Bring back SHO for the Fusion?

[Project-Fairmont]

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?

 

So you are comparing the rare K code - to a garden variety sedan? What is your point? Any Mustang GT from 1982 tthrough 2006 will pretty much dust a '65 K code 'stang in any contest you wish to compare other than subjective things like looks. And stand in the engine bay - where, those ole shock towers intrude big time? It is fortunate that the short deck SBF is as compact as it was - and you can forget about a 351 in there -unless you beat in those towers! You can put a 4.6 DOHC in a Focus with alot of work - but not structural modification, the Falcon frame was very compact indeed!

 

Most 289's were A code that still need premium fuel rated at 225 gross HP - a 182 ci 6 does this on 87 unleaded.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Project-Fairmont

[retro-man]

Alright alright. I give up on the Mustang (or Falcon) comparison. I know the 60's were cave-man times. I'm sorry. We were all sitting around in the dark, eating beetle grubs, and waiting for Armstrong to take his first step on the moon.

 

But looking at the Fusion on its own merits, and in the context of this thread - you've got a car with good - very good - sports sedan bones, with good styling, and with 3 powertrain (2 engine) choices, ranging from lackluster to ordinary (This goes even moreso for the Five Hundred). You can't even get the larger engine with a manual transmission. The assumption seems to be that a manual shift is strictly for the economy-minded - not for those who enjoy driving. (My own experience with everybody I know is exactly the opposite.) There are those of us who could be interested in the Fusion, but aren't. Throw the car guys a bone Ford. For each of your models. Don't make the enthusiast with passengers choose between a Mustang and an appliance. That's what started this thread.

[Explorer4X4]

I do miss the SHO (and the HSC). The one in my tempo is amazing. It has never, ever failed me and has never not started. It also, doesn't lack power.

[Ralph Greene]

My 1993 5 speed manual SHO, with all the options available at that time, was my favorite all time car.

 

It was large enough to be comfortable, had a 18 cubic Ft trunk my bicycle would fit in, and had good performance.

 

Better yet....it was fun to drive. And the engine was gorgeous!

 

BTW.....and this is important....it was the car that brough me to Ford. It was the lure of a fun to drive 5 speed manual sedan that caused me to visit that show room. I sure didn't stop to see the auto trans version.

 

Maybe there wasn't a huge market for performance sedans with manual transmissions, but I wonder to this day how many others cars were sold because the Dad of the family checked out that 5 speed SHO.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Ralph Greene

[Noah Harbinger]

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?

 

If that happens I'm giving up and getting the 3.5L Camry next spring....

 

Uuughhh...

[retro-man]

My 1993 5 speed manual SHO, with all the options available at that time, was my favorite all time car.

 

It was large enough to be comfortable, had a 18 cubic Ft trunk my bicycle would fit in, and had good performance.

 

Better yet....it was fun to drive. And the engine was gorgeous!

 

BTW.....and this is important....it was the car that brough me to Ford. It was the lure of a fun to drive 5 speed manual sedan that caused me to visit that show room. I sure didn't stop to see the auto trans version.

 

Maybe there wasn't a huge market for performance sedans with manual transmissions, but I wonder to this day how many others cars were sold because the Dad of the family checked out that 5 speed SHO.

 

I have a friend - married with young children, but a car guy - who has an SHO. I myself test drove a 5-speed manual SVT Contour around 1996 or 7. The thing was wonderful. It drove like a dream, and had a delicious growl from the dual exhausts. My wife indulged the test drive, allowed as how it was very nice - then said "It's just like your stereo." (In other words, "too good for a schlob like you".) I ended up getting a '98 Escort wagon - then, when the midlife crisis hit a few years later, and I decided I wasn't having any more of that crap, the '02 T-Bird. Cars like the SHO and the SVT do have value beyond immediate sales. Back in the day (if I may go there again), if you checked the right boxes, you could get your Galaxie with the 406 (later the 427), and a 4-on-the-floor. You could option your Fairlane all the way up to Thunderbolt, and your Falcon all the way up to 289, 4-speed. Many people didn't get these things, but some did.* There were choices available across the line. Now you get, like, 2 interior colors, "lighting group", "appearance package" (wake me when it's over), and maybe a sound system option or two. Again I say, where's the stuff for the car guys? (Besides the Mustang - thank God we've at least got that!)

 

* The optioned up cars are the ones that became collector cars and classics. From the time they were sold, they increased the "brand equity" (there's a 90s term) for these models. They retained their value, and added value to the entire lineup. One of the acknowledged weaknesses for Detroit is resale value. Well, for most of Detroit's offerings, there is nothing - nothing - to put a luster on the lineup. Who do you see in 10, 20, or 30 years nurturing and taking pride in a restored Five Hundred or Fusion? What of enduring substance is there in those cars? (That's a rhetorical question, to which we all know the answer.)

Edited July 15, 2006 by niteflight

[classicford]

A new V6 Mustang will blow the doors off any of the old Mustangs.

 

 

Oh, not hardly. Big blocks and the massive low end torque that come with them do wonderous things to a car's performance, even if said car only has recirculating ball steering and leaf springs for a rear suspension.

 

A new V6 Mustang can do a standing 1/4 mile in the low 15/high 14 second range. Needless to say a V6 just doesn't have the grunt to go up against the old pushrod V8s that were build with low end power being a priority. It would have a handling advantage, but put a 351 CJ, Boss 302, or a 429 SCJ in a Fox or SN95 late model Mustang, and you will be destroying a lot of tuner guys' egos.

 

 

 

Niteflight--Thank Ford's and others' obsession with bulky OHC engines for the lack of engine bay real estate on today's cars. In all honesty, how much of a mechanical advantage do today's engines have with all the extra weight, electronics, and space engineers need to account for?

