Track Tested: Pontiac G8 GT vs 2010 Ford Taurus SHO

[smithb]

Originally Posted by XCR440SP

Lets not forget the equipment on the SHO, I think that will give a better idea of who the target audience is.

Intelegent access with push button start

This sounds like Ford's audience to me.

[Carguy]

The REAL and TRUE RWD MUSCLE SEDAN DIES???---While the FWD based AWD PRETENDER LIVES ON???-----MODERN AUTOMOBILEDOM SUCKS!!!!

[Carguy]

Originally Posted by Brenie

Ford in Oz has consistently produced a better car in the Falcon than those bloody awful Taurus' over the years on a budget that would be miniscule in comparison, if I was a Ford fan in NA (and I'm not) I would be asking why you had to put up with FWD mushboxes like that.

(((AMEN BROTHER!!)))

[dtowndog420]

I don't care about this that and the other about the SHO, for one reason, no matter how well this care performs one thing is for sure is that you wont get that V8 sound and rumble from a twin turbo charged V6. What a shame that Ford has to twin turbo charge this thing just so it could keep and get 1mpg better.

[eurohazard]

Originally Posted by dtowndog420

I don't care about this that and the other about the SHO, for one reason, no matter how well this care performs one thing is for sure is that you wont get that V8 sound and rumble from a twin turbo charged V6. What a shame that Ford has to twin turbo charge this thing just so it could keep and get 1mpg better.

I don't think Ford "had" do twin charge a V6 to keep up with the General's V8. The most recent Car and Driver I have in my house has a little 4.6 V8 Mustang keeping up with the mighty Camaro SS....and got 2 mpg better in real world testing.

For what ever reason....probably the lack of a good RWD sedan chassis, Ford "chose" to go the twin-turbo V6 route.

But I totally agree with you about one thing; nothing sounds as good as a V8!

[ohmywrd8]

I feel like both cars offer something different and are for two totally different people. However, I do feel that the Taurus is extremely over priced at 37k for a base SHO. I think a base price of 32k would would be more realistic but I'm sure there will be incentives on them in the future so I wouldn't even worry about the price tag.

[red_rider]

Originally Posted by eurohazard

I don't think Ford "had" do twin charge a V6 to keep up with the General's V8. The most recent Car and Driver I have in my house has a little 4.6 V8 Mustang keeping up with the mighty Camaro SS....and got 2 mpg better in real world testing.

1. The 4.6 is lugging around 300 lbs less car. If you're talking engine vs. engine, this is a valid point.
2. According to the EPA, who actually has methods for testing cars in the same conditions in order to compare mpg, the LS3 in a Camaro gets the same mpg city and 1 better mpg highway than the 4.6 Mustang. Even if you account for the 6th gear hooked to the LS3, it still matches the 4.6 in equal situations. That's the problem with "real world testing" is when done by someone without strict guidelines, there's going to be more inconsistency, especially if its not being done by the same person for both cars.

[jry]

Originally Posted by TJ95GAGT

Damn shame there isn't a 2010 G8 model.

Side by side, the G8 looks just plain mean and mighty.

What would AWD do to it?

[footney]

This only shows the need for RWD Impala based on the G8 platform.

[Millefune]

Originally Posted by eurohazard

I don't think Ford "had" do twin charge a V6 to keep up with the General's V8. The most recent Car and Driver I have in my house has a little 4.6 V8 Mustang keeping up with the mighty Camaro SS....and got 2 mpg better in real world testing.

For what ever reason....probably the lack of a good RWD sedan chassis, Ford "chose" to go the twin-turbo V6 route.

But I totally agree with you about one thing; nothing sounds as good as a V8!

*LAUGHS.* I know you're a fellow Solano citizen, but come on, bro. I have that issue, and here it goes:

Mustang GT: 13.6 @ 105, 0-140 is 22.3 seconds
Camaro SS: 13.0 @ 111, 0-140 is 34.2 seconds

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you've been to a strip. That means you know that six-tenths of a second and 6 mph is a fat KILL. That's several lengths ahead. And OVER TEN SECONDS behind to 140 is not "keeping up with the mighty Camaro." Best part, the as tested price (they had the track package) of the Camaro SS and Mustang GT they were testing had the Camaro at over $1,000 cheaper.

