John Lloyd posted this shot at the Cohort with the title “Ugliest Thunderbird”. Actually, it’s not, as this one has the rather tame roof instead of the really horrible padded one with the little “opry” window. But it is the most pathetic one.
Got enough room for duallys in that rear wheelwell?
Dog-dish hubcaps on black steelies are…interesting. Better than dirty bare steelies, but just not a *T-bird* look. They and the rust-concealing lower black section (carried over to the plastic bumpers – is one of them off another car?) show some effort to spruce this old ‘Bird up, but on the cheap with what was already on hand. Come to think of it, isn’t that what Ford did to the Fairmont two-door sedan to make this car in the first place?
The nodding-off headlight covers tell me it probably hasn’t been started in a while either.
The black lower section seems to fool no one, even people I know not privy to cars seem to note something amiss when they see a car with black lower body paint. Though Washington plates make that seem more unnecessary than in the Midwest where I see the practice frequently, could in fact be a bumper replacement and rather than match it the whole lower section of the car was painted to match instead? That’s the correct bumper though, Ford really did use mismatched bodyside trim moldings on these.
This car was not the Blue Oval’s finest hour of Thunderbird-ery. It looks like a Fairmont on speed. And the Fairmont is a better looking car. Still, I hope this ’80 “T” finds a good home. No matter how lowly this car may be I wish it well. Even ugly ducklings need a good home . . .
♠SHAMELESS MUSIC PLUG♠ I discovered this 1974 tune on YT the other day; it’s in the same vein as Marvin Gaye’s song “What’s Goin’ On?” and I can’t get it out of my head. With that in mind I thought perhaps some of y’all might see this post and go listen and see what you think. It’s a soulful song, yes it is: TRYING TO SURVIVE by Harvey Scales and the Seven Seas.
This is definitely not a “Fun Fun Fun” kind of T-Bird. And I’m usually a Fox fan.
well said. It´s a shame, one of the gloriest and famest us-car names given to this thing.
The way the grille “continues” quite a ways forward below the bumper always really bugged me. Sort of like a cardboard model that only looks right straight on. Ridiculous really.
Continuing a grille below a thick 5 mph bumper only works if you’re committed to keeping it at the same depth (1973 Cutlass). Any protrusion results in a pouty fat lip look.
Ford must have felt the same way because they got rid of the below-bumper grille for 1981.
That actually looks so much better!
Another vote for the ’81 looking better than the ’80.
Someone swiped the nice original wheel covers or aluminum wheels and cheap taxicab dog dish caps were thrown in place.
I always thought these cars had “committee” styling. Ford obviously tried to cram the historically successful cues from one committee onto the new small Fox chassis as dictated by another committee. The results looked unfortunate. Ford learned of course and the clean sheet ’83’s were so much more appealing.
Still. these cars were a tremendous improvement in handling, function and efficiency due to the inherent goodness of the Fox chassis. Lots of new advanced features like a digital dash, trip computer and keyless entry were introduced. For these reasons this generation has merit. I would welcome one to my fleet if I could find a nice one cheap.
From what I read, Iacocca was the mastermind behind the ‘80 Thunderbird. It was his parting shot before jumping to Chrysler.
I was not much of a fan of this edition of T’birds; but the corresponding Cougar did come out somewhat better.
https://columbia.craigslist.org/cto/d/ford-thunderbird/6716064861.html
Here ya go. 1980 Ford Thunderbird.
> Lots of new advanced features like a digital dash, trip computer and keyless entry were introduced
…and let’s not forget Recaro seats and those funky Michelin TRX tires that were great ’til you had to replace them and found out they weren’t made anymore
Windshield says “Runs Great!”
Much preferable to “Ran When Parked”….
Once again, Paul and I agree on a car.
As bad as this Thunderbird is, it could have been worse. In the depths of Fuel Crisis II, Ford explored the idea of putting the T-bird on a Pinto platform. I saw pictures a long time ago but I can’t find any on the web. Trust me – it was awful. Perhaps an intrepid CCer can dig up a photo.
And no, I am NOT posting too fast. Please fix this.
