Bring back SHO for the Fusion?

[cdangdrive]

The 4.4L Yamaha/Volvo would make a great powerplant for a 21st century SHO based on the AWD Fusion. The original SHO brought some praise to the Taurus line but was all but forgotten when the platform moved to Gen 3 and Gen 4. Bring back a class trim and a build a monster of a mid size family sedan.

 

My SHO Fusion

 

Exterior:

Blacked out mesh style "nostril" grill

Smoked headlamps, tail lamps (with color keyed trim accent in lieu of chrome)

Color keyed deck lid finish (in lieu of chrome)

Color keyed mirrors

Ground effects kit

Rear lip spoiler with integrated LED CHMSL

18 inch chrome six spoke wheels

Dual three inch chrome exhaust

SHO logo on trunk with FUSION imprinted into rear bumper

 

Interior

Darked brushed aluminum center stack and door finish

Black leather with color keyed accent stiching

Brushed aluminum door brush plates with SHO logo

White faced guages

SHO floor mats

SHO embossed into the seats

 

Color Availibility

Black

Redfire

White

Silver

True Blue

Grabber Orange

[DSenstad]

Better yet, add the suspension to a 500 and bring it out in that with AWD. The original SHO was pitted against the BMW 533i when it came out since there was nothing to compare it to, I think the 500 might be compared to the 533i again.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Better yet, add the suspension to a 500 and bring it out in that with AWD. The original SHO was pitted against the BMW 533i when it came out since there was nothing to compare it to, I think the 500 might be compared to the 533i again.

 

 

I agree, the 500 would be a better choice for an SHO since the 4.4 V-8 already fits the platform. The Galaxie name could be revived. The car would need to have enough model specific body mods so it could be instantly differentiated from the regular 500.

[ANTAUS]

We are already getting it, it's called Lincoln MKS....

 

Lets start thinking price. The last SHO was "special" since it had a DOHC V8. under $30K which is quite the feat at that time.

 

All the Fusion can do at most, is offer a Turbocharged engine, then finding a 6 speed tranny that can handle 310+HP and AWD (new GM/Ford venture tranny will top out a bit under that), and all this under $30K.

 

And then the next question to ask would be, "Well why not make that the MKZ where it's ok to charge up to $40K for it"....

 

Realistically, if "SHO" would really be made financially feasable, it would probably be my slapping the 3.5L, giving it DI, better breathing, over the regular 3.5L, and allow it to have 300HP at most (so as to not go tranny hunting) and keep it all simpler.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Yes, IIRC, the joint venture 6AT has a torque limit of around 280 lbs. Given that the duratec 35 seems to be comfortably in the 250 lb range, a D/I setup would net 275 lbs of torque and be at the limit of that tranny.

 

But, we're all forgetting, they don't have to go tranny hunting. Doesn't the Volvo XC90 V8 have a 6AT that's AWD capable right now? Doesn't that V8 make 300+ lbs of torque? Where do they get that thing from?

[White99GT]

Lets start thinking price. The last SHO was "special" since it had a DOHC V8. under $30K which is quite the feat at that time.

 

Honestly though, there aren't many Gen III SHO "enthusiasts." The SHO-glory days, the reason why people still talk about those cars is because of the 5 spd. Gen I and Gen II V6 SHOs. In 1989 you could buy a 220 hp 5-speed V6 Taurus that was capable of high 14s in the 1/4 and of trapping 95+ mph. Pretty nuts for the time seeing as how the V6 Altima people rave about these days isn't much quicker than a V6 FWD sedan Ford had 15+ years ago.

 

The Gen I and Gen II SHO formula is the one Ford should try to replicate. Have a hipo "Cyclone" powered Fusion with over 300 horsepower, a 6 speed manual,with suspension and body mods. I'd buy one.

[Blue II]

The 4.4 Yamaha for the MKS and 500 has been cancelled. It looks like a twin turbo 3.5 may happen though.

[retro-man]

The 4.4 Yamaha for the MKS and 500 has been cancelled. It looks like a twin turbo 3.5 may happen though.

Waitwaitwait. Does this mean that Lincoln will have no V8 except for its (snort) truck offerings?

