My impression of my SH-AWD vs. my other AWD
#161
I had the cams taken out and pinned before any issues arose, however that experience and my parents busted t-bird was enough to turn me off to the big blue oval.
#162
Drifting
iTrader: (1)
I was just adding fuel to the fire...don't really care to see them. Like I said in another thread your trolling makes anything you say hard to believe, including when you say you're done trolling and it was only meant for a select few.
The following users liked this post:
LaCostaRacer (03-19-2014)
#163
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
I will post some pics tonight or tomorrow, I forgot I had a dentist appointment at 6 pm yesterday. It was already dark by the time I got home.
#164
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
1997, that was the year that Yamaha did the head only on a 3.4ltr Ford V-8. The cam shaft was a hollow tube with the chain gear swedged/splined on the cam. After about 30-70K the cam would slip and engine would mash itself to pieces. Since they only built about 20,000 3G SHOs Ford didn't want to do a recall for the issue and Yamaha washed it's hands of any wrong doing, many of them were Found On Road Dead. Unlike the the Yamaha-developed 3.0L V6 with 5-speed manual transmission in the 2G, the V-8 3G came with a slush box.
I had the cams taken out and pinned before any issues arose, however that experience and my parents busted t-bird was enough to turn me off to the big blue oval.
I had the cams taken out and pinned before any issues arose, however that experience and my parents busted t-bird was enough to turn me off to the big blue oval.
#166
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
I tried posting pics, it said images to large need to resize and I still couldn't get them small enough. I did get one pic up on a different thread of my TL, I had to cut part of it out to make it fit.
#167
2010 TL AWD 6MT: New King
Use your phone and upload it to Photobucket. Easy to do, free, and photobucket has no image size limits or restrictions.
#168
Senior Moderator
I don't know Brock- this is turning into a futile thread.
The SHO AWD looks suspect based on the video evidence and then you point me to look at more videos of more cars doing donuts in the snow. The point is how is the AWD for performance and there is a video that clearly shows that it favors FWD in the snow. You can't even seriously answer a question directed to you about which car to take in a snow storm- your answer is some silly which ever keys are closer response.
Come on, do you really think I'm going to take you serious? I'm having doubts that you even own a TL with some of your silly responses on this thread and others. I am convinced you own a SHO though- no doubt on that one.
How about if we give up this thread? It's going no where.
The SHO AWD looks suspect based on the video evidence and then you point me to look at more videos of more cars doing donuts in the snow. The point is how is the AWD for performance and there is a video that clearly shows that it favors FWD in the snow. You can't even seriously answer a question directed to you about which car to take in a snow storm- your answer is some silly which ever keys are closer response.
Come on, do you really think I'm going to take you serious? I'm having doubts that you even own a TL with some of your silly responses on this thread and others. I am convinced you own a SHO though- no doubt on that one.
How about if we give up this thread? It's going no where.
I will say having driven both in the snow the TL SH-AWD has the far better awd system. For normal driving though no one would complain about either one, especially when ultimately traction comes down to the tires.
Last edited by fsttyms1; 03-25-2014 at 08:40 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Brock79 (03-25-2014)
#169
One of the reasons why I like AZ, especially on the 4G sub-forum, is that many of us are car enthusiasts and not simply Acura fanboys. Sure we may have some bias but that is simply due to preference and it is expected.
The following users liked this post:
Brock79 (03-25-2014)
#170
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
#171
Drifting
Seems like you post positive things about your car, wait for someone to trash talk it and then you're up defending it by trash talking a TL or whatever car they bring into the conversation, so in this case. a 335i. And I know a 335i can withstand that power because a close friend of mine is running well over 400whp on a convertible 335i.
There's really no reason at this point for you to continue on bashing the TL where this whole forum is based around cars like the TL.
There's really no reason at this point for you to continue on bashing the TL where this whole forum is based around cars like the TL.
How about the AWD system? Which system is better between Acura and Ford? Both the TL and the SHO you own are AWD and the thread title calls out AWD. I would like to hear how those two AWD systems compare instead of all the banter about dealership experiences and such.
The other thing worth asking is how much depreciation occurs after 2-3 years of ownership between these two vehicles? My guess is the Acura will hold better resale than the Ford. It would also be interesting to see what the maintenance costs are between the two vehicles down the road when they go off warranty.
