Hey guys I was kind of wondering about wjat ford intended our birds and cats to be. I think ford classified these cars as luxury but I honestly do not think that these cars are primarily luxury. They have the fox body platform and are extremely upgradable and ford also attempted to make a sporty version (turbo coupe) which I think should have been a gt version of this car with atleast an H.O engine. I think the fox thunderbirds are more of muscle than anything else. They have the old taillights which represent how muscle cars are and they are beefy looking. But anyways I would like to know what you would classify these thunderbirds as if you made the desicion and what would you change about how ford made them?
A poor man's Lincoln. ..
Actually the TC was designed to whip the ASS of the BMW type cars. They wanted this as a design to make a car that had good performance and more room than said cars.
I would have given the Tbird sport and cougar xr7's a 5.0 HO and T5 with rear disc brakes and at least a 3.27 gear. I think it would have sold well and probably too well, cutting into "Mustang" territory.
The cougar started out as basically a Mustang in more "refined" body/interior.
I would think about the $28,000 Mark 7....that was a big profit leader from Ford at the time. The 5speed TC and auto Mark 7 preform similary stock..but high winding four banger or smooth V8 torque.
Travis
I have put the Mustang 5.0 HO engine with 1st stage cam and had the transmission rebuilt with a shift kit, poly through out the chassis, 15:1 rack and pinion new anti sway bars, and I couldn't be happier! The ride on a decent road is super smooth, control is awesome, turns incredibly flat. The fact that a lot of Fords Mustang parts are interchangeable makes this car "a wolf in sheep's clothing". Any car enthusiast would probable know that my car came with the might 150 hp 5.0 engine, but if they pull up next to me they can hear the duel exhaust and cam. If I wanted to, I could have put on a Mustang front clip as you probably know. The impression I get from most guys who pull up to me is that they really are bewildered! They just don't know what to make of it. Many seem to want to know what I have under the hood and will test me at a stop light, but when they see the bite matches the bark they (so far) have backed off (no body wants a ticket anyway). I still need to put aluminum heads and the Turbo Coupe rear axle (3.45 gears) on it. That will wake her up! I once stated on this forum that the best way to describe my car now is that it has "matured". The power suits the car, the handling is much smoother and with control. Seems like this car has come alive. I can say is Thank God Ford built Mustangs and put a fox body on my car! I haven't had this much fun since I was a kid! I have yet to have any bad or scary surprises. If there is any real surprises, it is the fact that I can spin the tires w/2.73 rear gears, but it REALLY pulls at mid range (actually scared me the first time). Sorry, for being so long winded. Thanks!
I believe they intended them to be mid-size luxury cars more than anything else. With the anemic 225hp 5.0 HO being the strongest motor ever installed into one, they obviously weren't trying to go for muscle, but rather a decently powered and comfortable cruiser, (not anywhere near as comfortable or smooth riding as the Full-Size, Full-Frame Ford's of the time, but I digress...)
Power output for the 5.0 HO may have been decent for the 80's, but today even the average V6 family sedan out there can easily put one to shame. The stock 2.3T in the TC/XR7 isn't any better, having to boost 15psi to reach 200hp. I own both motors (in different cars), and neither one in stock form is something for ford to be proud of.
So, in stock form, mid-size luxury car, fo sho.
I disagree. The 190-210 horsepower and 240 lb-ft those little 2.3 engines produced was quite something to be proud of for the day. Remember, these are iron block, iron head, 8-valve SOHC engines whose design dates back into the 70's (or even earlier) we're talking about here. The engine controls were primitive by today's standards but state-of-the-art back then. I can't think of any other manufacturer that was getting these power levels from 2.3 liters of displacement. They were producing power levels of engines more than twice their displacement.
