Not even an honorable mention?

Topic: Not even an honorable mention? (Read 1295 times) previous topic - next topic

Not even an honorable mention?

June 06, 2006, 02:21:23 PM

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2005/12/CougarXR7/

Ford did us a true dis service by not putting the H.O in the 87-88 XR-7. Seeing as how the 89-90 evolved straight from our cars aside from the chassis. But then again, they offer almost no mention of the 91-92 XR7 which was almost exactly the same car but without the SC'd v6, and only 10 hp less.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #1 – June 06, 2006, 03:13:51 PM

they make it seem like the 89/90's are the greatest thing since sliced bread. it even says unfortunatly the s/c v6 was dropped and in its place was a 5.0 HO in 91. i personally dont find that very unfortunate, and if they were to supercharge a HO 5.0 that really be something, but its hard to compare a n/a engine to a s/c. dont get me wrong i like the 89/90's but they make it seem like that was the only good years.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #2 – June 06, 2006, 03:45:43 PM

Quote

Although the turbo XR7's only mirrored the Turbo Coupes for the 1984, 1985, and 1986 model years, Mercury saved face by making the 5.0L available in 1987 and 1988. However, the manual transmission option was gone.

Quote

the deviation from true Cougar origins has left performance enthusiasts knowing the most exciting Cougars ever made were produced from 67-71, 84-86, and 89-90.

Well gee. I guess I shoulda hopped up a V-6 or sprung boatloads of money for a first generation car that I'd be afraid to take outanywhere other than car shows and cruise ins.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #3 – June 06, 2006, 04:36:39 PM

I take the Fifth on this one...the writer contacted me for permission to use information from my site in that article.

You have to realize that, just as that wise old sage Ben Kenobi once said, things are true "from a certain point of view". We know that 155hp does not constitute a performance Cougar. So there is a lot of truth in what was mentioned in the article. Just because we are passionate about them doesn't mean the rest of the world sees them the same way. Besides, he was talking about stock Cougars. Read into it what you will. Yes, he could have been a little more fair with the later Fox cars. Still...he has some valid points.

I keep wondering why we didn't get the 200hp 1986 Mustang GT engine in the XR7's for 1987-88. Why why WHY!? That would have been perfect for performance, wouldn't have cannibalized from the Mustang, and would have put the Cougar XR7 right in line with the Turbo Coupe. And it would be a better base for all of us that like to modify the cars for performance. Maybe Ford was afraid. Look at these numbers:

Base engine (Cougar LS, Thunderbird Base/LX): 140hp 3.8 V6 (auto)
Optional engine (Cougar LS, Thunderbird Base/LX): 150hp 5.0 V8 (auto)
Standard engine (Thunderbird Turbo Coupe): 190hp 2.3 turbo I-4 (manual)
Standard engine (Cougar XR7, Thunderbird Sport): 200hp 5.0 HO V8 (auto)

Makes a hell of a lot of sense, doesn't it? The TC's lighter weight would have meant it could hold its own with the XR7/Sport, plus it still had the top speed advantage (142mph), so it could still have been the technical flagship that Ford was touting.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #4 – June 06, 2006, 05:53:27 PM

Since the '86 SVO was touted at 205 hp, they could have used that figure and still had top billing for the TC...

The '87-'88 Sport and XR7 were definatly short changed... Even in the '87 Hot Rod mag test of the TC and Sport they suggested to Ford that the Sport needed the HO 5.0... Ford said it wasn't likely to happen...

In my opnion they should have offered the Sport/XR7 with the HO, 5 speed and the styling and features of the TC... Would have saved me a Hell of a lot of work modifying my TC for the 5.0... Yea I'm just thinking of myself...

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #5 – June 06, 2006, 05:57:54 PM

I have that article. They practically begged for TC suspension on a Sport with the HO and a T5. Oh what could have been...

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #6 – June 06, 2006, 08:33:37 PM

, is it bad that reading that makes me want an 89-91 XR7?

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #7 – June 07, 2006, 03:37:49 AM

well the 91's were v-8's and the 89-90 were supercharger v-6's. So you tell me.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #8 – June 07, 2006, 05:26:43 AM

Quote from: Haystack

well the 91's were v-8's and the 89-90 were supercharger v-6's. So you tell me.

Meant to say '89-'90. Typo.

There, I told YOU.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #9 – June 07, 2006, 10:28:57 AM

Of all the Cougars I have owned, I have to say that my '90 XR7 was probably the meanest looking and definitely most fun to drive of all of them. The whine from that supercharger was awesome too.

Not even an honorable mention?

Reply #10 – June 08, 2006, 10:03:22 AM

I give the 87-88 the best marks for style and upgradability, the 89-90 best marks for innovation, and high marks for the 91-92 XR7's drivetrain, and higher marks for the 4.6 drivetrain, stock for stock, of course.

My wife's old 97, 4.6 V8, Sport model (with the highly desirable 7 spoke, 16" wheels), was by far the most practical, reliable, shagy Cougar that I have ever owned. I definitely regret selling it.