2010 Ford Taurus SHO Review

By Chris Haak


Taurus Front

My first impression of the all-new 2010 Ford Taurus turned out to be half-right.  After sitting in the car for the first time at last year’s North American International Auto Show in Detroit, I felt that the previously cavernous interior of the Five Hundred (Taurus)/Montego (Sable) had been sacrificed in the name of improving those cars’ downright stodgy exterior design, but that interior materials and technology had been improved.

After spending a week in a 2010 Taurus SHO, I now can state that in spite of the 2010 car’s interior measurements being reasonably close to those of the old car, the 2010 Taurus indeed feels surprisingly snug inside.  And, lest you forget, this is a giant car outside.  The interior materials, however, show some disappointing corner-cutting that I didn’t notice in my first glimpse of the car a year ago.  I thought that perhaps my colleague Kevin Miller was being overly critical of the interior 2010 Taurus SEL that he reviewed last year, but unfortunately, it seems that he was spot-on, even for a model that costs an incredible $14,000 more money.

IMG_3137Aside from the surprising lack of spaciousness, the interior looks good.  My tester was equipped with heated/cooled front seats with Mico-suede (meaning fake suede) orange inserts.  Even the back seats have the orange suede-like seating surfaces and have heating elements in the outboard positions.  Some aren’t fans of the dramatic contrasting color treatments in some new-car interiors today, but the car is available without the orange suede and door panels, and the idea mercifully breaks up the monotony of color in most cars’ interiors today.  (“Would you like your interior in tan or gray, sir?”)

Technology-wise, the 2010 Taurus abs0lutely improves over previous efforts.  My tester had Ford’s (in my opinion) best-in-class SYNC system and best-in-class navigation system.  I’ve sung SYNC’s praises since the second-generation was introduced, and love Ford’s large, high-resolution navigation system.  It’s easy to use, shows lots of relevant information on the display, and is pleasant to look at, with clear text and attractive colors.  SYNC allows streaming Bluetooth audio from devices equipped with the same (such as the iPhone), and in fact, also features nearly all of the entertainment choices that the Acura TL SH-AWD offers, with the exception that the TL offers DVD Audio while the SHO does not, and the TL substitutes XM for the SHO’s Sirius.  Considering that 90% of the content between XM and Sirius is identical post-merger, that point is almost a wash.

IMG_3142Other technology present in my test SHO was a very good blind spot detection system, radar adaptive cruise control (neither feature is available in the Acura TL), cross-traffic warning system (lets you know when a vehicle is entering your path when backing out of a parking spot), color-changing ambient lighting, automatic high beam/low beam switching, and Ford’s multi-contoured seat.  Overall, the integration of the technology into a single cohesive unit was very good; I didn’t get the impression that Ford just went shopping at various automotive suppliers and plugged various units into the Taurus.  For instance, the adaptive cruise control’s sensors can also warn the driver of an impending collision via an audible beep and a warning strip of bright red LEDs across the top of the dash.  I had no idea what that strip of lights was for (they illuminate upon startup, but don’t tell you what they’re for, and my pre-production tester had no manuals) until a car quickly entered my lane one morning and the alarm went off.

Also, the cross-traffic alerts are displayed in the vehicle’s information display with messages such as, “vehicle approaching from the left,” which is really helpful.  Finally, when the fuel level drops to the point that the car estimates there is less than 50 miles of range remaining, the navigation system automatically activates gas station points of interest on the map; my previously clean map display suddenly had gas station icons speckled everywhere.  I thought that was a handy feature, and after adding fuel to the tank, the gas station POI icons again disappear from the navigation display.

IMG_3145One area in which the Taurus fell a bit short – aside from limited interior space for the size of the car – is just a lack of attention to some details.  The top of the dashboard is done in soft-touch material, but the entire interior-colored portion of the center console (charcoal in my test vehicle) was constructed of hard, rough, low-gloss plastic.  Similar plastic found its way to the bottom of the door panels and in about half of the lower dashboard as well.

Although Ford clearly spent money in some areas of the interior such as the gauges, audio, navigation, and seats, other areas show more apparent cost-cutting.  The remote fob in the SHO – which in my test vehicle was equipped with push button start – was not as ugly and pedestrian as the standard Ford key, but is a black plastic mini bar of soap with a chrome Ford logo on one side and a chrome line on the other side.  So far, no problem except for the fob’s size – but the four buttons on it have their function illustrated with just a molded-in graphic that has no contrasting color.  Aside from memorizing the location of each button (which I still haven’t done for either of my family’s own vehicles), the only way to discern the function of each button is to stare at the fob, squinting your eyes and turning the fob until it catches the glare from a light source.

