saturno_v

That's absolutely right.....when compared with similar tires type the TL smokes the SHO in handling and beat it in braking......

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

its skewed.

was the SHO running the same type of tyre as the TL?

BEAR-AvHistory

Thing is the SH AWD does not have summer tires available so you can't fairly penalize a car that does. BTW new brakes for 2013 SHO so we are not comparing a 2010 to a 2012.

"The 2013 Taurus SHO does get a new performance package option that is said to improve the car's performance prowess. Most notably, a 3.16:1 final drive ratio means initial acceleration is enhanced, and revised suspension tuning features new dampers and springs specific to this package. Additionally, the electronic steering system has been tuned, the stability control now has a track mode with a true 'off' setting and performance brake pads are now available with unique, "track-tuned" calipers."

C&D data on the 2012 SH AWD

Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.4 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 98 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 125 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 178 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-sh-awd-review

saturno_v

Since when?? Up to the 2011 MY the SH-AWD had the performance tires package (with 19" rims) available. Did they pull out that option for 2012??


So the 2012 SH-AWD with regular all season and no performance pads give up only 4 feet to the SHO with all the goodies...not very impressive for the Taurus...

However as I posted already the numbers, with similar tires type the TL crush the Taurus in handling and it does better in braking....hard to debate numbers....

winstrolvtec

That's correct, thank you. The 6MT was not tested with HPT, only the standard Michelins. The 158 ft was from the very first test, they did two for 09 I believe. I also was not fully aware of upgraded brakes in the SHO performance package. I guess considering the new info, one could easily give the nod to the TL brakes. Would be good to see the results of non performance package for the SHO though.

In my attempt of excessive neutrality, I guess I tricked myself but it is very variable considering the new TL is not available with summers and it depends on whether the SHO has the upgraded package or not. So in all fairness, I felt it was just easier to call it a draw. On a level playing field, it appears the TL does have an edge based on those numbers.

I haven't fully decided on the entire $12k gap part, for myself I would mostly agree, but objectively speaking, probably not. The problem is that people who favor the SHO probably do not value the nature of the TL and vice versa, as they are fairly different cars. I think both cars are priced well for what they both offer based on sticker but I will at least emphasize the $12k gap is not an MSRP reality, it's just on the special basis of this particular case.

winstrolvtec

The Taurus does however come without the performance package just the same.

BEAR-AvHistory

First & most important thing the OP is asking about buying a new car not a 2010 model.

The 2012 SH AWD gives up 4 feet to the 2010 SHO but we are talking about new cars not cherry picking a new one vs. one from the past. According to C&D the 2013 SHO comes with, in addition to the upsized brake master cylinder from the standard ’13 Taurus, the SHO adds larger front rotors, and the rear discs are now vented. Might be good for a few feet & some fade resistance. The new suspension setting might also be good for a few more G & having better tires is always good for something.

Based on the Acura Price out your 2012 TL page, unless I missed something, there are no summer tires available.

The SHO has a bigger trunk, a bigger back seat (seems to be of importance here), better acceleration, higher top speed Braking & handling improved from the previous model at a rate which is yet to be tested.

That being said any shortfall on braking/handling can be quite easily covered with the extra $12,000 that would be laying around.

BEAR-AvHistory

I don't understand the point.

winstrolvtec

What is so different about the 2012 Taurus SHO compared to the 2010? The 2012 is still new. The 2013 is barely out (3 in the US) and I don't suspect that the OP is getting a 2013 for $12k off the price.

Furthermore, I also don't suspect it is a loaded SHO either or that it even has the performance package or the equipment package as it is called in Canada, which is where the OP claims he is from, all of that makes a difference in the cost relation. I don't believe the 2013 is out yet in Canada and if they will even offer the new package for the SHO. We will need more info and specifics there.

It's true that if you use that exact comparison that the SHO has tested better, more specifically with regards to braking, on summer tires but is also available without them or the other performance upgrades. As far as your other points, I agree.

It's just the reverse of your point about not penalizing a car that has HPT where the other doesn't. That might be true in this case but you can also compare an SHO without the performance package (to the 2012 TL SH) just the same.

saturno_v

I was not cherry picking anything...I was unaware that the 2012 TL was not available with summer tires....another brain fart from Acura if you ask me.
However you can put a set of summer tires for less money than getting them as an option from Acura.

Fact is that with the same rubber type, with the test data so far available, the TL is ahead.

