MN-12=meh?

Topic: MN-12=meh? (Read 6546 times) previous topic - next topic

MN-12=meh?

May 16, 2008, 04:42:09 PM

So I've been driving the 95 for about 8 months now and all I can say is *meh*. I'm not really impressed with it on a whole. I mean granted it has a 3.8 but about the only thing it does better than my Fox is turn with less body roll. The Fox is faster (duh :hick: ), rides nicer, and most of all Looks 1000 times better. Really I never understood those MN-12 people who think their car is soooooooo much better than a Fox. Granted it may have more *advanced engineering* but the styling is just not as good. Granted it looks better than most cars (after all it is a T-bird:birdsmily: ) but if I park it next to my 88 there's just no comparison.

I can't put my finger on it but the Fox cars seem like they have a soul, something that takes them back to the time when cars were cars. To me the MN-12 just seems kinda lifeless.

Then again maybe I would like the MN-12 more if it had a V8 instead of the ass

3.8 :shoothead

MN-12=meh?

Reply #1 – May 16, 2008, 04:48:06 PM

Quote from: thunderjet302;219288

So I've been driving the 95 for about 8 months now and all I can say is *meh*. I'm not really impressed with it on a whole. I mean granted it has a 3.8 but about the only thing it does better than my Fox is turn with less body roll. The Fox is faster (duh :hick: ), rides nicer, and most of all Looks 1000 times better. Really I never understood those MN-12 people who think their car is soooooooo much better than a Fox. Granted it may have more *advanced engineering* but the styling is just not as good. Granted it looks better than most cars (after all it is a T-bird:birdsmily: ) but if I park it next to my 88 there's just no comparison.

I can't put my finger on it but the Fox cars seem like they have a soul, something that takes them back to the time when cars were cars. To me the MN-12 just seems kinda lifeless.

Then again maybe I would like the MN-12 more if it had a V8 instead of the ass :clown: 3.8 :shoothead

At least yours has the EFI 3.8. The 3.8 in my Mom's 83 Cougar is the anemic carb'd version. It pumps out about 130HP at 5000RPM's?

MN-12=meh?

Reply #2 – May 16, 2008, 04:52:21 PM

Dude....it's like....totally summer now. How come thats not just a winter beater? After driving this thing I don't think I'll ever be able to NOT daily drive something less interesting during nice weather. If I ever retire this one to keep the wear and tear off it and not risk getting it cracked up by some idiot (maybe thats why you dont dd it? lol) I'd have to get another one and drive that. Love this thing to DEATH.

And yeah, sorry guys that like MN-12s, if ya do thats COOL but for me? BLEH. Sooooo bland-looking next to the foxes. They ARE foxy alright. LOL

MN-12=meh?

Reply #3 – May 16, 2008, 04:58:11 PM

Quote from: ZondaC12;219291

....... keep the wear and tear off it and not risk getting it cracked up by some idiot (maybe thats why you dont dd it? lol).........

That would be why I don't dd the Fox :hick:

MN-12=meh?

Reply #4 – May 16, 2008, 06:52:57 PM

After owning mine, I can say that MN-12s are ok if you don't ever plan to mod ANYTHING. Modding those cars is an uphill/expensive battle. That's why I chose the Mark VII over my Bird. If you just wanna use it for transportation they're not bad though.

The hoods are too low for aftermarket intakes.
IRS makes diff swaps a PITA
Hub Bolt pattern 5 on 4 1/4 means most wheels won't fit.
Steering shaft gets in the way of almost all headers.
Lonnie is pretty much the only person who can tune their ECMs.

MN-12=meh?

Reply #5 – May 16, 2008, 07:03:19 PM

the only thing good about the mn-12 is the ho engine i stole from one and strapped under my hood:burnout: .... other than that, i'd have to agree, the foxes (even the 87 and 88's) have style...... the mn-12 is just another car

MN-12=meh?

Reply #6 – May 16, 2008, 07:20:42 PM

Diff swaps are EASY in the IRS system. You pop off one spindle, and CV, unbolt the pumpkin, and theres usually enough movement to slide it off of the other CF and drop it.

I like MN12's. My father had an 89 3.8L bird, and now has a 98 Mark VIII LSC, and both cars are a lot of fun to throw around.

MN-12=meh?

Reply #7 – May 16, 2008, 07:24:59 PM

When the MN12's came out in '89, I had just bought my first '84 and was just totally in love with all aero Cats. To me, the 1989-90 XR7 had so much to offer vs. the Fox cars: ABS, 4-wheel disc, IRS, a very robust powerplant, adjustable suspension, etc. Basically the Cougar had gotten the short end of the stick, performance-wise, in 1987-88 vs. the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. It was really nice to see the big Cat come back with such a strong presence, and in a brand new body to boot.

