Deanh Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 You going to pay for all the transmission failures that would happen if it wasn't limited? Could always wait till it comes out in the Mustang apparently engine was pulling 500 plus on the test bench.....wait till they shoehorn the beast into the Mustang and release the HOUNDS!.....atomaro, lets get real here...this is a sports sedan...it is meant to appeal to a broader base than say BMW"S M5......and people are already complaining about the price....beef up the tranny and drivetrain would send it stratospheric....car is AWESOME even if its capped.....365 in a four door American luxury sedan...wow...bummer.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) apparently engine was pulling 500 plus on the test bench.....wait till they shoehorn the beast into the Mustang and release the HOUNDS!.....atomaro, lets get real here...this is a sports sedan...it is meant to appeal to a broader base than say BMW"S M5......and people are already complaining about the price....beef up the tranny and drivetrain would send it stratospheric....car is AWESOME even if its capped.....365 in a four door American luxury sedan...wow...bummer.... A 4300 lb AWD Taurus that does a 13.7 1/4 mile is a pretty impressive car. Not so long a go, Ford buyers would only get that performance in a Mustang. I really wonder about some of the comments posted here, arm chair critics wanting the SHO to be an Audi killer should drive it and experience that level of performance in a big car before passing judgement. Edited July 16, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) A 4300 lb AWD Taurus that does a 13.7 1/4 mile is a pretty impressive car. Not so long a go, Ford buyers would only get that performance in a Mustang. I really wonder about some of the comments posted here, arm chair critics wanting the SHO to be an Audi killer should drive it and experience that level of performance in a big car before passing judgement. That's a good point.....I don't think any of us, with the obvious exception of a few have driven an SHO to know how it drives, yet some are already criticizing it. Edited July 16, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 the transmission can't handle the Torque without AWD. The engine is Torque limited down low anyways by the computer because of this. silvr, the AWD is more to get the power to the ground than torque management. Increased tire patch. The transmision has been beefed up. See attached article: 6F55 But, I am assuming the powertrain is torque truncated in at least first and a portion of second. I'm not technically well versed here, but I believe the stress on the transmission has a lot to do with torque coming in to the transmission and the speed the vehicle is traveling. So, at rest if the engine were to dump maximum torque into the transmission, overcoming inertia could cause the box to twist itself to pieces over time (if all 4 tires are stuck to the ground, the system has to find a weak link somewhere). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 silvr, the AWD is more to get the power to the ground than torque management. Increased tire patch. The transmision has been beefed up. See attached article: 6F55 But, I am assuming the powertrain is torque truncated in at least first and a portion of second. I'm not technically well versed here, but I believe the stress on the transmission has a lot to do with torque coming in to the transmission and the speed the vehicle is traveling. So, at rest if the engine were to dump maximum torque into the transmission, overcoming inertia could cause the box to twist itself to pieces over time (if all 4 tires are stuck to the ground, the system has to find a weak link somewhere). Thanks for the better understanding/explanation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Thanks for the better understanding/explanation FYI, in the 6F55, the 55 stands for 550 newton metres of torque capacity, that's just over 400 lb ft. They did that upgrade by changing a few internal components, I'm sure there's more left in the design but then again, are we going Audi hunting or just building a great AWd sedan? Edited July 16, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 FYI, in the 6F55, the 55 stands for 550 newton metres of torque capacity, that's just over 400 lb ft.They did that upgrade by changing a few internal components, I'm sure there's more left in the design but then again, are we going Audi hunting or just building a great AWd sedan? From what understand...you want your torque rating on an auto transmission much higher then what the total output of the engine is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 FYI, in the 6F55, the 55 stands for 550 newton metres of torque capacity, that's just over 400 lb ft. According to a former transmission engineer it means 550 lb/ft of torque. But that's measured AFTER the torque converter and at low speed the torque multiplication can be almost double the engine output - maybe less in the 6F55. But still enough to require torque management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I read all the comments in this thread before the article and did not realize that they actually tested an AWD 300C against the SHO. Amazing that a magazine finally pitted two equally equipped cars against one another. Kudos to PM. Of course, AWD 300C's are pretty scarce. I would love to see another test against the much more common RWD 300C or Dodge Charger R/T to get a much more likely comparison in shopping. I don't think people will be buying SHO's because they are AWD. I think they will be buying SHO's and getting AWD whether they want it or not (because they have no choice). Not a bad thing to be getting standard though! Good article! