(first posted 9/3/2015) With the pitiful eight generation (1980-1982) Ford Thunderbird failing miserably in comparison to the success of the seventh generation, Ford wasted no time in rolling out a substantially redesigned ninth generation T-Bird for 1983. While still riding on the Fox platform, this new Thunderbird was a total-180 in terms of styling, and with sales more than doubling over the previous year, the buying public seemed to approve.
Externally, Heritage models provided further tributes to the Thunderbird’s historic past with touches including all-chrome mirrors and available wire wheels. While this was all well and good, some dealers unfortunately chose to pay further homage to a less pleasant aspect of past T-birds in the form of horrendous aftermarket Continental kits. It’s a shame this otherwise beautiful expression of past and present is marred with one such feature that should have remained in the past.
Ditching the stand-up radiator grille, hidden headlights, and opera windows, the 1983 Ford Thunderbird helped usher in the Aero Revolution with its wind-tunneled front and rear ends, rakish roofline, and sleek wedge-shaped profile. Although this ninth generation Thunderbird had decidedly modern and international aspirations, buyers accustomed to the very Broughamy T-birds of the past decade were not completely alienated.
For starters, the instrument panel was largely carryover, as nearly all the project’s budget was used for the extensive exterior redesign. While there were no vinyl tops and opera lights, the luxury-oriented 1983-only Thunderbird Heritage sought to appeal to these buyers with a few familiar touches.
Whereas the Turbo Coupe and even the base model were available with articulated sports seats, the Heritage featured standard velour bucket seats, with the Thunderbird logo embossed into their backs. A bench seat was not available, but its lovers probably found appreciation in the buckets’ lack of much bolstering, for an easy entry/exit slide.
Related Reading:
Auto-Biography: 1983 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
Curbside Classic: 1984 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
Curbside Classic: 1986 Ford Thunderbird Elan
Wow. A continental kit? Really?
Other than that, and the tacky wire wheel covers (I guess one deserves the other), it’s good to see a clean first-year representative of the aero ‘birds. Also the first example of Ford’s “aircraft style door era”.
Oh gods, that is the most hideous spare-tire kit I’ve ever seen…its placement here has all the charm of a goiter. Can someone please chop it off and kill it with fire? I don’t care if it’s been on the car since it left the showroom floor; it needs to be destroyed.
Someone needs to knock some sense into restorers who seem to believe that continentals and fender skirts need to be installed on every restoration from the 50’s. I lived during the 50’s. That junk, including curb feelers, was in bad taste back then and it is still in bad taste, today.
I agree. Also I’ve seen owners restore cars with just about EVERY factory option and aftermarket options.
I haven’t seen a nicely restored car in STOCK trim.
By the way, that so-called Continental kit on the aerodynamic ’83 T-Bird kind of defeats the whole purpose of aerodynamic styling, doesn’t it?
This is about as bad as adding 1950s-style tail fins on a post-1990s car.
Agree with that too. Same thing happens here in australia, very well restored cars spoiled by being plastered with accessories. Other thing I don’t like, though not that bad, is white walls on otherwise completely stock restos of base model cars that would never have had them on them in the era when they were new.
Whitewalls only came with automatic transmission here so were very rare untill the early 70s on anything.
Why would tire style be related to transmission choice? I’ve never heard of that here in the U.S. anyway.
My Dad had a 1965 Impala 4 door hardtop with the 283 V8 with 3 speed manual transmission and it came with whitewall tires……Transmission type had nothing to do with whitewall availability.
The bottom photo of those guys checking out the SL reminds me of something a painter friend of mine once said: “Sculpture is the thing you bump into while your backing up to get a better view of a painting.”
Nice example, except for, ugh, that Continental kit.
I think I actually like this car more now then I did in 1983. Ford really did hit this one out of the park, it was just such a shock in the fall of 1982 that it was hard to fully appreciate.
I’m surprised the Heritage edition didn’t sell better than it did, it seems quite tasteful (and not much different from my ’89 T-Bird LX) and Oldsmobile will still selling pillow seat Cutlass Supreme Broughams in good numbers as late as 1988.