IMG_3136While the 2010 Taurus is clearly head-and-shoulders above the previous Taurus (nee Five Hundred) in terms of looks, the car has also given up much of the previous car’s practicality in the name of style.  The Five Hundred’s dorky, exaggerated roofline that allowed enough headroom to wear a ten gallon hat was replaced by what’s basically a chopped roof that looks much better from the outside, but sacrifices usable headroom inside the car.  Making matters worse, the 2010 Taurus throws away the large glass area (and therefore excellent visibility) of the old car and instead has a very narrow daylight opening on each side of the car.  The narrow windows make parking in a perpendicular space difficult; I found myself unable to see the line on the driver’s side to gauge the car’s position within the space.  Also, the decklid is very high in the 2010 Taurus, making rear visibility difficult (and making my test car’s rear camera a necessity), but at least the high trunk means a giant compartment.  The Taurus may have the largest trunk I’ve ever seen in a front wheel drive-based sedan, and that’s a definite .

As I observed when I had the chance to spend a week in a Ford Flex EcoBoost several weeks ago, the twin turbo 3.5 liter EcoBoost V6 is a sweetheart of an engine, with minimal turbo lag.  In the Taurus SHO, the 3.5 liter EcoBoost is optimized for premium fuel, so it gets a moderate output boost (pardon the pun) from 355 horsepower in the Flex EcoBoost to 365 in the SHO.  With the SHO’s extra horsepower, and a curb weight some 400 pounds lighter, it should outperform the family-hauling Flex.  And it does, but the seat-of-your-pants impression is that the Taurus SHO is not demonstrably quicker in a straight line than is the Flex EcoBoost.  I’ve seen published 0-60 times of 5.2 seconds for the SHO, and 6.0 seconds for the Flex EcoBoost.  Incidentally, the Acura TL SH-AWD 6MT previously mentioned does the 0-60 deed in the same 5.2 seconds.

IMG_3141The SHO’s standard all wheel drive does a good job of putting power to the ground in a straight line.  My test car, not equipped with the performance package, did not really inspire a lot of confidence in carving corners on back roads.  The engine’s immense wave of torque (350 lb-ft available in a plateau beginning at 3500 RPMs) and a six-speed automatic that’s not afraid to kick down a few gears and blast the car around any obstacle (or other car) in front of it.  In other words, the SHO has passing power of nearly Biblical proportions.  It’s easy to floor the SHO on a two-lane road, blast past the dawdler in front of you, look down, and see much higher numbers than expected on the speedometer.

Ford has justifiably received a lot of criticism over the past few years for the brakes installed on its vehicles.  Generally, the criticism is that the brakes are not large enough given the engine’s output, and that they are too prone to fade.  Ford has addressed this criticism in the 2011 Mustang, making a Brembo brake package optional.  While I didn’t drive the wheels off the SHO during my time with the car, and I’m far from a braking connoisseur, the brake pedal was uncomfortably spongy during application, and didn’t inspire a lot of confidence.  The performance package available with the SHO (which again, my test car did not have), has the same brakes as my test car, but the pads are made of a higher-friction material.  Under normal conditions, the standard SHO brakes are probably fine if you can live with (or get used to) their feel.  In the unlikely event that you plan on tracking the car, upgrade the brakes beyond the factory spec.  Steering feel was somewhat numb and didn’t feel particularly quick.  The performance package includes upgraded electric power steering programming; Ford claimed during its reveal of the 2012 Focus that it has developed best-in-class EPS, so hopefully that has made its way into at least some SHOs.

IMG_3146I believed nothing of the “Eco” part of the EcoBoost name when I observed the SHO’s fuel economy.  Simply put, the laws of physics cannot be broken.  When a car is saddled with all wheel drive, a big V6, two turbochargers, and a curb weight well over two tons, you shouldn’t expect any 25 mile per gallon miracles.  Honestly, it’s hard for me to believe that anyone can achieve the SHO’s 25 mile per gallon highway number at normal (70-75 mph) highway speeds.  I had trouble topping 20 mpg without really feather-footing the throttle, and during a week of mixed driving, I averaged about 16 mpg.  And if you’re going to go really easy on the throttle in an attempt to meet or exceed the car’s published fuel-economy numbers, what’s the point of having 365 horsepower if you’re only going to use 120 of them?  According to the EPA’s fuel economy ratings, though, the SHO has the same fuel economy as its non-boosted brother.  If you avoid using the turbochargers, that might be true, but others who have driven the car have also commented on fuel economy that can’t quite match the promises made by the window sticker.

