2010 Ford Taurus SHO

During a period of deep recession, when GM and Chrysler were chomping at the bit for government funds and Detroit was looked at as nothing more than an output engine for gas-guzzling cars, Ford was hard at work redesigning their much-loved Taurus and were working on bringing back the legendary high-performance Taurus SHO (Super High Output) for the 2010 model year, but this time, they were doing it with the environment in mind.

There is quite a community of enthusiasts that hold this ‘sleeper’ performance vehicle in high regard, including Tonight Show host Conan O’Brian. There are currently 1,000 active club members and 10,000 registered users of an online forum community that share Mr. O’Brian’s passion. They may be somewhat disappointed however, to learn that instead of a V8 engine, Ford opted for a 3.5L V6 EcoBoost engine for the Taurus SHO revival.

Before jumping to the conclusion that Ford forgot the SHO’s performance roots and opted instead to franchise the name out to a tree-hugger vehicle, bear in mind that the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost is turbocharged; twin-turbocharged.

Click through to read more and to view our high-res image gallery (at the bottom of the article).

2010 Ford Taurus SHO Specifications:

  • Base Price: $37,170.
  • Price as Tested: $41,335.
  • Engine: 3.5L V6 twin-turbocharged EcoBoost – 365-hp/350 lb-ft of torque.
  • Transmission: 6-speed 6F55 SelectShift Automatic Transmission.
  • Curb Weight: 4,361 lbs.
  • 0 to 60 mph: 5.2 seconds.
  • Top Speed: 133 mph
  • Fuel-Economy: 17/25 mpg (city/highway).

Exterior:

The first thing you notice when you see the outside of the 2010 Taurus SHO is that it is enormously large when compared to its competitors. The second thing you notice is that it looks very similar to the standard Taurus; however, that is the very idea behind the car. “Taurus SHO was always a stealth high-performance car,” said Earl Lucas, exterior design manager. “The new SHO builds on the expressive design of the 2010 Taurus, adding subtle cues that set it apart.” With that in mind, the 2010 SHO shares the same tall and bulky profile as the standard Taurus, but with slight modifications.

Some of the slight exterior modifications over the standard Taurus include a deck lid-mounted spoiler, twin chrome exhaust tips, a Ford signature three-bar grille with SHO bezels, standard 19-inch, 5-spoke premium painted wheels, and SHO badging galore.

Though the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO does present a sharper exterior than the standard edition, we expected a lot more, considering the nearly $40,000 price tag. It is reported though, that the 2012 Taurus SHO will have a little more to be desired aesthetically.

Interior:

The 2010 Ford Taurus SHO undoubtedly offers one of the most attractive interiors we have ever seen at egmCarTech with its very driver oriented, cockpit-like styling. Perforated leather-wrapped steering wheel with paddle shifters, and 10-way power adjustable, leather trimmed seats with Miko Suede inserts only add to the overall experience. Standard features on the 2010 Taurus SHO SHO include; Keyless entry, keyless push button start, dual-zone climate control, instrument panels backlit with Ford’s Ice Blue lighting, 6 disc in-dash CD player with SIRIUS satellite radio and 6-month paid subscription, ambient lighting courtesy of Ford’s MyColor feature, and Ford’s MyKey feature which allows drivers to completely customize their driving experience and restrict driving modes available to other drivers. Also standard on the SHO is Ford’s Sync system, with MP3 player and iPod connectivity. The latest version of Sync also gets traffic reports, and and turn-by-turn directions with en route guidance.

The 2010 Ford Taurus SHO is available with two package choices:

The Rapid Spec 401A package runs approximately $2,000 and includes;

  • Power Moonroof.
  • Sony 12-speaker system.
  • Heated and cooled seats.

The Rapid Spec 402A package runs approximately $3,700 and includes everything included in the 401A package plus;

  • Heated second-row seats.
  • Adjustable pedals with memory.
  • Rain-sensing windshield wipers.
  • Rear-view camera.

Also available as optional features are Adaptive Cruise Control and Voice Activated Navigation, which run $1,195 and $1,695 respectively.

Though interior quality definitely trumps past models (by a huge margin), there is still a little to be desired considering the almost $40,000 price-tag. Some controls knobs and upholstery materials felt a bit flimsy for a car in that price bracket. Nonetheless, the space-ship like layout of the Taurus SHO with plastic carbon fiber like aluminum trim makes you forget about the minor nuisances, especially when you put the pedal to the metal.

Overall, the interior is extremely comfortable with the vast rear-leg room and plush, wide seats – fitting 5 adults with ease.

Performance:

Despite the lack of V8 engine, the SHO is far from disappointing when it comes to being a performance sedan. The 3.5L V6 twin-turbocharged EcoBoost engine produces 365-hp at 5,500 rpm and delivers a maximum torque of 350 lb-ft. The extremely responsive engine is always ready to move, regardless of what speed or gear the car is in when one stomps on that accelerator. The 6-speed 6F55 SelectShift Automatic Transmission and all-wheel-drive system take the SHO from 0 to 60 mph in an impressive 5.2 seconds with a top speed that is governed at 133 mph. While many are quick to point out that the 133 mph is 10 mph lower than the 1989 Taurus SHO, we highly doubt you’ll be hitting that speed in your SHO on any major U.S. highway without attracting attention from cops.

