Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 12, 2014, 08:53:09 PM
Post by: M-train on January 12, 2014, 08:53:09 PM
I've always loved the 87-88 Thunderbird TC since it came out.
Looking at the later full sized Fords like the newer LTD the Thunderbird design of 87-88 looks actually more modern IMO.
I've tried my best to find the aero CD of the Turbo Coupe, but have been unsuccessful. I found a site that lists all of the T-birds collectively, but I don't put much stock in the numbers I saw. Of course CD is a rather baffling thing to understand, as a Lambo Countach has a CD around .400 vs an 88 Mustang GT at around .340
Also, I really don't understand the dislike of the T-bird from the Mustang crowd. I was reading some threads on the T-bird and found a rather long post on a Mustang forum where the bird was being trashed.
Even though I have a garage full of Mustangs I really don't love the Fox Mustang design as its just too boxy vs the birds.
I've got way too many projects, but I wouldn't mind owning another bird TC. I would probably go with a new Shelby supercharged engine, and drive train as well as some Ridtec shockwave air shocks.
I've always had a thing for TC's painted black so that would be a must. There is a really nice silver TC for sale right now that I would like to buy. Its supercharged, and has some good upgrades like the bigger Cobra brakes, and a few other good parts, but too many things to have to fix. For example its got a T5 tranny for which isn't gonna last too long with the over 400rwhp, and a 5.0 block [gonna crack eventually at that hp level], and stock connecting rods [which I can't understand with good H-beam rods being in the $400 range].
So IF I do get around to buying another bird [I've owned a 55, and an 87 TC], I will probably just try to find a low mile factory car, and go from there.
Looking at the later full sized Fords like the newer LTD the Thunderbird design of 87-88 looks actually more modern IMO.
I've tried my best to find the aero CD of the Turbo Coupe, but have been unsuccessful. I found a site that lists all of the T-birds collectively, but I don't put much stock in the numbers I saw. Of course CD is a rather baffling thing to understand, as a Lambo Countach has a CD around .400 vs an 88 Mustang GT at around .340
Also, I really don't understand the dislike of the T-bird from the Mustang crowd. I was reading some threads on the T-bird and found a rather long post on a Mustang forum where the bird was being trashed.
Even though I have a garage full of Mustangs I really don't love the Fox Mustang design as its just too boxy vs the birds.
I've got way too many projects, but I wouldn't mind owning another bird TC. I would probably go with a new Shelby supercharged engine, and drive train as well as some Ridtec shockwave air shocks.
I've always had a thing for TC's painted black so that would be a must. There is a really nice silver TC for sale right now that I would like to buy. Its supercharged, and has some good upgrades like the bigger Cobra brakes, and a few other good parts, but too many things to have to fix. For example its got a T5 tranny for which isn't gonna last too long with the over 400rwhp, and a 5.0 block [gonna crack eventually at that hp level], and stock connecting rods [which I can't understand with good H-beam rods being in the $400 range].
So IF I do get around to buying another bird [I've owned a 55, and an 87 TC], I will probably just try to find a low mile factory car, and go from there.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: White85GS on January 12, 2014, 09:12:30 PM
Post by: White85GS on January 12, 2014, 09:12:30 PM
not just those, the 83-86's also looked way more modern than a Town Car of the same time period.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: BLKBRD88 on January 13, 2014, 12:37:16 AM
Post by: BLKBRD88 on January 13, 2014, 12:37:16 AM
Quote from: M-train;427242
I've always loved the 87-88 Thunderbird TC since it came out.
I've tried my best to find the aero CD of the Turbo Coupe, but have been unsuccessful. I found a site that lists all of the T-birds collectively, but I don't put much stock in the numbers I saw. Of course CD is a rather baffling thing to understand, as a Lambo Countach has a CD around .400 vs an 88 Mustang GT at around .340
........
