When the American family man found his muscle.
The Ford Taurus was a success from the start; handsome sales figures making for black ink within the Blue Oval’s accounting columns. But what is an automotive manufacturer for, if not pushing to go further? Flush with cash, plans were afoot, awaiting their turn in the spotlight. Through a few twists and turns, along with a dose of Japanese input, the Taurus would raise to previously unheard heights.
The Taurus was introduced with V6 ‘Vulcan’ power. Breathing naturally, the all-iron sixty degree angle mill produced around 130bhp and 170 ft/lb of torque from its 2,986 cubic centimetres. Akin to the Taurus itself, Vulcan was made for longevity and easy-going; 0-60 in 13.5 seconds, oil changes every 7,500 miles and a service of magnitude at 100,000 miles[1]. Gas mileages averaged thirty mpg with electronic fuel injection, and should the worst occur, run fluid-less for a time before entering Limp Home Mode. The God of Fire had a couple of overhead valves per pot, a bore of 89mm, a stroke of 80mm with a compression ratio of 9.3:1. Rambunctious it was not.
Winding back a couple of years, Ford and Yamaha had signed a contract for the latter to develop the Vulcan into something more extrovert. Of course, what would any story be without a twist? Facts state the Blue Oval were genuinely considering a mid-engined vehicle to give not only Porsche but also Ferrari a bloody nose — a project code named GN34. Subsequently dropped due to a bifurcation of values and ideas[2], Ford now had a highly potent mill.
Ford handed the nascent Vulcan to Carron & Company LTD, an engineering firm based at Inkster near Dearborn. Readying the machine production line friendly, the prototype was fitted with custom motor mounts, a new wiring harness along with a five-speed box from none other than an Escort. The independent company performed their diagnostics and testing before the car headed for Japanese evaluation. Upon returning home, Carron & Company kept the car from prying eyes, realising this was to become the rather tawdry sounding, in name at least, Taurus SHO — Super High Output.
By then, your everyday Taurus was selling by 400,000 per year, and with the standard model still piling up the cash, Special Vehicle Operations were chomping the bit to unleash a halo model, which they believed would easily shift 20,000 units per year.
On paper, Yamaha had changed little, bore and stroke remained the same with compression now at 9.8:1. However, lift the hood and one may at first be forgiven thinking this maybe a Busso from Arese. Suddenly, the family runabout had found its mojo. The new Vulcan could revolve to a redlined 7,500[3], deliver 220bhp alongside 200 ft/lb of torque to make this a genuine 140mph+ machine. 0-60 reduced to 6.5 seconds. The cylinder head design of the original Vulcan wasn’t much to write home about. This new version became the subject of engineering art lovers.
The visually arresting dual plenum chambers being that source of power change. Those curvaceous long pipes dealt with breathing below 4,000rpm. Flooring the throttle for, say an overtake of a common Pony car, would open the smaller tubes’ internal butterfly valves, allowing the sonorous performance to begin. The MTX-III, five-speed manual gearbox had been strengthened; automatics would arrive later.
Taurus SHO came with beefier suspension, sports seating, fancier wheels, and dual exhausts, along with a window sticker based around $20,000. Consider that to get comparable performance figures, a BMW M5 cost twice that. Ford had another hit on their hands — or did they? Perhaps because of the standard car’s popularity, the SHO failed to stand out enough. De-chroming the exterior made this a sleeper, regarding design inasmuch sales charts. At its 1989 launch, 15,519 were sold. The following year saw SHO nosedive with half that for the next twenty four months.
Hardly helping matters was the frequency of destroyed clutches being returned to the workshop. The transmission also came in for some journalistic, ahem, stick. But as Taurus ploughed its genial furrow, management allowed a second crack at the SHO for 1992 which meant a slight change to the engine. Sporting cubic capacity measuring 3,191, stroke and output failed to alter. Torque had increased to 215, as indeed bore, to 92mm. A milder cam set up was found to smooth the delivery, mated to a AX4S automatic transmission. The Taurus bodywork also changed, SHO now inflicted with cladding and gaudy badging, but on the other hand did receive the hood from its Mercury Sable sibling to differentiate between the grunty and the lessers. Sales leapt to 21,550 — the sole SHO high point.
As the Taurus evolved, becoming more ovoid in shape, the third SHO from 1996 also took in the seemingly inevitable V8 route. Vulcan was now comprised of a Cosworth block with modified Yamaha heads with displacement rising to 3.4 litres. Outputs had risen to 234bhp and 230 foot pounds but so had overall vehicle weight by some 400 pounds, nullifying any performance gain. Trouble also came calling quickly, loosening camshaft sprockets destroying engines with subsequent warranty claims leading to poor sales; 9,000 for 1997 down to 3,300 for ‘99, the final year of SHO.
