the best sources of reliable information. 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.