Looking at the "Stock Times" thread, it seems there's no difference between stock PP vs. Non PP cars.
Must be 2.77 to 3.16 isn't that drastic, and the stickier tires on the PP don't help on the launch because it's already AWD.
Right?
Actually that's a decent change in final drive...hard to compare magazine times that will have different drivers in different cars and different tracks....u would really need to see 2 identical cars at the same track and even the same car with a final drive swap because there can be differences car to car lol.....drag racers have been doing it for years...why do people put 4.10's in mustangs that had stock 3.27's?....it can also be beneficial in daily driving as well not just 1/4 mile and to 60...and the extra shift needed for 60mph isn't a huge deal as these modern automatics shift really fast......or maybe ford is stupid and completely dropped the ball and made the car slower with the 3.16.......I think not
Agreed...
The final drive gearing swap to aid in off the line acceleration is and age old trick.
There's an obvious performance benefit. It is included on the...ahem...performance package.
The final drive and UHP summer tires are the two chief upgrades to the car, with PP equipped. Neither should be written off as anything but a performance advantage.
I could never understand all the complaints about torque steer until I got PP...
My brother-in-law has a 2014 PP and I own a 2013 Non-PP. We both have a LMS 93 oct tune and every-time we race from a dig, he's roughly 3/4 to 1 car length ahead of me each time.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 10, 2015, 02:27:10 PM
I could never understand all the complaints about torque steer until I got PP...
OMG, thank you man. I feel so vindicated.
There aren't a lot of them, but this is what I saw on the "Stock Quarter Mile Times" thread:
-----------------------
14.122@99.46
ROCOB
PP
-----------------------
14.1966@100.05
glock-coma
non PP
-----------------------
13.799@101.02
Night Hawk
non PP
----------------------
13.49@103.62
dmharvey79
pp
---------------------
When I raced Mustangs, a gear change from 2.73's to 3.08's netted me about a tenth in the 1/4 (similar difference in ratio between the SHO PP and non PP).
Guess the only way to know for sure is to have a 100% bone stock PP and non PP car at the same track on the same day (no auto journals that I can find has tested one vs. the other).
Thanks for your replies!
Non pp
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/04/12/3aa1631fa52435b83422965c0d25aadf.jpg)
Rich
What is that proving?...you are deep into your tune and getting the benefit of mixing fuel so it's not your run of the mill pp...there is no comparison being made but it's a great time for sure..
From everything I see so far it looks like the pp stock for stock or tuned for tuned and all things being equal is the pp's are a tick faster in mph and et which is what i think end game is for a more aggressive final drive
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 12, 2015, 12:21:40 PM
What is that proving?...you are deep into your tune and getting the benefit of mixing fuel so it's not your run of the mill pp...there is no comparison being made but it's a great time for sure..
From everything I see so far it looks like the pp stock for stock or tuned for tuned and all things being equal is the pp's are a tick faster in mph and et which is what the think end game is for a more aggressive final drive
It's called having fun....sharing experiences...being proud of the minor accomplishments and step by step process in running better consistent times...but as you seem to get your kicks on trying to diminish anything someone does I'll take it that you just don't understand that.
It's your attitude and somewhat disrespectful continuous comments that drive people not to share their experiences here.
Your knowledge is far superior to mine, but you are sucking the life outta so much here. Congratulations to you.
I'm quite surprised Manu hasn't stepped in at some point, as you have driven many people from this site yourself.
Always many members and guests here, but they lack the want to deal with comments as such, so they don't participate.
Rich
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 12, 2015, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 12, 2015, 12:21:40 PM
What is that proving?...you are deep into your tune and getting the benefit of mixing fuel so it's not your run of the mill pp...there is no comparison being made but it's a great time for sure..
From everything I see so far it looks like the pp stock for stock or tuned for tuned and all things being equal is the pp's are a tick faster in mph and et which is what the think end game is for a more aggressive final drive
It's called having fun....sharing experiences...being proud of the minor accomplishments and step by step process in running better consistent times...but as you seem to get your kicks on trying to diminish anything someone does I'll take it that you just don't understand that.
It's your attitude and somewhat disrespectful continuous comments that drive people not to share their experiences here.
Your knowledge is far superior to mine, but you are sucking the life outta so much here. Congratulations to you.
I'm quite surprised Manu hasn't stepped in at some point, as you have driven many people from this site yourself.
Always many members and guests here, but they lack the want to deal with comments as such, so they don't participate.
Rich
Bam!
Did someone cut u off today?...I said u had a great time...I tried to complement u...I was simply looking at the title of the thread pp VS. Non pp and I didn't see the vs part of your post...
It's like I could say I ran 11.0 because mine is a pp but that really wouldn't mean much if my car was crazy modified...
My knowledge isn't really that superior but it may be interpreted as such.....relax a little
If you'd like me to point out the consistency in where your lack of respect for certain vehicles lye, I could...but I think it's been quite obvious to most that participate here.
I don't want, need, or care for any special favors from you.
I just ask that if you want to participate in a lively and growing community....
Post something nice without in the next line diminishing that nice comment.
The excitement some have for their car is great, and if they come here to share this experience. Why try and deter them from doing so...
Adding to that excitement for them is contagious and feels great.
We are an ecoboost community regardless of tuner or platform being used.
Rich
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 12, 2015, 12:21:40 PM
What is that proving?...you are deep into your tune and getting the benefit of mixing fuel so it's not your run of the mill pp...there is no comparison being made but it's a great time for sure..
From everything I see so far it looks like the pp stock for stock or tuned for tuned and all things being equal is the pp's are a tick faster in mph and et which is what i think end game is for a more aggressive final drive
Wow, you guys really know how to light up the sky when a mod or admin steps away for a bit :P
AJ, I think the point was simply that Rich was adding info on the time a non-PP SHO can achieve, considering that the main changes from stock (in this example) are tune, intake, and a bit of E85 mix. Pretty darned good, I'd say!
I suppose you could get into any number of discussions around the web regarding strictly final drive gearing, but since the PP has additional trans/oil cooling, it's not purely a gear swap variable. Now, we could take a SHO like bpd's SHO, which has the cooling upgrades and match it up to another 2010 PP or non-PP SHO and check performance. And still, variable control will be difficult to achieve down to the infinitesimal level.
