Jump to content

New AACA (unofficial) staff car


West Peterson

Recommended Posts

#1. Taurus SHO wheel covers were "warm" silver, not body color (however this is a correct color for a 1992-1995 SHO, Hunter Green).

#2. The rear view mirrors on the SHO were not body color either (as they were on the standard Taurus), they were black.

#3. This car appears to be missing the SHO rear spoiler and diffuser.

#4 The "<span style="font-style: italic">24V DOHC</span>" badges are correct for the SHO, however the placement appears to be a little too low on the fender.

#5. A Hunter Green SHO should have a tan interior. This car appears to have black seats.

Oh Yeah, #6. <span style="font-weight: bold">There were no Taurus SHO wagons made in the entire run of the car</span>, except for one specially built one-off by Ford for <span style="font-style: italic">Car & Driver</span> magazine. It was white.

Not really in keeping with AACA principles, is it? smirk.gif

grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave pretty much knows more about this than I do. Ford didn't build any of these, but there are a few that have been built by their owners. It is complete with the SHO engine and five-speed manual gearbox. Now that's "zoom-zoom-zoom."

I don't care for the monotone wheels. Must get that changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This must be the poster car for the Chrome Industy. (Demonstrates the need for CHROME) Looks kind of like

the fad in cheap rods where they paint over all the

chrome and think it's "slick". I bet it has a boom can

on the end of the tail pipe.

Best thing I can say for it that it got a young person (West)

interested in our hobby, but is a 1992 really an antique

car now?

Remember Chrome & Wide Whitewalls do wonders for any vehicle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

This is what got me interested in the hobby. My dad bought this in 1956 for $300, drove it around Europe (even pulled a brand-new Morgan around that had broken down), then shipped it to Philadelphia and proceeded to drive it to Minneapolis. Not a bad car for $300... oh, yeah, shipping was about $150, so that took a little bit of the smell off the rose.

Little too much chrome, though, don't you think?

post-33613-143137999364_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the vintage '92 Taurus station wagon club, West! We still have ours--stock specs, though (not all hot-rodded-up like yours). Quite a comfortable and stylish car, in my opinion.

From one our wintertime Florida trips, February 2006:

27Feb06PSLTwisteeTreatPoseAEnh.JPG

Besides, wagons are "in" these days--just look at the Sept. '08 HMN Classic Car (ahem, especially the Pinto Squire on page 20)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention...

To further the discussion as to what got me involved in the hobby, this car is the basis for my e-mail address, StelvioGT @ yahoo

Ettore Bugatti used the 60-hairpin turn pass, Stelvio (the second highest in the Alps), to test drive his cars. He so named the Bugatti cabriolet body style on the Type 57 chassis, Stelvio. This one is a 1934 model (early), which has the fold-down windshield.

post-33613-143137999366_thumb.jpg

post-33613-143137999367_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh how I lusted after a SHO wagon after seeing that one in C&D. My friend had an SHO whose body rotted away in the winter salt but with a strong driveline. I seriously considered doing such a swap. That fantasy is probably why I now drive Der Übervagon.

Put some stock 16" SHO fanblade wheels on and have fun. The drivetrain should be bulletproof, they're surprisingly fast and refined, and no police officer will ever believe that the green suburbanite family truckster was actually the car his radar saw going 120 MPH. The stereo equipment should allow you to recoup a good deal of the purchase price.

If you don't want it, let me know where it is so I can buy it for myself. laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West,

Now that's an automobile!! What would your Dad say if he saw you in a station Wagon (without 3 Kids). I've seen you in a Packard and read all you articles about real cars them hear you lusting after a SCHO. Kind of like the accomplished horseman who chose to ride a donkey. It's still transportation

but not very classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a Sable wagon (green) several years ago before moving to an SUV. Actually a pretty decent vehicle. Very handy and better MPGs. Where you are West you don't need a SUV - go with the wagon. Decent ride and should fill that need for a lot less purchase and gas expense.

But more important what's up with the Packard lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

The Taurus SHO was one of the highest-rated cars of the early '90s. I drove them when they were new, and found them extremely fun to drive. You are obviously from the camp that can't stand their looks. It's one of those type of cars that you either like or don't. The second generation was a lot better looking than the first (the third generation was a flop in almost everyone's opinion).

My father knows I have two kids (at least I think he does), plus a dog that often rides inside a kennel, so I think that easily adds up to "three".

Also, I have a pop-up camper that I need to tow. I think I could easily hook up a trailer hitch to the Packard, but I think my dad would frown more about that then the Taurus.

I'm not "lusting" for the SHO. It's a neat car that will be a lot of fun to drive. I save my lusting for women, Packards and Bugattis, in that order. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, with kids and dogs I have to admit the Taurus SW

is utilitarian. In fact I owned a 91 Sable SW for about

a month a few years ago and sold it to a painter who used it as a truck for painting supplies.

It's just hard to adjust to thinking of a 1991 anything as collectable. Time changes perspectives, but more slowly as we age.

Enjoy your SHO and in 10 years it will be elibible to go on

some of the AACA Tours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

I think you're finally figuring out why I purchased this. You initially thought I bought it as a "collectible." My Saturn has 258,600 miles on it and is extremely uncomfortable to drive more than 50 miles at a time. Unfortunately, it runs so well that I don't think that I could ever justifiably replace it, except that my back cannot put up with it anymore.

I don't mind driving "nothing" cars for utilitarian purposes as long as the a/c and radio work. In fact, I prefer it. I can't justify paying extra money just so that my ride "looks" better.

Bob

I think you are right about the current value of the "crap" in the back. As far as an AM radio being all I need: that may be all YOU need, but I need FM and either a CD or tape player as well. You're the one locked into Pre-WWI, not me. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: West Peterson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about some nickname ideas. ???

It'ssssss.... SHO-time! </div></div>

SHO-fer driven by West P.

We sold our '94 Taurus wagon last November. We sure are going to miss having it at Hershey this year. We love our PT but it does not have as much space for hauling parts if our friend Rodger Woodrum is riding in the back seat. Guess we will have to buy the big stuff before he shows up. grin.gif

post-36313-143138000176_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: stock_steve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">West, I think you were looking for this info--I finally got around to pulling the owner's manual out of our '92, and here's what it says:

Vehicle ----- Loaded Trailer max weight

3.0L SHO ----- 1,000 lbs.

3.0L ----- 2,000 lbs.

3.8L ----- 2,000 lbs.

Have fun! </div></div>

Dave Moon has pretty much convinced me that while it would be better for towing than a sedan, having the 3.0 engine from the SHO, with lower torque rating, would pretty much nullify using this to tow the pop-up, even though my pop-up only weights about 1,500 pounds. Unless I want to be replacing clutches all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with towing with an SHO engine is that it was tuned for horespower at high rpms. It's torque rating is respectable @ 200 or 210 ft-lbs. (depending on year), but it doesn't reach peak torque until almost 5 grand ( SHO specs ). Normal Taurus motors reach peak torque in a typical 2000-2200 rpm range. Trying to gain/keep up momentum with the SHO would require shifting and slipping the clutch at rpms that would not be conducive to a long life.

SHOs are a ball to drive, but hauling weight is not their forte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider 1500 much weight, Dave. The wind resistance of a pull-behind trailer is the downfall of most power trains, as long as you're not talking about serious weight.

Concerning the shifting, if the SHO is an overdrive, go down a gear. That's what I do with my pickup, kick back to direct!

Again, just a personal opinion. smile.gif

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...