Track Tested: Pontiac G8 GT vs 2010 Ford Taurus SHO

[page2171]

Originally Posted by 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!

Probably the same reason that the 2010 LaCrosse weighs 4200 pounds and is smaller than the Taurus.

[XCR440SP]

I don't understand why everyone thinks the SHO should be $30,000. Cars have went up in price, deal with it. One of the articles even said something about if adjusted for inflation it was about the same prices as the old SHO (and now its a full sized car, not a mid size).

Detroits problem hasn't been that they've been overpriced. Honda/Toyota vehicles have claimed a substancial price premium over their detroit counterparts for years and no one has complained enough to stop buying them in droves. Now Detroits is going to make competitive vehicles shouldn't they get to charge the same price as Toyota?

Avalon Limited starts at $35,339. My first Taurus Limited will be $34,580 (fwd 301A pkg with Moonroof and remote start). I feel the Taurus will be a bargain in comparison due to all the features the Taurus offers.

Now to add AWD to the limited would add $1850, to get push button start with intelligent access you need the 302A pkg wich adds $1000 more. A Limited with 302A and power moonroof has a MSRP of $36,740. An SHO with 402A (moonroof included) has a MSRP of $40,995 making the SHO a $4,255 more than the equivalent Limited. SHO has the GTDI V6 with about 100 more Horsepower, 19" wheels (std, 20" optional, but Limited has 18"), Sport tuned suspension, HID headlamps, rear spoiler, and of course all your minor appearance itmes (steering wheel, floor mats, emblems, etc), better seats. Is all this worth $4,255, to me it is, to others it won't be, but I don't think the price is out of line, rather it follows (suprisingly) a nice step up from the model below.

[cdp326]

Originally Posted by CorsaTurboC

The 1995 SHO manual was what I call the ultimate SHO: Let's compare:
High Tech V6? CHECK
lux features for the era? CHECK
mid-large 4 door sedan utility? CHECK
Manual transmission? FAIL
responsive, light chassis? FAIL
Affordable? FAIL
IMHO, the Taurus SHO recipe was lost in 1996.

I'd have to agree. I was very enamored with old SHOs when I got my Maxima and seriously considered them, but I decided to get something a bit newer than what was the majority of SHOs to be found. I'd still like to have one some day, it's on my list of cars to own.

Originally Posted by XCR440SP

I don't understand why everyone thinks the SHO should be $30,000. Cars have went up in price, deal with it. One of the articles even said something about if adjusted for inflation it was about the same prices as the old SHO (and now its a full sized car, not a mid size).

Detroits problem hasn't been that they've been overpriced. Honda/Toyota vehicles have claimed a substancial price premium over their detroit counterparts for years and no one has complained enough to stop buying them in droves. Now Detroits is going to make competitive vehicles shouldn't they get to charge the same price as Toyota?

I think a lot of cars have gone up in price too much. Many 2009 model GM cars really went up in price. I think the Ford Flex is expensive - it starts at more than a Taurus X went for which itself was a premium over the Freestyle. You could get a basic Taurus X SEL AWD with cloth; a Flex AWD is an SEL with leather for well over $30k.

I don't think anyone is really complaining about the regular Taurus price. It's the SHO which is on the expensive side. I don't think the non-SHO new Taurus sedan is really overpriced by any means and as you said the Limited is pretty appropriately priced. I also don't think the SHO should be $30k. But the SHO is on the expensive side even if you get a lot with that. IIRC GM was concerned when they introduced the Malibu and Impala SS models, about the price premium they'd bring over the other top line models. It ended up being that, equipment-wise, the SS models picked up more over the uplevel LT packages rather than the otherwise top-level LTZ models. It kept the price premium of the SS over the other top trims down some.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Baz

Quote from the link.

"I'm a Ford guy, but if I were buying, I get the G8 GXP in a heartbeat."

GM needs to be listening

To be fair this is the one example where GM is listening, listening to the folks who are talking by opening their wallet and buying a car. The problem? Not enough folks are doing that. Talk is cheap, especially on the net. And enthusiast forum goodwill does not equal market success.

[Ygoslow]

Originally Posted by syr74

To be fair this is the one example where GM is listening, listening to the folks who are talking by opening their wallet and buying a car. The problem? Not enough folks are doing that. Talk is cheap, especially on the net. And enthusiast forum goodwill does not equal market success.