I have about half a dozen articles proclaiming the 1989-90 XR7 to be the performance bargain of the decade. One article likened it to a sledgehammer in a Brooks Brothers suit. And with the race versions kicking tail over in the IMSA series, things were really off to a tremendous start with the new MN12 platform. The 1989-90 timeframe was a great time to be alive in Cougardom.

As time went by, I had started to wonder what happened, and when, with the MN12's. Was it the fact that it never had a V8 at its inception? It seemed that the blown V6 was more than adequate for such a heavy car. Ford still committed itself to the V8 shoehorn fit, though, and the 1991-92 versions of the XR7 with the 302 were probably better overall than the 1989-90 cars. The new front end was nicer; the new grille especially made the front of the car a very strong throwback to earlier cars; the headlights were back to cat's-eye style. Wheels, taillights, even the paint got better. It seemed like everything was falling into place for the cars.

But there was never any advertising push for them. Believe me...I collect all 1983-up Cougar advertising and literature. There's hardly anything for the MN12's past 1990. I remember one commercial for the XR7, airing exactly one time, and only because Lincoln-Mercury sponsored the show (don't bother looking on YouTube, it's not there LOL). Now what's strange is that there's almost nothing for the Fox cars either. But the big difference: the Fox cars were selling like crazy. Ford didn't need to advertise them. The MN12's, though, were sold mainly by one large method: lease trade-ins. I can't tell you how many people would lease a new Cougar, then trade it in every 2-3 years on another new Cougar. This was a cycle that, it turns out, was one of the main reasons why Mercury has survived to this day. And since older people are generally the demographic that can afford to lease or buy new Mercury vehicles, this made a lot of sense when you look at it. The cars simply weren't attracting younger buyers, due in part to the lack of an advertising push from L-M division.

Sometime around 1993-95, the steam ran out of the MN12 machine. Sure, Ford kept quietly updating the cars, but with little-to-no fanfare, no press releases, and no car magazine test drives, there was little wonder that nobody but the faithful took note. In essence, the perception started to formulate that if you've driven one MN12, you've driven them all. Slow and steady was the approach from FoMoCo when it came to the cars (particularly with the base V6 engine), therefore there really wasn't a need to cover that kind of small-potatoes news. The cancellation of the OHV 5.0 engine at the end of 1993 made a small ripple; the addition of the corporate 4.6 OHC V8 a year later garnered the same. The new interior in '94 also showed Ford's maturity in crafting exceptional interiors (starting with the '92 Taurus, then the '93 Mark VIII). Again, you'd only know this stuff if you visited the showrooms regularly. The cars...honestly, from a distance, they still look generally the same! The magic of the original iteration quickly wore off and there was nothing to fully replace it, just the obligatory bi-annual facelifts.

When the hammer finally fell in '97, there was really no surprise anywhere that I looked. Personally I was actually kind of relieved that the cars were finally put to rest. They languished far too long to be useful anymore.

Mechanically, the cars got MUCH more complex vs. the Fox cars. I think that's the where most people get sort of turned off by the charm. You can look past the styling somewhat, but you cannot deny the complexity of the platform:

Rear half shafts
A mid-ship fuel tank that has to get dropped to work on the center section/driveshaft
The fact that the driveshaft and exhaust share the same tunnel, thereby negating a true dual exhaust
More parasitic driveline loss due to the IRS
The tightly-confined engine bay
The Taurus-spec brakes, undersized in the grandest of Ford traditions
The Taurus-spec lug pattern, matching no other 5-lug RWD cars in their lineup
The FWD wheel offset...on a RWD car
The ed-to-hell door hinge design
The mouse seat belts

All of this does not make for a happy mechanic. Nor for a happy owner when it comes to repairs. A lot of specialty tools have been created just to do some farily simple repairs. I mean, on paper there hasn't been a car platform this backwards since the Fiero! And we haven't even take into account the electronics systems, which went through a few versions with the transition from EEC-IV to EEC-V, and from OBD-I to OBD-II (the Ford version, then the industry-wide version).

They are very complex cars. World-class, yes. Surprisingly supple, yes. Ahead of their time, yes. But those factors cannot ever outshadow the complexity. Essentially every part of the car had a purpose to be "better" but that purpose was forced; nothing was natural. As a result, complexity crept in.

What's odd about MN12's is that, dimensionally, they're shorter than Fox cars in length. The wheelbase is longer, but the body is shorter. But the slab-sided styling, and the squat, flat hoods (thanks to the lower cowl) make the cars appear much, much fatter. They don't look light on their feet, and honestly they are not anyway, but the styling sure doesn't help with the portliness.