Edited July 12, 2006 by niteflight

[Hellcat_F6F]

Build it in the U.S. or Canada, and I might think about it.

 

I heard that I did. Call it SHO, SVT, SVO, NBC, CBS, whatever..I can't get interested in a Ford that's Hecho en Mexico.

[DSenstad]

The 4.4 Yamaha for the MKS and 500 has been cancelled. It looks like a twin turbo 3.5 may happen though.

That's what Ford did last time. They dropped the Yamaha engine and it was down hill from there.

 

PUT THE DAMN 4.4 IN THE 500... DO IT RIGHT!!!!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I suspect that it was a cost and capacity issue if this proves to be true. That 4.4L Yamaha can't be cheap to build under liscence or have built for them. It would make for a very expensive 500 (which won't need it in the least).

 

the HUGE mistake is not offering it in the MkS. That particular segment of the market is strongly divided over the v6 portion (M35, GS300, RL, E and S 350, 530i, etc) and the v8 portion (M45, GS430, Eand S 500, 545, etc). By not offering a v8, they will be building a barrier between the MkS and full success in its market.

 

You may say, well, they have a twin-turbo 3.5L v6, but, will it be a mechanical nightmare? Will it have the pull off idle that competing v8s have? How will it do on gas? Will it have comparable power? Will it be more expensive?

 

This is the hole that FoMoCo left themselves in when they developed the mamouth mod series of v8. Its just too big to put in a FWD car well. Yes, they had the DOHC in the front of the taurus bastardized Continental, but, you could land a plane on that hood it was so long. and at that, that was one packed engine bay. Supposedly, the 3V is a narrower engine dimensionally, but, I don't think that it can be used sideways anymore after the most recent changes without more work.

 

Oh well, Lincoln really does take one step forward and follow it up with two steps back. I'll be shocked if the non v8 Mks is a success. In that market, gas mileage isn't a factor and the v8 is a prestiege thing.

[retro-man]

Oh well, Lincoln really does take one step forward and follow it up with two steps back. I'll be shocked if the non v8 Mks is a success. In that market, gas mileage isn't a factor and the v8 is a prestiege thing.

If they screw up on this one, that two steps back will be right over a cliff. Ford seems to have a morbid determination to assassinate Lincoln all over again.

[NickF1011]

This is the hole that FoMoCo left themselves in when they developed the mamouth mod series of v8. Its just too big to put in a FWD car well. Yes, they had the DOHC in the front of the taurus bastardized Continental, but, you could land a plane on that hood it was so long. and at that, that was one packed engine bay.

 

Perhaps Ford should have developed a very narrow-angle 8 cylinder engine, so narrow that it would require a designation other than "V" to truly portray its uniqueness. How about "W"? Yes! The "W" engine! That would work! Then they could stuff this new-fangled so-called "W8" into their front wheel drive plebian sedans and charge outrageous markups for it! Yes!! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?!?!

[retro-man]

Perhaps Ford should have developed a very narrow-angle 8 cylinder engine, so narrow that it would require a designation other than "V" to truly portray its uniqueness. How about "W"? Yes! The "W" engine! That would work! Then they could stuff this new-fangled so-called "W8" into their front wheel drive plebian sedans and charge outrageous markups for it! Yes!! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?!?!

Yes, because we're doing so good as it is:

1965 Ford Mustang

- Length: 181.6"

- Width: 68.3"

- Curb Weight: 2,600 lbs.

- Engine Displacement: 288.5 cu. in. (and you could stand in the engine compartment next to it)

- HP: 271

- Torque: 312 lb. ft.

- 0-60 mph: 7.6 sec.

- Top speed (rev limited): 129 mph

 

2006 Ford Fusion SEL V6

- Length: 190.2 in.

- Width: 72.2"

- Curb Weight: 3,280 lbs.

- Engine Displacement: 182 cu. in.

- HP: 221

- Torque: 205 lb. ft.

- 0-60 mph: 7.5 sec.

- Top speed (drag limited) 114 mph

 

Ok, so what have we been doing for the last 40 years again? Air bags and catalytic converters?

Edited July 12, 2006 by niteflight

[68Cougar]

If they screw up on this one, that two steps back will be right over a cliff. Ford seems to have a morbid determination to assassinate Lincoln all over again.

