CC Cohort mobilene spotted this ’87 Turbo Coupe recently. His comment:
Or maybe an ’88; hard to be sure. But you don’t see them on the road much anymore, especially not in this weather. And this one is in such nice external shape. Props to this owner for *driving* this car.
They are getting a bit rare, and I’m rather fond of them too. I bought a first year ’83 TC; except for the NVH of its rather crude engine, it was a nice ride. Pretty good build quality, light on its feet, and great fuel economy, if one kept out of the boost. The 2.3 L four really needed a balance shaft shafts though. And from what I’ve heard, the later versions like this one were improved in almost every way.
Power was now up to 190 hp, which given the TC’s light weight, made it quite brisk. And of course, cranking up the boost was a favorite past-time on these. The 2.3 might have been coarse, but it could handle big doses of forced air (11 psi, if I remember correctly). Maybe that’s why there aren’t many still around.
You are right about the crude drivetrain. I recall test driving an 85. My requirements were 2 doors and a stick shift, and other than that, I was open for my first new car. Problem was, I had already driven a Mustang GT with the 5.0/5 speed. Crude body, fabulous drivetrain. The Turbo Coupe was the opposite – fabulous body, crude drivetrain. I vividly remember the slop and backlash in the drivetrain as you got on and off of the throttle. And that awful vibrating 4. I just couldn’t do it. Had Ford put the Mustang GT drivetrain in the TC (Thunderbird GT?), I would have bought one in a heartbeat.
As for this one, I love seeing an old car out in the weather. I hope that it is not out in it too much, though, or else the salt will start to eat it. Great find!
You should have gotten a Mark VII LSC, it had the refined body, fit and finish along with the 5.0 V8. But then, a Mark was quite a bit more money than even a T-Bird.
There was a “default” Thunderbird Sport Coupe for a few years too, that had the 5.0 litre and bucket seats, I know cause my friend had a burgundy one.
I don’t think the T-Bird was ever sold with the high-output version of the 5.0/302 used in the Mustang GT, though, was it? I think it was only ever made with the more sedate version used in Panthers, non-LSC Mark VIIs, (a few) Fox LTDs/Marquis, etc.
I know it was the low po five litre, but still, you got a V8. I have to hand it to this vintage T-bird, they were pretty tough, we abused the living snot out of an 87 2 tone LX with whites and wires and the V8, the car would roast the little 14 inch white walls like it was straight out of a Hawaii Five-O re-run.
The 5.0 in those cars was the lo-po motor. Something like 150 HP, I believe. They weren’t even close to the 205-220 HP hi-po motors the Mustangs had in 1986-1987.
But it would have been cool to have the TC with the hi-po 5.0 motor.
I had an ’88 – it was the “Standard Output” V8 – 160hp that year. You could swap the upper intake, throttle body, injectors, and cam (and add a true dual exhaust) from a Mustang and have the H.O.
Skip the injectors and cam, you’d gain about 10-15hp Lots of those parts around cheap back in the day – Mustang guys ditched the upper for a GT40 intake. I still have the upper in my garage, sold the car before I took the time to install it.
Bastard had hella torque – 300 ft/lbs or so at the crank. Get into it, you could watch the whole body twist.
I drove an ’88 model T-Bird with Lo-Po 5 quart and it wasn’t too bad. Lots of torque, could burn rubber quite well. I worked in a trim shop in the early 90s while in university, and this one was owned by the RCMP, our federal police. They had it in to get a broken seat frame fixed.
It was a GIS (General Investigatiion Service) car, the equivalent to the FBI.
Had a 2-way in the glove box and a Kojak light under the seat. I didn’t feel to bad about hooning it all the way back to the cop shop.
The lo-po 5.0 didn’t have the high rpm power of the HO 5.0 but it had bunches of low end torque. The stock lo-po 5.0 in my T-bird would burn the bejesus out of the stock 14″ wire wheels.
I was overly attracted by the TC because of the hi-tech and high efficiency qualities of the turbo four. But I soon got to having thoughts about doing an engine swap with a 5.0.
