PDA

View Full Version : SC considered An SVT or no?



SpeeDemonSC
11-30-2004, 12:10 PM
i want to see if any one out there considers their SC a part of the SVT line up.

cowtown
11-30-2004, 01:45 PM
If it doesn't say SVT, it's not an SVT.


i want to see if any one out there conciders their SC a part of the SVT line up.

getblown
12-01-2004, 12:49 AM
Well 1st off, ^^ Agreed... and 2nd... Even if we were to become part of the SVT groupe, it didnt start until 94 with the Cobras... so most of us would not get to be it anyways...

We are not SVT... we ARE SC!!!

leeklimala
12-01-2004, 03:42 PM
I like the fact that we are not so we can maintain a "higher" level of sophistication. Just like the Hooters slogan...Delightfully Sophisticated but unrefined...or something like that.

Plus if we were a SVT car our website would never work.

cowtown
12-01-2004, 05:11 PM
Actually technically the 93 Cobra was the first SVT along with the 93 Lightning.

JokersThunder
12-12-2004, 02:00 PM
It could have been possible to see an SVT badge adore our cars later in life. Formed in 1991, SVT really is SVE-Special Vehicle Engineering and Team Mustang, while SVTeam was the marketing tool/training compilation used by Ford, thus the badging. The first production Cobra they put out was, of course, in 1993 to battle the new F-body GMs. The Lightning was the first of it's breed, probably foreseen and built because as the truck market was gaining momentum and the "niche" few would buy the ones they'd produce.

If our SC's would have been influenced by SVE, then they would have been tweeked further. Although, they'd have all been 5-speeds!!!

Jim

8ate8
12-16-2004, 11:07 PM
Well i'm sure everyone's heard of the svt thunderbird concept, but anyways, that would have been bad *** had it been produced.

ben04
01-15-2005, 04:15 AM
its the same idea as SVT kinda, but not really. however, if anything wouldn't it be SVO? special vehicles operations i believe? dunno, SVT is a great company which does great things, wish we were part of it however we're not. no prob, SC brings just as much respect as SVT :cool: dont forget it

Darkside
01-21-2005, 02:33 AM
I voted for the SVT classification for two reasons. First, I think these cars would have received alot more respect, and secondly, I think the aftermarket would have responded more to the car had it been a SVT product. I guess another benefit would be resale value, but that's not that important to me.

Rickabod
02-09-2005, 04:43 PM
I voted for the SVT classification for two reasons. First, I think these cars would have received alot more respect, and secondly, I think the aftermarket would have responded more to the car had it been a SVT product. I guess another benefit would be resale value, but that's not that important to me.

just cause it has SVT, doesn't mean the aftermarket will do anything for it. Look at the Contour. There ain't hardly **** out there for it.

TbirdSC93
02-09-2005, 08:35 PM
its the same idea as SVT kinda, but not really. however, if anything wouldn't it be SVO? special vehicles operations i believe? dunno, SVT is a great company which does great things, wish we were part of it however we're not. no prob, SC brings just as much respect as SVT :cool: dont forget it
i think svo disbanded in the late 80s, SVT came along in 93

chadder1313
02-10-2005, 12:11 AM
To be honest i like them all. But i do think sc is beter.

ThunderMoon
02-11-2005, 02:22 AM
SVT's may be special, but SC's are super! :D

Damien

mywhite89
10-14-2006, 05:19 PM
I think we would have lost that sleeper name if instead of THUNDERBIRD SC across the rear bumper, it said THUNDERBIRD SVT. With enough money we can make our "old" cars run very quickly how it is. Does anyone know what was going to be different engine-wise with the svt concept t-bird?

The_Ghost
10-15-2006, 06:49 PM
I think we would have lost that sleeper name if instead of THUNDERBIRD SC across the rear bumper, it said THUNDERBIRD SVT. With enough money we can make our "old" cars run very quickly how it is. Does anyone know what was going to be different engine-wise with the svt concept t-bird?

4.6 DOHC w/M90 instead of M112 in a 97 body.

darkstar_one
10-15-2006, 07:50 PM
like my little bro said.... its an ANCIENT SVT! and he wouldnt stop laughing for like a whole week...

aftermarket would of responded more if it had a HONDA logo u know how many body kits the bird would have came with a HONDA logo...