Some believe Jac Nasser’s plan for the Premier Automotive Group killed off the SHO, the halo car being perhaps too fanciful for his upmarket tastes. Many more queried the very idea of a performance engine in an everyday Ford. SHO engines were fitted to other Ford vehicles, as top end, niche examples. But we are left pondering whether the exercise fulfilled its purpose. Clearly the original SHO was a game changer, but the rules changed to suit their narrative. Another case of ‘what-if’ from the Blue Oval.
[1] Although there are many online examples that have clocked up higher mileages with seemingly no problems. The engine also powered many a Blue Oval alongside cousin Mazda.
[2] Spending millions on mid-engine fancies – or making a four door Bronco? Ford chose the latter which in turn became the Explorer and became another big seller.
[3] The internet widely reports that the engine could “easily” take up to 9,000rpm, but to what end? Even this non-engineer understands that any engine has a power band which, once exceeded is doing little but making more noise and emissions.
A seven minute Motorweek review:
Data Sources: Car and driver.com, Hagerty.com, Hemmings.com, HotCars.com, MotorTrend.com
Thank you Bruno, It’s really most interesting for me who has lived through the beginning of this adventure of the Taurus, knowing quite a few of some of the key players like Lou Veraldi, Jack Telnack, Ray Everts but also Mikael Kranefuss, who I’m sure was involved in part of your story…
A likable car. I’ve never driven one, but I seem to remember the engine would move quite a bit and caused excessive wear on the engine mounts. Also I seem to remember it torque steered quite heavily.
Interesting – the spec seems to be wrong – ‘too European’. A V8 with an automatic transmission and more overt styling would have seemed the obvious way to go. Perhaps they were trying break free from traditional formulas. That said, the Mercury Sable AIV was even more radical.
There does seem to be a strange fetish about ‘stick’ in the USA. BMW developed a manual option on one of the M5s – can’t remember which – for no reason other than to meet demand in the USA from people who wanted to be seen as ‘real drivers’ who could use a clutch and gears to make the most of their car’s performance.
I find myself yearning for the gentler times, when a Weber 28/36DCD, a high compression cylinder head, a set of Rostyles and a red ‘GT’ badge made you a performance god in the eyes of your neighbours and workmates.
Or so you imagined…
Gentler times indeed. Surely a pair of fog lamps and a boot spoiler were all that was needed to turn a base Escort into an RS2000 beater?
Stick-on go-faster stripes were scientifically proven to add an average of 10mph to top speed and cut 0 to 60mph time by an average of 0.5 seconds (results may vary)…😁
That got me wondering – when did stripes first appear, and why? I found this short video which gives the answer. In general, I think stripes can look pretty good on the right car. The Fiesta (blue on white) and Corsa (white on light metallic green) have had some good treatments.
Fascinating video. I’ve never even thought to consider the origin of car stripes – I thought it was going to be related to pinstripes (now where did they originate I wonder). We’re surrounded by things we just take for granted.
How have these Americans never heard of Briggs Cunningham ? They must have lived very sheltered lives !
The 3.4 litre SHO V8 was unique. Note that it was a Yamaha design, not Ford and not Cosworth. The casting process was the famed Cosworth process but the engine was designed and manufactured by Yamaha. All members of this V-8 engine family have a 60-degree cylinder bank angle instead of the usual 90-degrees. The big end journals are split (there are eight big end journals instead of the usual four). This engine family is light and compact.
After Taurus the engine was developed further. Volvo used it next. For their application it was enlarged to 4.4 litres. Volvo also chose to race it in Australian V8 Supercars where it was enlarged to 5 litres by Polestar. Yamaha built the engines and Volvo installed them in its cars.
Nobel, in the UK, used the 4.4 litre Volvo version of the engine in the M600. This variant featured a pair of turbochargers. The engine assembly for Nobel was undertaken by Autokraft in the USA and completed engines were exported to the UK for fitment to the M600 cars. Although at present the engine is not being used in cars it is still being manufactured by Yamaha for marine applications.
The marinised Yamaha engine was 5.3 litres initially and then grew to 5.6 litres (with a rating of well over 400bhp continuous). It is used as an outboard engine so the cylinder heads have been reversed with exhaust ports pointing into the vee and the inlets on the outside. The engine sits upright in the powerhead with the crankshaft vertical. This is a simple design solution, much simpler and much more reliable than stern drives. It produces less hydrodynamic appendage drag than shafts and rudders. All in all, gains well worth having.