Only in simulations and mfr testing facilities can you get that kind of precision. Too expensive for the rest of us. It seems pretty hard to set up a head-to-head for a true comparison, scheduling & resources being what they are. So speculation based on solo efforts is the next best thing and we have to make do with it.
Ok guys, let's try to stay on topic. ;- )
My question again: Is there a measurable performance advantage in 1/4 mile times between a PP and non PP car.
Since comparisons become futile once we begin throwing in mods, let's keep it to 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock cars.
Go!
P.S. I'll try to get times for my own ride when time permits.
I'd say there is no difference whatsoever ...just lower fuel economy so it's a lose lose if you ask me
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 13, 2015, 08:55:25 AM
Ok guys, let's try to stay on topic. ;- )
My question again: Is there a measurable performance advantage in 1/4 mile times between a PP and non PP car.
Since comparisons become futile once we begin throwing in mods, let's keep it to 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock cars.
Go!
P.S. I'll try to get times for my own ride when time permits.
(Going back to your first post) Even though the SHO is AWD, it's a reactive AWD system and will still spin the front tires. So better sticky summer tires can only help in the traction department. I can't speak for stock vs stock, but my brother in-law owns a PP and I own a non-PP. When we both had JUST a LMS V8 tune and raced from stop light to stop light, he was consistently 3/4 to 1 length ahead of me each and every time. This is where the difference in gearing comes to light. Click the link below if you would like to see our 1/4 mile times from this past weekend. Once again we're not stock, but you can gauge the difference between the two SHOs...They're close, but there is a difference.
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,4663.0.html (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,4663.0.html)
I just wanted to clarify this one more time,the PP due to the 3;16 drive ratio will only have a very slight lead or edge from 0-60,its simple as thats.Z
Quote from: ZSHO on April 13, 2015, 09:42:05 AM
I just wanted to clarify this one more time,the PP due to the 3;16 drive ratio will only have a very slight lead during the 0-60',and thats as simple as it gets.Z
Exactly. They're close, but there is a difference and it comes down to the hole shot. With all things being equal, the PP will beat the non-PP from a dig by roughly 3/4 to 1 car length every time. It's an undeniable fact that the gearing makes a difference.
Quote from: ZSHO on April 13, 2015, 09:42:05 AM
I just wanted to clarify this one more time,the PP due to the 3;16 drive ratio will only have a very slight lead or edge from 0-60,its simple as thats.Z
Z the lead will continue or stay the same..not like the pp will be slower after 60
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 13, 2015, 10:13:55 AM
Quote from: ZSHO on April 13, 2015, 09:42:05 AM
I just wanted to clarify this one more time,the PP due to the 3;16 drive ratio will only have a very slight lead or edge from 0-60,its simple as thats.Z
Z the lead will continue or stay the same..not like the pp will be slower after 60
AJP i'm a bit confused based from your last post saying theres no difference whatsoever,has your opinion changed (whatsoever) .Z
The Right Way To Choose A Gear Ratio Combination - oldie but goodie article
http://www.dragracingonline.com/technical/vi_8-gearing-1.html (http://www.dragracingonline.com/technical/vi_8-gearing-1.html)
Check for drag racing vs cruising optimization
http://wallaceracing.com/calcrgr.php (http://wallaceracing.com/calcrgr.php)
2.76 gears will get you 140 mph with 20" tires at 6500 rpm.
3.16 gears will get you 122 mph with 20" tires at 6500 rpm.
It's about torque to the ground!
http://rubydist.com/Family/Power.html (http://rubydist.com/Family/Power.html)
Please disregard my statement about there being no difference my head temporarily exploded then I regained my logic.
I was thinking it made perfect sense for a hardware change to have no change whatsoever and even make the car slower but then I regained consciousness and realized how idiotic that would be so I apologize.
At the end of the day, we strapped on the old VBox and grabbed some acceleration and braking numbers on the long flat straight and were impressed. Acceleration-wise, it's a testament to repeatability, overlaying almost exactly on our 2010 Performance-Package SHO with a 5.2-second blast to 60 mph and a 13.7-second quarter mile at 103.2 mph (0.2 mph faster than the last one). Braking, however, was a big improvement at 106 feet versus 112. There was no chance to get figure eight numbers, but you can expect lap times to drop and overall g level to rise with the improved braking
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1205_2013_ford_taurus_sho_performance_package_first_test/#ixzz3XD0whfmx (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1205_2013_ford_taurus_sho_performance_package_first_test/#ixzz3XD0whfmx)
So the PP is 0.2 faster in a quarter mile.Z
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 13, 2015, 12:48:08 PM
Please disregard my statement about there being no difference my head temporarily exploded then I regained my logic.
I was thinking it made perfect sense for a hardware change to have no change whatsoever and even make the car slower but then I regained consciousness and realized how idiotic that would be so I apologize.
No worries(its all good)Z
Great responses everyone, that's the kind of back and forth discussion I like seeing!
Quote from: ZSHO on April 13, 2015, 12:53:57 PM
At the end of the day, we strapped on the old VBox and grabbed some acceleration and braking numbers on the long flat straight and were impressed. Acceleration-wise, it's a testament to repeatability, overlaying almost exactly on our 2010 Performance-Package SHO with a 5.2-second blast to 60 mph and a 13.7-second quarter mile at 103.2 mph (0.2 mph faster than the last one). Braking, however, was a big improvement at 106 feet versus 112. There was no chance to get figure eight numbers, but you can expect lap times to drop and overall g level to rise with the improved braking
So the PP is 0.2 faster in a quarter mile.Z
If I read the article correctly, MT was comparing the 2013 SHO PP to their original test of a 2010 SHO PP:
"Acceleration-wise, it's a testament to repeatability, overlaying almost exactly on our
2010 Performance-Package SHO with a 5.2-second blast to 60 mph and a 13.7-second quarter mile at 103.2 mph (0.2 mph faster than the last one)."
