Even detailing is hugely important IMO. If a car gets washed regularly up here(connecticut) it leaves it much less susceptible to rust. My Taurus SHO is mechanically okay for the most part but its so rusty that there aren’t any safe jacking points other than the subframe, so if the subframe needs to come out...well i…

It really depends on the car. If the car has drivetrain that is well known for being reliable even when beaten on, then I will generally ignore mileage. On the other hand, if its a car well known for exploding in a fireball if its not well maintained, mileage is a big deal. I guess what im saying is that I didn’t care…

Just a heads up watch our for new Husqvarna stuff. They have seriously cheapened a lot of the materials they make saws out of. If I had to buy a saw right now with my own money, I'd buy an echo and never look back. The build quality is great, they are well engineered and for the most part easy to work on and they have…

Yeah I agree. I have a 97 SHO and it's way easier to get a lot of people into that car than in the new taurus.

I would honestly prefer a fusion ST/RS over a new SHO. An SHO is supposed to be a midsizer and it's supposed to be nimble. Not just crazy in a straight line.

Care to elaborate?

Well no one said it should compete with the 911, but you’ve clearly never seen comparo’s of the first or second gen SHO. It was a genuine sports car in every sense of the word and it could be again if they make the right changes.

Well then you are doing it wrong, because that goes completely against the consensus of just about everyone I know who owns one and every journalist who drives one.

They sell quite a few taurus SHO’s as is, so it makes sense that by improving the product they will increase sales.

The fusion is more of a SHO than the current SHO. the SHO is supposed to be a midsizer that puts genuine sports cars to shame in a straight line and in the bends. The current taurus SHO is a dragster and not much else.

Yeah it really does. And it's very tall for a sedan and I think part of that is so they it appeals to the SUV crowd.

Because all of your complaints are your opinions.

Very true, the reason I said essentially is because they would look slightly different lol.

All I have to say about this is GET THE FUCK OFF YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING. I would put A LOT of money on the person texting and driving when they hit his car.

Tell that to the 300/Charger. It can be done, you just have to build it right to appeal to the customer base that still exists.

Sales are down in part because it’s for the most part the same car they sold in 2010. They have sold a pretty good number of them. What im “on about” is how they could make the taurus into a vehicle that more people would want to buy.

I don’t think I would call them poor people, but essentially yes. People who want a fullsize sedan who don’t want to spend close to 6 figures.

Lol true, I forgot about it completely. I think that may have something to do with its polarizing styling.

What are you comparing it to? You realize you are talking about a 4200+ pound fullsize sedan designed mainly for old people? If you talking about your experiences with a rental, unless it had very few miles it’s not a valid experience of how the car handles and how it’s built. Rentals are the cheapest the rental…

Considering that people buy the Avalon and the current Taurus, I think a reasonable number of people would. And no it wouldn’t be a fusion, it would be significantly bigger. Just like an avalon isn’t a camry.