Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 15, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 15, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
I've been away from the forums for a bit. I've been working on the 92 LX. Like ScottD's 97LX I imagine that I've got the only 92LX on the Fox Tbird/Cougar Forums.
I've pretty much given up on the 86 Bird. I'm not motivated to get it on the road any time soon.
But, the 92 now has grown on me a bit. All the goodies work including the temp controlled HVAC. What a great feature. Plus the engine only has 22,000 miles so it's smooth and satisfies the state of California just fine. Emissions measuring in the mid single digits.
I've had to do some repairs however, after my wife's 12 years driving the car. It leaked fuel when the tank was full so it went 2 years only filling to 3/4 of a tank. I replaced the fuel pump and sender. All fixed. I had to completely rebuild the front suspension. Every component was worn out. But, I didn't replace the tires in time. The right rear gave up the tread at 55 mph so the rear inner fender plastic is long gone. It also bit a chunk out of the rear bumper by the wheel well but it really doesn't show too bad. It did however, give me an excuse to repaint the wheels.
Compared to the 86 this 3.8 has power. The EFI is a wonderful thing compared to the old CFI. This car will smoke the tires.
So, I'm thinking if we get enough MN-12's here then we'll have to expand to include them.:evilgrin: I think we are up to three or four now. Besides this site is much more fun and friendly that the MN-12 (not mentioning names) site I've been frequenting lately.
I've pretty much given up on the 86 Bird. I'm not motivated to get it on the road any time soon.
But, the 92 now has grown on me a bit. All the goodies work including the temp controlled HVAC. What a great feature. Plus the engine only has 22,000 miles so it's smooth and satisfies the state of California just fine. Emissions measuring in the mid single digits.
I've had to do some repairs however, after my wife's 12 years driving the car. It leaked fuel when the tank was full so it went 2 years only filling to 3/4 of a tank. I replaced the fuel pump and sender. All fixed. I had to completely rebuild the front suspension. Every component was worn out. But, I didn't replace the tires in time. The right rear gave up the tread at 55 mph so the rear inner fender plastic is long gone. It also bit a chunk out of the rear bumper by the wheel well but it really doesn't show too bad. It did however, give me an excuse to repaint the wheels.
Compared to the 86 this 3.8 has power. The EFI is a wonderful thing compared to the old CFI. This car will smoke the tires.
So, I'm thinking if we get enough MN-12's here then we'll have to expand to include them.:evilgrin: I think we are up to three or four now. Besides this site is much more fun and friendly that the MN-12 (not mentioning names) site I've been frequenting lately.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: vinnietbird on March 15, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Post by: vinnietbird on March 15, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Sounds like a nice car. As far as including them officially as part of this forum, I'll have to say whole heartedly, NO.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 15, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 15, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
Quote from: vinnietbird;355455
Sounds like a nice car. As far as including them officially as part of this forum, I'll have to say whole heartedly, NO.
I knew that would be the answer.:bowdown: But, you will still have to hear about it once in a while.:evilgrin:
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: thunderjet302 on March 15, 2011, 10:58:11 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on March 15, 2011, 10:58:11 PM
Quote from: vinnietbird;355455
Sounds like a nice car. As far as including them officially as part of this forum, I'll have to say whole heartedly, NO.
+1
I had an MN-12. I still have the Fox. There's a reason for that.....
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: 20thanniver-ls on March 16, 2011, 09:12:12 PM
Post by: 20thanniver-ls on March 16, 2011, 09:12:12 PM
Mn-12's are pretty comfortable daily drivers. I liked my '94 LX, the 4.6/4r70w made it even better. Only thing I dislike about them is the way they look, they're pretty bland out of the box.
Have any near future plans for yours?
Have any near future plans for yours?
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 16, 2011, 10:56:53 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 16, 2011, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: 20thanniver-ls;355587
Mn-12's are pretty comfortable daily drivers. I liked my '94 LX, the 4.6/4r70w made it even better. Only thing I dislike about them is the way they look, they're pretty bland out of the box.
I don't get it!?! I love the way the MN12's look. I love them as much as I love Foxes. I don't know why everyone thinks they look boring or ugly. The overall design is basically the same. IMO at least....
Anyway, no you're not alone. I've got a 96 3.8 'bird too. I like it, but I do like my cougar better lol. I'll have it for a few more days at least.
