pickler

i can lease a ford taurus sho for $32k through corporate discount with my job, since company has a deal with ford. im really leaning towards a sh-awd tl tech but its gonna cost me nearly $44k here. that's a lot of savings if i take the ford, but in the end...well its a ford. test drove the taurus and loved the interior it felt really rich and upscale. however performance wise, it didn't feel like 365hp, more like 300 and not much different from the na tl! there are some annoying things like the super Mario chimes and stupid blue armrest ambient lighting, lcd gauge screen from the 80s and rather firm ride. these all clash with the luxury leather rich tan old people attracting woodtrim interior. car is however more easy to drive on the highway, feels solid and has lots of low end torque for passing in 5th or 6th gear. the tl feels like a car that is what its supposed to be; sport full size sedan with luxury appointments and high levels of practicality. but is it worth 12k more?

potmilkz

there is no arguement here.. nothing to debate about.. as you said,, sh-awd tl wins.. and im sure you know you know how the sh-awd feels like.


but what your asking.. is it worth the 12k difference..

my take is.. if you can afford it, do it..

but keep in mind.. you get what you pay for..

acura cars are known to last.

ford... ehh lets just say they are not up to par yet.

btw if your able to own 3 cars, lets just say you seem like you have some spare change to spend..

Mr Marco

Let's talk SHO. I had a 97 SHO. Fast and fun, it was a great car. But I put thousands into fixing a fatal flaw in the cam shafts. Ford refused to admit there was a problem and told us to GFY. I will never buy another Ford. And niether will any of my family members. As a matter of fact, everyone who owned a Ford in my family has sworn to NEVER own one again. My mom even traded her Thunderbird for a 2008 Civic.

http://www.v8sho.com/SHO/CamFailureU...eLastStraw.htm

winstrolvtec

In an objective sense, the TL is probably not worth $12k more in this particular case but being that you are leasing, the relative sales price is not as much of the issue, the actual monthly cost difference is.

Being that it appears to have come down to one or the other (as opposed to a generalized or vague cost comparison) you should run the numbers on both. It's a lease so in reality, a $12k difference usually only ends up costing one around $6k, initially anyway. If you plan to buy out the vehicle at some point (or if financing or paying in full) then you would be more concerned with the full $12k difference.

Roughly a $6k premium on an initial term lease deal, may or may not represent itself in the monthly payment based on residual value and money factor figures, etc. It's also a lot easier to work around too, with mileage allowances, capitol cost reductions (money down), and longer monthly term options.

Otherwise, you have to decide for yourself if it's worth it to you and if you have the resources to appropriately do so.

jjsC5

Let's talk about the elephant in the room....the Taurus is HUUGGGGGE. I've had one of the original SHO's so I'm not prejudiced. I think the new one has a lot going for it. But did I mention that its HUUUUUGGGGGGGGE?

Oswald Vater

Interesting comparo. I was in a similar situation as my daughter's Father-in-Law also worked for Ford and could have gotten me a hefty discount on the SHO. However, even though the SHO was less money I decided I wouldn't be as happy with it as I would the TL. In the end that should determine your decision. It stinks to be stuck with a car you don't like even if the payments are less. I'd rather pay more for my TL/Tech and be happy then less for the SHO and regret it.

omaralt

so let me make sure i understand this; your comparing a 1997 SHO to a 2012 SHO? do you really think that this is a valid comparison in any way shape or form? your experience has absolutely no relevance here

honestly the new SHO is a beautiful car, with a great engine (and it only comes AWD btw). however i definitely felt that the TL was more refined; but $12K is a lot of money. and the TL will hold it's value better.

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

Sorry to be off topic, sort of, but i'm glad someone else pointed this out, why is that? I drove a 2011 base Mustang and a 2011 5 door Focus (which I surprisingly really liked) and they felt no where near as powerful as a sh-awd TL or base Civic?

