Is it the Horsepower???

Topic: Is it the Horsepower??? (Read 2849 times) previous topic - next topic

Is it the Horsepower???

February 06, 2014, 11:23:19 PM

Curious what the opinions are regarding the lack of interest or market for these cars? If they would have had say another 100 or so more horsepower from the factory, would there be a collector market today? These cars were built relatively well for the day, handle well and have good lines.. in and out. You don't see many left on the road although tons were sold. So why no market?? Even extremely low mileage garage queens won't bring close to original sticker. Don't understand how a design so popular 30 years ago has virtually no interest today? I think it's the anemic motors. If the turbo and V8 would have had closer to 300hp I do believe there would be some interest.....and maybe even a market.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #1 – February 06, 2014, 11:42:14 PM

Quote from: birdman85;428545

If the turbo and V8 would have had closer to 300hp I do believe there would be some interest.....and maybe even a market.

In the late 80s chance of a 300Hp drive train was zero & none... Ford even planned on building a FWD Mustang till the Stang rank & file pitched a shiznit fit and that's why the Probe was born(and long since died)...

If they'd had 300Hp in Bird/Coug most likely they'd have been snapped up by the swappers, raped of the drive train for a Mustang or older Ford/Merc and carcass crushed to build a Yota, Kia or something ferrin'... Sorta what you see with 5.0 'Sploders...

Same happened to the big block Fairlanes & Torinos of the late '60s & early '70s(that were rated at 300Hp or higher), many were junked just to donate the drive train...

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #2 – February 07, 2014, 01:14:27 AM

you can thank CAFE and all that other garbage that comes from California,, don't worry though,, just reported in the news my 3 year ago prediction that our cars will soon become illegal to drive.
a very popular liberal topic now is "connected cars" and within that elite nich of dumb asses are a sub folder group who are saying that older vehicles can cause more harm to a mother in her smart car and that this should be regulated. no bs,,,, a little late to the game but was a sub agenda of the cash for clunkers program.

oh well.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #3 – February 07, 2014, 03:47:01 AM

my old cars are like my guns and other assorted Beau stuff.....they want it...come get it, try..to get it.

Most of the people on the road today who have had a license less than 10 years are unsafe because they have too much shiznit to do whilst driving. What a responsible person drives isn't a problem that needs fixing.

We don't need (insert subject of you preference here) control, we need stupid control. And that, folks, starts at the very top. Bullshiznit only seeps downhill.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #4 – February 07, 2014, 07:43:11 AM

I think if these cars had come with the 5.0 H.O like the Mark VII and Mustang, there may be more around.....possibly. I also think if they came with the 5.0 H.O, they may have taken some of the Mustang's "thunder" away. Back then the Mustang 5.0 H.O was THE car for going fast. The Birdmay have robbed a lot of that popularity. Being slightly heavier (not by too much) than a Mustang GT, and having, in my opinion, a better balanced package, who knows?

The Marks aren't around much either. With our cars, I think you either "get it", or you don't. Not much in the middle there. I would see a LOT of these cars in the salvage yard until steel went way up in price a few years ago and salvage yards started crushing everything. Now, rarely. For as many of these cars that were built, I have to believe there are still a lot of them out there somewhere.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #5 – February 07, 2014, 09:30:20 AM

Even with the HO it wouldn't have mattered too much at this point in the game. Early on? Yeah. 1997? Maybe.

Fox platform vehicles are finally starting to fall into those 2 categories that so many cars do when they start to hit desirable status and have been around for a bit of time (20+ years). Those are stock or close to it with perhaps some MINOR mods for safety and maybe power (think gears, an intake swap, maybe bigger brakes that fit stock wheels) or rip it apart and go nuts. Most guys who rip these cars apart are looking first and foremost at weight and size. Less weight and physical size equals easier to get speed out of whether in a straight line OR a twistie track. These cars LOOK a lot heavier than their Mustang brethren. That doesn't help. The luxury image and size kept the modifiers away early on, hence the lack of aftermarket support for suspension upgrades. There are options, but not too many when it comes to Catbird specific things.

Interestingly enough, the things that I think keep the interest low now were selling points when these were new in my opinion. These had to be distinct in order to sell well and they did. If they had been too similar to the Mustang then sales would have suffered on both accounts by eating into one another and leaving the personal luxury car share of the market open to GM's offerings -- which if you've sat in one you'll know were largely inferior to these cars.

