What are the odds?
http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/cto/4543679210.html
http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/cto/4577731871.html
That gold one is about 10-15 minutes from my house. Too bad I don't have the time/money for it. I need a Cougar to complete the trifecta of Fox-body personal luxury cars ;). The soon to be wife would kill me.
That's not the first full console 87 Cougar with a V6 I've seen. As a matter of fact all the full console 87 Cougars (that weren't XR7s) that I've come across have ben V6 cars with a column shift. The console in my Thunderbird came out of a 87 V6 Cougar.
Every time I see that blue, it's always with the spoke caps!
I'd like to see one with turbines + RWL tires, or 5-slot mags maybe. Feel like the right wheel change would look just great.
Actually I think ten holes with that blue would look killer. With Cougar center caps of course.
The 3.8 ruins it for me, especially a CFI 3.8
Yeah I couldn't buy it unless I planned to buy everything necessary to ALSO swap in a 5.0 *properly*.
After having driven 3 of these cars with a "lot" of power (ranging from 270 - 360 horsepower), I don't know how I could truly enjoy a stock one. They're great in and of themselves, but sooooo much better when they can burn tires and pass quickly on the highway without breaking a sweat.
I remember when I first had the car I thought a HO conversion would be awesome. When I redid the engine I skipped that and went straight for the GT40 stuff. It was pretty fun. Then I went to aluminum heads. That made the GT40 heads look like poo :hick:. The car is so much faster with the Edelbrock heads. The 3700lb barge will hit 60 in under 5.5 seconds spinning it's tires. It would be faster with drag radials. I keep thinking I want another one but 150hp is going to feel SLOW.
As far as a HO in one of these things I've got a pretty good idea as to how that would feel. I've got a Mark VII which is similar in weight to a full loaded Foxthundercat (like my car). Well it's not that quick. It hits 60 about a tick or two faster than my '11 Focus. 3.8 cars must be dogs. I've only driven one, a very clean 88 Thunderbird base with a 3.8 and 35K original miles. It wasn't fast. I should have bought it for a V8 swap. I can only imagine how slow a 3.8 CFI car is.....
A carbed one is 5 times worse.
If I ever do another one of these it'll be with a 408 and forced induction.
Especially in my case, where the engine has to lug 3700lbs of car and driver around.
The CFI is fuel injection...of sorts. ;-) Been very reliable, for me (got 260K on mine), but yeah, it's painfully slow. Good torque right off line, tho! (About 'till you get across the intersection, then not much after that...) But, mine will accelerate UP hill (moderate incline) in OD due to that low torque curve...I do like that. I have the consolette interior, but other than that mine looks exactly the same...too bad my EXTERIOR is much worse!
Both are still for sale.
I just can't believe how horribly suited to these cars the most common gearset was. Was that really necessary to meet CAFE requirements? Everything depends on how they're driven...but even 3.27's give so much more torque than 2.73s. Lou, the Mark has those, right? Those are heavier than birds/cats too.
I'd imagine a low-option (read:no power seats, no power moonroof, maybe even no power windows) car with 3.27's and the stock 5.0 wouldn't be too awful.
My 2.3 Ranger has 3.45's, and still can't get out of its own way, but with the 5 speed, it gets 25 mpg city.
The Mark VII has 3.27s and a Traction-Lok because it's a LSC. The Bill Blass cars had 3.08s with an open differential. Either way still slow. Mine hits 60 in about 8 seconds.
It's not much heavier than my Thunderbird. My Thunderbird (fully loaded sans sunroof) weighs in at 3560 with a full tank and no driver, 3710 with me. My Mark VII with everything but a JBL audio system weighs 3754 with a full tank and no driver, 3904 with me. Only a 200ish pound difference, which is worth about .2 seconds in the quarter and 0-60.