I’m fairly certain that part of the Heritage package included that emblem on the sail panel – and that is an OPERA LAMP. I think I’d have made two changes to the Heritage if I’d been the product planner. Skip the opera lamp, make it a tasteful stainless emblem and call this trim the XL (Much more Fordish than LX) or something like that to designate the plush interior.
That car does have opera lamps. They were part of the Heritage package.
Although I could do without the Continental kit on this Thunderbird, I find the car itself to be the most attractive of the “Aerobird” generation of the Thunderbird. 🙂
The car itself is gorgeous. The continental kit is stupid, but I will at least give them points for not putting it on an extra two foot of bumper.
OMG. That is the most hideous use of a hideous cliché I have ever seen. I was getting excited about this bird in the first three pics, but then with the fourth pic . . . well, unfortunately now I cannot unsee that monstrosity. Holy Hannah that is absolutely awful.
It blows my mind that someone would tack a continental kit onto an aero-Bird, even if it was the brougham-tastic Heritage version. I’m actually rather surprised that they didn’t, somehow, manage to get a vinyl roof onto it, as well.
I suspect that the continental kit was originally designed for the same era Cougar, With its formal, upright rear window, it actually makes (a little) sense, being as aero-Cougars could be had with vinyl roofs, as well (although they might have been dealer installed). But on a Thunderbird, it makes no sense, whatsoever.
Any car can have a vinyl top, it doesn’t matter how swoopy it is.
I just as a Chrysler Concorde or LHS with one the other day. You’d think there wouldn’t be enough to the pillars to put it on but yep, someone had gone and done it.
The continental kit is funny. I like most people like the basic shape, but this car is rather betwixt and between.
A turbo four, with Recaro seats, a five speed, and TRX suspension is the one everybody talks about, but since most of those attracted by those specs just were just not going to buy an American car by 83, the turbo coupe had a low take rate. In addition the NVH of a big four with a manual was just not a good fit for this type of car.
No where on the order form was the HO 302 to take on the Monte SS and Olds 442. With a competitive engine, the more modern styling and suspension,it could have outclassed the rivals.
That leaves the embarrassing 3.8 and low output 5.0 to go after the bulk of the customers who bought the late 70s version. It must not have worked too well as sales were way down, for this noisier less smooth driving car.. I wonder if a slightly less embarrassing Cologne 2.9 would have been a better base engine. The torque would have been less but also the weight and a 60 degree V6 should have a more pleasant demeanor.
While an HO 302 in the aero-Bird might have decimated the weak Monte Carlo SS and Olds 442 (and probably taken quite a bite out of Buick Grand National sales, too), it also would have done to the Turbo Coupe what the HO V8 Mustang GT did to the Mustang SVO. IOW, killed it. To Ford’s credit, they realized killing the Turbo Coupe wasn’t worth the added sales of an HO 302-equipped Thunderbird and stayed committed to the forced-air focus of the high-performance Thunderbird, later advancing to a supercharged V6 in subsequent models.
OTOH, maybe an HO 302 ‘Bird might have kept it around a bit longer.
It might have also forced the Monte and Hurst/442 to up their game with 350 engines and more suspension work. I think an 83-84 175hp 302 Tbird would have been faster than the 180hp 305/307 as the Tbird was lighter.
Reading the piece Paul linked below, I realized how little cross shopping there would have been between the Tbird turbo coupe and the V8 competitors. Just an entirely different market. Which means Ford could have offered both performance Tbirds as they did with the 5.0 GT and turbo SVO Mustang. If Paul had cross shopped, it would probably been with the Saab, Volvo, Pug, and Audi turbos, not Montes or Miradas.
As an aside, it is fun to think of Paul going all Don Draper, “Have the corporate checkbook brought to me.” Bet that made an impression at the Ford dealer.
