thinking...decent cruiser

[john112deere]

I drove a lot of hard miles last weekend. 300 miles in ancient 2wd pickups in a bad snowstorm, pulled a car trailer through NYC and down the Jersey Turnpike and then back, loaded a bit off-balance.

Then I drove my aunt's '01 Volvo with the T5 engine 150 miles, and got back in my Ranger for another 150.

As I was driving the Volvo, and even more after I got back into the Ranger, a worrying, no, make that terrifying, thought entered my head...and it won't leave: I'm sick of driving that damn worn-out underpowered truck hundreds of miles up and down the interstate every couple weeks. I'm not comfortable cruising any faster than about 67-68 any more it in, the wind pushes it all over the road, it's got no A/C, and it's very noisy- which gets tiring.

Now, despite it's flaws, I love that little truck (my first car, we've been through a lot together, and it's never let me down) and selling it is basically not an option. Plus, I'm a college student with no steady income, so I will not take out a loan on a vehicle.

Which leaves me with the goal of buying a cheap, reliable, comfortable, fuel efficient highway cruiser. Add in the requirement that it have a manual trans, and a strong bias for Ford (or at least American) and rear-wheel drive, and there ain't much that really seems to suit the bill. Basically I want at least mid-to-upper 20s for mileage, something that will cruise smooth/comfortable at 80-85, and be comfortable enough I can put down 12-14 hour days at the wheel in succession.

My only thoughts are V6 Mustang (not too comfortable, expensive to insure) or (and this is the I like) a late '80s Crown Vic/Grand Marquis that I could re-do suspension to where it cruised nicely, and swap in a 5-speed from a Fox-body Mustang...

Thoughts on any parts of this?

 

[polarbear]

Which leaves me with the goal of buying a cheap, reliable, comfortable, fuel efficient highway cruiser. Add in the requirement that it have a manual trans,

One... and only one option comes to mind here. Volvo- the Swedish Brick style (240/740/940). A few Japanese mid-size come with 5 speeds (Altima, Camry, Accord), but they represent less than 5% of the build- good luck finding one.

As far as putting a manual in a Vic- the car was designed from the ground up (and softwared) for an automatic. Unless you have a lot more time and money on your hands than I think you do, there's no such thing as a simple tranny transplant anymore... at least on anything remotely resembling "later model.: e.g. built in the last 15 years or so.

 

[john112deere]

Hence the late '80s part of it. Mechanical tranny (AOD) and a carb...

I've done a little research on it, and there's enough overlap, drivetrain-wise between it and the Mustang, that the hardest part of the swap is fabbing up the clutch-pedal pivot.

As to the older Volvo...buddy had a CHERRY 740 a couple years back- 55k miles, his Dad knew the little old lady who bought it new in '88. Not a car I'd buy for it's driving characteristics, though- seats were too hard and flat, controls were slow to the point of being worrying (steering was like a tractor as far as turns lock-to-lock), slow off the line, buzzed like a 747 taking off at higher speeds.

Maybe with a bit of work it could have been better in some regards, but a few age/sitting gremlins aside, that car was probably one of the nicest '88 740s around (until his sister got ahold of it ), and it really didn't impress me...and he hated it worse than I did.

 

[Brian_B]

Cheap is hard to come by now (around here anyway). Anything that gets decent mileage is going up in price. Gas prices climbing over $3.00 a gallon around here is changing what people drive.

Dad just sold his Honda civic (4 banger, 5 speed, stripped). There was a long list of people trying to buy it. It sold long before it had a "for sale" sign in the window and at the price he wanted. No questions asked.

 

[polarbear]

Hence the late '80s part of it. Mechanical tranny (AOD) and a carb...

I've done a little research on it, and there's enough overlap, drivetrain-wise between it and the Mustang, that the hardest part of the swap is fabbing up the clutch-pedal pivot.

As to the older Volvo...buddy had a CHERRY 740 a couple years back- 55k miles, his Dad knew the little old lady who bought it new in '88. Not a car I'd buy for it's driving characteristics, though- seats were too hard and flat, controls were slow to the point of being worrying (steering was like a tractor as far as turns lock-to-lock), slow off the line, buzzed like a 747 taking off at higher speeds.