Yamaha used this derivative of the “Taurus engine” to pioneer a move away from inboards for fast boats and large fast boats. Advantages included less weight, better serviceability, freeing up of in-hull volume, more economical, easier updates, easier repowers, very high reliability and for existing outboard boats it became possible to get the same performance as previously with a reduced engine count (could replace four or more engines with two or even a single). With the compact power-dense nature of these engines it also became possible to design a new generation of even faster and larger four and six engine boats. That happened and in Florida, for example, it is not unusual to see boats with four Yamaha V8s on the transom for a total approaching 2,000bhp. These boats are impressively quick for their size and weight. Disadvantage is that the engines are now on-transom, making fishing more difficult (harder to land game such as tuna or lemonfish) since they tend to get in the way a bit (ok- a lot). No matter, some newer boats have false transoms to get around the problem. Jury is still out on this though. We’ll just have to live with it.
Anyway, the trend to outboards is well established now with major changes taking place in contemporary boat designs. Inboards are likely to lose market share, as it is convenient to increase transom mounted horsepower instead. Confirming that Yamaha were heading in the right direction, Mercury dramatically accelerated the move towards outboards with its fabulous 600, probably the best outboard ever produced. The 600 features a naturally aspirated, vertical crank V-12 of 7.6 litres. It delivers 600bhp continuous for pleasure boats and charter boats while the commercial version delivers 500bhp continuous. At one point there was an outboard with more power than the Mercury. This was from Seven Marine and it appeared some years prior to the 600. It started with ~530bhp and the highest power version (in stock tune) was rated 627bhp. Ironically it was Volvo that purchased the company, only to shut it down. Perhaps they thought this action helped Volvo Penta somehow. Their excuse was a nasty bit of greenwashing. There was ill will generated for Volvo. Mercury was encouraged on seeing Volvo abandon the market. Then they swooped in. Hello 600!
The big outboard trend owes a lot to Yamaha’s light and compact 60-degree V-8. There is still room for more development with that engine. I hope they’ll undertake it soon because they are getting left behind (by 150bhp at the moment- ouch). Anyway, the SHO engine lives!
Thanks J T for this essay on mega-powerful outboards. This is a subject I’m totally unfamiliar with, except for childhood memories of small boats with 55 to 100hp Evinrude or Mercury outboards that I used to see by the beach or parked in neighbors’ garages.
Coincidently, I went to the Barcelona Nautic show recently, my very first boat show, just to catch a glimpse of this unfamiliar world and was surprised to find huge V8 and V12 ouboards. Maybe they were exactly those that you mentioned. I didn’t know outboards could get to be so big and powerful. I thought after a certain output and size they were better off being inboard but I guess that would restrict interior room and require specific hulls.
Was under the impression the Vulcan & SHO V6 were unrelated to the later Duratec V6 that formed the basis of the SHO V8 (& Aston Martin V12) or was there some degree of overlap between them and what became the Volvo V8?
Richard
You mentioned that, “Surely a pair of fog lamps and a boot spoiler were all that was needed to turn a base Escort into an RS2000 beater?”
We used a 302 Windsor from a Ford Falcon and went club rallying. Then along came Fred with his P76 Leyland powered Escort (which handled very well). We were all beaten by a 351 Cleveland powered Escort (driven by Alan), engine beside driver. The cars were cheap, but they were fast. Wonderful times gas axing and welding and fabricating, working with your mates well into the small hours. Then all specials got banned. You had to have a homologated car. Suddenly the sport needed not time, but money. Different after that.
Lesson. As soon as you let corporates in then your sport is over.
For those debating the origin of go faster stripes I would venture to say that the idea may have come from the Briggs Cunningham racing team in the 1950s. I may be wrong though…
Yes – spot-on, Alastair. It was a new way of showing team colours.
Oh, I remember the SHO very well. It was during the time I devoured Car and Driver magazines and treated everything they said as gospel. I believe the 80s and 90s were golden years for CandD, with very good writers, both staff and guests, and rigorous testing, the results of which I would use for endless imaginary comparisons. Anyway, they treated the SHO as the Second Coming and wrote excitedly about it, at least until some if its (relatively small) flaws started to surface.
Wow Yamaha engineering at its best eh???? GREAT story thanks I never heard of this car and engine in Europe.
