Tim Finn sent me this fine shot he took of a 1977 Thunderbird on a recent evening in Portland. He said it reminded him of the the song “Bluebird” by Buffalo Springfield (written by Steven Stills). I find the comparison of its unusual roof line with the Hyundai Genesis coupe’s roof line interesting.
That’s a great photo!
I know malaise-era cars were pretty lousy for power, performance and quality, but I still have a soft spot for some of them, including these TBirds. They have much more character and presence than modern anonymous transportation appliances.
Oh, and the dipping beltline on the Genesis right before the C-pillar is beyond ugly and very distracting. It is the first thing I notice every time I see one of those cars.
Lots of newer cars have contrived sheet metal creases. Hyundais seem to be worse than most. Older Santa Fes all had a strange pinch in the flanks just in front of the rear wheels. Looks just like a big dent. Quite distracting, and always draws the eye. Maybe someone liked the faux-damage look.
Funny you mention the Santa Fe. I was living in Korea when they came out, and it looked like a dent to me, too!
re: Genesis:
Perhaps a concession to whoever is lucky
to be a backseat passenger in it. LOL
Sadly Korean and Japanese styling seems headed back to the days of the Theatre of the Absurd. So gimmicky and overdone, just like the original Datsun 200SX, B-210 etc.
Disagree. After the gimmicky Veloster and this Genesis Coupe, Hyundai’s design language has become blockier and more conservative. Kias, too, are looking very refined and European thanks to Peter Schreyer. I can’t think of any wacky Korean designs at the moment.
The Japanese, on the other hand… Well, you may have a point.
+1 great photo. That purple and yellow just work perfectly together.
Like the Honda Odyssey: looks like it’s been welded together from two different cars. Hideous.
Love the photo.
Bad roof treatments on both. The Tbird one would work better if it weren’t for the stupid opera window in the B pillar and the puffy mandatory vinyl. The Hyundai one looks dumb but on the other hand it would look totally anonymous if it weren’t for that goofy dip. Unfortunately conformity is the state of modern coupe design, and like every modern coupe since the Audi TT the Hyundai conforms to a tee, so I can understand the desire to try something radical, but unfortunately that dipped window only looks clumsy.
Curious about the wheels on the Tbird, that dish isn’t stock, I’m going to guess slot mags, in which case the I like it a lot more! 🙂
The more of the cars of the 1970s I’m reminded of, and the the more of the cookie-cutter sameness of today’s cars, the more I appreciate my ’65 Corvairs and my ’65 Ambassador.
Aside from the 67, the 65 Ambassador is my favorite. With a sentimental vote for my Grandmother’s 60, but that’s not about design.
More like Purple Rain.
These rode well, lotta hood out front. IIRC, there was a large ornament way out front.
I’m going to bet you anything that despite the differences in build quality, technology, style, and performance, the interior dimensions of these two cars are more or less identical.
Maybe it’s just my weird a-skewed sense of perspective, but whenever I see that sloping roofline on modern cars, I always feel like there’s never enough headroom for anyone over 5’10. I could be wrong on most cases, but it just seemed like cars back then looked more accommodating to taller passengers then cars today.
I really like this photo a lot, who knew you could make a 77 blue T-Bird seem graceful?
It certainly seems as though most coupes before the 80’s functioned more as two door sedans than what has been available since.
Although these cars get picked on for having horrible space efficiency, and rightfully so, they aren’t as bad as most people seem to “remember”. Look at the numbers:
1977 T-Bird:
Rear leg room: 32.7″
Rear head room: 36.2:
Rear hip room: 57.0″
Hyundai Genesis Coupe:
Rear Legroom: 30.3″
Rear head room: 34.6″
Rear shoulder room: 52.8″
Unfortunately I couldn’t find hip room and shoulder room for both cars. That said, it’s significant that the T-bird has more hip room than the Genesis does shoulder room, but that’s why the Genesis only seats two rear passengers. While the rear quarters on these old 70’s coupes looked cramped, part of the reason is that they generally have longer seat cushion bases than modern coupes. I can say without a doubt that my long legged 6’4″ frame fits can fit in the back of a T-bird with the front seat all the way back, albeit not overly comfortable. While, there is few if any, modern coupes that have been able to fit in with the front seat adjusted far enough back that I can drive. We used to fit three teenage boys all 6 feet plus in the back of these 70’s coupes, and while not the most comfortable, we survived many trips this way.