It depends on how Ford tuned it. The T-Bird/Cougar were slightly lighter than the G-body’s but not enough to make a huge difference. The Ford Aod transmission was a lazy shifter and Ford probably would have used 3.27-3.55 rear gears on an HO 302 equipped Bird. The HO 302 for 1983 would have been good for 175 horses or 5 less than the G-body Monte SS and Cutlass 442 but those cars had tuned and snappier 200R-4 trannys and steeper 3.73 rear gears. Most Monte SS’s were in the 7.8-8 second range 0-60 and the 442/Hurst was in the low 8 second range for these years (not to be confused with the later 1986-87 442 with it’s weaker roller 170 HP 307) so I doubt the Bird would have decimated the G-body cars in these years.
I was one of those that bought a 1983 TC. And yes, there were more than a few times I wished the HO 302 had been under the hood, mainly around town, especially with four on board and the AC on. But it was a great high speed cruiser, and got good mileage to boot.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/auto-biography-1983-ford-thunderbird-turbo-coupe-ecoboosted-egobooster/
Interesting read, especially about the Turbo Coupe’s sweet spot cruising at 95mph. Ford should have advertised that, if they could figure out how to drop the hint. Not many cars from 1983, shared that trait.
Even the L.O. 302 wasn’t even available in 1983 IIRC, leaving the sole choice the ESSEX 3.8
I think in later years the Lincoln Mark VII was the elephant in the room when it came to the use of the 5.0 H.O, those Marks and the much cheaper Cougar did share the same showroom afterall and if they shared powerplants there could have been some cannibalization going on.
During the first several years of the VII’s run, only the LSC had the HO 302, whereas the designer editions and the base trim utilized the “standard” 302. Eventually, in I *think* 1989, they upgraded the Bill Blass (the one remaining non-LSC trim) to the HO motor. But by then the new MN12 Cougar was in showrooms, so that might have been a move to keep up the appeal on the VII.
Even still, there was the perception of upscale, since the lowest option Mark’s lopo 5.0 was still an upgrade over the V6 in the base Cougars. The MN12 cars did get the 5.0 H.O but it wasn’t until 91, in 89-90 they were still saddled with the 3.8 only, unless you sprang for the supercharged XR7
I am surprised the Mark VII took so long to get established. Even the LO 302 was so superior to the Eldo 4.1 without any mileage penalty. If it had hit the ground faster it might have convinced Ford to keep the Continental on Fox and turn it into a modern offering. That would have left Lincoln in a much better place.
Ford royally messed up the VII’s rollout. The first 2 years of production (84-85), i.e. when everyone was still paying attention, the only engine options on the VII were a lopo (with a bowl no less) and a weakish BMW diesel. The HO arrived in 1986 with electronic fuel injection, in the VII’s 3rd year of production, and then on the LSC only. It was brutal. Had they waited until 1986 and rolled out the VII with the HO and the electronic fuel injection (to the tune of 220 horses or so) they would have sold a ton more of them than they did. But Ford rushed it.
The 130 HP TBI 302 was an option right after launch on the Bird and Cougar. I have seen and driven several so equipped but not many. My 1985 Cutlass 307 was actually quicker pointing out how restrictive the earlier Ford EFI systems were on these engines.
You are mistaken sir! The low output 5.0, (which is actually officially called the ‘Standard Output’ or SO in Ford parlance) was available throughout the Aerobird’s run.
The subject T-Bird is one such example. If you look at the pic with the hood open, you’ll notice that the air cleaner housing clearly says ‘5 litre V-8’.
In 1983, as Joe Yoman stated below, the CFI 5.0 in the ‘Birds was rated at an earth-shattering 130hp. This rose to 140 hp in 1984-85, probably due to the adoption of EEC IV as an engine management system, though if this is incorrect, someone here will probably know the exact changes.
The real leap forward was in ’86 when they switched to sequential port fuel injection. Power only rose by 10 to 150, but as usual, the numbers don’t reveal the whole story, as the SEFI 5.0 was much more responsive than the old CFI 5.0.
The story ends in 1988, when the 5.0 gained a further 5hp, courtesy of a faux daul exhaust with an additional muffler. 155hp might not seem like much by today’s standards, but it’s a full 20% higher than what was on tap in 1983, and the Fox birds with a 5.0 only weighed about 3350 lbs, give or take.