Ultimately I think these cars are doomed to the fate of the first generation Mercury Cougar. Sporty, cool, unique, yet ultimately forgotten by most.....
There are pros to that as well as the cons though.....

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #6 – February 07, 2014, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: V8Demon;428567

Fox platform vehicles are finally starting to fall into those 2 categories that so many cars do when they start to hit desirable status and have been around for a bit of time (20+ years). Those are stock or close to it with perhaps some MINOR mods for safety and maybe power (think gears, an intake swap, maybe bigger brakes that fit stock wheels) or rip it apart and go nuts. Most guys who rip these cars apart are looking first and foremost at weight and size. Less weight and physical size equals easier to get speed out of whether in a straight line OR a twistie track. These cars LOOK a lot heavier than their Mustang brethren. That doesn't help. The luxury image and size kept the modifiers away early on, hence the lack of aftermarket support for suspension upgrades. There are options, but not too many when it comes to Catbird specific things.

Well my Thunderbird looks stock but it has extensive modifications, which are noticeable when the hood is popped. Where's that fit in :hick:?

The other thing is that the newest of these cars is 26 years old. Now there are really only two categories of these cars right now: decent taken car of cars that still look nice and/or are presentable or the beat to hell cars. Most of these cars that you find in classified ads are the later. They've been through at least three owners and are probably on their 4th or 5th owner. By the 3rd owner maintenance has been deferred, things have been damaged and not replaced, and the cars generally look like . Why? The 3rd-5th owners picked them up cheap and beat them to death because they don't have the money for a nice car or the money to fix what they have. It's kind of hard to have someone see the potential in a beat up old fox Thundercat if there are no nice ones around to compare it to. Plus trim/interior specific parts are pretty much made of unobtainium for most people. Forums and ebay are the only place to find parts and most of them aren't NOS stuff. If you find a beat up fox Thundercat it's very hard to restore it to showroom condition.

Secondly these are not GM cars. Take a look at how much 80's G-bodies go for. In the collector car/hot rod world GM cars usually go for the most money. Why? 350 Chevy/LSX swap FTMFW!!!! The only thing that beats a GM car in price is a 440/HEMI Mopar or a Mustang. GM was HUGE before the mid-late 90's and most people owned a GM car or lusted after one. The 80's Monte Carlo and Grand National are still well know cars. Thunderbird Turbo Coupe? What the hell is that?

I hope you're not buying "fun/collector" cars to make money. You never will unless it's a factory original 454 Chevelle or a 69 GT500KR. Buy something YOU like and don't care what it's worth. As long as you like it that's all that matters. Life is too short so go have fun with what ever car you like :D.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #7 – February 07, 2014, 11:02:21 AM

Quote from: vinnietbird;428561

I think if these cars had come with the 5.0 H.O like the Mark VII and Mustang, there may be more around.....possibly. I also think if they came with the 5.0 H.O, they may have taken some of the Mustang's "thunder" away. Back then the Mustang 5.0 H.O was THE car for going fast. The Birdmay have robbed a lot of that popularity. Being slightly heavier (not by too much) than a Mustang GT, and having, in my opinion, a better balanced package, who knows?

I think the weight difference depends on options. For instance when I was at the track last time there were two stock interior fox Mustangs on the scale. Both were AOD cars. 91 LX notch with a Trick Flow top end kit and a 180lb driver was 3100lbs. 89 GT with iron GT40s, GT40 intake, and a 170lb driver was 3300lbs. My Thunderbird with me (150lbs) 3700lbs. I've got a full optioned Thunderbird though so the weight difference between a fox Mustang and fox Thunderbird can be anywhere from 400-600lbs. That's about half a second in the quarter.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #8 – February 07, 2014, 11:38:06 AM

I'm glad these weren't GM cars. People look back and give GM (and the REST of the American auto industry) tons of grief for the mid 70's-late '80's offerings. I'll say this. On the WHOLE, I believe that GM's offerings in the late 70's were BETTER than their offerings that came later. The drivetrains did improve, yes. Some vehicles on the whole did improve, but overall they just slowly crept down.....until the mid 90's IMO (BEYOND if you count things such as the Alero). In their neverending attempt to revitalize and renew, they constantly ditched everything concerning a platform and never looked back for what might be redeeming from it and build on that.

I have 2 words that will sum up GM during this era: Cutlass Supreme.