Ford has been positioning the new Taurus as a premium large car (though if the Taurus is a premium choice, what does that make its platform-mate, the Lincoln MKS, aside from $10,000 more expensive?), and the car’s pricing bears that out.  Unfortunately, pricing is quite ambitious on the SHO.  Building an SHO on Ford’s website the same way my pre-production test car was equipped, the final tally comes to $45,630 including destination, but not including the current $500 cash back offer.  The base price of an SHO is $38,595 including destination.  My test vehicle had every option except for the $995 SHO Performance Package (which adds grippier brake pads, summer tires, a re-calibrated electric power steering and stability control, and revised final drive ratio).  Options it did have included Rapid Spec 402B for $2,800 (heated/cooled front seats, heated rear seats, power moonroof, 12-speaker Sony audio system, rear window power sunshade, rain sensing wipers, automatic high beams, rear view camera, adjustable pedals, and blind spot monitoring), adaptive cruise control for $1,195, voice-activated navigation for $1,750, multi-contoured seat for $595, and gigantic 20-inch five-spoke luster nickel aluminum wheels for $625.  It goes without saying that $45 large is a ton of money for a Ford Taurus, and I don’t care how awesome the EcoBoost V6 is (and that engine is awesome).

TrueDelta says that a loaded Taurus SHO is about $2,200 cheaper than a comparably-equipped Acura TL SH-AWD 6MT.  Having just spent a week in that TL, the Taurus does top it in several technologies already noted.  But the TL’s interior felt like it was better-screwed together, was nicer to touch, and seemed to have more usable space.  The TL also had better brake feel, better observed fuel economy, offers a manual transmission, and more comfortable seats for long distance travel.  The TL’s downside, of course, is its looks – and some can’t surmount that obstacle.  The SHO has the potential to be an impressive driver’s car with a few relatively minor tweaks, and its drivetrain is impressive (if you can live with poor fuel economy).  Given the excellent products that we’ve seen lately from Ford, such as the Fusion Hybrid and Flex, I expected a little more than the Taurus SHO was able to deliver.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant – All Rights Reserved

Author: Chris Haak

Chris is Autosavant's Managing Editor. He has a lifelong love of everything automotive, having grown up as the son of a car dealer. A married father of two sons, Chris is also in the process of indoctrinating them into the world of cars and trucks.

Share This Post On


  1. From what I’ve read in other reviews of this current SHO there is a big difference in handling between the standard SHO and ones equipped with the performance package option.

    The tester on the New York Times auto blog loved the one he drove with the performance package.

    But still, in my opinion, any car wearing the SHO badge should perform well, no matter what the options, and you shouldn’t have to upgrade to a performance package to have the car perform at sport sedan levels. The performance package should get you sports coupe handling. It seems completely ridiculous to buy a Taurus with an SHO emblem on it and then have to apologize for it’s handling.

  2. Good review, I especially appreciate the comparison to the Acura TL. In my mind, the Taurus SHO, despite its faults, makes the Acura TL look like a chick’s car. I definitely agree that some materials are a little disappointing inside such as the plastic panel that extends from up on the dash where the start button is down the side of the center console to the rear of the console in the back. If you don’t get push button start, the key cylinder goes where the start button would have been, and I picture this hard plastic gettting all scratched up by the key.

  3. I dont understand all the problems that editors seem to make of the weight of the Taurus, and lack of room!

    Look this car is more upscale now! Its not your fathers old Taurus! I like the improvements! Its got more room than the last two, 1996 and 1999 Honda Accords I owned, I dont see you have to change timeing belts at a cost of $500 a clip!

    As far as fuel economy, go to any Ford Dealership, and get at side by side comparision between the much smaller Fusion, look at the size of engine, the Taurus with a 3.5 and the smaller Fusion with a 3.0 and the Taurus is EPA Rated as good as the Fusion when you do apples to apples comparsion! Now this is not the SHO version Taurus but the SEL and other models!

    What you should be investitaging is whey the lighter Fusion with a smaller engine is not getting better fuel miliage than the heavy Taurus! TO me the Taurus is the better buy!

