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.

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.

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.

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