So the 2013 SHO PP they tested was
.2 mph faster in the quarter (not .2 sec faster) than the 2010 PP. Mags rarely test the "base" version of a performance car, everyone I can find of the 2010-present SHO's are all PP.
You can argue about acceleration until you're blue in the face.
But you're overlooking the two features found on PP, which makes the upgrade well worthwhile - ability to completely defeat AdvanceTrac and the additional cooling. The front transfer unit already has a humorously small fill of oil, which seems to turn to peanut butter rather quickly, from overheating. The aux water cooling will most certainly prolong the life of that oil.
The cooling features of the PTU and oil cooler are the 2 things I drool over being a non PP owner.
Checked my PTU fluid before heading to the track last weekend, and after a short 12-13k interval I already had a decent sludge build up on the plug again.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/04/15/d40e11bfb757b3bfdc3717c714dcb6cc.jpg)
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/04/15/1a2d254f8a0917a74a5f5b77deb5f596.jpg)
Rich
Do you have powertrain warranty remaining, Rich? Hopefully your rigorous maintenance will keep the PTU out of the replacement hospital, but need to work up a longterm strategy :)
Quote from: SHOdded on April 15, 2015, 06:25:49 AM
Do you have powertrain warranty remaining, Rich? Hopefully your rigorous maintenance will keep the PTU out of the replacement hospital, but need to work up a longterm strategy :)
Power train is 60k right? At 48 right now, and we have the FoMoCo 100k bumper to bumper.
Fluid still looks pretty good though. It was full and had a light colored tone to it. Used a zip-tie taped to a garden stick to check the level. Pic, looks darker than the fluid was.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/04/15/ab34d59342078df727c9aa499fbfe0a8.jpg)
Rich
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on April 15, 2015, 12:12:23 AM
You can argue about acceleration until you're blue in the face.
What I was looking for was either:
a) people putting a 100% bone stock PP vs. non PP car on the same track, on the same day
b) an similar automotive journal test
No luck.
QuoteBut you're overlooking the two features found on PP, which makes the upgrade well worthwhile - ability to completely defeat AdvanceTrac and the additional cooling ... The aux water cooling will most certainly prolong the life of that oil.
Wasn't overlooking anything, just that there were no used PP SHO's in my area when I got my car so the topic wasn't relevant to me.
And seeing how I'll never road race my vehicle, being able to completely turn off Advance Trac isn't an issue.
Regarding the "sludge" problem (noting that the recent gen SHO's have been around for 5 years) it's reasonable there would be tens of thousand of reported failures on forums. But what I see are some reports that the fluid has failed, and other reports that the fluid is ok. Also, it seems that the people who do report the issue have both PP and non PP vehicles.
The answer is very simple without the back and forth discussions which clearly sounds gratifying to you based on your other post,there are plenty of options like trading in your non-PP for a PP just like i did,hope this helps you out.
You bought a sport lux car, with wonderful power. As if having no manual trans option isn't bad enough, if the inability to defeat traction control really isn't a problem, that's incredible!
That's like having the world's fastest supercomputer with no mouse or keyboard to use it! Lol
My only 2 cents on this thread is 1 question. Do you want a fast car or do you want a quick car?
The higher gear ratio (PP) simply put will get you to speed quicker, and will affect engine speed. Hence the earlier 2-3 shift to get to 60 mph in the PP model. Someone posted on this thread the top end for PP was 122 mph and Non as 140 mph. That may be a little exaggerated but sounds about right. All related to final drive gearing.
Then the heavy duty parts just adds longevity to the all the parts. But that's not to say the standard equipment is within itself sub par for the task at hand.
So is there more joy in beating someone from a dig to 60 mph, the quarter mile or from 40-130 mph? And there are a couple you tube videos from New Mexico of these cars running on the back side of 130+ mph. And a recent article made the comment "the SHO is always hunting for 130 mph!" I will try to find that article but I think it was posted on this forum somewhere.
Quote from: Dxlnt1 on April 15, 2015, 01:08:45 PM
My only 2 cents on this thread is 1 question. Do you want a fast car or do you want a quick car?
The higher gear ratio (PP) simply put will get you to speed quicker, and will affect engine speed. Hence the earlier 2-3 shift to get to 60 mph in the PP model. Someone posted on this thread the top end for PP was 122 mph and Non as 140 mph. That may be a little exaggerated but sounds about right. All related to final drive gearing.
Then the heavy duty parts just adds longevity to the all the parts. But that's not to say the standard equipment is within itself sub par for the task at hand.
So is there more joy in beating someone from a dig to 60 mph, the quarter mile or from 40-130 mph? And there are a couple you tube videos from New Mexico of these cars running on the back side of 130+ mph. And a recent article made the comment "the SHO is always hunting for 130 mph!" I will try to find that article but I think it was posted on this forum somewhere.
What do you mean the top end being 122?..
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 15, 2015, 01:12:37 PM
Quote from: Dxlnt1 on April 15, 2015, 01:08:45 PM
My only 2 cents on this thread is 1 question. Do you want a fast car or do you want a quick car?
The higher gear ratio (PP) simply put will get you to speed quicker, and will affect engine speed. Hence the earlier 2-3 shift to get to 60 mph in the PP model. Someone posted on this thread the top end for PP was 122 mph and Non as 140 mph. That may be a little exaggerated but sounds about right. All related to final drive gearing.
Then the heavy duty parts just adds longevity to the all the parts. But that's not to say the standard equipment is within itself sub par for the task at hand.
So is there more joy in beating someone from a dig to 60 mph, the quarter mile or from 40-130 mph? And there are a couple you tube videos from New Mexico of these cars running on the back side of 130+ mph. And a recent article made the comment "the SHO is always hunting for 130 mph!" I will try to find that article but I think it was posted on this forum somewhere.
What do you mean the top end being 122?..
Vehicle top speed.
The lower engine speed should also help with economy. Maybe someone can chime with engine speed at 60 mph in top gear.
Well even stock it would be much higher than 122....and my stock strategy showed 140 or 145 for the electronic throttle limit...meaning the throttle will close when u hit that speed...there are speed limits for oil temp and outside ambient temp.