BEAR-AvHistory

Thing is the 2013 is out & there will be numbers on it...Guys here had no problem talking up the 2012 TL or waiting for it when it was released early March 2011? to kill the beak.

If a better SHO model will be released later in Canada he can wait for it or choose a 2012 - his option.

As far as using the old 2010 SHO data, considering the price spread to a 2012 TL SH AWD, it compares very well overall, its bigger, faster, quicker & has better tires available.

The 2013 SHO will at the end of the day be less expensive. Its interesting that the “Value for the Buck” saw that has been the Gospel in defense of the TL vs. the worlds tier 1 cars, is now about the SHO vs. TL.

BEAR-AvHistory

It has no relevance what the old car did or did not do its been replaced.

C&D, as posted above said, the SHO has all new brakes & suspension. No tests yet. When it gets tested you can take another shot.

saturno_v

I'm not talking against the SHO at all....it is a great car for the money and it is faster on a straight line...but in my opinion the 12K gap for the TL is justified by better dynamics and a more sophisticated AWD system.....if the OP need a bigger trunk or larger rear seat then the SHO make a lot of sense...and 12K in your pocket is not bad too....as you said, his choice...

You still can put summer performance tires in the 2012 TL if you choose so....all it takes is a trip to the tire shop and half hour of your time....I still do not understand why Acura took that option away for 2012...they seem very busy shooting themself in the foot these days....

winstrolvtec

Talking is one thing but we are drawing a comparison within a given context, not just in general. We do not yet have data on the 2013 so no use in making a non existent comparison of data until then. I agree that the OP can choose whatever one he likes once it comes out and there is data to compare but I'm not sure if that still applies to the circumstances. The OP will need to chime in on that much.

So you do agree that 2010 info the way we have used it here suffices for the 2012?

Is the 2013 going to be cheaper just in general or will the OP have access to the same type of insider discount as he does on the 2012? Or is that just an assumption? If that is the case however, I would agree that it ups the ante significantly.

What is so interesting about it? The defense had little to do with the particular vehicle (in this case the TL) but the uderlying concept instead, it just so happens to be able to be applied to the TL. The SHO is another one and there are more.

That's what some don't seem to get, we don't invent these claims because we own TL's, quite the opposite, we own TL's because of the whole value theme. It only makes sense that there are cars and situations like this one, when that argument can be applied against the TL. I went as record as saying that I did not think the TL holds $12k more in objective value so there is no double standard if you are suggesting that much.

Still, even at that, this is an unusual situation. Normally, the MSRP's of these two vehicles are about the same, there otherwise would not be the usual $10-$20k+ justification attached to it like there is in most of the other cases.

winstrolvtec

It has relevance because looking at it in the context of a level playing field, the data suggests the braking advantage lies with the TL. You could also swap out tires, and then there is the point about the SHO not always being available with the performance package either, as it is an option.

The numbers do come down across the board without it. That could be the model available to the OP and then we would have to compare that data instead. We are trying to consider all possibilities, not only what looks better for car A or car B.

BEAR-AvHistory

The SHO performance option is for people who are going to upgrade boost etc. It has stuff like an engine oil cooler, power transfer unit, rear differential unit and an auxiliary transmission cooler, bigger calipers, different drive ratios, etc. Ford is getting into track day equipment & while the TL is abandoning summer tires. The standard version get the bigger disc brakes etc. If anything the PP will just move the SHO that much ahead.

So far the only thing tangible you have is the brakes of the 2010 SHO vs. the 2011 TL. The 2012 TL without going out & buying new tires falls short, all the rest of your post is what if not what is. The 2013 SHO has the same powertrain as the 2010 but it does not have the same brakes.

This is very clear in the C&D 2013 preview. Additionally, its very clear that all the 2013 SHO's will have the improved braking system not just some special version which they don't have. The SHO has two option packages 401 & 402. They are about a moon roof, radios, heated back seats, etc..

C&D says "In addition to the upsized brake master cylinder from the standard ’13 Taurus, the SHO adds larger front rotors, and the rear discs are now vented—welcome news, as we noted significant brake fade in the last SHO we tested."

It would be hard to imagine, all other things being the same, that the SHO will stop worse with an improved braking system with larger fronts & vented rear discs.

fsttyms1

Ill bite. How about ALL the 5 speed trans problems Acura really didnt stand behind or ever fix

winstrolvtec

I have not been making the comparo to the 2013 SHO and we have already been over why. My points revolve around the 2012 model, if and when the 2013 is out in all of NA (because the OP is in Canada) and/or there is at least performance data from a couple of sources, we can come back and do this again.