Hear Hear! Constantly getting nuked with that glitch!
I’m beginning to think the posting too fast problem is with my Android notebook. Google Chrome remembers my email and user name, (I post without logging in), so that info is quickly entered automatically. I now wait a few seconds before hitting the “post comment” after entering email and user name and this seems to work, no more “posting too quickly” messages since I started doing this.
I’ve run in to that “You’re posting too fast” message before . . . once when it was the 1st post I made here one day. I have run in to this message a few other times as well. What a weird glitch.
What’s that Lincolnish thing next to it?
Ninth generation Continental, built from 1995-2002.
Sharing many chassis parts with the 1996 Taurus, it used a Front Wheel Drive configuration, but was powered by the 4 valve per cylinder “InTech” V-8 used in the Continental Mark VIII.
Not the ’80-’83 Mark VI coupe?
(oops ignore above comment; i misunderstood question)
This is the most basic looking T-Bird I’ve ever seen. Was there a stripper version of this car?
It was basically this without the black paint or (i think) the dog dish hubcaps
This version looked better:
I’ll take the Econoline, thanks…
Actually I like the way it looks. I am sorry to disagree with you Paul and other friends. I love you All.
No need to apologize; all cars are lovable in their own way to someone. Differing tastes make this the great site it is.
The narrow rear track is one of the most jarring aspects of this generation, and bizarre since no other Fox platform models seem to suffer it. I like this generation Cougar XR7 more(also sans vinyl top), the fake headlights on the flip up doors revealing big Fairmont headlights truly is pathetic. I still would take this over the 72-76 generation though.
My main problem with it is the shape of the sides. There is a pronounced inward tilt as the sheetmetal goes up from that bodyside molding, and another one as the sheetmetal goes down from it towards the rocker panels. The black lower body really accentuates that look.
Can I go back and revise my choices from the Buick Electra and the car under the cover from the other day? On the small chance it might be one of these under the cover I will take that Buick and love it like I’ve never loved anything else.
I never looked that deeply at them but I see it now, the body essentially skirts down from the more narrow Fairmont bones up top, that would explain the narrow track at the same time. Edit I just looked it up, these are 4 inches wider than a Fairmont!
I had never looked up the widths of the two cars, but this makes sense now. It looks like a lot of that extra width is wasted between the door skin and the inner door trim panel. “It’s not a Fairmont, it is much wider.”
Cue Queen singing “Fat-bottomed Girls”.
$1,200? I am sure it is being sold as a “rare classic”.
Given the over all condition, that price seems fair- There should be no rust issues on a Washington car, and the basic drive line offers Ford reliability.
The Hagerty Valuation tool says $1,500 for a car in number 4 (fair) condition, so this price seems in line with reality.
BTW, those calling these T-birds “Rare Classics” are looking for much more money, (see attached image from the Hemmings website)
These things would be classic like a Morris Marina is classic. A piece of automotive history, true, but not classic IMHO.
Pros: more manageable size, reasonable fuel economy for the class and pretty roomy inside. Cons: too boxy styling, overdecorated and underpowered. I didn’t much like these when they first came out, an overbaked Fairmont coupe. I would still much rather have a well-optioned Fairmont over these.
The conception and demise of the low-flying 1980-’82 Thunderbirds seem to have been planned at the same time, at the same table. Coming off the heels of the most successful model in the nameplates history, the ’77-’79, and awkwardly supplanted just before the breathlessly groundbreaking aero birds of ’83 forward, they just didn’t stand a chance. Personally, I think there are some iterations of this car that are reasonably handsome, including some with the simpler opera windows. When I was 17 I had a red 1980 Thunderbird with a white vinyl top and red cloth interior. When I drove it to prom wearing a white tuxedo, people told me I looked like Colonel Sanders driving a bucket of chicken.
The acclaimed ’83 was a reskin of the Fox ’80-’82, and was planned about the same time the 1980’s were released. Same Fox platform, so was done quick.
These ‘tiny T-Birds’ make good drag strip cars, due to light weight, and Fox platform. Can bolt in any mod for 5.0 Mustang, and maybe win races. Can surprise many competitors
One silver T-Bird was the winning car on former Speed Channel show “Pinks”.