I'm going about 70mph at 2000 with pp. even with the 3.16 the theoretical speed should be close to 200 mph if you redline 6th and my car hits 140 on a regular basis and would easily do 160 if I had the room...so I'm not sure where the 122 comes from even stock
Drag limited?
The highest I had mine was 120 mph, and it was still pulling.
I just don't have the cojones to press on after that.
I was using the numbers from SHOdded on post #21, so I dunno actual numbers. But theoretically, it would be true higher engine speed = lower top speed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjcxFPLNps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjcxFPLNps)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiFA-V1zZcg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiFA-V1zZcg)
Nope...u would hit more than 1 electronic speed limiter before u were able to reach a drag limited top speed
Oh ok....well those numbers look about right for 4th gear maybe....I'm about 112-115 when I tach out 4th gear at 6000 rpm...so 122 at 6500 makes sense...I'm not sure what his numbers were for tho
I hope the first 3 pics in the slideshow below help illustrate the PP acceleration advantage over non-PP:
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/transmission-drivetrain/how-gear-works/ (http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/transmission-drivetrain/how-gear-works/)
There are a few top speed calculators out there (see example below), not sure how it interplays with torque/power:
http://www.catherineandken.co.uk/sti/tyres.html (http://www.catherineandken.co.uk/sti/tyres.html)
For the 6f55 and 2.77/3.16 final drive, it calculates top speeds as:
1st 44/39 mph
2nd 69/61 mph
3rd 108/95 mph
4th 141/124 mph
5th 200/175 mph
6th 269/236 mph
6500 rpm redline, 245/45/20 tires, stock gearing.
I'm running 255/45/19 tires...how much would that affect the gearing compared to the 45/20 setup?
Rich
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 15, 2015, 03:22:11 PM
I'm running 255/45/19 tires...how much would that affect the gearing compared to the 45/20 setup?
Rich
Without plugging the values in ad say u might be pretty close to offsetting the gearing and being similar to what the pp is because u are gaining a mechanical advantage due to your tire diameter being shorter
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 15, 2015, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 15, 2015, 03:22:11 PM
I'm running 255/45/19 tires...how much would that affect the gearing compared to the 45/20 setup?
Rich
Without plugging the values in ad say u might be pretty close to offsetting the gearing and being similar to what the pp is because u are gaining a mechanical advantage due to your tire diameter being shorter
Thanks...maybe this is the reasoning behind the gearing change? PP models are all 20" wheels right?
Rich
Quote from: ZSHO on April 15, 2015, 10:42:25 AM
The answer is very simple without the back and forth discussions which clearly sounds gratifying to you based on your other post,there are plenty of options like trading in your non-PP for a PP just like i did,hope this helps you out.
Using the word "gratifying" is somewhat odd, saying "appreciative of an intelligent exchange of thought" would have been a much better description.
That aside, trading in for a PP defies the very reason for this thread, that being what is the actual difference PP makes in regards to acceleration. Hope that clears things up.
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on April 15, 2015, 11:31:16 AM
You bought a sport lux car, with wonderful power. As if having no manual trans option isn't bad enough, if the inability to defeat traction control really isn't a problem, that's incredible!
That's like having the world's fastest supercomputer with no mouse or keyboard to use it! Lol
Having a sport luxury vehicle does not mean having the need for defeating traction control!
That would be like not being able to use the highest speed on a blender, when you never really have use for that high a speed in the first place! Ha
Quote from: Dxlnt1 on April 15, 2015, 01:08:45 PM
... Someone posted on this thread the top end for PP was 122 mph and Non as 140 mph.
Nearly all published road tests of the SHO are PP models, and they list top speed at ~140 mph.
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 15, 2015, 03:36:40 PM
Thanks...maybe this is the reasoning behind the gearing change? PP models are all 20" wheels right?
Rich
20" are optional on non PP cars, I have them.
Difference in overall diameter of 19" vs 20" tires offered on the SHO is ~3/4" (28" vs 28.7").
If this is all about performance, shouldn't there be a tuned side to the debate. The majority of us are running tunes here. I'd just like to hear some thoughts on that side of the spectrum. Like downsizing wheel size and stuff to add sidewall flex for grip. And, is turning off the traction control completely better vs just turning off the grannies, assuming that's what us non pp folk do.
Not trying to discredit your, what I see as a great open minded thread of discussion. Just adding another dimension.
Rich
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 15, 2015, 11:55:44 PM
If this is all about performance, shouldn't there be a tuned side to the debate. The majority of us are running tunes here. I'd just like to hear some thoughts on that side of the spectrum. Like downsizing wheel size and stuff to add sidewall flex for grip. And, is turning off the traction control completely better vs just turning off the grannies, assuming that's what us non pp folk do.
Not trying to discredit your, what I see as a great open minded thread of discussion. Just adding another dimension.
Rich
Yes sir, you're right! There definitely should be a tuned side to the debate, but maybe on a different thread so we can keep track of things.
I appreciate your input Rich, thanks. :-)
Now (interestingly enough) I found the info I was looking for as it regards a test of a non PP model. Check it out:
Quote
Popular Mechanics
Chrysler 300C AWD vs. Ford Taurus SHO
Sep 30, 2009
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12885/4322127/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12885/4322127/)
Chrysler 300C AWD
Base price $39,925
Powertrain 370 hp/398 lb-ft, 5.7-liter V8, 5A
Wheelbase (in.) 120.0
Length (in.) 196.8
Width (in.) 74.1
Axle ratio 3.07
Weight 4280
Brakes (f/r) 12.6-in disc/12.6-in disc, ABS, ESC
Tires (f/r) P225/60R-18
ACCELERATION (sec)
0-30 mph: 2.0
0-60 mph: 5.5
0-100 mph: 13.9
40-70 mph: 4.2
20-60 mph rolling start: 4.4
Quarter-mile: 13.9 @ 100.3 mph
BRAKING (ft.)