Here’s the GN34 concept mentioned in the article – it’s quite BMW M1-like, from the side.
https://br.pinterest.com/pin/723038915200896126/
Amazing. Could the Ford badge have pulled off such a car? I know they did the GT relatively recently, but wasn’t that more for racing purposes? I think it was too far removed from the everyday Ford fare to be of much influence. By the way, am I right in thinking Ford didn’t call the GT “GT40” (or GT90 after the concept) because they didn’t own the rights to that name anymore?
This angle has Nissan vibes for me:
(image: Motortrend)
Tom – yes, I had similar thoughts – both about whether GN34 was too specialized and its Nissan-like looks – from the front and back.
I came to the conclusion that while building a sports car isn’t out of Ford’s reach, this isn’t special enough (whereas the GT 40 was). I think you’re right about who owns the GT 40 name – it’s not Ford.
There were said to be about 3 or so differing proposals for GN34 one mid-engine that was chosen, another Sierra-based and one utilizing a highly modified Sierra platform IIRC.
In addition to the SHO V6, there was also a provision for the Modular V8 to be used at some point and although SVO felt the Sierra Cosworth engine was expensive, harsh and unappealing. A case could be made for it as part of a three tier I4 Turbo, V6 and V8 range and would likely be a much cheaper offering than the Panther Solo 2 that used the same Sierra Cosworth unit.
Bob
Yes, you are right. Different engine families.
As for the first racing car to have stripes, well there are 2 situations that pre-dated 1951. In 1950 Cunningham entered 2 Cadillacs, one with a special body, dubbed “Le Monstere”, and 1 with a regular series 61 hardtop body. Both had white sides and a WIDE blue single stripe. down the center. But prior to that, in 1949, Ferrari entered a 166MM in red [it was the Lemans winner that year]. I’ve seen a photo of that car competing in the race, as it passed by the pits, and in the foreground of the photo is a white Lemans race car with twin blue stripes, But I’ve been unable to identify it.
Hello Bill – I think I’d categorize the 1950 cars as having areas of the car painted differently, rather than being proper stripes. Perhaps that was their embryonic form, though.
The picture showing the Ferrari is a painting, I think, shown on a car modelling site – the blue and white car in the foreground is a Cunningham. I think their captioning is a bit sloppy – the Ferrari won in 1949, but not against a Cunningham.
It strikes me Ford had quite a lot of performance models at a similar price, with several ways of getting power. There were the supercharged V6 in the Thunderbird and Cougar, the turbocharged 2.3 in the Merkur XR4Ti, the Mustang’s V8 – and then the SHO. It’s almost as if Ford were trying everything they could think of to see which one worked best. I wonder if the performance versions split the market between them?
That’s a great point, John. I think the logic at Ford was:
1. Small turbo engine for the XR4Ti so it stays quick and nimble, plus the word “Turbo” still pulls strongly in small Euro-sedan market segment.
2. Big, supercharged V6 for the Thunderbird/Cougar because they are big and heavy coupes, so they need a big serving of torque. The V8 probably seemed too “muscle car” for the sophisticated Euro-coupe image they were seeking.
3. Big V8 for the Mustang GT because it’s a Mustang!
4. Exotic, high-revving, banshee V6 on the Taurus because…, well, I’m not sure 😀 . I guess the 2.3 turbo was not adapted to FWT and was also too small and crude and the supercharged V6 and muscle-car V8 were too big and heavy.
Possibly 4) because they wanted to find out how to do it themselves to other engines in the future. And the Taurus appears to have been all about novelty, so using a V8 like they did in the LTD LX wouldn’t have done.
According to Wikipedia the V8 wouldn’t fit under the Thunderbird/Cougar bonnet – until they developed a new manifold for it.
Good morning Cesargrauf
You are right. The traditional inboard engines demand space (a lot of it) inside the hull. They are also tend to be heavier than the outboards. The inboard installation requires lots of supporting systems and structure, much of it non-trivial. For example, it is necessary to engineer through-hull fittings below the waterline for raw water uptake (engine cooling) and then the spent raw water has to be returned to the sea (commonly by mixing it with the exhaust gases and ejecting it via another set of through-hull fittings). Another issue is that it is necessary to ensure a generous through-ventilation of the engine space both for cooling and for engine aspiration purposes. This has to be done in such a way that no sea water can enter with the incoming or outgoing air- none, ever. The installations are often very tight and this makes the inboard engines challenging to work on for maintenance and repair. It is a young man’s game since flexibility and fitness is needed to do this work.