Maybe with a bit of work it could have been better in some regards, but a few age/sitting gremlins aside, that car was probably one of the nicest '88 740s around (until his sister got ahold of it ), and it really didn't impress me...and he hated it worse than I did.

I've owned three Volvos- very familiar with what they are... and aren't. Those hard, flat seats turn wonderful on long trips. Europeans understand that proper support actually involves a fairly hard seat (I've got a rotten back, but Volvo's and Saab's have the best long-distance seats in the biz). Puts people off on short trips though.

Steering- yep, 'tis slow. Ditto power. Unless said Volvo involves the word "Turbo," then everything changes. The turbo's only shared a body with the non-turbo models- everything else was different (powertrain, steering, suspension, brakes.. what else is there?).

re: 80's Crown Vic. Sorry- didn't think we were going that far back. You realize we're talking a car that's probably older than you are?

 

[Fellro]

You can find manual trannies in the T-birds from time to time. A little heavier than the Mustangs, but otherwise set up the same. You can get 4, 6 or 8 cylinder versions.

 

[john112deere]

Cheap is hard to come by now (around here anyway). Anything that gets decent mileage is going up in price. Gas prices climbing over $3.00 a gallon around here is changing what people drive.

Dad just sold his Honda civic (4 banger, 5 speed, stripped)....

I'm really not looking for ultimate fuel milage... More a comfortable, quiet, fast highway ride that doesn't suck any more gas than my Ranger (usually about 24 winter and 27 summer on the highway). I may have just passed my father on the "old guy car shopping" scale...

I've owned three Volvos- very familiar with what they are... and aren't. Those hard, flat seats turn wonderful on long trips. Europeans understand that proper support actually involves a fairly hard seat (I've got a rotten back, but Volvo's and Saab's have the best long-distance seats in the biz). Puts people off on short trips though.

Steering- yep, 'tis slow. Ditto power. Unless said Volvo involves the word "Turbo," then everything changes. The turbo's only shared a body with the non-turbo models- everything else was different (powertrain, steering, suspension, brakes.. what else is there?).

re: 80's Crown Vic. Sorry- didn't think we were going that far back. You realize we're talking a car that's probably older than you are?

You could be right on the seats, I never drove his more than an hour or so. Another thing was that they were leather, which I rarely find as comfortable as cloth. As to the rest, I'd probably get used to it within a few hundred miles and then not notice it anymore.

And yes, after three years of engineering school, I've mastered enough arithmetic to know whether a car is older than I am or not...

Seriously, though- building that car has been a dream of mine for a long time. I don't really have the resources to get where I want now (goals: comfortable cruise at 100 mph, quick enough to take to the strip and not be embarrassed, tow 2000 lb trailer easily, manual trans, full-on redneck appearance package: CB on the ceiling, saddle blanket seat covers...the whole bit). Whether I buy a rusty junker to play with for a few years, then seek out the ideal base for what I want, or just wait until I have the time and money to start out with the right car, is what I'm trying to figure out now.

A T-bird is a pretty cool idea...even though I worked on one less than a year ago, I'd more or less forgotten they came with a manual trans. I'll have to keep an eye out.

 

[Bob Ayers]

My first car was a Volvo! It was a 1964 Volvo 122S wagon that my dad bought new in Germany. My next car was a 1970 Volvo 144S, and then a 1973 Volvo 164E, which I rolled on it's top 3 times on the pavement! I rolled it in 1975, the insurance company totaled it, and that's when I bought the 1972 Volvo 1800E, which I still have today!

Ernie is correct, even the 1970 had "adjustable lumbar supports" in the front seats!!

 

[1970Custom]

You can find manual trannies in the T-birds from time to time. A little heavier than the Mustangs, but otherwise set up the same. You can get 4, 6 or 8 cylinder versions.

Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, come in 5spd, RWD, 2dr,

1983-1988 "Aero Birds"
1983 saw a much improved and aerodynamic car and the launch of the Turbo Coupe, and a much sportier image. Reputedly, in 1980 following a change in leadership, the new chief designer Jack Telnack was asked by executive Don Petersen "is this what you would want in your driveway?" Telnack's negative response prompted a redesign of the Thunderbird with the aero style that subsequently flowed on through the Taurus and various Lincolns. In 1987, the Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was redesigned and came with such notable features as automatic ride control, anti-lock brakes, and the intercooled turbocharged engine similar to that of the Ford Mustang SVO. All this resulted in a personal luxury car that produced 190 horsepower (142 kW) from a 2.3 L 4-cylinder engine and had a 146 mph (235 km/h) top speed. The Turbo Coupe was Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 1987.
The 1983 Ford Thunderbird was built on the same "Fox platform" as many other Ford products including the 1980-82 Thunderbird and the Ford Mustang. Unlike the previous generation T-Bird, the new-for-1983 model was redesigned with a more aerodynamic look. The drag coefficient of this body style was a mere 0.35. The 1983 T-Bird came in base, Heritage, and Turbo Coupe models. Both the base and the Heritage came standard with a 3.8 L (232 in³) Essex V6 that produced 110 horsepower (82 kW) mated to a 3 speed automatic. A new 5.0 L (302 in³) Windsor V8 with 140 horsepower (104 kW) was available with the former two models as well. The Turbo Coupe, the top-of-the-line model was special for several reasons. It used a 2.3 L (140 in³) turbocharged 4-cylinder engine with Ford's EEC-IV electronic engine control system. Unlike the other models, the Turbo Coupe came with a standard 5-speed manual transmission. Other improvements included a limited-slip differential (called "Traction-Lok"), larger tires and wheels, and a sportier interior complete with analog gauges.
For 1984, the Thunderbird few changes were made. The Turbo Coupe gained a 3-speed automatic transmission as an option. A "FILA" model was available, which featured unique paint and wheel choices, as well as badging to provide the car a more European feel.
By 1985, the Turbo Coupe gained power to 155 horsepower (116 kW), and all models received a new interior. A 30th Anniversary Edition model was offered, that featured unique blue paint and stripes, and came very well loaded with options. It was loosely based on the Elan model and most models came with the V8.
By 1986, Ford was already hard at work on the so-called "MN12" project. Supposed to compete against the BMW 6-Series, Ford believed that the new Thunderbird would be too big a change for the public and still wanted to capitalize on the success that the "Aero-Bird" brought. So for 1987, replacing the Elan were new LX and Sport models. The latter came with the V8 while the LX came with the V6. The Turbo Coupe earned the honor of being the Motor Trend Car of the Year for 1987. The 2.3 L turbo-4 now included the air-to-air intercooler that was found in the Ford Mustang SVO and boosted power up to 190 horsepower (142 kW) for the 5-speed manual transmission. New for the Turbo Coupe was a 4-speed automatic rated at 150 horsepower (112 kW). The automatic had detuned turbo boost of 9.5 lbf/in² (65.5 kPa or 0.655 bar) instead of 10 to 15 lbf/in² (70 to 100 kPa or 0.69 to 1.03 bar). Ford's rationale for that was "transmission durability". Otherwise, the Turbo Coupe also came with anti-lock 4-wheel disc brakes, Automatic Ride Control, and 16-inch 225/60VR performance tires.
1988, the final year for the Turbo Coupe, saw only a minor change. The 5-speed manual transmission now allowed the full 15 lbf/in² of boost in all forward gears (as opposed to excluding the first two gears). The Turbo Coupe was replaced in 1989 by the Super Coupe which had a 3.8 L supercharged V6 engine—a radical departure from the old turbo-4.

 

[1970Custom]