The_Ghost
10-15-2006, 11:07 PM
Well, here is my take:

The Thunderbird SC is not an SVT, because an SVT prototype was developed and it was not a supercharged V6.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really qualify as an ancient SVT either, as that would be the highly exclusive club known as the holy-sanctum of the SVO.
(the other day I actually saw a legit SVO, that was crazy!)

Here is what we are:
We, unfortunately, are not a universal "go-fast" trim level. We are a seperate and exclusive trim level seperate from the rest of the model line. We are like the Grand Prix GTPs, 6000 STE AWDs, Taurus SHOs and 323 GTX's. We are faster than the rest of our dailydriven sistermodels, and mostly unknown by the public.

Thus, we as a community are vastly overlooked and unknown because we do not carry a family "speed" trim level name such as "SS", "GT", "Z(number)" or "SVT". We are like kind of weird trim levels like the Capri Turbo convertibles (I forget their trim name), 323 GTXs, early Mazdaspeed Miatas (90s), Celica All-Tracs, Previa S/C All-Tracs, MR2 Superchargers, Supercharged Frontiers/Xtrerras, Toyota X-Runner, Renault Espace F1 and other lesser known models that despite making a huge splash at launch and posession of amazing performance, eventually fade into obscurity.

FORTUNATELY, HOWEVER,
Now that the SC is gone, I am hearing the SC being mentioned in conversation and more people have a clue as to what it is, for example, see the "build your own supercharger kit" article in the last issue of import tuner, and they actually post some pretty interesting data regarding the M90.

The car is finally gaining some recognition and it is rather fortunate that we have the cars now. Look what happened with those piece of crap AE86 corollas. The drifting scene gets huge and suddenly a car that wasn't worth $1500 (with thousands of mods in it) five years ago can fetch upwards of FIVE GRAND. That's silly.

Anyways, that's my take.

No, we are not SVT.
But we are something special.

-Ghost

CarlisleLandOwn
10-19-2006, 04:22 AM
It could have been possible to see an SVT badge adore our cars later in life. Formed in 1991, SVT really is SVE-Special Vehicle Engineering and Team Mustang, while SVTeam was the marketing tool/training compilation used by Ford, thus the badging. The first production Cobra they put out was, of course, in 1993 to battle the new F-body GMs. The Lightning was the first of it's breed, probably foreseen and built because as the truck market was gaining momentum and the "niche" few would buy the ones they'd produce.

If our SC's would have been influenced by SVE, then they would have been tweeked further. Although, they'd have all been 5-speeds!!!

Jim


So Lightnings, Cobra's, and Foci aren't SVT's?

The_Ghost
10-19-2006, 12:14 PM
So Lightnings, Cobra's, and Foci aren't SVT's?

IMO automatic svts shouldn't be permitted to have the badge. They should be sold as like "LX" or some other BS name, because they sure as hell do not deserve the badge if they are not driving a manual transmission, or at worst a dual-mode paddle-shift setup.

I've said it before and I've said it again:
AUTOMATICS HAVE NO PLACE IN PERFORMANCE CARS.

I'm sure that'll get some argument but that's not the point.
And don't even try to argue that paddleshift nonsense, the FAST paddleshift 'semi-automatics' are electronically actuated manual transmissions.

Yes, they (automatic cobras, focus, and lightnings) are technically SVT, an automatic miata is still a miata, and an automatic corvette is still a vette-- technically. but they're still slower and have less brake horsepower (bhp or whp, whatever)
oh. I also forgot to mention automatics weigh more.

but that's not the question,
is the Thunderbird SC an SVT? Short answer: No.

Is the XR7 Supercharged an SVT? Definitely not. (no mercury or lincoln has been SVT thus far, correct? the marauder did not have an SVT badge so far as I know)

-Ghost

Toms-SC
10-19-2006, 12:43 PM
IMO automatic svts shouldn't be permitted to have the badge. They should be sold as like "LX" or some other BS name, because they sure as hell do not deserve the badge if they are not driving a manual transmission.

I've said it before and I've said it again:
AUTOMATICS HAVE NO PLACE IN PERFORMANCE CARS.

Yes, they (automatic cobras, focus, and lightnings) are technically SVT, an automatic miata is still a miata, and an automatic corvette is still a vette. but they're still slower and have less brake horsepower (bhp or whp, whatever)

-Ghost

Urg, not even worth the effort to convince you otherwise. Please sell your MN12 and get your performance Civic. Thanks

lilredstang
10-19-2006, 05:30 PM
I voted for the SVT classification for two reasons. First, I think these cars would have received alot more respect, and secondly, I think the aftermarket would have responded more to the car had it been a SVT product. I guess another benefit would be resale value, but that's not that important to me.