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #9 – February 07, 2014, 05:36:54 PM

I've said it many times: These cars suffer today because in the 80's they were ahead of their time. They are too old to be new, but look too new to be old. All the modern styling of a 90's and even early 2000's car, with the power and creature features of an 80's car. A big part of any car's popularity is how it represents the era it comes from. When people look at a '66 Mustang or Chevelle they don't just see the car, they see the 60's as well. The 80's are better represented by boxy G-bodies and Fox Mustangs than they are by aero Birds and Cats. Consider also that nobody wants C4 Corvettes and 3rd gen F-bodies either - they were both too "modern" to represent the era, just like our catbirds. I mean, yes, C4's and 3G's command a premium over our cars, but not much of one, and they sell for peanuts compared to G-bodies and Fox Mustangs. The only reason they command a premium at all is, well, they're Corvettes and Camaros. That and the fact that you can't drive down the road without a decent SBC falling off a truck... Compare that to the FoxBirdCat's similarities, but slight differences to a Fox Mustang - just enough to turn a lot of people away (Different K-members, wheelbases, rear ends, control arms, etc). We all know these problems can be overcome, mainly by making Mustang stuff work, but most guys just take the easy route and go with a Mustang to begin with. There are also problems that aren't so easy to overcome - these cars use unique window motors, lock motors, window switches, headlight housings, etc - small stuff that can be very annoying when trying to keep one on the road.

Power is probably a factor as well, but not as much as you'd think. The 89-95 SC makes plenty of power but isn't worth its weight in s when compared to an 87-93 Mustang. A '66 T-Bird with a 390 (or even a 428) isn't worth as much as a '66 Mustang with a 289.

Also remember that outside of the 55-57 Birds and a few special 60's versions, T-Birds have never, and will never, enjoy the popularity (and pricing) of a Mustang. Cougars are in the same boat. Option-for-option a '67 Mustang will command more money than a '67 Cougar - even though most people would look at the Cougar and think it's cooler. Mustangs & F-bodies convey youth. T-Birds & Cougars convey old age. And they were marketed as such when new. Sad, but true.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. If these things were getting $5-$10k prices in reasonable condition I'd never even consider owning another one. I like 'em because they're cool and cheap. Let the Mustang guys pay more for less. Their cars are overpriced for what they are, ours are underpriced. Unless you're an investor, who do you think is better off in this situation?

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #10 – February 08, 2014, 01:50:18 PM

Never happen in Oklahoma. :)

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #11 – February 08, 2014, 01:52:49 PM

Quote from: jcassity;428553

you can thank CAFE and all that other garbage that comes from California,, don't worry though,, just reported in the news my 3 year ago prediction that our cars will soon become illegal to drive.
a very popular liberal topic now is "connected cars" and within that elite nich of dumb asses are a sub folder group who are saying that older vehicles can cause more harm to a mother in her smart car and that this should be regulated. no bs,,,, a little late to the game but was a sub agenda of the cash for clunkers program.

oh well.

Not in Oklahoma. :)

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #12 – February 08, 2014, 02:12:47 PM

All very interesting points! Personally, even though they share the Fox platform, I have never considered the Mustang to be in the same conversation with these cars. If you are building a racer, I get it, but if you compare originals they were aimed at different markets...youth vs a little more mature and performance vs luxury/performance. Plan on keeping mine and enjoying it in its original state for as long as I can. I have to admit though, there are some guys on here that have some really cool modified birds that I would love to take for a spin. These cars can look really good modified and when performance mods are made I bet they are a blast to drive! Suppose the main thing is to enjoy what you have. Every one of us has a one of a kind!

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #13 – February 09, 2014, 01:53:06 PM

Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;428554

my old cars are like my guns and other assorted Beau stuff.....they want it...come get it, try..to get it.

Most of the people on the road today who have had a license less than 10 years are unsafe because they have too much shiznit to do whilst driving. What a responsible person drives isn't a problem that needs fixing.

We don't need (insert subject of you preference here) control, we need stupid control. And that, folks, starts at the very top. Bullshiznit only seeps downhill.