I’m obsessed with rear seat leg room, Bill. That T-Bird had only about 3″ more than a Pinto [ 30.1″] .
Thanks for picking up on that and providing the dimensions.
I can quote many interior stats from memory, especially from the 70s. Having ridden in the back seat of a 71 Gremlin from IA to PA, when I was 14, it’s been a “thing” of mine for a long time. Perhaps personal trauma, rather than a “thing”.
My parent’s 74 Mustang II Ghia was even worse.
Even at 5’8″ it always irritated me when large cars came with tiny rear compartments. And fixed rear windows. What a suffocating proposition for a passenger.
I have found that anything less than 34″ rear legroom and 37″ of rear headroom puts a vehicle on the borderline of inadequate.
That’s what made the Xs such a revelation. And the Omni/Horizon.
Yet a Fiesta or Focus have a ridiculous lack of legroom in the rear: 30.1 [Pinto style] in the Fiesta and 33.2 in the Focus [ironic because the earlier gen Focus had excellent leg room].
Nearly four decades in and we revert to 70s style people packaging. Even the J Body had more room back there than the current small Fords.
Need rear seat leg room? Thats why I also have a 79 Lincoln. You’d like that rear seat.
DweezilAZ, I hear you on the rear leg room thing. It seems most of the 1970’s intermediates coupes were all about 32-34″ of rear leg room, while most 4-doors were in the 36-38″ range. The two door cars had enough to “just” get by but it certainly wasn’t roomy or overly comfortable by any stretch. My dad always drove two door cars with two exceptions that are 50 years apart, a 1960 Dodge which traded in 1966 on an Impala coupe, and just last year he bought a 2016 Camry. Being in a large family it wasn’t unusual to be stuck in the back of one of dad’s two-doors on a trip, but it was tolerable. On the other hand, my mother’s wagons may not have been as cool, but they sure did have way better leg room.
I too have noticed the lack of rear seat leg room in modern cars, especially two doors. Many coupes have literally no leg room in the back when you push the front seat all the way back. I was car shopping in the spring for new family car, and one of my stipulations was that I had to fit semi comfortably behind the drivers seat with it adjusted to fit me. Surprisingly, there were quite a few cars that didn’t pass my little test.
I had ’78 T-bird. Navy with silver grey vinyl top and grey interior with buckets and consol. The 302 was no power house but dead reliable. I liked the style of these cars back then. Comfortable and reliable. A very good experience for me.
My DD is a 79 Thunderbird. Bought it in April 02 for $900. Have had zero breakdowns and only $73 in repairs. Here it is.
That certainly has been a good value. I’m just curious, what kind of MPG do you get?
11 in town and 13 at 70-75 hwy. However it don’t hurt too bad. Being a truck driver I only drove it 1044 miles last year. I can almost go 3 months between fill ups.
Beautiful car, Guy.
Thank you Joseph.
That is a sweet looking Thunderbird. $900? I am definitely envious, even if your repairs cost more than what you have spent.
Got one a little better than that. This is my 79 Lincoln I bought in Nov. 01 for $750. Those days are long gone though.
Even though this model is objectively kind of crap, it’s my favorite Bird. I blame high levels of exposure as a child, much like lead paint.
I blame high levels of exposure as a child, much like lead paint.
Comment of the day! Did you know that lead has a sweet taste?
Sorry, Paul, what did you say? This windowsill tastes like a candy cane.
Stephanie vividly remembers the taste when chewing on a window sill as a little girl. She blames any perceived shortcomings on that. 🙂
Ahh, the Poverty Bird, which completely debased the brand, but sold in huge numbers, since it was the LTD II body and frame, only slightly modified. Same awful brakes, damping and general cornering. However, there is loads of nose dive built in to make you think you have good brakes. The steering is devoid of feel and needs constant corrections. Only small kids could ft in the back.