I would agree with that.

95MustangSC
10-19-2006, 06:34 PM
Automatic Cobra????????????? havent heard of that also automatic Focus??????????? if they are svt focus no auto Cobra sorry no auto

chazzwozzle
10-20-2006, 01:31 AM
all SVT's came with manual tranny's except the lightning. and i think the auto tranny better suits the ligtning since its a truck. if it were a manual the shifter sure would have some long throws.

CarlisleLandOwn
10-20-2006, 04:47 AM
all SVT's came with manual tranny's except the lightning. and i think the auto tranny better suits the ligtning since its a truck. if it were a manual the shifter sure would have some long throws.

Cobra and Focus = 6speed, not a 5 speed. Quoted post said only 5 speeds ... guess the new milan, explorer, 500, are SVT's with their 5 speed auto's.

The_Ghost
10-20-2006, 09:28 AM
Urg, not even worth the effort to convince you otherwise. Please sell your MN12 and get your performance Civic. Thanks

Are you stupid?
I despise honda and have never owned a single one of their garbage interference engine products. Not a single thing honda makes is RWD, (save for the NSX, now dead, and the S2000) and even the exceptions to the rule are still garbage. I can say this having actually driven an NSX, and I was not impressed. Granted, it is lightyears ahead of garbage like Porsche Boxters, but it really is not all that impressive. Perhaps it's because it's been overhyped and it failed to live up to expectations. It is stellar, however, for a car that was engineered in the late 80s.

I am a die-hard RWD independent rear guy, I hate honda and the whole rice movement and everything it stands for, so you've gotta be a moron to EVER say ~~~~ to me about a civic. you pull that ~~~~ again and you will have a few less teeth in your mouth. I have owned ONE front drive car out of the 5 I've had, and I promptly got rid of the thing and got a real car. I suppose because I'm not shouting the praises of a live axle and a slowamatic transmission, I must be some sort of traitor to the ford brand.

Automatic transmissions are great. If you just want to lay back and be comfy and lazy, or if you want to tow something (assuming you've got the trans cooler to support doing so), and maybe if you want to do a 1/4 in like 6 seconds, but where's the fun in that? After the 6 seconds it's over, whereas the fun with a stickshift lies in the corners. [maybe you've forgotten but the MN12 is a fantastic handling chassis in addition to having a very high straight line top speed-- this car was meant to be a comfortable, stable autobahn cruiser-- or at least compete with one (M6)].

I reitterate, Automatics have no place in performance cars. By performance I mean "go fast out of the box, handle good without intensive modifications, maintain control in a corner, go-fast in all conditions". You know, PERFORMANCE. The world is not a straight line and thus a performance car should be capable of taking the bends at great speed.

Take that honda you were talking about, and shove it up your ~~~.

beyond that, do you even get my point?

technically yes, automatic svts are still considered svts, but I am saying they shouldn't really be considered svts (except for the lightning, because it's a truck and might have to one day tow something, and shifting would be damn near impossible to do quickly because of the layout).

Could you imagine how boring driving an automatic focus would be? The automatic trans that toms sc is sooo incredibly fond of would upshift at WOT before the car even got close to the fun part of the power-band at 5000+ rpms. It wouldn't even be fun.


Getting back on topic,
had the vehicle been SVT, it would have gotten significantly more respect and the aftermarket definitely would've responded more (why our aftermarket isnt as large as that of the GTP supercharged Series II and III 3800SCs I will never know) to an SVT branded vehicle.

But the thing is, Ford decided against labeling it as an SVT and thus we havent seen any aftermarket response, and unfortunately it is hard to fire up the aftermarket on a car that is no longer in production and is not frequently noticed.

As I said earlier, though, if something happens to make the SC recognized and famous, resale values will go up. Ford really didnt market the SC very hard, so it didn't really have the recognition that some other cars are getting. What's silly is you cant buy a decent shape same-year Mustang GT for the money it will cost you to buy a decent shape Tbird SC.

-ghost

The_Ghost
10-20-2006, 09:31 AM
Cobra and Focus = 6speed, not a 5 speed. Quoted post said only 5 speeds ... guess the new milan, explorer, 500, are SVT's with their 5 speed auto's.