1988 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe automatic overdrive
Specs of Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe automatic overdrive, model year 1988, version for North America U.S. (up to December) with 2-door coupe body type, RWD (rear-wheel drive) and automatic 3-speed gearbox. Basic http://www.automobile-catalog.com specs and characteristics: petrol (gasoline) engine of 2301 cm3 / 140.4 cui displacement with advertised power 112 kW / 150 hp / 152 PS ( SAE net ) / 4400 and 271 Nm / 200 lb-ft / 3000 of torque. Dimensions: this model outside length is 5133 mm / 202.1 in, it’s 1806 mm / 71.1 in wide and has wheelbase of 2647 mm / 104.2 in. The officially claimed value of a drag coefficient Cd = 0.35
The last sentence above should answer your question about 87/88 TC drag coefficient.
Ron
PS according to the site quoted qbove, the GT Hatchback had a CD of .36 & the GT vert .39
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 13, 2014, 10:45:03 AM
Post by: M-train on January 13, 2014, 10:45:03 AM
Quote from: BLKBRD88;427255
1988 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe automatic overdrive
Specs of Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe automatic overdrive, model year 1988, version for North America U.S. (up to December) with 2-door coupe body type, RWD (rear-wheel drive) and automatic 3-speed gearbox. Basic http://www.automobile-catalog.com specs and characteristics: petrol (gasoline) engine of 2301 cm3 / 140.4 cui displacement with advertised power 112 kW / 150 hp / 152 PS ( SAE net ) / 4400 and 271 Nm / 200 lb-ft / 3000 of torque. Dimensions: this model outside length is 5133 mm / 202.1 in, it’s 1806 mm / 71.1 in wide and has wheelbase of 2647 mm / 104.2 in. The officially claimed value of a drag coefficient Cd = 0.35
The last sentence above should answer your question about 87/88 TC drag coefficient.
Ron
PS according to the site quoted qbove, the GT Hatchback had a CD of .36 & the GT vert .39
That is the site I question the results as that is the same CD given for ALL Thunderbirds in those years. The TC's had different front ends which should give them a different CD than the rest.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/thunderbird_9gen/thunderbird_9gen_lx/1988.html
That same site also list the Mercury Capri all with the same CD when we all know some models had the huge bubble back on the hatch that made the CD around .26 [like I said AROUND .26 as I can't remember the exact number.]
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: Haystack on January 13, 2014, 11:45:26 AM
Post by: Haystack on January 13, 2014, 11:45:26 AM
why would they be different? most drag coefficients are measured.by the tallest and widest part of the car and nothing.else.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: 83-88T-Bird Guy on January 13, 2014, 02:32:11 PM
Post by: 83-88T-Bird Guy on January 13, 2014, 02:32:11 PM
Those 87-88 TC's look awesome.
I only have one left out of the 17 I have bought over the years.
Still love the 4 eye look too.
Both model T-Birds look sleek....even 30 plus years later.
I only have one left out of the 17 I have bought over the years.
Still love the 4 eye look too.
Both model T-Birds look sleek....even 30 plus years later.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: BLKBRD88 on January 13, 2014, 02:54:40 PM
Post by: BLKBRD88 on January 13, 2014, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: M-train;427262
That is the site I question the results as that is the same CD given for ALL Thunderbirds in those years. The TC's had different front ends which should give them a different CD than the rest. ............
I can't imagine that the slight difference in TC front ends would make much drag difference, but you may be right on what you say, but I have found that this site seems to have most other info about our FoxBodies correct....much more so than a lot of other car info sites.
Ron
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 13, 2014, 04:12:12 PM
Post by: M-train on January 13, 2014, 04:12:12 PM
It may not make any measurable difference. CD is a very tricky thing...........Here read this.
http://chrisoncars.com/2010/09/drag-coefficient-nonsense/
http://chrisoncars.com/2010/09/drag-coefficient-nonsense/
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: ISTLCRUZ on January 13, 2014, 08:28:09 PM
Post by: ISTLCRUZ on January 13, 2014, 08:28:09 PM
I agree that the 83 'bird was ahead of its time. The 87-88s just seem to be when Ford put the "Total Package" together.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 14, 2014, 08:10:38 PM
Post by: M-train on January 14, 2014, 08:10:38 PM
With all of that being said, I still wonder why some of the Mustang crowd were so vocal on how much they disliked the car?
