Good morning! I hope you’re all in the mood for some cheap thrills, because I’ve got two Ford Motor Company products that put the emphasis on horsepower and don’t cost much money. Of course, you get what you pay for, so naturally they’re not in perfect shape. But one of them could be perfect for you.
Yesterday we eschewed excitement in favor of reliable pushrod V6s and comfy red velour. I expected the Olds Cutlass Cruiser to win, but I didn’t expect it to win by a ten-to-one margin. Did you all hate the Dynasty that much, or do you just love wagons that much?
I agree that the Olds wagon is probably the better choice, but I still hate the woodgrain, and I still like the Dynasty’s interior better. It’s too bad Dodge never turned the Dynasty into a wagon, but I guess it would have cut into minivan sales. Still, it would have been interesting. Hey Bishop – wanna take that one on?
Those who weren’t around during the doldrums of the malaise era can never know what a relief it was when horsepower started creeping back into cars. No more pretending that a 140 horsepower Mustang was a fast car. No more feedback carburetors gasping for air and taking sixteen seconds to reach 60 MPH. The old-timers were scared of the fuel injection systems and computers that made this renaissance possible, but let them stick to their Holley double-pumpers if they must. The rest of us enjoyed having easy starting, better drivability, and way higher gas mileage to go with our newfound power.
The ’90s were when things started getting really interesting again. Want a FWD family sedan that could get into the 14s in the quarter mile, and only comes with a stick? Done. Feel the need to turn a set of Goodyears into a cloud of smoke with a V8, like in the old days? Piece of cake. The actual horsepower numbers of these cars may sound a little sad to younger readers, who grew up with 200 horsepower family cars, but believe me, in their day, these were really something. Let’s check them out.
1991 Ford Taurus SHO – $3,540
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter DOHC V6, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Athens, GA
Odometer reading: 160,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
This is a car I know pretty well; my dad had one, and I drove it quite a few times. It remains the car I have driven the fastest, about a buck-thirty, on the Kansas Turnpike. The SHO looked like a normal Taurus, unless you knew what to look for: the subtle ground effects, the “SHO” lettering molded into the rear bumper, the directional food-processor-blade wheels. But in all the ways that mattered, this was no ordinary Taurus. It had stiffer suspension, better brakes – and that absolute jewel of an engine.
The SHO’s engine is based on the standard Taurus 3.0-liter “Vulcan” V6, but it was developed and built by Yamaha, with four camshafts, four valves per cylinder, and a stratospheric 7000 RPM redline. Its characteristic “basket of snakes” intake manifold is variable-length, switching over from the long runners to the short ones at high RPM. The whole thing is good for 220 horsepower, a massive bump over the standard Vulcan, and for the first few years it was only available with a five-speed manual. This one runs great at 160,000 miles, and the seller says it’s still a lot of fun to drive.
The SHO was special inside too, with deeply bolstered leather bucket seats, a center console to house that five-speed shifter, and power everything. This one has seen better days, though: the leather is falling apart, there are cracks in the dash, and it has some electrical gremlins that need sorting out. The automatic climate control is stuck on 75 degrees, and the driver’s window is stuck halfway down.
Things are better outside, though the paint is dull in places and some of the window trim is messed up. It’s better than a lot of inexpensive SHOs I’ve seen, though; as is all too common with cheap fast cars, the second and third owners of these cars tended to treat them rather poorly. This one has its faults, but at least it doesn’t look abused. The seller does admit it needs new front tires, though. I’m not surprised.
1998 Ford Mustang GT convertible – $3,800
Engine/drivetrain: 4.6-liter OHC V8, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Cleveland, OH
Odometer reading: 152,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
V8s and Mustangs go together like peanut butter and jelly. Sure, you could and can get other engines in your pony car, and some of them have been pretty damn good, but if you really want the Mustang experience, you want a V8. Only once in the Mustang’s 61-year history has a V8 not been offered, and that was 1974, the first year of the much-maligned Mustang II. Ford rectified that in 1975, and a V8 has been part of the Mustang recipe ever since.
Starting in 1996, the Mustang’s V8 switched from a small-block overhead-valve unit to Ford’s “Modular” overhead-cam design. In 1998, it sent 225 horsepower to the rear axle, in this case through a five-speed manual, which is uncommon for a convertible. It runs and drives “amazing” and “very tight,” according to the seller. The clutch was replaced 3,000 miles ago, and the tires are new. It has an aftermarket exhaust system on it; the seller thinks it’s a Flowmaster.