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

^^
, actually since the 97' length was 197.5 and the current is 202.9, his experience and input has quite a bit of relevance.

saturno_v

The Taurus SHO only real advantage over the TL is the more modern engine design (DI), higher power output (but remember that it is a heavier and bigger car so you will probably not feel that extra power in terms of performance numbers) and especially more low end torque (due to the turbocharger).
Fit and finish is not on par, suspension geometry and frame design and material is less sophisticated (resulting in a more more floaty, less sharp ride), brake and steering is not on par and the AWD system is Haldex based (part time AWD and no torque vectoring).
12K is a lot of money and I'm sure the SHO is a sweet ride (I like much more the look the TL but that is subjective) but the TL has definitely more content overall. Not counting the higher resale value and higher statistical reliability for the Acura.

Whatever you choose I think you got a winner anyway....

Texas Turbo

Lease the SHO and after lease purchase the TL

Mr Marco

What? Whitney Houston is DEAD?

Pseudomaniac

iTrader: (1)

I'll bite. I've seen an SHO teasing with running 11s at the track - mid 12s consistently. You're not going to see a TL do that.
They're a reflash away from 400+ HP. If it's power you're after, the SHO is a no brainer.

If you want something to be fun, practical, and last a few years; and then to be of value when you trade it up, the Acura is the no brainer.

g37guy01

If the difference is payments is significant in your eyes, the SHO to me would be a no-brainer.

Edward'TLS

Mr. Marco has a valid point. Rather than comparing between individual cars, Mr. Marco is bringing into attention an auto maker's reputation and it's dedicated commitment (or not) to customer satisfaction. In this case, it is Ford vs Acura.

In the Ford SHO case, it is a known fact in the industry that the SHO engine will self-destruct after accumulated a certain mileage. But Ford refused to admit the design flaw(s) with it's SHO engines, and virtually left all affected Ford SHO owners hanging out in the dry.

On the other hand, it is also a known fact that the 2G Acura TL/CL trannies were so poorly designed that overheating would cause the 3rd gear clutch to disintegrate. Acura took full responsibility for this defect and voluntarily extended the tranny warranty to all affected vehicles. Even after extended warranty has expired, Acura will still reimburse a certain % of the repair bill on a case by case basis.

So this is the difference between Acura and Ford. Acura stands behind it's products, and takes good care of it's valued customers. Ford doesn't.

If Ford burnt it's valued customers (SHO owners) back in 96-99, what makes you think that Ford won't do it again in the present days if it screws up it's products again.

Ford does make good cars. A modern car is a very complex piece of machinery. So design flaws will always exist, even Acura is no exception.

But if Ford doesn't stand behind it's products and doesn't take responsibility of it's design flaws, it is best to stay away from it's products.

g37guy01

^^^ I own a ford product and I love it. In addition, if the op is looking at leasing what difference does it make?

I personally think the SHO is overpriced, but that's me.

BEAR-AvHistory

Actually Honda was dragged kicking & screaming to do the right thing on the transmission. They denied any problems for years until the bad publicity just over whelmed them. Consumer reports had already called them out on the trans with a “Black Spot” in their results.

Customers were bitching about being stonewalled for a few years & finally the class action suite just added frosting to the cake in forcing Honda to comply. The TL 3rd gear deal on the 6MT’s pretty much went the same way except the lack of a class action actually being initiated.

We had a Accord V6 EX 5AT & a TL 6MT involved in both these things. On the TSB for the 6MT it took six visits to finally get them to make the repair at 20K+ miles even though the problem was first brought up to them when the car was a few months old.

You can search the 3G TL forms for my history on this & a general Google search will show the whole history of Honda & transmissions.

JM2010 SH-AWD

In my experience, GM and Ford will take a "too bad" attitude towards post-warranty issues that are clearly manufacturing/design defects. Nissan/Honda/Toyota will generally fix things - sometimes free, sometimes at a discount - under the same circumstances. I've seen this pattern repeat over and over again, both with cars I've owned and friends' cars. It was one of the reasons I gave up on domestic car manufacturers some time ago.

