1951 Ford/88 Turbo Coupe (http://"http://www.dealsonwheels.com/search/detail.aspx?id=001260-200610-000003")
Who ever thought that this wasn't possible just got proven wrong :pbb:
That is one unique car.
I've seen that done to MN12's before. First time I'd ever seen it done to a Fox...
I thought those kits were only available for the MN12's? maybe he modified the kit to work??
Either way, poor tc.
Scott
That's just wrong. Even the kit for the MN12 is wrong.
Who came up with this idea? It doesn't flow or look right with the fox/MN12 body at all. :yuck:
That's kinda like that kit they make that you can put on S-10's, to make it look like a '48-51 Chevy pickup. Just doesn't look right.
it doesnt look good, but its worlds ahead of the tiffany :D
Ewwwwwwww
- i will say, and this is stepping out, but with only that one pic to go on, i think it looks better than the ones on MN12 birds.....imo...
51 Ford front ends are for 51 Fords NOT T-birds:dunce:
There's an MN12 running around here with that kit. I think it looks pretty good. It was orange with ghosted pearlecent flames, but it was recently repainted white. Still ooks cool though. I get a pic next time I see it.
wow. 10 miles from my house. Maybe I'll call the number and get diffrent pics.
That is ugly..............real ugly.
Sorry guy's but i have to be the first and maybe the only one to say i like it,plus it give another TC a different lease on life.
That car may have been sped and now it will be given the utmost care.
I agree with you, the guy most likely stuffed the front end and he decided to do something really cool and unique.
i like as well
Kit comes from http://www.easyrods.com and is all fiberglass so it probably wouldn't be that tough to modify it if you have the skill to install it in the first place. If you like them they're all over the Daytona Turkey Run....
some of those on the site are actually really cool.
I like 'em too, and for $3k for the kit and about $2500 for a '94-'97 V8 Bird you've got a cheap, attractive, and reliable hot rod that anyone with even moderate mechanical/body skills could build themselves. Counting body and paint work you should easily be able to do that car for well under $10k. Just try to buy a decent 49-51 Ford for under $10k, and even then you'd have a flathead (or SBC somebody swapped in), drum brakes, 6 volt system, bench seats w/o seatbelts, no A/C/cruise/power accessories, etc. I'd love to see a kit for the 83-86 models - the chrome window trim and non-flush windows (especially with vent windows) would work so much better when going for the "classic" look. The 87-88 Cougar roof line and rear 1/4 window would be badass with that kit as well (I don't really like the 89-97 Cougar-based ones shown on that site)
Easy. Very easy to find a NICE driver one for less than half that.
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138009&highlight=1949
You say all this like it's a bad thing. Have you ever even owned an old car? Bust it off, smell the fuel, open a cowl vent and manually roll down the windows if it's hot outside. I'd say it beats driving in an '80s car all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.
I never understood the '50 Ford/'89 Tbirds, or '40 Ford/ S-10 truck, or '51 Studebaker/ '79 El Camino abortions. Good Lord they are all ****ing ugly. Putting new stuff in an old car "can" be cool, but bolting on tacky fenders and grilles onto a new car is NEVER cool. I guess different strokes for different folks, but that is one trend I will never get.
Ok, so for $4500 you get a nearly 60 year old car with
- Four wheel drum brakes
- A 2-bbl 350
- Non-working windshield wipers
- Solid, evidence of body work here and there.
- Trunk floor soft, spare tire well, rusted through.
- New floors pans screwed down over rough originals. New rocker panels
- Hood “blew-up” at like 55 mph on previous owner, but I have back on and locked down for worry free driving
- center link rubs against oil pan, but does affect steering, could use rebuild and alignment for long distance and for your new tires sake
- Finish is shot, I began sanding for the classic “in progress” look; a quick re-spray would do wonders.
- Bumpers o.k. front a little off kilter, (but nothing a large tree wouldn’t fix)
- Chrome rough, I have all four bumper guards, there are in various conditions, mostly bad, but serviceable
- Doors sag some, driver’s door likes to open slightly but stays shut when locked from inside, could use a new mechanizes, key hole aren’t functioning (your going to shave ‘em anyway!)
- Trunk lid shuts, (lock doesn’t work) but lid stays down ( cuz it’s really heavy) and is driven as is
- Tail pan, (sheet metal under the truck) is Swiss cheese and needs replacement. ( new replacements are available ( part # 8A-7040324).
Sounds more like a full time project than a nice driver. Still, you MIGHT be able to stay under $10k after fixing all that (except the body)... but my $10k estimate included the car, kit, bodywork and paint, so you'd still be ahead money-wise with the MN12.
Yes, I have driven many old cars, including my old '66 Galaxie 500 (390 4-bbl, 4-wheel drum brakes), two 70's Firebirds, a '78 Skylark, an '83 Chev 1/2 ton (I know, an 80's vehicle, but essentially unchanged from 73-87), my first Thunderbird (again, an 80's car, but with its carbureted 3.8 it was as primitive as any "old" car) and while they were all fun they couldn't even begin to be as reliable or comfortable as a late 90's MN12 (or even a late 80's Fox) would be. Old can be quaint, but being broken down all the time, or constantly having to make adjustments, or fearing to drive further than a hundred miles from home, is not my idea of fun.
To say that a 130-horse flathead, two speed tranny and four wheel drum brakes that you can only drive on sunny days is more fun to drive than a 200+ horse 4.6, 5.0 or 3.8 SC, four-speed auto (or 5-speed standard), independent rear end, four wheel disc brakes, antilock brakes, airbags, power everything, leather seats, power moonroof car that you can buy parts for all day at any dealership or jobber and drive at 28MPG, 12 months of the year with no fear of wrecking a real classic is kinda the automotive equivalent of S&M. To bring the '49 in your example to even close to the same driveability levels as an MN12 would cost tens of thousands of dollars. 99% of the people that saw you driving the MN12-converted-49 would never know it wasn't real, and would admire the "work" you did fitting flush glass, independent rear and modern interior to a "classic".
Then consider that the body kit costs about what a good ground effects kit costs for a ricer and the screaming bargain that kit is becomes even more... um... screaming.
Then there's the trying to find a classic for a reasonable price thing. 49-51 Fords might be common in Arizona, Texas or California but try finding a decent one in eastern Canada. If you find one under $10k you'll be sinking another $5k into the body just to make it driveable. Yeah, I could go to Texas and bring that car back, but that would add another $3k to the price of the car before even turning a wrench to fix it up. Meanwhile people are practically giving 4.6-liter MN12's away.
As you said: Different strokes for different folks. Ya know, there are a lot of people that consider our cars ugly (and a lot considered them ugly when new)...
Flatheads never made 130hp stock. :D
I just know that with the time and money that someone would have to put into making those, that they could have a really REALLY bitchin car that was actually old, actually cool, and actually reliable enough to do all the things you're talking about there. Besides, I wouldn't trust an 18yr old 220K mile Tbird to make it any further than a '50 Ford. :D
Sorry guys......I like it.
I love the 1951 Fords.
(I was born in 1951)
Modern car and nostalic look and feel.
Well if you guys liked that then you'll love this!...
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/turbosprunt/whygodwhy.jpg?t=1164872332)
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/turbosprunt/5651c2181b1d91438868197b258b5336.gif?t=1164872334)