The Ford Turbo Coupes

[Meotchh]

Should they be considered muscle cars?

http://hooniverse.com/2013/11/22/hooniverse-obscure-muscle-car-parking-garage-the-ford-turbo-coupes-mustang-svo-t-bird-turbo-and-merkur-xr4ti/

[dagenham]

Just skimming over the mustang part it looks like a decent article.

[FoxBuddy]

Interesting reading especially the reader comments at the bottom. Really like the link to the picture of the DOHC-SVO by one of the last commenters. http://themustangsource.com/timeline/79-86/86/DOHC-SVO-2.jpg

[BLK BRD 88]

I owned several GTOs in the 60s and I always thought that muscle car meant; mid size car with a large displacement, high horsepower engine. Since I thought of muscle cars as having 300+hp, it is hard for me to consider anything with 175 hp. a muscle car.
If the 80s cars are to be thought of as muscle cars I think they need to be called "second generation" muscle or something to separate them from the true early Musclers.
That is the first time I have seen a pic of the green SVOs
Ron

[dznj]

I would really like to find a nice low mile '87 or '88 TC to add to the stable someday.... I think Ford went all-in on those cars back in the day.

D

[Laredo]

Should they be considered muscle cars?

No! They might fit the Webster's definition - but not most real car guys' idea of a true muscle car.

The Merriam-Webster (http://www.svocop.com/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary) dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."


I owned several GTOs in the 60s and I always thought that muscle car meant; mid size car with a large displacement, high horsepower engine....

I'm with Ron ^^ and Peter...

According to Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, a "muscle car" is "exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder (http://www.svocop.com/wiki/Hot_rod)'s philosophy of taking a small car and putting a large-displacement engine in it. Henshaw further asserts that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity", or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars.

[JTurbo]

Cool article. But I don't think the 80's era FoMoCo turbo vehicle will ever be considered muscle cars.

They are great driving cars for enthusiasts and ahead of their time from a technology stand point.

The older I get the less I like technology especially in cars.

JT

[BLK BRD 88]

While I have a hard time thinking of the Turbo Coupes as muscle cars, I am still very fond of them.
I currently own two 88s & one 87.
I believe that, like some Studebakers from the early 60s, they were way ahead of their time. I get a lot of strange comments on my black 88 at car cruises. People who aren't familiar with them are surprised that it isn't a newer car, while others are dismayed that I would put a little four cylinder in a Thunderbird? LOL
I believe that the Turbo Coupes, especially the 87/88s, are in a class of their own when it comes to luxury sport coupes that are kind of timeless.
Ron

[rodster]

.....I currently own two 88s & one 87....


Thinking you might like the 87/88's?? :stick_poke: :cool: (Feel free to share some pictures)

I have 2 83's, a Heritage and a TC and have a 87/88 on my wish list someday ;)

Muscle cars they aren't but I too agree the TBirds are in a class of their own.

[BLK BRD 88]

He said I could^^^^^^^

Pic of the 88s from last summer. 87 is not a runner, basically bought it for engine & a few other parts.
http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j430/ronelias/WhiteBird/BirdsofafeatherBlkcropped_zps055e27a6.jpg (http://s1085.photobucket.com/user/ronelias/media/WhiteBird/BirdsofafeatherBlkcropped_zps055e27a6.jpg.html)

[rodster]

Oooo ahhhhhh, very nice! :like2:

Thanks for sharing!

[Meotchh]

I guess the title of the thread might have been misleading. The article was intended for all 2.3T Ford & Mercur cars. The latest replies seem to be going in the direction of the car with the Turbo Coupe title. Anyway, I agree that none of those cars should be considered muscle cars. It's cool that the cars are drumming up interest. Even the latest 2.3T Mustang is by no means a muscle car, but still a cool concept with alot of potential.

[BLK BRD 88]

Sorry,
I for one didn't mean to take the thread on a detour.....I'll ban myself for the rest of the weekend.
Ron

[MikeFleming]

.I'll ban myself for the rest of the weekend. That seems rather a harsh sentence - it being a 3-day weekend and all (in Arizona).

[rodster]

I don't think you can be self-banned for posting pictures of 2 - 2.3 turbo cars. :cool: Well neither of them are red so that may be the only technicality.

[TheSVOTrust]

Photo credits to Dale Amy for my cars. (He should have done this)

[escogt]

Those '87- '88 Thunderbirds are simply beautiful. I too have always wanted a Turbo Coupe.

[Sick Puppy]

Performance cars = Yes
Muscle cars = No

Just to throw a curve in, the original Mustang was called a "pony car". Does that make SVOs "pony cars"?


That is the first time I have seen a pic of the green SVOs
Ron

Roger (SVOninjaboy on TF) has a green one I saw at Carlisle a few years ago. I think its a very nice color (says the guy with two RED SVOs).

I own(ed) some TCs, excellent "road" cars, drove an '88 ~100 miles round trip to work for a while. Luxury and performance in the same package. I also had an '86 5.0 Mustang GT at the time and prefered the TC for the commute hands down.

[Srt6]

I think they fall in line more with tuner cars - either way... I'M A FAN