"Not Fair" Thunderbird a look at nearly 45 years of Dearborn Darling

[Jim Demmitt Jr]

Whats up here

Each time I see an artical on History of Thunderbird the SC gets bad write ups its like a slap in the face. Look through this artical and see what they say about Supercharged Super Coupes

Link
http://www.mustangandfords.com/thehistoryof/15818_ford_thunderbird/index.html

[dwayne]

I think the supercharged SC is as good or better than the other supercharged cars on the road today.this is just my opinion.

[Melon]

Nice read, but it's not new by any means. It talks about the Retro Birds being a new model in 2001.

-Melon

[garsc]

I have owned the 80-82,the 83-88 and the 89-95 Sc cars nad I can honestly say my favorite is my 94 SC its fast, comfortable but a little over complicated. My second fav is the 80-82 square bird my 81 Town Landau was one of the nicest cars I ever owned, 302 carb no cats and 28 mpg highway a baby Lincoln. Didnt care for the 83-88 cars way too much like an over weight Mustang. Most people dont appreciate our cars and that is sad ,but its their loss. Although I havent driven the latest rendition I have driven every other one made and I can tell you that our cars are the best made.None of them rides, handles,is as comfortable or has the performance as ours.We are special because we know better than those guys.

[Hock]

I would like to know who the hell they talked to. Everyone I have met has been very impressed with the 3.8SC. I think some of the reasons the sales suffered was that the car was intimadating when you opened the hood, it was several thousand more than the regular TBird, and maybe theres something else. I don't know. But most people are very impressed by the performance.

[Mike8675309]

People need some perspective on the MN12 birds. #1 - In 89, V8's were still king and a Supercharged V6 was a new thing to folks. A bunch were sold early on because you couldn't get a V8, so folks grudgingly bought them.

The cars were too heavy.. That's a complaint from everyone from folks that reviewed them to the engineers that built them.

The cars were not that big of a value at that time. Compared to a BMW at that time, it was a deal. But for a performance car... it' was pricey.

Ford didn't want to compete with the Mustang... so they simply were not going to put forward any effort to steal market from the Stang. They wanted to steal from BMW but they simply found they couldn't fight that battle well enough to make a dent.

for a select group of car owners, the MN12 platform and the SC motor was just the ticket. Unfortunately, it was far from the majority of car owners.

[91BlackBird]

All that is said there was true.
It was over complicated,indepentend suspension was not necessary and was unwelcome to many people.
The 3.8L sc although a cool engine in theory, was underpowered when when compared to the 5.0L and way to complicated hence the reason more people opted for the 5.0L.
The weight gain was uncalled for and made the car slower.
Although the mn12 was a nice design ,the 83-88(my personal fav)was a much nicer lighter car.
Now don't get me wrong, i would not be spending the time that i am restoring my 89sc if i didn't dig the car but everything that was said in that article is true.

[superbirdx]

All that is said there was true.
It was over complicated,indepentend suspension was not necessary and was unwelcome to many people.
The 3.8L sc although a cool engine in theory, was underpowered when when compared to the 5.0L and way to complicated hence the reason more people opted for the 5.0L.
The weight gain was uncalled for and made the car slower.
Although the mn12 was a nice design ,the 83-88(my personal fav)was a much nicer lighter car.
Now don't get me wrong, i would not be spending the time that i am restoring my 89sc if i didn't dig the car but everything that was said in that article is true.
A 3.8sc will smoke a 5.0l thunderbird easily.I dont know where you got the idea that the v8 version is more powerful but it had less hp and torque.

[MagpoweredSC]

People I meet have mixed feelings on the sc. Some love them, some hate them. They have become really rare and not many people even know what they are. The blower scream on mine is enough to draw everyones attention and once they see the extent of the mods you can do to these they are very impressed.