I don't get that. I mean it wasn't ment to be a Mustang, but more of a sport luxury vehicle, for which it hit the mark, spot on.
The only thing I would have changed was to have ditched the 2.3l, and went with the forced induction V6 that appeared on the 89, and up T-birds. Even though the little 2.3l did make hp the 87-88 TC was a bit heavy for that little engine, and I know all about it as I owned two SVO Mustangs.
The ultimate dream would have had the sport version of the T-bird with a 351w. Now that would have been a blast to drive.
I don't get that. I mean it wasn't ment to be a Mustang, but more of a sport luxury vehicle, for which it hit the mark, spot on.
The only thing I would have changed was to have ditched the 2.3l, and went with the forced induction V6 that appeared on the 89, and up T-birds. Even though the little 2.3l did make hp the 87-88 TC was a bit heavy for that little engine, and I know all about it as I owned two SVO Mustangs.
The ultimate dream would have had the sport version of the T-bird with a 351w. Now that would have been a blast to drive.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: fordguy545 on January 14, 2014, 09:46:57 PM
Post by: fordguy545 on January 14, 2014, 09:46:57 PM
I wouldn't wish that 3.8L supercharged engine on anyone in one of these cars. There wasn't enough room to get to ANYTHING on an supercoupe, let alone trying to jam one of those in a fox. I like the 2.3T cars(I have 3 of them), and with a few tricks done to them they are very potent.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on January 15, 2014, 12:11:27 AM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on January 15, 2014, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: fordguy545;427338
I wouldn't wish that 3.8L supercharged engine on anyone in one of these cars. There wasn't enough room to get to ANYTHING on an supercoupe, let alone trying to jam one of those in a fox. I like the 2.3T cars(I have 3 of them), and with a few tricks done to them they are very potent.
LOL, I wouldn't wish a Ford 3.8 on anyone needing something other than a boat anchor or maybe a really big door stop...
My idea of the ultimate Factory '87 - '88 T-Bird Sport would include a HO 5.0/5-speed option with the Turbo Coupe styling and features avail(I've never cared for a std grille)... Yeah a 5.8 would have been nice but a larger engine would be a pipe dream, I'm talking realistic with off the shelf parts... Of course if it had been avail, Turbo Coupe production might have been 25% of what was produced...
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: White85GS on January 15, 2014, 01:12:27 AM
Post by: White85GS on January 15, 2014, 01:12:27 AM
Quote from: fordguy545;427338
I wouldn't wish that 3.8L supercharged engine on anyone in one of these cars. There wasn't enough room to get to ANYTHING on an supercoupe, let alone trying to jam one of those in a fox. I like the 2.3T cars(I have 3 of them), and with a few tricks done to them they are very potent.
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;427347
LOL, I wouldn't wish a Ford 3.8 on anyone needing something other than a boat anchor or maybe a really big door stop...
My idea of the ultimate Factory '87 - '88 T-Bird Sport would include a HO 5.0/5-speed option with the Turbo Coupe styling and features avail(I've never cared for a std grille)
Idk, head/head gaskets aside, I think the 3.8 block was halfway decent.
Yeah, that would have been sweet, esp since the Sport was basically a TC with a 5.0.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on January 15, 2014, 05:12:37 PM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on January 15, 2014, 05:12:37 PM
Quote from: White85GS;427354
Yeah, that would have been sweet, esp since the Sport was basically a TC with a 5.0.
Other than the '88 Sport interior, not really the same at all... '87 did have a full console but seats were nowhere as nice as TC plus used that goofy digital cluster... TC has 11" front brakes and discs out back, Sport 10" and drum brakes out back... TC has 3.55 or 3.73 8.8" rear, Sport no better than 3.08 in the maybe 8.8", most had 2.73 7.5" rears... TC state of the art(for the time) ABS, Sport ABwhat??? TC Automatic Ride Control, like ABS not to be found on the Sport...