And there's also the T-Bird Super Coupe

1989-1997 "Super Birds"
In 1989, the new, much-anticipated Thunderbird model premiered. Classified as the MN-12 (Mid-Size North American Project 12), the Thunderbird now had four-wheel independent suspension and a slightly smaller, more aerodynamic body. Engine options fell to only two for 1989 as Ford dropped the V8 option for the new T-bird. The base and LX models were powered by the 140 hp (104 kW) 3.8L OHV V6, which many felt was underpowered for the almost 3800 lb (1725 kg) car.
A 210 hp (157 kW), 315 lb·ft (427 N·m) torque supercharged and intercooled version of the 3.8 L V6 was included in the top-of-the-line Super Coupe. The Super Coupe was available with a 5-speed Mazda-derived manual transmission as well as Ford's own AOD 4-speed automatic transmission. The base and LX Thunderbirds could only be ordered with the AOD. The Thunderbird SC was Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 1989. The 8.2 to 1 compression ratio was combined with six computer controlled, sequential fuel injectors. When running at a maximum 5,600 rpm, the supercharger provided 12 psi of boost, producing 210 bhp (157 kW) at 4000 rpm and 315 lb·ft (427 N·m) of torque at 2600 rpm. The 5.0L Windsor did return in 1991-93 models.
In spite of this the car was considered a failure by some in management; it badly missed its weight and cost targets, and the higher price needed to pay for the improved features resulted in a big decrease in production volume compared with the previous model. The program manager was publicly criticized by Ford Chairman Harold A. Poling at the company's internal celebration of the Car of the Year award, and he resigned a short time later. The Lorain Assembly Plant reduced line speed from over 70 per hour to 40 per hour because of the reduced demand.
In 1994, the Thunderbird received some minor exterior updates and a redesigned interior that featured new sweeping curves on the door panels and dashboard areas, but the most dramatic change was the new 205 hp (153 kW) 4.6L SOHC V8 which replaced the iconic and much-loved 5.0. The 4.6 brought with it an updated electronic control system (EEC-V), and an electronically-controlled 4R70W automatic transmission. The Super Coupe continued on in 1994 with the same supercharged V6 as before, but now with 230 hp (172 kW) and 330 ft·lbf (447 N·m) of torque. This was made possible due to a number of changes. The M90 supercharger was given a larger square style inlet, a larger attaching inlet plenum, and teflon coated rotors. The engine received larger fuel injectors and an increase in compression to 8.6:1. These increases in output would be short-lived, however, as the Thunderbird Super Coupe was discontinued after the 1995 model year. In 1996, the Thunderbird received its last styling update. Available in LX (V6 or V8) or Sport (V8 only) trims, both featured redesigned headlights and taillights, smoother re-styled front and rear fascias, body side cladding, new wheels (15 inch on LX, 16 inch on Sport), and a slight hood bulge, which was necessary to fit the updated 4.6L engine's taller intake manifold, now composite. V8 models still made 205 hp (153 kW), but now made 280 ft·lbf (380 N·m) of torque, an increase of 15 ft·lbf (20 N·m). Unfortunately for owners, the all-composite intake had a tendency to crack and leak antifreeze. (Some 1997s are covered by a class action lawsuit settled by Ford late in 2005 - see Intake Manifold Defect for details.) The base LX model continued to use the 3.8L V6 as its engine but now made use of the EEC-V computer which before was only found in 4.6L V8-equipped models. Torque output from the V6 remained the same as before but horsepower increased to 145 for 1996. In 1997, Ford made few notable changes, trying to save as much money as they could on the floundering coupe. As a result, the 1997 Thunderbird's appeal suffered even more, as the only options available were power sunroof, power driver seat, remote keyless entry, and a CD player. A low drag coefficient contributed to an impressive and consistent 24-28 mpg on the highway.
In 1997 high performance Thunderbirds were released. The four prototypes produced by Ford's Special Vehicle Engineering division came with Cobra "R" brakes and wheels, a Tremec 5-speed manual transmission, and featured a 4.6 liter, DOHC V8 engine similar to that found in the SVT Mustang Cobra. The SVE Thunderbirds also came with a cowl hood to accommodate the Eaton supercharger sitting atop the modular motor. However, this high-performance Thunderbird was not to be, as Ford not only pulled the plug on this project, but on the entire Thunderbird/Cougar line to close the 1997 model year. The last MN-12 Thunderbird rolled off the assembly line in Lorain, Ohio, on September 4, 1997.

 

[polarbear]

My first car was a Volvo! It was a 1964 Volvo 122S wagon that my dad bought new in Germany. My next car was a 1970 Volvo 144S, and then a 1973 Volvo 164E, which I rolled on it's top 3 times on the pavement! I rolled it in 1975, the insurance company totaled it, and that's when I bought the 1972 Volvo 1800E, which I still have today!

