2010 Taurus SHO

"GILL" > wrote in message
...
> NicholaD wrote:
>>
>> "habitoid" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>
>>>> Dick
>>>
>>>
>>> test drive time.
>>>
>>>
>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more
>>> reliable
>>
>> Not sure but food for thought. S/C takes hp to make hp. Also maybe it
>> interferes with the new fuel direct injection.
> With a name like "EcoBoost" you gotta figure that has something to do with
> it. Even the import crowd knows how to squeeze all they can from such puny
> dimensions. Free boost combined with a reliable passive device such as an
> intercooler mounted forward should attract plenty of young hotrodders.

but the weight, 4000 lbs........

most SC take little HP you can turn them freely with your hand
Cant intefere with direct injection, same boost.
Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the
intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost

On May 5, 3:16 pm, "habitoid" > wrote:
> "GILL" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > NicholaD wrote:
>
> >> "habitoid" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
> >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
> >>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>
> >>>> Dick
>
> >>> test drive time.
>
> >>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more
> >>> reliable
>
> >> Not sure but food for thought. S/C takes hp to make hp. Also maybe it
> >> interferes with the new fuel direct injection.
> > With a name like "EcoBoost" you gotta figure that has something to do with
> > it. Even the import crowd knows how to squeeze all they can from such puny
> > dimensions. Free boost combined with a reliable passive device such as an
> > intercooler mounted forward should attract plenty of young hotrodders.
>
> but the weight, 4000 lbs........
>
> most SC take little HP you can turn them freely with your hand
> Cant intefere with direct injection, same boost.
> Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the
> intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost

Actually... the number tossed around for the Vortech that I had on my
4.0L was round 40HP to get 10PSI... You have to remember that an SC
will spin freely since there is no resistance due to building up air
pressure in the intake....

"John S." > wrote in message
...
> On May 5, 3:16 pm, "habitoid" > wrote:
>> "GILL" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > NicholaD wrote:
>>
>> >> "habitoid" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>> >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>> >>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>
>> >>>> Dick
>>
>> >>> test drive time.
>>
>> >>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more
>> >>> reliable
>>
>> >> Not sure but food for thought. S/C takes hp to make hp. Also maybe it
>> >> interferes with the new fuel direct injection.
>> > With a name like "EcoBoost" you gotta figure that has something to do
>> > with
>> > it. Even the import crowd knows how to squeeze all they can from such
>> > puny
>> > dimensions. Free boost combined with a reliable passive device such as
>> > an
>> > intercooler mounted forward should attract plenty of young hotrodders.
>>
>> but the weight, 4000 lbs........
>>
>> most SC take little HP you can turn them freely with your hand
>> Cant intefere with direct injection, same boost.
>> Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the
>> intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost
>
> Actually... the number tossed around for the Vortech that I had on my
> 4.0L was round 40HP to get 10PSI... You have to remember that an SC
> will spin freely since there is no resistance due to building up air
> pressure in the intake....

true, this gets back to efficiency of the compressor,
I think the KeeneBell takes about 12 HP for 8# (about 75 - 80% efficient)
Roots are about 50% efficient
forgot what the Vortechs are (60%?),
the less efficient add more heat to the air.
got some books on it somewhere around here

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> John S. wrote:
>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>> John S. wrote:
>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any
>>>> lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any
>>>> noticeable lag.
>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low levels
>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO, is
>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and therefore
>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do
>>> deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it.
>>>
>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will make
>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the way
>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is
>>> no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings
>>> etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the
>>> intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine
>>> so they are very reliable.
>>
>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much more
>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply wasn't
>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some
>> one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check
>> it out!
>
> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood
> fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of
> complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side
> of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a
> supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort into
> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
> family sedan.

A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive
side as well.

Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to
left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg

habitoid wrote:
> "GILL" > wrote in message
> ...
>> NicholaD wrote:
>>> "habitoid" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>
>>>> test drive time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more
>>>> reliable
>>> Not sure but food for thought. S/C takes hp to make hp. Also maybe it
>>> interferes with the new fuel direct injection.
>> With a name like "EcoBoost" you gotta figure that has something to do with
>> it. Even the import crowd knows how to squeeze all they can from such puny
>> dimensions. Free boost combined with a reliable passive device such as an
>> intercooler mounted forward should attract plenty of young hotrodders.
>
> but the weight, 4000 lbs........
>
> most SC take little HP you can turn them freely with your hand
> Cant intefere with direct injection, same boost.
> Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the
> intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost
>
>
I can't imagine that you can spin them with your hand to make any boost
at all. It takes about 50 hp to make 10# of boost with a centrifugal sc.
And I don't think that heat soak is as bad as it was back in the 80s.
Better bearings and oiling.

On 2009-05-05, Joe > wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> John S. wrote:
>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any
>>>>> lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any
>>>>> noticeable lag.
>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low levels
>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO, is
>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and therefore
>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do
>>>> deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it.
>>>>
>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will make
>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the way
>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is
>>>> no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings
>>>> etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the
>>>> intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine
>>>> so they are very reliable.
>>>
>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much more
>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply wasn't
>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some
>>> one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check
>>> it out!
>>
>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood
>> fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of
>> complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side
>> of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a
>> supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort into
>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
>> family sedan.
>
> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive
> side as well.
>
> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to
> left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg

I've been arguing for that for the last dozen years.