And it wasn’t bad by the standards of the day. I had a friend time my ’88 T-Bird Sport at 8.8 seconds in the 0-60 sprint, which seems about right.
FWIW, the Monte Carlo SS didn’t re-appear until spring 1983, and Ford was pushing the Turbo Bird as their performance package.
The Olds 442 wasn’t until 1985; the Hurst/Olds was offered in 1983-84.
True, remember there was even a Monte Carlo turbo 81-82, and the Regal turbo went back to 78, both with the carbed 3.8. So a higher tech turbo might have made sense to Ford. Small block V8s are always a cheap and ready response when needed however.
What all you guys said! Ugggh!! I’d love to take it off this guys hands because of the condition it’s in, but I’d lose the kit. The hard part would be to find color matched bumper cover and parts and rewire the license plate light.
I’ve always liked this style but wow that spare tire rack on the trunk is really tacky on this model. Beautiful car otherwise in this example.
As long as we’re talking about spare-tire mods on cars like these, I’d like it if someone found a way to mount the wheel of a Mark VII or Fox Continental upright within the trunk, thus making use of that ridiculous hump.
Please?
Won’t work, the lid pulldown motor lives there. You know, the super useful gadget where as the owner you have to remind EVERYBODY not to slam down your trunk lid :-/
Egads on the continental kit.
That brown-on-brown color combo is absolutely stunning! But it still can’t make up for the hideous Continental kit. Yuck!
Chris, saw a late model Chrysler 200 in this color [autumn bronze in the 200’s case]. Stunning to look at. Made me think of the folk’s 72 Cordoba Brown metallic Ambassador Brougham.
It just looks right sometimes, very elegant against a sea of white, silver and black.
Brown has become a popular color among automakers in the past several years. It does look really good on some cars, though I think if I bought one, I’d get tired of it very quickly. A brown leather interior, on the other hand, is something I’d love to have in my next car. I miss all the attractive shades of green automakers offered in the 1990s.
I wish there were more browns offered, and greens. Every auto line used to offer at least one green, but now it’s very rare.
Some colors work better on a certain car to show off its lines than others. I never knew it until now, but the brown (not really that popular in the ’80s) really suits the aero Thunderbird, inside and out!
+ 1/2. I can get past the brown, but I can’t get past the Continental kit.
I am with Chris Green on the rich brown color. And I make retching at the continental kit unanimous.
My gripe on FoMoCo cars of that period was that seat upholstery. That stuff was in my 85 Crown Vic, and it always looked like Ford had gone to the company that supplied the black velvet used for all the paintings of tigers and parrots that were for sale in abandoned gas stations, and got them to offer it in other colors. This stuff was the opposite of luxurious velour.
The overall interior of this car seems very spartan and downscale to me compared to the glory days of Thunderbird (the interior of our 1965 was the epitome of glamour in my teen eyes). All that non-reflective black material was safe but sadly dull in appearance.
This upholstery may have been a deliberate attempt to move away from the “overstuffed” look of the 1970s. That type of interior wouldn’t have worked well with the “aero” exterior.
These interiors were a decent effort to move away from 1970s excess, while not completely alienating the “old school” buyers who still liked their 1978 Thunderbird Landaus.
The leather in my TC was a big improvement. Also, the TC used different material, and had sport seats, and no fake wood. The dash was still mediocre, but it did look less broughamy than this one.
Makes me jones for a Fairmont two door with a continental kit. Or an 83 Olds Ciera. They go with everything, obviously. Wretched.
Now, I’d put whitewalls on a Saturn ION but that car lends itself to that sort of twisted enthusiasm. This is just a criminal act.
Well it’s true to the package at least, it’s equally as ugly as the one used on the 1956s.
These original 83 interiors are kind of intriguing, in that the center console was a mandatory option for the first time since 1966? 67 maybe? Not only that, the console extended all the way to the rear seat cushion, fully covering the tunnel and effectively making these 2+2s. Conversely with the 1985 update, they got a much more appropriate dash, but the console was once again optional, with a crappy consoleette armrest thing standard, and the rear seat had a lap belt added in the center making it 5 passenger. If your idea of a Tbird is like mine, the 58-66 being the epitome of what the name represented, these 83-84s are much more true to that paradigm inside.
