Impulse buy of Marauder

[Modernclsxfords]

Hi Guys and Gals,
Last friday I can across a Marauder on a local classifieds page, and decided to pull the trigger. I had been looking for RWD cars, specifically with a stick shift, however I ended up with it. It is a 2003, black, with 78k, almost flawless except for a small ding in the passenger fender near the hood, like something fell on it? Runs flawlessly, came from a service tech at a local Ford garage. Happy to have it, will probably run it for a year or so and move on. But, from previous experience with a 93 Taurus SHO I know forum guys always have great intel and are always willing to lend some helpful words. Happy to be a member!
:banana:

[sailsmen]

Def get the EB Enterprises - Flux Capacitor.

O'Reilly has them on sale;
https://www.oreillyauto.com/flux-capacitor

Theres a vid in the Tech forum on how to install it.

[Modernclsxfords]

Another warm welcome from a Ford guy :cool3: :stupid:

[sailsmen]

LOL :banana::banana2:

[stevengerard]

I had a 93 SHO 5 Speed, correct wheel drive marauder is so much better - though that Yamaha engine was a work of art.

[Modernclsxfords]

I had a 93 SHO 5 Speed, correct wheel drive marauder is so much better - though that Yamaha engine was a work of art.

The car was fun, however, I replaced everything on the vehicle twice and that got old. Finally, the north took it's hold and rusted it to the ground.

[MERCURY 2003LSE]

Welcome and congrats on the Marauder :beer:


I also had a 1990 SHO Taurus and it was a piece of crap . :beer:

[Modernclsxfords]

Welcome and congrats on the Marauder :beer:


I also had a 1990 SHO Taurus and it was a piece of crap . :beer:

Thank's for having me, seems like a natural progression around here from SHO to Marauder. We are unique people, most everyone think I am nuts for buying a "black cop car with big wheels".

[Modernclsxfords]

LOL :banana::banana2:

:beer::beer:

[stevengerard]

I still don't know why there aren't more cars like the SHO and the Marauder, yes there's the Charger and 300, and for a bit the Chevy SS but there are plenty of Dad's looking for fun and convenience. I'm guessing that's why many of us owned SHO's. Back the there was even less choice in cars. American fast family cars were almost non-existent. If that SHO was RWD I'd might still have it, but like you many SHO only parts were failing and becoming quite expensive to replace.

[Catfish]

Welcome! I never had a 1st gen SHO but always liked them. Heard they were pretty fast for their time.

[sailsmen]

I owned 3 SHOs, an '89, '95 & '99. They were all good cars, particularly the '95. '89 was very fast but had some quality issues paid for by Ford ESP. '95 & '99 very well made.

[gdsqdcr]

Welcome to the fold from a previous SHO owner as well. I had a 90 and then my moonlight blue 3.2 MTX 95. Great cars ... would still have it but three kids made it tough in the backseat.

[BAD MERC]

Well I guess congrats!!!! I too was a 1995 SHO owner for 8 years with an auto and no sunroof. Mine was silver over gray and had 283K miles when sold. Welcome to the forum.

[Comin' in Hot]

Welcome to the site, where in PA are you?

[camelgrundle]

Welcome man, hope you enjoy it!

[jsignorelli]

Welcome to the forum.

[PRCARGUY]

Wecome to marauder madness. :D

[Modernclsxfords]

Welcome to the site, where in PA are you?



Up by the New York border, Bradford area.

[BAD MERC]

Welcome to the fold from a previous SHO owner as well. I had a 90 and then my moonlight blue 3.2 MTX 95. Great cars ... would still have it but three kids made it tough in the backseat.


I might be a tad confused here. I thought the AT was a 3.2 and the MT was a 3.0. IIRC correctly the 3.0 was a carryover with the manual, but the auto got the 3.2 engine.

[stevengerard]

I might be a tad confused here. I thought the AT was a 3.2 and the MT was a 3.0. IIRC correctly the 3.0 was a carryover with the manual, but the auto got the 3.2 engine.



I believe you are right. I forgot about that I had a 93 manual with the 3.0. The 94 I owned had a 3.2 but is was an automatic. The automatics were able to handle more torque fro what I remember. Weren't one of the tran a cheap Mazda b2000 trans?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gdsqdcr]

I might be a tad confused here. I thought the AT was a 3.2 and the MT was a 3.0. IIRC correctly the 3.0 was a carryover with the manual, but the auto got the 3.2 engine.

You are correct, the 3.2 was auto. However after losing the rod bearings in the 3.0 at 121k, I dropped a 3.2 with the cams from a 3.0 and adopted it to the manual. I was an early adopter of this conversion (2nd or 3rd on west coast iirc, though a few had been done back east). Gave me a little more torque and I gained a little hp.

Got me a 15.0 in the 1/4, with a trap of 109mph. Slow to get going, but once moving .... she moved. I never installed be quaife (sp?) in the transmission so I was hesitant to abuse it off the line. At speed, that was another story. Cruising at 60, drop I to third, spin tires and hold on! Third was good to ~110mph.

[Modernclsxfords]

You are correct, the 3.2 was auto. However after losing the rod bearings in the 3.0 at 121k, I dropped a 3.2 with the cams from a 3.0 and adopted it to the manual. I was an early adopter of this conversion (2nd or 3rd on west coast iirc, though a few had been done back east). Gave me a little more torque and I gained a little hp.

Got me a 15.0 in the 1/4, with a trap of 109mph. Slow to get going, but once moving .... she moved. I never installed be quaife (sp?) in the transmission so I was hesitant to abuse it off the line. At speed, that was another story. Cruising at 60, drop I to third, spin tires and hold on! Third was good to ~110mph.


I also swapped in the 3.2 for the same reason, nothing on that car was stock. Everything broke.