The 302 is also an engine Ford should be (and most definitely is) proud of. Once again, you have to look at these engines with the era they were produced in mind. Of course 225 horses sounds paltry now (hell, the 3.5 V6 in my 8 year old Chrysler 300 tops it by almost 30, and the new naturally aspirated 3.6 and 3.7 engines from Chrysler, GM and Ford belt out another 80-100), but once again you have to keep technology in mind. The 5.0 HO engine had few equals back then. GM needed another 48 cubic inches to keep up (the L98 350 produced 225 horses in the 1987 Camaro).
Indeed the only thing Ford should be ashamed of with the 5.0 HO was not installing it in the fox T-Birds and Cougars. 130-155hp from a fuel injected V8 engine? Yeah, that's shameful, especially since production costs of the HO would have been near identical (the forged pistons in the HO being the only difference)...
As for the cars themselves, they were marketed as Personal Luxury Coupes. That's what the T-Bird was from 1958-1997, and the Cougar from 1974-1997. They were competing with the GM G-bodies and Chrysler LeBaron in our era.
Beating the next guy, and doing it in style and comfort, is that not 'luxury'? As someone once observed, speed and luxury were synonymous until the Ford Flathead was introduced. That was the first time an inexpensive car was fast.
Tom is right, Ford's aspirational target with the TC was the BMW M6.
and...
Thunderchicken is right, Ford put a lot of time and effort into the technology that went in the turbo motors. They even used the EEC4 in their racing program.
I also believe that Nascar had alot of influence, for Ford to design these cars for the race track (Aero).These cars were some of the first aero cars, ford put on the market.
Anyone who followed Nascar in the 80's, knows what these cars did for the sport.
The 88 TC peaked out at 17 LBS BOOST (5 speeder) and for it's time it had 16" performance tires and wheels ABS brakes electronic suspension with high rate springs that were controlled by turning the steering wheel and boost pressures and torque shock design for axle twist out. (4 shocks in the rear) fog lights DISC brakes in all four corners and an electric booster for the brake system. Fog lights a 5 speeder and an octane selector and an 8.8 Posi rear and loads of electronic gizmoes. Likw a digital clock ETC and much more. It was MOTOR TRENDS CAR OF THE YEAR in1987. It was designed to beat the pants off the BMW type cars of its day and the car was a marvel of engineering from that time. I am very proud to have been a part of the 2.3 when it had a few issues that i corrected many years ago. I worked out some oiling issues in the early engines and i was shocked FORD used my design. Thanks
:burnout:
lol....a "posi"..
The Thunderbird (Turbocoupe) was intended to be the American equal to what the 6 series Bmw is now 2 door coupe that offers both comfort and performance, while the Mustang was like the M3. Thunderbird more refined,more room,more comfy ride.
If i could go back in time and change some things I would offer the H.O. 5.0 as an option in the Sports of 87' and 88' and also offer a a convertible model.
my 4 year old calls my thunderbird a race car. he kept pointing out how big the tires are today. (just threw on some 275/60/r15's on the back, and 235/65's up front).
Your 4 year old is probably right.
haha, nope. I'm going to be working on the engine soon, but for right now its a $400 car with an exhaust leak.
I have a list I'm going to whittle away at, one thing at a time. first thing to need done was tires. had it priced out at $110 a tire. next is a basic suspension work over, then either duel exhaust or 11" brake upgrade, then onto engine. one peice at a time.
OK THUNDER
Traction lock differential (TRAC-LOCK) (FORD name) Posi is a GM name for it's unit and ford cant use the term
Sure Grip
Limited slip
Posi
LSD
And i know when i used POSI the Chevy daemons in your mind had a field day!!!!
99% of the people refer to it as POSI no matter who makes it.
GM and FORD now uses a ZEXEL TORSEN units that does not have a cross pin. Or require special additives. So the dreaded cross pin retainer bolt breakage is long gone.
TORSEN does not use clutches or special additives. And they can be used in FWD vehicles. My TYPHOON has one in the front diff.
