The last time that I saw a Merkur XR4ti was three years ago when I wrote this post about a crunched ’87 edition. I can’t remember the last time that I saw one in the wild, they weren’t big sellers and their time in America was brief. I thought about passing on this discovery, courtesy of Tony P., and no disrespect to him, there’s just not a lot that one can say about one of these cars – the marketplace did the talking long ago. But wait a minute, hot rodding is still alive and well and not always with a ’32 this, or a ’55 that, or a ’69 something or other. The cat who owns this 1987 Merkur has done some interesting and unexpected wrenching on it. Follow along and I’ll fill you in on this German expat who calls Clinton, Connecticut home. Interested buyers can find it here on Facebook Marketplace for $12,000.
Instead of recounting Merkur’s history ( you can find that in the previously mentioned post), I’ll tell you a bit about this car and what its originally unhappy owner has done to it. Hailing from Rheine, Germany, this XR4ti made do with a 175 net HP, 2.3-liter in-line four-cylinder engine. The seller tells us, “I wasn’t really happy with the engine so when Ford’s Ecoboost 2.0 crate engine became available I undertook a project to update the Merkur with some modern turbo muscle. The engine was purchased from Ford Racing and the project began“. He goes on to tell us that a rebuilt T-5 five-speed manual gearbox is still in place and it’s connected to a replacement limited-slip differential. What he doesn’t tell us is how this sucker runs – I would imagine that it’s a palpable improvement.
I’d like to tell you about the interior but it’s not photographed other than this pointless image of the dash with a digital screen. Hey, it is blue…
The exterior presents well and the seller states, “The car is in excellent shape as all of the minimal rust in the sills was repaired during the build“. The exterior images are poor but I don’t see evidence of damage and the black finish still has a pretty good shine. It’s a subjective matter but I’ve never been much on rear spoilers and the goofy-looking one on this car looks like the rigged-up UHF antennae that my father concocted for our family room TV back in the mid-seventies – just an observation…
Years ago, when Ford first offered the Ecoboost 2.0 liter crate engine it was parading around at an $8,000 price – yikes! Now I have no idea what this seller paid but at a $12K ask for the whole shebang, well, you can do financial figurin’. I have to take my hat off to this seller – this was undoubtedly an involved undertaking and I always appreciate these modern-time hot-rodding upgrades. I’m just left with one question, why?
I’d be careful, those 2.0s are known for block casting/design flaws and poop the bed with alarming regularity.
Here’s the Ford Performance site’s feature of the car mentioned in the FB ad writeup:
https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/fan-spotlight/2019/10/1987-merkur-xr4ti—ryan-labombard.html
Looking closely at that one interior shot, looks like the entire lower dash may be missing; not clear if that was a mid-build pic tho’, as another pic at the feature article linked above shows it in place.
The money these were going for made them a difficult sell so Ford doubled down and brought the equally underwhelming Scorpion to the US market with similar results
I believe that car was called the Scorpio.
Is it coincidental that the XR4ti was introduced the year after the Mustang SVO? Were any engine components shared? The Mustang SVO was a pretty decent car but, it too, sold in low numbers. Too soon for turbo’d 4cyl cars?
XR4TI came out in 1985, so it sold the same time as the Mustang. Same engine as the SHO but with no inner cooler
Yes, basically the same engine as the Mustang SVO and T-bird Turbo Coupe but without the intercooler, which is why they used it for the new Merkur, as it was already US-DOT certified and emissions-compliant and shared parts in common with those other models in this market.
The “Cologne” V6 might have been another option, as that was used in US models as well as the Euro-market Sierra XR4, but that engine wasn’t as potent as the turbo-4 and also had an antiquated pushrod valvetrain, so would not have delivered the performance and advanced/high-tech perception they were going for with this premium-priced Euro import model.
