Don't look here, Oldraven..

Topic: Don't look here, Oldraven.. (Read 2789 times) previous topic - next topic

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #15 – August 17, 2006, 02:07:08 AM

I rather like the focus, but after drinving around in a freinds 2000, what is the point? the car sucks. Its slightly faster then my cougar, but there are so many problems with it already.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #16 – August 17, 2006, 02:35:13 AM

Quote from: Haystack

Its slightly faster then my cougar, but there are so many problems with it already.

My 2001 would kick the out of my cougar. But then it blew out 3rd gear. The engine wireing harness started falling apart. The buttons on the dash started sticking.....

Ya they are nice when new then they start going down hill and fast.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #17 – August 17, 2006, 02:18:51 PM

OK, here's today's idea: Take the Aussie Falcon, give it doors similar to the Mazda RX-8.. two big main doors and two smaller suicide half-doors.. give it the TT I6, a 6-speed, and AWD if available as mentioned above.. and bring it on over. THAT would be interesting.. to me, anyway. I'd photoshop one up if I could do that sort of thing.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #18 – August 17, 2006, 06:51:59 PM

You really can't get away from cars resembling other cars anymore.
I think the earlier posted Falcon looks like a late 90's Malibu on steroids.

Hell, even trucks can't escape it. Look at the change in sales Dodge had with the redesign of their trucks after '93 starting in the '94 model year. Now other manufacturers look like they are trying to bank on their style of the big grill with lower sitting smaller headlights. Look at the Ford F-250 and up and you'll see what I mean.

I've liked how Dodge has given their cars a bold design and each one was different in it's own special way. Although I think now that bold edgy in your face styling that they are giving EVERY new design is getting old quick.

Chevy's cars are appealing IMO. I drove an '06 Impala while my Tib was in the shop and I really liked the styling and ride. The get up and go was terrific. Interior wasn't as nice as it could be but it was a stripped base model anyway.

Ford's are just not appealing at all to me. Besides every time I pass the dealership, they have every Mustang in their inventory in the front row facing the road. They are relying on it wayy too much.

Hyundai I think does have appealing cars although the new accent is a step way in the wrong direction. I'm very happy with mine. 33K miles and no major problems. Just a couple small nuisances that the warrenty took care of. The car isn't a performer but compared to the competition of other cars in it's class, it's the most bang for the buck and it's styling sets it far apart from the rest.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #19 – August 18, 2006, 01:22:09 AM

I totally agree with 351bird in his statements... I've been saying the exact same thing... Hell its almost as bad as Dodge's "lets put a 351 hemi in everything:hick:" idea... Ford is way too lacking in thier new selection...

I had an idea alil while ago tho... What if ford remade the Turbo Coupe... Y'know, give it a fresher'sh fox-body'sh design... Mabye spice it up alil bit... and then instead of going mild with a 4.6L, drop in a 460 Twin-Turbo... Tell me that wouldnt sell!!! For one it would be appealing to pretty much every T-bird guy in this forum and for two it would be a fresh Idea that would easily spank a z06 vette... I know costs would be a major issue but c'mon! That would be crazy!

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #20 – August 18, 2006, 02:06:43 AM

Pretty much every guy in the forum? Not quite. Some of us don't chase after the biggest possible V8 we can cram into our cars. Some, like Chuck and myself, don't even care if it's not a V8 at all or even prefer it not to be a V8. Note that the car I've been mentioning here (the Aussie Falcon) is a twin-turbo inline 6. I would take that over a 460 any day of the week no matter how much more horsepower the 460 made. I just like inline 6s. And as I pointed out in the comments that brought me to start this thread, I have plenty of V8s as it is. (five) Don't need or want any more. In fact, I'm trying to get rid of at least one of them.. and one of my ultimate goals is to find a Fairmont or Zephyr and build it up with an all-aluminum 2.5T.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #21 – August 18, 2006, 03:00:05 AM

Quote from: Bird351

Pretty much every guy in the forum? Not quite. Some of us don't chase after the biggest possible V8 we can cram into our cars. Some, like Chuck and myself, don't even care if it's not a V8 at all

I drive a 1.0L 3cyl :D

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #22 – August 18, 2006, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: 88_302_tcoupe

I had an idea alil while ago tho... What if ford remade the Turbo Coupe... Y'know, give it a fresher'sh fox-body'sh design... Mabye spice it up alil bit... and then instead of going mild with a 4.6L, drop in a 460 Twin-Turbo... Tell me that wouldnt sell!!!

