I was interested because I thought that it might be similar to the McLaren mustang. I don't care much for the mustangs these days,but I really like the McLaren version with the 4 cylinder turbo engine. I know that it's not that fast,but I would like to have one. I came across one of these Capris for sale,but it is optioned in Brown and tan and it is a convertible.
I bought a '86 Capri 5.0 with 5-speed in 1989 at a Ford dealership in Simi Valley, Cal. It had a full body aero kit and surprisingly, air conditioning delete. Loved it! There were a few ASC McLaren convertibles running around the L.A. area at that time, but no one had a regular ol' Capri 5.0. There were plenty of 3.8 V6 Capris from 1979 to 1986 (I don't believe the Mercury version ever had the Mustang 2.3 4 cylinder option in the years the Mustang-based Capri was available), but no one seemed to have a Capri. Wish I never got rid of that car...
smithraymond09029 The McLaren Capri convertibles are actually more common than their "Coupes". They made 557 ragtops and only a little over 300 coupes. The ragtops were only two seaters and the windshield was laid back at more of an angle than a Mustang convertible making them look like a "chopped top".
By 1993, FWD Mazda 3's were being shipped from Japan to Australia and made into convertibles and sold in USA as Mercury Capri convertibles... with a 4 banger...
Good timing MotorWeek I was just enjoying the Mercury Rising videos on LMR’s channel... For those of you that love these cars and want to see one being resto/modded Late Model Restoration is in the middle of a series restoring an original for the owners uncle I think on their RU-vid channel... I hope MotorWeek doesn’t mind the mention of another channel. Love these old videos keep it up
Great Video and information! I still have my 1984 Mercury Capri RS with a 5.0 V8 that I got from my father! He bought the car new in 1983. It still has the factory oxford white paint with the tri-color stripe kit and pace car air-dam.
lol. Never understood the appeal/point of Mclaren Mustangs. Just put bigger tires, a stiffer suspension, and some cheesy decals, and expect buyers to pay a premium for something they could do themselves. Probably why they became extinct in the 90s.
The MKV GTI DSG I used to have did a best 0-60 of 6 seconds flat with a 1/4 of 14.2 at 98mph, so yeah something isn't right. A 90mph trap is typically in the 15s; maybe it was a typo?mistake and it was supposed to be 15.2 @ 90mph, which would be on par for the 7.7 0-60.
I am always surprised that this channel hasn't got enough subscribers that it actually should have. Motorweek and the old TopGear for me are of the same league.
I will always say. Motorweek and the Old Top Gear were my English teacher, it doesn't have subtitles back then, and I used to record the episodes in my vcr and watch over and over, till I get it, next week, same thing. I've got to a point that was needless to watch again.
These cars are beautiful all Fox Body car's are beautiful. I was looking for a 93 Cobra SVT they're asking 75,000.00 it's not even the Cobra R model. Those are going for over 100,000.00
@2:15 The driver missed the opening for the lane change cones and turned between the narrower cones after the assigned opening of the lane change cones. The car performed quite awesome.
Those of us who tune/race cars will recognize the 1/4 time is more like 15.2 and not the 14.2 @90mph. The 7.7 0-60 times don’t add up. That being said for 86 those were good times.
Didn’t see, but one cool blue/green with orange trim ASC back then. But I latter bought 86 5spd. Conv. Mine had Cobra t-5 swapping. My was a put back together wreaked. Clear title. Wish it hadn’t lost its stiff engineering. It was Charcoal & charcoal
3:05..........I REALLY wish MotorWeek had made a cold start/drivability evaluation part of their road tests of carbureted & early fuel-injected vehicles back in the day. 4:47........$22,700 & it STILL has a buzzer for the key-in-ignition reminder/warning?!!!!!!!!
I remember the cover story in Autoweek (back when they published on newsprint) on the ASC McClaren and what a big deal it was. Never saw one in person, don't think many were sold. Amazing how our concept of fast changes over time. Most modern minivans will smoke this thing on a dragstrip.
$15,200 was really expensive back then. In today's money, $15,200 would nearly $36,000. Compare that value to today's equivalent. A stock 2019 Mustang Ecoboost turbo 4 cylinder would blow this thing out of the water for ~$10,000 less, and a stock 2019 Mustang GT would absolutely vaporize it for $35,000.