As for the SVO’s low production numbers, it was hardly “too soon” for turbo-4s that were a hot ticket proliferating all over the market at that time, but it didn’t really fit the Mustang’s image and buyer interests — those interested in performance wanted a V8, and others more interested in sporty style at an affordable price were fine with an I-4 or V6. Also, SVO was a fairly small “boutique” operation that probably couldn’t produce many more cars than they did, but if the SVO had been a smash sales success it might well have been rolled into mainline Mustang production for later model years.
Yes, the SVO came out in 1984 and was produced through 1986; the XR4ti came out the year after in 1985 and ran through 1989.
Neither the SVO nor the XR4ti had the same engine as the SHO, which sported a Yamaha built V6 engine. Perhaps you meant the SVO? If so, you are correct, the XR4ti did not have an intercooler whereas the SVO did.
Although the SVO and XR4ti engines had almost the same displacement, they were not the same.
Thanks Mick saved me from typing the same thing.👍
Yes typing to quickly. I owned 2 of these and they were the biggest money pits I have ever known. Something was always breaking, not working right, electrical issues all the time. In this condtion and no good interior pictures it is lucky to do half of the asking. It is about 1 hour away from me.
I’ve owned one for over 20 years, currently has just shy of 300k on the original engine. It’s been running 18-24psi of boost nearly the entire time I’ve owned it. It’s been a rock solid vehicle. The only issue it really has currently is that all the rubber weatherstripping began falling apart a couple years ago and there’s nowhere to get replacements and it’s getting worse fast. Washing it the other day I realized I either have to part it out or turn it into a track car. Or a bathtub. :/
Joseph, I had the same experience with an ’85 as you had. So many issues costing way too many $$ to repair.
I was LMAO when I saw 12K for a Merkur, but then I saw all of the work the guy put into it. Too bad it isn’t going to appeal to anyone but the builder.
Alas, the Yamaha-built SHO V6 engine came too late for the Merkur, debuting for the same model year the entire Merkur line was canceled, but it’s fascinating to think “what could have been” if both Merkur models had been allowed to continue and upgraded to use the SHO engine.
I’ve read it’s possible to retrofit the SHO engine to the Merkur driveline with the help of a bellhousing from a 5-speed Aerostar — the only RWD model to offer a manual transmission with the Taurus “Vulcan” V6 having the same bolt pattern as the SHO engine — but those are now hard to find anymore, and apparently parts for the SHO engine are also becoming scarce anyway.
A friend of mine built an XR with the SHO (not SVO) engine. This was years back maybe 2004/5. I thought I posted up pics on my car IG page. I didn’t. I’ll have add them.
Ranger pickups got the Vulcan available with a 5 speed after, I think 93′.
I always liked the Merkur, as well as the Mustang SVO. Unfortunately, the market back then was partial to V-8s.
I was first in line at my local Mercury dealer, bought a black over grey 1985 Merkur, ignoring the warning shots: Sales knew nothing about the car, had to keep referring to his cheat sheet, tried to do an ADM, and only had one tech with some Merkur training. six months later, for one of my frequent dealer visits, I clamped a tree branch with a lemon on to the roof.
My biggest mandatory upgrade was replacing the French-built Capri transmission with a T-5. Russ Harness was offering aftermarket support for SVOs and also trying to support the Merkur so I got the trans complete with new bell housing and most of the needed hardware.
The car had decent power-to-weight and good Germen ergonomics but I would replace the whacky shift knob on this offering.
This should be fun car!
Except for the SVO/Turbo Tbird and the Buick Turbo coupe I can’t think of any other American made cars in 1984 that sported a turbocharged engine. Maybe there were but they certainly weren’t memorable and probably don’t exist today. Did they not sell because they were too expensive, unreliable or too “exotic”/too new for that year?
There definitely were! The Turbo Trans Am came out in 1980 with a 301cid V8 and a turbo. The Regal grew a turbo in ’78. The first Mustang Turbo was in ’78 or ’79. Chrysler was the last to the party, with the 2.2l “Turbo I” in 1984.