30-0 mph: 30.4
60-0 mph: 126.2
EPA fuel economy (city/hwy) 16/23 PM Fuel Economy 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Taurus SHO
Base price $37,995
Powertrain 365 hp/350 lb-ft, 3.5-liter V6, 6A
Wheelbase (in.) 112.9
Length (in.) 202.9
Width (in.) 76.2
Axle ratio 2.77
Weight 4368
Brakes (f/r) 12.8-in disc/13.0-in disc, ABS, ESC
Tires (f/r) P245/45R-20
ACCELERATION (sec)
0-30 mph: 2.2
0-60 mph: 5.4
0-100 mph: 13.3
40-70 mph: 4.9
20-60 mph rolling start: 4.2
Quarter-mile: 13.7 @ 101.7 mph
BRAKING (ft.)
30-0 mph: 29.9
60-0 mph: 117.6
EPA fuel economy (city/hwy) 17/25 PM Fuel Economy 22
Little pre-statement before watching video...it better outperform that Chrysler
Rich
LOL, but not a video (link to article).
But yes, even a non PP SHO with 2.77 gears/optional 20" All Season tires was faster than the nearly 100 lb lighter AWD hemi Chrysler.
LOL HEMI.
In a way, it doesn't figure ...
The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 17, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
In a way, it doesn't figure ...
The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.
All about that torque band.
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 17, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
In a way, it doesn't figure ...
The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.
Chrysler throwing cubic inches around with not so good results...lol
Rich
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 17, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
In a way, it doesn't figure ...
The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.
It's all that torque at 1700 rpm. Plug your dragstrip numbers into a 1/4 mile to hp converter and you will see what I mean.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 17, 2015, 09:11:08 AM
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 17, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
In a way, it doesn't figure ...
The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.
It's all that torque at 1700 rpm. Plug your dragstrip numbers into a 1/4 mile to hp converter and you will see what I mean.
For sure...our HP #'s get horrible estimated times. Then I plug in times to get HP and it's up around 500 hp.
Rich
as a shomopar guy, got to remember FAC's performance cars other than the hellcat are real long in the tooth & even it's carriage is. 2008 technology & they struggle with same weight issue as our sho's. that being said i'll bet fomoco & gm wished that every car their main performance plant makes was sold with customer demanding them to step up production to meet demand.
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 17, 2015, 09:37:53 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 17, 2015, 09:11:08 AM
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 17, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
In a way, it doesn't figure ...
The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.
It's all that torque at 1700 rpm. Plug your dragstrip numbers into a 1/4 mile to hp converter and you will see what I mean.
For sure...our HP #'s get horrible estimated times. Then I plug in times to get HP and it's up around 500 hp.
Rich
I've plugged in stock SHO numbers into several 1/4 mile-to-hp calcs and come up with 10-15 hp over what Ford advertises (4558 lb test weight/102 mph trap speed):
This was from the 2013 non-PP
Stock
Weight 4690
13.70@102.39
376.7 Horsepower
Stock plus 25% ish E-85
Weight 4690
13.31@105.19
409.58 Horsepower
Unleashed 3 bar + 25% ish blend tune
12.66@109.14
466.35 Horsepower
I must've fat fingered something when I used this initially.
These numbers look pretty reasonable...
Some good reading guys. I have a 2010 PP and I always wondered why my top end sucked I think the fastest my car has gone is 125-130 mph. But my 0-100 is killer especially with Nitto Invos all around. I am running a LET 93 tune and 20' wheels. Unfortunately due to my work schedule I haven't had a chance to hit the track hopefully I'll be posting some numbers from A LET tune. Thanks to you guys making this the best forum I've been on. Every time I get on I learn more and more we rookies are grateful and appreciate all the time and effort some of you vets spend on here. 👍
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Glad I can help ...it feels good knowing all the good I do for the new guys
That's the difference from 3.16 to 2.77.
Quote from: SHO-Time on April 10, 2015, 02:28:14 PM
My brother-in-law has a 2014 PP and I own a 2013 Non-PP. We both have a LMS 93 oct tune and every-time we race from a dig, he's roughly 3/4 to 1 car length ahead of me each time.
Quote from: viSHOusTX on April 19, 2015, 10:35:38 AM
Some good reading guys ... Every time I get on I learn more and more we rookies are grateful and appreciate all the time and effort some of you vets spend on here.
I'm a rookie to SHO's, but I've been drag racing on & off since 1977 (all Mustangs, 9 of them!).
Quote from: BMC10SEC50 on April 19, 2015, 09:59:59 PM
That's the difference from 3.16 to 2.77.
Shodded put up numbers I thought deserved more examination:
Quote2.77/3.16 final drive
6500 rpm redline
245/45/20 tires
1st 44/39 mph
2nd 69/61 mph
3rd 108/95 mph
4th 141/124 mph
5th 200/175 mph
6th 269/236 mph
For stock SHO 1/4 mile times (~102 mph), the 2.77 gear needs three shifts whereas the 3.16 needs four.
Maybe that's why the quickest automotive test of a stock PP is the same as the best non PP (13.7 sec).
No that's not the reason...the shifts of modern automatics happen really fast and they are actually accelerating through the shift...there is not a period of throttle lift .
Uncontrolled variables will manifest themselves as inconsistent track times.
You are suggesting that the mechanical advantage of more aggressive final drive gearing is negated by the action of the transmission which is false.....or you are correct and ford is stupid and dropped the ball...not saying that ford hasn't screwed up but this would be a huge oversight....many manufactures use this feature to increase performance...its just simple physics
Also I know what you meant to say but a PP only needs 3 shifts not 4 for the 1/4 mile. You meant 4th gear but you only need 3 shifts to get there.
And the PP's maybe be geared perfectly for 1/4 mile when tuned with 3 bar since you are just about at redline in 4th gear. You are using the entire gear.
I think the the NON PP guys with 2.77 FD when tuned need to just barely shift into 4th which is shifting for basically nothing and you aren't using the next gear at all whereas the PP is using the entire gear.
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 20, 2015, 01:11:58 AM
I think the the NON PP guys with 2.77 FD when tuned need to just barely shift into 4th which is shifting for basically nothing and you aren't using the next gear at all whereas the PP is using the entire gear.
That was my experience in the non-PP car.
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 19, 2015, 11:50:47 PM
... the shifts of modern automatics happen really fast
We don't live in a mechanical/hydraulic vacuum, an extra shift is an extra shift.