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 A 4300 lb AWD Taurus that does a 13.7 1/4 mile is a pretty impressive car. Not so long a go, Ford buyers COULDN'T EVEN get that performance in a Mustang. It wasnt until the Terminators in 03 that we really even had a mass production Mustang that could do better than a 13.70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzhead Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Bottom line is these are two great American cars. I have a 2005 300C that I bought within the first month they went on sale, and have loved the beast ever since. Before that, I'd owned two Tauri, but never one, of course, with the capabilities of this new one. About the only drawback I see with the new SHO is the AWD that I really don't need, which adds weight. But having never driven a AWD vehicle, I could well be pleasantly surprised with the handling improvement. The 300C has been everything promised and more. Fast, comfortable, agile for its size, surprisingly fuel efficient and I still get complements on its looks even though it's five years old. While I wish the new Taurus had adhered more closely to the stunning Interceptor concept, it's still the best looking sedan out there today other than the C. Ford will do well with this car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 According to a former transmission engineer it means 550 lb/ft of torque. But that's measured AFTER the torque converter and at low speed the torque multiplication can be almost double the engine output - maybe less in the 6F55. But still enough to require torque management. Anyone want to explain how you can manage torque without reducing power? I'm at a loss at how thats done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 it's still the best looking sedan out there today other than the C. The problem with the 300C is that its stale and the refresh doesn't do anything to address that...I do like the looks of it, but now its just played out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHG2605 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I read all the comments in this thread before the article and did not realize that they actually tested an AWD 300C against the SHO. Amazing that a magazine finally pitted two equally equipped cars against one another. Kudos to PM. Of course, AWD 300C's are pretty scarce. I would love to see another test against the much more common RWD 300C or Dodge Charger R/T to get a much more likely comparison in shopping. I don't think people will be buying SHO's because they are AWD. I think they will be buying SHO's and getting AWD whether they want it or not (because they have no choice). Not a bad thing to be getting standard though! Good article! I actually see quite a few AWD 300C's and Chargers out here in Denver I guess it depends on where you live. When I replace my Ranger it will be with and AWD vehicle. I have my mustang for RWD fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 The SHO should be offered with Revoknuckle standard. Will help with handling, cut weight, cost and improve efficiency. They can save AWD as an option for the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 The SHO should be offered with Revoknuckle standard. Will help with handling, cut weight, cost and improve efficiency. They can save AWD as an option for the rich. Without AWD, the SHO would be universally panned by the press, Revoknuckle or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Without AWD, the SHO would be universally panned by the press, Revoknuckle or not. tough call Nick...the 300hp Focus RS is getting Raves....so who knows....( and i want one BAD ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Make the EB an option on FWD as well, would save weight from the AWD model and increase efficiency. Imagine the bit*hing we would see about torque steer! Not to mention trashed trannies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 tough call Nick...the 300hp Focus RS is getting Raves....so who knows....( and i want one BAD ) The Focus RS is a completely different class of car. FWD is often expected in a compact car. Not so with a fullsizer. Especially a $40,000 one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 The Focus RS is a completely different class of car. FWD is often expected in a compact car. Not so with a fullsizer. Especially a $40,000 one. not my point...Revo obviously works well in high powered ( and in the focii case a significantly better Power to weight ratio ) FWD applications....so maybe an $1800 savings and a couple of hundred pounds worth of savings....what am i saying, NEVER going to happen....( but sure would be a TRUE SHO successor.....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 not my point...Revo obviously works well in high powered ( and in the focii case a significantly better Power to weight ratio ) FWD applications....so maybe an $1800 savings and a couple of hundred pounds worth of savings....what am i saying, NEVER going to happen....( but sure would be a TRUE SHO successor.....) In the instance of the added AWD, I'm glad that's one way that it ISN'T like the previous SHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 In the instance of the added AWD, I'm glad that's one way that it ISN'T like the previous SHO. one can only imagine torque steer on a FWD sans Revo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Anyone want to explain how you can manage torque without reducing power? I'm at a loss at how thats done If you mean how do you manage the torque entering the transmission without reducing engine power that's easy. The engine only produces 350 lb/ft of torque - that's not a problem for a tranny rated at 550 lb/ft. The issue is how much torque multiplication is done by the torque converter. If it provides 2 for 1 multiplication at the right engine speed that could exceed the 550 lb/ft limit. You can change the stall speed of the torque converter and that changes how much torque is multiplied and when. In addition to limiting the engine output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) not my point...Revo obviously works well in high powered ( and in the focii case a significantly better Power to weight ratio ) FWD applications....so maybe an $1800 savings and a couple of hundred pounds worth of savings....what am i saying, NEVER going to happen....( but sure would be a TRUE SHO successor.....) I just got a vision of a 4.6 V8 FWD Taurus fitted with Revoknuckle suspension. If the revoknuckle can control the torque steer a bit, the car might stand a chance..... * I suggested the 4.6 just out of curiosity, I know it doesn't fit but there's surely some people out there who would buy a V8 Taurus... Edited July 17, 2009 by jpd80 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.