Perhaps the near-death experiences of GM and Ford has changed their attitudes, but based on the recent experience of some friends, I wouldn't count on it. (Fusion auto-climate stuck on 93 degrees). It's too bad too, because both GM and Ford are making some nice products these days.

The SHO is big and heavy and under-braked, but it does have a motor in it. I agree as someone said earlier, however, that it's really over-priced. And, if past is prologue, its value will drop off the cliff in a few years. Nevertheless, the non-SHO Taurus of one of my partners is a nice-riding, exceptionally quiet car. If it lasts, it will make a nice vehicle.

Buffa

I test drove a SHO as well before I bought my 2012 TL. My thoughts:

-I liked the stealthy addition of power and insurance was quoted cheap because of that.
-As another poster said, it felt HUUUGE! I'm 5'8" average height, and I felt like a 10 year old sitting in the driver's seat
-It's the little things. I test drove a 2010 with about 5k miles since they didn't have new ones on the lot. The silver trim pieces around the tail lights were already flaking and peeling away. That's the kind of stuff that may sound petty to some, but drives me nuts!

Had the 2012 TL now for about 9 months, and no regrets.

ChrisJ

Big difference between a yamaha engine and a twin turbo ecoboost v6...With awd...

The butt dyno sometimes lies...I have owned fords and acuras...I will tell you dollar for dollar Acura builds a more comfortable car...Dollar for dollar though ford makes a very affordable enjoyable vehicle for the money...

The SHO is a beast with its AWD and twin turbo 6...The interior I love...The exterior; well its a boat looking car that runs 12's in 1/4 and can take the kids home from soccer practice...I couldnt find one that was affordable when I was looking for a car after selling my mustang...But if I would have I would have bought one...

The ecoboost is a proven workhorse...Hell they put it in the F150's now...

The SHO you just dont realize how fast it is...

ChrisJ

The gen 1 and gen 2 SHO's value are still well up there for a 20+ year old car...The 3rd Gen sho's; well IMHO they were a mistake...

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

Ford also puts this motor in the Falcon XR6

ChrisJ

Sadly Ford has decided America doesnt deserve the Falcon so I shun everything talking about them out of shere jealousy...

BEAR-AvHistory

No more Ranger either

cp3117

+1

....And dont forget the class action against the Acura TSX and a few other models over rear brakes that where failing early. Even after the courts found Honda/Acura guilty they reluctantly paid out the owners a still wouldnt admit they where at fault. This was the same for premature A/C compressor failures on the TSX and CR-V's and currently there is Class Action going on with the Honda Civic Hybrid.

I remember in the early 90's when i owned a Civic and had the head gasket replaced twice in a short period. Honda said there wasnt a flaw and it must be my own doing . About a year after I replaced it and sold the car because I was afraid it would happen again, A Honda mechanic told me Honda came out with a new head gasket, head bolts and new torque specs because of the wide problem but kept it under the table.

This happens with all manufactuers at some time, so Honda is no better than Ford in this area IMO.

cp3117

I agree, here in Canada the MSRP's between the two isnt that big IMO.

When you look at the two, The SHO has more rear seat room and cargo capacity, more luxury features, Fit and Finish is on par with Acura, better straight line performance and braking (although it has brake fade issues which should be fixed with the 2013 model coming out now), It has won the KBB resale awards in its class for the last two years and has been getting great reliability reviews.

The TL does have better handling and even with the suspention upgrades to the 2013 SHO model I still think the TL will easily outhandle the SHO on a track.

IMO, it would have to come down to how much you value Handling. If you take your daily driver to the track every weekend then the 12K might be worth it to some. Personally the SHO has way to many advantages, especially with 12K difference and this should make it an easy choice..... plus 12K can buy you a lot of handling upgrades.

