But if I were going to all the trouble and expense to build a turbocharged street rod, I'd build it with an aluminum-headed 302 stroker.  It could be nearly as light as a stock 2.3 turbo Ford, but with much more torque. 

A modern 302 turbo street rod could be hella quick and fast. Even twenty-five years ago, with old suck-through technology and no intercooler, a home-turbocharged 302 in a featherweight rod could rip the strip.  See http://forums.carcraft.primediaautomotive.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=carcraft&msg=166.122

I know all about small block fords...........i have 5 mustangs........and working on a boss 302 for my 34 ford 5-w coupe.............just want something a little bit different for that car..........my dream "302" would be an iron eagle block or one of the new man-o-war blocks with 4.125" bore and a 3.25" stroke( i like to rev.)..........(347.46CID)..........with a set of air flow research heads........roller cam.....roller rockers........either turbo or procharger with intercooler...........and wanting to try a megasquirt EFI system.............

I guess that'd be alright.  The earlier T-Birds, however, do seem more popular among the Ford lovers.

What about the Mark VIII?  It's already got a DOHC and air springs. It's too heavy, but maybe it could be an interesting alternative project car.

I have both an 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 2.3 and a 90 Mark VII LSC 5.0 and I would love to see a article on either a 5.0 buildup or a 2.3 TC buildup for 400+ horsepower. Both the cars were dirt cheap TC less than $300 and Mark VII less than $400 with both cars in running condition and needing minor things(distributor for TC and Brakes and starter for the Mark VII). I was looking for a Mustang Roller but for the $1500-2500 for just a roller in my area these cars were the better deal. They both are fox chassis cars and can use most of the Mustang parts. They both have ABS with the Mark VII being 5 lug and both being just bigger versions of there smaller fox cousin. The TC will get a engine buildup with gas being expensive and the car getting better gas mileage since its a 5speed also and the Mark VII will get a buildup in coming years.

Oh and I say Yay to the T Bird buildup

We'd all love it. But it won't happen.

Freiburger wrote why in the current Hot Rod (Jan '06):

"But no matter how often magazines tell you it's neat to build Fairmonts [yeah!], Monte Carlos [gag!], and Volares [hmm?], no one actually does it. At least not en masse.  It's proof that magazines can't drive trends, they just cover them.  And the prevailing trend since 1970 is that guys want first-gen Camaros, Road Runners, GTOs, and similar stuff that was hot when new."

What about the "If it works on a Chevy, it'll work on anything" argument?  If it makes a Volare fast, won't it work on a Road Runner?  Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a '78 Volare with a 318 than a '65 Polara?  

I kind of think ford Thunderbirds are ugly. Every one of them.  Even the first ones, and the current ones.  I don't care what others think. I think most mustangs are ugly, and honestly the only camaro I find nice are the ones with hidden lights.  the other first gen, all second gen, third and 4th are ugly!  

I'd like to see more about the modular v8  

I could also say 71' chevelles are Ugly but I won't since I also have a 70' Malibu I'm building besides my 96' T-bird  (The thunderbird is my daily driver in the summer, soon to be an high 11 second v6 powered daily driver)

Should we take this as a vote for grafting a '68 Camaro RS front end on a Fox-body T-Bird?  Now that would be different.

Of course, not as "different" as the "1949 Thunderbird" . . .

http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/43540/

just had to put in my vote.

nay.

You're correct, but because most magazine build-ups are on whips owned by one of the staffers, I think it really means that these big-time scribes would rather be seen in bitchin vintage tin (not the real world rides the ordinary readers can afford).

And because less than one-percent of readers manage to get their cars featured, the magazines can pick from the best and most exotic.  Of course, if somebody really built a clean, quick and different Volare' (and they happen to show it at the few national events where the editors mine their features), they'd probably give it some ink.

Why not?  Does CC really need to have MORE '67-'69 Camaros?  Can't we all build SBCs in our sleep?  Is the only Ford worthy of CC the occasional, token Fox-body Mustang 5.0?  Is CC banned from building cars with REAL BACK SEATS (unless manufactured before 1971)?

I can't see how it would hurt anyone to cut some of the duplicative fluff from CC to cover Fox and MN-12 Thunderbirds.

its just my opinion. and i still stand by it. nay again.  

They need some thing like this on there cover.