<![CDATA[1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V]]>check out this vid. crazy 388hp tauras

myweb.cableone.net/ryant/turbosho.wmv copy and paste into browser

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/1808/1990-sho-turbo-vs-2004-cadillac-cts-vRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 22:23:54 GMTWed, 02 Mar 2005 03:05:08 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:06:18 GMT]]>in that situation i would say, "wanna race?"

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34156https://fargostreet.com/post/34156Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:06:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:30:49 GMT]]>

torbs wrote:
bah! nate, speed is still better than looks...muah! 😄
thats why you got a dsm (there are a few out there that do look ok but they arent the best styled)

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/33001https://fargostreet.com/post/33001Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:30:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:07:25 GMT]]>Did you here that thing, dang, kinda cool lookin too not to mention. Mad E-Props. Woooooot

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32848https://fargostreet.com/post/32848Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:07:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:20:30 GMT]]>SHOs are ugly as hell

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32797https://fargostreet.com/post/32797Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:20:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:19:26 GMT]]>

torbs wrote:
speed > looks

pwned

torbert your an idiot.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32796https://fargostreet.com/post/32796Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:19:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:09:14 GMT]]>

91nbtsi wrote:
Can't beat speed and looks! Just like my talon I had, it was fast, and I look good! haha. JK. I think it is cool that the SHO is quick, but no way in hell I would choose it over a CTS V. End of story!
that would be enuf said that sho is fast 😄

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32765https://fargostreet.com/post/32765Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:09:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:12:59 GMT]]>haha, yea, if i could shoose between the 2 and price wasnt an issue, then id go with the CTS...but i wont be able to afford one for 20 years, so thats y im stickin the the S-HO

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32722https://fargostreet.com/post/32722Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:12:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:10:20 GMT]]>Can't beat speed and looks! Just like my talon I had, it was fast, and I look good! haha. JK. I think it is cool that the SHO is quick, but no way in hell I would choose it over a CTS V. End of story!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32720https://fargostreet.com/post/32720Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:10:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:40:47 GMT]]>

91nbtsi wrote:
Brand new CTS with LS6>>>Old POS with a turbo

bah! nate, speed is still better than looks...muah! 😄

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32704https://fargostreet.com/post/32704Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:40:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:39:59 GMT]]>

91nbtsi wrote:
Brand new CTS with LS6>>>Old POS with a turbo

He's got quite a point. Plus if you really felt like it, FI works all right with the LSX engines.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32671https://fargostreet.com/post/32671Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:39:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:09:28 GMT]]>i just like the video because its a car you dont normally see turboed and its a tauras SHO 1st gen too

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32670https://fargostreet.com/post/32670Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:09:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:59:15 GMT]]>

torbs wrote:
speed > looks

pwned

Brand new CTS with LS6>>>Old POS with a turbo

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32628https://fargostreet.com/post/32628Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:59:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:55 GMT]]>speed > looks

pwned

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32624https://fargostreet.com/post/32624Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:20 GMT]]>SHo that is

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32623https://fargostreet.com/post/32623Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:07 GMT]]>Pos

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32622https://fargostreet.com/post/32622Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:33:52 GMT]]>Definately take the Caddy. Just the sound of the ugly a** taurus disgusts me...heh

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32621https://fargostreet.com/post/32621Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:33:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:25:02 GMT]]>i'd take the SHO myself

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32619https://fargostreet.com/post/32619Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:25:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:04:04 GMT]]>I'd still take the Caddy 😛

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32580https://fargostreet.com/post/32580Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:04:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:21:37 GMT]]>total sleeper

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32574https://fargostreet.com/post/32574Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:21:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 1990 SHO turbo vs 2004 cadillac CTS-V on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 03:24:52 GMT]]>Go S-ho

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/32537https://fargostreet.com/post/32537Wed, 02 Mar 2005 03:24:52 GMT