It's always seemed to me that the designers tried to take a Fox car's body and make it fit the MN12 chassis, but then make it "better". Every inch of the cars are pushed, pulled, flattened, tweaked, smoothed and exaggerated. But in that transition, they lost their edge, their rawness, their curves, their sensuality...and part of their souls. I've always felt that Ford designers felt the need to cheat the fact that the cars were gaining several hundred pounds versus the cars they replaced. And it's that very fact that, to me, seals the deal on the MN12 styling.

And yet...I still look at every single one that I see on the road. I can't stop looking almost 20 years later. What can I say...it's heritage.

I think the greatest lesson that the MN12's have taught me is that all great things must end. It is sad to see something that you love wither away into a former shell of itself. Alas, I was riding the high of the successful Fox cars for too long and reality set in, slowly but surely. Now we are in the same position, not for the Cougar, but for the entire Mercury division, but that's another post in the making.

(Sorry for the soapbox rant...)

MN-12=meh?

Reply #8 – May 16, 2008, 08:17:48 PM

hey try driving one with the supercharged engine.

MN-12=meh?

Reply #9 – May 16, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

I've been thinking of getting a 96-97 as a DD, since I am having trouble finding a couple of 87-88s.

Interesting thread. I actually know nothing about these yet. The 4.6 looks huge. I thought it migh be a good candidate for a swap in a few years.

MN-12=meh?

Reply #10 – May 16, 2008, 09:35:38 PM

Agreed the only mn12 i like is one with a supercharger.
It's the reason i'm spending so much time and effort on restoring my 89SC.
However it is agreed there is no comparison to my 87 TC.

MN-12=meh?

Reply #11 – May 16, 2008, 09:41:05 PM

I agree spot-on with Eric's assessment that the MN12 just looks (and is) heavy. I also feel that the slab-sides and even-more-flush glass removed a lot of character.

I owned a 91 T-Bird. I traded a very high mileage, very poor condition '85 V6 'Bird in on it, and at the time felt like I was trading up. I mean, I was getting IRS, EFI (my 85 was carbureted), power windows/locks/AC/etc. The car felt light years ahead of the '85 in virtually every aspect. Except styling. And build quality. The '85 was certainly not without its problems, but it was 8 years old and had 270k miles on it when I traded it, so it had an excuse. The '91 had more problems than any car I'd ever owned (up until the Volvo, anyway) and I really ended up hating it. So bad, in fact, that I've walked away from many screaming deals on MN12's since then, including a '90 35th anniversary SC and a 90 XR-7 5-speed, both almost being given away, because I swore I would never own another one. Now that I've got a garage and the tools to work on a car I'd likely take a 5.0 or SC MN12 if one was given to me, but only to swap the engine into something else.

It wasn't just mechanical problems that I had (the usual head gaskets, a spun rod bearing, several ball joint replacements, and at the end, a slipping AOD - the ONLY AOD I've ever had go bad). The interior was too. The door panels fell apart (almost as bad as a TC panel), the dash cracked when the car was only a few years old, the driver's seat ripped apart, the power seat stopped working, and of course, the ignition switch caught fire (longtime members will remember my ranting about that several times).

Then there was the body. When the car was three years old the paint started falling off. This was right about when Ford was denying there was any problem with their paint, and the car was over the warranty by about 2500 miles, so they wouldn't do anything. Then the rocker panels and doors rotted out, again, just outside the corrosion warranty, so Ford gave me a big F-U again.

I fully appreciate that my bad MN12 experience doesn't necessarily apply to all MN12's. I'm sure there are plenty that have had no problems, and their owners love them. Fine. That doesn't change the fact that I'll never own another one. I am not known for giving vehicles second chances. The Volvo burned me the same way, and I'll never forgive Volvo either.

That rant aside, I did like the ride and handling of the '91 (strangely enough, I felt the same way about the Volvo). It was light years ahead of my '85. However, I am certain that with a bit of suspension work and chassis stiffening a Fox would run rings around one. The MN12 has IRS, but it's not particularly tuned for performance, and they just don't have the aftermarket support Foxes do. Then there's that weight penalty...

MN-12=meh?

Reply #12 – May 16, 2008, 09:44:02 PM

I agree with the opening statement regarding MN-12's...

"meh"

MN-12=meh?

Reply #13 – May 16, 2008, 10:41:10 PM

My brother in law had a 95 XR7 4.6. Nice car overall. No soul though IMHO.

Quote

Dude....it's like....totally summer now

Not here.....

MN-12=meh?

Reply #14 – May 16, 2008, 11:21:29 PM

I give this whole thread a big old "Whatever."

Mabye I should go back over to TCCoA again...