I second the motion for not expanding the forums too. While its nice to be able to include my DD bird in the User Rides section, I just don't agree with all of us posting up technical questions about them on here. That's what the (I'm guessing...) aforementioned TCCOA forums are for;)
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: Scott D on March 16, 2011, 11:12:19 PM
Post by: Scott D on March 16, 2011, 11:12:19 PM
I dig all Thunderbirds ...not just the MN-12's, not just the Foxes, but all of 'em ...even the big birds. The MN-12 just helped me appreciate the rest of the generations a little bit more.
What else have you got planned for the '92?
What else have you got planned for the '92?
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 17, 2011, 08:28:37 AM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 17, 2011, 08:28:37 AM
The only Cougars I haven't really liked is the later Mazda based FWD ones. But they do have a following. I can't think of a Tbird I don't like. I think the 67-69 four door ones are pretty stylish. The monster Lincoln MK like Tbirds are even interesting. Too big for my garage though. We do need to jump up and down and scream and yell for someone to make the window track rubber for the 83-88s. That's the one thing keeping me from restoring the 86. And those lousy arm rests that keep falling off. Darn that bugs me.
Ford needs to correct this immediatly...Tbird, Tbird, Tbird....
Ford needs to correct this immediatly...Tbird, Tbird, Tbird....
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: irv on March 17, 2011, 05:46:59 PM
Post by: irv on March 17, 2011, 05:46:59 PM
ok,then i will be the only 96 XR7 on the forum. i drove the 88 about 80 miles last year. the 96
had 23,400 on when i got it last may. it now has over 25000. it has more room, handles better,
and gets better mileage for this old fat person. it also looks like a day2 car fom top to bottom
and in the motor compartment. it is the last cougar i will ever own. looks like the 88 might have
a new owner in maryland next week. keeping my fingers crossed.--irv
oh, i forgot, the 96 is faster too
had 23,400 on when i got it last may. it now has over 25000. it has more room, handles better,
and gets better mileage for this old fat person. it also looks like a day2 car fom top to bottom
and in the motor compartment. it is the last cougar i will ever own. looks like the 88 might have
a new owner in maryland next week. keeping my fingers crossed.--irv
oh, i forgot, the 96 is faster too
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: RunninWild on March 17, 2011, 06:18:34 PM
Post by: RunninWild on March 17, 2011, 06:18:34 PM
Quote from: irv;355643
ok,then i will be the only 96 XR7 on the forum. i drove the 88 about 80 miles last year. the 96
had 23,400 on when i got it last may. it now has over 25000. it has more room, handles better,
and gets better mileage for this old fat person. it also looks like a day2 car fom top to bottom
and in the motor compartment. it is the last cougar i will ever own. looks like the 88 might have
a new owner in maryland next week. keeping my fingers crossed.--irv
oh, i forgot, the 96 is faster too
It would probably be dumb to disagree with this, as this is common sense. When a model is dated, it gets replaced. It's the circle of life.
However, the benefit of our cars is the potential. I'd also consider the styling a benefit over the MN12, but that's my own opinion. You can upgrade your fox to outperform every single aspect of your MN-12, and can make a supercar out of the foxes. Not to say that you can't make an awesome car out of the MN12 (I've seen some AWESOME MN12's), but I think it's probably easier to do it with the foxes, as there is much greater aftermarket support for the Fox chassis.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 17, 2011, 06:37:42 PM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 17, 2011, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: RunninWild;355644
It would probably be dumb to disagree with this, as this is common sense. When a model is dated, it gets replaced. It's the circle of life.
However, the benefit of our cars is the potential. I'd also consider the styling a benefit over the MN12, but that's my own opinion. You can upgrade your fox to outperform every single aspect of your MN-12, and can make a supercar out of the foxes. Not to say that you can't make an awesome car out of the MN12 (I've seen some AWESOME MN12's), but I think it's probably easier to do it with the foxes, as there is much greater aftermarket support for the Fox chassis.
To name just one....Vinnie's. I like the foxes. I just currently have the 92 on the road.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 17, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 17, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
Quote from: irv;355643
the 96 had 23,400 on when i got it last may. it now has over 25000.
Wow. I wish that was all the miles I drove. I've put over 12,000 miles on my 96 since I got it in August. 186,300 to 198,8xx as of today.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: XR7-4.6 on March 18, 2011, 01:58:37 AM
Post by: XR7-4.6 on March 18, 2011, 01:58:37 AM
I almost forgot I had an account here lol
Speaking as a biased MN12 owner and TCCoA moderator I think there's valid pluses and minuses to both generations, the interior fit and finish for example always seemed better thought out in the Fox, especially things like switches and instruments. Those just always seemed out of place in the 89-93 interiors. However, I do find the exterior of the MN12 cars to be more sleek and proportional, in comparison the Fox can seem very upright and the larger overhangs can look awkward at certain angles.