The 2010 Ford Taurus SHO is not without flaw however. The steering is lifeless, the braking is subpar and it weighs in at a whopping 4,361 pounds. The brakes are very effective, but fade rather quickly. The curb weight and loose steering contribute to the presence of understeer and causes the car to handle poorly when taking turns at high-speeds. Also, one thing we do wish that the 2010 Taurus SHO did have was launch-control.

As for those wondering how effective the EcoBoost technology is in saving fuel – the EPA estimates that the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO will return a fuel-economy of 17/25 mpg (city/highway), meaning you will experience normally aspirated V8 power without compromising the V6 fuel economy. Throughout our week-long test we averaged a combined fuel-economy of 19 mpg, which is pretty impressive for a car in this segment.

Overall:

The price tag on the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO can be a tad steep, but if you happen to be one of the many SHO enthusiasts out there, the $37,995 price-tag won’t sway you. Ford names the Audi A6, Lexus GS, and Toyota Avalon as its key competitors, though we would probably say that the 2010 Taurus SHO realistically shares a class with the likes of the Dodge Charger RT, which starts at approximately $33,000 and 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP, which starts at $37,610. Even with the $5,000 price premium, we still pick the SHO over the Charger RT. When compared to the 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP – well with Pontiac dead, you don’t really have a choice now do you?

Review: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO:

- By: Omar Rana and Stephen Calogera

All Photos Copyright © 2009 Omar Rana ““ egmCarTech.


Share |  Email  Print |

Tags: , ,





Subscribe & Connect

Connect with us on any of our social profiles below.

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

  • Pat

    $41,335 is WAY to expensive for a Taurus. Nonetheless, the car is very very attractive

  • zermatt

    Omar,

    How is the understeer on the SHO?

    Since the SHO drive train is oriented for front wheel drive I would suspect it would push more than say 911 C4 or AWD cars from traditional RWD makers. Also is there torque steer under hard acceleration out of corners?

    Thanks.
    zermatt

  • Autto

    I got to sit in the SHO for the first time today, and I agree it is HUGE. It's hard to believe that it's only one inch longer than the 500/Taurus. And a couple of inches shorter….About the 19 mpg..How many miles were on the OD of this car?

  • Henry Krinkle

    The 2010 Taurus SHO is mostly front wheel drive. The amount of power that can be distributed to the rear wheels is highly limited when compared to Porsche, Subaru, Audi, VW etc…. From what I understand it behaves primarily like a front wheel drive car.

  • New SHO: Ford's sick joke

    Cut the price in half: that's the proper price point. Also, my 1989 SHO went 142 mph on a rated 220 horsepower and the original Goodyears; although handling and drag strip performance increased significantly after I switched to Kelly Chargers, top speed dropped to 135 mph.

    My best 1/4-mile e.t. and mph when I was learning how to drive the '89 SHO was 14.86 @ 101.0 (at 3600 pounds empty, plus 250 pounds for the driver and I had about 70 pounds of fuel in the tank).

    Handling and cornering were excellent with the Kellys (the Goodyears gave more warning, but lost grip too early); tire life with the Goodyears was terrible (cord/belt material showing in all 4 at 10,000 miles), but excellent with the Kellys (at 34,000 miles on those tires / 44k on the odometer: the “roots” of the rubber “hair” was still visible).

    Best fuel economy average for a tank was 36 mpg (observed twice); normal driving with the cruise set at 75 mph returned 28-32 mpg. At 300 miles, went on a 388-mile round trip made with 5 stops in a total of 4 hours and 5 minutes; averaged more than 28 mpg during that trip.

    Also observed during that trip: sustained 142-mph operation was easy for the SHO, although the cruise control wouldn't set any faster than 125, and 142 mph is nowhere close to the top speed of the Cartech Mustang that passed me.

    Put the EcoBoost 3.5 in the base Taurus, and make the SHO a car of which we can once again be proud. And — really — cut your MSRP on everything by 50 percent.

  • New SHO: Ford's sick joke

    Cut the price in half: that's the proper price point. Also, my 1989 SHO went 142 mph on a rated 220 horsepower and the original Goodyears; although handling and drag strip performance increased significantly after I switched to Kelly Chargers, top speed dropped to 135 mph.

    My best 1/4-mile e.t. and mph when I was learning how to drive the '89 SHO was 14.86 @ 101.0 (at 3600 pounds empty, plus 250 pounds for the driver and I had about 70 pounds of fuel in the tank).

