(oh and I have to correct myself I meant 4.38 for diesel) A lot of people I know are making small sacrifices by driving less, or not taking their boats out keeping the muscle cars garaged all summer instead of enjoying them like they should. I know a friend who’s keeping his GTO mostly garaged this summer.

Surprisingly I was out on Woodward Ave (Where the annual Woodward Dream Cruise is held) a couple weekends back. During the summer it’s really big with the gear heads and they all cruise on Woodward and have car meets at local bars, dealerships, etc. I thought that due to the rise in gas prices we were going to see less people out cruising, but there seemed to be just as many people out there as there have been in the previous years (I just noticed a lot more turbo 4′s than I did V8′s this year) but glad to see that’s not stopping the car enthusiasts.

It’s still way too much though… because of which I haven’t run my Grand Wagoneer pretty much at all in the past month or so… 10-12mpg was fine when gas was 2 bucks a gallon, but anymore I’ll only run the old gal when we have to haul something. It really is a shame… the gas prices are putting a lot of old classics off the road.

2.5L TF I4 – up to 260HP
3.5L TF V6 – generally range from 350-420HP
*5.0L TF V8 – speculated 400HP with increased torque over the 3.5
*6.2L TF V8 – for “Super-Duty” applications, which could make as much as 650lb-ft of torque.

FordTaurusFanboy…. Have you done even the slightest bit of research on this new family of “Twin-Force” engines?? I’m thinking not, because you keep pulling these fantastical numbers seemingly from nowhere but your ass. If you happen to have an actual source for these numbers, I’d love to see them… because after several searches, I’ve yet to find anything which even remotely correlates with your claims.

Unless you’re just cherry-picking numbers and spinning them out of context… You know, like before when you claimed the SHO was *far* more powerful than a W-body… and used the performance specs from a base ’96 3.1L Regal to “prove” your claim, despite failing to even mention the 3.8L version (not to even mention your failure to post figures for the later supercharged 3.8) in your quest to compare “apples to apples?”

Either way… I wouldn’t be surprised if we only ever saw the 4 & 6 cylinder TFs… I’d be wholeheartedly shocked if the V8 variants actually came to fruition… but still – I’d like to see these huge power figures you keep touting!

And once again… you’re pulling these hypothetical numbers for the Twin-Force engines out of your ass… I already posted the numbers for the I4 and V6 TFs engines… as well as the proposed numbers from Ford for the possible TF V8s.. and they don’t come close to your claims of 650-850HP.

The Car was not always received well. I mean, who wants a family car that can hang with Camaros and Mustangs. It seemed a horrid waste, but it was the very essence of a muscle car. That being to take a ho-hum car and really pump it up. Most muscle cars did not do well in reliability until a serious wrench jock gave it a thorough once-over to swap out the cheap parts with higher quality bits.

While the more mature view of a new SHO is colored by notions of much more expensive cars that today’s cash strapped, credit overloaded, masses really can not or do not want to afford in such numbers anymore, I find the discussion a valid one. FORD needs some gusto and excitement to draw buyers.

I would completely opt for a sharper handling car with a hotter but not necessarily insane engine. You don’t want to scare off the the curious “soccer mom”.

My preferred load out would read as:
Engine: “Twin Force” V6 (415shp)
Drive layout: Read biased AWD with some form of active handling similar to ACURA’s SH-AWD. To be used in other FORD and LINCOLN vehicles to divest cost across numerous models. Actually I think the MKZ already something like that.
Transmission: Manual or automated manual or automatic with paddle shifters (must have six speeds).
Brakes: swap them for heavy duty truck brakes. It worked for the 2003 SVT Mustang Cobra. Cost less too.
Body work: tactful and modest aero package. A small spoiler and diffuser. Keep it low key.

As far as reliability issues, I can’t disagree with what happened to others, but I know that mine never had any kind of mechanical problem. And I thought the handling was great. The only things I didn’t like were the torque steer (obviously), and that it used a cable manual, instead of a rod.

It’s too bad that the SHO had to go out on such a bad note: on the worst body style of any Taurus, with a small V8 that was less powerful and more thirsty, and no manual option. Oh, and that skateboard spoiler, too. Sad.

And actually there was a Yamaha V8… the 3.5L V8 used in the later SHOs came from Yamaha… their only real problem was the relatively anemic power output for such an engine….

“This problem can be rectified by having the camshafts welded.”

Like I said if Ford does the next gen Taurus right , I think they can pull it off.

As far as size, well, the Taurus is big. However, there is supposedly also a Fusion sport model (possibly with a manual) in the works for 2010MY.

If Ford brought over the Falcon, I would be in a Ford showroom to look at it. LLN also had pictures of some Falcons testing over here and I’ve seen a couple running around Dearborn. That’d be sweet.