That's not a lot of what if, that's a realistic assumption based on the context of the comparison and not a generalized comparison just for the sake of one. Your post would be about the what is if we knew what the what is actually was. So your posts are at best no better with regards to the actual topic. You are also suggesting "what if" it is a 2013 SHO of which we have no data, only assumption.

At least there is some data revolving around what I am getting at and is more aligned with the context of the topic because the 2013 SHO is not out in Canada. The OP may come back and suggest he would wait on the 2013 and might get the same discount, in which case I would agree with your assumptions.

The other tangible argument I have which you have ignored and is no worse than the one you present about the 2013 and it's hypothetical results, is that the 2012 SHO (same as the 2010) minus the current performance package without the upgraded brakes and tires isn't better than the 2012 TL SH with regards to braking.

There is no saying that the OP can get more than a 2012 base SHO which (like I have suggested) would alter the comparisons and outcomes here. So some of us have tried to make the comaprison a bit more broad based, while you seem to keep going to the 2013, which very well may end up being on the table but for now it just seems like you are attempting to scew the argument in favor of one over the other instead of just presenting the objective data in the right context plus you have less tangibility to be calling me out on mine.

Anyway, I can see where you are going with this and I do not disagree but we're focusing on different things is all. If I was talking about the 2013 and it had some stats available, we would probably be in agreeance.

Edward'TLS

At least Acura had fixed mine, a couple of yours, and many thousands others for free. All others were evaluated on a case by case basis, and some dealerships would do goodwill repairs if the crippled car had been doing regular services there.

But almost all of those poor 96-99 SHO owners had no such luck at all.

g37guy01

I could really care less about the way any car company was 13 years ago. Things have changed significantly, but the Honda tranny problems were more recent.

012TL-GLM

Is this a joke? Have you owned a FORD before? We all have our biases and stories to tell - fact is Japanese cars have been kicking America's ass for years, and they're just starting to come back, thanks in no small part to the recent disasters in Japan and some aggressive pricing.

I would never lease, so in your situation I don't know if its worth 12K. If you were BUYING, then I would say its ABSOLUTELY worth 12K.

AND (flame-suit on) I get a real kick out of these number debates. The TL will get you where you need to go plenty fast, oh, and it doesn't need a turbo to do it!

We've been at this same debate for weeks now. Numbers are just that, numbers. They can't quantify how a car feels, and let me tell you something, the TL feels a hell of a lot quicker, agile, and confident than a taurus, which from your post, you've already figured out. Good luck with your purchase

Edward'TLS

The 2G TL/CL tranny problem was two TL generations ago back in '01-'03. I wouldn't call that RECENT.

Starting in '04 and onwards, all V6 Honda engines have since paired with drive-by-wire throttle systems. This got rid of the nasty 3rd gear clutch pack tranny failure problem.

g37guy01

It's more recent than 1996, like 5 years.

g37guy01

The Taurus is larger, voluminous even. So I could make the debate I would trade off size for agility. And in case you haven't noticed the new Ford Motor Company is kicking butt generally.

The G is faster than the TL and doesn't use a turbo either, but FI is coming to a car near you shortly thanks in no small part to the government.

012TL-GLM

I'm sure everyone here is shocked and amazed you brought the G to a Ford fight...

I must be having a blond moment, what's FI?

g37guy01

Forced induction sorry, I usually don't use abbreviations.

cp3117

Thank you....

After reading some other posts I thought maybe the OP was looking at a used TL all of a sudden.

I was speaking to one of the people who does our Fleet Purchases from Ford and the Order Release date for the 2013's was just a few days ago. The features/updates that you mentioned are obviously the same here in Canada as in the US with price increases also.

As mentioned earlier, IMO the 12k in savings makes this an obvious choice but again it all depends in what one values more than another. Personally, If both vehicles where the same price I would still lean towards the SHO but it would be a harder choice, and ones needs and subjectivity would play a much larger part.

As you mentioned in another post, its funny how some are saying the price difference is easily justified in favor of the TL, yet when the same thought process is used when a person justifies the 12 or 14K difference between a 335i or a S4 over a TL its sacrilegious.

