I'd like to say "Thank you" to all the org.ers here that backed me up in what I said. And no one should feel pain over their fav's in engines, except for dealing with their quirks. SHO-pwrd Taurus' are getting cheap these days for obvious reasons, and I must admit I've conceived a SHO-pwrd project (Only one). It involves a '60 Falcon and turbocharging. Why? The '60 Falcon looks like a UFO in terms of styling, so it only seems fitting that a UFO looking car have a NASA tech looking powertrain, with an Indy-style suspension & steering to match (Re: Bolt-on factory designed IRS w/aftermarket bolt-on rack & pinion)!

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

thats not a half bad sounding setup.

i do thank every one for there input on this topic i will give up on the engine swap.
thanks for your opinions and idea's.
and for talking me out of this.

but still i love the sound of a sho.


driving fast never killed anyone it was the sudden stop

Don't give up



DISCLAIMER: i don't seriously think you have the know how to do this, taking this advice may lead to permanent vehicle damage. I shall be held to no liability due to such modifications- wether direct or consequential.

_





Now with northstar V8, IRS, 20's n 22's

If you want to put a SHO v8 in a J, do it! Forget all the nay sayers. Do it and then post pics.

_________________________

no i it's not just this i talked to a friend of mine who owns 2 sho's one is a 96-99 and the other is a 1989–1995 and he says it takes more money than bill gates makes in an hout to keep both of them "running"

he has to take it to a shop to have "any" work done to it.

i just swap the engine\ tranny in my blazer 215,000 miles and the rings are shot, timing belt is stretched,2nd gear and reverse are gone and has more body rust than a junkyard


driving fast never killed anyone it was the sudden stop

james gilk wrote:no i it's not just this i talked to a friend of mine who owns 2 sho's one is a 96-99 and the other is a 1989–1995 and he says it takes more money than bill gates makes in an hout to keep both of them "running"

he has to take it to a shop to have "any" work done to it.

i just swap the engine\ tranny in my blazer 215,000 miles and the rings are shot, timing belt is stretched,2nd gear and reverse are gone and has more body rust than a junkyard

Well, the SHOs are more prone to problems because they run such a high compression (like German cars).

_________________________

just do the ECO and be done with it! GM's race division has done some amazing with it and it's solid, not like a honda! LOL!


Project Resurrection is in full swing!

Rob Durrett wrote:

james gilk wrote:no i it's not just this i talked to a friend of mine who owns 2 sho's one is a 96-99 and the other is a 1989–1995 and he says it takes more money than bill gates makes in an hout to keep both of them "running"

he has to take it to a shop to have "any" work done to it.

i just swap the engine\ tranny in my blazer 215,000 miles and the rings are shot, timing belt is stretched,2nd gear and reverse are gone and has more body rust than a junkyard

Well, the SHOs are more prone to problems because they run such a high compression (like German cars).

Do you honestly think that's why?




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

no honestly it's not the head, block, crank its usually something simple that is easy to replace on othet cars like steering pump break booster it's just to much work cus you have such a large engine in such a small car


driving fast never killed anyone it was the sudden stop

^^Gee Rob, what do you consider "high" compression... 9:1? And would that be static or dynamic? Cuz back before the EPA/CARB mandate to require all new cars sold to have a compression that allowed use of unleaded gasoline (Tetraethyl lead = octane), just about every engine Detroit built for passenger cars had an average static compression ratio of 10:1... Heck, some even 10.25, or even 11:1 (Re: Chevy's L79 327ci small-block V-8)! Even a few had 12.5:1, and they've all fared well in durability. In fact, here's a Chevy guy's joke: What do you call a small-block Chevy that's seen 300,000mi of operation? Answer: Broken in. (Hah!) My guess is that these early advanced-tech design production engines (SHO V-6, Quad4) all suffered from the same fatal flaw: Race car designs that were meant to be torn-down after each and every heat, not driven endlessly for miles w/ typical boosted ego drivers beatin' on it fairly regularly then only receiving basic common engine maintainance. I mean, c'mon... Lotus & Yamaha, known race vehicle builders designing engines that are meant for common production cars that are to be sold to the typical driver? Sounds like a time-bomb of woes to me...

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

Rob Durrett wrote:

james gilk wrote:no i it's not just this i talked to a friend of mine who owns 2 sho's one is a 96-99 and the other is a 1989–1995 and he says it takes more money than bill gates makes in an hout to keep both of them "running"

he has to take it to a shop to have "any" work done to it.

i just swap the engine\ tranny in my blazer 215,000 miles and the rings are shot, timing belt is stretched,2nd gear and reverse are gone and has more body rust than a junkyard

Well, the SHOs are more prone to problems because they run such a high compression (like German cars).

.... eco. 10:1
... LD9. 9.7:1
...LG0 10:1


kinda lost.