In terms of performance, it's true the MN12 doesn't have even a fraction of the aftermarket the Fox chassis has, but it does benefit from being very well set up from the factory. Springs, bars, shocks and a select few poly or delrin bushings will make for significantly improved handling without sacrificing too much ride. To get the same kind of result out of the Fox chassis it requires replacing virtually the entire front end and changing the layout of the rear. The Fox does have the 2-300lb weight advantage as well as a shorter wheelbase going for it though.
The way I see it we're a minority of automotive enthusiasts. If Being based off the Fox platform was the only deciding factor in choosing a Fox based T-bird or Cougar you may as well just bite the bullet and buy the Mustang. These cars weren't what they were because of their underpinnings, it was that they represented the best of technology, sophistication, and style for both nameplates at their respective times. These are very overlooked and under-appreciated cars by the majority regardless of the platform, and us valuing one generation over the other certainly isn't helping the fact.
Personally If I had to find a replacement for my '94, my scope expands from 1983 to 1997. I know I can get any of which up to my standards.
-Matt
Speaking as a biased MN12 owner and TCCoA moderator I think there's valid pluses and minuses to both generations, the interior fit and finish for example always seemed better thought out in the Fox, especially things like switches and instruments. Those just always seemed out of place in the 89-93 interiors. However, I do find the exterior of the MN12 cars to be more sleek and proportional, in comparison the Fox can seem very upright and the larger overhangs can look awkward at certain angles.
In terms of performance, it's true the MN12 doesn't have even a fraction of the aftermarket the Fox chassis has, but it does benefit from being very well set up from the factory. Springs, bars, shocks and a select few poly or delrin bushings will make for significantly improved handling without sacrificing too much ride. To get the same kind of result out of the Fox chassis it requires replacing virtually the entire front end and changing the layout of the rear. The Fox does have the 2-300lb weight advantage as well as a shorter wheelbase going for it though.
The way I see it we're a minority of automotive enthusiasts. If Being based off the Fox platform was the only deciding factor in choosing a Fox based T-bird or Cougar you may as well just bite the bullet and buy the Mustang. These cars weren't what they were because of their underpinnings, it was that they represented the best of technology, sophistication, and style for both nameplates at their respective times. These are very overlooked and under-appreciated cars by the majority regardless of the platform, and us valuing one generation over the other certainly isn't helping the fact.
Personally If I had to find a replacement for my '94, my scope expands from 1983 to 1997. I know I can get any of which up to my standards.
-Matt
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: RunninWild on March 18, 2011, 02:23:49 PM
Post by: RunninWild on March 18, 2011, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: XR7-4.6;355698
I almost forgot I had an account here lol
Speaking as a biased MN12 owner and TCCoA moderator I think there's valid pluses and minuses to both generations, the interior fit and finish for example always seemed better thought out in the Fox, especially things like switches and instruments. Those just always seemed out of place in the 89-93 interiors. However, I do find the exterior of the MN12 cars to be more sleek and proportional, in comparison the Fox can seem very upright and the larger overhangs can look awkward at certain angles.
In terms of performance, it's true the MN12 doesn't have even a fraction of the aftermarket the Fox chassis has, but it does benefit from being very well set up from the factory. Springs, bars, shocks and a select few poly or delrin bushings will make for significantly improved handling without sacrificing too much ride. To get the same kind of result out of the Fox chassis it requires replacing virtually the entire front end and changing the layout of the rear. The Fox does have the 2-300lb weight advantage as well as a shorter wheelbase going for it though.
The way I see it we're a minority of automotive enthusiasts. If Being based off the Fox platform was the only deciding factor in choosing a Fox based T-bird or Cougar you may as well just bite the bullet and buy the Mustang. These cars weren't what they were because of their underpinnings, it was that they represented the best of technology, sophistication, and style for both nameplates at their respective times. These are very overlooked and under-appreciated cars by the majority regardless of the platform, and us valuing one generation over the other certainly isn't helping the fact.
Personally If I had to find a replacement for my '94, my scope expands from 1983 to 1997. I know I can get any of which up to my standards.