  4. The 2010 Taurus (or even the 2008 and 2009 Taurus) are not even close to the same size class of car that a 1996 and 1999 Honda Accord are. The 2010 Taurus darn well better be more spacious than these cars given the shadow that it casts. It also happens to outweigh your 1999 Accord by about 1500 pounds, or almost three quarters of a ton.

    I spent a week in a Fusion just a month or so ago, and didn’t find that its interior seemed much smaller than the much larger, heavier Taurus’ does.

    My disappointment with the 2010 Taurus is just that they took an incredibly comfortable, spacious large car – that admittedly looked bland at best and awkward at worst – and fixed the design – for the most part – at the expense of passenger room. The 2008 Sable AWD that I reviewed two years ago felt far more roomy inside than did this Taurus.

    The 4400 pound weight wouldn’t be so much of a problem if the car had an interior to match its exterior dimensions. It must be a matter of poor packaging.

    The criticism of the SHO’s observed fuel economy comes because 1) it is rated the same as the non-SHO AWD Taurus, and 2) hitting the EPA’s numbers in the real world with an SHO seems to be nearly impossible. I haven’t reviewed a “regular” Fusion, only the Fusion Hybrid, so I can’t comment on whether it does a better job of hitting the EPA’s numbers, but going back to the laws of physics thing, how could the larger/heavier Taurus match the Fusion’s economy in the real world with the same engine and transaxle, with the Taurus lugging around 600 pounds more weight?

    I didn’t mean for the review to come across as negative. I enjoyed driving the SHO. I only wish it had an interior volume more commensurate with its size and curb weight.

  5. Some of the angles in these photographs are unflattering, to say the least.

    But I appreciate the big format available with the photos.

    Personally, I liked the “large Audi” looks of the previous Ford Five Hundred, and I wish Ford had just dressed up that body a bit, and gone back to the Taurus name, with, of course, all of these great mechanical and engine upgrades.

    That was a big car inside and a smaller car outside that this Taurus. I would have loved an SHO version in that body.

    But I know a lot of people thought it was too bland the way it was, and it was a little bland, but that could have been easily evolved by a good designer.

  6. “The criticism of the SHO’s observed fuel economy comes because 1) it is rated the same as the non-SHO AWD Taurus, and 2) hitting the EPA’s numbers in the real world with an SHO seems to be nearly impossible.”

    Chris, these criticisms seem unreasonable. First, you state the fuel economy numbers are the same between the standard Taurus and Taurus SHO. What’s the problem? Gaining 100 horsepower with no trade-off in fuel economy seems like a good deal to me. Second, not being able to hit the EPA’s numbers in the real world is not a fault of the car, it’s a fault of the EPA for utilizing unrealistic testing methods.

  7. Maybe you should have had Ford send one over that had the performance option. Because it seems that everyone that drove that one liked it. Although I agree with the guy that said anything with an SHO badge on it ought to be a hot number right out of the box, with no other options neccessary.

  8. To Chris Haak

    You are missing the point!!! Forget the weight Chris and start doing a realistic test!

    They used the extra weight for more sound deading and safety ! Styling sells a car also the small reduction in room is a great trade off for h interior and style!
    But it still more room than most Hondas!

    This is also a good time to tell you I also owned a 1990 Mercury Sable that most when most car critics compared when testing used the Honda Accord, Chevy Impala, and Toyota Camry for comparsion! The Mercury at that time was a larger car had a V6, In the Hondas you had to pay $2500 dollars extra for the V6!I now own a 2005 Taurus and Volkswagen Jetta TDI!

    Repeat Chris go to a Ford Dealership and look at a EPA Rating on a 3.5 standard Taurus and then a 3.0 Fusion that is pounds lighter and smaller, inside and out and see the Taurus is rated the same in Fuel Mileage! Only the 4 cyclinder Fusion gets better!

    The EPA has said Chris that only the 4 cyclinder and Hybrid versions of the Fusion are better than the V6 Models!

    Make my next Taurus Heavy!!!!Thank You!!!!!!!!

  9. @Charles, go right ahead and buy a Taurus. It’s a good car. I don’t need to go to a Ford dealership to compare the window stickers; I can get all of that info from fueleconomy.gov.