Please, I know you're more responsible than to spread false information and BS. I'm not as big a fan of GM as I was last year, but I'm not drinking the GM Hater-ade like you've been doing.

[eurohazard]

Originally Posted by Millefune

*LAUGHS.* I know you're a fellow Solano citizen, but come on, bro. I have that issue, and here it goes:

Mustang GT: 13.6 @ 105, 0-140 is 22.3 seconds
Camaro SS: 13.0 @ 111, 0-140 is 34.2 seconds

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you've been to a strip. That means you know that six-tenths of a second and 6 mph is a fat KILL. That's several lengths ahead. And OVER TEN SECONDS behind to 140 is not "keeping up with the mighty Camaro."

Well since we're practical family (I actually live in Vacaville now)....my rebuttal will be polite.

Yes, I've been to a drag strip...just not as much as you. But I drive on real roads every single day. You seemed to missed a few key performance numbers....ones that will more matter than doing 140 mph.

Mustang 0-60: 4.9 seconds
Camaro 0-60: 4.8 seconds

That = "keeping up" in my book. But clearly there's room for debate! Especially if the cars keep the go pedal down after 60 mph.

And since you got RE-looking at the article....it turns out the Mustang GT (with the track pack) actually got 3 mpg better than the Camaro SS, not the 2 mpg I mentioned before. I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken.

Originally Posted by Millefune

Best part, the as tested price (they had the track package) of the Camaro SS and Mustang GT they were testing had the Camaro at over $1,000 cheaper.

Well, now let's be fair...The track pack costs $1,495. Base price for the Mustang GT is $28,845 + (necessary in my book) $1,495 = $30,340. A base Camaro SS (including everything needed to beat the best GT Mustang) starts at $31,040. Mustang is cheaper in most cases I'd say. The as-tested price doesn't really mean as much as you'd think.....except this Mustang was loaded with unnecessary options.....and that conjures up thoughts of a less optioned track pack GT being a tad quicker. But I'll let that one go.

Originally Posted by Millefune

Please, I know you're more responsible than to spread false information and BS. I'm not as big a fan of GM as I was last year, but I'm not drinking the GM Hater-ade like you've been doing.

I am NOT spreading false info dude. We are just focusing on different numbers. 0-60 times are much more relevant in the real world than 0-140 mph. Don't get me wrong, you've made your point.....obviously that extra 111 hp & 95 lb/ft of torque are going to assert themselves at some point.

I know it makes for entertaining reading, but I am not a GM-hater. I mean, seriously. If anything this thread is showing a rare side of me....and that is: praising Ford. But that is not the same as hating GM.

I hope the moderators don't mind the Mustang/Camaro discussion. The whole point of this was to show Ford DOES have a V8, and could use one if they absolutely wanted to (and again if they had a worthy RWD sedan chassis). The Mustang only uses a 4.6L V8. Imagine if they used a tuned 5.4L....or the 6.2L!?!?!? lol

[mikmak]

Ford DO have a 5.4....it's not that hot. 5.0 DI should be on the way though and I look forward to it getting down and serious when it arrives.....in the Falcon.

SHO is a big fat cruiser. THat's fine. G8 is a much more agile, though still porky, cruiser. In standard trim, neither are going to see any significant amount of track time. They both do their jobs well. I think it is good that they don't point their barrels at each other. They both provide differing qualities to attract different customers.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[RedVee8]

Originally Posted by Millefune

*Scratches SHO off his list when he moves to Ford.*

Moves to Ford?
What happened to the G8 GXP Vs Solstice GXP debate?

[dreese_us]

As nice as the new Taurus is, it suffers the same problem that plagues Detroit. The cost is way to much, would probably do better as a Lincoln. Drop the EcoBoost and call it a Twin Turbo V6.

I see the G8 coming back as a Impala SS, GM can't announce this until the G8 inventory is depleted. Why give a reason not to buy a G8, this will help keep demand high for the G8, knowing or thinking there will be no replacement.

[tripowergto]

Why the hell does this new SHO weigh nearly 4400 pounds? AWD drive or not that's insanely heavy. Everything about my G8 GT kicks the SHO's ass!