the Thunderbird was a v6 with a supercharger and made 210 hp, with tons of torque, I'd give it to the Thunderbird with rear drive, they're tractor gets traction!
In fact, the shift action in the Borg-Warner T5 in last year's car felt slicker, despite its longer throws. But after several botched familiarization runs, where a strong clutch-return spring and slightly notchy transmission shift gate made their presence known, an adequate number of clean sub-7.5-second runs to 60 were recorded. By comparison, recent 0 60-mph acceleration tests revealed the following times for cars with similar sporting intentions: Acura Coupe, 7.7 see; BMW 325is, 7.5 see; and Pontiac Grand Prix SE, 9.7 sec. And obviously, the T-Bird breathes well all the way up through the gears with a quick quarter-mile time of 15.9 see at 88.5 mph. Ford says the cars terminal velocity is 140 mph,
.http://www.sccoa.com/articles/roadtrack89.html
http://v8sho.com/SHO/caranddriver1.html
it was still slower than the old V-6 SHO automatic, which ran to 60 mph in 7.6 seconds and tripped the quarter-mile lights in 15.7 seconds and 88 mph.
http://www.windingroad.com/reviews-page/1992-ford-taurus-sho/
0 to 60 goes to the SC and 1/4 to the SHO by a nose
2007-03-18 17:12:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by ClassicMustang 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The 90 T-Bird was a 4 cylinder wasn't it? The SHO was a 6 with 24 valves. The SHO was lighter.
Hard to say depends on the length of race and the gearing on the cars.
2007-03-18 23:31:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Fordman 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
In the twinkling of an eye, there would be nothing but dust for the T'bird to eat.
2007-03-18 23:32:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ironhand 6
·
0⤊
0⤋