I've been asked(mostly by the TC guys) why I swapped a 5.0 into my car and not mod a Bird that already had the V8??? Their reasoning is it would have been much easier... My reasoning was it would be harder to swap all the unique TC features to a Sport than the engine & trans to a TC... Then comes the but you ruined a rare car, which is not the case at all... TC accounted for approx 25% of the production in '87 & '88, so assuming the base & LX outsold TC, the Sport is actually the least produced(but it isn't rare)...
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: Thunder Chicken on January 15, 2014, 05:13:42 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on January 15, 2014, 05:13:42 PM
Ford used the Fox cars as development mules for the supercharged 3.8, and even made up a couple of concept cars for Dearborn Police. I don't know if the cars were ever delivered to the cops, but I would say they probably were - what better way to durability test an engine than give it to cops to beat the hell out of?
As for being ahead of their time, I've said this for years, and I've also said that's why they'll never get the "collector" status of other 80's cars, such as GM's G-bodies, 3rd gen F-bodies, and Fox Stangs. A big part of an old car's desirability is that it represents the era it came from. These cars, being ahead of their time, don't quite fit the 80's nostalgia thing, and they don't really represent the 90's either. They are orphans of time. The lackluster powertrains (3.8 and 5.0 SO) and expensive/complicated Turbo Coupes didn't help matters. I'm with Tom: Ford should've offered the 5.0 HO, at the bare minimum with an automatic, but preferably with a 5-speed available as well. But that would have cut into both Mustang and Mark VII sales...
As for being ahead of their time, I've said this for years, and I've also said that's why they'll never get the "collector" status of other 80's cars, such as GM's G-bodies, 3rd gen F-bodies, and Fox Stangs. A big part of an old car's desirability is that it represents the era it came from. These cars, being ahead of their time, don't quite fit the 80's nostalgia thing, and they don't really represent the 90's either. They are orphans of time. The lackluster powertrains (3.8 and 5.0 SO) and expensive/complicated Turbo Coupes didn't help matters. I'm with Tom: Ford should've offered the 5.0 HO, at the bare minimum with an automatic, but preferably with a 5-speed available as well. But that would have cut into both Mustang and Mark VII sales...
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: thunderjet302 on January 15, 2014, 06:51:29 PM
Post by: thunderjet302 on January 15, 2014, 06:51:29 PM
I noticed something odd in underhood shot of the fox Thunderbird with the 3.8SC mill. The car appears to have regular brakes. Either the Teves II from the Turbo Coupe wouldn't clear the intercooler piping or the Teves from the MN-12 wouldn't fit in the engine bay.
As an aside I'm not a fan of the Teves II ABS system. As of now the one in my Mark VII works ok but when it fails it's getting replaced with a regular power brake master and booster. The parts for the Teves are obsolete and the cost of a re-manufactured unit is about $1000. Insane.
As an aside I'm not a fan of the Teves II ABS system. As of now the one in my Mark VII works ok but when it fails it's getting replaced with a regular power brake master and booster. The parts for the Teves are obsolete and the cost of a re-manufactured unit is about $1000. Insane.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: White85GS on January 15, 2014, 07:09:52 PM
Post by: White85GS on January 15, 2014, 07:09:52 PM
The Taurus/90+ Town Car (I forget it's name) ABS system might have fit.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 15, 2014, 07:25:37 PM
Post by: M-train on January 15, 2014, 07:25:37 PM
The V6 from the supercoupes in 89 were much stouter than the standard 3.8 Swiss cheese cylinder decks. There was a guy making performance parts for the supercoupe 3.8 engines, but I can't remember his name.
I really don't know any more about the 3.8's in the SC, so I can't comment on how reliable it was, or wasn't.
The trouble with the 2.3l engines, is that even when turbocharged, and hopped up a bit, the torque curve is too high for such a relatively heavy car. That's is the reason I voted for the SC V6.