Another issue with inboards is when comes the time for an engine rebuild (for example, many engines are tired by 1,200 hours although longer TBO is certainly possible- as with aviation, for off-shore marine preventative maintenance is best policy). The inboard engines have to be taken out from the depths of the hull. In many cases this means they have to come through the deck, up into the salon and then transit aft, past the rear doors to get out. For some boats they come out via the lazerette- yuck! This is demanding and skilled work. On the other hand, for an outboard the task is much easier. I can pull an engine or two or even more and have them back at home in a few hours. No contortions necessary. No working in tight spaces any more.
In the scheme of marine, the larger outboards are a relatively recent development. Inboards were first. They were the conventional solution. As you indentified, traditional outboards were relatively small with very modest power outputs. They grew. I can remember when the first of the 225bhp outboards arrived. These were V-6 two-strokes so they were light and tiny in comparison to what we have now. At time of introduction they were considered huge and heavy! For the hulls of the time they reached a limit. Remember, these were small boats (around 28′ maximum). Putting a pair of 225s on a 28′ boat certainly yielded some speed, but it wasn’t a simple exercise of swapping out. The extra power, the location of the weight and where the thrust forces were resolved revealed weaknesses in the conventional transom structures which needed beefing up along with revised load paths to the rest of the hull. Seaworthiness was affected since the weight was further aft and higher up than before. This not only demanded altered structure, it also required revised hull shapes to properly compensate. Eventually we got all this, but it took time for the designers to experiment and learn what to do (and no-one wants to buy a boat which turns out to be an experiment which didn’t work out all that well). I still have fond memories of the Pelin Empress. It was 28′ and simply flew with a pair of 225s on the back. Good times.
The most interesting occurrence at the time was when Warwick Browne purchased a 32′ launch and equipped it with a big outboard (“big” being a relative term, in those days big was anything over 200bhp and there were no such things as 300bhp outboards!). Later another was added. Everyone said it couldn’t possibly work. Yet it did. He was clever in that he had the designer, the late Alan Warwick, alter an existing design to suit the use of outboard engine/s. There were differences in hull shape and structure. It was a well executed and engineered design. The boat was quiet (near silent from the bridge). It had good sea manners and trimmed well. It was faster than any of the equivalent launches at cruise, especially in a seaway. Warwick gained an extra cabin below deck with two berths and plenty of storage space. Even the galley was better (larger). He saved a lot of money with his approach and he started a World-wide trend which continues up to this day.
On seeing this launch his great friend, the late Ken Lusty, commissioned a 66′ launch (this time a bespoke Warwick design), Horizon III, also outboard powered. There were four Yamaha Excel outboards installed under a false transom. Horizon was a success. To attain similar performance from a pair of inboard diesels would have cost four times the price. I remember Ken explaining the economics of this launch. The cost of extra fuel burn would have taken six seasons (6 years) continuous use to match the capital cost saved. For a typical launch owner who didn’t use his vessel anywhere as often as did Ken, breakeven would take even longer- way longer. Now you will be shocked how long ago this all occurred and where it happened. See if you can guess!
Anyway, this brings us to more recent times and the step-up under way. I wonder what is next.
Wow! Thank you J T for this thorough introduction to motorboats! I hadn’t thought of the maintenance and installation challenges of inboard engines, but they make perfect sense. Having the entire engine outside, including drivetrain (I wonder if there is a specific term for it in motorboat lore), certainly has its advantages.
At the nautical show in Barcelona I saw some motorboats with electric engines and batteries. I think this might be the future, but now that you mentioned water ingestion for inboard engines, I wonder about the same issue for big battery packs sitting deep inside the hulls. Mixing water and electricity is never a good proposition!
SHO must go on!
Well said, Alex
Agree with that sentiment.
Hi Cesargrauf
I am enthusiastic about boating. If it goes on the water I’m there!