The interior is in reasonably good shape, except for the driver’s seat. You could replace it, but as common as Mustangs are, tan leather Mustang seats aren’t. If it were me, I’d just put a cover on it until I could get it to a reputable upholstery shop and have it redone. It has an upgraded stereo, which the seller says sounds great.
It has dumb dark-tinted covers on both the headlights and the taillights, both of which should be removed and thrown out immediately. It also has what look like wheels from a newer Mustang, which can stay, because they look good on there. The paint is faded unevenly, but there’s no rust on it. The seller says the top has a couple of small tears in it, but nothing bad enough to cause a leak, and the mechanism works fine.
The best reason to look at either of these cars is that they’re fun to drive. But either one should be reliable enough to actually use as transportation, at least some of the time. Parts shouldn’t be a problem, except maybe some of the SHO-specific stuff for the Taurus. The big question is, which one is more your style? The sleeper sedan, or the flashy convertible?
“Did you all hate the Dynasty that much, or do you just love wagons that much?”
yes
“I need this part for a…Dodge Dynasty”
Auto store employee: “Really? You chose a…Dynasty? Why? You found one that actually runs?
You ONLY need 1 part?! What the hell is wrong with you!”
Mustangs are everywhere. SHO, not so much. It is my choice today
As much as I would like to hop into the SHO-biz, I cannot resist a drop-top Stang with both the V8 and 3 pedals, a far too rare combination.
At first glance, I thought the SHO would walk away with my vote. Despite being a Mustang enthusiast through-and-through, I have a huge soft spot for the SHO; both because of its sleeper-car performance nature and because I retain fond memories of having briefly dated a lovely young woman who drove one as her daily, though this was many years ago now. We parted on… okay terms, but the car was fantastic.
But this one’s in pretty rough shape. Not insurmountable, the listed problems you could probably get through in a couple of weekends with junkyard or NOS parts, but I don’t relish the thought of owning another vehicle where I’m just constantly waiting for the next thing to go wrong.
The Mustang is pretty well-sorted, comes with a V8 mod-motor and a five-speed, and though I’m not particular to drop-tops, doesn’t have any major rips or tears to worry about. Those wheels on it are a common aftermarket item, modeled after the ones on the FR500 race version of the later Mustangs and common on the ‘99 to ‘09 cars (I don’t see them as much on the redesigned 2010s and later, probably because most owners prefer a 19” or 20” for those cars). They’re good wheels, I had a set on my ‘06 GT for several years before replacing them with a set designed to ape the ‘05 Ford GT’s hoops in order to clear a ridiculously large brake package I later came to regret immensely.
A fun piece of Mustang trivia: the 1974 Mustang II was, technically, not entirely bereft of the V8! Ford Mexico, for reasons mostly having to do with limited availability of the Cologne V6 if I recall correctly, modified the front of the car slightly to fit a (still not terribly impressive) choked-out 302 V8 as an option! In fact, for the ‘75 model, Ford USA actually worked with the Mexican division to make similar modifications to the front of the engine bay in order to offer the two-barrel 302 for the remainder of the car’s life. So, by the very skin of its teeth (I have no idea how many Mexican Domestic Market [is “MDM” a thing?] Mustang IIs were sold with the V8 in ‘74), the Mustang can claim an unbroken V8 lineage from 1965 to the present!
Ordinarily I’d be all for the SHO, but not that particular SHO. The Mustang looks like a pretty good deal.
Mmm. I think I’m going with the SHO, simply because I have plenty of SN95 experience and no fast Taurus experience. The Mustang is probably the right choice for most, though, especially if the SHO hasn’t had the top end rebuilt recently.
I’ve owned a New Edge GT Convertible in the past, also with a 5-speed. Great car. Currently own a 2001 Bullitt Mustang, so my Mustang V8 itch is scratched. I’ll take the Taurus fo’ SHO
I’ve already got a red drop-top, so I’ll take the sedan on this one.
V8 manual convertible. In reasonable 20 foot shape. This is a perfect ice cream getter. Top down, cruising with the family to get a cone on a warm summer evening. Even if the exhaust is writing checks the engine can’t cash. It’s silly and fun. Sorry, SHO. You’re a fine car but my heart lies with the ponies.
Look I love a SHO, especially the second gen (the most handsome and still available with a stick) but this one is beat to hell, and at 160k miles, that engine should be on its 3rd top end rebuild, and I’d guess its had at most 1. It’s a ticking time bomb.
The Mustang should be mostly reliable and be much cheaper to maintain.
For those not paying attention, 1991 is still first gen with the updated wheels.
