stevea26 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So we got to see the Taurus. We now know details of ecoboost when do we get the dirt on the SHO!!! What are they waiting for!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) So we got to see the Taurus. We now know details of ecoboost when do we get the dirt on the SHO!!! What are they waiting for!!!!! Well, according to the Taurus website (under key features, technology: http://www.fordvehicles.com/2010taurus/ , the "performance series" is coming out February '09, so next month. Edited January 13, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It'll have 355 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque which--any guesses? Means maybe 'round about a 5.5 second 0-60 time if the car ain't that much heavier than the current Taurus? Also, if the fuel economy numbers bear out, it should get about the same fuel economy (EPA) as the AWD Taurus with the 3.5L--possibly worse in town. I could see the AWD Taurus getting 27 or maybe even 28mpg highway. FWD might in the neighborhood of 30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springforfun34 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) . Edited January 14, 2009 by springforfun34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'm guessing about 6.2sec. I was hoping it would be more than 355HP only because I see there's much more potential from such a powerplant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 If it weighs about 4,000lbs, with 355hp, and an incredibly flat torque band, 6.2 seconds is probably high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 We don't know the exact details...but I have a feeling the new SHO is gonna haul ASS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) I'll go out on a limb and say the Ecoboost Taurus will score 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds and here's why: The Aussie XR6 Turbo does 0-62.5 in 5.2 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds, it's about 3900 lb so in the right ball park. With superior grip off the mark, I'd expect the Taurus to bite and go much better than the RWD XR6T. Edited January 14, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'll go out on a limb and say the Ecoboost Taurus will score 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds and here's why:The Aussie XR6 Turbo does 0-62.5 in 5.2 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds, it's about 3900 lb so in the right ball park. With superior grip off the mark, I'd expect the Taurus to bite and go much better than the RWD XR6T. Somewhere btwn the number you posted and what Richard did above. The current Taurus with 260 hp does the deed in under 7 seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It'll have 355 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque which--any guesses? Means maybe 'round about a 5.5 second 0-60 time if the car ain't that much heavier than the current Taurus? Also, if the fuel economy numbers bear out, it should get about the same fuel economy (EPA) as the AWD Taurus with the 3.5L--possibly worse in town. I could see the AWD Taurus getting 27 or maybe even 28mpg highway. FWD might in the neighborhood of 30. I seem to remember reading something about the EB Taurus being faster than a BMW 5 (which model, I don't remember, the V8 maybe?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizuce Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Wouldn't the 300c AWD be the best comparison? I think that gets 5.5 seconds and it's a 340hp. BTW, I'm totally getting one this fall, I hope I can still get a decent promo on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 In either the Flex or MKS press release they commented that the 6R55 transmission had a final drive of 2.73 and "unique gearing". These cars will have to have a HUGE first gear for them to launch well ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) In either the Flex or MKS press release they commented that the 6R55 transmission had a final drive of 2.73 and "unique gearing". These cars will have to have a HUGE first gear for them to launch well ! 6-speed autos have about a 4.17 first gear so watch the AWD Ecoboost launch hard off the mark, will catch many a muscle car by surprise, especially if the road surface is a little damp, Could we be about to see the dawn of a new cult car....... If it sounds like I'm getting on board with Taurus - you bet! especially if a smaller or shorter wheelbase Falcon replacement can be done. Edited January 14, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Well, according to the Taurus website (under key features, technology: http://www.fordvehicles.com/2010taurus/ , the "performance series" is coming out February '09, so next month. Which means watch the Chicago Auto Show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) If it weighs about 4,000lbs, with 355hp, and an incredibly flat torque band, 6.2 seconds is probably high. Yup. Consider that the new 2009 Nissan Maxima SV, with its NA 3.5-liter V6 (290 hp/261 lb.-ft.) & CVT rips 0-60 in 5.8 sec. and hits the quarter in 14.5 @ 98mph. That car weighs 3,579 lbs. I would say that the regular-grade Taurus would be similar to this car, maybe just a tick or two slower. I'd use the 6.2/0-60 sec. rip figure here. That means you're pretty good on your low-to-mid 5-sec. time RJ!!! Edited January 14, 2009 by OHV 16V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 That means you're pretty good on your low-to-mid 5-sec. time RJ!!! Just a blind squirrel looking for nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Just a blind squirrel looking for nuts. plenty here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probeGT Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 plenty here Yes, both the blind squirrels and the nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Yes, both the blind squirrels and the nuts. I think a couple have recently fallen off the tree...I can only guess whos coming to dinner..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Wouldn't the 300c AWD be the best comparison? I think that gets 5.5 seconds and it's a 340hp. BTW, I'm totally getting one this fall, I hope I can still get a decent promo on it. It may technically be, but which would you rather hear? The new Taurus....it's faster than a AWD Chrysler 300C. --OR-- The new Taurus....it's faster than a BMW 5 series. I'm sure they'd also be able to tack on a "it's more fuel efficient than both of those" too). Edited January 14, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Nope. According to morgande, the EB is a waste of time that gets hideous mileage. Well, at least much worse than any V8. BTW, reading his posts made my head hurt. On the other hand.............. I may have finally found my new car. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevea26 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 The video is about 10 minutes but go to 6:50. I am thinking the Caddy is a V8 STS and the BMW is a Twin Turbo 335i. The BMW is a 5.3-5.5 0-60 car and teh STS is a high 5's 0-60 car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 The video is about 10 minutes but go to 6:50. I am thinking the Caddy is a V8 STS and the BMW is a Twin Turbo 335i. The BMW is a 5.3-5.5 0-60 car and teh STS is a high 5's 0-60 car. I'm just glad Derrick Kuzak isn't a teacher.... :boring: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JZ150 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 The video is about 10 minutes but go to 6:50. I am thinking the Caddy is a V8 STS and the BMW is a Twin Turbo 335i. The BMW is a 5.3-5.5 0-60 car and teh STS is a high 5's 0-60 car. I don't know about the Caddy but I would guess it's the V6 version. The BMW has to be a 335i (maybe an xi) because those wheels are not available on the 328i (I guess they could have been added but...) Even if it is a 328i, its still a low to mid 6 second car in 328i form. The 335i coupe is one of the greatest all around cars sold today. It weighs less than the Taurus but I can easily get 30 MPG on the highway out of my 335i. The performance, with a couple minor upgrades, is incredible. I can't wait to get my hands on the new Taurus. If the Torque curve is anything like the 335i we are all going to be impressed. FWIW the 335i can be tuned to a high-mid 12 second 1/4 mile car with a few mods. Can the Taurus REALLY be a low 5 second car to 60? Can it be? Can it return 26-27 MPG on the Highway? Maybe 20-22 MPG in the city? Nice interior with a solid "build quality" look? Great looking seats that have some nice side bolstering? Great tech gear available? Large enough to haul family and gear on vacation? I have waited on Ford to build this car for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You won't see 22 in the city on the EPA ratings with that kind of motor in that heavy of a car. 20 mayyyybe, but not likely. 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.