No way to get around that.
QuoteYou are suggesting that the mechanical advantage of more aggressive final drive gearing is negated by the action of the transmission ...
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 20, 2015, 01:11:58 AM
Also I know what you meant to say but a PP only needs 3 shifts not 4 for the 1/4 mile. You meant 4th gear but you only need 3 shifts to get there.
Correct.
QuoteAnd the PP's maybe be geared perfectly for 1/4 mile when tuned ...
I think the the NON PP guys with 2.77 FD when tuned ...
My decades of modding/drag racing cars are in the past. My SHO will not be modded in any conceivable way, which is the reason why I used Shodded's bone stock 2.77 vs. *
3.19 gears/speed chart.
*CORRECTION: 3.16, as it was pointed out by the unfunny who had nothing else better to say (
heh heh)
How much is the 1" difference in wheel setup going to change the gearing? .2?
Rich
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 20, 2015, 10:11:48 AM
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 19, 2015, 11:50:47 PM
... the shifts of modern automatics happen really fast
We don't live in a mechanical/hydraulic vacuum, an extra shift is an extra shift.
No way to get around that.
QuoteYou are suggesting that the mechanical advantage of more aggressive final drive gearing is negated by the action of the transmission ...
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Quote from: ajpturbo on April 20, 2015, 01:11:58 AM
Also I know what you meant to say but a PP only needs 3 shifts not 4 for the 1/4 mile. You meant 4th gear but you only need 3 shifts to get there.
Correct.
QuoteAnd the PP's maybe be geared perfectly for 1/4 mile when tuned ...
I think the the NON PP guys with 2.77 FD when tuned ...
My decades of modding/drag racing cars are in the past. My SHO will not be modded in any conceivable way, which is the reason why I used Shodded's bone stock 2.77 vs. 3.19 gears/speed chart.
I believe your configurations are wrong based on your assessment vs the 3.19 gear Ratio.LOL
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 20, 2015, 10:48:15 AM
How much is the 1" difference in wheel setup going to change the gearing? .2?
IDK, but sounds like it is a straight % of new tire diameter/old tire diameter. So if you go from 20" tire height to 21" tire height for the 2.77 gear, you would effectively be running a 2.91 gear.
http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/reading/calculators.htm#GearRatio (http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/reading/calculators.htm#GearRatio)
Thank you.
Rich
Quote from: ZSHO on April 20, 2015, 10:56:08 AMI believe your configurations are wrong based on your assessment vs the 3.19 gear Ratio.LOL
I believe your attempt at humor would be wrong based on the outcome of what you presented. LOL
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 20, 2015, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on April 20, 2015, 10:56:08 AMI believe your configurations are wrong based on your assessment vs the 3.19 gear Ratio.LOL
I believe your attempt at humor would be wrong based on the outcome of what you presented. LOL
This is a respectful and polite forum to say the least,and figured you would show a little more respect,rather than insult my integrity to say the least,guess i'm the idiot that suggested having a poll similiar to this in the beginning.
Quote from: ZSHO on April 20, 2015, 07:56:22 PM
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 20, 2015, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on April 20, 2015, 10:56:08 AMI believe your configurations are wrong based on your assessment vs the 3.19 gear Ratio.LOL
I believe your attempt at humor would be wrong based on the outcome of what you presented. LOL
This is a respectful and polite forum to say the least,and figured you would show a little more respect,rather than insult my integrity to say the least,guess i'm the idiot that suggested having a poll similiar to this in the beginning.
I made a pun in the same fashion as you, so I hope you realize if you are criticizing me you are actually criticizing yourself first.
That musing aside, I started this thread looking for acceleration/quarter mile figures for 100% bone stock PP vs non PP SHO's. There were really only two examples offered that came close:
a) the person who compared street runs of identically
modded PP vs. non PP cars
b) my link to the Popular Mechanics test of a non PP SHO (the only one I could find of a non PP)
But I guess thanks for your input anyways ...
We should have some numbers this evening for an alcoholic 2015
....
Ok, let's keep moving forward ...
My plan is to go to a Test/Tune and see what she runs (everything remaining ultra bone stock, right down to tire air pressure). Yesterday, TT was cancelled at my local track due to "extremely cold weather" (lol, life in the Northeast). Today it's open, but it's barely 5 degrees warmer than yesterday and I don't want to make runs in either very cold/very warm temps.
I want times that are void of temperature excuses, that don't need to be put in a Air Density calculator for normalization.
Hopefully, there should be a decent day sometime within the next couple of months.
I bet 80+ with an even start the non-pp will walk away with same mods ofcourse.
Edit: just by looking at some youtube vids.
2015 PP
13.48@103.12
20-30 MPH headwind
DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP
13.48@103.12
20-30 MPH headwind
DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?
Rich
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP
13.48@103.12
20-30 MPH headwind
DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?
Rich
1.8 corn
.2 meth
I fueled up after the track with just 2 gallons of corn (no meth) and the car immediately made more power via Torque. I think the meth screws with AFR, pressure, and possibly how the flame forms in cylinder. Lots of very random +KR events lead me to that conclusion.
Peak WHP/WTQ via Torque PRO
Stock
290/290
Stock + 1.8 gal of E-85 + .2 gal meth
316/336
Stock with 2 gal E-85 only
336/347
Hopefully I can get a calm day to retest as I suspect the 2015 is a tad quicker.
Quote from: ElvenSho on April 25, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I bet 80+ with an even start the non-pp will walk away with same mods ofcourse.
All things being equal, a non PP car shouldn't be able to walk away from a PP car.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP
13.48@103.12
20-30 MPH headwind
DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?
Rich
1.8 corn
.2 meth
People always seem to make use of a wide range of definitions for the term "stock". Been like that since I've been racing in the 80's.
Like the time I saw an F body that was running solid times for what appeared to be a bone stock car. I saw the driver walking around and asked him about it, he told me "She's stock!" So I went back over to his car and peeked inside ... everything was stripped except for the driver's seat and a few gauges on the dash. lol
In truth, stock means the way the car was built at the factory and as automotive journals actually test them. And while it's certainly interesting to see what mods like changes in fuel can do, that can't really be described as stock.