    I am well aware that the Fusion V6 and Taurus V6 have the same EPA fuel economy ratings. My point is that observed fuel economy is seemingly worse with the EcoBoost model than with the non-EcoBoost model. Of the dozens of cars I’ve reviewed, this is the first one that I’ve not believed it is possible to hit the EPA’s highway numbers on the highway. Because Autosavant’s Kevin Miller drove the same car without the EcoBoost V6 (a Taurus SEL) and saw 23 mpg over 400 miles of highway driving, my assumption is that the EB V6, in the real world, doesn’t match the non-EB V6. I may be wrong, but considering how hard it was to top 20 in the SHO, I have trouble imagining it hitting 23.

    And of course some of that extra 1,400 pounds comes from sound-deadening material. But how much do you think foam, caulk, and padding weigh? Most of the difference is size – the size of the engine, the size of the car overall, and the all wheel drive hardware.

    The car is in my driveway tonight awaiting pickup tomorrow morning, so I did a few rough measurements. I’m 6’4″ and my head is about 2 inches from the ceiling with the seat moved to the bottom of its travel. My most comfortable driving position leaves my knees about 3 inches from the bottom of the dash. Leaving the seat like that and moving to the back seat, my head is about 1/4″ from the ceiling and my knees are plastered into the back of the driver’s seat.

    Compare that to what I wrote about the 2008 Sable:

    “The interior was, of course, spacious with ample legroom for both front and back seat passengers, and also had plenty of headroom, thanks to the high roofline.”

    and “…the car’s spacious rear seat, large door openings, and high roofline all make getting little ones in and out about as easy as possible with a car (though a minivan with sliding doors is, of course, still easier). Looking at the two seats side-by-side, I believe that it would be difficult to fit a third child seat in the middle position when the outboard spots also have child seats installed.”

    I could not make those comments about the 2010 Taurus’ interior. It looks way better than the old Taurus, of course, and the old Taurus sold poorly. So I don’t blame Ford for making the Taurus look much better, but it’s a shame that good looks had to come at the expense of practicality and passenger space.

    @Luke, the problem isn’t in the EPA numbers, which as we both noted are the same between SHO and non-SHO Tauruses. The problem is my observation that in real world fuel economy, the SHO appears to have trouble hitting its EPA numbers. Sure, you could blame the test for not properly capturing the real world, but most cars can hit the EPA numbers if driven gently. I don’t see the Taurus SHO being able to do that. On paper, there is no economy tradeoff with the EB V6, but it appears that there actually is one in the real world.

    Maybe I just can’t drive economically. Lord knows it’s hard to do with 365 horsepower underfoot. But I can at least usually hit the EPA city numbers, and this one had trouble doing it.

  10. @Neil P – it would have been great to get one with the performance package. We’re not big enough to get specific about option packages, etc. on our press cars. Heck, even Car and Driver sometimes has to make compromises in their eligibility parameters because the specific car they’re looking for isn’t in the local press fleet.

    Our man Brendan Moore did get to drive a Taurus SHO with the Performance Package at the car’s media introduction, and he came away with a decidedly more favorable impression of that car’s capabilities than I did with this one.


    Variety is the spice of life, right?

    By the way, if anyone wants to check out this specific car in person, it will be appearing at the Washington, DC auto show next week. I invite you tall folks to sit in the driver’s seat, then sit behind yourselves! 😉

  11. If I recall correctly Ford had originally planned to name the FI 3.5 V6 family “Twin Force”. $5 per gallon gasoline in the summer of 2008 changed all that.

    Rightfully BMW should be naming its new N55 twin-scroll turbo’d, double VANOS, Valvetronic 3000cc inline 6 “EcoBoost”.

    Its 302 hp fitted in the upcoming 3700 lb BMW F10 series 535 (3800 lb with AWD) is easily generating about 20 mpg in urban use and 30 mpg at 80 mph speeds.

    And to step up to that 5 series you need only walk about 25% higher from a SHO. For just north of $50K the standard single piston brakes won’t produce a soft brake pedal.

    Back in 1989 when the Gen. I Taurus SHO appeared in a straight line it trounced the BMW 535 that cost a full 100% more. You had to step up to an M5 costing nearly 3 times the SHO to find a BMW that could beat it.

    It seems more than a bit ambitious that the new SHO is priced in Infiniti G, Acura TL, and Audi A4 territory and is approaching Infiniti M, Acura RL and Lexus G geography.

  12. Chris

    When checking fuel miliage you need to not go by the cars computer fuel miliage!

    The only way to really compare fuel mileage is fill it up and each intervals, my experence with the computer check is that is sometimes its like a speedometer they can very greatly!

    The ECO Boost is like a 4 barrel carburetor, its has the abililty for car guys to hit the throttle more often thus lower fuel miliage!!!!