OK, I'm telling you: That wouldn't sell. OUr cars are not old enough to be brought back as a "retro" design, and even when new they weren't particularly sought after. Gas is over three bucks a gallon, so a twin-turbo V8 of any displacement wouldn't sell. The 460's been out of production for nearly a decade, and at its best I don't think it ever produced the power of a plain ol' 5.4. It may have produced much more torque, but I don't remember any big horsepower numbers from the 460.

Face it: The Windsor and FE are both dead. The modular is Fords engine of the moment and forseeable future. If a new T-Bird or Cougar ever does surface it will most likely be powered by one. Even if Ford does some day reintroduce pushrods (like Chrysler did with the Hemi) it would be a new engine, not a Windsor.

Here's a better idea: Take the Aussie falcon coupe, bring it over here, and call it Thunderbird. Better idea as it is, though, it won't happen because A) Pontiac tried that with the GTO and failed and B) Ford has ruined the Thunderbird name with that retro shiznitpile a few years back

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #23 – August 18, 2006, 03:57:34 PM

The T-bird name was ped on long before the last incarnation. *points to the 1970s* At this point they could stick the T-bird name on a souped-up golf cart and it probably wouldn't do too much more damage than has been done already.

I don't think you can compare the Monaro/GTO thing and this possible (in our minds) Falcon/T-bird thing. Maybe I missed some other re-issue of the GTO name, but when I think of GTO I only think of the late 60s and then today's attempt with the Monaro. With only two to compare between, it's easy to all over the Monaro version. When I think of T-bird I think of the 50s 2-seater, the 60s suicide-doored land-yacht, the 70s barges, the box-Fox-Bird, the aero-Bird, the fat-assed MN12s, and this last 2-seater. What would you put a Falcon-based T-bird up against for the same comparison? Let's say they went with my suggestion, a Falcon with RX8-style doors.. would you compare that to the suicide-doored 60s boat? Would you compare it to our cars? (I have thought of attempting those RX8-style mini suicide doors on my 4-eyed)

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #24 – August 18, 2006, 04:58:36 PM

I will apologize for the py photshop job. But you said you wanted to see a RX8 stlye door on the Falcon. So I did the best I could.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #25 – August 18, 2006, 09:03:21 PM

Quote from: Bird351

(I have thought of attempting those RX8-style mini suicide doors on my 4-eyed)

Funny, way back in '98 when I had the '88 LS I was dreaming of putting suicide doors on it. This was when the Saturn 3-door coupe made its debut (Saturn did it before Mazda) and I thought the lines of the Cougar just begged for such a mod. You could have the whole side of the car from the base of the backlight to the back of the front door open, and the roof line and upside down quarter window would work great with the design.

Then again, I also had dreams of a 2-door 85 T-Bird wagon with removable rear portion of the roof (such as the optional roof on early 90's Nissan Pulsars)... And my current if-I-ever-win-the-lotto dream is a GT-powered (supercharged, aluminum 5.4 DOHC), all-wheel-drive (Lincoln Navigator transfer case), 4-wheel-independent-suspension, 87-88 Cougar. I gotta stop having these dreams :hick:

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #26 – August 19, 2006, 03:50:16 PM

Hahaha.. I finally got someone over there who took a bit of offense to my Rustang-bashing. I'll quote my response over here in case they delete it:

Quote

Someone’s getting a little sensitive about their Rustang and dissenting opinions on it. :D Can’t say I’m surprised.

Yes, you ARE talking to the wrong person.. the RIGHT person would be someone who cares how new the Rustang chassis is vs. the Aussie Falcon. What you have in the way of older chassis is irrelevant, because you were talking to me and not yourself. If you were talking to yourself, then what would’ve been the point of posting?

I live in southwest Florida, and most of my cars are from Florida. Neither of my Marks have more than a couple rust spots and some surface rust.. and the worst rust out of any of the four cars is the door rot on my ‘86 T-bird, but that car spent some of its life in Michigan. (my ‘85 Ram D100 also lacks anything worse than surface rust from spots where the paint faded and chipped.. 21 years in the sun will do that) I’d say it’s not too bad for four cars no younger than 17 years old, but you’ll probably say differently just to argue. All my subframes are just fine, thanks. We don’t salt our roads down here like they were french fries from McDogfood’s.