-Matt
I respect your opinion and I agree with the fact that a stock MN12 (excluding the SC) definitely will outperform a typical 83-88 bird, save for the '88 TC. However the reason this forum exists is because we don't want to drive Mustangs. Tbirds and Cougars are much rarer to find, even more so in good shape, and they can do about anything you can upgrade a fox stang to do.
I almost bought a '96 4.6 XR7 instead of my current DD (Exploder), and I really wish I had bought it. This is basically what it looked like:
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: irv on March 18, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
Post by: irv on March 18, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
gee what other forum have i seen this car on[wink, wink].
even though i have the 96 now ,i much prefer the 94-5
front end better. the 967 looks like someone punched it in the
grille.but from the drivers seat i cant see it. i couldnt find a
mint 94 or 5 to buy. wife also said i was done buying cars.
i used a 25th anniv. reflector and t/lamps to get rid of the
chrome and emblems in the back. pic was before i got my
ill plates
even though i have the 96 now ,i much prefer the 94-5
front end better. the 967 looks like someone punched it in the
grille.but from the drivers seat i cant see it. i couldnt find a
mint 94 or 5 to buy. wife also said i was done buying cars.
i used a 25th anniv. reflector and t/lamps to get rid of the
chrome and emblems in the back. pic was before i got my
ill plates
Quote from: XR7-4.6;355698
I almost forgot I had an account here lol
Speaking as a biased MN12 owner and TCCoA moderator I think there's valid pluses and minuses to both generations, the interior fit and finish for example always seemed better thought out in the Fox, especially things like switches and instruments. Those just always seemed out of place in the 89-93 interiors. However, I do find the exterior of the MN12 cars to be more sleek and proportional, in comparison the Fox can seem very upright and the larger overhangs can look awkward at certain angles.
In terms of performance, it's true the MN12 doesn't have even a fraction of the aftermarket the Fox chassis has, but it does benefit from being very well set up from the factory. Springs, bars, shocks and a select few poly or delrin bushings will make for significantly improved handling without sacrificing too much ride. To get the same kind of result out of the Fox chassis it requires replacing virtually the entire front end and changing the layout of the rear. The Fox does have the 2-300lb weight advantage as well as a shorter wheelbase going for it though.
The way I see it we're a minority of automotive enthusiasts. If Being based off the Fox platform was the only deciding factor in choosing a Fox based T-bird or Cougar you may as well just bite the bullet and buy the Mustang. These cars weren't what they were because of their underpinnings, it was that they represented the best of technology, sophistication, and style for both nameplates at their respective times. These are very overlooked and under-appreciated cars by the majority regardless of the platform, and us valuing one generation over the other certainly isn't helping the fact.
Personally If I had to find a replacement for my '94, my scope expands from 1983 to 1997. I know I can get any of which up to my standards.
-Matt
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: vinnietbird on March 18, 2011, 04:17:47 PM
Post by: vinnietbird on March 18, 2011, 04:17:47 PM
I think they look really close to a 2 door Crown Vic. I'm not really a fan of the MN-12 cars. A lot of the character seems to be gone from them as opposed to the previous years.In the end, it's all about individual taste. Fox Bird all the way for Vinnie.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: XR7-4.6 on March 18, 2011, 04:26:40 PM
Post by: XR7-4.6 on March 18, 2011, 04:26:40 PM
Quote from: RunninWild;355715
I respect your opinion and I agree with the fact that a stock MN12 (excluding the SC) definitely will outperform a typical 83-88 bird, save for the '88 TC. However the reason this forum exists is because we don't want to drive Mustangs. Tbirds and Cougars are much rarer to find, even more so in good shape, and they can do about anything you can upgrade a fox stang to do.
I almost bought a '96 4.6 XR7 instead of my current DD (Exploder), and I really wish I had bought it. This is basically what it looked like:
That was basically the point I was trying to make. I just think there's a big difference between liking these cars for being an alternative to the Mustang rather than liking them for what they are.
What if the Mustang was never based on the Fox platform and never developed it's wide array of aftermarket? Would you just cut and run from the Bird if that were the case? I would certainly hope not.