After years of buying buick and olds heavy sedans, a friend of mine bought one of these and couldn’t stop bragging about the economy and the power. He was enthralled.
Personally, I have always thought that a normally aspirited engine big enough to do the job should be the starting point. Then you can add the hair dryers etc. Thats what makes horse races but I’m driving a 4.3 now and really don’t want anything more. Going fast grew old for me many years ago.
I just saw one of these driving home the other night, but it was an LX. It was definitely an ’87-’88.
The one feature on these I remember is the smooth, blacked out taillamps, but when the brakes were applied, they were round lights, like an older Chevy Impala.
Nice find!
I absolutely love these! They could handle a LOT more than 11psi too.
I have dialed them up to as high as 20psi with little more than a fuel pump/injectors and “off-road” exhaust. Once the lag caught up to you watch out!
That engine and trans eventually made it’s way into a 79 Mustang Notchback.
Before Megasquirt and hacking Fords EEC became “easy” a popular swap for these was a modified Turbo Dodge/Ford Hybrid distributor and Mopar electronics. At the time the Mopar electronics were easier to fool with than Fords.
Technically, a big inline four needs two balance shafts — if I understand the geometry correctly (er, maybe?), a single balance shaft will basically just damp one shaking force and create a new one in a different direction, so you need counter-rotating shafts to more or less zero things out. It varies based on engine configuration; a 90-degree V6 just needs a single shaft.
I’ve always liked the looks of the 1987-88 T-Bird. Never driven one, though.
what about the later T-Birds with the 5.0? How did they drive? Reliability?
The MN12 Birds were nice driving cars. The Super Coupe was an awesome Doughnut maker!
There’s a reason they’re dirt cheap now, if you can find one that doesn’t need a transmission. The MN12s with the 4.6 were even nicer, but they just fall apart. For a while, I really wanted one for a big coupe with plenty of poke, and they will get up and run, but the rest of the car is such garbage…
The 86-88 had the SEFI 5.0, but they only made 150 hp from the factory. They were pretty peppy, just not Mustang or Mark VII peppy. the 83-85 5.0 cars had the awful CFI system.
You kind of have to admire Ford for how long they stuck with the 2.3 turbo four. It was always rough, crude and agricultural but they stuck with it. Seems they had a point to prove with it. I remember the buff books going on about how “new and improved” the latest iteration of the 2.3 turbo was, only to find it was the same old trashing mill as before.
I threw down the gauntlet today on T.T.A.C. to the B&B, so I’ll repeat it here to the A&A (Amazing and Antiquarian?!)…
I need someone to find me a (relatively speaking) decent shape ’86-’88 Taurus Wagon MT-5 (with the 2.3 and 5 speed). With all of 90 (original) horsepower… then I’m off to find the turbo!
email: vancetorino@gmail.com
http://neil.us/taurus/mt5-red-06.jpg
Price no object… shouldn’t be much of one, anyway… Regards!
Help make my dream come true!
I Loved the interior of my Old Trofeo. EXCEPT IT Had a Broken Cassette Player front Center . Video screen would have beew nice
I Wanted to live with the rivieras touch screen
Wow; good luck! You’re serious? I haven’t seen that combination in ages.I actually wonder how many were ever sold in that combo as wagons; sedans, yes; I’ve seen (and shot) one hereabouts.
À la recherche du temps perdu, I’m afraid.
When I graduated, got married, and got my first professional job, I sold the ’87 Taurus wagon (3.0L V6) I grew up in for a 2005 Prius.
Great car, that Prius. Paid for the divorce…
At least two mistakes made there. Experience is a bitch.
I suppose you never forget your first one…
Stick shift Taurus Wagon has always been a fantasy of mine. All stick shift wagons, really. Damn you Acura TSX!
Still (and will always) believe the Gen I Taurus Wagon (’86-’88) is the most beautiful, perfectly proportioned wagon of all time…
My dad had an 86 MT5 sedan, and then a 90 SHO. An MT5 wagon would be cool, especially next to my Outback (2.5i MT).