To top this feast, it was offered with a bunch of V-8’s that had six power and atrocious fuel consumption to go with it. In city driving, you’d be lucky to get 12 mpg with the strangled 351.
And yet, Ford sold a bazillion of them. They were everywhere. It seemed every hairdresser in town had one. It was a huge winner in the sales department, and one of the worst cars I can ever remember.
They were beautiful and with little effort the reliable engines could be modified to make decent power and gas mileage..
The 400 with emissions removed, cam advanced 8 degrees, dual exhaust and better rear end gears made decent power and got in the 20 s for gas mileage. Car was huge improvement over the bloated ugly 76 model.
As many issues as these T-birds had, they were still an improvement over the monsters 1972-76 Birds. It was the correct move to bring the T-bird down market to compete with the Cutlass Supreme, which was where the real money in that market was. The only real advantage the big ones had was that they had much more prestige with their more luxurious trimmings. There is no doubt this was the right move for Ford at the time.
Here is what Popular Science said about the 1977 T-Bird:
“The new model has many vestiges of the big Birds of past years, including a long hood and short deck, excellent performance and poor fuel economy. But the feel of a big, overblown, heavy car is gone. Handling and maneuverability have noticeably improved. There has been some deterioration in ride comfort, but that is to be expected when you cut the wheelbase and overall weight. Still there is nothing shabby about the ride. It’s just right for a model in the lower-priced-personal-luxury market.
With its new styling, new lower price, and functional improvements, the Thunderbird is an appealing package this year. It is better matched to the high-volume competition and should be a successful model for Ford in the coming years. The cutbacks the company has made is some luxury items such as interior trim, ride and noise control are not serious, and do little to detract from the car’s overall appeal.”
I totally agree. Moving the T-bird down market was a monstrous sales success, but forever tarnished the brand. It was never an exclusive luxury car again. Just goes to show what power the T-bird name had at the time.
Maybe it lost its exclusivity, but that market was on its way out so who cares if it did? If Thunderbird would have kept down the road of being a high priced pseudo-Lincoln, it would have died off even sooner than it did. Ford desperately needed a competitive car in the high volume luxury market and this car hit the mark.
On the other hand, moving the Tbird upmarket in 1958 was also a monstrous sales success, and was never a pseudo sports car again. What’s the bigger act of name debasement – turning a sports car into a land barge or turning a land barge into a slightly smaller land barge? I have to second Bill on this, this kept the name alive and it’s sales performance and prestige in the 72-76 generation is questionable at best.
I like. I want.
Looks like modern tallish rims, but with enough offset to make them fit well.
The original ’55/’57 T Birds were a miniaturized two seat version of the regular Fords. Both the original and the facelift are of course awesome. The unit body ’58 was a revolutionary solution to a really low 4 seat car with solid rear axle RWD, making the huge driveline hump into a feature not a bug and starting the “Thunderbird roofline” idea which eventually took over everything. It set the style for cars for years. The ’61, and ’64 (with unfortunately flat side windows because of some misbegotten management decision) were two more unique contributions to the tradition.
Then they went back to body on frame and things went downhill to generic American nothingness, eventually sharing a lot with other Fords. This one here is maybe the bottom of the barrel.
Bottom of the barrel is the early 80s model
This is another one that I happened to make some “artwork” from earlier. The blue bird really caught my eye when I took the photo. This was one of my earlier attempts at digital art during the phase that I was doing a lot of car art.
Stacy, I may be repeating myself from one of Paul’s earlier posts featuring your work, but I’m a big fan!
What a beautiful and surreal shot. I hope you will keep posting your artwork like this.
Fantastic shot and angle. Love the saturated colors. While the Genesis coupe’s roofline did eventually sort of grow on me, I’ve always liked the Fashion Bird’s “basket handle” roofline. The opera window on the B-pillar never bothered me – plus, it had that neat Thunderbird-emblem etching.