The other thing worth asking is how much depreciation occurs after 2-3 years of ownership between these two vehicles? My guess is the Acura will hold better resale than the Ford. It would also be interesting to see what the maintenance costs are between the two vehicles down the road when they go off warranty.
I found a good link for comparing the two cars in various objective metrics. From a point standpoint the SHO beats the SH-AWD TL by 4 points: 86 to 82. Here's the link:http://cars.findthebest.com/compare/...cura-TL-SH-AWD
The best choice lies with the priorities of the driver so there is no single answer to which car is best. I personally would pick the TL and certainly TLX over an SHO for many reasons but the big reason is the SHO is simply too long for my garage situation at 203 inches- it's also extremely wide at almost 85 inches. The car is a monster compared to a TL.
Anybody that wants sheer power would pick the SHO, anybody that wants sophistication and reduced cost of ownership would lean to the TL.
The best choice lies with the priorities of the driver so there is no single answer to which car is best. I personally would pick the TL and certainly TLX over an SHO for many reasons but the big reason is the SHO is simply too long for my garage situation at 203 inches- it's also extremely wide at almost 85 inches. The car is a monster compared to a TL.
Anybody that wants sheer power would pick the SHO, anybody that wants sophistication and reduced cost of ownership would lean to the TL.
Paraphrased questions and answers:
1. How's the AWD? Answer: don't really know haven't tried it much since the girlfriend actually drives the car mostly. I did notice the TL slides more though on wet roads.
2. Couldn't the tires be a factor for the TL's traction issues? Answer: the tires are OEM (no answer as two how many miles are on them and what they are though)
What would a discerning person do with answers like that? You ask about AWD and get an answer that is more based on tires and traction. I searched for answers and posted videos of things. That evidence simply shows that SHO is not as capable as the AWD TL for AWD performance. I'm sure the SHO is quicker than a TL but I'm not so sure that it's faster at top speed.
Much of the thread has nothing to do with AWD and could apply to a FWD TL as well. There have been a few people trying to get back to comparing AWD.
Anyway- it will be interesting where this thread goes. I'm losing interest until there are pictures of both cars together. The latest answer about the difficulty in posting photos jives with some of the other answers I have seen.
#172
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
I actually listed the miles on the tires more than once, also you won't find any post that says my GF drives the car. Now your just making shit up to justify your non stop questions. I answered all of your questions and if you actually read my answers and not skim through them or half ass read them, you would see my answers are perfectly suitable. Just by your above post I can see you only took the info you wanted to use and made up other parts.
#173
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
As for the pictures I said this weekend they will be up. Now this is where I need the GIRLFRIENDs help, since I'm working from 6pm to 6 am and she's on an opposite schedule you will have to wait until this weekend. Until then go read the entire thread and get your story straight.
#176
Instructor
Here are some stats:
Ford Taurus SHO: 0-60mph 5.1s Quarter Mile 13.5s
Acura TL: 0-60 5.2s Quarter Mile 13.7s
Ford Taurus SHO: Curb Weight: 4350lb Power: 365hp
Acura TL: Curb Weight: 3889lb Power: 305hp
Ford Taurus SHO: Power to weight: 0.08391 hp/lb
Acura TL: Power to weight: 0.07843 hp/lb
Notice how the extra 60hp of the SHO only translate to 6.5% increase in the power to weight ratio, 1ms better 0-60, and 2ms better quarter mile?
Which brings me to another point. Why the hell are we even talking about 0-60 and quarter mile stats? These cars are AWD vehicles created to handle great in all-weather conditions and carry 5 passengers in comfort. Both do that exceptionally well (although the TL has better interior as many have mentioned and a better torque vectoring AWD system).
So you bought an AWD car that you don't even drive in the snow. Instead all you are doing here is bragging about its slightly better 0-60 performance. But wait, there are a ton of other cars in the SHO's price range that could outperform it in both a straight line and in the curves. Sounds to me that you've made the wrong purchase.
Ford Taurus SHO: 0-60mph 5.1s Quarter Mile 13.5s
Acura TL: 0-60 5.2s Quarter Mile 13.7s
Ford Taurus SHO: Curb Weight: 4350lb Power: 365hp
Acura TL: Curb Weight: 3889lb Power: 305hp
Ford Taurus SHO: Power to weight: 0.08391 hp/lb
Acura TL: Power to weight: 0.07843 hp/lb
Notice how the extra 60hp of the SHO only translate to 6.5% increase in the power to weight ratio, 1ms better 0-60, and 2ms better quarter mile?