The problem with domestic turbos probably came from those ’70s experiments, because the TTA, Regal, and Mustang were all carbureted and that did not make for a really reliable car. I guess Chrysler skipping that phase and going straight for fuel injected turbos was the right choice.
Those early turbos also weren’t super reliable themselves, often suffering coked up oil feeds or failed CHRA seals. Once the water-cooled units showed up in ’85 (IIRC) things improved a lot. I remember the family’s turbo Volvo blowing the CHRA and leaving a James Bond smoke screen behind it in ’88 or ’89, when the wagon was just a few years old. The replacement turbo lasted until I sold the thing in 2010 with a quarter of a million miles on it. Then of course you have the inherent issues with fueling a turbocharged engine. Saab (and Maserati..) fixed that with APC, but nobody else deployed a turbo management system until the ’90s!
Probably the biggest thing plaguing these cars is what @BimmerDude mentioned… ill-equipped dealer techs. In ’85 everything was a pushrod with a carburator and a solid rear axle. XR4Ti shows up with fuel injection, turbo, independent suspension and nobody knew how to deal with that. A buddy of mine was a Ford Senior Master Tech and at the time that meant knowing XR4Tis. He was the only guy that would touch them, and he made a not small amount of money doing it. ;) (He gave me his MERKUR patch when he retired!)
Thanks! That all makes sense.
And don’t forget the Turbo K cars. :)
Hi, former friend bought one it was crap! serves him right. If you ever listened to the Jim Rome radio show he got one!! he’ll tell you all the pitfalls and the $$ on it! DON’T buy it!!! better off a pinto/vega!!! edsel had a better record!! Ironically my friend had a Scirocco too!
Cars I have owned; #6 66 Impala SS 396, #5 64 Malibu SS 283, #4 06 Saab 2.0T, #3 05 Ford Focus 2.0, #2 69 Plymouth Road Runner 383, Number #1, most fun car to drive 87 Merkur XR4ti. All except the Roadrunner were manuals. 85 and 86 XR4ti’s were terrible, they fixed everything except the weak 5 speed in the 87. This car had exactly the same engine as the early Turbo T birds, hand assembled in Brazil with 4 bolt mains, etc. I believe that if they had offered the intercooler and a 4 spd auto, they would have had a much longer ride. I was a Lincoln Mercury Merkur dealer at the time and yes I owned my XR4ti personally, it was not a demo. My PA tag was WNG DNG.
I have a weird thing for ’80s cars, and in addition to the XR4Ti I’ve owned Saab 900 Turbo, Mercedes 190E, BMW 325i and 325es, Volvo 745 Turbo and, well, about 90 other cars. But, at one point or another I’ve owned just about every car someone shopping an XR4Ti would have considered. I actually owned the 900T, 325es, 745T, and XR4Ti at the same time. The XR was an automatic at the time (now it has a built T5).
Aside from the glaring service issues, the three big issues the XR had were a noisy drive train, really weak NVH treatment, and that disappointing C3. The T9 was a decent gearbox, the C3 was pretty bad. In a vacuum, the XR is a riot, but when you think about spending a couple hours a day in that cabin you immediately start to see the appeal of the Swedes or the Germans – although the grippy EZ chair seats are pretty nice in the XR. I will also say that dynamically, the XR is possibly the best of them. The suspension and steering work very well on that car, and IMO it’s far more predictable than the E30. Given the success of the Cosworths, that should probably come as no surprise. ;)
Probably with an intercooler and that extra horsepower, people might have overlooked the discount refinement, but you know Ford – there was *no way* Merkur was going steal sales from Mustang. I mean, you’ve got a tight chassis with fully independent suspension sitting opposite a Fox body with a solid axle both powered by the same motor? Who wouldn’t choose the XR?
Whoops… also had an Alfa Romeo Milano 2.5 at the same time, too! *That* was a goofy car.