These T-Birds were part of the “end of the Malaise era”. Along with the return of the 302 V8 in Mustangs.
Also, since this style was brought out so soon after the 1980 models, I wonder if Ford had this look on the back burner when designing the Fox based Birds in late 70’s. In fall 1979, it was “too wild” for Henry Ford II. But once he retired, new managers said “Go for it, bring on that Aero look”!
Ford was close to bankruptcy in 1980, and it was immediately apparent that the 1980 Thunderbird was a massive dud. I think even Henry Ford II realized that it was time for a different design direction, although, as you note, he retired soon after the debut of the 1980 models.
It’s hard to overstate how fresh this Tbird look when it debuted. Nobody had anything like it. Coming right after the horrendous ’80-’82 Stumpbirds it signalled Ford’s revival. And today, with chrome making a comeback, its grille doesn’t look as out of place as it did at its debut.
That Continental Kit has to go though, what a travesty!
I’m wondering if there is anyone on this website who likes the continental kit. Anyone at all.
Don’t look at me. It’s positively vile.
While its OK on the original Lincoln Continental, Exposed spare tire mounts do not belong on any car designed after 1940! At least the tail fins on some post ’50s cars (71 Olds 98, 77 Buick Electra…) look like they belong to the design, No post World War 2 car looks good with “Continental Kits” including Continentals!
Continental kits are wonderful….when they are in a scrap heap.
+1
I’ve always liked the aero ‘Birds, but that Continental kit belongs in the landfill.
For those of us who were kids in the 50’s & 60’s – we know that continental kits were pretty rarely used at that time. At least the 56 T-Bird had a rationale for one: a response to the complaint about trunk space in the 55. The 57 T-Bird was designed with more trunk space and no need for the continental kit. I remember continental kits on 59 and 60 Impala convertibles and they looked pretty good back in the day. Today’s car show mania for continental kits on all kinds of models is a mystery to me.
I like the hint of one on the Mark VII. An appropriate nod to the past while the rest of the styling lied squarely in the future. The one on this car, remember not factory, well, it made me laugh.
Nope. Proud connie-kit hater here.
For those of us outside the US and Canada, the classic forties Lincoln Continental was never seen, so a ‘Continental kit’ had no context on a prestige car, or indeed any car later than, maybe, the MG TF, and just looks utterly strange on something like this!
I was never a big T-bird fan, but I liked these and the generation after. I agree with the others, though – ditch the Continental kit, please and thank you.
I loved these Thunderbirds when new, and still think that they look great today. There was a worn example parked outside near our old house, and it still looked handsome – faded paint, dents and all.
As for the Continental kit – it looks as though it can be easily removed without damaging the bumper. That’s about the only thing in its favor.
A ‘continental’ kit, fake wire wheel covers, broughamy mouse-fur velour interior…….hmmmm, suppose the owner wears polyester plaid pants, white belt and shoes, sports a terrible comb-over?
That could be a nice car if some of the junk was removed like the bumper turd, the tacky hubcaps, and tree shift on a luxury car?
And the town car/marquis steering wheel.
Steering wheel mounted shifter (preferably with a split bench seat) is exactly how luxury cars should be set up. Console shifters are for sports cars or ones with sporting pretensions, now sadly almost everything has the damn things with their thrice damned consoles.
Console shifter was always an extra cost item here the bare bones strippers had tree shift and bench seats.
Granted, I don’t know New Zealand, but I really doubt that was “always” so. Almost all Cadillacs, Lincolns, Imperials not to mention Oldsmobiles, Buicks, Mercurys etc. all had column shifters until rather recently. The console shifter is a “sporty” thing, not a “luxury” thing-at least in its origin. At the time this Thunderbird was made, having a column shifter would certainly not have marked it as a stripper. What you speak of seems to be a rather recent phenomenon wherein ten years ago or so car manufacturers started putting the consoles and shifters therein as a higher priced option, i.e. Deville vs. DTS.
