[Danimal]

I have always wanted a set of SC ground effects for my 92 sport, and I am getting ready to buy them this spring, but i'm starting to get seccond thoughts.

I really like the 97 birds. the headlights are gorgeous, and the rear bumper/side mouldings look really really nice on a lowered vehicle with Cobra R's (in my opinion). Take a look at Alex Baynard's 91 SVT replica. He gave it the "97 treatment" and it looks horribly aggresive, without ground effects.

So...what do you guys think looks better? The slightly "dated" SC look, or the clean classy 96-97 look?

Hope I don't start any fights...

-danimal

 

[Kevin]

Either or would look good . However, the boxy look of the SC is starting to look old, whereas the sleeker 95-97's have a modern 'round' look to them.

If you want the newer style front end, expect to buy a hood, fenders, lights, grille, bumper, and if you want the rear end too - I think besides the bumper cover all you need is the lights, but you may need a decklid too.

But still - I'm in the process of putting on SC panels on my 92 XR7 . Got them off the donor car yesterday, and will attempt fixing them early this week.

Which is cheaper?

 

[Danimal]

Well, yeah I understand what all is involved with the front end swap. But the decklid is the same from 92-97, and the tail lights are the same on a 97 as my 92, accept the bottom part of the light isn't black like the 89-95 ones. They will still fit though, just may not look right.

As far as which is cheaper...thats obvious... I have a 92 sport, so all i'd need is a new rear bumper and the side skirts.

You are putting SC pannels on your cougar? Explain that one. Do you mean the side skirts? That would be pretty neat, you could just fill in the lettering on the rear bumper so it didn't say "T H U N D E R B I R D S C"

But I totaly agree...I see too much of the SC "boxy" look. I guess I still wouldn't mind it.

Personally...I think that the 89-93 SC style front bumper is too outdated, the 94-95 front bumpers are goofy and the 96-97 ones are gorgeous...but anemic. They need a lower valance or something to help give it a "lower" look. the rest of the car looks low, but the front bumper doesn't.

Damn I'm too picky,
-danimal

 

[glowing escape]

if you really want to get into it.. put the xenon kit (urethane) for the 96/97s on as well. besides the sc, this is the only use of ground effects on a bird that i like, and i love this. makes me want to have a 96/97 just so i can do that... they really compliment the body curves of those years.

Kenji Togashi's '97
<img src="http://www.tccoa.com/rides/pics/kenji.gif">

Thomas L. Miller Jr.'s '97
<im gsrc="http://www.tccoa.com/rides/pics/miltho.jpg">

<img src="http://www.tccoa.com/rides/pics/spesar.jpg">

And the Wing's West kit looks pretty good too (i dunno if they are urethane tho)...

Gary Rivers's '97
<img src="http://www.tccoa.com/rides/pics/grivers.jpg">

The Razzi GFX kits i really do not like, not just that year, but all of them. The ones for the 89s - 93s are absolutely hideous. SC gfx on a 96/97 will look OK, but they dont really fit the body style at all. I really like them a lot on the 89s to 93s because they are very sleek and low profile, but they give a "wider" look to the car and i cant wait to put them on my car. Since i have a 90 base, i did an 89 SC front end, i have a 94/95 rear end, and im getting GFX soon. -greg

 

[WickedBird]

Danimal, you are the first person i have heard mention that the front needs 'something'. i agree that it looks out of proportion with the rest of the car. on the sc they added side gfx and a lower rear bumper but did nothing to the front. i think it looks awkward. that is a good part of why i chose to do the 96/97 conversion with the xenon gfx to the front.

 

[ZackG]

I would personally go with the SC. It's hard to do some cold air induction w/ my 97 due to lack of holes in the front bumper. I could do it, but it would require a 90 degree bend and im not sure if i shoudl do that.