I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Topic: I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time...... (Read 9620 times) previous topic - next topic

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #15 – 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.

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #16 – January 15, 2014, 07:09:52 PM

The Taurus/90+ Town Car (I forget it's name) ABS system might have fit.

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #17 – 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 think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #18 – 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 think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #19 – 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 think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #20 – 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

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #21 – 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 think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #22 – 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.

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #23 – 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

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #24 – 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...

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #25 – 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...

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #26 – 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:

After:

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/mtrain2000/media/006.jpg.html

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #27 – 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.

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #28 – January 16, 2014, 08:10:13 PM

I had a Mazda B, mine was a 96 2300, so it was a Ranger twin.

I think the 87-88 Turbo Coupe body style was ahead of its time......

Reply #29 – 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.