• This thing is really nice. Basically a super-charged, IRS Fox-body. Please, someone tell me that there is an easy way to convert from mousey belts to regular belts on one of these. Surely the regular attachment points would still exist on the Fox platform.

    • Oops, I am wrong. This was not a Fox, it was a new platform:


      I still like it, however.

    • That's true.

      Later models got airbags and conventional belts, but the interior trim had been changed significantly by that point so I'm not sure how much is directly usable.

      These are a pretty nice car to drive – heavy, and not fast by present standards, but for their time they were pretty entertaining.

      Trivia: the early 5-speeds (like presumably, this one) got asymmetric rear axles, one side was a conventional solid bar, the other was a fabricated assembly with a large-diameter tube in the center, commonly referred to as the 'fat shaft'. This went largely unnoticed at the time, but it was done to create two slightly-spaced load peaks (reducing rear suspension shock loads and wheel hop) on hard launches.

      GM had to relearn this lesson a decade and a half later on the CTS-V. There were all kinds of aftermarket fixes offered for the Cadillac, pretty much all of which (solid subframe mounts, diff-mount braces, etc.) went barking off in the wrong direction.

      The suspension design was pretty good for its time, an era when all the Germans were still running around on Macstruts and semi-trailing arms. The Ford version got big cast-iron lower arms, the airbagged Lincoln Mark VIII got aluminum.

      The next US-market Ford IRS was the Mustang Cobra, which did not have asymmetric axles and doesn't seem to have any particular wheel-hop problems. Then there's two generations of IRS used in the Australian Falcons, and then the Lincoln LS, and now the current Mustang, and all these designs are quite different from one another.

    • Oh one other factor on these: if you think about buying, do your parts-availability research, because like most low-number Fords most significant bits have been NLA from Ford since the end of the Clinton Administration.

  • Had a buddy who had one got to drive it, clutch pedal was really stiff and not very good on Gas was what i took away from it. Not a fan of this body style….

    • To each their own. I always thought the Jack Telnack-era designs were one of the few times since 1970 that US Ford had gotten anything right.

  • I even drove the sister car AKA Cougar with a 5.0 had a few miles on it but what a POS always felt like it was about to self destruct…..i told the owner i would drive the company car from now on it was that bad close to a Dasher Diesel wagon i refused to drive it also.

    • I've driven several. None but the SCs actually moved when you pushed the right pedal; they weighed 4000lb and the base motor was a 140HP 3.8, the V8s made 200ish HP and generally less than the other platforms that got those engines (pushrod 302 and lame SOHC 4.6) because the hoodline constrained the shape of the intake.

      I recall being in the higher (heh, heh) parts of Colorado and New Mexico on business back when these things were new, and had a couple as rentals, and the 3.8 could barely get them out of the parking lot at that altitude.

  • My boss had a Couger XR7 with the supercharger and loved that car. When he was pushed out what cinched the deal was letting him take it with him.

  • >