Only vehicles that actually carry the SVT badge from the factory can ever be called svts.

However... a SVT ford 500 or SVT fusion would be cool. What would be cooler would be to get an Australian Ford Falcon instead of the fusion. Imagine a supercharged v6 (or turbo v6) AWD 6spd man/ 6spd auto Ford 500, or offering the mazdaspeed6 AWD in Fusion trim as a SVT fusion?

chazzwozzle
10-20-2006, 11:53 PM
Cobra and Focus = 6speed, not a 5 speed. Quoted post said only 5 speeds ... guess the new milan, explorer, 500, are SVT's with their 5 speed auto's.

guess again. the new 500 comes with a 6 speed auto, or a CVT. NOT a 5speed.

PReDiTR91
10-22-2006, 03:06 AM
I think the SC opened the door for the SVT. In its class it is a special vehicle, just not part of a team. Just like Clint Eastwood.....
smokin m()t#@f^!<@$ SOLO!!!:D

AMD[H]unter
10-22-2006, 02:44 PM
Uh, so Gost automatics have no place in go-fast cars? Read up on the recent 10.68 pass by David. He had a AOD with a manual VB.

PReDiTR91
10-22-2006, 04:47 PM
unter;576684']Uh, so Gost automatics have no place in go-fast cars? Read up on the recent 10.68 pass by David. He had a AOD with a manual VB.

Auto trannis dont belong in a sports car/ performance vehicle. Now a muscle car is a different story! My old teach has a 69 camaro with an auto tranni that runs 9's all day!! Now i dont think that camaro will do good on a road coarse but it kicks@$$ going in a straight line!LOL

bowez
10-22-2006, 05:23 PM
SVT no, nor shoud a Tbird ever get such a title. If you want something flashy get a Vette (harking back to our roots). SVT screams look at me, and the only thing that says look at me in the SC is the blower/performance.

I agree we are in the same class as the Maradaur and SHO--you dont really know that its anything speical until it passed you.

The_Ghost
10-23-2006, 01:39 PM
SVT no, nor shoud a Tbird ever get such a title. If you want something flashy get a Vette (harking back to our roots). SVT screams look at me, and the only thing that says look at me in the SC is the blower/performance.

I agree we are in the same class as the Maradaur and SHO--you dont really know that its anything speical until it passed you.

my thouhts exactly.
the sc should never be an SVT nor was it intended to be one.

and like preditir said a few posts ago, autos do not belong in sports cars, but they are just fine for musclecars.

but think about it. Is the SC a musclecar?
Yes and no.
Yes, it's got musclecar-tastic torque and power, and the oomph you want to go fast in any gear. Yes, its name is associated with the classic muscle-car tbirds of old, so it's got heritage.
But at the same time, no it's not a muscle car because it has an advanced suspension setup, wheels pushed out toward the 4 corners of the vehicle for better handling, a fairly short hood, it has 4-wheel disc brakes and independent rear suspension. The IRS alone makes seperates it from the classification of muscle car, since my idea of a muscle car is a live axle, large-displacement (usually v8), unrefined beast of a vehicle. Lastly,the main thing that seperates the SC from a muscle car is the fact that it can handle and does not drive like a boat.

Now, here is the definition of sports car:
sports car
n.

An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

whereas a muscle car is simply defined as
muscle car
n.
A high-performance automobile, often with flashy, sporty styling.

Outside of the 2-passenger bit, the sc fits the definition of sports-car pretty closely.

Now, last I checked an automatic is not designed for precise control. It's designed for lazy people who don't like to shift, and/or cannot operate a clutch.

AMD[H]unter
10-25-2006, 02:56 PM
Auto trannis dont belong in a sports car/ performance vehicle. Now a muscle car is a different story! My old teach has a 69 camaro with an auto tranni that runs 9's all day!! Now i dont think that camaro will do good on a road coarse but it kicks@$$ going in a straight line!LOL

O rly? I drag race with my Uncle and we normally run 5.89 in the 1/8th. Guess what kinda tranny he has? Yep, you guessed it; an eletrictly actuated 2-speed automatic.