We also had a 90 Sable wagon for many years, died of head gasket and transaxle failure. It was a great looking car, they still are.
I totally agree with you Vance. That wagon is the US DS.
Agreed on the cost of experience too. I paid a heavy one, but then that experience started paying off in a big way. Life is good once you get most of the bugs out.
“Still (and will always) believe the Gen I Taurus Wagon (’86-’88) is the most beautiful, perfectly proportioned wagon of all time… “
I almost agree. Not that it made a difference, I felt the 1992 re-designed Taurus was much nicer-looking. Hated the cut of the rear door, though – attractive, but not too practical as in wasted opening space for entry.
Mid-sized wagons with few exceptions were far more practical than their full-size cousins regardless of OEM.
Final comment: Like the Volvo wagons discussed here a while back, the ’86-’95 Taurus wagons used the sedan doors at the rear.
Sensible, but left a strange little ledge where the the blacked-out sedan’s C-pillar would have continued, since the wagon’s C-pillar continues flush with the body.
I saw exactly ONE MT-5 Taurus in my lifetime; an ’87 up in Alaska around 2005. It was pretty well used up and trashed.
A fellow I worked with bought a new MT-5, probably about 1986. He had been driving his Dad’s old 77ish Cadillac Seville when something went wrong on it and he needed a new car. His requirements: 4 doors, air conditioning, AM radio, seating for 5 and cheap. After bouncing around several ideas, the MT-5 came into my head. He found one and bought it. He drove it until maybe 1990 or 91. It was sort of like a Ford Custom or Chevy Biscayne with a 6 and a 3 on the tree, but updated for the 80s. And of course, it was the world’s most boring color combo – white with gray interior.
I remember it as being slow and with a rough drivetrain. Was it the 2.3? I was driving an 85 VW GTI at the time that was much faster and more refined.
I would love to find one for a CC, but I cannot tell you the last time I saw one. It may have been my friends.
In case you didn’t know, that’s a different 2.3 liter. The Taurus/Tempo 2.3 is a pushrod/ohv engine that was basically a 200 straight 6 with 2 cylinders lopped off.
Ahh… Who needs more than 90hp anyway… Though the Vulcan 3.0L V6 had 140, and was barely adequate…
Sorry, weren’t we talking about Thunderbirds?
Nothing says you can’t turbo the HSC 2.3!
I always thought of the Taurus as kind of a Thunderbird sedan. Except FWD.
I owned a Topaz with the 2.3 HSC. It was just awful. That was the car that put me off of Fords, probably forever.
I would put in the Lima motor in a hearbeat. There are actual performance parts available for the 2.3 Lima. Of course, I have no idea how in the Hell you would graft the 2.3 Lima into the HSC’s wiring, cooling and transmissions. But I’m sure some enterprising person with lots of time can figure it out.
You really want to screw with people? Put in some variation of a Mopar 2.2 Turbo. Those puppies can build some power! I’ve seen modded ones (with the 16 valve head) push an honest 300 HP at the flywheel.
Yup, my dad had an ’87 Taurus sedan with that motor and that thing NEVER ran. It had problems with the radiator. It had problems with the brakes. It had problems with the air conditioning (the only option it had). It had problems with the alternator (repeatedly). That thing was so horrible, it caused problems in my parents’ marriage and canceled our annual trip to Florida one summer. I would like to own a Mustang one day, but seeing what happened up close, buying a Ford would take a leap of faith that I am not yet prepared to make.
“I owned a Topaz with the 2.3 HSC. It was just awful. That was the car that put me off of Fords, probably forever.”
Great minds think alike!
I truly liked the 1st-gen T-birds of this vintage, though and wanted one for a while, but I was such a Chrysler fan at the time I wouldn’t consider any other car.