Personally I think the SHO is a great value much like a Genesis R-Spec.

n-spring

I subscribe to the Lease Kit from leaseguide.com. There is a Vehicle Lease Ratings table included in the kit. The Acura TL is in the Best column; the Ford Taurus is in the Worst column. The Vehicle Lease Ratings are based solely on residual value.

In addition to residual value, you must also consider the sales price you get from the dealer and the money factor you're able to obtain based on your credit rating.

winstrolvtec

^It's highly variable but I suspect based this info and on my own brief research that the Taurus, particularly the speciality SHO model, does not lease very well. Nontheless, I still think the SHO with a $12k discount will be cheaper but the actual difference may be surprising, then again maybe it won't but I will again suggest that the OP look at the monthly breakdowns especially considering this info.

I also have to slight the SHO a bit in fit n finish, overall quality, reliability, and resale next to the TL, although very marginally but most of that can be considered subjective anyway. This is not a historic Ford vs Honda and their issues comparison, it's about the TL and the SHO, where the SHO is showing some signs of having potentially big issues, the TL, not nearly as much, if any, besides some minor issues and annoyances that I'm sure the SHO will also have, as most cars do.

As far as the others, it's Acura vs Ford so I really don't need to get into much detail there, although I will say Ford did a great job and you could easily put a Lincoln badge on the SHO and no one would really complain or point out much difference IMO. It does more than make up for it a lot of other ways though, like features and content when fully loaded, for example.

As far as acceleration, the TL 6MT is needed to really match up with the SHO performance package, which includes upgraded rims with summer tires and a shorter final drive, etc. As for the 6AT TL, it's still the better handler, and braking is about the same after accounting for the tire differences. The 6AT TL SH is however not very far behind the SHO without the performance package and daily driving acceleration and ability is pretty much the same with similar trap speeds.

SH AWD is the better overall AWD system unless you are looking for the Haldex function on purpose. Gas mileage favors the TL and it's the smaller, lighter, sportier driving car, although maybe not much smaller on the outside. The SHO drives big and feels "old", or more for the older individual which many actually prefer, so a lot depends on preferences and tastes, as expected. What's probably left is comparing the actual cost and payments breakdown.

saturno_v

Nope...the Falcon XR6 has a sweet 4.0 liter straight six, I just drove one in September during my trip Down Under....not to mention that it is much better looking than the Taurus and the handling and braking is on another planet...

It is sad but Australians build significantly better cars than Americans......GM had to turn in desperation to the Aussies to start building decent automobiles....the attempt to introduce the ugly Taurus in Australia was met with stiff resistance to say the least....

A Stock XR6 Turbo Falcon doing 0-180 km/h (111 mph) in 11 seconds...a real monster....try to do that with an SHO...probably the Taurus does not even make 110....

saturno_v

It is always good to get a good laugh......

Have you ever actually seen one or rode in one?? The Taurus I mean...

Shocking conclusions coming from a supposedly premium content "expert"....

The SHO is a good car for the money but the 12K difference is almost entirely justified...

cp3117

As a matter of fact I have and many other's including the OP have apparently noticed the similarities too.

This really shouldnt be shocking to anyone but considering someone like yourself who thinks his TL is the same or better than a Porsche Panamera I can understand where you would be confused...

saturno_v

Always spouting nonsense huh?? And always very good at it...


The "similarities" ends with straight line acceleration where the SHO has the upper end.....at the first curve (or at the first stop) you realize the difference between the two cars very clearly.....brake, steering, suspension......fit and finish on par?? Sure absolutely......

Again, the SHO is not bad but the 12K gat with the TL is fully justified, in my book....

BEAR-AvHistory

Just a quick comment since I have no dog in this fight. Most runs between cars are out of a traffic light or a go, on the run down, a straight road. Most guys who talk about wait till we get to the first turn have never driven a car at the track & have no clue as to what its like driving a turn at 9/10ths. Most guys who are not under a suicide watch or have a room temperature IQ will ever drive a car in turns on the street at anything approaching track speeds. Despite all the posturing street turn performance of most “performance” cars driven by fans is pretty much the same.