Ernie is correct, even the 1970 had "adjustable lumbar supports" in the front seats!!

Those old wagons are worth a small fortune up here now. I had a '71 142S, dad had a '73 164E, then a mid 80's 242 and a '86 245GL Wagon. Right now I wouldn't mind finding a nice 740 or 940 Turbo Wagon. They're around, but most have a gazillion miles on them. Not too many foreign brands I get excited about- Swedish Bricks and older Mercedes Diesels are on the top of my list. Both manufacturers wrote the book on durability and safety.

I just realized you own both- good man!

 

[Bob Ayers]

Those old wagons are worth a small fortune up here now. I had a '71 142S, dad had a '73 164E, then a mid 80's 242 and a '86 245GL Wagon. Right now I wouldn't mind finding a nice 740 or 940 Turbo Wagon. They're around, but most have a gazillion miles on them. Not too many foreign brands I get excited about- Swedish Bricks and older Mercedes Diesels are on the top of my list. Both manufacturers wrote the book on durability and safety.

I just realized you own both- good man!

Small world Ernie!!!!

I heard a bit of trivia years ago, the Volvo B18 4 cylinder engine had more main bearing area than a Chevy 350, with 4-bolt mains! The B18 was a 1800CC engine, that went to the B20 (2000CC) in 1969. These were pushrod engines (Not OHC) with not much power, but would run forever!!

Just remember, if you buy a Volvo, your buying a Ford!!!

 

[john112deere]

Uh-oh...Just saw someone who shoved a 400 hp 302 under the hood of an early '80s Volvo, looks like he did it all the right way. Wants more for it than I want to spend, but I could almost afford it if I really wanted to.

Bad idea, though- too hard on gas, too easy to get in trouble, and too nice of a car for what I want.

Gonna have to start looking for a Thunderbird with the 2.3t, I think... Ugly in a way I kinda like, and I've been very happy with the N/A 2.3 in my Ranger. Not crazy about the amount of electronic crap on that car, but all the 'Birds with manuals are the top-line models.

 

[Fellro]

You can even pick up Turbo Coupes, surpisingly though, the price isn't all that sky high generally. If you were closer, and wanted a 302, a friend has a SC HO302 version...

 

[polarbear]

Uh-oh...Just saw someone who shoved a 400 hp 302 under the hood of an early '80s Volvo, looks like he did it all the right way. Wants more for it than I want to spend, but I could almost afford it if I really wanted to.

Bad idea, though- too hard on gas, too easy to get in trouble, and too nice of a car for what I want.

Gonna have to start looking for a Thunderbird with the 2.3t, I think... Ugly in a way I kinda like, and I've been very happy with the N/A 2.3 in my Ranger. Not crazy about the amount of electronic crap on that car, but all the 'Birds with manuals are the top-line models.

Google up the Volvette. Twin Turbo Corvette 6.0 liter in a 740 Turbo Wagon. Looks fundamentally stock, insanely fast. Of interest- stock driveline and rear end, which sez something about how the older Volvo's were built.

 

[89frankenford]

Uh-oh...Just saw someone who shoved a 400 hp 302 under the hood of an early '80s Volvo, looks like he did it all the right way. Wants more for it than I want to spend, but I could almost afford it if I really wanted to.

Bad idea, though- too hard on gas, too easy to get in trouble, and too nice of a car for what I want.

Gonna have to start looking for a Thunderbird with the 2.3t, I think... Ugly in a way I kinda like, and I've been very happy with the N/A 2.3 in my Ranger. Not crazy about the amount of electronic crap on that car, but all the 'Birds with manuals are the top-line models.

haha i saw that in craigslist! i was looking at it also. looks pretty sick in the pictures.

 

[john112deere]

Same kid built a Volmaro (LS-whatever and six-speed out of a Camaro in a 740) a few years back...again, looked bone-stock. I think he might'a blown up the rear end in it, though.

He's a UM grad, I met him once or twice... Knows his stuff, and seems to replace cars before he needs to refill the windshield-washer tank.

If that Volmaro was for sale today for what he was asking for it then, I might be it's new owner.