The_Ghost
10-25-2006, 11:30 PM
unter;577696']O rly? I drag race with my Uncle and we normally run 5.89 in the 1/8th. Guess what kinda tranny he has? Yep, you guessed it; an eletrictly actuated 2-speed automatic.

did you read the quote you listed? he just said that automatics can be fast in a drag race. now, he said on a road course, he doubts the camaro could handle it, and rightfully so, as without heavy investment into their antiquated suspension and updating the hell out of their live rear axle, they are not going to perform halfway decent on a roadcourse (or at least by modern day standards), the camaros i am referring to being the early models, as in pre-IROC generation and earlier (67-83). musclecars and sportscars are two completely seperate things designed to be good at different things.
musclecars are good for stop-n-go acceleration and straight line speed, to a point. sports cars are designed for good acceleration with aggressive handling, and are typically designed for high-speed cruising. since they are usually styled more aerodynamically than the slab-tastic sheetmetal of musclecars, they are able to acheive a greater top speed with greater ease, and greater stability, because you seldom see a street car hit 200 in the quarter mile, but you'll see cars on the autobahn hit 200 pretty frequently nowadays.

you also neglected to answer the question or provide an opinion as to whether or not the tbird is or isnt an svt.
i doubt that car your uncle drag races can even pull .85g on the skidpad. the front tires are probably skinnies, like 125-series, so don't expect it to turn in a hurry, and beyond that, a 2-speed automatic would not be at all suitable for negotiating a corner that requires more complex throttle inputs than "WOT". Your uncle's car is a MUSCLE CAR, and is thereby exempt from the definition of performance car in the context of the post you quoted, as they are clearly two seperate ideas.

have a nice day! :)

-ghost

Crash00527
11-01-2006, 10:44 AM
i agree. also on another note with the gtp's. our SC'c come with an intercooler. most other v6 supercharged vehicles dont.

stangboy7
11-13-2006, 05:13 PM
This was the only "real" T-bird SVT

http://www.tccoa.com/articles/clipings/tbirdarticle.jpg

We unlike most all model lines were fortunate to have at least 3 engine options to choose from for most or our MN12 lives.

89-93- V6, SC V6, and 5.0 V8

94-95- V6, SC V6, and 4.6 V8

96-97- V6, and 4.6 V8

If ford had half a brain they would bring a GTO 'esk type T-bird back that puts out 300+ hp. If it wasn't for that stupid GM emblem infront of the new GTO i would probably own one.

C.Hill

The_Ghost
11-17-2006, 12:10 PM
oh i hate those GM badges.

as for engine options... did you know the FOCUS has like 6 different engine options in the UK (including the volvo 2.5L I-5 turbo), and in Oztralia, the Falcon has like 4 or 5?

i've got some fricken neat tbird concepts that i drew, as well as an autobot t-bird, i'll have to scan that.

yeah, a 400+ bhp tbird would pwn.
a Ford GT motor would be real super, that or the largest V8 ford has available...

BuRHan90SC
04-20-2009, 03:44 AM
This was the only "real" T-bird SVT

http://www.tccoa.com/articles/clipings/tbirdarticle.jpg

We unlike most all model lines were fortunate to have at least 3 engine options to choose from for most or our MN12 lives.

89-93- V6, SC V6, and 5.0 V8

94-95- V6, SC V6, and 4.6 V8

96-97- V6, and 4.6 V8

If ford had half a brain they would bring a GTO 'esk type T-bird back that puts out 300+ hp. If it wasn't for that stupid GM emblem infront of the new GTO i would probably own one.

C.Hill

i duno why ford killed SVT TBIRD and decided to keep mustang cobra ONLY.....it would be fun to have two options SVT TBIRD AND SVT MUSTANG COBRA

1989superhot
04-20-2009, 01:22 PM
because the svt- tbird would be about the same.
I.e same weight and both irs. O3@04 cobras where at 3,800 to 3,900
pounds. my Buddy has one as was at 3,900 .
Heaven for bid we have a fast t-bird that could beat up on the mustang.

XxSlowpokexX
04-24-2009, 12:02 PM
The tbird would cost twice as much as a stang so I dont see the competition.

When I was in high school you bought a mustang. Very few people has SC;s...And the ones that did...The family had $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.. SUre some of us would have liked an SC...But could never afford one

The problem from performance standpoint is that we have base gt and now gt500...

That would make a performance Tbird have to come out at 60-70,000 to separate itself from the stang Like the vette from the camaro.

But that bird would have to be spectacular......

unfortunately the vette has no identity crisis at GM..The Tbird however has one at ford. Ford back in 55 had something going on and they have dropped the ball ever since.