Sure, it’s not going to win beauty contests or “Concours” car shows, but can have fun without worrying about “collector value” and all.
Sad how this was the body and platform of the 25th Anniversary Thunderbird. Haven’t seen one in the flesh since 1999 at Kobar’s salvage yard. It was a sad little bird who’s engine had been plucked
My father found a ‘nice’ one and thought of getting it replace my mother’s 12-year old Ventura (Nova).
I was 22. I said, “you can’t be serious!”. I told him it was too ‘frivolous’ for us. It was a low-priced ‘mint’ car, but I was horrified at the thought of having this ugly joke of a car in my family.
He got a used Fairmont with the 200 six and automatic, which my brother eventually inherited. An infinitely more respectable and less embarrassing car.
I actually like the looks of this car, but then again I like the aeroback a bodies. This car had light, clean, angular styling with enough touches like the hidden headlamps to make it look like a Thunderbird. The previous angular generation was nice also but the one before that was just too ridiculously large especially given the tiny passenger compartment. I far prefer this to the aero car which followed and looked like a blobby, melted mess. But, just my opinion.
I saw this abomination in Lima, Perú when I travelled through South America two years ago. I guess somebody there had same affection for ‘half-Oreo’ look.
Not a high point in T-bird history, though the welcome ’83 restyle wasn’t too far off. At least–I tell myself–the paint scheme wasn’t a factory thing.
This is perhaps the first Thunderbird I might buy as a winter beater–if only to keep this $3000 1989 model as a 3-season car: https://seattle.craigslist.org/est/cto/d/1989-thunderbird-2-door-coupe/6727706128.html
I don’t hate these. With some better wheels and tires and a tasteful paint job they can actually look nice, and then wake it up with a 5.0L/AOD and youre in business.
I think the last generation 2002-05 Thunderbirds are much more hideous
The last one of these I recall seeing was sitting at an abandoned asphalt plant around 2010 or so.
I do actually like these Box-‘Birds – in the right colors, and with right options and exterior appointments.
*This* example, though, just looks so bleak. The color of the lower body absolutely just does not work with the creamy color of the upper half and the interior. Bleak-‘Bird!
In my mind the last real T-Bird was in 1976. Lots of luxury, presence and style, with a 460 V-8. The 1977 restyle, while a sales hit, was little more than a Torino, severely decontented and underpowered compared to the previous generation. It sold well due to a lower price and the still powerful Thunderbird name. The featured 8th generation was the worst ever. The aero 9th generation was a great improvement, but still didn’t have the cachet of those prior to 1977.
With that bottom grill section it has the underbite of Sling Blade. “Ya ought not talk that way ’bout muh T-Bird. Mm.”
I don’t get all the hate, just some of it. Ford had to do something. First the T Bird customer had to accept the idea that it was going to be a smaller car. Then by the time it was morphed into Aero Bird the public was ready to accept the new concept. This shrunken design retained all the brohammy and neo classic cues but it just wasn’t that convincing. I think the only shrunken luxury coupe that pulled it off was the 79-85 Cadillac El Dorado and kin. Although I do like this coral and creme colored coupe.
I don’t think I have ever seen one of these that isn’t beige, so while I think that image is flattering, I don’t think it is representative.
Ultimately I think the Fairmont Furura body should have been reserved the 1980 Thunderbird.
That looked more T-birdish than the actual T-bird did, at least from the side view.
Yet another Fox coupe variant from that time (and perhaps the rarest) was the ’81-’82 Granada coupe which visually split the difference between the Fairmont and Thunderbird.
I agree this is a much better looking car. The ad shows maybe the best looking one I ever saw. I miss polished aluminum wheels like this. I had a Zephyr Z7 which looked like it. I had never seen aluminum bumpers before and when I did a repair/rigging I was surprised at how little the rear bumper weighed.
I dunno, I think the 1980 Cordoba was very attractive after shrinkage.