You are absolutely correct. But several of us (me included) did open our wallets and now enjoy a great vehicle. G8 GXP.

[Ygoslow]

Originally Posted by eurohazard

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

The Mustang only uses a 4.6L V8. Imagine if they used a tuned 5.4L....or the 6.2L!?!?!? lol

Okay, everybody who has read that article knows that it had about as big of a Pro-Mustang bias as there is. EVERY other mag that has tested the Camaro SS has ran 4.5 and 4.6, and EVERY other mag that has tested the Mustang has ran 5.1 and 5.2's. But in this review, the Mustang magically drops 2 or 3 tenths while the Camaro gains 2 or 3. You have to admire the 6.2 for getting reasonable gas mileage while pulling around a 300 lb heavier car, one that stops in the same distance from 70mph as the 300 lb lighter Mustang. Now that is a feat. All though the Camaro has a 6.2 motor, it also makes due with a 3.45 axle vs the Mustangs 3.70. Whats hard to believe is how the Dodge, with the notoriously thirsty Hemi gets similar mileage with a 3.91 axle.
So C/D had a $30k Muscle Car comparo and didn't pick the fastest car. They even give the top "Gotta Have it Factor" points to the oldest car, only sporting a very minor refresh of a 5 year old design. Amazing. But nobody should be surprised, this is the same mag that picks a BMW 99% of the time it's cars are in a comparo, and a Honda 95% of the time it does an economy car comparo. (Statistics compiled out of thin air, but probably pretty close to record).

[djo165]

Originally Posted by Ygoslow

You are absolutely correct. But several of us (me included) did open our wallets and now enjoy a great vehicle. G8 GXP.

Same here. I'm into my third week of owning a new G8 GT. Would've liked to had a manual tranny, but couldn't rationalize the GXP's higher price and poorer fuel economy.

[eurohazard]

Originally Posted by Ygoslow

Okay, everybody who has read that article knows that it had about as big of a Pro-Mustang bias as there is. EVERY other mag that has tested the Camaro SS has ran 4.5 and 4.6, and EVERY other mag that has tested the Mustang has ran 5.1 and 5.2's. But in this review, the Mustang magically drops 2 or 3 tenths while the Camaro gains 2 or 3. You have to admire the 6.2 for getting reasonable gas mileage while pulling around a 300 lb heavier car, one that stops in the same distance from 70mph as the 300 lb lighter Mustang. Now that is a feat. All though the Camaro has a 6.2 motor, it also makes due with a 3.45 axle vs the Mustangs 3.70. Whats hard to believe is how the Dodge, with the notoriously thirsty Hemi gets similar mileage with a 3.91 axle.

Wrong, Motor Trend also got a 4.9 sec 0-60 time w/ a Mustang GT track pack. proof

As far as the Camaro SS goes: It seems GM's own numbers are 4.9 sec 0-60 for the manual (so Car and Driver beat the factory estimate by 1/10th...and you're complaining). But the AUTOMATIC is 4.6 sec 0-60 mph. lol GM later changed the official AT number to 4.7 sec 0-60. Oh, I know a sh!tload of Camaros will be ATs, but those don't count. haha

Camaro SS: Motor Trend got 4.7 sec 0-60. here
Camaro SS: Popular mechanics got 4.9 sec 0-60. here
Camaro SS: Automobile got 4.8 sec 0-60 (manual) & 4.9 sec 0-60 (AT). here

Originally Posted by Ygoslow

So C/D had a $30k Muscle Car comparo and didn't pick the fastest car. They even give the top "Gotta Have it Factor" points to the oldest car, only sporting a very minor refresh of a 5 year old design.

Then don't count the "Gotta Have it Factor" in your personal tally. It's real easy.

Originally Posted by Ygoslow

Amazing. But nobody should be surprised, this is the same mag that picks a BMW 99% of the time it's cars are in a comparo, and a Honda 95% of the time it does an economy car comparo. (Statistics compiled out of thin air, but probably pretty close to record).