Now if we could just get the car into the theater....

[Michael Reynolds]

Yes, because we're doing so good as it is:

1965 Ford Mustang

- Length: 181.6"

- Width: 68.3"

- Curb Weight: 2,600 lbs.

- Engine Displacement: 288.5 cu. in. (and you could stand in the engine compartment next to it)

- HP: 271

- Torque: 312 lb. ft.

- 0-60 mph: 7.6 sec.

- Top speed (rev limited): 129 mph

 

2006 Ford Fusion SEL V6

- Length: 190.2 in.

- Width: 72.2"

- Curb Weight: 3,280 lbs.

- Engine Displacement: 182 cu. in.

- HP: 221

- Torque: 205 lb. ft.

- 0-60 mph: 7.5 sec.

- Top speed (drag limited) 114 mph

 

Ok, so what have we been doing for the last 40 years again? Air bags and catalytic converters?

 

:shrug:

[ANTAUS]

"the HUGE mistake is not offering it in the MkS. That particular segment of the market is strongly divided over the v6 portion (M35, GS300, RL, E and S 350, 530i, etc) and the v8 portion (M45, GS430, Eand S 500, 545, etc). By not offering a v8, they will be building a barrier between the MkS and full success in its market"

 

The market will decide. Ironically, Ford used a Turbo I-6 on the Volvo S80, and it never sold well, they ADMITTED that a V8 was essential for that market segment....so comes in the new 4.4L in the new S80 to debut in a few months.

 

And the same occured with the XC90, which they got away with it, only because the vehicle is outstanding otherwise, so people could tolerate it with an Turbo I-6...and for logistics, replacing it with the 4.4L V8.

 

BMW just annouced it's new 3-series, would have a 3.0L Turbo, with 300+HP, and have mentioned publically that instead of displacement, they are going turbo with "M" offerings.

 

They have stated that the technology, reliability has improved so much over the years, that certain problems of Turbo have been correct (turbo-lag, timely maintenence) by other technologies.

 

If anyone has visited the Lincoln site, and has built an "MKS" one of the options was, 4.4L V8 making 315HP, or a 3.5L V6 Turbo with 350HP+. Actually I believe most are going with the number, rather than the cylinder count. If the fuel economy is that much better than a V8, then they might have bragging rights, but I would suggest they save some R&D money on the side JUST incase it backfires on them and they need to slap in the 4.4L a year after dismal sales.

 

Also...315HP is becoming a rarity since most vehicles in that price rage or upwards north of 330HP. As it is, on the Jaguar, the 4.2L is somewhat manageable only because the car is hundreds of pounds lighter than the competition, if not, it's 294-300HP could be seen as anemic.

 

And yes, we can argue and counteract that not everyone accelerates 0-60MPH, and that it's not ALL that people look for, but when the majority if not all of your competitors offer MUCH MORE, and you don't have enough, sorry...thats not gonna cut it gether specially not at this price class.

 

So this 3.5L Turbo, better be DI, and be heavily advertised, and a damn label in the trunk saying it's Turbo to make up for lack of V8....

[Noah Harbinger]

Yes, because we're doing so good as it is:

1965 Ford Mustang

- Length: 181.6"

- Width: 68.3"

- Curb Weight: 2,600 lbs.

- Engine Displacement: 288.5 cu. in. (and you could stand in the engine compartment next to it)

- HP: 271

- Torque: 312 lb. ft.

- 0-60 mph: 7.6 sec.

- Top speed (rev limited): 129 mph

 

2006 Ford Fusion SEL V6

- Length: 190.2 in.

- Width: 72.2"

- Curb Weight: 3,280 lbs.

- Engine Displacement: 182 cu. in.

- HP: 221

- Torque: 205 lb. ft.

- 0-60 mph: 7.5 sec.

- Top speed (drag limited) 114 mph

 

Ok, so what have we been doing for the last 40 years again? Air bags and catalytic converters?

 

Wait a second, you're saying that a mid-sized economy sedan matching the 0-60 time of a muscle car from 40 years ago doesn't show an improvement in cars? And, this is the old engine which has been superceeded and whose death is in sight.