[superbirdx]

People need some perspective on the MN12 birds. #1 - In 89, V8's were still king and a Supercharged V6 was a new thing to folks. A bunch were sold early on because you couldn't get a V6, so folks grudgingly bought them.

The cars were too heavy.. That's a complaint from everyone from folks that reviewed them to the engineers that built them.

The cars were not that big of a value at that time. Compared to a BMW at that time, it was a deal. But for a performance car... it' was pricey.

Ford didn't want to compete with the Mustang... so they simply were not going to put forward any effort to steal market from the Stang. They wanted to steal from BMW but they simply found they couldn't fight that battle well enough to make a dent.

for a select group of car owners, the MN12 platform and the SC motor was just the ticket. Unfortunately, it was far from the majority of car owners.
You're actually mistaken about the v6 not being available in 89.It's the v8 that wasn't available until 92.The SC3.8 and the NA3.8 were available in89.
If people want more on Thunderbird specs a site called thunderbirdinfo.blogspot.com has lots of info that apparently even members of this site would really benefit from checking out.

[garsc]

I actually was considering trading my 81 in on a new 89 but was told there was no V8 available,but he failed to even mention the availability of a supercharged version.In fact I didnt even know of the SC till I found my 94 back in 03. Fords best kept secret?:confused:

[DougD]

Just compare the T-Brid profile to the BMW 635 and its immediately obvious what market segment Ford was aiming at :)

In 1989, if a person was to simply read the SC spec sheet without knowing what car it applied to, they probably would have thought they were reading about a European car: fully independant suspension, 5-speed manual transmission, 4-wheel disc brakes, ABS, fuel injection, full instrumentation, lumbar-support seats, limited slip diff, etc.

Here on SCCoA we concern oursleves with performance mostly in terms of pure horsepower and 1/4 miles times but I don't think that's what the Ford designers had in mind when the SC was a twinkle in their eyes. I think they were looking for a "Euro fighter", not a "Street Fighter", if you get what I mean. And read the sales brochures.....which paint a picture of sophistication, not brute performance.

As it turns out, it appears that neither the Euro crowd nor the go-fast crowd were overly impressed. Still, Ford sold, what? 70,000 SCs? Not exactly a colossal flop, either.

Cheers
DD

[Jim Demmitt Jr]

Anyone noitce this?

The rear tail fins are extra tall
http://www.mustangandfords.com/thehistoryof/15818_ford_thunderbird/photo_05.html


I just dont like in each artical new or old there always giving the Super Coupe a bad rap. These cars are a perfect performance tbird I just dont get why thy never hit it big with buyers

[Jim Demmitt Jr]

Another interesting artical

1989-1997 "Super Birds"


In 1989, the new, much-anticipated Thunderbird model premiered. Classified as the MN-12 (Mid-Size North American Project 12), the Thunderbird now had four-wheel independent suspension and a slightly smaller, more aerodynamic body. Engine options fell to only two for 1989 as Ford dropped the V8 option for the new T-bird. The base and LX models were powered by the 140 hp (104 kW) 3.8L OHV V6, which many felt was underpowered for the almost 3800 lb (1725 kg) car.

A 210 hp (157 kW), 315 lb·ft (427 N·m) torque supercharged and intercooled version of the 3.8 L V6 was included in the top-of-the-line Super Coupe. The Super Coupe was available with a 5-speed Mazda-derived manual transmission as well as Ford's own AOD 4-speed automatic transmission. The base and LX Thunderbirds could only be ordered with the AOD. The Thunderbird SC was Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 1989. The 8.2 to 1 compression ratio was combined with six computer controlled, sequential fuel injectors. When running at a maximum 5,600 rpm, the supercharger provided 12 psi of boost, producing 210 bhp (157 kW) at 4000 rpm and 315 lb·ft (427 N·m) of torque at 2600 rpm. The 5.0L Windsor did return in 1991-93 models.