So how is this relevant at all? You're saying that Car and Driver has a real hard-on for Ford. But BMW as well....oh yeah, and Hondas too!?!?! And no, your out-of-thin-air numbers aren't even close. BMW had 2 vehicles in 2 different comparisons in July's C&D. Neither one of them won. Honda had one car in a comparo...and it did win....but the competition was the Prius and a 11 year old Geo metro. The Honda Civic was not well liked by C&D, and that's an economy car.

[AMERICA 123]

See, this is the kind of problem you create when you, the new CEO, get the bright idea to resurrect the Taurus nameplate - and then you and your new anxious to please staff then throw it .... quick and cheap on your 'nameplate' problem child that just happens to be standing close by -

( We're just going to ignore the reality that subsequent sales of the new and improved - and renamed Taurus proved that blaming the 500 / Montego model names was classic CYA. )

Because of course this means you then mess up the SHO designation down the road since you previously put that Taurus nameplate out there on what is essentially your LTD / CV / Grand Marquis replacement platform.

I guess they forgot about the 'ole CPM / PERT decision making tools while winging over to Toyota City - which is more than a little ironic x 3 - doesn't anybody remember McNamara and the Whizz Kids - at Ford ????

Obviously the Fusion platform size 'area' was / is the more appropriate one for the Taurus but it wasn't having a name problem...... so really no perfect solution available ...... unless you really did a fresh Taurus - which has and creates its own set of problems.

You can perhaps effectively half ass it with a big car and the Taurus name but nope, not with the Taurus SHO.

Ford can say what they want as well as the press but this just is not the same kind of car as the G8 GT - or the G8 GXP.

This whole thing is compromise on top of compromise - should'a just split it another way and made a Fusion SHO - as a place holder if nothing else to buy time until you could really do both the Taurus and SHO names real justice.

******

The reality is this Taurus SHO is really a very solid Mercury Marauder 'type' and if you can see it that way while covering your eyes as far as both parts of the name goes it then it is more than ok - in fact, its pretty good - to (damn good / price independent. )

It seems to be a modern interpretation of that uniquely defined American version of a big, 'fast', well equipped and comfortable 'standard' or 'full' sizer that you think handles pretty well...... until you try to keep up with a smartly driven, first gen SHO in a hurry on the right kind if road.

The price definitely needs big work as others have pointed out and quite frankly this has been one of the things that's been killing every single low production special at F / LM for the last 10 to 15 years or so.


The way to fix that is to internally tax every single regular production piece for the 'specialty' fund - eventually your product planning / product pricing people will get the message.

[Col Klink]

Originally Posted by 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!

Well the Audi A6 weighs in at 4211 (V8) A8 4409 (aluminum construction from what I recall) - so no-one can really believe AWD will reduce weight thats for sure. Looked up some old Holdens (2206) VZ Adventra (AWD) 1910KG (1940 for V8) v standard 2WD wagon 1640.

While I am obviously biased (I need a Clubsport in the garage) the Ford (from the limited pics I've seen) seems to be quite nice, sadly like a few Fords latley - Focus, Fiesta come on GM you can do better!

A few posts back someone had a pic of a wee silver convertible - and the Ampera have nice "faces" well worth bringing to a few GM markets.

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by eurohazard

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.

Ford gave the Mustang steep gearing to allow for a better 0-60. In the real world most people aren't busting off 0-60 runs like they're on a drag strip. Without starting from a dead stop, the Mustang is toast. The Camaro is simply much faster - drop the hammer at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50mph while turning onto an on ramp or something and the Camaro will feel like a car that traps 111mph and the Mustang GT will feel closer to a LT1 Camaro.

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.

Not quite. In order to get the track pack, you must get the Mustang GT Premium. Add in destination and the track pack and you're looking at a base price close to $35,000. Also, you can't get the track pack with an auto transmission or certain options.

If performance is your bag, buy the base Camaro SS for $31k and throw in a cam/headers/exhaust/shocks/springs and you have a car that will crack the whip on $50k GT500s for the price of a Mustang GT equipped with the tack pack.

[nota]

Originally Posted by Col Klink

Well the Audi A6 weighs in at 4211 (V8) A8 4409 (aluminum construction from what I recall) - so no-one can really believe AWD will reduce weight thats for sure. Looked up some old Holdens (2206) VZ Adventra (AWD) 1910KG (1940 for V8) v standard 2WD wagon 1640.