I guess they could have put in a Cobra 5.0l engine into the TC's, but I don't know if they had them at the time as the Cobra 5.0l didn't make its debut till 93.
I really don't know any more about the 3.8's in the SC, so I can't comment on how reliable it was, or wasn't.
The trouble with the 2.3l engines, is that even when turbocharged, and hopped up a bit, the torque curve is too high for such a relatively heavy car. That's is the reason I voted for the SC V6.
I guess they could have put in a Cobra 5.0l engine into the TC's, but I don't know if they had them at the time as the Cobra 5.0l didn't make its debut till 93.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: White85GS on January 15, 2014, 08:17:45 PM
Post by: White85GS on January 15, 2014, 08:17:45 PM
the 87-88 2.3T + intercooler did put out more hp per cyl/ci/liter. 210hp from a s/c'ed & intercooled 3.8 V6 was pretty lame, they made crazy torque though. The s/c 3800 in a GM which btw, was not intercooled, put out 240hp.
I'd also like to thank BLKBRD88 for that website, I FINALLY figured out that my '85 with the CFI 5.0 is in fact, about 300lbs lighter than my 90 LS, which of course, had the N/A 3.8.
I'd also like to thank BLKBRD88 for that website, I FINALLY figured out that my '85 with the CFI 5.0 is in fact, about 300lbs lighter than my 90 LS, which of course, had the N/A 3.8.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: Beau on January 15, 2014, 11:23:18 PM
Post by: Beau on January 15, 2014, 11:23:18 PM
Tom Morana Racing did some good stuff for the 3.8 engine.
I won't say good nor bad about the 3.8, I had 2 cars with it (both '88's) and while one was a flaming piece of gobshiznite, the other one went to hell and back 7 times for me, all the while dribbling oil from a rear main like a dog with terminal diarrhea.
In fact, what killed it at last was me one day deciding in a drug fueled stupor to decide to start it up and let it run without first adding oil. It threw a rod, caught fire, and by the grace of some higher being, I was able to find a fire extinguisher.
I agree thought that Ford should have put the HO at least in the Sport/XR7 cars...with the extra weight, they wouldn't have been as fast as the all might be-all, end-all Mustang, and the luxury isn't quite Mark VII-ish so no loss there, either.
No offense to Mustang owners (hell, I own three, myself) but when the Stang crowd dogs on 'Birds, I just casually say that at least the Tbird isn't the town w that the Mustang is....you know...every dick has been in it. It's gotten me pushed up against a wall 2 or three times, but it's the truth. You didn't see Awesome Bill set a 212 MPH record in a Mustang "body".....
But I don't hate Mustangs either....several of them have donated some parts to my Tbird, and a couple other members here, as well. ;)
May the Fords be with you...
I won't say good nor bad about the 3.8, I had 2 cars with it (both '88's) and while one was a flaming piece of gobshiznite, the other one went to hell and back 7 times for me, all the while dribbling oil from a rear main like a dog with terminal diarrhea.
In fact, what killed it at last was me one day deciding in a drug fueled stupor to decide to start it up and let it run without first adding oil. It threw a rod, caught fire, and by the grace of some higher being, I was able to find a fire extinguisher.
I agree thought that Ford should have put the HO at least in the Sport/XR7 cars...with the extra weight, they wouldn't have been as fast as the all might be-all, end-all Mustang, and the luxury isn't quite Mark VII-ish so no loss there, either.
No offense to Mustang owners (hell, I own three, myself) but when the Stang crowd dogs on 'Birds, I just casually say that at least the Tbird isn't the town w that the Mustang is....you know...every dick has been in it. It's gotten me pushed up against a wall 2 or three times, but it's the truth. You didn't see Awesome Bill set a 212 MPH record in a Mustang "body".....
But I don't hate Mustangs either....several of them have donated some parts to my Tbird, and a couple other members here, as well. ;)
May the Fords be with you...
