Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Topic: Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?) (Read 1648 times) previous topic - next topic

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

February 01, 2006, 04:11:17 AM

A year or so ago I bought a bunch of old magazine ads/articles/etc about Turbo Coupes off a guy on ebay. I was flipping through them earlier tonight, and reading two different magazine's reviews of the then-new '87 Turbo Coupe.

Couple things I found interesting-

- Both articles claim they averaged around 17 mpg. I can't believe that, I've never gotten under 20 in my car.

- Both articles list fuel capacity as 18.2 gallons. I thought it was more like 20?

- 60-0 braking distance is listed as 138 ft. Not bad!

- Curb weight is listed as 34xx lbs, the one article says the as-tested weight was 3670 lbs. Ouch :(

- Weight distribution is actually not too bad at 57/43.

- This is something that every article says about the OHC 2.3L, and I never fully understood. Both articles complain about the harshness and noisiness of the 2.3L, and the one article comments that Ford should have added balance shafts to the engine (thank God they didn't). I have honestly never noticed the 2.3L in either my Mustang or my Thunderbird to be exceedingly harsh or noisy. Maybe I just have low standards:dunce:

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #1 – February 01, 2006, 11:25:41 AM

I don't know why, but my 84 2.3 was extremely noisy and harsh. Almost to the point that I was going to get rid of it. I don't know if it was because it was the original engine without a rebuild or because they added something to the later models. My girlfriend's 88 feel like a totally different engine. It is super smooth and the only noise it made was the rattle that ultimately led to its death.

Again I don't know if it was just my engine or an upgraded balancing system on later 2.3's but my 84 engine fit the descriptions.

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #2 – February 01, 2006, 12:47:19 PM

The early cars were a bit raucous. They did ALOT of NVH tuning on them (esp in the XR4Ti's).

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #3 – February 01, 2006, 12:58:43 PM

It seems like every article I've EVER seen where they were talking about the 2.3L complains about that. We have an older Consumer Guide for used cars that has the '87-88 Thunderbirds and '87-93 Mustangs in it, and in both of those they gripe about the "noisy, harsh 2.3L." They must be spoiled on puppiesanese engines or some junk.

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #4 – February 01, 2006, 01:12:28 PM

Yep read them all the time i have about 400 magizines from the early 80's- current.

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #5 – February 01, 2006, 01:28:27 PM

I've read a bunch (and have a bunch) too, especially from the 83-84 years. I bought a box of old early 80's magazines from a guy at a flea market for a buck one time - there was about a hundred Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track, Car Craft and Cartoons magazines. I lost most of them but still have all that mention the 'Bird/Coug/Mark VII

As for the 2.3: I guess it's because all but two of my Fox 'Birds (and the Coug) were 5.0 cars, but the 87 5-speed TC I recently bought seems very coarse to me - it works very well, but it doesn't sound "right" to me, with that 4-cyl drone and roughness. I'm so used to hearing eight cylinders that four seems too different to me.

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #6 – February 01, 2006, 03:21:07 PM

I never thought of my old 2.3 turbo as being "harsh" but it did seem to vibrate bolts loose. I had to re-tighten my exhaust manifold bolts frequently. It was definetly not as smooth as my 5.0.

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #7 – February 01, 2006, 03:43:30 PM

I believe the thoughts of the day were that the ultimate in turbo-4 smoothness was found under the bonnet of a BMW. The Turbo Coupe was invented to compete with European cars, especially Bimmers. Therefore...anything less than 'BMW smooth' results in a "harsh" moniker from the magazine, no matter what the car. It was clear that BMW could do no wrong back then. But by today's standards, both the TC and BMW motors would be "harsh"! I also think that those comments may have been an attempt to poke at Ford a little, to make them refine the engine, if indeed it wanted to compete in a global market and steal sales away from Euro imports. And the refinement thing was Ford's game plan all along. It's just that, in the early years, they got called out in the mags for a lack of NVH quality. Typical Ford game plan, really...it should have been no surprise to anyone. They still do that today. But in 1983-ish, the level of quality between a first-year 2.3 turbo-4 (for the T-Bird, anyway) and a long-refined BMW turbo-4 was vast. Today...perceived gaps in quality are harder to determine between vehicles.

Also, don't forget that up until that point, magazine tests were used to large luxobarge versions of the T-Bird. Hand them something sporty and at first, the mags didn't get it. However...if all of the magazines start reporting the same thing...perhaps there really was a problem. On the other hand, they could have been pre-production or test cars that the mags used for the articles. Hard to tell...I'd bet on the latter though.

And the number discrepancies (fuel economy, gas tank size, etc.) were more than likely regurgitated numbers straight from Ford. Don't blame the mags for that info.

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #8 – February 01, 2006, 07:42:24 PM

One thing I thought was funny was that one of the articles says the turbo coupe has 11.2" discs in the rear. I was thinking....umm, not quite!

Ever read old magazine articles about Thunderbirds (or cougars?)

Reply #9 – February 01, 2006, 09:43:07 PM

Now I'm curious. I'm going to break out the Car and Driver. I haven't read it in a while.