T-Bird SC

IMO, these cars were overweight pigs. Ive never seen one run some good numbers..

Did you even look?

http://www.sccoa.com/faq/fastest.php

They're certainly overweight but they're two tons of fun. I Solo mine in SM (actually, I did until I recently blew the engine) and I've done quite well locally. Nationally...that's a different story, of course. My 95 5-speed weighs mid 3400s in race trim and made over 440 lb-ft at the wheels. If you're into Miatas, you probably won't like an SC, but it's a fun alternative to a Mustang or F-body, much more unique and better looking, IMHO.

I had a 5 speed '89 and I loved it! It felt (at least in 1995) like an upscale Mustang or a downscale Mark VIII. Lots of fun, and more boost is just a pulley away...

Is it weird to anyone else that the top 5 in that link are Autos? Ive never liked the "feel" of blue oval manual trans, but then again, Ive only ever drove 2 and only for very short distances. But then again, a 10 second slip is a 10 second slip. I cant argue with that.

Plus its cool that they allow Cougar XR7s in this list too, I LOVED those cars. A great looking, american, FF/RR from the 90s, that could perform and didnt cost $50K new???...not a whole lot of that going on...Oh no, Im sure I will catch a lashing for hating on 90s cars...be nice to me, I did have positive things to say about Detroit in that "I thought the big 3 blah blah blah" thread

Just for the record that SCCoA top times list is very, very old. There's one car that's run 10.17 at 130.51 and in general the cars are getting faster. Yes, I'm an SCCoA member.

The fastest manual trans SC I'm aware of is 11.63 at 119.04 mph. There are a few reason most fast SCs are autos, but the most significant is that 5-speeds wheelhop very badly off the line. Also, Ford installed the M5R2 truck transmission in the manual SCs because they didn't think the T5 could handle the SC's torque. It's not the best manual transmission ever. The rear upper control arms only link to the knuckles at one point, so torque tends to throw the knuckle back and forth.

Sorry to offend. I also think Miatas are over rated.

ManofFewWords wrote: Sorry to offend. I also think Miatas are over rated.

CRAP! Now you're talking double blasphemy on one thread!

He was merely expressing his opinion.

One of the great things about this Board/Community is the diversity, and the acceptance of all things, both off-beat and mainstream.

A long time ago when I looked into whether or not I would want one of those, the one problem was that they often have head gasket issues, and its a rather involved job to replace them. Other than that they seem like decent cars to me.

Travis_K wrote: A long time ago when I looked into whether or not I would want one of those, the one problem was that they often have head gasket issues, and its a rather involved job to replace them. Other than that they seem like decent cars to me.

Absoutely right about the head gaskets. But from a grassroots perspective it means you can find these cars for peanuts if their gaskets are blown.

I am very opinionated. I don't apologize for that in person or on the web. If you pulled up next to me, I could care less what you were driving unless you asked my opinion. Lighten up, it's not that big of a deal.

I always liked SC's, but as yet haven't driven one. Still looking forward to it

I've driven a few. Neat car. Head gaskets go like they do on Northstars and they are quite heavy. Interior's don't age well but parts are plentiful. The rear IRS is really nice. Good cruiser/DD, bad autocross car. Might be fun on track days though. Do yourself a favor and go for the Cougar XR-7 though, it has loads more style and a nicer interior (this coming from a life-long TBird addic).

Actually, year-by-year the interiors are identical between the XR7 and the SC. There's no difference at all.

ManofFewWords wrote: IMO, these cars were overweight pigs. Ive never seen one run some good numbers..

I love my SCs. (Yeah, that's plural.)

Just curious ManofFewWords, what year SC were you driving to get that opinion and what condition was it in when were you driving it. Sometimes, old uncared-for examples of cars just don't meet our expectations.

...and what are you driving now.

Keith W

Will, Maybe it was because the XR-7 usually got more options? The SC's I've been it had cloth and nothing really special, the XR-7 was loaded to the gills with leather and power everything. It was nice in there! I dunno, just throwing out my opinion.

This will be my last post on this subject. I didn't mean to piss off anybody but lets be honest, these cars weigh between 3500 and 3700lbs. I drove one about 10 years ago for about two hours, my best friend wrecked it shortly thereafter. I currently have a 1994 Chevy 3500HD 6.5 diesel dually flatbed, a 1986 Jetta diesel, two 1994 Chevy AWD Asto vans, A lifted 94 Jeep Cherokee with plow, a 1984 VW GTI, and a 1983 Porsche 944, I ride a 1970 Yamaha 650 twin hardtail chopper. My girlfriend has an 05 Hyundai Tuscon. I'm 6' 3", 225lbs and I wear size 34 underwear (boxers, not briefs).

P71 wrote: Will, Maybe it was because the XR-7 usually got more options? The SC's I've been it had cloth and nothing really special, the XR-7 was loaded to the gills with leather and power everything. It was nice in there! I dunno, just throwing out my opinion.

That's easily possible. For instance, my current SC is very light on options...cloth/leather seats, no folding rear seats, no power antenna, no sunroof, etc. But any interior feature available on the Cougar was available on the SC, too. I had another SC with full leather, folding seats, power antenna, 6-disc changer, etc.