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: BLKBRD88 on January 16, 2014, 12:33:32 AM
Post by: BLKBRD88 on January 16, 2014, 12:33:32 AM
Quote from: M-train;427383
The trouble with the 2.3l engines, is that even when turbocharged, and hopped up a bit, the torque curve is too high for such a relatively heavy car. That's is the reason I voted for the SC V6.
I believe the weight is the reason why Ford put the little IHI turbo in the heavy Tbirds. This turbo may not peak out like the T3/T4, but it begins to spool at low rpms to help the heavy car get going.
I must admit that I like the kick in the pants that the larger turbo gives in my SVO around 3000rpm, but I also like the nice, smooth lower gear WOTs in my larger, but (nearly as fast) luxury Sport TC.
Ron
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 16, 2014, 04:35:48 PM
Post by: M-train on January 16, 2014, 04:35:48 PM
You guys do know that a fully dressed 2.3l turbo weighs about the same as a dressed 5.0l.
i was shocked the first time I heard someone say it, so after a bit of digging, and weighing stuff with my own scales I found it to be true.
My reason for finding the weight was a post I made about building a 65 Mustang SVO with the turbo 4. That is when I found out I wouldn't be gaining anything with the 2.3l weight wise vs just putting a 289 back in it.
i was shocked the first time I heard someone say it, so after a bit of digging, and weighing stuff with my own scales I found it to be true.
My reason for finding the weight was a post I made about building a 65 Mustang SVO with the turbo 4. That is when I found out I wouldn't be gaining anything with the 2.3l weight wise vs just putting a 289 back in it.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: White85GS on January 16, 2014, 04:49:39 PM
Post by: White85GS on January 16, 2014, 04:49:39 PM
So the 3.8 was the lightest then? I know that the 2.3 and 5.0 both had iron heads. The 3.8, aluminum ones.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: Haystack on January 16, 2014, 04:52:49 PM
Post by: Haystack on January 16, 2014, 04:52:49 PM
if your going to argue power per cubic inch, the 5.0 was a dog, specially our lowly s.o.
overall through, I've asked random people how much power they thought my car put out, and since the t-5 swap, most people think its got over 200hp. one guy drove a explorer 302 and another guy had a 99 v-6 mustang. they were both guys at my work. I couldn't get either to race me and with and they thought they would lose.
aftermarket though, the 3.8 is expensive and outdated compared to either the 2.3 or a 5.0. it really doesn't take much to get either motor to 300hp.
supermarket
overall through, I've asked random people how much power they thought my car put out, and since the t-5 swap, most people think its got over 200hp. one guy drove a explorer 302 and another guy had a 99 v-6 mustang. they were both guys at my work. I couldn't get either to race me and with and they thought they would lose.
aftermarket though, the 3.8 is expensive and outdated compared to either the 2.3 or a 5.0. it really doesn't take much to get either motor to 300hp.
supermarket
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on January 16, 2014, 06:18:54 PM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on January 16, 2014, 06:18:54 PM
Quote from: White85GS;427410
So the 3.8 was the lightest then? I know that the 2.3 and 5.0 both had iron heads. The 3.8, aluminum ones.
Probably but I doubt there was much difference in the 3.8 and 2.3... The 3.8 block is a inch taller than a 5.0, so isn't going to be all that much lighter...
A all iron carbed 302 weighs 470lb, but I dunno if that includes exhaust manifolds... With the 5.0 having aluminum water pump and intake that'd knock off probably 20lb and alum heads will shed another 45lb. tube headers another 8lb or so... At this weight, the 5.0 is approx same as a iron 2.3...
With the swap from 2.3T & A4LD to alu headed 5.0 & AOD, my bird sets approx 3/8" lower after the change...
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: Thunder Chicken on January 16, 2014, 06:50:14 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on January 16, 2014, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: White85GS;427386
the 87-88 2.3T + intercooler did put out more hp per cyl/ci/liter. 210hp from a s/c'ed & intercooled 3.8 V6 was pretty lame, they made crazy torque though. The s/c 3800 in a GM which btw, was not intercooled, put out 240hp.
