What new car can compare with our SC?

TBirdDriver

Registered User
I just got to thinking about our cars.
A lot of the younger drivers may not realize it but,
we are driving around, believe it or not, in luxury vehicles.
To buy a new SC ('89, '90), was around $25,000.0. That's equivalent to $37,000.00 today.
My car has just about every luxury add on you can get in any of the new cars.
Power everything, windows, doors, seats, sun roof, mirrors, trunk,
A/C, ABS, Automatic ride, speed sensitive steering, hydraulic clutch, auto dim headlights, auto dim rear mirror, fog lights, cornering lights, even lighted vanity mirrors.
There are a number of things that this car was equipped with that made it stand out from the crowd back in '89.
In 1989 most cars still had 14" or 15" wheels.
SC came with 16" alloy wheels.
4 wheel ABS disc brakes were new technology available only on high end luxury vehicles.
They were Super Charged..(Rare on a production vehicle)
Variable suspension.
CD player..(just starting to appear in cars)
Lowest wind resistant drag coefficient of any car manufactured by Ford up to that date.
Stainless steel exhaust.
4 wheel independent suspension
Etc.
When I needed to get a new car, not only did I get sticker shock, but I could not find one that could match the SC with all the features, handling, power and style, so I bought another SC.
Anyone else have this problem?
What new car can compare?
 
I've thought about that too...I am trying to convince my wife to let me spend, say $15 to $20k on my SC instead of $40k+ on a new comparable car. I'd still have a car that is better than the new ones....The only problem with that is that I'm already making a new car paymetn...her's! LOL
 
i had the same problem last year when my kid totaled my sc. i had that car since 94 and loved more and more every year. i couldnt find anything that i liked. was leaning towards a mustang cobra but ended up just bying two sc's instead. glad i did that. thinking of selling one though so i can get another older car.
 
I agree, and that's why I bought my SC last year. Not to mention that I'd rather have a title in my hand and a car *budget* rather than a car *note*. :D
Right now I don't think there are any mid priced cars that are RWD, 5 spd, functional as well as fun, big inside, big trunk, and gobs of torque. They're out there, but not much in the $25-35k range. A BMW would be nice, but not nice to pay for. The Marauder is nice, even if it fell short of what it promised, but it isn't a 5 spd, and it's overpriced, IMO. The GTO will be closely comparable, but again, it's overpriced and under-styled. I think the best competition will be the Dodge Magnum SRT8 when it comes out next year. V8, functional, looks like a hot rod wagon, RWD...May not be a 5 spd, but I hope there will be one in our driveway next to the SC. We family guys like to have fun too. ;)

It's a good time for cars, about time there were some good options coming out. Can't beat an SC for the money though!
 
i cant think of anyother american car that can hold its own. However as much as i hate imports i must say that the 3000gt vr4 with the twin turbos is in the same class as the sc. what are your oppions on this.
 
I love my '92

Every time my wife suggests that I get a new car, I tell her that if I invested half a car payment every month for a year in my SC, it would be a new car. Heck, its been paid off for longer than most cars last. I can't think of another car on the market that I can put the whole family in for a long trip, and still provide as much "back to my youth" fun as this old bird. And when it breaks, I've learned enough about it to fix it myself. I'll never give it up... 191K miles and I still drive it to work every day. Best money I ever spent on a car.......

(Now if only I had the '68 Olds 442 that belonged to my Dad when I was in highschool)
 
I've been thinking about this lately, as far as what was comparable to the sc when they first came out. I was in the navy when they came out until 93' and wasn't keeping up on current cars.

$25,000 was pretty high wasn't it? I talked to a friend a recently who had owned an 85' turbo coupe and wanted an sc, but it was priced out of his range. I don't know how much of an increase it was from the turbo coupe.

As far as the 3000gt some might not consider them in the same class due to cargo/passenger space. I've never seen inside a 3000gt but they look like they would be considerably smaller.

How do the mark's compare, I know they must have cost more but enough to put it in a different class? I guess the lincolns are supposed to be in a different class.

When did the GTP's or GM's supercharged engines come out? Was the sc first?

Kurt
 
who was first

The birds were the first, then GM did the Buick Riv's, and then the GTP's and the SSEI's got done. GM was still playing with the tubro's when Ford went to the SC's. This all changed when GM say what Ford was able to do with the blowers... As for what I would buy, another SC i guess... but we all will have to start looking at something, as these cars are getting old, 15 and counting..There is not much out there that will fit the bill that Ford makes. The Mustang is too hard of a ride,and I still have not found anyone that can fit in the back seat that is old enought to go to the bar...The Lincoln is still an" older person" car. Maybe it will have to be a big SUV with a power stroke to get miles.... Rich
 
I saw a new ford turbo diesel run in the 15's. I believe it was a 4wd crew cab, but i don't know for sure because I didn't pay attention to it until I heard the ET! I don't think it could match the handling, just a little slower through the turns.

Kurt
 
I'm getting old & looking for comfort.