No wonder you think Foxes are , you’ve owned the bargain-basp00get Foxes. I’ve also had two Capris and a Fairmont, and I’d say the T-birds and Mark VIIs are a definite improvement over the lower Foxes. Enough so that if and when I do find a Fairmont or Zephyr to add to the collection, I’ll be trying to add the spare interior from my parts LSC to it.

I would probably say I have no interest in the LS or latest T-bird.

Enjoy a car that looks like someone’s droopy saggy depressed grandmother with her eyes too far apart on her head, like a deer. No, I don’t mean it looks like a grandmother should be driving a Rustang.. it looks like it IS someone’s grandmother. The “retro charm” is definitely wearing off. (and yes, I did throw this comment in because it was a little obvious you were taking the Rustang-bashing personally.. hah) I’d still take my Marks or my T-birds over any Rustang. To me, they have far more class than any Rustang will ever have. Sure, the Rustang may be faster, but I rarely drive above 75 mph anyway.. and I have absolutely zero interest in racing, officially or unofficially, so what’s the point? I have nothing to prove to the snot-nosed teens of the world.

Hell, I’d rather drive a Pinto.

Wake me up when you make interesting cars again, Ford. Until then, I’ll keep my 80s Fords. The styling is more interesting to me, they’re generally fast enough for my wants and needs, and *gasp* they actually get as good as or better mileage than some newer cars.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/bymanuNF.shtml
- Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic (5 speed), Regular: 17 city, 23 highway
- Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Manual (5 speed), Regular: 17 city, 25 highway
- Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Manual (6 speed), Premium: 15 city, 21 highway
- Lincoln Mark VII 8 cyl, 4.9 L, Automatic (4 sp), Regular: 17 city, 24 highway (that’s about right.. I don’t drive it like my hair’s on fire)
- Ford Thunderbird 8 cyl, 4.9 L, Automatic (4 sp), Regular: 18 city, 27 highway (that too)

With AODs and 17-18 year old EFI systems in both Foxes, even! (fear the mighty EEC-IV.. hahaha) Might have something to do with me not having to lug around all that extra nanny-state garbage.

See you next Tuesday, when vacation ends. Goin’ out of town and I’m not taking “da intarweb” with me.

Time to start getting ready to leave.. have fun, folks.

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #27 – August 19, 2006, 04:03:16 PM

yeah, I'll admit to wanting a new Mousesting when they first released the '05 versions..but now they're like bellybuttons-everybody has one.
I think Ford is not really financially ready to have another white elephant (that latest "retro-styled Tbird i mean)
I would guess GM is in the same boat...hopefully the new Camaro and Challenger/whatchamacallit brings out more old names with new faces...tastefully done, and not quite so retro influenced...i mean, c'mon...a little similarity, but jeeze... think looks like it coulda came out in 1974...from a distance anyway. (new mustang i mean)
I guess my point here is that i think Ford, GM, and DCX had better start gettin' their collective asses in gear...right now, if I were to buy a semi-performance car new...i'd probably look at imports first..and i'm am a straight up die hard Ford fan.
Hell, if i wasn't worried about gas, and mileage acspoogealated, I'd buy a Lightning and call it done.
Have fun Bird351 :D

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #28 – August 21, 2006, 05:53:17 PM

Believe it or not, I'm with you all the way on this one. As much as I consider myself a VW/Chevy guy, I do think some of the most appealing cars on earth were made by Ford and its own. I just haven't seen that in anything they've built in quite some time. Maybe a handful in my lifetime would I consider owning.

As for you being a Die-hard, I did think that, but not so much as I thought you had a royal hate on for the chebby's. It turns out you've simply had some really bad experiences with brick wall Die-hards on the other side of the street.

And I hope you get those meds, or they find an alternative that helps. Having your ass kicked by a Basketball team must suck.

-cheers

Don't look here, Oldraven..

Reply #29 – August 21, 2006, 05:56:38 PM

Oh, and a Falcon based anything would be amazing. So long as it lost a tonne first. That thing is no featherweight. I'll welcome the powertrain any time, though, in any machine.