Now, every penaltybox up to Rolls Royces have their gear selectors in the console.
Actually extra cost console mounted shifters began to be offered in the late 60s floor shift manual or automatic became the norm by 1980 on everything except stripped out Japanese pickups.
I’ll allow the Americans their column shift, for all that it seems like an anachronism to us, Bryce. But not that spare!
The original Thunderbird wore the Continental kit okay as the rear end was designed for it. True Conti kits ended with the fifties. The idea was to mirror the sporty image of foreign sports cars or the original Lincoln Continental. When I see one on any newer car it makes me want to retch. I don’t find the suggested designs of the Mark III and later models to be so offensive.
Beautiful car, nice color. Perfect except for the you know what.
Yes, it DOES make your butt look fat.
Wow, ruined in the back! Well, at least it can be returned to stock condition.
I like the ’83 – ’86 T-Bird, but the aero styling didn’t turn out so well on Ford’s second attempt, the ’84 Tempo and Topaz.
the thing needs an announcer speaking in broken English about rich Corinthian leather
Pull the wheel out of its Continental mount & fill it with ice. Perfect drinks cooler for
car shows.
Finally a real use for that hideous add on. I have seen a continental kit on a 70s
toyota Corona. And local to me to boot.
Remember those Beetles in the seventies with the Continental kits out back and the RR grill in front.
The Continental kit is hideous. But the car itself is a stunner!
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public…
Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Mercury, Saturn, Sterling, Daewoo, Dyhatsu, Yugo, Suzuki…… And those are just cars.
Even if you took that tumor off the back bumper and left all the holes it would still be a massive improvement over the way it looks now. This car deserves much better. When these T-birds came out they were such a breath of fresh air, and they still look great now.
The only thing that could make that continental kit worse…how about a windshield visor! Bwahahah!!!
Speaking of inappropriate vinyl roofs, my aunt had a 1977 Olds Cutlass wagon. Loaded to the OEM hilt; white with woodie sides, rally wheels, and…a tan vinyl roof.
Funny, I remember seeing some of those Cutlass wagons with a vinyl top. My brother’s 1974 SD Trans Am had one, too – one of the only SD Trans Am’s I ever saw with one. It was Buccaneer Red with a black vinyl top and black vinyl buckets. I think it was ordered that way to make it look “less fast” – I think the original owner who was in law enforcement used that car for a one time drug bust or the like.
Would it be better if instead of a continental kit, it had double-dubs? That’s the problem with nearly any aftermarket styling add-on. The vast majority simply make the car look worse, regardless of how bad it might have originally been from the factory. Yeah, the wire wheelcovers, whitewalls, and C-pillar opera lamps are all out of place on an aero-Bird, but none of that is anywhere near the level of what that continental kit does to the car.
I likeed this stunning “aero-bird” for it’s fresh take on the classic Thunderbird namesake. However, don’t think I’m crazy, because I also liked the 1982 T-bird Heritage edition. I like the hint of classic styling touches, such as white walls, wire wheels, stand-up hood ornaments, and, my fav. – electroluminescent coach lamps!!! (Opera windows and vinyl roofs, optional, of course!)
I owned a 84 T-Bird Elan. It was quite an improvement over my 78 Fairmont Futura. I like both cars, both had 302 V8’s. The fuel injection and 4 speed auto made the T-Bird a very good highway cruiser, would knock down 26-28 on the freeway but she went down to about 15-16 in town. Futura never better than 22 but held up well in town about 18. Yea CFI 2 barrel wasn’t very good but was much better than the 2 barrel carb. One weird note on the CFI 2 barrel. My T-Bird was always hard starting when cold. I asked my bother about, Ford dealer mechanic since 1968. He asked me if I stepped on the throttle before starting it. I was a mechanic working for GMC Truck and Coach Division of General Motors at the time. Fuel injection had not come out on the trucks yet, still Rochester and Holley carbs for us. We knew fuel injection was coming and had knowledge from thecar lines as to how it worked. The big thing that was always stressed was DO NOT touch the throttle when you start the car if it has fuel injection. Well turns out if you READ the owners manual for the 84 bird it tells you to step the throttle to the floor if starting the engine cold. Other then that I miss my Aero-Bird!