@@nukewiller4083 well this was a special edition Mustang. So if it's equivalent to 36k in today's money that's still a good deal. You only get a bare-bones Mustang GT for that price today, that's if they even exist at the dealer. I've never seen one under 40k. I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
@@easycomeeasygo8901 Just because it was "special" doesn't mean it was a good value. And there are plenty of new Mustangs below $40,000. You can even find stripped GTs and Ecoboost Premiums for under $40,000 easily. Half the Mustangs at my local dealer are for around $40,000 or less.
@@nukewiller4083 the internet, youtube, and you can try all day to convince me that a 50k mustang or camero or Challenger is an affordable bargain. But my pocket as well as the pockets of many other people disagree. Yes they are faster and better built than the old ones, and 700 wheel horsepower capable with a supercharger from the factory. If you have another 10 to 15,000 laying around for the supercharger, tune, and supporting mods. they're all very nice Vehicles just not affordable that's all I'm trying to say. The Mustang in this MotorWeek didn't have any less value than say a California special Mustang today. The Mustang GT in 86 was about 10,500. New Mustang GT today is about 3 times as expensive, at base price, no big brakes and skinny on this car 255s i believe. Mustang sales of the fox era were double of what they are today. I've talked to many people at the Mustang shows I've gone to. And while Everyone likes the gains the Mustang has had, most will agree the price is getting out of hand. And I'm not even going to get into $70,000 Raptors and hundred-thousand-dollar Navigators. Car loans are stretching out to 84 to help people afford to pay their payments. A record amount of people are three months or more behind in payment. But im sure you're going to disagree with all of this, but that's your prerogative.
@@easycomeeasygo8901 Vehicle purchasing power is virtually unchanged over the last 30 years, and dollar per performance is the best it's ever been. Ecoboost Mustangs are sub-$30,000 cars all year long, and provide more eye-watering performance than anything you could get back in the day. If you can't afford your trill at that price, it's a purely personal issue.
Something is not quite right. E/T 14.2 but traps only 90mph and 0-60 took 7.7sec! I call it B.S. Probably the editor messed the numbers. That is 15.2 sec car
My neighbor has the Mustang convertible version of this car. Justs sits in his garage and he hasn't driven it for at least ten years. Been bugging him to sell it to me but he always says no.
I was watching this earlier and it stopped and said "video unavailable" so I refreshed and tried again and the same thing. Now it's working again! WTH?
These worth big bucks now? I don't think the ASC Mclaren Grand Prix from the 90's being worth much but is the ASC Capri worth something? I see it being pretty rare? Were there any other ASC Mclaren versions?
So I get the ASC part, American Sunroof Company, they did the conversion. But where did the "McLaren" part come in?? As far as I can research, the McLaren F1 race team(they were only a race team in the 1980's, this was before they ventured into road cars with the McLaren F1) had nothing to do with these hopped up Capris.
My uncle had an 87 Mustang asc McClaren, and the only upgrades were the convertible mechanism, body kit and rims. Didnt know they did hardtop Capris with upgraded suspension
McLaren Engines is an American company that did the tuning. They are now called McLaren Engineering a subsidiary of Linamar (Canada), now mostly agricultural and industrial drivetrains.
TREVOR THE BALD MINGE chill out dude, it's friggin 1986. They didn't mod the engine, more bodywork and suspension. It may not be nearly as fast but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more reliable than the supercars they build today.
@@sidefx996 different company that make the supercars, they are British called McLaren Automotive and part of the McLaren Group based in England which is also has the F1 team. There is no connection to ASC McLaren in the States.
Pretty much everything in the seventies and eighties I was way under powered like that so no shock there they didn't perfect smog systems such as catalytic converter smog pumps and all that and it really diluted the power of the engine
They got something or some things wrong. 0 to 60 in 7.7 is more like a high 15 at 90. A 14.2 at 90 isn't possible..... there simply isnt enough traction on stock tires for a time/trap speed combo like that! A 14.2 would equate to more like a 98 mph trap speed with the traction available on the stock tires. My 86 5.0 Mustang when stock managed a 14.4 at 96 with no spare tire and minimal gas. A typical run with a full tank and spare would have been closer to a 14.6 at 94.... and a 0 to 60 in 5.9 or 6 seconds. Most magazine times were in the low 15s in the low 90s. Motorweek has had more than 1 really sketch batch of performance numbers over the years... this being one of them!
@Joe Mamma mine did many a time. 2.2 60 foot and shifting at 5,000 rpms yield consistent 14.4s at 96 with cool weather near sea level at Cecil County drag way... which is known to be one of the fastest tracks in the country. Mine was a LX so it was light and as I said this was with no spare or jack and not much fuel in the tank.... Went 14.3 at 97 with pullies and no mufflers.