[Ralph Greene]

RE speed of old cars....I'm 65 and had them. You guys who think they could keep up with modern Mustangs are living in fantasty land. And I believe poster meant current V6 is about equal to Fox body 5.0 cars, which is about true in stock form.

 

An example....My 2003 Mach 1 (not even supercharged like faster models) with stock 3.55's and stock tires will run the quarter in mid 13's around 105. And when you let off the throttle, the A/C comes back on. It will also get 27-28 on trip...turning only 2000 in 5th overdrive @ 70. Only the very fastest 428 drag pack cars approached that in straight line performance. And with their 4 speed no overdrive trans and 3.90's or so rear gears, you don't cruise very fast in them either.

 

Then the newer supercharged Mustangs, are in another world altogether in performance when fitted with some sticky tires.

 

Also when you put the old 428's and 429's on a dyno, and compare them side to side with modern 4 V modulars, when stock (and I have seen this done many times), the old engines made pathetic power for their displacement, compared to the DOHC modulars. They were what they were considering their times. And I am well aware of the potential of the BOSS 302 when race ready (it was an amazing engine for it's time). I recently rode in a well preserved and maintained BOSS 429. Lets just say, my memory was a lot faster than that car.

 

BTW I'm a fan of the old late 60's cars, and work part time in a shop that restores mostly the Shelby Mustangs. We dyno tune them before we give them back to owner, so I know what they make (HP) on dyno to the wheels.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Ralph Greene

[White99GT]

RE speed of old cars....I'm 65 and had them. You guys who think they could keep up with modern Mustangs are living in fantasty land. And I believe poster meant current V6 is about equal to Fox body 5.0 cars, which is about true in stock form.

 

An example....My 2003 Mach 1 (not even supercharged like faster models) with stock 3.55's and stock tires will run the quarter in mid 13's around 105. And when you let off the throttle, the A/C comes back on. It will also get 27-28 on trip...turning only 2000 in 5th overdrive. Only the very fastest 428 drag pack cars approached that in straight line performance. And with their 4 speed no overdrive trans and 3.90's or so rear gears, you don't cruise very fast in them either.

 

Then the newer supercharged Mustangs, are in another world altogether in performance when fitted with some sticky tires.

 

Also when you put the old 428's and 429's on a dyno, and compare them side to side with modern 4 V modulars, when stock (and I have seen this done many times), the old engines made pathetic power for their displacement, compared to the DOHC modulars. They were what they were considering their times. And I am well aware of the potential of the BOSS 302 when race ready (it was an amazing engine for it's time). I recently rode in a well preserved and maintained BOSS 429. Lets just say, my memory was a lot faster than that car.

 

BTW I'm a fan of the old late 60's cars, and work part time in a shop that restores mostly the Shelby Mustangs. We dyno tune them before we give them back to owner, so I know what they make (HP) on dyno to the wheels.

 

Thank you! Finally, someone who has a clue.

[silvrsvt]

Any reason why the 3.9 V8 AJ was shitcanned? I think that would be a good fit for the MkS..if they could fit in

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Reasons for the demise of the 3.9L AJ...

 

1) Expensive, low volume production.

2) Not engineered for Transverse mounting at present, would require significant investment into the engine and its associated production gear to fix that.

3) Its basically the same as the 1st gen Jaguar 4.0L V8 that has morphed into the 4.2-4.4L dream motor that it is today. Jag doesn't like anyone else using their engine.

4) Power and economy. The 3.9L V8 makes how much HP in its hottest tune? that's right, 280 HP. And, I believe the torque is in the 260-270 range. The infiniti G35 makes those number from a 3.5L V6 in the G35 and no one complains about the smoothness of that motor.

 

If ford wants to put a V8 in the MkS, they need to do one of three things.

1) Find a way of producing more of the Yamaha 4.4L economically.

2) Re-engineer the front for the 4.6L 3V mod

3) Develop a whole engine completely for that vehicle.

 

While I still think that the Lack of a V8 will be a major impediment to the sales of the MkS, there are alternatives...

 

the duratec 35 is designed for DGI, throw that and some other performance parts on the engine and it could give 300 lbs of torque on premium gas. That's enough to make a lot of people forget that it doesn't have a V8. Throw on some forced induction and it just goes on from there. The engine can also accomodate a displacement increase, so, increase the displacement to 3.8L to 4.0L for more bottom end grunt.

 

I'll accept a non-V8 MkS as long as they are getting V8 power numbers (and by that I mean lots of torque, early in the power band, and holding it all the way through) out of it when it goes on sale, but will still say that some people will refuse to buy it because it doesn't have a true v8.

[Edstock]

Somewhat OT, but,

 

I wonder — how wide would a 4.6 3V Haldex AWD chassis have to be? And, is that a problem? Load up the D files in the CAD prog, and widen the sucker. Now, source a 6-speed transmission for the torque, and get the show on the road. with a prototype.

 

Would a low load-height tall FWD van version be a good idea, and if so, could the new CGI diesel be used? Such a vehicle might complement the Econoline BOF RWD truck, or whatever they call it these days.

 

Considering that a key component of luxury is width, especially for big people in cold climates, some extra width might be good, and a key part of the "American" expression of luxury — narrower, go buy an XJ.

 

IMHO, Cadillac has been all over the target with the Deville, or whatever the hell they call their giant sedan, but they have yet to really nail its expression, as most of 'em look like bloated whales.

 

Give it a bigger Zeph-type waterfall chrome front and Godzilla-bright headlights, standard. All lights are LED's, except probably headlights.

 

It could even be exported to Ford's op in Russia, too. Them tovariches got big butts and bigger wallets. They'd love a 5.4 supercharged version, so's it can be armored.