That Topaz – My goodness, the first few years after moving to Ohio, every time I had to travel to Grand Rapids, I got stuck with either a Tempo or Topaz. Seems Hertz bought all of them or Ford realized what they had done and dumped them all on Hertz. No wonder I still pretty much dislike Ford…well…except for the Fusion and Taurus, but I’ll stick with GM for now…
You have to understand, I really used to love my Fords. I grew up in them and all of my family had at least one in their personal ‘fleets’. For a couple of summers in college, I worked the parts desk (part time) at a Ford dealer!
But as an adult and paying for these cars out of my own money, I ended up with too many lemons. The 81 & 85 Capris, the 90 Topaz, the 91 Grand Marquis all suffered continual nickel and dime issues, and the two Fox bodies had massive, multiple car-crippling problems that were never solved during my ownership of them.
The Topaz had more like quarter and half dollar issues, especially at a time when I had very young children and needed a reliable car. It’s hard to believe my older turbo Dodge was far more reliable than an atmo Ford.
And it’s not like I haven’t had issues with my GMs and my other Mopars, too. I’ve had a couple of Pontiacs from Hell. But none of them ever left me stranded or at the mercy of some of the most unresponsive dealership personnel I’d ever met.
But, I’ll always have fond memories of the cars I interacted with. There’s lot of spaces for Mercurys in my MM garage.
Crap, that whole long post and I forgot to ask: Where were you going in Grand Rapids?
When we moved here, I worked for a packaging company, PCA – part of Tenneco at the time and their largest plant and my boss was in Grand Rapids.
For a time, I was traveling there for a couple of days every two weeks. It drove me nuts. When I picked up my Topaz or Tempo at the airport, I was almost driven over the edge! Give me an Acclaim! (only once they did)
One time I got a Continental – boy did I feel on top of the world! Probably the nicest car I have ever driven up to that point since I sold my avatar. I had to cruise around in the evenings with that ride just to savor the moment, as it was back to the usual garbage next time – and it was!
I know exactly where it is.
Never had the opportunity to do work with them. My corrugated experience is way in the past, anyway.
Do they print on corrugated there, or do they over-laminate?
This was the old folding carton plant – it’s Caraustar now, I believe. Originally they built cars there many, many years ago! It’s around the corner near the old Reynolds aluminum plant, shuttered for years I think. The corrugated plant wasn’t too far away, though.
We gotta talk sometime!
@Zackman: Yes we do. Are we still on for Northern Ohio?
I have one fly in the ointment. I’m still working with the youth soccer association in my town (I was supposed to step down, but they needed me), so I may be tied up weekends until June.
I had a ’92 Tempo as a temporary commuter/beater. It wasn’t the HSC 4 that I didn’t like, but the archaic 3 speed automatic that was horrible at freeway speeds. 65mph felt like that car was gonna scream itself to death. 28-30mpg was pretty good, though.
“A&A”
Needs to be “C&C” as in…cunning and canny; or???
Crafty and clever?
You will never find a MT-5 with a 2.3 unless of course someone purposely blew up the 2.5 they came with and substituted a 2.3 when they couldn’t find a 2.5.
If the 2.5 in my 88 Taurus MT 5 goes south, it’ll get a Vulcan. Or maybe the SHO version! If I can get one cheap that is.
@Canknucklehead: The only thing Ford had to prove with the 2.3 Lima was the fact that they didn’t have the money to develop their own modern OHC 4 banger. They kept on using that same motor for the same reason GM built the 3800 for so long. It was amortized.
From what I’ve read, the 2.3 was a reliable engine. That may be why Ford stuck with it, much as GM kept the 3.8 V-6, because all of the bugs had long been worked out of it.
I suppose I’m wrong on this since I haven’t seen anyone mention it, but isn’t the 4 cylinder used in the late, lamented Ranger a descendant of the Lima 2.3? And didn’t the later Ranger version have a twin cam cylinder head? Maybe a rear drive engine won’t work in a Taurus, but perhaps it could be transplanted into a T-bird. Just curious.
