Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Topic: Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't! (Read 1635 times) previous topic - next topic

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

November 09, 2005, 01:22:03 PM

I've wondered if anybody has ever built the following car that Ford/Mercury chose not to. An '87/'88 Turbo Cougar. My thought would be: start with an '88 XR7 with the monochrome treatment, drop in an '88 intercooled 2.3T/5-sp (or auto), put a TC hood on it, slap on a set of 16" snowflakes and an 8.8 disc brake rear end, and voila! If you really wanted to "TC" it out, set it up with the programmable suspension. Of course, you'd have to have the TC buttstuffog instrument cluster. I think this would be a very cool car. I always wondered by Mercury decided to change the XR7 from a turbo car up to '86 to a V8 car from '87 to '88. Then from '89 to '91/'92, an XR7 meant you got an SC V6. Why not a high(er) performance '87/'88? Just a thought. Somebody with some $$ give this one a try.

Fordman3

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #1 – November 09, 2005, 01:25:40 PM

That's a good question. I was at one time very confused about the engine and model names. I had thought that xr7 meant it had a turbo but after a few views in the bone yard I learned it wasn't true.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #2 – November 10, 2005, 12:28:24 AM

I think that the cougar wasen't supposed to be so "speed" oriented. It was supposed to be a luxury coupe, like a two door crown vic. The tbird was supposed to be the fast young generation one.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #3 – November 10, 2005, 08:23:54 AM

I actually think that Ford's original intention was to put the HO 5.0 into the 87-88 XR-7, but the bean counters won the day and the HO was sped. I know this is purely speculation, but based on some of the evidence (like the 8.8" rear) I have this suspicion. Why else would the XR7 get the 8.8" rear when it was no more powerful than a base Cougar with the 5.0?

It was probably sped because it would have devoured Turbo Coupes.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #4 – November 10, 2005, 09:19:09 AM

Quote

It was probably sped because it would have devoured Turbo Coupes.

Don't let the NATO guys see that.

Seriously, not only would it have put a good bruising to the TC, but also to the Mustang. Ford will never let another regular-guy car outshine the 'Stang. What would have been nice: a mild HO conversion with E7 heads but the 1986 HO cam. That is such a no-brainer, it's a wonder it wasn't reality. That way the Cougar wouldn't have been as fast as the techno-flagship TC or the boy-racer Mustang. Makes a lot of sense on paper. But Ford has problems dealing with reality.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #5 – November 10, 2005, 10:02:59 AM

Quote from: EricCoolCats

Don't let the NATO guys see that.

Seriously, not only would it have put a good bruising to the TC, but also to the Mustang. Ford will never let another regular-guy car outshine the 'Stang. What would have been nice: a mild HO conversion with E7 heads but the 1986 HO cam. That is such a no-brainer, it's a wonder it wasn't reality. That way the Cougar wouldn't have been as fast as the techno-flagship TC or the boy-racer Mustang. Makes a lot of sense on paper. But Ford has problems dealing with reality.

Hell, they hamstringed the TC with the IHI turbo. They finally got a "refined" ECU in the cars (well more refined than previous) and they saddle them with a smaller turbo. "Improved spool-up" my ass. They would have had a 2.3T again nipping at the heels of the 5.0 Mustang (215-220 hp out of the 2.3T would not have been out of the realm of possibilities in 87-88).

Ford should stop protecting the Mustang from in-house competition. It dilutes the rest of the line when they can't shoot for past what a Mustang does...make the Mustang designers work harder to make the car live up to it's heritage, not say "Well, this is the best we can do with the Mustang....and since there aren't any direct competitors in the market I guess it's god enough. Now the rest of you guys keep it under these numbers":nono:

Anyway, to avoid the side track...it sounds like a good project. I don't think I've seen an 87-88 XR-7 turbo swap, but I suppose someone would have had the same thoughts as you about it.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #6 – November 10, 2005, 12:00:11 PM

Quote

Ford should stop protecting the Mustang from in-house competition. It dilutes the rest of the line

Exactly, The new 4.6 churns out 300 HP and 320 LB/FT of torque while the 5.4 with 49 MORE CUBIC INCHES (and more weight) puts out the same 300 HP with 365 LB/FT of torque. Granted it is made for truck applications but I think with a more performance oriented cam from the factory they could have got a nice 350 HP and 375 TQ. If they had thrown THAT in a two door (Mustang, t-bird....whatever) the competition would have taken a lot more notice.