In spite of this the car was considered a failure by some in management; it badly missed its weight and cost targets, and the higher price needed to pay for the improved features resulted in a big decrease in production volume compared with the previous model. The program manager was publicly criticized by Ford Chairman Harold A. Poling at the company's internal celebration of the Car of the Year award, and he resigned a short time later. The Lorain Assembly Plant reduced line speed from over 70 per hour to 40 per hour because of the reduced demand.

In 1994, the Thunderbird received some minor exterior updates and a redesigned interior that featured new sweeping curves on the door panels and dashboard areas, but the most dramatic change was the new 205 hp (153 kW) 4.6L SOHC V8 which replaced the iconic and much-loved 5.0. The 4.6 brought with it an updated electronic control system (EEC-V), and an electronically-controlled 4R70W automatic transmission. The Super Coupe continued on in 1994 with the same supercharged V6 as before, but now with 230 hp (172 kW) and 330 ft·lbf (447 N·m) of torque. This was made possible due to a number of changes. The M90 supercharger was given a larger square style inlet, a larger attaching inlet plenum, and teflon coated rotors. The engine received larger fuel injectors and an increase in compression to 8.6:1. These increases in output would be short-lived, however, as the Thunderbird Super Coupe was discontinued after the 1995 model year.


1997 Ford ThunderbirdIn 1996, the Thunderbird received its last styling update. Available in LX (V6 or V8) or Sport (V8 only) trims, both featured redesigned headlights and taillights, smoother re-styled front and rear fascias, body side cladding, new wheels (15 inch on LX, 16 inch on Sport), and a slight hood bulge, which was necessary to fit the updated 4.6L engine's taller intake manifold, now composite. V8 models still made 205 hp (153 kW), but now made 280 ft·lbf (380 N·m) of torque, an increase of 15 ft·lbf (20 N·m). Unfortunately for owners, the all-composite intake had a tendency to crack and leak antifreeze. (Some 1997s are covered by a class action lawsuit settled by Ford late in 2005 - see Intake Manifold Defect for details.) The base LX model continued to use the 3.8L V6 as its engine but now made use of the EEC-V computer which before was only found in 4.6L V8-equipped models. Torque output from the V6 remained the same as before but horsepower increased to 145 for 1996. In 1997, Ford made few notable changes, trying to save as much money as they could on the floundering coupe. As a result, the 1997 Thunderbird's appeal suffered even more, as the only options available were power sunroof, power driver seat, remote keyless entry, and a CD player. A low drag coefficient contributed to an impressive and consistent 24-28 mpg on the highway.

In 1997 high performance Thunderbirds were released. The four prototypes produced by Ford's Special Vehicle Engineering division came with Cobra "R" brakes and wheels, a Tremec 5-speed manual transmission, and featured a 4.6 liter, DOHC V8 engine similar to that found in the SVT Mustang Cobra. The SVE Thunderbirds also came with a cowl hood to accommodate the Eaton supercharger sitting atop the modular motor. However, this high-performance Thunderbird was not to be, as Ford not only pulled the plug on this project, but on the entire Thunderbird/Cougar line to close the 1997 model year. The last MN-12 Thunderbird rolled off the assembly line in Lorain, Ohio, on September 4, 1997.

[Mike8675309]

You're actually mistaken about the v6 not being available in 89.It's the v8 that wasn't available until 92.The SC3.8 and the NA3.8 were available in89.
If people want more on Thunderbird specs a site called thunderbirdinfo.blogspot.com has lots of info that apparently even members of this site would really benefit from checking out.

fixed it. My brain mistyped.

A valid point that the market wasn't necessarily aware of a SC motor at the time. Not only was the public V8 centric, but dealer sales drones where also that way. Basically competitive dealers could claim ford didn't have a V8 in that market. And so the Ford guys would just say yea, they're right. But they wouldn't push the supercharged V6.

[Melon]

You're actually mistaken about the v6 not being available in 89.It's the v8 that wasn't available until 92.The SC3.8 and the NA3.8 were available in89.

