T-birds, Yay or Nay??

The scoops are definitely open and connected to the intercooler, but I've always wondered how "functional" they are considering that they draw from the boundary layer of air.   Still, real, factory hood scoops on any car after 1972 are something to be celebrated  . . . .

I'd like to see CC try to build up a V8 Fox T-Bird--just to show how cheap it can be and what can be done with the non-HO 5.0.  Or maybe swap in a Modular motor . . . .  Or

Gotta love Mike Sitar's JY TURBO smoke . . . . http://www.toohighpsi.com

thanks for info,etc.  

I spent the last 3 years working on my project car, a 93 Thunderbird. Here are a few pictures taken last week end.

http://members.tccoa.com/392bird/hoodsep5.jpg

http://members.tccoa.com/392bird/arl15-11.jpg

http://members.tccoa.com/392bird/hood2.jpg

http://members.tccoa.com/392bird/rearfirewall.jpg

I have well over 100 pictures here of every part of the project.

http://members.tccoa.com/392bird/

That would seem like an obvious build, but the CC staffers have to comply with harsh Cali IM laws.  (that's one CARB all CCer love to hate)

Still, there's a lot of emissions-legal parts for the venerable 5.0 or even later modular mills (wouldn't a JY '05 3V 4.6 on spray look hot under the hood of a Fox T-Bird?).  So emissions isn't a reason not to build one.

The '83 and later T-birds make the RWD Monte Carlo/Regal/Cutlass/Grand Prixs look like "the box a car comes in!"

Come on, CC! Just do it before some utility buys up all of them for "pollution credits."

I was at the local eigth mile strip on friday, and saw an 85 t-bird with a 302 and a turbo running 14psi boost.  The only suspension work he did was boxed lower control arms and some fairly narrow slicks 8inches?

Anyway, the car pulled hard (it was quiet so it sounded goofy coming off of the line with the turbo)  It ran like 7.7 in the 1/8 mile.

The guy that built it was from florida, and was a super cool character.  

Lets see Car Craft do it!!  Show us what you can do to one Guys!

Yeah, I'd even read about something like that.  

The MN12 body (89-97 courgar T-bird) is a good start for a performance car.  A little heavy and the 94-97 SOHC is a worthless performance engine.  A cheap performance build-up of one of these cars would be a good read.   

"I'm lookin' for a fox," not the MN-12.  However, a "late model" T-Bird would be something different for CC.

The SOHC 4.6 is very responsive to hop-ups.   Ported PI heads make 'em come alive.  They are hardly "worthless!"

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/tech/0405mm_pats/

http://www.bossracing.net/Tech%20Articles/PI%20Headswap/PI%20Head%20Swap%20page1.htm

http://sites.reachtheworld.tv/waterNew/default.asp?T=505244&DID=1225

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/events/0303_MMFFshootout/

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0401mm_hp/

I  just joined the forums after noticing there was one in one of the newest issues and I find a discussion On T-birds right off the bat. I definatly think The MN-12's have potential as I have a 96' that just a Slightly modified

I only have a 3.8L but its enough to push all 3880lbs (with driver) to the 13.8 @ 99mph range. I have ported heads, ported stock intakes, 5.0 60mm TB, Custom ground cam, and a Vortech V1 S-trim @ 8psi on a 100,000 mile stock bottomend. This winter I'm building a Stroker V6 for it with Eagle rods, Ross pistons, and a 4.2L truck crank along with upping to boost to 14psi. I hope to be seeing low 12's with it next summer and this is my Daily Driver in the summer (logged 8000 miles on it this summer with the blower and a heavy foot).

And for the Chevy boys I also have a 70' Malibu 2dr I'm building into semi-pro touring ride with a EFI 383/200R4 combo

out of curiosity, why are you sticking with the 6 banger?

So people can ask me that same question all the time . I Just have a thing for doing something a little less ordinary. It a GREAT sleeper and I love the looks on people faces when they see I only have a 232 CID V6 under the hood. Also the V6 will make more power than IRS will handle anyways. It currently turns 274rwhp/299rwtq on a Dynojet, with 30 more cubes (stroker), more boost, and a sheetmetal upper intake I think I can crack the 400rwhp/400rwtq range. (quite a few mustang 3.8L guys already have and some are in the 500+rwhp/tq range with turbo setups. I also have a 91' 5.0L bird but thats my rusty winter beater. I'm also on the lookout for a 2 door Falcon to shove a Twin turbo 300-6 I've been dreaming about (currently have the 300-6 built and running 232hp 343tq N/A in a mud truck)  

"The '83 and later T-birds make the RWD Monte Carlo/Regal/Cutlass/Grand Prixs look like 'the box a car comes in!'"

LOL! I haven't heard that one in years!

After all the ink CC has spilled on Gen III F-bodies recently, it's only fair that they do an "alternative" fox build-up, isn't it. 

BTW, I wonder if Car Crafters will be able to buy any of the New Orleans flood-damaged engines?  That might be a screamin' cheap source for Modular cores . . . .

My parents had a 86 t bird and i loved it........one of the first cars i got to drive and take out all alone..........had 2.3 turbo...........off the line it sucked but at a rolling start it kicked ass......it became mine for a while ....replaced it with a 67 mustang with a 200 I-6 now a 302/ toploader 3 speed(2.99 first gears rock).............and i let it slip away before i really new what a 2.3 turbo motor was..........was v-8 blind........would love to have another one, one day.........with the 4........never had much luck with the 3.8..........in a friends 87 we blew 3 motors in 1 month.........with hand ported heads, port matched 2-v intake and a 420 CFM ford carb (get them off 429/460 big blocks just bore out the 2-v carb holes in the intake bigger) they moved good....just wouldn't hold together...........even with the engine under 5 grand........

And the '86 didn't have an intercooler. Just imagine the '88 (intercooler and full boost computer stock)

The good thing about the turbo 4 is that the basic engine is the rock-solid foundation of mini-stock oval racing. http://www.stockcarracing.com/projectbuild/95038/

 HD parts are cheap and plentiful.  http://www.esslingeracing.com/index.htm

400+ hp is easy.  http://www.turboford.org/faq/joe.shtml

That's the only problem..........i learned too late..........oh well........one day i am going to get another one...........going to put it in a 28-29 ford truck or 27 model t full fender coupe.........light weight and EVIL.........