In my perception, the 5.0 HO and 2.3T powered foxes, including the mustang, seem like loosely built slugs in the extreme, barely able to get out of their own way. That's only because I have driven in so many 6-700horse cars at the track, and I also DD a 400hp 4.6 powered Cobra everyday. When I was young one of these cars would have really felt like a rocketship to me, now not so much. It's a cool nice riding mid-size luxury car stock, anything more than that is just wishful thinking by minds not fully in reality. I do enjoy fully stock rides though, and I do keep some of my rides 100% stock, but I'm building mine to actually go out and race for money, so stock isn't in the plans for this car. I could always just buy another low-mileage garage kept one, keep it stock and just take it to shows, but there isn't much fun in that for me. People don't have much love for these cars anyway.
Once again, you have to look at these cars with the 25-30 years they have on them. Comparing an '87 T-Bird to a new 2013 car makes about as much sense as comparing a Model T to an '87 T-Bird. Comparing any stock street car, especially one that's 30 years old, against a modern 700 horsepower race car, is just plain silly. You might as well compare them to highway tractors or farm equipment. By current standards these things were slow and crudely built, but by mid 80's standards they were at the top of the heap. Remember, these things were made in the infancy of electronic engine controls, sequential multi port fuel injection, etc. Four-speed automatics with lockup torque converters were technological wonders. The reason they felt like rocketships when you were young is because they WERE rocketships when you were young (assuming you were young when these cars were new).
Think of it this way: The Ford flathead V8 was a veritable rocket. It brought cheap speed to the masses. It pretty much started the whole hot rod movement that continues to this day. Yet by modern standards its 65-110 horsepower seem like a joke. No fool would ever go to a car show and say "This '32 Ford is a piece of shiznit - my Honda Accord is faster". It's apples to oranges.
Well said Thunder!! :bowdown:
I agree, you have to compare them to the cars of their time. Anyone knows, that stock, they are slow compared to the new vehicles 30+ years later.
Well just for kicks driving a 400 Hp car around here will get your pants knocked off. But calling a TC a slug is beyond imagination. Think of it this way the 5.0 of 1988 was 220 Hp and the 2.3 was 190 advertised!!! With the options the TC had it is not far from today's cars. IT HAD EVERYTHING AND MORE. There is no denying FORD built this car and optioned it with features some new cars do not have today. And once again a street driven 400 WHP car is a JOKE. You better be putting 700+ down to the pavement or tail lights will be in your future!!
People don't have much love for these cars anyway.
Unless i am reading this wrong I truly think you have lost your mind if i read this correctly!!! The FORDS ar more popular now then ever before. I see just as many Fords as chevys at the shows. And in some cases fords dominate and that is a FACT. I personally love the birds and mustangs. Call me CRAZY!!!
A 4.6 @ 400 HP has to be supercharged. And they were 390 from from the factory flywheel HP. Unless your 4.6 is built to the HILT!!
In 2000 my LT1 motors NA were making 418 HP to the wheels and at that time it was un-herd of to make that much HP. Today it is not hard to make a 1000 Hp chevy street driven engine. Things in the last ten years have changed drastically. Back in 1988 a 225 HP 5.0 was a dam good amount of HP.
http://www.lsxtv.com/news/katech-builds-327-copo-engine-that-makes-1100-plus-horsepower/
Tom, I agree with you todays hot hatches with turbo 4cyls are making TC horsepower numbers so Ford did great in my opinion. The LT1 though is a 5.7l and as we all know there is no Replacement for Displacement.
I can remember well when a 200 HP domestic V6 was considered powerful. Of course, mostly GM and their 4.3, but I find it strange that throughout the mid 80's to late 90's Ford made nearly as much (or more than in a few cases) power as GM engines that had more c.i.
Of course Renzo will argue, but I've read shiznit tons of magazines since before I had a driving privilege.....plus I've seen numerous times a '92 Mustang LX 5.0 coupe with ONLY exhaust and gears for mods beat an '89? Iroc Z Camaro with only an exhaust for mods.....both were 5 speed cars, the Stang had 3.55 gears, not sure what the 'Maro had, but the owners even traded several times, each driving the other car, and the Stanger still won.