Your mistaken as well. The 5.0L was available in 1991.

-Melon

[91BlackBird]

A 3.8sc will smoke a 5.0l thunderbird easily.I dont know where you got the idea that the v8 version is more powerful but it had less hp and torque.
Um dude you need to get your info straight and reread my post!!!!!!!!!
The hp for the early years of the sc with the 5.0L was the same and even though the sc did have SLIGHTLY more torque in the bottom end,it had no top end past 4400rpm where as the 5.0L has it until around 5500 so it's a toss up depending on the distance of the race.
The times where very close almost equal between the two engines.
There was no real weight differance between the two with all the extra crap hanging off of the front of the sc engine,the sc also had more options than the 5.0L car so it probably was heavier.
The SC engine like the older TC engine was meant for better fuel economy while cruising out of boost but v8 power while in boost,nuf said!
And A stock SC (SMOKING) a stock 5.0L car would never happen, it would be too close to call like maybe by a fender!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Melon]

Aren't the 1/4 times roughly a second apart? I was thinking most stock auto SC's were mid 15's and V8 'Birds, 5.0 or 4.6, were mid 16's?

-Melon

[MagpoweredSC]

Stock SC vs. Stock 5.0 tbird the SC will win every time. 5.0 tbirds (at least all of them ive seen) at the track struggle to get 16s(usually 16.8-17.2). SCs stock are high 15s to low 16s all day long. The 4.6 lxs are real dogs compared to the SC. I've driven all 3 and the SC def has more balls than the V8s stock-stock. Modified then there are way too many factors.

[S_Mazza]

I agree, the 5.0 Birds are nice cruisers, but the SC is a good bit faster. I have owned 2 SCs and my brother owns a '92 5.0 Thunderbird.

[Jacob_Royer]

The 5.0 and the NA 3.8 really were not that much diffrence in power... sad....

[Mercutio]

The hp for the early years of the sc with the 5.0L was the same and even though the sc did have SLIGHTLY more torque in the bottom end

The first part of your statement is wrong. The early SC made 210 hp, the MN12-spec 5.0 made 200. The second part of your statement is accurate only if you think "slightly" equals 40 lb-ft. Early SC 315 lb-ft > MN12 5.0 275 lb-ft.

SC vs. LX T-Bird, SC wins every time assuming both cars are stock.

[ndiiorio]

i thinkth esc was unappreciated similar to ohow the grand national was when i t came out and it wasnt until years after anyone realized how great these cars are. also the sc at the time was significantly advanced as far as car design and engine design and yes it was a little overwhelming. the price of the car made it even tougher to afford for a younger crowd, so i thik the mods came later when kids starting buying them used and started realizing their full potential... we still dont know the full potential! i have had a 5.0 version when i was younger and i wished everyday that it was an sc. i really love these cars, they are comfortable to drive and to cruise around in, they are roomy and have plenty of power even when they are stock, i mean what more could you ask for at the time of release? and i know there are more gearheads than audio enthuisiasts out there but have any of you guys ever noticed how quiet these cars are? they really are... and you will notice all the extra insulation they put in them when you start taking all the panels off. just about every panel is backed with foam and i guarantee thats a couple hundred pounds right there. i think ford was really trying to go after the luxury sport market with this car, but being 89 who wanted to buy a luxury sports car from ford?

[S_Mazza]

I think that the SC might have actually gotten too close to its target car, the BMW 635. With a quiet exhaust, IRS, and an advanced V6 instead of a V8, I think it went over the heads of most American gearheads. BMW, Audi, and Porsche shoppers weren't likely to cross-shop with Ford, so they probably didn't really notice it. And besides, how many 635s did BMW sell? I believe that it was fewer than 100,000 cars, worldwide, over 14 years. Ford sold almost that many SCs in North America in 7 years!!! So viewed in those terms, the SC could be considered a great success. It seems like Ford got the SC and then realized it had wanted something different all along. But if it was a mis-step, I feel fortunate that they made it, because it is a great all-around package for some people, myself included.