[ZanatWork]

The 4.4 Yamaha for the MKS and 500 has been cancelled. It looks like a twin turbo 3.5 may happen though.

 

I'd like a source before I accept this information....

[retro-man]

Wait a second, you're saying that a mid-sized economy sedan matching the 0-60 time of a muscle car from 40 years ago doesn't show an improvement in cars? And, this is the old engine which has been superceeded and whose death is in sight.

You could have gotten that same drivetrain in a '65 Falcon, which was mechanically and dimensionally identical to the Mustang, and which filled very much the same market slot as the Fusion. The comparison stands.

 

* The 289 Mustang was hardly a "muscle car". My parent's '63 Galaxie could run circles around it. The Fairlane Thunderbolt: now that was a muscle car.

[NickF1011]

You could have gotten that same drivetrain in a '65 Falcon, which was mechanically and dimensionally identical to the Mustang, and which filled very much the same market slot as the Fusion. The comparison stands.

 

Okay. The comparison stands. The Fusion performs as well as a '65 Falcon with a 289 in a straight line to 60 miles per hour.

 

The Fusion performs far better than the Falcon in:

 

Crash worthiness

Braking

Handling

Ergonomics

Comfort

Fuel economy

Reliability

Fit and finish

Road noise

Ride quality

Steering response

Features

 

Yes. We have come a long way.

[silvrsvt]

I'd like a source before I accept this information....

 

Well dont think Yamaha could ever produce the volume that Ford needs for these products is a good start.

 

I heard a rumor that the 3.5L might not even make into the D3 refresh next spring and just read that the updated 3.0L with 6 speed auto in the Fusion won't show up in the updated Escape till a year after its out...WTF is wrong with Ford and putting in new engines a year after they launch a new/seriously updated vechicle?

[StevenCaylor]

You could have gotten that same drivetrain in a '65 Falcon, which was mechanically and dimensionally identical to the Mustang, and which filled very much the same market slot as the Fusion. The comparison stands.

 

* The 289 Mustang was hardly a "muscle car". My parent's '63 Galaxie could run circles around it. The Fairlane Thunderbolt: now that was a muscle car.

 

The quickest 65 Mustang came with the 271 HP HiPo 289 and a 4-speed manual. It was tested with a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. A new V6 Mustang will blow the doors off any of the old Mustangs.

[retro-man]

Okay. The comparison stands. The Fusion performs as well as a '65 Falcon with a 289 in a straight line to 60 miles per hour.

 

The Fusion performs far better than the Falcon in:

 

Crash worthiness

Braking

Handling

Ergonomics

Comfort

Fuel economy

Reliability

Fit and finish

Road noise

Ride quality

Steering response

Features

 

Yes. We have come a long way.

I'll take your word for it - on everything but the "reliability" (and I bet the fuel economy isn't all that much different - certainly wouldn't be if the Mustang had one more gear). I drove a '62 Falcon for 7 years, 20,000 miles a year - from 1995 to 2002, and didn't have even 10% of the problems on it that I've had in the 4 years since, driving my '02 T-Bird. And last week, when my T-Bird was in the shop for its thousand-dollar cooling fan replacement, I drove my son's '65 Mustang, which - unlike the T-Bird - I know won't leave me stranded on the road. As far as fun-to-drive quotient, which can't be measured, I can assure you that the '65 Mustang has it, steering response notwithstanding.

 

p.s. features schmeatures. You mean like the automatic climate control module that has failed twice on my T-Bird? Or the 6-disk CD player that jams up? Or the truly stupid digital signal reprocessing on the sound system? Bunch of crap. I'll take a real motor, and a manual option, thank you.

 

The quickest 65 Mustang came with the 271 HP HiPo 289 and a 4-speed manual. It was tested with a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. A new V6 Mustang will blow the doors off any of the old Mustangs.