    When you compare headroom, next time to try a Mercedes E Class and Coupe, Volkswagen CC Coupe which I also like and see if they have much more headroom than the Taurus!And please sit in the rear as well, my sister has a Mercedes and I know it does not have a lot of entry space!

    If sound deading did not ad to weight why dont the others use more of it? the last Hondas I own on most highways that had a little rough surface it had huge road noise! The Volkswagen Jetta and the old Taurus is much quieter! Seems to me that the others need more sound deading!

    The Taurus is not perfect but neither are the others, when I see a base Taurus for $27,800 and a Fusion with smaller V6, for $26,700, I hear you can get a 3.5 in a sport coupe with THE HEAVER V6 ENGINE that you were talking about I see no reason to buy a Fusion???

  13. I agree with Georges, the SHO is now poised for higher ambitions (Infiniti G, Acura, Lexus G, Audi A4) with a interesting bang for the bucks.

    The folks of Popular Mechanics and Canadian Driver tested the Taurus SHO vs the 300C with both having their AWD system

  14. Charles, with only a week in the car and never needing to completely refill the gas tank with $3.08/gallon premium, the gallons used calculation was not possible. But you’ve touched on the reason the EB can’t match the non-EB V6. I’m fine with that, by the way, but let’s not pretend that fuel economy will be the same between the two, regardless of what the Monroney says. That’s all my point was about the fuel efficiency (or lack of).

    Regarding interior space, the E-Class Coupe and VW CC are not in the same size class as the Taurus. In my own 2008 CTS, my head is tight against the ceiling in the back seat. All three of those cars are considerably smaller and lighter than the Taurus. How about a Toyota Avalon, Chevy Impala (which also has a disappointingly small back seat for its size), or even a 2008+ Honda Accord? The Accord, in spite of its weird design and more road noise, is a marvel of packaging and has more usable real-world interior room than does the larger Taurus.

    It’s clear that you are a fan of the Taurus, which is great. As I’ve said, it is a good car, so please, support Ford and American workers and buy one (rather than the Mexican-built Fusion).

    No car is perfect; in fact, the curse of this job and getting to drive so many cool new cars is that it’s all but impossible to find a car without a big flaw, and those without flaws cost more than $50,000, so the price becomes the flaw.

    Please don’t take my [relatively minor] critiques of the SHO personally. It’s a good car but just doesn’t push all the right buttons for me. I hope Ford sells a half million of them this year. When the car’s previous generation was known for its cavernous interior and the new model is more snug inside than expected, that’s a disappointment in my book.

  15. now I’ve heard it all. Did you mean to say that now you’re complaining that the Taurus seems to have sacrificed some praticality in favor of style? The media in general panned the Ford 500/Mercury Montego for their conservative looks, overlooking the facts that the cars were comforable, spacious, good performing vehicles.

  16. Everett, why do practicality and style have to be mutually exclusive? And furthermore, what’s the point of a big car if the interior isn’t big? Sure, the Five Hundred/Montego were boring-looking cars, but their interiors were outstanding in their passenger space. Not so the new for 2010 Taurus.

    By the way, I’m far from the only person who has made this observation.

  17. Just a quick comment. My wife just purchased a 2010 SHO and has driven it for a few months now. She moved up from a Fusion AWD. Absolutely no complaints from her about interior space being cramped but maybe that’s because she moved up from a Fusion which was a bit tight for space. In terms of mpg’s, she just took a trip of about 300 miles and got just a nudge under 25 mpg on the highway. She is no lightfoot when it comes to the gas pedal either. She also wasn’t mashing it to the floor at every opportunity either. My take is that if driven somewhat sensibly, the car will get close to what Ford claims on the highway. For those times when you want to put it through its paces, mpg will not be so good but that’s to be expected from a 365 hp, twin turbo engine. Overall take on the car after a few months: Stylish, very comfortable, sporty without being obnoxious, quiet and fun to drive. Fit and finish exceptional. This is definitely an adults car.

  18. I take issue with other parts of your criticism of the SHO. You complained about its interior, thinking it seemed cheap, forgetting that even Mercedes uses leatherette in many of its models that cost more than the SHO. Perhaps the real problem is that American cars are supposed to all be like 300 Cs, enjoyable sledgehammers, but whoa, to any American car that can reach higher than the stereotypical American cars that died in the late ‘70s. Get used to it boys, the SHO is just the opening salvo.

Submit a Comment