Guess that's why I got less than 3K on the Mustang and have already done some mods with a large one planned for the spring.....

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #7 – November 10, 2005, 12:02:41 PM

In the '87 Hot Rod Magazine comparo of the TC and Sport, they said the Sport was nice but could use the HO, even suggested it to Ford, of course it never happened.

My take on the situation at that point... Since the Fox Bird/Coug was dead after '88, why bother?? There would have been emissions certification etc. to get the car approved for production. And the 5.0 was out of the picture completely for '89 & '90 in the MN12. Also most won't remember but there was a small recession in '87, so sales weren't all that great. The '86s far out sold the '87s(in fact was the best sales year for the Fox Birds in general). The '88s sold fairly well with the TCshiznitting a record number, but still didn't surpass '86 in total sales

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #8 – November 10, 2005, 10:51:18 PM

Quote

Also most won't remember but there was a small recession in '87,

The day it kinda started is known as Black Monday, right?

1986 Cougar Production #s:
129,400 (GS and LS combined) - 95.2 percent
6,504 (XR7) - 4.8 percent
135,904 TOTAL

1987:
85,888 (LS) - 81.1 percent
14,957 (XR7) - 14.1 percent
5,002 (Anniversary/U.S. and Canada) - 4.8 percent
105,847 TOTAL

1988:
99,313 - (LS) - 87.3 percent
14,488 - (XR7) - 12.7 percent
113,801 TOTAL

Note: these numbers are for Cougars only and after 30 minutes of Google-ing I can't find the T-bird #'s but, these basically support Tom's post. They weren't horrible numbers however, 1986 was the banner year....

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #9 – November 10, 2005, 11:17:33 PM

Im building a 88 cougar ls 2.3 turbo as we speak. I will be installing a holset turbo and 25 psi, front mount intercooler, methanol and nitrious. It should be a nice ride when i finish.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #10 – November 11, 2005, 01:01:12 AM

I *think* if I remember from a book I read that in 88 Ford made around 149,000 Tbirds.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #11 – November 11, 2005, 10:36:52 AM

Quote from: Thunder Chicken

I actually think that Ford's original intention was to put the HO 5.0 into the 87-88 XR-7, but the bean counters won the day and the HO was sped. I know this is purely speculation, but based on some of the evidence (like the 8.8" rear) I have this suspicion. Why else would the XR7 get the 8.8" rear when it was no more powerful than a base Cougar with the 5.0?

It was probably sped because it would have devoured Turbo Coupes.

I feel that that the 'performance' versions of the T-Bird and Cougar were only to try and fill the gap and get a few more sales. Ford certainly was not going full-guns for the serious performance fan with the X-R7, just the casual 'luxury/performance' wannabe.
The Turbo T-Bird was a good effort to take existing components to come up with a unique model and get a few more years of use out of the already-designed parts, but then the whole Turbo-Bird package took off! So, for '87 they put some real effort in the package and came up with a fairly complete package.
The HO engine was probably never considered for the Bird or Cougar simply because of the 'don't overshadow the Mustang' issue mentioned above, and of course...cost.
Considering that the Mark VII recieved the HO in 88, Ford probably also didn't want to give that over-priced model too much in-house competition.
I truly belive the Mark VII would never have finally developed into the almost-perfect car that it was if not for the fact that the MN-12 T-Bird and Cougar had been introduced in 89. Ford was clearly (to me, anyway!) trying to distract buyers from the fact that thier 'premier' coupe was based on the 'old' FOX platform when the lesser 'birds and cats were the new MN-12s.

Build the car that Ford/Mercury didn't!

Reply #12 – November 11, 2005, 03:35:53 PM

Quote from: TurboCoupe50

My take on the situation at that point... Since the Fox Bird/Coug was dead after '88, why bother?? There would have been emissions certification etc. to get the car approved for production. And the 5.0 was out of the picture completely for '89 & '90 in the MN12.

:iagree: I have a magazine (motor trend, car & driver?) from I think it's '86 that has shots of the mn12 thunderbird. The fox car was on it's way out, they had something new and exciting on the horizon so there was no point in putting the HO in the T-bird/Cougar nor to make it much different than it was in '86. Not that it would have been difficult for them to do but still. When I saw those pictures from '86, I kind of wondered how they managed to redesign the bodies for '87-'88 and why they did it when a completely new platform was set to come out.