Adventra AWD was much better equipped than a standard VZ 2WD wagon. Perhaps a clearer 'apples to apples' comparison would be Ford Territory SUV, which uses a similar AWD system to Adventra.

Territory TX AWD weighs 75 kg above the TX 2WD variant (2005 vs 2075 kg).

[eurohazard]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

Ford gave the Mustang steep gearing to allow for a better 0-60. In the real world most people aren't busting off 0-60 runs like they're on a drag strip. Without starting from a dead stop, the Mustang is toast. The Camaro is simply much faster - drop the hammer at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50mph while turning onto an on ramp or something and the Camaro will feel like a car that traps 111mph and the Mustang GT will feel closer to a LT1 Camaro.

I understand about the Mustangs gearing. I think I addressed it here...if not, then in another thread. I agree most people don't floor their car all the time to go 0-60. However it is a much more meaningful benchmark than 0-150.....because 98% of American don't have a safe place to drive a car 150 mph.

I also agree the Camaro is faster (I've never said any different)....but it's not as "easy" as you make it sound IMHO. In the real world, you need to make sure you're in the right gear too. I purposely left out the top-gear acceleration runs from 50-70 mph.....the Mustang easily came out on top. So, most skilled Camaro SS drivers will know to downshift.....but a noob or inattentive person might make a mistake in assuming the little-engined Mustang GT is no contest.

[Col Klink]

Originally Posted by nota

Adventra AWD was much better equipped than a standard VZ 2WD wagon. Perhaps a clearer 'apples to apples' comparison would be Ford Territory SUV, which uses a similar AWD system to Adventra.

Territory TX AWD weighs 75 kg above the TX 2WD variant (2005 vs 2075 kg).

How about a GM comparison then - GTO LE 1677KG & Coupe 4 1802KG close but still an extra 125KG (roughly 275lbs) of extra (in this case useless weight)- with modern stability & traction control in most situations there is just no need for AWD.
Sometimes I can't help but feel Audi for example has dug itself so deep into AWD they can't stand the though of doing a RWD performance version of the S5/ RS4 - these days every pound counts and AWD seems to hurt steering as well (although my old VR4 had reasonable feel & good weight to the steering) - now I'm just rambling...

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by Col Klink

How about a GM comparison then - GTO LE 1677KG & Coupe 4 1802KG close but still an extra 125KG (roughly 275lbs) of extra (in this case useless weight)- with modern stability & traction control in most situations there is just no need for AWD.
Sometimes I can't help but feel Audi for example has dug itself so deep into AWD they can't stand the though of doing a RWD performance version of the S5/ RS4 - these days every pound counts and AWD seems to hurt steering as well (although my old VR4 had reasonable feel & good weight to the steering) - now I'm just rambling...

The LE also isn't a perfect comparison, as all Coupe4s are autos and it was the highest-rated one at the time with a bigger cooler; whereas the quoted specs on the GTO LE are for a manual which is maybe 50kg lighter. Plus while the GTO was based on the Monaro trim spec, the Coupe4 had some extra goodies. I'm pretty sure the wheel/tyre package alone was different.

Audi's problem is the shared FWD platforms with VW. Like the Taurus, they have the essential problem of giving some semblance of controllability to big HP in FWD form. That means lots of electronic nannies and resorting to things like a 'Super Wagon' to be fastest (BMW doesn't make an M5 Estate) to prove at a price you can commute the laws of physics. Their sedans are close, but way heavier and complex to achieve the same things BMW and Mercedes seeminly do much more easily with RWD. I'd hate to try getting the V8 motor out of one of those Audis.......

So like Topgear, who tested teh Audi against a HSV wagon, most people find it completely uninvolving to drive even though capable of awesome pace, and question who is really in control. They preferred the HSV, even though it was about a second slower over the quarter and around their track. You could also hang the back out at will.
I see the SHO as like an insurance salesman with a gut, his tie loosened, a backwards baseball cap and skull t-shirt trying to be tough. Menacing only to old ladies and little kids.

You know it's going to have it's ass kicked by the G8 GT, which is like a former kickboxer at his dayjob, wearing casual slacks and open-necked shirt. If it's lucky it might escape on it's skateboard in bad weather.....

The GXP by comparison, is like a serving Marine in civvies.....