I respect anyone's opinion and am definitely not trying to convert anyone to the MN12 side but from my observations, much of the badmouthing I've seen about them here is that they simply aren't based on the Fox platform. I just find that a weak stance considering the basic layout and style was so largely carried over, even the styling changes weren't much more extensive than what was done in 1987 if you think about it. Most of what's different you can't really see at first glance and what you feel in the MN12 is pretty good at least IMHO
Quote from: irv;355719
gee what other forum have i seen this car on[wink, wink].
even though i have the 96 now ,i much prefer the 94-5
front end better. the 967 looks like someone punched it in the
grille.but from the drivers seat i cant see it. i couldnt find a
mint 94 or 5 to buy. wife also said i was done buying cars.
i used a 25th anniv. reflector and t/lamps to get rid of the
chrome and emblems in the back. pic was before i got my
ill plates
Hey I recognize that color Cougar from an avatar on that forum;), looks really good with those tails! They look better on yours than they did on the 25th anniversary cougars lol
I tend to agree, I think there's too much Tbird bleeding through the 96/7 front end giving it that punched out look. The 94/5's (and really 91-95's) to me always looked the best of the whole MN12 bunch. Clean and simple. They have a lot of 87/88 styling in them too which has always been my favorite of the Cougar styling.
I like that XR-7 in your sig btw
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: XR7-4.6 on March 18, 2011, 04:39:58 PM
Post by: XR7-4.6 on March 18, 2011, 04:39:58 PM
Quote from: vinnietbird;355720
I think they look really close to a 2 door Crown Vic. I'm not really a fan of the MN-12 cars. A lot of the character seems to be gone from them as opposed to the previous years.In the end, it's all about individual taste. Fox Bird all the way for Vinnie.
Well the Crown Vic was an aging box until 1992, from 89-91 the MN12's were pretty much as sleek as you could get. It was just a matter of time until the rest of the Ford fleet followed. It's not uncommon really. The Foxes had unprecedented styling until the Taurus was released, many would argue that the Tbirds of that era looked like 2 door Tauruses.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: vinnietbird on March 18, 2011, 04:42:58 PM
Post by: vinnietbird on March 18, 2011, 04:42:58 PM
Maybe so. Liike I said, it's all about what the individual likes. I love the Sport.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: RunninWild on March 18, 2011, 11:44:07 PM
Post by: RunninWild on March 18, 2011, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: XR7-4.6;355723
That was basically the point I was trying to make. I just think there's a big difference between liking these cars for being an alternative to the Mustang rather than liking them for what they are.
What if the Mustang was never based on the Fox platform and never developed it's wide array of aftermarket? Would you just cut and run from the Bird if that were the case? I would certainly hope not.
I see your point. The ease of upgrading just adds to the appeal of these cars. Excluding exterior components...
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 18, 2011, 11:55:04 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 18, 2011, 11:55:04 PM
Quote from: RunninWild;355715
I almost bought a '96 4.6 XR7 instead of my current DD (Exploder), and I really wish I had bought it. This is basically what it looked like:
You shoulda grabbed it. :disappoin
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 18, 2011, 11:58:27 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 18, 2011, 11:58:27 PM
Quote from: XR7-4.6;355723
That was basically the point I was trying to make. I just think there's a big difference between liking these cars for being an alternative to the Mustang rather than liking them for what they are.
What if the Mustang was never based on the Fox platform and never developed it's wide array of aftermarket? Would you just cut and run from the Bird if that were the case? I would certainly hope not.
I respect anyone's opinion and am definitely not trying to convert anyone to the MN12 side but from my observations, much of the badmouthing I've seen about them here is that they simply aren't based on the Fox platform. I just find that a weak stance considering the basic layout and style was so largely carried over, even the styling changes weren't much more extensive than what was done in 1987 if you think about it. Most of what's different you can't really see at first glance and what you feel in the MN12 is pretty good at least IMHO
Meh. I agree with you. Fox, MN12 I dont care. All I care about is what it looks like and how it feels. And for me that answer is Cougar and Thunderbird chassis;).
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: Scott D on March 19, 2011, 11:26:34 AM
Post by: Scott D on March 19, 2011, 11:26:34 AM
I'm sad EITHER of them had to go through this ...
[video=youtube;RLh_whi_GuU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLh_whi_GuU[/video]
[video=youtube;RLh_whi_GuU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLh_whi_GuU[/video]
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 19, 2011, 04:10:47 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 19, 2011, 04:10:47 PM
yeah I saw that. And I left a nasty comment:p
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: RunninWild on March 19, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Post by: RunninWild on March 19, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Quote from: sarjxxx;355799
You shoulda grabbed it. :disappoin
I know...at the time though the Ford dealership wanted about 1800 more than my Exploder. And they were going to give it to me "as is" without doing any of the pre-owned certified tests that they do on other cars. So then I went with the Explorer. A few months later and...TWO CRACKED CYLINDER HEADS!!! Not to mention a new radiator, oil sending unit, and allllll other kinds of bullshiznit that truck has put me through. Now she is reliable, but only after about 3K of work put into it on top of the 3800 we got it for...