The GM 3800 supercharged made 205 horses for 91-93 and 225 for 94-95. The Ford supercharged 3.8 had both numbers beat. The Buick engine also only made 260 lb-ft of torque versus 330 for the Ford engine. Since the Ford engine went out of production in '95 you can't compare later Series II (240 HP, 280 lb-ft) and Series III (260 HP) engines to them. Imagine, though, had Ford continued developing the SC V6 - perhaps with split port heads, and maybe at 4.2 liters. Since the NA 4.2 was making over 200 horses, a supercharged version belting out better than 300 horses wouldn't have been much of a stretch...
That being said, reliability-wise I'd take the Buick engine over the Ford any day. If I wanted a V6 at all, that is...
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 16, 2014, 07:38:29 PM
Post by: M-train on January 16, 2014, 07:38:29 PM
If I were to run a V6 I think one of the advantages would be that it doesn't hang that much weight over the nose of the car as with two less cylinders. It doesn't actually sit back further, but the lack of two cylinders in the front helps the weight distribution a bit.
What was the weak points of the supercharged V6? Like I mentioned earlier the other V6's had waaaay too many holes in the deck to seal a head gasket.
If we're talking about off the shelf parts from Ford, they could have put a turbo on the TC, making it target the Buick GN's. That would have been a heck of a power train.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a V6 guy, just throwing this stuff out for fun.
Were I to build a TC I would go with either a new Shelby supercharged engine, or a twin turbo 351w.
Just for kicks, here is my twin turbo 90 Mazda B2200 truck.
Before:
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/newwheels003.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/newwheels003.jpg.html)
After:
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/006.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html)
http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html
What was the weak points of the supercharged V6? Like I mentioned earlier the other V6's had waaaay too many holes in the deck to seal a head gasket.
If we're talking about off the shelf parts from Ford, they could have put a turbo on the TC, making it target the Buick GN's. That would have been a heck of a power train.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a V6 guy, just throwing this stuff out for fun.
Were I to build a TC I would go with either a new Shelby supercharged engine, or a twin turbo 351w.
Just for kicks, here is my twin turbo 90 Mazda B2200 truck.
Before:
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/newwheels003.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/newwheels003.jpg.html)
After:
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/006.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html)
http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 16, 2014, 07:41:09 PM
Post by: M-train on January 16, 2014, 07:41:09 PM
For some reason it won't let me post more than two pictures. Anyway here is the rest of the truck.
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/DSCN0055.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/DSCN0055.jpg.html)
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/DSCN0055.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/DSCN0055.jpg.html)
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: White85GS on January 16, 2014, 08:10:13 PM
Post by: White85GS on January 16, 2014, 08:10:13 PM
I had a Mazda B, mine was a 96 2300, so it was a Ranger twin.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 17, 2014, 04:28:42 PM
Post by: M-train on January 17, 2014, 04:28:42 PM
Man, that ed B was such dog. I almost hit 80mph once while going down a hill with a 50 mph tail wind...............thus the change. Man, did my wife hate me for that build............
I don't know if anyone noticed, or not, but that is an SVO hood scoop I welded onto the B hood.
I don't know if anyone noticed, or not, but that is an SVO hood scoop I welded onto the B hood.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: 83-88T-Bird Guy on January 20, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
Post by: 83-88T-Bird Guy on January 20, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: M-train;427417
If I were to run a V6 I think one of the advantages would be that it doesn't hang that much weight over the nose of the car as with two less cylinders. It doesn't actually sit back further, but the lack of two cylinders in the front helps the weight distribution a bit.
What was the weak points of the supercharged V6? Like I mentioned earlier the other V6's had waaaay too many holes in the deck to seal a head gasket.
If we're talking about off the shelf parts from Ford, they could have put a turbo on the TC, making it target the Buick GN's. That would have been a heck of a power train.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a V6 guy, just throwing this stuff out for fun.
Were I to build a TC I would go with either a new Shelby supercharged engine, or a twin turbo 351w.