Which brings me to another point. Why the hell are we even talking about 0-60 and quarter mile stats? These cars are AWD vehicles created to handle great in all-weather conditions and carry 5 passengers in comfort. Both do that exceptionally well (although the TL has better interior as many have mentioned and a better torque vectoring AWD system).
So you bought an AWD car that you don't even drive in the snow. Instead all you are doing here is bragging about its slightly better 0-60 performance. But wait, there are a ton of other cars in the SHO's price range that could outperform it in both a straight line and in the curves. Sounds to me that you've made the wrong purchase.
#180
LIST/RAMEN/WING MAHSTA 짱
iTrader: (16)
Here are some stats:
Ford Taurus SHO: 0-60mph 5.1s Quarter Mile 13.5s
Acura TL: 0-60 5.2s Quarter Mile 13.7s
Ford Taurus SHO: Curb Weight: 4350lb Power: 365hp
Acura TL: Curb Weight: 3889lb Power: 305hp
Ford Taurus SHO: Power to weight: 0.08391 hp/lb
Acura TL: Power to weight: 0.07843 hp/lb
Notice how the extra 60hp of the SHO only translate to 6.5% increase in the power to weight ratio, 1ms better 0-60, and 2ms better quarter mile?
Which brings me to another point. Why the hell are we even talking about 0-60 and quarter mile stats? These cars are AWD vehicles created to handle great in all-weather conditions and carry 5 passengers in comfort. Both do that exceptionally well (although the TL has better interior as many have mentioned and a better torque vectoring AWD system).
So you bought an AWD car that you don't even drive in the snow. Instead all you are doing here is bragging about its slightly better 0-60 performance. But wait, there are a ton of other cars in the SHO's price range that could outperform it in both a straight line and in the curves. Sounds to me that you've made the wrong purchase.
Ford Taurus SHO: 0-60mph 5.1s Quarter Mile 13.5s
Acura TL: 0-60 5.2s Quarter Mile 13.7s
Ford Taurus SHO: Curb Weight: 4350lb Power: 365hp
Acura TL: Curb Weight: 3889lb Power: 305hp
Ford Taurus SHO: Power to weight: 0.08391 hp/lb
Acura TL: Power to weight: 0.07843 hp/lb
Notice how the extra 60hp of the SHO only translate to 6.5% increase in the power to weight ratio, 1ms better 0-60, and 2ms better quarter mile?
Which brings me to another point. Why the hell are we even talking about 0-60 and quarter mile stats? These cars are AWD vehicles created to handle great in all-weather conditions and carry 5 passengers in comfort. Both do that exceptionally well (although the TL has better interior as many have mentioned and a better torque vectoring AWD system).
So you bought an AWD car that you don't even drive in the snow. Instead all you are doing here is bragging about its slightly better 0-60 performance. But wait, there are a ton of other cars in the SHO's price range that could outperform it in both a straight line and in the curves. Sounds to me that you've made the wrong purchase.
#183
Burning Brakes
I wanna see those sexy vettes Brock has stored!!!
#184
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Here are some stats:
Ford Taurus SHO: 0-60mph 5.1s Quarter Mile 13.5s
Acura TL: 0-60 5.2s Quarter Mile 13.7s
Ford Taurus SHO: Curb Weight: 4350lb Power: 365hp
Acura TL: Curb Weight: 3889lb Power: 305hp
Ford Taurus SHO: Power to weight: 0.08391 hp/lb
Acura TL: Power to weight: 0.07843 hp/lb
Notice how the extra 60hp of the SHO only translate to 6.5% increase in the power to weight ratio, 1ms better 0-60, and 2ms better quarter mile?
Which brings me to another point. Why the hell are we even talking about 0-60 and quarter mile stats? These cars are AWD vehicles created to handle great in all-weather conditions and carry 5 passengers in comfort. Both do that exceptionally well (although the TL has better interior as many have mentioned and a better torque vectoring AWD system).
So you bought an AWD car that you don't even drive in the snow. Instead all you are doing here is bragging about its slightly better 0-60 performance. But wait, there are a ton of other cars in the SHO's price range that could outperform it in both a straight line and in the curves. Sounds to me that you've made the wrong purchase.