I like these T-Birds but a continental kit, ugh. Probably some old fart, older than me.
To each their own I suppose.
Just a couple of days ago I came upon a sleek Chrysler Sebring convertible. It was in great shape, I was impressed, and slowed to let it get in front of me. That is, until it passed me and I saw a similar Continental kit tacked on the rear. A first.
Looks to be a “Universal” kit and not a Ford part. These are available on the net. Saw one for about 2K. Would look great on a Gremlin and also help with weight balance, trunk space, etc. Kind of pricey though. On something like a Sebring, I figure it would really help that weight distribution.
Looks like it came from J C Whitney.
The Continental kit sucks. If it must be there, could it at least follow the slant of the trunk lid instead of sticking out like a honeymoon hard on?
For anyone who might care: it would have been federally illegal for anyone but the vehicle owner (and maybe even the owner) to install this “continental kit”. Accessories like this aren’t specifically regulated; there’s no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that lays out specifications for “continental kits”, but it is unlawful for a party regulated by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966—basically, anyone who repairs, services, modifies, or otherwise touches a car other than their own—to disable, remove, or render inoperative any mandatory equipment or design feature. “Render inoperative” isn’t just a redundant restatement of “disable”, here; if I take the bulb out of a brake light, either term would equally describe what I did. But if I put in a different kind of bulb that produces not enough light, or too much, or the wrong colour, or puts out light in the wrong pattern so the brake light no longer meets the applicable performance requirements, then even if it still lights up when the brake pedal is pushed, legally speaking it is no longer a brake light; I have rendered it inoperative.
And I don’t even have to touch the brake light to render it inoperative. Optional equipment may not be installed in a manner that impairs the effectiveness of mandatory equipment. Tail lights, brake lights, and rear turn signals are all mandatory, and the minimum visibility angle requirements for all three functions include 45° inboard from the lamp’s axis (its effective centre). Block any part of the required visibility angle range, and you’ve rendered the light(s) inoperative. Clearly this “continental kit” does that.
(vehicle owners are regulated by the registrar; i.e., the state where the vehicle is registered. In states that require vehicles to comply with the federal standards, owners, too, are legally prohibited from doing this what I’ve described. In states where the vehicle code amounts to »shrug« Gyosh, I donno, I guess y’gotta have a white light or two up front and a red light or two out back, then vehicle owners can do most of whatever they want without regard to safety.)
I expect that many rear mounted bicycle carriers would also run afoul of this requirement. They often block lights and almost always the licence plate. In Europe it appears that they at least require you to move the plate to the carrier (or add a second one).
Correct on all counts—and many such carriers in Europe, including the one you’ve shown here, have their own rear lights built in: tail, stop, turn, reverse, rear frog.
That sounds as though this might also be illegal on the grounds of interfering with the performance of the 5mph bumpers, then?
Those would be 2.5-mph bumpers in ’83, unless Ford chose to make just one bumper system for both the US and Canada, where there was no Reagan Administration and so the bumper standard was never weakened from 8 km/h (5 mph).
It’s not obvious to me that the “continental kit” would adversely affect the performance of the bumper (but neither is it obvious to me that it wouldn’t).
Even the Heritage model was available with the upgraded suspension with TRX wheels and tires (the latter which has become unobtainium). If I had to rock an aero T-bird with a continental kit, I’d put a TRX wheel back there just to further mix up the signals…
It has just occurred to me that the ’83 Aerobird was not the first Thunderbird with a fastback-ish roofline. I just Googled the ’70 model, and I think an argument could be made that the profile of the ’83 could have been a modern, ’80s interpretation of the 1970 model’s shape. The newer car even has sort of a “beak peak” up front with its grille.
With that said, I don’t think the Continental kit would look great on either model year, but it doesn’t offend my taste here as much as it might.