Chris


'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Rob Durrett wrote:

james gilk wrote:no i it's not just this i talked to a friend of mine who owns 2 sho's one is a 96-99 and the other is a 1989–1995 and he says it takes more money than bill gates makes in an hout to keep both of them "running"

he has to take it to a shop to have "any" work done to it.

i just swap the engine\ tranny in my blazer 215,000 miles and the rings are shot, timing belt is stretched,2nd gear and reverse are gone and has more body rust than a junkyard

Well, the SHOs are more prone to problems because they run such a high compression (like German cars).

.... eco. 10:1
... LD9. 9.7:1
...LG0 10:1


kinda lost.

Chris

The SHOs run about a 13:1


_________________________

1997ztwo4 wrote:Don't give up



DISCLAIMER: i don't seriously think you have the know how to do this, taking this advice may lead to permanent vehicle damage. I shall be held to no liability due to such modifications- wether direct or consequential.

this is great! im going to the garage........

^^What?! That can't be... Even with aluminum heads that's way more than any high octane unleaded gasoline that was common at the time of the SHO's introduction ('89) can realistically be run within! Pressures like that would at least require 108 R+M/2 points to run trouble-free, and without any lead added to the mix to make such octane points, which is very hard to come by even now. So back then such a static number would be unrealistic to have in even a limited-production car sold in a price range that would make it available to the general public. Hell, even the ledgendary ZL-1 only had 12.5, and that was an iron-sleaved all-aluminum engine.

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

I looked it up and from what I saw they said the compression ratio of the SHO was 10:1 or 10.5:1... eco compression range

Just thought of somethin'... someone said the SHO's tuning supposedly caused it to be underrated. Remembering some of the methods used in engine management I think I know the reason why: Knock control. Aside from dialing back the spark curve significantly, EGR control was brought in to dilute the mixture to help prevent knock. Problem is, given that the compression was supposedly so high and premium unleaded had only 92 octane points to it, this would require a dilution of greater than the supposed 15% max of cylinder volume that a vacuum actuated EGR valve would deliver (Let it be noted that in some cases the dilution would reach 30% with such control). I don't remember when Ford brought on the fully electronic EGR metering valve, but I bet it was used on the SHO. How else could such precise control of EGR (+/- be done to allow this engine's 13:1 compression to run on 92 octane? Of course, this dilution of air/fuel charge would mean performance would be hindered, so this makes sense. Plus, the NOx emissions would have been well in excess of the mandate limits set for this engine's production years without it. Prove me wrong on any of it, guys... I await it.

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

^^Sorry, Scott. Didn't see you there while makin' my last post. Nevermind the 13:1 part but still that applied knock control stuff I said is very true. It's still in use today on the the big power pushrod engines w/ high compression even with aluminum heads.

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

Rob Durrett wrote:The SHOs run about a 13:1

What crackhead gave you that information?
1g ~ 9.8:1
2g ~ 10:1
Also, the problems with that motor are not related to the compression ratio (not possible, even if it was 13:1, the problems are with completely different systems)




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

with the v8 version i remember hearing something about how the cams were faulty and after about 50,000 or so you would need some major engine work done to take care of it. I really gotta start remembering where i find this crap. the v6's can be very reliable though, if you can find the engine, don't put it in a cav, keep it in the taurus and take off the SHO badges. then you would have the ultimate sleeper. Only problem is that it is a ford....

Scott Hack wrote:with the v8 version i remember hearing something about how the cams were faulty and after about 50,000 or so you would need some major engine work done to take care of it. I really gotta start remembering where i find this crap. the v6's can be very reliable though, if you can find the engine, don't put it in a cav, keep it in the taurus and take off the SHO badges. then you would have the ultimate sleeper. Only problem is that it is a ford....

The cam gears separate from the camshaft if not fixed on the V8s.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

actuall if caught in time the ford dealer ship would fix it for free at least they did to my friends v8 sho simply because ford pressed the com on

^^^^^ dude, your sig is like 3 times the allowed height limit. Might wanna fix it.

9.8:1? Okay, I can see that. Certainly would explain the power levels it put out. Plus even with the factory slugs I'd be looking at some sizeable boost numbers runnin' E85. (Yes, I'm still hooked on that. That fuel seems like it was made for rodders... It's getting very big in the mainstream.) Anyways, pursuing the SHO V-6 here, I wonder: What the faults/weaknesses of it are? I won't bother with the SHO V-8 as I've heard disappointment stories on power output over it compared to the V-6. And Jimmy... If the prospect of a big engine in a small car tantalizes you so, get a 1st-gen J (RWD) and stick a LSx bored & stroked to 454+ci in it... Then tell me what you think of the either SHO engine pullin' a front-driver around.

Go beyond the "bolt-on".

Nickelin Dimer wrote:...And Jimmy... If the prospect of a big engine in a small car tantalizes you so, get a 1st-gen J (RWD)...

what a dumb@ss