SC considered An SVT or no?

SC vconcidered an SVT or NO?


  • Total voters
    209
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
 
yea..that was pretty cool. i agree. but weren't our SC's kinda or almost considered SVT's?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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"
 
Svt, in my opinion should be reserved for terminator cobras. As they could properly hold the badge. Motor trend also had the SVT Contour:eek: 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.
 
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.
 
Svt, in my opinion should be reserved for terminator cobras. As they could properly hold the badge. Motor trend also had the SVT Contour:eek: 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.
 
Back
Top