Not bagging on the Camaro, he kept it clean and nice and didn't filth it up with stickers, retarded wheels, or that goded "look at me, I'm a sheep" cowl hood.
I think the Stang may have had tinted windows and a cd player, but was mostly stock in appearance too.
I'd be happy to own either one, in the shape they were in back in 1995-1998. Good clean cars with nothing that they didn't need. I miss those days and cars..
I'd love to own one of those older Iroc Camaros...
IMO, the IROC (aka:the white trash ride of choice) was a POS even brand new, and couldn't hold a candle to any fox body in build quality. Not sure why you guys keep comparing our cars to the IROC, there are much better comparisons to make if your trying to prove something ;)
I was 4 when my car was brand new, and it did feel like rocket ship back to me back then, not because it was one, but because I had not experienced any real power in a vehicle yet. Regardless of what it was back then, the cold hard fact is that now, it is SLOW and SLUGGISH compared to near everything on the road, it will get blown away in a cloud of embarrassment even trying to race a lowly Family Sedan. Yes, even as sad as it is to say, a 05 Honda Accord will out handle one of these cars stock. But if you like these cars stock, and don't mind the slowness, and the inability to take a turn safely at high speed, then more power to you, I'm not putting the cars or the engines down, just stating my opinion which is based on my actual experience with these cars, and many others of the same time period. Take it how you will, but don't assume your opinion is the only possibly correct one, that is the true mark of a fool. :)
I know the TC handles like shiznit from the factory
BETTER THINK AGAIN AND DO SOME RESEARCH.
05 HONDA HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND COMPLETELY. My washing machine handles better, Not getting in to this as the chevy haters will pound me. Ford and it's electronics back in those days were barbaric. You could not even read data stream till OBD2 without laboratory equipment. So i will pass on the chit chat. It is really getting DEEP!!!
Camaro specks
Manual 305 TPI 215 hp
Mustang standing 1/4 mile 85 @ 15.9
Camaro standing 1/4 mile 15.0 @ 96
Mustang specks
Manual 5.0 225 hp
I have chosen to delete my post as it clearly upset a Chevy lover which was not my intent. My apologies.
NOT TRUE. you could read live data in 90 or 91, when EEC-iv got mass air. with a ngs.
ford's electronics were barbaric? of course they were to todays standards. but it sure as hell worked good for the time.
you needed a tech scanner to read live data on gm's. whats the difference.
comparing these cars to an IROC is a JOKE. i know thunderchicken stated these cars were crudely built. i still think theyve aged well, are still tight. NOT as tight as a newer car for sure. but against anything older, i think they stood the test of time.
a TBI 305 Camaro, with drum rear brakes, and you call that the IROC? to me a IROC should be a 350, 5 speed, disc brakes. it seems like the put IROC on everything just to sell it. mine was a rattle trap, and that hump in the pass floor sucked.
and to say the TC handles like shiznit? seriously? THAT IROC handled like shiznit. my TC handles great, and i drive circle track cars, i think i would have a little more knowledge then the average person.
I have scanned many cars in my life and fords are the worst. Gm in the early days were light years ahead of FORD. As for the IROC Gm designed it as they did because the 5 speeder could not handle the 5.7 power as i can recall. So they most likely limited it to the 5.0. Not really 100% on that but it makes sense. The data stream readings as i recall was on limited ford models as i remember once again not 100% on that it has been a long time. But i will take your word on that. Either way this is basically Ford V Chevy argument that will go on till the end of time. Not a bad thing just keeps the blood flowing.
I stand corrected as i think CA models were scanable but i have no recollection of a 49 being able to retrive live data. I do remember several OBD 1 1/2 Fords with 2 ALDL plugs and if memory serves me one was a dummy. Been a long time. I have a FORD dealer scanner somewhere in the shop and i cant for the life of me find it. I found the break out box but not the scanner. By the way i was not the one that said the TC did not handle that was a quote from B. The TC was light years away from any car in that time frame. All one has to do is look at the options and features. For the time they were assume. With that my GTA does have rear discs,
well, i can tell you for a FACT i was able to read live data on a 91 mustang with maf. 4 cyl 8 plug motor. non cali emissions.