Re electric marine
In Sydney during the early 2000s there was a catamaran, Solar Sailor, which featured electric drive. It was a conventional shaft drive layout with one shaft per demi hull. Each shaft was driven by an electric motor developed by Dr. Peter Watterson (inventor of a successful ventricular assist device) and Distinguished Prof. Jianguo Zhu. There were modest battery banks (very, very carefully protected from water ingress). There were solid sails or wings on top of the superstructure. These were covered in solar panels. Hence there was wind and solar power available to drive the boat forwards. There was a genset inside a sound resistant box on the transom. So, you had a diesel-electric system (the diesel engine really ran on LPG, not diesel) as well. The boat was used as a charter boat for large groups in Sydney Harbour. It also most excellent for parties. It was perfectly suited in the role since it featured a good sound system and a good lighting system and a lot of space to dance! On a summer day it could run for hours at a steady 6 knots without need to be starting up the genset. It was pretty much limited to the Harbour and the Paramatta River due to its nature, but in the role it was designed for it went very well. I understand they have built several more solar catamaran vessels since Solar Sailor was launched. Solar Sailor served in Sydney Harbour for a decade or so and went on to do charter and ferry work in Lake Macquarie (around 90 miles up the coast from Sydney). Lake Macquarie is fabulous. Great place for sailing. Calm. Easy. Lots of good people around there. Recommended.
In Lake Taupo (over in New Zealand) you can book a 1/2 day trip out on the Lake. If you take Barbary you can visit the Maori Rock carvings, have a swim and even get the chance to take the helm. Barbary is a yawl. She doesn’t have a full ballasted keel. She hasn’t even got a skeg. Barbary has a conventional keel and relies on a lot of lead ballast in her bilge to keep her sails up in the wind. You may notice something a little odd happen with Barbary. Perhaps there is no wind or the wind is running against you, yet Barbary continues to quietly make her way without needing to tack. Yes, she is a conventional sail boat but there is a cunning modification. The lead in her bilge is contained within the impressive lead-acid battery bank. Barbary has electric drive. She can traverse the lake with sails completely stowed if necessary. So when the wind is down or blowing in an unhelpful direction Barbary can continue on her way, silently gliding along, keeping her schedule so you can arrive at the Maori rock carvings in plenty of time for a swim, lunch and a crate of beer (or two), knowing that no matter what you’ll be dockside on schedule (ready for the pub). If you’re lucky the skipper (she’s ex-NZRAF and brilliant company) will tell you the history of the Barbary and how she was sailed to Mururoa Atoll to protest against the French exploding nuclear bombs there (the French government should have blown their genocide bombs up over in France and not on beautiful Pacific atolls, lagoons, reefs and islands). Barbary has a colourful history. Lake Taupo is even more beautiful. Super place. Breathtaking in summer. Cold in winter. Lots to see and do around there. Lots.
Those are two electric drive vessels I’ve been on. They were both enjoyable, providing a relaxing time on the water. Well worth it to just be a passenger (well OK, I climbed all over the Sailor to see exactly how it all fit together and I took the helm of Barbury just because that’s what you do). Fun.
==
Re big outboards and fast outboards
I have links for you which relate to the multiple high-power outboard rigs. The first one is a review by Victoria and Rico of a Cigarette Racing 52′ centre consol. Cigarette is one of the leading boat builders in the USA and this is their latest offering. Some of these boats are getting quite large and very heavy. Running well over 70 in a heavy 52’ luxury boat loaded up with air-conditioned helm, air-conditioned berth, walk-in shower, flush-toilet, full entertainment system featuring powerful multi-station sound system, powered hatches, powered doorways, integrated cooktop, fridge/freezers, bar, powered seats on shock absorbing suspension etc. etc. is most impressive. Just imagine the forces going through that transom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8rOs8V7_ys
Rico and Victoria have a channel which reviews boats, yachts & launches. They live aboard their own vessel full-time (way cheaper than buying a good house or apartment on South Beach). I’ve not met them but they appear to be a fun couple. They are on familiar terms with key people active in the US marine scene. They are selling their boat and are in the process of building its replacement. You can follow along with them on their build. It ought to be interesting to see what they specify and what they choose to do. Here are some links.
Rico and Victoria’s site. https://nautistyles.com/index.html/
Rico and Victoria’s channel. https://www.youtube.com/@NautiStyles
If it is sheer speed you seek, then a family boat which can cruise at over 100 all day long is available. This link features the Howes and their attempt to make the fastest ever traverse of the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. This is part three. If you’d like to watch from the beginning, visit their channel for the first two parts of their adventure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5CR9cxFsUw
The Howes’ channel provides a good look at their experiences boating in Florida. Mike Howe is co-inventor of the mighty Ripsaw* amongst other things. Ripsaw is where he and his brother, Geoff, made their name. He is an innovative and inventive man. Sarah is his wife. She was a policewoman. She is one of those super-organised competent people you need to have around.
Here is their channel. Some most interesting adventures here. https://www.youtube.com/@Howe2Live
=
*If you’d like to see Ripsaw and what it can do… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAqx-7fE8Tg
The technology is a major breakthrough for self-laying tracked vehicles.