Sc Vs Turbocoupe?

[tattoo]

Hey Guys,
Quick question....A buddy and i are having a debate....SC vs Turbocoupe...both stock....who has the advantage?...who will beat who?
I say SC hands down....a case a beer is riding on it...LOL
Thanks,
Ed.

[90blkbrd]

Both Stock...SC

From SCCoIA.org

1983 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 9.7 17.1
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 8.5 16.3
1989 Ford Thunderbird SC (5 Speed) 6.9 14.9
1990 Ford Thunderbird SC (Auto) 7.4 15.8
1993 Ford Thunderbird SC 7.2 15.7
1995 Ford Thunderbird SC 7.0 15.2

[LightEMup]

I stayed with my cousin's turbo coupe off the line in first at half throttle....this is after she (yes she haha) said her turbo coupe would dominate me....she had turned up the boost a few pounds and i wuz stock.....so anyway i got to about 4800 rpms dead even with her in first still at half throttle...looked over...smiled....matted it and slammed second and went by her fish tailing all the way thru 2nd .......anyway long story short you'll win....enjoy the beer m8

[tattoo]

Thanks Guys,
I will forward it and wait for the ale....just in time for the Raiders game sunday......

[brandonhgt]

Originally Posted by 90blkbrd

Both Stock...SC

From SCCoIA.org

1983 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 9.7 17.1
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 8.5 16.3
1989 Ford Thunderbird SC (5 Speed) 6.9 14.9
1990 Ford Thunderbird SC (Auto) 7.4 15.8
1993 Ford Thunderbird SC 7.2 15.7
1995 Ford Thunderbird SC 7.0 15.2

Time for 1995 SC was also done with an auto (in a test against a Regal and a Monte Carlo, which it trounced on) I would guess the 5-speeds could have been a tick or 2 quicker with a good driver.

[XxSlowpokexX]

Every SC auto I have owned has run a 15.4 stock 89, 91 and 94

My freinds 87 turbo coupe was about as quick as my 89 when we would play around. My other freinds turbo coupe with just exhaust and upping the boost ran 14.3's and it was an 86 non intercooled model. I am unsure what Road and Track or whoever had these turbo coupes run when new. I do however know they respond really well to Mods if running in good shape.

[Duffy Floyd]

Granted....I owned a first year Turbo Coupe which was not intercooled. But my 89 SC would run circles around that car in a minute. The Turbo Coupe had NO GUTS until you would it up tight and got onto the turbo boost. I did own both cars at the same time as well but obviously the SC was new and the Turbo Coupe getting long in the tooth at the time (6 plus years old). Both were bone stock.

[pablon2]

Originally Posted by brandonhgt

Time for 1995 SC was also done with an auto (in a test against a Regal and a Monte Carlo, which it trounced on) I would guess the 5-speeds could have been a tick or 2 quicker with a good driver.

I have this article. It's a rediculous comparison for Motor Trend to make as the SC was the only forced induction 3.8 of the three. No surprise it won, despite the opponents' more intricate valvetrain.

[90blkbrd]

Originally Posted by pablon2

I have this article. It's a rediculous comparison for Motor Trend to make as the SC was the only forced induction 3.8 of the three. No surprise it won, despite the opponents' more intricate valvetrain.

Didn't the SC out weight the other 2 by 400-500 lbs?

[brandonhgt]

Originally Posted by 90blkbrd

Didn't the SC out weight the other 2 by 400-500 lbs?

Yes, it had a decided weight disadvantage.

[Duffy Floyd]

Originally Posted by brandonhgt

Yes, it had a decided weight disadvantage.

But the SC has a decided TORQUE advantage that's for SURE!!!!!!

[pablon2]

Originally Posted by brandonhgt

Yes, it had a decided weight disadvantage.

I'm certain the SCs HP/weight ratio was substantially higher than the two other cars. I can look for the article if people are interested.

[Scott Long]

It's already hosted on SCCoA.com's Literature Section I believe. I've read it here before a few years ago.