wildosvt Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Yeah the 1984MY was the last year for the Turbo GT's correct? I have nothing against turbo motors...heck I own one, just don't think they have any nostalgia going for them I believe '85 was the last year, But I could be wrong. When a car hits 28years its normally considered a classic. The turbo 4 cars following may not be as large as the V8, But they were not sold in large numbers either. Seriously a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe doesn't have nostalgia? The SVO doesn't send out that nostalgic vibe? Its screams it for me. Were you born in the 80's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser768 Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Turbo GT was '83-84 SVO was until '86 The Turbo Coupes are nostalgic, but most people identify with, and want, the Aerolamp Hi-Po intercooled 87-88s. I bought my unloved '83 at an abandoned/impound vehicle auction in 2005 for $120. The turbo badges have long since fallen off, and the front clip was involved in an accident and replaced with a regular '84 clip. The TRX wheels were replaced with 10-holes, (because TRX Tire$$$$$!) so other than the engine, it's hard to tell mine isn't a base model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Turbo GT was '83-84SVO was until '86 The Turbo Coupes are nostalgic, but most people identify with, and want, the Aerolamp Hi-Po intercooled 87-88s. I bought my unloved '83 at an abandoned/impound vehicle auction in 2005 for $120. The turbo badges have long since fallen off, and the front clip was involved in an accident and replaced with a regular '84 clip. The TRX wheels were replaced with 10-holes, (because TRX Tire$$$$$!) so other than the engine, it's hard to tell mine isn't a base model. The aero birds are the most memorable. But this guy will still take a '85 all day any day. I actually looked for one about 4 years ago with intent to buy. But did not find one "good enough" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 I have tempered nostalgia for the 80's turbo Fords. The T-Bird Turbo Coupes were attractive as hell...but were slow, ponderous even, until getting the intercooler for the 1987 model year. Up to that point, they had about the same power as a current run-of-the-mill C-class car. They had to turbocharge a 2.3 motor to get the same power we get from any normal 2.0 today. For that reason, the 5.0 GT was better than the turbo version...and I don't believe the SVO ever caught it in acceleration. Beyond that, the 2.3 is an ugly-sounding lump of an engine, and it's a shame Ford USA didn't put any emphasis on R&D for a new 4-banger back then. They just kept the ol' Pinto mill going with a turbo here and a tweak there, while smaller cars were eventually revamped Mazdas or the Tempo/Topaz aith the above-mentioned "hack job" 2.3 and a year or two with the Vulcan V6 option.. It wasn't until the Zetec motor in 1995 that Ford brought any sophistication to the USA four-bangers.The reasons Ford's 5.0 became so legendary? It's a good little V8, it's affordable, and below that displacement, most of the Ford USA motors were basically crap in the 80's-early 90's. Hence my desire to put either an EB 2.3 or an EB 3.5 into a Merkur XR4Ti. Attractive car, nice chassis, needs a heart transplant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Hence my desire to put either an EB 2.3 or an EB 3.5 into a Merkur XR4Ti. Attractive car, nice chassis, needs a heart transplant. 365 hp and torque w/6-speed and giant Brembos, yup, that works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chromehorn Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 So is it safe to say that the new Edge will be a home for the new EB 2.3? 320hp in that package would be, uhmmm, interesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justins Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 (edited) Yes it did. 2006-2009. Forgot about that. Wasn't that the Mazda MZR2.3 (so not technically a Ford engine)? From Wiki The Ford Motor Company owns rights to build and use the MZR generation of engines under their Duratec brand name for global service in its vehicles since 2003. Edited August 4, 2013 by justins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 So in other words, kinda like how Symphonic and Emerson TVs were the exact same TV back in the day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Wasn't that the Mazda MZR2.3 (so not technically a Ford engine)? It was sold in Ford vehicles, therefore it was a Ford engine. It was also a Mazda engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 (edited) The new 5.0L in the Mustang and F150 is successful partially because of the olf 5.L/302 heritage. I think the 5.0L 4V may have gained some early press due to the heritage of the 5.0 Windsor, but I think the 5.0 4V is really successful because it's a performer and widely available. Edited August 4, 2013 by White99GT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Tempo/Topaz had a OHV 2.3L HSC and HSO (High-Swirl Combustion/Output). I don't think they were related to LIMA. To call the 2.3L HSC a "turd" would be kind ! It was related to the 200/250 cid inline 6 and supposed to be and "inexpensive" engine. The "high swirl" (better air/fuel mixing) was achieved by "asking" the intale valve. It did not make significant improvements in fuel economy/emission and in fact the HSO version removed the masking to get more HP ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 To call the 2.3L HSC a "turd" would be kind ! It was related to the 200/250 cid inline 6 and supposed to be and "inexpensive" engine. The "high swirl" (better air/fuel mixing) was achieved by "asking" the intale valve. It did not make significant improvements in fuel economy/emission and in fact the HSO version removed the masking to get more HP ! All of what 2 of them? It may be a turd by comparision. I'l just remembering no issues with it at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I have tempered nostalgia for the 80's turbo Fords. The T-Bird Turbo Coupes were attractive as hell...but were slow, ponderous even, until getting the intercooler for the 1987 model year. Up to that point, they had about the same power as a current run-of-the-mill C-class car. They had to turbocharge a 2.3 motor to get the same power we get from any normal 2.0 today. For that reason, the 5.0 GT was better than the turbo version...and I don't believe the SVO ever caught it in acceleration. Beyond that, the 2.3 is an ugly-sounding lump of an engine, and it's a shame Ford USA didn't put any emphasis on R&D for a new 4-banger back then. They just kept the ol' Pinto mill going with a turbo here and a tweak there, while smaller cars were eventually revamped Mazdas or the Tempo/Topaz aith the above-mentioned "hack job" 2.3 and a year or two with the Vulcan V6 option.. It wasn't until the Zetec motor in 1995 that Ford brought any sophistication to the USA four-bangers. The reasons Ford's 5.0 became so legendary? It's a good little V8, it's affordable, and below that displacement, most of the Ford USA motors were basically crap in the 80's-early 90's. Hence my desire to put either an EB 2.3 or an EB 3.5 into a Merkur XR4Ti. Attractive car, nice chassis, needs a heart transplant. Actually, the T-Coupe was slower (obviously due to weight) than the 5.0. But the SVO was in some cases faster than the 5.0 (depends on year) the 0-60 sucked, But in the end of the 1/4 they were neck and neck. Its the twisties that the SVO shined brightest. And would hold its own at the strip. In '85 the Camaro was scared of the T-Coupe. it was a drivers race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) I owned an 87 Turbo Coupe. I remember it was tested with a 0-60 time of 8.5 seconds with a top speed of 143. HP/TQ was 190/240. The available 5.0 was rated at 150 HP. When the Super Coupe came out in 89, it's 0-60 time was 7.5 seconds. Edited August 5, 2013 by StevenCaylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Seriously a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe doesn't have nostalgia? The SVO doesn't send out that nostalgic vibe? Its screams it for me. Were you born in the 80's? Nope, I was 12 when the 86 TC came out...I really don't have a good recollection of cars pre-1985...I started getting into them right around then. When I was in High School it was all about the 5.0L Mustang and the Camaro to a lesser extent. If I had to get a car from that time period, I'd get a 86 SVO...but I've seen so many of them whored out with V8 installs that makes me die a little bit when I see them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB390fe Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 The reason the 5.0 is more remembered is simple.... in 1987 I looked at both NEW. a 5.0 5spd notchback coupe with a/c and stereo (yes crank windows and all) sold for 11,700.00. An SVO was on the lot for 15k.... guess which car my 22 year old low income self bought? did I want the SVO... hell yes! Could I swing the cash (at the time) uh...nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 If I had to get a car from that time period, I'd get a 86 SVO...but I've seen so many of them whored out with V8 installs that makes me die a little bit when I see them. I thought the SVOs looked better without the flush headlights. BTW, if there's a SVO redux, it needs to have the biplane spoiler, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I thought the SVOs looked better without the flush headlights. BTW, if there's a SVO redux, it needs to have the biplane spoiler, right? ALL vehicles with 2.3 EB should have 2 level spoiler to pay proper tribute to SVO and XR4Ti 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Back on subject. I'd see the 2.3EB being a replacement for the 3.5NA engine. Somewhere in the 270HP range. The baby 2.7EB V6 is more likely to be the 3.7EB replacement. 305-310HP. But with more torque, they should be better motors overall. I did read of one guy with the 2.3 in a Ranger. When that died, he took the 2.3 turbo from the Thunderbird and stuck it in the Ranger. His mileage actually didn't go down much, as long as he stayed off the gas. I don't recall what he did for the trans though. I think he brought that over too. My dad used to be a mechanic back in the Thunderbird days of the turbo 2.3. He said the mechanics in his shop referred to it as the "Super Chicken". Not that it was supercharged... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 BTW, if there's a SVO redux, it needs to have the biplane spoiler, right? Might be hard to pull off with the expected Mustang Roofline LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Might be hard to pull off with the expected Mustang Roofline LOL Maybe extend the rear of the roof and use the same design as the current spoiler? There'll hopefully be a bi-spoiler for the Focus RS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.