GrOvE_GuArDiaN

I love my 4g TL. Haven't been in a SHO but have to think you would be happy if you go the TL route. How does the gas mileage compare? What about navi features? Cant go VIP with the SHO either.

saturno_v

....because from a performance point of view (which includes also handling not just going on a straight line) and I admit I'm biased toward performance, the TL is closer to a 335 or a S4 than a Taurus SHO.....the same for fit and finish.....the SHO is definitely not on par with the TL on that department either..nobody with a modicum of objectivity can say that.....they are not seriously far apart (means Ford has improved a lot) but not on the same level....yet.....maybe the 2013 MY has the fit and finish of an Audi...I doubt it.....

The TL has a more refined chassis and suspension setup than an SHO which is pretty much an impressive engine put on a run of the mill chassis...and the numbers (and 10 minutes of driving time) does show it...

Lastly, personally I never said that the price gap between a TL and an S4, a335 or a 535 or an A6 is "sacrilegious"...simply, personally, I do not see the value from my want/needs perspective...obviously I'm biased because I own a TL...to each his own....

Obviously nobody has tested yet the 2013 SHO so the announced improvement is all speculation so far.....but I'm skeptical that the handling can be significantly improved without some serious suspension rework......it may have better brake numbers.....we do not know yet...

If the OP need a bigger trunk/rear seat the SHO makes a lot of sense (and he saves 12K in the process) and maybe he does not care that much about handling or simple road feel.....I do, but it's me.....

pickler

To be honest honda isn't too friendly to its customers either. I own a 2G TL and while i have done nothing but oil changes and replacing wear and tear items, a lot of friends and fellow azine members have been screwed over with the transmission problem.

True but the powertrain does not feel all that sophisticated on the Taurus. The TL is definitely more refined and it just feels crazy fast at 5k rpm. The taurus is torquey and i love it, its so good in city driving. i find reving the TL to 3k rpm on around town driving after red lights and stop. there is just no torque below that specially with full passenger load.

I'm actually thinking about a compromise, a TSX V6, it doesnt have the AWD but its just as fun and reliable. It also cost me $7k more than the taurus and $5k less than the TL.

The tarus ride already feels stiff. i cannot imagine what a sport package will do. 6.2s is too slow for the TL to 60, i think 5.5s makes more sense. The 6AT brings it really close in line with the manual in terms of performance. Driving the TL SH-AWD i was amazed at its acceleration on the highway from 45-80mph. The downshifts were quick and revs were always above 4500 rpm in vtec range.

saturno_v

I'm glad you noticed...some food for thought for the "bash Acura no matter what" brigade....

winstrolvtec

I don't know about you but if there was a change in any performance result and the reason was because of tires, I would think that info would be not only useful but very relevent. Not only would I get an idea of how the two cars compare as is, I also get an idea of how they compare with equal tires. Forget this discussion, forget the TL or Taurus SHO, are you saying that info is of no use?

It's not unrealistic for people to have an upgraded set of tires and/or rims, maybe even want to change out the stocks immediately or at some point, etc. I could understand it having little to no basis if it was strictly a paper stat comparison but people do look beyond that stuff.

I know you might be suggesting that it was an attempt to scew the results but the same thing can be said for comparing a 2013 SHO with non existent stats. However one choses to interpret either set of info, both are still very useful and relevent nontheless. Anyone should be able to agree on that much.

As far as the $12k (or x amount) for or against the value argument and how it relates to the TL, there are two contexts involved. One is the subjective which most have already admitted to and the other is objective. In most cases when the discussion of value regarding the TL to more expensive competitors, the discussion is usually surrounding an objective value comparison.

I do agree that if one used the usual arguments in favor of the TL's objective value but then dismissed the same points when it was reversed and now the conversation was against the TL instead, that would be a double standard but again, I don't think anyone meant it in that way, it was more subjectively speaking and on a more personal basis.

Personally, I could justify a lot of the additional cost in this case subjectively but not objectively. I like the TL relative to the SHO, what it represents, it's demeanor and character, the way it drives, as well as performance and abilities, etc, etc but if I was impartial to either vehicle overall, not really having a personal preference or bias regarding those types of things, I would probably not spend the extra money.

g37guy01

Have you driven the SHO to comment about handling or simple road feel? I drove the 2011 Taurus and MKZ and although I didn't get them, obviously, there was nothing wrong with their handling or road feel. And when I was at the dealer they get the SHO off the floor in time for me to test drive, the fit and finish is very good.