Id love to se an SVT tbird and if they ever come out with teh bird again I think it would be dumb not to have a performance version of it. Im just wondering what the cost of adnission to that would be

greg91sc
04-27-2009, 10:37 PM
With the Domestic car market shrinking (Chrysler and GM) and Ford still moving along unassisted, would it not be unthinkable that a new bird could emerge. Anyone that was a GM or Mopar guy might just come over and buy a high flying bird. It would have to have some pop to it though. Make it not much more expensive than a stang for a base model and if you by an SC or what ever performance badge they put on it price it accordingly. Base the style on the origional SC but make it modern (not RICEY), and it must be available in a 5 or 6 speed. Mabye it is just a selfish dream to see that happen, but I'd sure as hell buy one if it was produced.

The SC is not a SVT but I feel it helped SVT become what it is today

Greg

Dirtyd0g
11-15-2009, 03:13 PM
The only SVT that has ever really impressed me is the Lightning.
Alan

Crash00527
11-15-2009, 05:08 PM
yea..that was pretty cool. i agree. but weren't our SC's kinda or almost considered SVT's?

txsc
11-15-2009, 06:39 PM
...but wasn't our SC's kinda or almost considered SVT's?

No, they weren't.

Crash00527
03-14-2010, 12:25 PM
that sux. :mad:

davec73
02-16-2013, 04:00 PM
Wasnt the thunderbird the start of svt before they actually called it svt just like the sho? It was farmed out to a special group of performance specialists at ford and isnt that all SVT is? Isnt that where the AWD SC came from as well? So in my eyes its like the svt godfather as it was the first North American Production car to come with a roots m90 supercharger.

Rick_Leuce
03-17-2013, 10:59 AM
I'm kinda glad its not an "SVT", I like having a "sleeper"

It also makes our cars more unique. There are many different types of "SVT" out there, but there is only 1 type of "SC"...Kinda like there was only 1 "SVO"

820
03-19-2013, 06:07 PM
it would be embarassing to have a svt badge on one of these poky things.

90sc35thann
03-23-2013, 09:39 PM
it would be embarassing to have a svt badge on one of these poky things.

Why is that? Ford put them on a handful of Contour's. They are way pokier than our SC's out of the box. :)

820
03-24-2013, 09:04 AM
Svt, in my opinion should be reserved for terminator cobras. As they could properly hold the badge. Motor trend also had the SVT Contour:o 0-60 at 7.5 seconds and the quarter mile at 15.7 @ 88.7 mph. Now had the SC been fitted with a 4.6 supercharged v-8 then ---, but thats a different story.

90sc35thann
03-24-2013, 09:35 AM
My point was there is nothing at all special about an svt contour, no SC, etc. IMO. The production numbers were probably similar. In 1994 less than 1 percent were SC's. The total production numbers for the 2003-2004 cobra were not that far off from the total of 7 years of production for the thunderbird SC.


Albeit the performance of a terminator is far superior to our SC but it is also 14 years newer in design, so I would expect that it is. The SC had fewer numbers produced when comparing any single year to one another. The SC IMO paved the way for the terminator. The rear differentials are almost identical minus the difference in 28 spline vs 31 spline, they each shared eaton SC's.

I will say the mn12 chassis is far superior to the sn95 chassis which is nothing more than a modified fox chassis from 1979.

There are other items we could highlight.

The sc when comparing a single model year to a single model year terminator had fewer numbers produced so it is more rare. Both had IRS, both had SC's. there is only one reason it didn't carry an svt badge. It is because ford knew it would hurt cobra sales.

The SC IMO is superior to that of the terminator minus the power plant. Although we could discuss this as well. The 03-04 terminators certainly had their share of cylinder head issues. Just google "cobra dreaded tick". Those motors were not all that great. Sure they had strong rotating assembly's but those cylinder heads suck. Ford revised that head 3 times and it still sucked.

Rick_Leuce
03-29-2013, 10:26 PM
Svt, in my opinion should be reserved for terminator cobras. As they could properly hold the badge. Motor trend also had the SVT Contour:o 0-60 at 7.5 seconds and the quarter mile at 15.7 @ 88.7 mph. Now had the SC been fitted with a 4.6 supercharged v-8 then ---, but thats a different story.

15.7 ain't bad...thats a half second slower than a stock SC

Heck, I think 2010 or 2009 V6 Camaros barely do better than 16 seconds.

I'd buy a SVT Contour, maybe mod it to do at least 14's.