This gets at my major beef (and sort of the topic of this thread): One of the things that makes the Mustang such a great car is that you have a choice of drivetrain combinations. What I hate about the Fusion (or the Five Hundred for that matter) is that you have 2 engines, and you can only get a manual transmission with the 4. One of the beauties of the Mustang is that you can configure it so many different ways, mixing and matching - not being railroaded into your choice of two whole packages. Individuality: what a concept. Performance: what a concept. The other thing I guess I was grousing at is the packaging efficiency of the modern powerplant. You can stand next to the old Mustang's engine in the engine bay. With your feet on the ground. My T-Bird is a much larger car, and its 255hp V8 (which my parents '63 Galaxie with its Thunderbird engine could also run circles around) is just sardined into the engine bay with no room left to spare. It's freakin' huge. And it's gotta be heavy. I haven't looked under the hood, but I'm sure the Fusion is the same way. I bet they couldn't fit the Yamaha V8 in there if they wanted to. And if they did, it would probably be a nightmare to service. Also, driving these old cars, I've discovered that .... I miss torque. I live at the top of a very steep hill, and you can run that Mustang right up that hill, right through its 4 gears, and it makes the hill feel flat, compared to my bloated-ass 2-ton T-Bird with its high-strung DOHC powerplant. Granted, the 289 is course. It practically feels like a farm implement compared to the T-Bird. The T-Bird is very refined - you know, when its running - But ..... the torque......

 

I guess priorities have changed, along with the technology.

Edited July 13, 2006 by niteflight

[rkisler]

I'd like a source before I accept this information....

 

Well, it'll be hard to get an official source on this one, as Ford is unlikely to announce "we investigated a V8 but decided not to do it". I suppose the official announcement will come when Lincoln announces the powertrain selection for the MKS. But I would bet this report on dropping the 4.4 is accurate.

 

Let's think about the 4.4 V8 for a bit. Let's put aside any thoughts of a Ford SHO, even if was the begining of this thread. Let's think of the 4.4 for Lincoln which is a much more important application.

 

First, assumptions (I don't have inside knowledge, just making guesses):

 

1. Volvo is already using the Yamaha 4.4l. I assume this engine is very expensive; Volvo charge a retail premium of about $5,000. But other manufacturers charge more -- BMW charge around $12,000. Please note that I have not done a complete content adjusted comparison, just raw pricing.

2. Although the D3 platform is based on the P2 Volvo platform, there are differences in engine/transmission orientation and mounting.

3. Ford wants to maintain its relationship with Yamaha for the long haul.

4. Yamaha is likely constrained in capacity. I am assuming that their assembly was set up for 20-30k to support the projected volumes of the Taurus SHO. Although the 4.4 is all new, certainly the manufacturing facilites were modified for the new engine.

5. Let's also assume that Ford management are not complete idiots. Certainly there is internal pressure to find a V8 for the MKS as Ford Motor and Lincoln are closely associated with V8 mystique. I assume this issue has been examined with vigor.

6. I think we can also assume that Ford has examined all other V8 options. I'm sure the 4.6l doesn't fit. I assume the AJ V8 doesn't fit either, otherwise Volvo would have used it. Needs to be 60 degree bank which is very rare.

 

So,what are Ford's alternatives if Ford wants the 4.4l for the MKS?

First, I have no idea how expensive the modifications in the platform would be to package a new engine/transmission Second, I have no idea how exensive modifiying the engine to accept new mounting and a new transmission would be. Third, I have no idea how expensive modifications in the assembly plant might be Any one of these factors could be a "job stopper". For instance, if the engine did not fit and required modifications to the heads....

 

Assuming the above don't kill the idea, then you could consider:

 

A. Expand Yamaha capacity -- Might be expensive or limited by space. Still results in expensive unit cost.

 

B. Manufacture V8 in the US -- New plant or significant new tooling in an existing plant required which would be expensive. Might reduce unit cost of engine, but building a plant for only 30k or so annual production and keeping costs low is not easy.

 

C. Manufacture Volvo and Ford requirements in the US -- would help economies of scale and bring unit costs down, but would destroy the relationship with Yamaha and likely would result in a big payment to Yamaha to cancel the commitment. A non starter.

 

D. Install a higher tech version of the 3.5l.

 

I'm guessing that Ford went through A, B, and C (probably numerous times) and came to a dead end, so decided to go with D.

 

It's OK with me if well executed. With gas seeming headed up again to maybe $4/gallon, this might be the right play if a twin turbo 3.5l turns out to be reasonably fuel efficient while offering good performance.

 

 

 

.