[XR7Kurt]

I loved the turbo coupes and when I heard the next version was going to be supercharged V6 I was very excited. But I was in my early 20's with the muscle car/drag race mentallity so I just looked at the horsepower and 1/4 mile times and was thoroughly unimpressed. I never gave them another thought until I stumbled upon my Cougar in 2000. I was turned off by the ground effects too, I hated that they put them on the Mustangs and still don't like them.
If I had driven one I'm sure the torque would have changed my view of everything though.
I believe that it was fewer than 100,000 cars, worldwide, over 14 years. Ford sold almost that many SCs in North America in 7 years!!! So viewed in those terms, the SC could be considered a great success.
That's an excellant point!
ohow the grand national was when i t came out and it wasnt until years after anyone realized how great these cars are.
I'll have to disagree with this in regards to the gn's. Everyone on the streets where I was new all about the grand nationals, especially corvette owners.:p

[superbirdx]

Um dude you need to get your info straight and reread my post!!!!!!!!!
The hp for the early years of the sc with the 5.0L was the same and even though the sc did have SLIGHTLY more torque in the bottom end,it had no top end past 4400rpm where as the 5.0L has it until around 5500 so it's a toss up depending on the distance of the race.
The times where very close almost equal between the two engines.
There was no real weight differance between the two with all the extra crap hanging off of the front of the sc engine,the sc also had more options than the 5.0L car so it probably was heavier.
The SC engine like the older TC engine was meant for better fuel economy while cruising out of boost but v8 power while in boost,nuf said!
And A stock SC (SMOKING) a stock 5.0L car would never happen, it would be too close to call like maybe by a fender!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not trying to start a pissing contest here.
I have though owned both cars and for real with both cars being stock there is more then a fenders difference between them.The v8 also was rated at 200hp and 275tq where as even the earliest sc was 210hp 315tq.Actual peak numbers don't always tell the story though as the sc motor tq rise is much quicker and gets the car moving much easier and quicker than the 5.0 would.so in an 1/8 mile or 1/4 mile the sc handily beats the v8 it's just a fact.Race them you'll see.

[superbirdx]

Your mistaken as well. The 5.0L was available in 1991.

-Melon
Sorry I didn't realize that.Everything I'd seen had indicated that v8 wasn't available again until 1992.

[superbirdx]

fixed it. My brain mistyped.

A valid point that the market wasn't necessarily aware of a SC motor at the time. Not only was the public V8 centric, but dealer sales drones where also that way. Basically competitive dealers could claim ford didn't have a V8 in that market. And so the Ford guys would just say yea, they're right. But they wouldn't push the supercharged V6.
I actually had the thought that you knew what you wanted to say but that you got away from yourself with the keyboard:p I do it all the time.It's hard when you're typing to contrdict people without offending them since it's hard to add context and emotion so I'm glad you weren't offended.I read posts all the time by you that make me say oh,I didn't know that so It's all good.:D

[franky_402]

i really wonder why ford stopped the sc's, i know everywhere it says that they were not in demand, however if they werent in that much demand why wouldnt they stop them in 93 before they had a major revision. I have a feeling the sc was discontinued due to another reason???

[Gerry Rider]

Stopped because production cost was so high Ford could not make money on them, so really didn't want or try to sell many of them. Bottom line Ford is in business to make money, not great cars that don't.
Gerry

[S_Mazza]

One big issue with making a 1996 SC is that it would have had to comply with the OBD-II regulations, like all Ford's other cars. It would have taken some development work and money to meet that standard, so Ford decided it wasn't worth continuing.

I wish that the 3.8SC engine had made its way into other Ford cars. I think it could have been really good in the Mustang, the Crown Vic, and the F-150. And it would have helped us out with parts availablity.