The later 2.3 in the Ranger is basically a Focus/Fusion engine turned sideways minus the variable valve timing. It’s based on Mazda’s MZR engine, so unfortunately, no swappable parts for the Lima. 🙁
I wonder if one of the main reasons Ford stuck with the 2.3L for as long as they did (in any form) was simply because GM stuck with their even more crude and agricultural 2.3L ‘Iron Duke’ for what seemed like forever.
Don’t see many of these of this generation and they sold quite well actually which is funny the survival rate seems so low. A classmate had an older brother with one of these turbo beasts in the color scheme above. I never got to ride in it but I have heard it was pretty wicked on the back roads of Ohio. (Picture it JPC: Blasting down crowned and slightly lumpy Putnam – Paulding – Defiance back roads in a car with way too much power for teen boys…)
Honestly I’d love a 5.0 version of this generation with a manual trans swap or alternatively the VERY RARE Cougar version of this turbo coupe.
“Blasting down crowned and slightly lumpy Putnam – Paulding – Defiance back roads….”
Well, the ditches on either side of said roads might explain some of why “the survival rate seems so low”!
They used to call that part of Ohio the “Great Black Swamp,” after all.
Gotta drain all the water from one of the flattest places in the country, ya know!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Black_Swamp
Look… crops BELOW road level!
Oh I know Amigo. Born and raised in Putnam County. Get a good rain and the swamp tries to come back.
http://i.usatoday.net/news/gallery/day/migrated-media/n070824_4flood.jpg
As I spent 6 days and 3000 miles driving around Idaho (for project work), I came across a small town in eastern Idaho (near INEEL), Moreland, I swear most of the 84-88 Thunderbirds on the road are in this town. It was the most present vehicle there, I was very impressed!
I wish I would have had more time to shoot cars, I saw some very impressive Cohort worthy vehicles, especially on or near ranches/farms.
I always liked this body style, both LX and TC. It really was a clean style and has some very smooth and graceful lines. I used to have a red Matchbox version, with clear headlights and taillights. Gotta hop on eBay now!
Totally chuffed to see my photos posted here today.
I was going to the grocery store after work on Monday to pick up something for dinner, and walked by this car and got another 20 feet by it before I realized what I had passed. I whipped out my cell phone and walked back to get these shots.
Indiana seems to have an unusual amount of TCs for some reason. Maybe the racing pedigree?
That one is the perfect color combo too. The Silver/Charcoal cars had a nice understated look to them.
Thanks for the pics!
I can’t believe this this is my car! Omfg I can’t believe I saw it again!!!!! I was the owner, I worked at customer service on 86th and Ditch! My baaaaaaaaby my plates and my red decal and everything aahhhh
Something popped off in the back of my brain that the 87 TC’s had single exhaust and the 88 TC’s were duals. Don’t know if that’s a fact or a merged memory.
I had a 79 Turbo Capri with the first turbo’ed 2.3. It was a slug stock, but once the warranty was up, I took it to George’s Speed Specialty in Orlando. He gave me back 2 Coke crates full of smog stuff and assorted hoses. After that, the little motor was still pretty coarse, but it sure roared when you put your foot in it.
Still one of my favorite cars of all time.
A good friend bought one of the first 1983 Turbo T-birds in Northeast Ohio. This was after having me as a roommate and witnessing my travails with my 1980 Capri RS Turbo. I gotta give him credit, he’s fearless. The 83 Turbo Bird was actually a very good car, but once I got my 83 Trans Am (mit WS6 package), it was all over. But shortly after, he got the Asian flu, and bought a couple interesting, but ultimately boring Toyotas and Hondas. At least he stuck with the Civic for a while…
Another work acquaintance had an 1987 Turbo Coupe. With 190 HP, it was far better than the 140 HP from 1983. I had a Dodge Lancer ES Turbo that was pretty zippy, but the Turbo T-Bird smoked me. I left that job not too long after, so I never heard what became of that car. But it was very nice. I think the car that replaced it never was as good as the earlier Fox bodied version; I think it was just too heavy, regardless of the blown V6.