Not only am i a car NUT i am considered a GUN NUT as well. And i came to the same conclusions as you years ago on these subjects. But lets look at the facts. After Newtown the STATE of CT banned high cap mags and so called assault weapons and i complied to the law in a sense!!! I did not tell them every aspect of the guns i own or the mags i posses. But either way they are useless as i can not use them with the threat of getting caught. So i moved them to another STATE where they are legal. BUT being as it may all a state has to do is ban a make and model of car and you are dun. That means if lets say a state bans Certain makes of cars you will be not be allowed to register it and insure it. So as the gun laws go with car laws either you break the law and throw the dice or MOVE out of that state. On a federal level we are all screwed. So for example my early vettes are illegal in CT because of the exhaust and what am i going to do about it. NOTHING. I drive them with a repair plate. Totally legal and my way around the law. But the average guy does not have DEALER PLATES so they are screwed. In conclusion the way this country is going it aint gettin any better soon. As the matter of fact it is going down hill faster than i predicted. I do agree with you 302 but the bottom line if the powers to be had there way we would be walking or in a 2 cylinder DIESEL. And we brought it on ourselves. I go to many seminars about things like this and they are planning on restricting certain cars we can own. But so far we are winning and i do not see that happening but certain groups would love it.

Remember these people that hate cars hunting and the shooting sports hate it when we have fun. There is no fun in there lives other than holding there thumbs down on regular FOLKS. Keep the faith 302 as we are on the same page more than you think. Remember shoot safe shoot often and share then sport!!

As far as the CATS go i do think it is a luxury sports car more than a performance car in some peoples eyes.It represented an older group of people that wanted a bigger car with performance and ford accomplished it with the Cougar and T Baird They are great cars with a small minority of people that see the beauty and performance built in these cars of the day.

Simply PUT PEOPLE COLLECT RAMBLERS. Different strokes as they say. Anyone with an eye for beauty can not with a straight face say these cars are anything but well engineered and COOL. Different yes but dam cool! And remember the early 302 @ 225 HP was not to shabby back then in the early emission compliant atmosphere. Thanks Tom

Is it the Horsepower???

Reply #14 – February 09, 2014, 06:57:08 PM

Tom I agree with everything you said there. Thankfully here in Missouri, we're pretty lucky with gun laws, as well as car laws. Here, if a vehicle is required to have cats (81 and newer, I believe) you can have them gutted, if you like. Only some big cities, like St Louis, and perhaps Kansas City require a sniffer.

By this time, say, folks like me....our cars (the ones that are modified, anyway) are probably cleaner running than they were back in 1988, due the better heads, intakes, so on, so forth.

As for guns, while not so relevant, I can slap a 10, 12, 15, 17, 30, blah blah whatever mag into my Walther PPQ pistols, and carry it, assuming I could fit a 30 round mag under my shirt. Of course, the 30 round unit is a Pro Mag, and I wouldn't have one of those up my ass if I had room for a Barrett .50 long gun. lol.

It's mostly dumbass politicos who have forced these stupid laws (remember cash for clunkers?) upon us, this also relates to guns, and while I won't explicitly say it...something in the news that involves the state-allowed usage of a medical grade of a certain plant that I think we all know I'm referring to.

My opinion; leave ell enough alone, I'm MUCH more concerned about the meth head I just chased out of my shop at gunpoint looking for starting fluid to make a new batch, than i am some old hippie who wants to toke and eat twinkies and just get by.

(disclaimer, I didn't actually have a methhead at gunpoint in my shop, but if there was one in there, and I knew about it, German steel would be removed from it's leather resting place muy ed pr0nto.)

Hell, for that matter, gun laws here are nice and relaxed....I could sell you a gun (if you were a Missourian, and not a felon or had been convicted of a domestic assault) a rifle, shotgun, OR pistol, with no requirement of an FFL transfer, or really, any kind of paperwork.
You give me the money, I hand over the firearm, and we go on with our day. It's actually more a pain in the ass to transfer a car title than it is any semi-auto or single shot firearm here. We do love our guns.

As for the tree huggers....global warming/cooling has happened before humankind was ever here. Tell me, did dinosaurs cause tings to heat up, or cool off? Industry has some to do with it, but not all of it, nor even a majority of it.

These politicians buy their way into their seats of power, using money from lobbyists who only benefit from the laws they write and pass, meanwhile the people who ARE this country are the ones who suffer by the bullshiznit.

Speaking of guns and shooting, in the warm months, almost every weekend, either of my neighbor's households are out in their back pastures, target practicing. I'm going to build a 3-4 lane range this spring, up to 200 yards (if not more) for practice with deer rifles.

I've also been seriously contemplating setting up cardboard targets in my barn, and using my airsoft pistols, having force on force training exercises. I've done a couple of classes, and it's very fun, and really changes your mind and skills when someone is firing (albeit with paintballs) at you.