I'll have to wait and see what I run when there's a good day for it ...
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 26, 2015, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: ElvenSho on April 25, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I bet 80+ with an even start the non-pp will walk away with same mods ofcourse.
All things being equal, a non PP car shouldn't be able to walk away from a PP car.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP
13.48@103.12
20-30 MPH headwind
DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?
Rich
1.8 corn
.2 meth
People always seem to make use of a wide range of definitions for the term "stock". Been like that since I've been racing in the 80's.
Like the time I saw an F body that was running solid times for what appeared to be a bone stock car. I saw the driver walking around and asked him about it, he told me "She's stock!" So I went back over to his car and peeked inside ... everything was stripped except for the driver's seat and a few gauges on the dash. lol
In truth, stock means the way the car was built at the factory and as automotive journals actually test them. And while it's certainly interesting to see what mods like changes in fuel can do, that can't really be described as stock.
I'll have to wait and see what I run when there's a good day for it ...
Idk man i am pretty sure my car will pull harder in 3rd gear then pp car in 4th. It seems like once they are at high speed pp car will go to 5th a lot sooner and would be done after that for sure.
But then when u hit 5th say goodnight dick it would be over
PP VS NON PP...SHO on SHO abuse....ahhh, it's just not right...lol
Rich
I'm pretty sure this dilemma can be solved with good ol math.
In the end there are just too many variables to know.
What I do know is that in 1st through 3rd, the PP has torque steer which the 2013 nonPP did not have.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 26, 2015, 11:40:50 AM
I'm pretty sure this dilemma can be solved with good ol math.
In the end there are just too many variables to know.
What I do know is that in 1st through 3rd, the PP has torque steer which the 2013 nonPP did not have.
Which is weird because you'd think the non pp would torque steer more, not being able to fully turn off tcs.
Rich
I agree on the torque steer fwiw. My PP definitely experiences it.
Quote from: ecoboostsho on April 26, 2015, 01:41:14 PM
I agree on the torque steer fwiw. My PP definitely experiences it.
The pp cars should experience torque steer easier do to the mathematical multiplication of torque to the wheels the gear set offers
Ok guys, think I found the info I was looking for ...
In their December 2009 issue, Road and Track did a comparison test of a 2010 Ford Taurus SHO vs. a 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Touring. Now R&T no longer has the article on their website, and I tried my local library but they only keep back issues up to one year. So after a bit of interweb sleuthing, I found most of the article reprinted on a forum. Here's the part of interest:
"Although well dressed in base trim, the real action is in the shouldn't-be-optional Performance Package that delivers a numerically higher final-drive gear — a strong tonic for this mature performance car's corpus. This shorter gearing surprisingly didn't improve the SHO's 0–60 time (due to an additional shift), but its advantages were palpable in the quarter mile with 3/10ths of a second shaved and a 2.2-mph faster trap speed."
In that test of the PP, they ran 0-60 in 5.2 sec and the quarter in 13.6 @ 103.2 mph. So that means the non PP they previously tested ran the same 5.2 sec 0-60, but the quarter in 13.9 @ 101 mph.
I still might take the car to the track when the weather is right, but I found R&T's info pretty interesting as they were the only stock PP vs. non PP test figures I could locate.
kind of a nice reference but it still doesn't mean much...still too many variables...different cars, weather, track,track conditions,tires, driver, fuel,..need I go on...maybe they both did run 0-60 in 5.2 sec. But I couldn't call it equal because of reasons above....maybe when the non pp ran 5.2 conditions were perfect and the pp ran 5.2 so to say the gearing had an adverse effect because the times were the same would be a grossly incomplete evaluation
I get where you're coming from, but top automotive journals already weed out variables so the items you mention are not an issue (they've been doing it for years). Conditions are standardized as it regards weather, etc., so there is no "perfect" vs. "imperfect" day of testing. And driver variables is a non issue, remember, we have AWD.
The evaluation makes complete sense, is totally reasonable and quite trustworthy.
I'm satisfied ...
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 28, 2015, 10:28:09 PM
I get where you're coming from, but top automotive journals already weed out variables so the items you mention are not an issue (they've been doing it for years). Conditions are standardized as it regards weather, etc., so there is no "perfect" vs. "imperfect" day of testing. And driver variables is a non issue, remember, we have AWD.
The evaluation makes complete sense, is totally reasonable and quite trustworthy.
I'm satisfied ...
That's good you are satisfied but u are easily satisfied then......to be honest it means nothing really...the conditions are sooooo far from standardized....I don't care if it's 8 wheel drive..lol how do they eliminate the weather as a variable when they tested the cars at different times at different places on different days lol...it's a nice opinion of the writer but it's about the least scientific of an experiment or test that there could possibly be lol...everything I mention is an issue including that you are clueless lol
It's so close to me in performance...any little change in variables could sway the "winner", if that's what you're looking for.
My advice...throw a tune on it and have some fun...;)
Rich
Quote from: ajpturbo
That's good you are satisfied but u are easily satisfied then......to be honest it means nothing really...the conditions are sooooo far from standardized....I don't care if it's 8 wheel drive..lol how do they eliminate the weather as a variable when they tested the cars at different times at different places on different days lol...it's a nice opinion of the writer but it's about the least scientific of an experiment or test that there could possibly be lol...everything I mention is an issue including that you are clueless lol
Listen, you're confused.
The intent of my thread was to see observations in regards to PP vs non PP results in the "Stock Times" thread, not to appease individual people's unrestrained ego's. The thing that really destroys any credibility you may have had is your poor choice to be insulting. Also, your comments fail to add anything of value to my two decades of drag racing experience. Lastly, take note: gross immaturity is frowned upon by rational human beings.
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 28, 2015, 11:51:08 PM
It's so close to me in performance...any little change in variables could sway the "winner", if that's what you're looking for.
My advice...throw a tune on it and have some fun...;)
Rich
A mature and intelligent comment, praise God!
It is true that 3/10 sec is not enough of a difference that someone asleep at the wheel in a PP car will beat a non PP car. But all things being equal, the PP's 3/10 sec quarter mile advantage because of it's more aggressive gearing is definitely worth the price of admission.