Like i said i take your word for that as for myself i have never tested one that i could. But that does not mean i am right. But you have to admit the early ECM fords were not bad to scan but you needed a break out box. That is why ford needed the break out box to measure and test the sensors. But with a GM car just plug it in and read the sensors. Since Day one GM had live data capability with a hand held scanner. Ford needed a break out box. But that was years ago and old history. Now the Midnighter has a stand alone and technoligh is light years ahead. Hay thanks for the info on live data. Thanks Tom
Calling the 88TC a world class car is a little silly....how does one fare next to a Ferrari, Porsche, Jag of the same vintage?
With that said, for a Fox chassis, they were ahead of their time, but they weren't the by-God best there ever was, even in 1988.
I won't even mention the Camaro, and the fine, brilliant people who yank the TPI system off and replace it with a holley carb and a 120 dollar intake so it will be half a tenth faster.
As always, everything has to be all about how GM is so god superior to everything else. We won't mention the plasticky dashes, the ignorant floorboard design and appearance, or the shiznitty faux-leather seat coverings that turn to sticky ripped after 5 years.
Oh, and Renzo, my buddy owns a Firehawk....what a POS. I stopped over there the other day...well, just the like the GM's I've dealt with recently....it wouldn't start! HAHA.
I think it's a '90, 91...I'll see if I can find a pic on his fb.
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/fordtruckfreeek/464065_487447647990841_1321905313_o_zpsf50fbfca.jpg) (http://s94.photobucket.com/user/fordtruckfreeek/media/464065_487447647990841_1321905313_o_zpsf50fbfca.jpg.html)
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/fordtruckfreeek/459690_487447741324165_913854602_o_zps060f5074.jpg) (http://s94.photobucket.com/user/fordtruckfreeek/media/459690_487447741324165_913854602_o_zps060f5074.jpg.html)
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/fordtruckfreeek/921684_487447537990852_1004059182_o_zps5e56f31d.jpg) (http://s94.photobucket.com/user/fordtruckfreeek/media/921684_487447537990852_1004059182_o_zps5e56f31d.jpg.html)
Just bought a 1983 Ford GTP press release kit and if you forget it's 2013 and read the release there is no doubt where they were heading with the 2.3. Not everything works out but they were interesting times.
I like to think of the cars we have a classics and unique. I know when you take them out, a lot of people remember them and it brings back a lot of memories.
Sorry 302 You posted a Fourth GEN.
That would be an LTI
Or depending on the year an LS
That car is beautiful and RARE. So it does not start!! I am sure you can fix it.
I would research the TC a little bit before making a statement that you made. Because the standard options on the car were light years ahead of cars built today. World class i think so as the car had options and designs that made other cars shameful. (in it's price range and design. Not a car like a Porsche or Ferrari totally different car and cost).
Comparing it to a Ferrari Jaguar Porsche is Silly as those cars were completely different
And including a JAG is silly. Reason being if it was not in the dealer BUSTED it most likely was in the guys garage and not RUNNING or BUSTED!!!
The 1987-1988 TC is an great car and the 1987 was the car of the year. Ford did a great job on the car and they are assume. Now below is just a joke but it most definitely makes a valid point. I love my TC (THE MIDNIGHTER)
By the way the NEW 302 is a great engine and makes TUNS OF HP. Ford did a great job on that engine and i will be the first to admit that. Below is just a joke please take it as such i found this on the web. Thanks
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c209/tfalconier/B2041BEB-B346-445C-818E-22BF418BDCDD-29636-0000127AA9E12A85.jpg) (http://s28.photobucket.com/user/tfalconier/media/B2041BEB-B346-445C-818E-22BF418BDCDD-29636-0000127AA9E12A85.jpg.html)