EDIT: Looking the OP pix again, I’d like to see a CC on that generation of Grand Prix that the TC was next to. I loved those cars.
I’ve been a lurker here for awhile but I had to register when I saw this one. I love the 83-88 Ford Thunderbird. The first car I bought when I was 17 was a fully loaded 88 LX with a 5.0. Ten years later I still have the car. It’s a California car so it sits in the garage all winter to save it from the salt here in Chicago. These cars are pretty awesome, especially when you drop a GT40ized 5.0 HO and a built AOD with a 2800 non-lockup stall converter in 😉
Your LX is sharp, the Turbo Coupe wheels look good on it. Almost all the LXs I saw back then had the wire wheel covers.
Mine did have wire wheel covers when I bought it. I still have the covers and the wheels as well. From what I’ve found most of the tue-tone Thunderbirds came with wire wheels.
This would have to be one of the best-looking Fords of all time. I remember seeing my first one, red exterior and interior, in the February 1987 issue of Australia’s ‘Wheels’ magazine. One look at the photos and boy was I sold!
Wheels had flown a VL Holden Calais Director (one of Peter Brock’s HDT editions) to America to test it against a Buick Grand National, a Chev Monte Carlo SS, a Mustang GT, and the Thunderbird 2.3 Turbo. The Calais won, with the Mustang in 2nd place and the T-Bird 3rd (Buick was 4th, and the Chev last). Wheels said that if theT-Bird had the Mustang’s V8, it would have been 2nd and possibly topped the Calais. But as a 2.3L, they said the “beautifully styled Ford is limited by that nasty turbo engine which just doesn’t sit well with the rest of the car.”
As a 13-year-old, I didn’t care what Wheels said, I knew that the Thunderbird should have won cos it was just the best looking car I’d ever seen! I still think they look fab, and I drool over them when they occasionally turn up as ex-USA imports on trademe – although there was a red one on last week,fitted with a Rover (ex-GM) 3.5 V8. I wasn’t sure how I felt about that, but I guess it would have been as light as the 2.3 and sound really nice. It sure was pretty though!
Once in a while a car comes out of the US that we really should have had this is one but RHD is the problem.
Woah – I just noticed the Indiana plate. Its good to see another set of eyes prowling the Hoosier state for cool cars.
I’m somewhat nearby in NE Iowa/NW Illinois. I’ve started keeping my camera in the car, and found several cool cars in just the last week. I found this ’71 Impala today. I did a double take when I saw the green paint and white top through the parked cars.
My friend bought a Tbird new in 1985. A 6 cylinder automatic, black with red cloth interior. I remember the digital dash needed replaced early after the warranty ran out. He didn’t drive the car much until 1989 when he junked his work car, a 74 Valiant.
Although my friend maintained the car mechanically, he neglected the outside completely. He never washed or polished the car, never cleaned the interior. In 8 or10 years, that black car looked terrible. I was driving him to the airport one day in the late 1990’s when I made a remark about his car. I told him that I thought that car would clean up nicely, with a little elbow grease. He handed me his keys and told me to enjoy myself.
I picked up his car, threw the loose junk out of the interior, and drove to an automatic car wash, where the layers of grime and dirt were washed off. They also vacuumed and wiped off the interior. I took the car home, and proceded to polish the car with a defunct brand called Astro Shield. (I still think this was the best polish made.) The cut up towels I used were black with dead paint and grime. After the outside, I spruced up the inside, using dressing on the dash and washing the mats.
When I picked my buddy at the airport a week later, he did not believe how good the car looked. He handed me a 100 dollar bill, and told me he would try to keep the car looking good. We stopped at a grocery store on the way home, and when we came out a guy I worked with saw me and stopped to talk. During our conversation, he remarked that the guy who owned that old Tbird really took good care of it. I chuckled to myself.
Well, my friend never did wash or polish it again. He gave it away it 2001.
I’ve always loved the 1983-1988 Thunderbirds. They made quite an impression on me when they were new. The sleek styling was a breath of fresh air after so many years of “Brougham” cars from Ford and Seville clones from GM.