Just for kicks, here is my twin turbo 90 Mazda B2200 truck.
Before:
After:
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/006.jpg) (http://"http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html")
http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html
Nice !
I thought about doing that to a Bronco II I recently bought.
It has the rear roof removed and looks like a short Ranger. I want to put it behind the cab as well.
Anyway, does that setup have it's own oil supply system ?
I want to set up mine with an independent oil pump/supply system.
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 20, 2014, 08:43:19 PM
Post by: M-train on January 20, 2014, 08:43:19 PM
Yes it does have its own oil supply back to the engine.
Be sure to buy the Weldon pump, and NOT the differential pump from Summit. The Weldon pump is double the price [around $400, but its made to carry hot oil back to the engine.]
http://www.weldonracing.com/product/54-7/9200-A__High_Temperature_Oil_Pump.html
Here is the trick, get the turbo's as high as you can, and make sure you clock the drains at 6 o clock [or straight down].
Then have a small catch can to hold the oil. It also needs to be mounted higher than the oil pump, and as close to the pump as you can get it.
If you don't do all of that the turbos will leak oil, ask me how I know...........Boost is instant, not much heat under the hood as with a conventional turbo setup, weight distribution is better, more room under the hood, you can run full length headers, and with the remote oil setup you get a bit of a cooling effect as the oil runs into the aluminum catch can, and oil lines.
I have twin fans rigged to turn on at 4 psi of boost, and I also have my AC condenser in front of the intercooler as there was NO room for it after I changed the front end from a B2200 to a Ranger Edge.
Also, I'm seriously debating putting a 2.2l badge on the truck on the sides, and tailgates, along with a small single dummy exhaust pipe comming out of the rear..........just for kicks.
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/strangerengine3001.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/strangerengine3001.jpg.html)
Be sure to buy the Weldon pump, and NOT the differential pump from Summit. The Weldon pump is double the price [around $400, but its made to carry hot oil back to the engine.]
http://www.weldonracing.com/product/54-7/9200-A__High_Temperature_Oil_Pump.html
Here is the trick, get the turbo's as high as you can, and make sure you clock the drains at 6 o clock [or straight down].
Then have a small catch can to hold the oil. It also needs to be mounted higher than the oil pump, and as close to the pump as you can get it.
If you don't do all of that the turbos will leak oil, ask me how I know...........Boost is instant, not much heat under the hood as with a conventional turbo setup, weight distribution is better, more room under the hood, you can run full length headers, and with the remote oil setup you get a bit of a cooling effect as the oil runs into the aluminum catch can, and oil lines.
I have twin fans rigged to turn on at 4 psi of boost, and I also have my AC condenser in front of the intercooler as there was NO room for it after I changed the front end from a B2200 to a Ranger Edge.
Also, I'm seriously debating putting a 2.2l badge on the truck on the sides, and tailgates, along with a small single dummy exhaust pipe comming out of the rear..........just for kicks.
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/mtrain2000/strangerengine3001.jpg) (http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/strangerengine3001.jpg.html)
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: STANG8U on January 20, 2014, 10:34:26 PM
Post by: STANG8U on January 20, 2014, 10:34:26 PM
That's really cool
Title: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......
Post by: M-train on January 27, 2014, 04:50:27 PM
Post by: M-train on January 27, 2014, 04:50:27 PM
I know I'm getting way off topic with the Mazda stuff, but I found it interesting that the Mazda B2200 frame was totally boxed in from the factory.
I was just reading an 89 Ford Ranger build on another forum, and saw that the Ranger frame isn't boxed in.
For the mind numbing 85 hp that the Mazda engine produced I find it interesting at how overbuilt they made the truck, IE a 6 lug rear, etc.
I was just reading an 89 Ford Ranger build on another forum, and saw that the Ranger frame isn't boxed in.
For the mind numbing 85 hp that the Mazda engine produced I find it interesting at how overbuilt they made the truck, IE a 6 lug rear, etc.