I agree with Nycbjr. 2nd gen, although softer in cornering, is best SHO.
ty I should have been more clear!
You just required more nuanced reading than we commenters usually employ.
Had a ‘91 SHO in my early 20’s. Idiotically, I abused the hell out of it and drove it like a maniac… I miss that car and still think about all the fun I had in it. I am in my 40s now, and I’ve been able to quell my mid-life crisis so far. But every time I see an old SHO like this, I start getting that itch to find one and bring it home.
It’s the SHO for me. Always has been, always will be.
I respect the SHO but the Mustang is just too gloriously late 90s spec to pass up.
The long slash cut exhaust tips sell it (although they need to be bent upward a touch to match the angle of the bumper).
I hate dealing with electrical issues, and I’ve never been able to bring myself to like any Taurus. So I’ll vote for the Mustang. It would look right at home next to my 97 F150 which is also red, and sports Ford’s oval themed style at the time.
I already have a Mustang GT, so a Taurus SHO would be a fun change.
Convertibles just make the world a better place – and this one actually has the right transmission for once. And that SHO interior is just nasty. Mustang Sally for me.
Both are good options, but I feel the Mustang is a better buy for the money. Take off the stupid tinted lights and fix the seat and you’ve got a decent V8 manual pony car for under $4k. The SHO is cool, but the beat up interior and electronic issues would make me think twice
The Mustang is in better condition, and its biggest problems seem to be tinted light covers that can be removed. The Taurass has more problems that may be more difficult to fix, if you can still get the parts.
Iggee and Coverking make awesome seat covers that look like the original seats. You can’t even tell they’re seat covers.
Put a set of Coverking covers on my old 2005 MDX, drove it for 8 years that way.
I voted Mustang. I’m not a Mustang fan, but it is still a three pedal RWD V8 convertible for under $4,000. I wouldn’t want to spend big money to get a nice Mustang, but I could see buying a beat up, expendable one like this if it were cheap enough. I think I could easily get $3,800 worth of enjoyment out of this car before it blew up or got stolen.
I really don’t understand the appeal of the SHO. Yeah, it has more horsepower and a manual transmission, but it is still a Taurus. Some people see this and think Taurus SHO, but I look at it and just read it as Taurus
SHO. To me, the letters S, H, and O are adding very little. Plus, it is just plain ugly.Both are good looking maybe the best looking Taurus and one of the best looking mustangs IMO. Parts availability for the mustang I bet is higher especially for the engine and drivetrain plus looks more fun. So mustang.
I would really rather have the SHO but I feel like it’s got more wrong with it than I’d be willing to deal with, even in theoretical land.
Another nostalgia pick for me – I loved my parents MT5 Taurus but always wished it was the SHO. It is also so much more unique than what feels like a generic (and modded) Mustang.
SHO in this case, never liked the SN95, actually picked up a nice teal convertible 3.8 2 decades ago to give to my mom. it had super low miles but was a tow behind thing for winter birds in Texas. It was terrible in turns the 3.8 was rough, and overall the fit and finish was questionable. I do kind of wish in 98 they had at least offered the 3.8 with an SC badge on a mustang though. I think that would have been better than the anemic 4.6.
Of course for the writer here that does not understand the reason old guys still kind of like Carbs, I challenge you to try to performance tune either of these vehicles in your driveway, especially that SHO. we are a bit spoiled these days with good software to make a new cam or some headers really work. back then it was a Programmed chip and a good many time it just did not do much to help. Big lumpy cam in a motor with a poorly design intake and plenum couldn’t help much, and it was not as if they made many bolt on intakes for the 4.6 or even more to the point the SHO Yamaha 6.
I don’t have any need to go faster than either of these cars will go. And I certainly would never want to pay the fuel bill for some old-school hotrod. That would still be slower than any number of boring modern cars.
25 years ago when I had my SHO there was a shop that sold reflashed chips and an underdriven pulley set. The factory 7000 rpm redline was not to save the engine – it was to save the accessories! With his reflashed computer and underdriven pulleys, the safe redline was closer to 8500 rpm. Breathing was never an issue with the Yammahammer.
You made my point though. if that shop was not available or you did not know about it, you could not pull up a fuel map and tune it yourself at the time. you certainly could not put in a cam more tuned for a higher RPM range, or tuned for say a power adder like a turbo or headers.
SHO all the way – owned a ’94 5 speed for years. Think I still have an EECIV scanner.
They are both junk… right to the closest crusher.
I don’t believe a single word in the Mustang listing, voted for SHO