The EPA, USDOT, and UAW all make things difficult to mix the regional
product lines. It's not like a car from Austrailia or Europe is
going to be unsafe... 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other at worst. Then
there is the idiotcy of US corporations regional marketing that demands
they don't mix.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> John S. wrote:
>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any
>>>>> lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any
>>>>> noticeable lag.
>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low levels
>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO, is
>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and therefore
>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do
>>>> deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it.
>>>>
>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will make
>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the way
>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is
>>>> no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings
>>>> etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the
>>>> intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine
>>>> so they are very reliable.
>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much more
>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply wasn't
>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some
>>> one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check
>>> it out!
>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood
>> fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of
>> complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side
>> of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a
>> supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort into
>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
>> family sedan.
>
> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive
> side as well.
>
> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to
> left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg

It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then maybe it
is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with one
car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to be
an industry wide phenomenon. At least Ford seems to be moving in the
right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate back
shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.

Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1
@news.motzarella.org:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> John S. wrote:
>>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any
>>>>>> lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any
>>>>>> noticeable lag.
>>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low
levels
>>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO,
is
>>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and
therefore
>>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do
>>>>> deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will
make
>>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the
way
>>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is
>>>>> no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings
>>>>> etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the
>>>>> intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine
>>>>> so they are very reliable.
>>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much
more
>>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply
wasn't
>>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some
>>>> one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to
check
>>>> it out!
>>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood
>>> fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of
>>> complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side
>>> of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a
>>> supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort
into
>>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
>>> family sedan.
>>
>> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive
>> side as well.
>>
>> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to
>> left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
>> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg
>
> It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then maybe
it
> is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with
one
> car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to
be
> an industry wide phenomenon.

The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would sell
better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really think
the Taurus platform is superior?

> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate
back
> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.

True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the SUVs
and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new towards the
end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford lineup that
moves me.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1
> @news.motzarella.org:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any
>>>>>>> lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any
>>>>>>> noticeable lag.
>>>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low
> levels
>>>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO,
> is
>>>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and
> therefore
>>>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do
>>>>>> deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will
> make
>>>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the
> way
>>>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is
>>>>>> no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings
>>>>>> etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the
>>>>>> intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine
>>>>>> so they are very reliable.
>>>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much
> more
>>>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply
> wasn't
>>>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some
>>>>> one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to
> check
>>>>> it out!
>>>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood
>>>> fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of
>>>> complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side
>>>> of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a
>>>> supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort
> into
>>>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
>>>> family sedan.
>>> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive
>>> side as well.
>>>
>>> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to
>>> left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg
>> It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then maybe
> it
>> is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with
> one
>> car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to
> be
>> an industry wide phenomenon.
>
> The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would sell
> better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really think
> the Taurus platform is superior?

I think back to the last time an auto company tried the transplant route
and it didn't work so well. That was with the GTO. While it looked
great on paper it never lit a fire over here in the USA. Maybe the
Falcon would meet the same fate. The trouble is ford can't afford to
get the Taurus wrong again. I think there is a lot riding on this car
for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire company. I can see
why they may not want to put that much faith in an Aussie chassis.

>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate
> back
>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>
> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the SUVs
> and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new towards the
> end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford lineup that
> moves me.

If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with the
Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat upscale
model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a V-8,
RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny thing is the
Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL these traits. I
consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's BIG marketing
blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a great car. It
got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and had decent
performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We had 180k miles
on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again, the Thunder SC was
a capable car for its day too. It had a supercharged V-6, adjustable
airbag suspension, adjustable shocks, big brakes etc. Ford just let the
Thunderbird die and along with it one of its longest running, iconic
models. Letting it go was akin to killing off the Mustang, IMO.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1
>> @news.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have
>>>>>>>> any lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be
>>>>>>>> any noticeable lag.
>>>>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low
>> levels
>>>>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO,
>> is
>>>>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and
>> therefore
>>>>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos
>>>>>>> do deliver the power though and they take very little power
>>>>>>> doing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will
>> make
>>>>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the
>> way
>>>>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There
>>>>>>> is no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for
>>>>>>> bearings etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of
>>>>>>> the intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the
>>>>>>> engine so they are very reliable.
>>>>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>>>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much
>> more
>>>>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply
>> wasn't
>>>>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know
>>>>>> some one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have
>>>>>> to
>> check
>>>>>> it out!
>>>>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a
>>>>> hood fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a
>>>>> lot of complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost.
>>>>> The up side of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make
>>>>> boost where a supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a
>>>>> good effort
>> into
>>>>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
>>>>> family sedan.
>>>> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the
>>>> expensive side as well.
>>>>
>>>> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it
>>>> to left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg
>>> It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then
>>> maybe
>> it
>>> is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with
>> one
>>> car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems
>>> to
>> be
>>> an industry wide phenomenon.
>>
>> The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would sell
>> better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really
>> think the Taurus platform is superior?
>
> I think back to the last time an auto company tried the transplant
> route and it didn't work so well. That was with the GTO. While it
> looked great on paper it never lit a fire over here in the USA. Maybe
> the Falcon would meet the same fate. The trouble is ford can't afford
> to get the Taurus wrong again. I think there is a lot riding on this
> car for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire company. I can
> see why they may not want to put that much faith in an Aussie chassis.

All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now seems
to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines this IMO.
Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the new Taurus
and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda already has
on the road.

Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution; I'm
only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more
appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.


>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate
>> back
>>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>>
>> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the
>> SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new
>> towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford
>> lineup that moves me.
>
> If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with the
> Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat upscale
> model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a V-8,
> RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny thing is
> the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL these
> traits.

What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG
factor.


> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's
> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a
> great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and
> had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We had
> 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again, the
> Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a supercharged
> V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks, big brakes etc.
> Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with it one of its longest
> running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin to killing off the
> Mustang, IMO.

I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after the
SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder
that Ford came through it all as well as they did.