As far as tunes go, I've been modding since the 80's. No longer interested, my baby's staying 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock. :-)
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 29, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
Quote from: ajpturbo
That's good you are satisfied but u are easily satisfied then......to be honest it means nothing really...the conditions are sooooo far from standardized....I don't care if it's 8 wheel drive..lol how do they eliminate the weather as a variable when they tested the cars at different times at different places on different days lol...it's a nice opinion of the writer but it's about the least scientific of an experiment or test that there could possibly be lol...everything I mention is an issue including that you are clueless lol
Listen, you're confused.
The intent of my thread was to see observations in regards to PP vs non PP results in the "Stock Times" thread, not to appease individual people's unrestrained ego's. The thing that really destroys any credibility you may have had is your poor choice to be insulting. Also, your comments fail to add anything of value to my two decades of drag racing experience. Lastly, take note: gross immaturity is frowned upon by rational human beings.
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 28, 2015, 11:51:08 PM
It's so close to me in performance...any little change in variables could sway the "winner", if that's what you're looking for.
My advice...throw a tune on it and have some fun...;)
Rich
A mature and intelligent comment, praise God!
It is true that 3/10 sec is not enough of a difference that someone asleep at the wheel in a PP car will beat a non PP car. But all things being equal, the PP's 3/10 sec quarter mile advantage because of it's more aggressive gearing is definitely worth the price of admission.
Agree with you on all points. I think the use of the car as well as the desires for performance have to be weighed. For me, I was after a DD that was quick... I don't race her... And there's no place to drive fast in this country except the track. I wanted ACC, it really reduces my drive fatigue, compensates for traffic flow, and adds some safety... Ford won't put ACC on a PP SHO... So I chose creature comforts and daily quickness.. I did mod enough so far (see my sig) to get my 0-60 a little below 4 sec.
So that's how my choice was made.... Either version is a sleeper and a real hoot to drive.
Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 29, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
Quote from: ajpturbo
That's good you are satisfied but u are easily satisfied then......to be honest it means nothing really...the conditions are sooooo far from standardized....I don't care if it's 8 wheel drive..lol how do they eliminate the weather as a variable when they tested the cars at different times at different places on different days lol...it's a nice opinion of the writer but it's about the least scientific of an experiment or test that there could possibly be lol...everything I mention is an issue including that you are clueless lol
Only things I keep drooling over not having a PP...PTU cooler, trans cooler, oil cooler....those are the key items IMO.
Wonder what the weight was on tested vehicles...tires, PP summer tires vs all season could be the difference. Tire pressure at testing. DA changes hourly and you could see a 3 tenths swing in the matter of hours. Non optioned non pp vs fully optioned PP could carry a decent weight change I think too.
So who's buying 2 brand new SHO'S? One of each to test it all out...lol ;)
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 28, 2015, 11:51:08 PM
It's so close to me in performance...any little change in variables could sway the "winner", if that's what you're looking for.
My advice...throw a tune on it and have some fun...;)
Rich
A mature and intelligent comment, praise God!
It is true that 3/10 sec is not enough of a difference that someone asleep at the wheel in a PP car will beat a non PP car. But all things being equal, the PP's 3/10 sec quarter mile advantage because of it's more aggressive gearing is definitely worth the price of admission.
As far as tunes go, I've been modding since the 80's. No longer interested, my baby's staying 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock. :-)
Rich
did anyone discuss the other options the PP includes ?
all things being otherwise completely equal the SHO with the lower gear ratio will have a performance advantage
2013 Ford Taurus SHO with Performance Package
The brakes get a larger master cylinder bore for a pedal ratio change that gives you less travel at the top of the pedal for a firmer feel, and the rear vented brake rotors are 30 percent larger. The already massive vented front rotors get dual piston 48-mm calipers with performance friction pads, and the pistons themselves have high-temp dust boots and seals that pull the pads more effectively away from the discs for less heat buildup.
Chassis upgrades include stiffer front springs to reduce understeer and a front anti-roll bar that's actually a little smaller to get the car to roll and pitch in a more predictable and balanced fashion. The shock absorbers have been modified for better low-speed damping, and the electric-assist steering has been recalibrated for better feedback from the big 20-in Goodyear Eagle F1 245/45 tires mounted on distinctive SHO cookie-cutter style wheels.
Extra track-day heat is carried away by a pair of water-to-oil coolers plumed into a radiator core with extra capacity. One helps the PTO on the transmission to run 16 percent cooler, and the other cools the engine oil.
In our lapping session I found the car surprisingly civilized, supple and quiet, despite its ability to turn in nicely and then drift in controlled, balanced fashion. The engine is blazingly fast down the straights and comes off the corners with hard-hitting torque (and makes a lovely sound while doing it), and the easily modulated brakes have no trouble catching the line drive to shortstop. For a big car, it bleeds off speed easily and impressively.
Complaints? Well, the seat bolsters could be more supportive for this level of track grip, and the tach face is about the size of your wristwatch. Also, I found the automatic upshifts in the Sport mode to be a bit conservative while coming off corners—though they got better the more you put your foot in it. Still, the paddle shifters are the way to go when true fun and instant gratification are called for.
That article like many written about the SHO is completely out of context where the brakes are involved. Brakes are the same with the except of the pads. That blurb is comparing Gen 4.1 to 4.2
I love my PP but it's not all roses either, is it quicker than a non PP it felt a little quicker when I test drove both before purchase. The additional liquid cooling was the main reason for my choice and the ability to turn off the stability system. However I have also had my front hubs replace 3 times. These are PP only hubs lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have been doing a little research and unfortunetly there is very little credible facts to say the least between the two available,found an enthralling site which hopefully is feasible in many aspects and should benefit .Z http://www.dragtimes.com/Ford-Taurus-Timeslip-26105.html (http://www.dragtimes.com/Ford-Taurus-Timeslip-26105.html) hopefull it will satisfy the OP questions related to this issue.Z
Results are in, needless to say, I'm extremely pleased ...
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=4856.msg77285#msg77285 (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=4856.msg77285#msg77285)