Of course, the 1980-82 Thunderbirds were absolutely awful – probably the ugliest domestic cars of the 1980s. That made the 1983 Thunderbird even more of a shock – much like the 1961 Lincoln Continental was after the hideous 1958-60 Lincoln and Continental.
The 1983 Thunderbird – along with the 1982 Mustang GT and the restyled F-bodies for 1982 – was the first indication that domestic cars were getting interesting again. The Turbo Coupes show up at the Carlisle events, and I’d love to buy one if I had the place to store it.
I was thinking ” 80-82 – Awful BUT Id Love a Loaded Skybird Right Now wIth Leather and PSEats and Moon Roof PW
Working AC
But Id PredFer White Or Parchment Lether To Blacl orrED.
I just like the ’83-’86 body so much better. The ’87 LX grille looks like melted plastic, shoved in place. What I’ve always wondered is why did Ford spend $ to re-style for a two year run, then replace with all new MN-12?
The 87-88 was not supposed to be. The reason for the short lived re-style was NASCAR as the changes were mainly for aero reasons and the other MFGs had finally surpassed the 83-86’s aero advantage.
Count me as one that prefers the 83-86’s overall styling better too. I still have the 83 I brought my son home form the hospital in.
*7 Tbird is Nothing more/less than a 2 door Taurus? Not BAD. But Not a Proper TBird unless It as the Heritage models…or ANY Convertible or Special edition
IN HINDSight I regret NOW NOT Buying The V8 Fila or Nlack 85 Tbird Over The Stupid Grand Am I Bought. It Was Pretty For A Miniute and THEN IT WAS UGLY, stalled /died in left turns?
different car, I wish I had Bout this,But t I didnt want to mimic my dear departed Mothers earlier 73 which the Test Driven 4995 soecial Black White LeathermmmhmSunroof@ Buttons for Power Seat Height Adjustment!.
I have to ask, what are you typing with??
Methinks LAx has a new smartphone of some kind. I have the same problem when I try to text with it. I just got an Android with virtual keyboards, and I’m back on the learning curve again. With my old Blackberry-style phone, I was the king! But the network and the browsing was so slow…
Handsome car. I’ve always been a fan although I wish Ford had put the 5.0 HO in her or turbocharged their 3.8 liter V6 instead of the 2.3. The “Super Coupe” that replaced this car was a strong runner with its supercharged 3.8.
This T-Bird body style, readers will recall, was used by Bill Elliot to set the all-time NASCAR qualifying speed record of 212.809 mph at Talledega in April 1987.
I know I’m late to the party here, but… love these cars, I’ve always wanted to find a nice rust free body and make a project out of it. Could be a cheap, fun, fast toy and I won’t pull up next to a line of 30 other ones at a local car show.
I just bought an 87 T/C with everything but the motor. Came with a ton of spare parts from a 5.0 LX. Person I bought it from was planning a V8 swap, but I would like to try something outside the regular easy way.
My question is to anyone who may have put a 3.8 S/C motor into an 87-88 T/C. I’ve had a few of the mid to late 80’s T-birds with the regular 3.8’s and feel that the S/C should fit, but, need to talk to someone who may have already tackled this swap. I’m not quite sure about the S/C oil pan fitting without being modified.
Any takers???
I’ve had several birds over the years and have always had a soft spot for the 1983-88. My mom bought a new charcoal gray 86 TC (5-speed) and drove it for 6 years (160,000 miles) with few issues–though, it was spent when she traded it. When it was new, the 86 was a blast to drive compared to most cars from the era. Like many on here, I wish ford had put a larger motor under the hood. Beautiful car, great handling (for the era), but it just needed more power.
I don’t know if anyone knows how to differentiate the 1987 Thunderbird TC from the 1988 Thunderbird TC, but here goes.
The one depicted in this photo is an 87 because the 2 horizontal bars outboard of the fog lamps are painted black. This did not happen on the 1988 TC, they were left unpainted.