A comparable BMW (performance, size and comfort) costs twice what an SC did. The Impala SS had comparable power/wgt, but didn't handle or ride as well. Besides, it's a Chebby. :D

The new GTO (I had one new in '67) looks nice on paper, but; 1- it won't have the interior room, 2- it'll have a harsher ride, 3- it's a Holden! :rolleyes:

Lee
 
Mmmmmm....GTO

I'd say that the GTO is comparable...when you consider it's probably going to cost up the arse but then, if you were to accept that a new tbird sc today would probably cost upwards of 30k...

I don't like the idea of owning imports, it's hard to wave the flag and drive a Honda at the same time IMO (not that I mind that other ppl do the same). At any rate, the 3000GT/Dodge Stealth would compare as well I think...power adder v6 that outruns most n/a v8's and while they are fairly small they're still more than a 2 seater aren't they?

Have heard maxima puts out awesome power but Jap leather=crap. More expensive than 37k, but you could go with a decked out 03 Cobra...As to the Lincolns I had a Mark VII and at least back then Lincoln put out a very comparable car. Plenty of power, plenty of mod-ability, and an awesome airbagged ride.
 
Last edited:
Re: who was first

pro street rich said:
The birds were the first, then GM did the Buick Riv's, and then the GTP's and the SSEI's got done.

Actually the Bonneville was before the GTP's, around 92 vs 98.

I would get the G35 before the Max. G35 is RWD, comes with a 6spd, basicly same car as the new Z, for about if not less then the Max's around here, and it will compete with BMW 330 cars.

The GTO is overpriced. Cobra is just too much for basicly an old 1979 Fairmont car. Grapevine is saying that GM and Dodge will be going back to RWD for its mid size cars with in the next couple years, so there is still hope.
 
Talking about new trucks, the Dodge Dakota R/T's are really nice(I own one). Stock, they are about the same as a stock SC, but tons easier to mod, and make run fast. Mid to low 14's are easily acheived with the R/T and no loss in reliability and no worries about head gaskets(unless you boost them). You can easily get into the 13's on the drag strip normally asperated in the Dak R/T for less than what it costs to get a SC to the same point. Plus you can pick up a used fully loaded R/T for around $10K now. Sure they don't have all the bells and whistles as the SC like auto ride control, but they can be nicely equipt. I have drivers side power seat(only missing side bolsters to compare with my SC power seat), power windows/locks/mirrors, keyless entry, auto dimming rearview mirror, leather wrapped steering wheel, plenty of power and torque, and they come from the factory with 17" aluminum wheels and a lowered performance suspension that will out handle a SC even on the FIRM setting. Only downside to the R/T is no manual tranny option, mainly because Dodge doesn't make a manual tranny that will fit behind the 360, and handle the torque reliably. Then of course, you have the new Hemi Rams which run pretty well straight from the factory, but don't have the performance aftermarket parts for them out yet. The 360 in the R/T has been around basically the same since the 60's. Only major difference is the switch from carbouration to fuel injection.
 
I think if I was replacing an sc with a truck it would have to be a lightening. Does the dakota have anything over the lightening besides older ones that are lower priced?

I did see a Dakota R/T at the track that was fast, but I also saw a Lightening that was FAST! And the supercharger sound reminded me of a Formula One w/a turbo it was so loud!

Kurt
 
Yeah but....

not that I'm really a dodge guy (I'd take the Lightning)...and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but...

doesn't the new Ram SRT-10 (concept?) run a version of the viper v10 and beat the Lightning stock to stock in the quarter mile and 0-60?
 
I am pretty sure the lightning is faster, the dodge is pretty sad for all the power it has. A 6 speed in a race truck is just stupid, too long of a throw.
 
You can get a Dakota R/T in a club cab version for more room inside the cab, and makes it easier for a stereo install. Also, the Dakota is smaller. And there are more options performance wise for the R/T. On the Lightning, like the SC, you get a factory SC'd vehicle that is designed to work with the factory supercharger. The Lightnings SC isn't made for putting out much more boost than stock. Anything over 12lbs of boost on a Lightning is pushing the stock SC to it's limit. With the R/T, you have your choice of power adders, you don't have to use what some factory engineer decided was the best option for performance, but yet still meets emissions limit. I'm kinda biased because I own a R/T though. the biggest difference is the price. If you go dollar for dollar R/T vs. Lightning, there is more bang for the buck on the R/T. The fastest street legal R/T that is known is running mid to high 10's, drives to the track, and has functional A/C.
 
1BADSC said:
I am pretty sure the lightning is faster, the dodge is pretty sad for all the power it has. A 6 speed in a race truck is just stupid, too long of a throw.
Well, since there are no production SRT-10's on the road, you can't really say, but the SRT-10 is supposed to run traction limited high 13's with no supercharger and a heavier vehicle. I think for the price, the Lightning puts up some pretty sad stock performance numbers. I've seen stock Lightnings running 14's at the track. Not every Lightning will runs 13's off the showroom floor. It all depends on track conditions and the driver. Also, the Lightning being SC'd is more affected by temperature, but of course we all know this owning SC'd vehicles.
 
Back
Top