    Handling and cornering were excellent with the Kellys (the Goodyears gave more warning, but lost grip too early); tire life with the Goodyears was terrible (cord/belt material showing in all 4 at 10,000 miles), but excellent with the Kellys (at 34,000 miles on those tires / 44k on the odometer: the “roots” of the rubber “hair” was still visible).

    Best fuel economy average for a tank was 36 mpg (observed twice); normal driving with the cruise set at 75 mph returned 28-32 mpg. At 300 miles, went on a 388-mile round trip made with 5 stops in a total of 4 hours and 5 minutes; averaged more than 28 mpg during that trip.

    Also observed during that trip: sustained 142-mph operation was easy for the SHO, although the cruise control wouldn't set any faster than 125, and 142 mph is nowhere close to the top speed of the Cartech Mustang that passed me.

    Put the EcoBoost 3.5 in the base Taurus, and make the SHO a car of which we can once again be proud. And — really — cut your MSRP on everything by 50 percent.

  • http://www.RupertConsulting.net/ Eveet E. Rupert

    Although thewriters of his artice feel more omfortable listing the SHO's competitors as the Charger and G-8, examining the equipment levels and overall spohisticaton of the base Taurus model lets you know that an Audi/ Lexus/Avalon comparison is spot on, especially as the Taurus line offer its goodess at a discount compaired to the others..

  • Everett E. Rupert

    Ok, everyone remembers the 189 SHO, and how, despite its goodness, was rated as a tin can as far as overall quality was concerned in many circles. The new SHO reminds us all that Ford is capable of turning ot a world class touring sedan that appeals to more than the 17 year old in us. As for price, check out the Audi A6 v8 at over 50 large ones and realie that the SHO will eat its lunch at less than 40 large…

  • wireflight

    That's the chief problem in the automotive industry: excusing underachievement by pointing to a “competitor's offering” that is ridiculously worse, then saying “Well, at least we aren't as bad as ___.” More insidiously, “competitive comparisons” are usually based on the notion of “superiority to” — but it is a distinction without a difference.

    Ford's advertising doesn't help things: it's like, “Hey, we just discovered the wheel, and our engineers are so smart that they've figured out a way to put 4 of them together! We call our invention a car, and ours is the best — so buy one from us! Everybody else's is just a cheap knock-off, anyway.”

    Either (a) Ford consistently underachieves, or (b) Ford doesn't have what it takes to be the best. As for pricing, remember the economy of scale: that a Taurus (even a SHO) is only $10k less than an A6 is shameful.

    I was the original fanboy for Ford; I kept my '68 F-100 (my first vehicle). At one point, my family had a '64.5 Mustang notchback with the 260 and 3-on-the-floor (which I wanted to keep original, but my dad sold it before I was driving). I've got two 1971 Mach-1s, a '66 Custom 500. I traded my '89 SHO for a '93 Crown Vic LX (210-hp), but got rid of that.

    I've been waiting for a Ford worth owning. There were only 2 things wrong with the '89 SHO: (a) exposed welds painted over on the outside of the car (and, arguably a third issue was unpainted metal anywhere not exposed), and (b) Ford's “warranty service and repair.” My 2003 Lincoln Town Car L was destroyed by F-L-M dealer “warranty service and repair.”

    In fact, I have never had a positive experience from Ford's dealer service department: Ford does not produce any vehicle its technicians are competent to either service or repair.

    When Chevy reintroduced the Camaro, the base engine was (and is) a 3.6-liter V6 making 304 hp @ 6400 rpm; 273 lbs-ft @ 5200 rpm using regular unleaded gasoline (87 PON) returning EPA fuel economy figures of 17/29 (city/hwy) and having a 5-yr/100k-mile warranty.

    The Camaro was Chevy's answer to the Mustang, but that was 1966; the 2010 Camaro came out in 2009; the 2011 base Camaro adds 8 hp and 5 lbs-ft of torque to the peaks. The 4.0-liter V6 in the 2010 Mustang first appeared in the 1997 Ford Explorer, but the Mustang didn't get it until 2004.

    Regardless, the base V6 in the Mustang is the same, lazy lump (making 210 hp @ 5300; 240 lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm) it was 13 years ago. Did the 94-hp sacrifice boost the Mustang's fuel economy? No: the Mustang delivers 16/24 EPA city/hwy fuel economy and has a 5-yr/60k-mile warranty. Oh, but the Mustang costs about $2k more (MSRP).

    Ford is answering with its “no excuses” 2011 Mustang that has 3.7-liter V6 making 305 hp @ 6500 rpm; 280 lbs-ft @ 4250 rpm (which is still 7 hp shy of the Camaro, despite having a larger engine). EPA estimates for the 2011 Mustang are 19/31 (city/hwy), but there is no news regarding Ford's “useless at best and harmful at worst” warranty.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4BLPMCO7GWWUG5NLJYYXQDILRE Pandora Pandora uk

    You completed several good points there. I did a search on the subject matter and found a good number of people will go along with with your blogPandora Jewellery

  • Othothoniellvelazquez93

    mamalonn