Ford Taurus SHO: 0-60mph 5.1s Quarter Mile 13.5s
Acura TL: 0-60 5.2s Quarter Mile 13.7s
Ford Taurus SHO: Curb Weight: 4350lb Power: 365hp
Acura TL: Curb Weight: 3889lb Power: 305hp
Ford Taurus SHO: Power to weight: 0.08391 hp/lb
Acura TL: Power to weight: 0.07843 hp/lb
Notice how the extra 60hp of the SHO only translate to 6.5% increase in the power to weight ratio, 1ms better 0-60, and 2ms better quarter mile?
Which brings me to another point. Why the hell are we even talking about 0-60 and quarter mile stats? These cars are AWD vehicles created to handle great in all-weather conditions and carry 5 passengers in comfort. Both do that exceptionally well (although the TL has better interior as many have mentioned and a better torque vectoring AWD system).
So you bought an AWD car that you don't even drive in the snow. Instead all you are doing here is bragging about its slightly better 0-60 performance. But wait, there are a ton of other cars in the SHO's price range that could outperform it in both a straight line and in the curves. Sounds to me that you've made the wrong purchase.
#185
Instructor
fyi:
Golf R DSG: MSRP 35-40k, 0-60 4.9s
Subaru WRX STI: MSRP 35k, 0-60 4.8s
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo: MSRP 40k, 0-60 4.5s
BMW M235i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 4.4s
BMW 335i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 5.0s
Volvo S60 T6 R-design AWD: MSRP: 43k, 0-60 5.1s
I am sure there are other cars that I have missed. Bottom line is 0-60 performance specs are useless. But if I only cared about acceleration and handling, I'd buy any of the cars I've listed above instead of the SHO.
Golf R DSG: MSRP 35-40k, 0-60 4.9s
Subaru WRX STI: MSRP 35k, 0-60 4.8s
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo: MSRP 40k, 0-60 4.5s
BMW M235i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 4.4s
BMW 335i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 5.0s
Volvo S60 T6 R-design AWD: MSRP: 43k, 0-60 5.1s
I am sure there are other cars that I have missed. Bottom line is 0-60 performance specs are useless. But if I only cared about acceleration and handling, I'd buy any of the cars I've listed above instead of the SHO.
#186
Instructor
What other AWD is out there for 40 grand that is gonna beat a SHO in performance.
"you should have bought something else" or the "SHO is ugly and I don't like it".
But don't ask stupid questions like "which one would you drive in a foot of snow?" Because who the hell is out driving in a foot of snow?
#187
Burning Brakes
Dunno why you guys continuously try and argue with Brock. I'm sure all of us on this forum would disagree with everything he has said but at the end of the day, it's his own opinion and opinions are like assholes, they're full of our own shit. I'm a brand whore, just like I'd never buy an American car or any american brand, just like how I love BMW and Mercedes and I'd spend $300 on a Burberry button up.
Brocks not going to give in by saying his SHO sucks. You might as well give up and move on.
Brocks not going to give in by saying his SHO sucks. You might as well give up and move on.
#188
Burning Brakes
fyi:
Golf R DSG: MSRP 35-40k, 0-60 4.9s
Subaru WRX STI: MSRP 35k, 0-60 4.8s
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo: MSRP 40k, 0-60 4.5s
BMW M235i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 4.4s
BMW 335i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 5.0s
Volvo S60 T6 R-design AWD: MSRP: 43k, 0-60 5.1s
I am sure there are other cars that I have missed. Bottom line is 0-60 performance specs are useless. But if I only cared about acceleration and handling, I'd buy any of the cars I've listed above instead of the SHO.
Golf R DSG: MSRP 35-40k, 0-60 4.9s
Subaru WRX STI: MSRP 35k, 0-60 4.8s
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo: MSRP 40k, 0-60 4.5s
BMW M235i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 4.4s
BMW 335i: MSRP 43k, 0-60 5.0s
Volvo S60 T6 R-design AWD: MSRP: 43k, 0-60 5.1s
I am sure there are other cars that I have missed. Bottom line is 0-60 performance specs are useless. But if I only cared about acceleration and handling, I'd buy any of the cars I've listed above instead of the SHO.
#191
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Do more research. I've just listed a number of cars in that price range or cheaper that have much better performance figures and definitely better handling. Oh, and they are also AWD.
I never said the SHO is ugly. Looks are subjective and I wouldn't argue there. I simply stated that many members commented that they prefer the TL's interior.
I don't recall asking you that question.
I never said the SHO is ugly. Looks are subjective and I wouldn't argue there. I simply stated that many members commented that they prefer the TL's interior.
