"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >The engine family I referred to is the one used in the Mustang
>
> Yuck. They could've gotten the same power output and better fuel economy
from a 3.0 litre motor. A twin-cam, multi-valve setup would've been nice
too.
>
> >The 60 degree V-8 pretty much killed the SHO - along with its high price.
>
> That car was pitiful. An overpriced P.O.S. as far as I'm concerned, not to
> mention ugly and not particularly fast if memory serves me.
>
> >There's a new duratec 3.5L V-6 coming out within a year.
>
> I hadn't heard about that. I know that something based on the Futura
concept
> and built on the Mazda 6 platform is set to replace the Taurus and Sable.
A 3.5
> would be nice, if it's done right. But even the 3.0 in the 6 would be an
> improvement over the current Taurus mill.
>
> >If I coulda I woulda... 'course I tried to get into a used '00 S4, but
> >the new '02 WRX fit so much better into my budget.
>
> I came very near getting a 944 Turbo instead of my VW. But the high
maintenance and insurance costs put me off and the 968 would've been the
same scenario with a higher buy-in price. I thought the WRX was a great bang
for the buck but I thought the VW was more comfortable and already more than
quick enough to get me in trouble. I've been pondering buying a Grand
National from a local guy who's selling his, but I think it'd be a stretch
and I fear the car would spend most of the time in the garage thanks to gas,
insurance and registration costs.

the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung
hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement. the V-60 SHO 2nd
gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.