These were such duds that they forced a quick redesign of the body and reuse of the Fox platform. That was probably more due to Ford not wanting to take risks with design AND downsizing the TBird from the 79 version. They should have done both, and gone with a new look along with the new size. Instead, they engineered and designed to a model name, not to what it could have been. The aero Bird of 83 bears this out. Same platform, new body, great sales.
Ford keeps old model names and reinvents them in ways that are irrelevant to the old version, as was the case here. In contrast, GM keeps the old versions and gives them new names (Malibu to Classic is the most egregious example). If this car was not called a Thunderbird, but rather a Galaxie or perhaps a Fairlane, it would have passed muster. As a Thunderbird, it no longer was a PLC, just a Fairmont in a bigger suit.
I have often thought that the basic design was pleasing to the eye and would have been an overall rather attractive design, except for the way too small wheels and possibly too great of a front overhang – the wheels being the most offensive to the design.
I did a rather quick and dirty photo shop of a side view. Larger wheels and about a 3″ forward placement of the front wheels. More muscular looking, and not so top heavy, and better proportions. Possibly the track should be increased as well. And of course a nice body color rather than those odd yellowish cream and tan colors.
For some reason the front of that car (A pillar and forward) looks like a ’90s Town Car.
That’s my favorite roof treatment for that car actually – less Fairmont-looking than the metal roof/large window look (like on the featured car), and also more like the popular ’77-’79 basket handle roof than the 1980 Town Landau treatment (as on the coral/creme car that Jose posted above, with the disconnected opera lamp and no targa band). But it’s still too blocky.
Can you photoshop a horizontal C-pillar DLO instead of the vertical one? I think that would gone a long way to fixing the styling, giving the car a much more lengthy appearance, which is what the Fox Thunderbird desperately needed.
I get the impression that the Ford designers went with the vertical C-pillar DLO to maintain continuity with the previous generation’s ‘basket-handle’ window. They should have completely abandoned the previous Thunderbird’s styling and used a horizontal window which, along with the other changes, might have kept the Fox Thunderbird from being the bottom of the model’s lineage.
My thinking was that just by installing larger wheels, the design would be much more pleasing to the eye. I sort of like the large C pillar – it reminds me of the 1941 Lincoln continental, as well as the 1966 TBird Town Hardtop and the 1969 & 1971 Tbird 3 window landaus.
However, I lowered the top to almost the extreme that would have been allowed for production (1972-76 Mark IVs and TBirds has very low roof lines). I left the opera window the same except for being shorter.
I happen to like rear antennas and gills – so here they are on the ’82 Tbird. Enough of this fun, I need to get some work done!
Ford Deadly Sin.
Especially after the 1977-1979 best selling Thunderbirds of all time.
The “Arrow” Birds managed to redeem the nameplate for a little while longer but this 1980 model was the beginning of the end for the PLC Brougham Era.
All of the big-three were racing to the bottom in terms of size and quality of the PLC’s in the 80’s and word was out, consumers brought fewer and fewer every year until the big three stopped making the PLC and blamed it on the consumer.
There were exceptions such as the 1986 Fleetwood Brougham D’Elegance Coupe (307 5.0), Grand National, Mark VII LSC, and Mark VIII. But these were the last of the breed, were for the most part special order, and were priced accordingly to not sell in the volume to be a hit with middle America like the 1977-1979 T-Birds MSRP Base price of $5,000.
When GM announced 1987 would be the final year of the Grand National they received 10,000 orders overnight and still killed it. There were some engineers at Buick who tried to make a detuned Grand National in the 1988 Regal but the front axles kept snapping during testing and GM did not give Buick access to the B-Body Sedan until 1991 when all the Grand National Engineers were “re-assigned.”
That poor van with the empty eye sockets and toothless gaping mouth would make a good entry in today’s “Scariest Car” competition.
Lets see, there was the Square Bird, the Bullet Bird, the Rocket Bird, the Aero Bird. This was the Turd Bird
hehehe
These were frequently referred to as “Thunderturd” when they were ubiquitous, even by the dealers. Not a car to be terribly missed once attrition took its toll.
This might just be the one and only time you are right and I’m wrong. 🙂