Questions

[dannsx1]

New member. Looking at a 1995 SC and a 1990 SC. both automatics in great shape. Less than 75000 miles on both. Had an 89 20 years ago. Money is comparable. Which car would you prefer.

 

[DOUG H]

I like the 89-93 exterior, but the 94/95 is nicer inside & a better supercharger.
Personal preference though.

 

[dannsx1]

Is there a noticeable difference in the extra horsepower in 95?

 

[DOUG H]

I personally dont know, I haven't driven anything newer then a 93.
I think I read in a Motor Trend or some other magazine from 94 that they were a couple
Hundred pounds heavier then 93, due to interior changes & strengthening for air bags, sound insulation & front bumper redesign.
So the extra horsepower was a wash? I don't know if 95 being the last year for S/C will make it more collectable at some point?

 

[dannsx1]

Any feedback on a 1995 SC ?

 

[Rick_Leuce]

I only own 1989-1993 SCs. I prefer the look and it is what I am familiar with.
However, the 1994/1995 have airbags, 1989-1993 do not have airbags (but they have really cool motorized seatbelts instead).
1989-1992 SCs use the flaky Teves MKII ABS systems, 1993+ uses something newer and probably more reliable.
1989-1993 SCs need expensive and hard to find Crank Position sensors should yours fail. A 1994-1995 SC (from what I’ve heard) use a $25 Crank Position Sensor you can pick up from Autozone.
1992+ SCs have LEDs in the trunklid reflectors and have 18 gallon fuel tanks (more room for putting in a dual exhaust)
1989-1991 have 19 gallon fuel tank and reflectors but no LED.
Plastic windshield cowl for 1989-1992 are expensive and hard to find, cheaper and easier to find on 1993+.
I think 1994/1995 SCs got a factory pusher fan instead of a 2-speed puller fan. I personally put an aftermarket pusher fan in all 3 of my running SCs because I have overheated before when the puller fan wore out.

If I weren’t so attached to mine, I’d probably prefer a 1994/1995 SC.

Best thing going for the early SCs are the looks. I prefer the black side trim, the more square front bumper cover. 1989-1991 got stainless trim in the door panels, later ones dont. Early ones could have silly options like auto dimming headlights, maplights in the rearview mirror (1989-1990 with moonroof) and 1989-1991 SC have a vent in the moonroof (if equipped with moonroof) which is nice if you want the air to flow through without the sun in your face.

TLDR: get the 1994/1995.

 

[dannsx1]

Thank you. You have been very helpful.

 

[XB-70]

Thank you. You have been very helpful.

Both are automatics, and if stock, and are shifting correctly the 95 has arguably the better transmission. Better radiator (if original) in the 90.

Driving comfort: Hands down the 90 has far superior seats if not worn out. 94-95 seats are prone to rattling headrests and seat comfort not as great. 89-90 seats have better padding and big bolsters.
Open differential in the 95 versus Traction-lock in the 90.

 

[dannsx1]

I have a 91 NSX but the drive to the our cottage is brutal. Having previously owned a 89 thunderbird SC, I remember the ride and the seats were the most comfortable I have ever had. Looking for a comfortable cruiser.

 

[DOUG H]

For the same mileage & same price, I'd go with the 90 then.

 

[35th]

I think the only real downside for the 90 is the crank sensor being so hard to obtain so make sure you check the harmonic balancer for any kind of wobble. if there is a wobble then replace it before it breaks and damages the sensor other than that I think the 94/95 had a better looking dash but again thats more of a personal opinion than anything. they are both hard to work on and both are getting harder to find decent parts for.

 

[Tim Groth]

I think a 95 is more reliable. The 89-92s SCs have a brake system thats prone to fail with the Teaves system. Also as mentioned the crank sensor is a hard to find item. DIS modules as well.

Those 3 items are the reason I personally buy only 93-95 SCs...less big ticket items.

-Tim