For the VIP plan the SHO is a screaming bargain and a much better value than the TL, hands down.

012TL-GLM

You still haven't driven the TL, have you - as much as I like a good discussion, I can't give your comments any credence until you actually drive one.

012TL-GLM

I absolutely agree - every time I see that number posted I don't believe it. I can only guess they screwed up the test somehow, or it was sub 40 degrees out, in which case the stock pilots SUCK. My passengers are quite impressed with the TL's performance, and that says a lot considering they are owners of Lexus IS 350, Dodge Challenger, and Lincoln Zephyr.

g37guy01

Do you go around with your foot on the floor? How could anyone make an impression based on their "butt" dyno?

Now if a Bugatti owner drove your car and said it was fast, I might be impressed.

When I have passengers in the car they comment on how classy the car looks, how nice the stereo sounds, how cool the backup camera is, how cool it is to stream pandora through bluetooth, etc. Even though the G is faster the TL...just sayin'.

saturno_v

Yes I did drive one (and frankly I do not remember if it was a MY 2010 or 2011) and it had all the performance goodies as far as I know.....you did not drive the TL yet.....

winstrolvtec

Now the 2nd person to point that out, there is definately something to that but I didn't want to say anything earlier because some folks don't look past the numbers when it comes to the TL, they do it for other cars when the discussion is biased against the TL but never for it instead.

I have no doubt that is what C&D obtained for their test results, as there are many factors involved and we really shouldn't put total faith into independent test result racing anyway, at least not from single source based info. Multiple sources and info proves to paint the better picture but it's easy to see the car is capable of more. It's just curious to see a large discrepancy with this model but C&D has had this issue with the 09-11 5AT as well, so it's not surprising.

Unfortunately, that is the only "official" source of testing. No other major publication has done any testing on the 6AT but there are a few internet based sites that have the car in the mid to high 5 0-60 second range. C&D themselves basically got the same time out of the old 5AT as the newer 6AT and then went on to comment about how much faster the 6AT was, if that makes any sense.

Furthermore, the 5AT has done 5.9 and 14.4@99 according to R&T and even a bit better from the guys at TOV (at an actual track). Much like the rationale used against the TL, I don't suspect the 6AT is supposed to be slower, that's is only fair afterall. It has given mpg and acceleration boosts to all of the Acura/Honda products it has been applied to.

A downside to the AT, is that you cannot effectively launch the car or brake torque at all so it's paper performance is not going to align with it's normal driving capabilities. Many have also noted that here and it goes well beyond one simply basing it off of the butt dyno.

It's a huge misconception that these stats can only be interpreted in the track and racing type method of testing (in which they were intended) and with only those results, when most people will never bring the car to the track or even race anybody anywhere. More importantly than the ET, is the trap speed and the 5-60 street start when it comes to an everyday driving performance comparison. 0-60 is not bad in that way but it's more of a bragging stat IMO and the ET is really only useful when timeslip racing at your local track.

g37guy01

Well then we are worlds apart as to what constitutes good fit and finish and road feel. And I think you are biased because as a passenger in the TL imo it has the same road feel as my g as a passenger, and the Taurus and MKz was smoother than both. I can't imagine the SHO is significantly harsher.

BEAR-AvHistory

C&D posted

2010 6MT Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.8 sec
2012 6AT Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec

The car is just not that quick today.....one of the only tests that broke 100mph & made the 13’s in the quarter mile was C&D's 2010 6MT test. They got a street start of 5-60mph of 5.8 seconds. The same magazine got 6.6 for the 6AT.

Most guys I believe will agree that street start is the real number because it takes launch technique & driver skill out of the equation with most cars requiring one or no shifts to get to 60.

Thing to remember the 2010 C&D run is the best of the best because there is almost no evidence of a 4G running into the 13 or over 100mph stock in real life.

Personally I have never seen one at the track break 14.4 or do better than 99mph & change. I also don't believe the 5.2 0-60 they posted for the 3G 6MT. Had one, they were quick in their day but not that quick.

On the conspiracy theory front its interesting to note that the first press cars of both 3 & 4G posted magazine times that no one can seem to match without modifying the cars & in the case of the 3G most of the non-supercharged ones still can't match the magazine runs.

Beside what is the difference, when other magazines were turning in what were considered crappy times compared to the first C&D tests it was the general consensus here that the TL was a luxury car & 0-60 or 1/4 did not matter...so why bother now?