Of course, had I bought the Cougar, that may have had problems down the road too I'll never know about...but I think I still should've done it.
Nice sigpic btw.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 19, 2011, 10:42:14 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 19, 2011, 10:42:14 PM
Quote from: RunninWild;355871
TWO CRACKED CYLINDER HEADS!!!
Nice sigpic btw.
Title: My 92 LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 21, 2011, 09:23:49 AM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 21, 2011, 09:23:49 AM
Here's a picture of my 92.
(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/1125/006ym.jpg) (http://img857.imageshack.us/i/006ym.jpg/)
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8553/003hji.jpg) (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/003hji.jpg/)
(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/1125/006ym.jpg) (http://img857.imageshack.us/i/006ym.jpg/)
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8553/003hji.jpg) (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/003hji.jpg/)
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: irv on March 21, 2011, 03:15:29 PM
Post by: irv on March 21, 2011, 03:15:29 PM
no wonder it looks so nice. the land of no rust. mine was shipped from oregon.
underneath even looks like its 6 months old.
--irv
looks like you have taken very good care of it
you probably have been on ths mn12 website
[tccoa.com]
underneath even looks like its 6 months old.
--irv
looks like you have taken very good care of it
you probably have been on ths mn12 website
[tccoa.com]
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: Scott D on March 21, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
Post by: Scott D on March 21, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
Hhmmm ....I'm the only V-6 MN-12 on the forum that has a spoiler?
Awesome.
Awesome.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 22, 2011, 08:50:12 AM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 22, 2011, 08:50:12 AM
Quote from: Scott D;356057
Hhmmm ....I'm the only V-6 MN-12 on the forum that has a spoiler?
Awesome.
Some people say the V6 IS the spoiler.:evilgrin:
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: Scott D on March 22, 2011, 07:16:43 PM
Post by: Scott D on March 22, 2011, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: tbirdsps;356070
Some people say the V6 IS the spoiler.:evilgrin:
I've changed the upper radiator hose, the gears in the power window motor on the driver's side, the upper control arms, and am in the process of the head gaskets.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 23, 2011, 08:39:44 AM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 23, 2011, 08:39:44 AM
Over the last 4 months I've repair both window motors, disassembled and repaired both door lock switches, the mirror switch, the fog light switch, replaced all the front suspension with Moog parts, alignment and new tires. Who knows how much labor money I saved but all that cost me $1,275 doing all the labor myself. The front end was simple, simple, simple. (no rust).
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 23, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 23, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
Window motor gears, non-existent heater core hose, replaced original 189,000 mile spark plugs and wires, and am about to have to tackle BOTH, 2, (two), motor mounts this weekend, along with front tires and an alignment.
Oh the joys of DD's:rolleyes:
And I have a massive coolant leak and a huge power steering leak and I can't find either one of them:wtf:
Oh the joys of DD's:rolleyes:
And I have a massive coolant leak and a huge power steering leak and I can't find either one of them:wtf:
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: RunninWild on March 23, 2011, 05:01:26 PM
Post by: RunninWild on March 23, 2011, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: sarjxxx;356157
Window motor gears, non-existent heater core hose, replaced original 189,000 mile spark plugs and wires, and am about to have to tackle BOTH, 2, (two), motor mounts this weekend, along with front tires and an alignment.
Oh the joys of DD's:rolleyes:
And I have a massive coolant leak and a huge power steering leak and I can't find either one of them:wtf:
No Frontier?
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 23, 2011, 09:45:58 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 23, 2011, 09:45:58 PM
Quote from: RunninWild;356158
No Frontier?
No finance.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: tbirdsps on March 24, 2011, 03:41:08 PM
Post by: tbirdsps on March 24, 2011, 03:41:08 PM
My last two tanks of gas both gave me a squeak over 22 mpg. I think that's darn good for a MN-12.
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: sarjxxx on March 24, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
Post by: sarjxxx on March 24, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
:iagree:Especially considering I avg about 18-19:hick:
Title: 1992 Thunderbird LX
Post by: irv on March 24, 2011, 04:18:36 PM
Post by: irv on March 24, 2011, 04:18:36 PM
my 94 and also this 96 would get 25 on the highway. never got better
than that
than that