TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,057 Posts
A lot of blue in that second one! Wouldn't mind the seats for mine! :D

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
There is a nice 95 by me for sale right now. I want to get it but I have 3 right now and running out of space to store them. Plus I have a hurricane coming and have no place to get them out of the weather
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Like those blue seats, reminds me of the 70's when there was some STYLE in seats!
Like the Cordoba.....rich Corinthian leather!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
^^That seat looks like a catchers mitt. Johnny Bench's!

Al
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,052 Posts
Does beg the question... Is the 3.6 from those years THAT much slower than the V8?
Umm, yes. The late 4.6s were low 15 second cars, 3.8s were low 17s pretty much all the way through. The gap was actually closer with the 5.0 and 94-95 4.6s, which were 16/high 15 second cars due to a combination of restrictive exhaust, induction and gearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
A reason that is a very close 2nd to the performance difference is the head gasket issue on the 3.8's.

A great running motor however, as I put 206k on my old '88 T-Bird, and I suspect the next owner put quite a bit more on it. But the head gasket issue is reason enough to steer clear of the V6 model.

I have an old buddy that made money buying mid 80's T-Birds and Cougars for $300 with blown head gaskets, then fixing them and re-selling for a good profit.

Al
 

·
West Virginia Chapter Director /, MA Drag Race Te
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
The 96-97s aren't near as prone to head gasket failure at least, Ford got that engine right just after phasing it out of their highest volume models :rolleyes:
I agree with that statement but not your first. Not trying to offend. MOST 4.6 96-97 I ever saw ran high 15's low 16's (Mine included)dependent on track conditions ect. I believe the 5.0 cars with their terrible gearing were slightly slower. The SC's stock ran mid to lower 15's in their stock trim. Based on actual track observations.

There was a lot of crap out there on what they ran by road and track and other mags but facts are facts. I'm stating on what I've actually seen not a bunch of **** on 1 or two run wonders by magazine reps.

But considering that, they still would have held their own with most of the so called early muscle cars. 15's were pretty good back in the day.

Technology has sure changed hasn't it LOL!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
361 Posts
My Cougar has the exact same seats as the blue 96. I fortunately have the gray interior, blue looks cool though. Anyway... I have to say, they are some of the best seats I have had in a car. The fabric in the middle really holds me in, but they are still mostly leather elsewhere so you can slide a bit. If they had adjustable lumbar they would be perfect IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
I ran a [email protected] MPH in my old 95 T-Bid 4.6. Made two passes, both identical. Bone stock, except for a K&N panel filter, and a J-mod. Also had 200k miles.

Al
 

·
West Virginia Chapter Director /, MA Drag Race Te
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
I ran a [email protected] MPH in my old 95 T-Bid 4.6. Made two passes, both identical. Bone stock, except for a K&N panel filter, and a J-mod. Also had 200k miles.

Al
Not doubting that. A lot depends on track location, conditions, etc. The Pure stock 95 I had went a 15.15 at Mason Dixon in the heat with nothing more but a flash tune in August Summer Blast at Mason Dixon. Street tires and untouched otherwise at 135K thousand.

But my point is that most, will NOT do that, just climbing in a new car. There are exceptions. The 1MTNCAT with nothing but a filter change went mid 15's at Mason Dixon later that year in the fall. Had some break in miles on it then and much cooler conditions. The first runs were in 80 plus degree temps and with less than 500 miles on the clock at 16.0 16.1. New car.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top