Nice photo! My parents had one during their first “defection” to Ford products in the late ’70s.
By the way, I think the featured car might be a ’78. I’m not sure that the headlamp doors had the chrome birds and bezels in ’77…but then again, they could have been added during a repair, or as part of a customization.
Yes, unless they’ve been changed, as you said, it’s a 78.
For what ever reason, whenever I see one of these T-Birds it reminds me of the Night Court sit com. I remember in the opening credits for that show there was one of these T-birds sitting at a traffic light. For whatever reason it always stood out when I saw the opening credits.
These cars were immensely popular in this area, along with the Cougar sibling. There seemed to be far more T-birds on the roads than LTD IIs, which were pretty rare. Same thing went for the Monte Carlos versus the Colonnade Chevelles. This generation of T-bird seemed to hold up very well compared to most Fords of this era, resisting the long winters here, but Ford did make some big improvements to sheet metal quality in the late 70’s.
Yup, same thing to me with Granada’s and “Cheers”. There’s a 75-77 prominently in the opening credits.
Yes, now that you mention it, I do remember that Granada! Cheers was one of my favourites at the time.
My first car was a 1978 T-Bird, I bought it from my boss in 1984 he owned a car wash and it was pristine. It was metallic red with red interior, bucket seats with the 400 and was pretty loaded, power everything. I was a gas hog, being 18 years old it cost a lot to fill up for me. I ended up selling it in 1988 trading in on a 1987 T-Bird. Got the same $1500 I paid for it! Good memories, took that boat on several road trips after graduating high school. It never broke down.
I once drove one of these (year?) that belonged to a neighbor. It was a metallic blue Diamond Jubilee edition. No road feel at all and quiet. Very nice!
My sister in law’s Mother had one of these: Emerald green with white vinyl top and emerald green “panty cloth” interior. Pretty impressive.
Never understood the “personal” part of this market when the offerings were always so large.
Paul-
What a great shot of the “Poverty Bird”.
Make my day and tell me it was sent by NZ’s Tim Finn!
(as in SplitEnz, Crowded House, Finn Bros., and too many great solo works to name)
Sorry, I’m not that Tim Finn.
Thanks for the great picture anyway!
DG
Maybe someone said this already but the birds on the headlight covers make it a 78.
I had a 1979 Mercury Cougar which is basically the same car as this Thunderbird.
I drove it 550 miles a week in the late 90’s and 00’s. It was the most reliable car I ever owned. I drove it over 180,000 and nothing needed to be rebuilt. Michigan salt is what killed it.
The 302 V8 was underpowered from the factory. But after a CAT delete dual exhaust, no EGR, older carburetor, and re-curved distributor it could knock down 20 mpg highway and 16 city. It was still not powerful, but it loved cruising at 65-80 mph with very little throttle input. Over 80mph it had to work hard and mileage dropped.
I don’t understand the comments about poor braking and steering???
The brakes were awesome! They had huge front disc brakes and huge rear drum brakes. They were the same as a Lincoln Mark V.
My Cougar had “radial tuned suspension”. It had front and rear sway bars. The only thing vague was the tall tires on curves. Plus size the rims and this big ole car would surprise many an import on the freeway ramps.
I still do the long commutes.
After I wear out my two old Audi 5000’s I will get another 77-79 Cougar, T-Bird, or LTD II as a driver. Dependable, drives nice, easy to repair, cheap to buy and repair.
+10. Beautiful Cougar.
These actually would have had excellent weight distribution with the 302 under the hood, according to the 1979 MVMA stats for one it would be 54/46, that’s in the ballpark of the current ponycars! Still heavy and underpowered but I could totally see one of these being nice to drive with that configuration. I’ve driven this platform with both the 351M and 460 with standard suspensions and it’s a different story, those will plow roll and dive like an airplane circling the runway.
My 78 T bird had the 302. I put dual exhaust on it, quiet but free flowing, a little re jetting and ignition mods did bring it to 20 mpg with reasonable passing abilities for the time. It was a very good car with very little issues. Always started well. Handling was average but I found the braking very adequate.