[Shotimes] MT5

[Donald Mallinson]

The impression I still have left from a short drive in a new 
MT-5 when they first came out is one of "CHEAP".  No sound 
deadening.  The regular Taurus sounded and felt luxurious 
for the cars of the day, the originals STILL are fine cars 
that hold up well to todays best in most areas of NVH.

The MT5 was tinny, rode stiff and bumpy, not firm and 
controlled, and of course was so underpowered, it reminded 
me of the big cars of the early 60's that could be ordered 
with the base 6 cyl and automatic.  4000 pounds and minimal 
HP made for a dangerous car that could be timed in the 1/4 
mile by an hourglass.

Don Mallinson

Don McKinnon (AST) wrote:
> "...Ford assumed that 20 percent of Taurus's would be sold with the 2.5
> liter engine, but by 1989 the figure was actually only 5 percent."    HA,
> Ford was doing then and is still doing it today (Marauder!)
> 
> When I rode in that the one I mentioned, it sure was a dog.  I recall the
> guy short sifting compared to my 86 T-bird TC. What was the power band <3000
> rpms <LOL>
> 
> Joseph, if you find one you have to dyno that thing.  I bet it will be up
> there on the all time dyno dog list, if there is such a list!  A quick
> google search and I found this Scirocco site, look at those older Scirocco
> dyno results!
> 
> Don McKinnon
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net
> [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Kevin M. Bisch
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: shotimes@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] MT5
> 
> 
> Joseph is correct. Page 121 of "Taurus" by Eric Taub... "To cut the sticker
> price, a smaller, four-cylinder, 2.5 liter engine became the standard power
> plant for the base model and for a sporty, MT5 maual transmission version
> that would be sold in limited numbers."
> 
> "In terms of power and accelleration, the four-cylinder was terrible. 'It's
> primarily for fleet operators,' Howard said, designed for rental car
> companies and corporations desiring to minimize their transportation costs.
> It's cheaper, it was developed for plain economic reasons. The engine is
> very marginal. It's not powerful enough for the car. Ford assumed that 20
> percent of Tauruses would be sold with the 2.5 liter engine, but by 1989
> the figure was actually only 5 percent."
> 
> Man, my 3.0L 1987 GL was a dog.... this thing must have been awful to
> drive. Nonetheless, I think it is great that Joe wants to restore one... it
> might very well be the only one of it's kind!!!
> 
> 
> --Kevin
> 
> At 08:28 AM 6/21/2003 -0500, van Oss wrote:
> 
>>I think the MT5 had a 2.5L, while the others you mention had a 2.3L.
>>
>>Check out:  http://members.tripod.com/~TaurusSHO/specs.html
>>
>>Scroll down a bit to read about the engines.  The 2.5L had only 90 HP, but
>>130 pound feet!
>>
>>Joseph van Oss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> 
> .