top mounted intercooler. Has anyone tried it?

I have no issues with anybody wanting to try anything that may be considered "pointless", because there's lots of things that never made any sense that people have discovered through trial and error (or accident). Some things may not be a good idea in hindsight, but look at all the money that car companies spend on R&D on experimental ideas. The Chrysler Turbine engine development started in the late 50's or early 60's and after decades of realizing that the the benefits of the engine (good gas mileage at cruise/ highway speeds; could run on any alcohol based liquids including perfume) but could never adequately combine gas mileage, and there simply wasn't the network of parts and mechanics that knew enough about the engines to make a breakdown on the road anything less than a costly affair. Turbine engines aren't meant to run at idle and have incredibly poor gas mileage in stop and go traffic. They spent millions, if not closer to billions on the prototypes and R&D on these engines and the premise; a theory--and the continued notion that they could improve upon it to the point that it would supercede the need for the internal combustion engine.

One could say that Ford lost a fair bit of money on the SC's--they sold in small, specialty numbers, and although supercharging was/ is a great way to get power with economy (especially in the low end in these cars), many people didn't maintain the cars well--not enough coolant changes, using 87 octane gas, etc--and as a result, there were more things that could break down and quickly get more expensive. Though the 5.0 was slower in the T-Birds of that era, there was more parts support for a more well known V8 engine, and the repairs were less costly. The SC's have complicated engines and the engine bay is tight and not mechanic friendly.

Ford, themselves, admitted that the SC was a failure--cost $900 more to produce per car, and was far heavier than they wanted. The weight came because the car had lots of luxury features.
 
Last edited:
1FSTBRD said:
Ford, themselves, admitted that the SC was a failure--cost $900 more to produce per car, and was far heavier than they wanted. The weight came because the car had lots of luxury features.
Click to expand...

The car may have cost more, but it sold for quite a bit more as well - about $4,000 more than a LX V8 car, I think? Besides, it wasn't all that rare in its day. From 1989 to 1997, Ford sold over 900,000 Thunderbirds and Cougars. Of those, about 70,000 were supercharged.

1990 was the best year for the supercharged cars, in which Ford sold an estimated 25,180 supercharged Thunderbirds and Cougar XR7s.

For comparison, that's more than all the Terminator Cobras ever sold (2003-2004), which was only 19,140. I don't think of that car as a failure.
 
The latest greatest GT500 2013-2014 only had about 11,000 cars produced over the two year run. Compared to that the SCs were pretty good sellers.

David
 
From what i have found the S.C.-Cougar out sold the G.T. 500 when they were combined. Total- G.T.500 for six year run (07-2013) 42,266. S.C.-Cougar (1989-1995) 48,302. Remove the Cougar to pit two ford models only and the mustang outsold the S.C. Total Cougar (1989-1990) 8,592. Thus total S.C. production is 39,710 if my math is correct. Shelby Numbers from SVT Performance. Looks like they sell about the same.
 
S_Mazza said:
The car may have cost more, but it sold for quite a bit more as well - about $4,000 more than a LX V8 car, I think? Besides, it wasn't all that rare in its day. From 1989 to 1997, Ford sold over 900,000 Thunderbirds and Cougars. Of those, about 70,000 were supercharged.

1990 was the best year for the supercharged cars, in which Ford sold an estimated 25,180 supercharged Thunderbirds and Cougar XR7s.

For comparison, that's more than all the Terminator Cobras ever sold (2003-2004), which was only 19,140. I don't think of that car as a failure.
Click to expand...

Some good points. I don't think of the SC as a failure, either......but many at Ford did, just because the car didn't meet it's projected goals in terms of weight and cost.
 
1FSTBRD said:
I don't think of the SC as a failure, either......but many at Ford did, just because the car didn't meet it's projected goals in terms of weight and cost.
Click to expand...

Not that many...mainly the one person with the authority to fire the lead engineer.
 
I do find it interesting that the new Mustang is getting an independent rear suspension ... which is somewhat based or at least influenced on the Lincoln LS IRS, which was somewhat based on the Mark VIII IRS, which is the MN12 IRS. So even if the Thunderbird had some problems, it broke some new ground that has helped Ford along in certain areas.
 
Speaking of IRS, which American cars were the first to have it and which ones are pioneers? I can't help but think that the SC was part of that.

KMT said:
Did you hear the 2015 'stang is getting electronic line lock too (part of the track apps package)? IRS standard is long overdue, I think.

No mention if it will have a top mounted IC...
Click to expand...

I like this quote:

Page 6: "These implied warranties do not apply at all if you use your vehicle for business or commercial purposes. In addition, the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not apply if your vehicle is used for racing, even if the vehicle is equipped for racing."
Click to expand...

It's just kind of funny that they'd give their cars 300+ horsepower and then stipulate this.
 
IMO the reason why the SC/XR-7 sold better is real simple price and seats 5. Easier to rationalize it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top