If you look at Lightning Laps driven by pro-drivers the first 25 “street cars” (3:00 to 3:05 laps) from the PORSCHE PANAMERA TURBO S to the FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500 are covered in a 5 second spread over a 4.1 mile course.

About the brakes the SHO is 10ft better 70-0then the TL 175/185ft but has a fade issue.

saturno_v

Not according to C&D where the TL recorded 158 ft 70-0 vs. 174 for the SHO.

Not to mention the spongy feeling (personally tested)

I agree that the cold numbers on a track are meaningless to everyday drivers, but anyone with a modicum of driving experience can feel the difference in the road manners between the SHO and the TL...it's not a matter of numbers but a matter of how the car responds to inputs....

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

Speaking from track and pretty serious street driving experience (http://www.facebook.com/video/video....50296976767965 and more). A great handling car in a mediocre drivers hands makes a bigger difference than a comparison between a mediocre handler and great handler does in a pros hands. And I rather have reliable brakes over marginally better performing ones when they work, once you know your car the 10ft difference is calculated while the fade can't be.

saturno_v

The fact is the the SHO has not more powerful brakes than the TL...I don't know where that comes from...the TL stops in a shorter distance, according to the C&D tests....as far as I know.....not considering the fade and the spongy feel issue....

The TL has recorded 70-0 distances between 158 and 171 feet (depending on transmission and tires)

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...-tl-sh-awd.pdf

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...l-sh-awd-2.pdf

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...test-sheet.pdf

The SHO recorded 174 ft

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...o-ecoboost.pdf

winstrolvtec

It really shouldn't have anything to do with racing but I agree, when it comes margins of measured performance, be it handling and/or acceleration (etc), it doesn't necessarily mean it translates to street performance or completely for that matter. So it really becomes a matter of preference as opposed my car can do this relative to that car, with exception and within a degree, of course.

I want to emphasize that this goes for straight-line acceleration as well, it's not exclusive to handling. Similarly, when methods of achieving a given time at the track are not conducted elsewhere or perhaps on the street, and there is a removal of reaction time and not as an elaborate time trial method of scoring, we can see even .5 of 1/4 mile time (which is often regarded as an eternity in some scenes) has such smaller meaning and is often still beatable. So basically, that goes both ways.

What doesn't exactly pan out here is that lap times do not correlate with handling exclusively. There are many other elements involved. To strictly sample only that part, you need to combine many of the testing procedure outcomes related to handling as well as self evaluate. Adopting a procedure of max speed and (to an extent) grip through each turn helps narrows this down.

As far as the brake comparison goes, I don't see a whole lot going on with either to give any real edge. Using C&D independent stats, the 2010 SHO with performance package which includes max summer tires, did 70-0 in 174 ft. The comparable tire 09 TL 5AT HPT did it in 161 ft, while the 2010 6MT HPT did 171 ft. The 2012 6AT SH with high performance all seasons as opposed to max summers managed 178 ft. If anyone has numbers of the non performance package SHO from 70-0, that would help.

I know you claim to not have a dog in this fight but IMO, a little more objectivity wouldn’t hurt.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

Tires are way more important than brakes anyway.

saturno_v

Errata corrige..the first test of the TL SH-AWD in 2009 recorded 158 ft 70-0

The TL SH-AWD manual with all season tires recorded 171 ft

The SHO with performance tires and performance brake pads (part of the performance package) recorded 174 ft 70-0

The SHO allegedly more powerful brakes is fantasy....

The TL with all season tires was able to pull 0.88 g...the SHO with the performance summer rubber 0.84 g......when equipped with summer tires the TL pulled 0.93 g...

$12K gap?? fully justified IMHO....

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

Tires tires tires tires tires tires tires tires