I don't recall asking you that question.
#192
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Dunno why you guys continuously try and argue with Brock. I'm sure all of us on this forum would disagree with everything he has said but at the end of the day, it's his own opinion and opinions are like assholes, they're full of our own shit. I'm a brand whore, just like I'd never buy an American car or any american brand, just like how I love BMW and Mercedes and I'd spend $300 on a Burberry button up.
Brocks not going to give in by saying his SHO sucks. You might as well give up and move on.
Brocks not going to give in by saying his SHO sucks. You might as well give up and move on.
#193
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
This comment pretty much sums up your failure to produce anything relative to this thread, you tried with various AWD cars that don't fit the bill, you also threw in a 2 door and now you have no idea about the 335 performance but you added it in.
#194
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._r_first_test/
These test results don't back up your golf R claim. I ca keep going since it seem you're pulling numbers out of your ass
These test results don't back up your golf R claim. I ca keep going since it seem you're pulling numbers out of your ass
#196
Burning Brakes
Enough of my friends own BMW's and AMG benzes so I'll just borrow theirs for weekends when they go out of now
Oh. I also didn't want to own a previous generation vehicle while spending over 20k for a car. The E60/E9X series were being phased out in the BMW's and the F series were new while the TL UA8/UA9 were still being sold.
Last edited by andrewcjduong; 03-26-2014 at 02:31 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Brock79 (03-26-2014)
#197
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
I looked at the 3 and 5 series, but the 3 was so small it was out of the question. I also couldn't see spending 40 grand on a 2011 5 series with 40k miles, I was also surprised by the tightness of the rear seat on those as well. While it was larger and doable it just seemed small for the size of the car. I'm not really a fan of MB myself, didn't even look at them.
#198
Burning Brakes
I don't know why, but I've patiently waded through this thread, notwithstanding there's really nothing to be gained by anybody from it. This entire question really just comes down to preference. OP prefer's the SHO. Good for him. He's not wrong. Others, myself included, prefer the TL. In that, I'm not wrong. For my climate, I think it's a better way to go, as the AWD is, in my view superior. And, as far as looks go, the TL is far more intruiging...again, in my view.
I did test drive a SHO; was presented with a really good deal on a demo model (my brother-in-law works for a sister dealership). When I drove it home, my wife saw it in the driveway and asked if someone's grandfather was visiting (she said something similar about the Charger I also tested). That's how she saw the car. Her opinion; and you guessed it, she's not wrong.
I'm really at a loss as to how this has gone on for, what, 5 pages?
But...
This, right here...pure trollery. In the same way OP shouldn't be expected to "prove" he owns the cars he has (how did we even start down that road), he certainly can't expect others to prove to him that his choice was not the best one (an impossible task), and then dismiss and diminish the viewpoints of others when they fail to convince him.
This thread is exhausting.
I did test drive a SHO; was presented with a really good deal on a demo model (my brother-in-law works for a sister dealership). When I drove it home, my wife saw it in the driveway and asked if someone's grandfather was visiting (she said something similar about the Charger I also tested). That's how she saw the car. Her opinion; and you guessed it, she's not wrong.
I'm really at a loss as to how this has gone on for, what, 5 pages?
But...
This thread is exhausting.
#199
Instructor
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._r_first_test/
These test results don't back up your golf R claim. I ca keep going since it seem you're pulling numbers out of your ass
These test results don't back up your golf R claim. I ca keep going since it seem you're pulling numbers out of your ass
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/14/2...-detroit-2014/
So I am not the one pulling numbers out of my ass. You are the one not doing your own research.
#200
Instructor
all of the comments you quoted were not aimed at you nor did I say you said them, I should have been a little clearer on that. As for the cars you have mentioned as AWD, they're not even close to being in the same class as the TL or SHO. They are all small cars and the BMW's listed above IMO shouldn't even be compared to a TL or SHO. Those cars are tiny and even fully loaded aren't as refined. I mean the cupholders slid in and out of the dash. By the way the EVO and STI/WRX aren't even options for me, I looked at them and you need to be a small guy to drive them, I'm 6'3" and 240 and I can't fit into either of those two cars. So your comparisons have failed based on the cars you picked alone even if I could fit into the other cars they're not even close to the same level.
And you know what, that makes sense to me. If none of the better cars fit you since you are a heavier than average person buying a SHO makes sense. And of course, that is purely a personal preference that will definitely not be shared with the majority of other people.