This is it. The biggest Thunderbird ever built, a Mark IV in disguise. Hard to believe this car is related to the trim, befinned 1955-57 two seat T-Birds, huh? The Seventies changed a lot of people – and cars.
This was not the Thunderbird’s first drastic change. The 1958 Squarebird added a back seat and, with the possible exception of the 1953 Studebaker Starliner, created the personal luxury car market. Low, sleek and powerful, the T-Bird became a luxury Ford – an oxymoron at the time, for even though it was a Ford model it was considered on par with a Lincoln – unthinkable ten years prior.
The Squarebird gave way to the Bullet Bird in 1961, a very sporty and luxurious mode of transport for the Jet Age. Ford really had a knack for creating new market areas, and the T-Bird was one of their best exploits in that area. Folks who would never have considered a Ford in the past – people who were doctors or lawyers and drove Lincoln Continentals, Buick Electra 225s and Oldsmobile Ninety Eights, were looking at – and buying – Ford’s personal luxury car.
My grandparents were such people. When my dad was a kid, my grandfather, who was a lawyer and an insurance executive, had a ’62 or so Buick Electra, and my grandmother had a metallic lilac ’60 Catalina convertible with a white interior. That Pontiac was traded in on a navy blue ’65 Thunderbird convertible, with a white leather interior. She kept it all the way to 1977; she liked it that much. By 1964, the smooth, sporty looks of the 1961-63 ‘bullet bird’ gave way to crisp, rectangular lines, and one of the coolest interiors of the Sixties. The last of the Flair Birds came off the line in 1966.
Much was new for the 1967 Thunderbird, but not all of it was good. First of all, the convertible was gone, a victim of low sales. It was replaced with – are you sitting down? – a four door sedan. Yes, a four door sedan. This mini-Continental sported center-opening doors and Brougham-tastic landau irons on the sail panels, which hid the cut lines for the rear doors. A neat idea, but was this really a T-Bird?
Of course the two-door hardtop returned, for a somewhat more traditional Thunderbird experience. Then, in 1970, a ‘Bunkie Beak” was tacked on to the 1967-vintage body, making it look like a Grand Prix. During this time, sales were slowly but surely sinking, from 77,956 in ’67 to only 36,055 ’71s. A new direction was needed. What next?
What was next was more. More wheelbase, more front and rear overhang, more luxury gadgets, and more velour. The 1972 Thunderbird was completely redesigned, and shared much with the also new for ’72 Continental Mark IV. The 1972 Thunderbird (and the Mark IV) were approved by Ford President Bunkie Knudsen just before his departure from Dearborn. This was a big ‘Bird. Total length was now 214 inches, with a 120.4″ wheelbase and 80″ width. The 1972 model came in a single Landau two door hardtop bodystyle – the four-doors were history – and was priced at $5293. Sales rebounded smartly, to over 57,000.
The 429 CID V8 was standard equipment, with a 460 optional. Either way, you could have any transmission you wanted, as long as it was the 3-speed C6 automatic. Like the previous Thunderbird, the ’72 shared a lot of parts with the Mark – the windshield and side glass were identical between the two, not to mention most of the dimensions and the running gear. Thanks to the 1973 federal bumper standards, the ’73 T-Bird got a new nose (shown above) with requisite chromed battering ram, a new grille, headlights in separate pods, and new parking lamps. Also new was an opera window in the C-pillar, a must-have on ’70s personal luxury cars. It was initially an option, but was soon made a standard feature. Sales went up again, with over 87,000 sold for 1973.
Five mph bumpers were added to the back for ’74, so a similar restyling was applied to the back of the car. While attractive, it was not as good-looking as the full-width tail lamps and integrated bumper of the 1972-73. One of the T-Bird’s defining features, bucket seats, were eliminated for ’74.
Thanks to the new rear bumper, curb weight was up to 4800 lbs. The 429 was dropped, and all Thunderbirds now had the 460 as standard, for a less than stellar 11 mpg. Well, what do you expect? This is a large, in charge luxury coupe, not a Pinto!
Between 1974 and 1976, the Thunderbird remained essentially the same. Ford kept interest up with lots of special decor models. Our featured CC is a Burgundy Luxury Group Thunderbird, which was available in 1974 only. It included special burgundy metallic paint, color-keyed vinyl roof and premium bodyside moldings, and a burgundy interior in velour or optional leather.
Inside, the Thunderbird had its own unique door panels, upholstery, and round gauges set in a color-keyed panel, unlike the Mark IV’s square instruments in a fake-wood slathered instrument panel. As much as I love the Mark IV, I kind of like the Thunderbird’s instrument panel treatment better. And dig that CB radio! Breaker Breaker, this is Velour Bird rolling on I-80 at mile marker 257, where’s the nearest gas station?
While the Continental Mark IV was the cream of the crop in Ford’s personal luxury coupe lineup, an argument could be made for choosing the Thunderbird instead. Consider: A 1974 Thunderbird went for $7,330 ($34,106.36 adjusted) while the Mark IV was a princely $10,194 ($47,432.50 adjusted). For nearly three thousand dollars less – a not-inconsiderable sum in 1974 – you could get a very comparable car – assuming you could live without the chrome Parthenon grille, hidden headlights, spare tire hump and oval opera windows.
Here is a 1974 Continental Mark IV, with the Silver Luxury Group, no less. Though it had several unique styling cues, when you compare it with a similar shot of a ’76 T-Bird below, you can see how choosing a Thunderbird over a Mark could be a wise decision. Despite this, sales of 1974 Marks and T-Birds were neck and neck, with 57,316 and 58,443, respectively. Well, you did get a lot more snob value with the Mark!
The T-Bird had the same overall look (though the sheetmetal was different), dimensions, and gave up nothing over the Mark in comfort. It was also a much greater value. By 1976, the last year for the 1972 body shell, there were no less than three Luxury Groups: Creme and Gold, Bordeaux, and Lipstick (shown above and below).
The oddly-named Lipstick Luxury Group was the sharpest choice, in my opinion. Bright red paint, bodyside moldings and vinyl roof graced the exterior, while inside was white vinyl upholstery (or optional leather) with red-and-white door panels, and red carpeting, seat belts and instrument panel. It made for quite the flashy machine.
A couple weeks ago, my brother told me about a cool Thunderbird he saw parked for sale in Moline. I tracked it down the very next day. This ’74 model was in great shape, with only a little rust around the cornering lamps making it less than pristine. If you believe the sign, it only has 19,125 miles on it.
I have seen this car before in downtown Rock Island, but that was before I started carrying a camera in the car. It has to be the same one, as these are really scarce here in the Midwest. I can’t remember the last time I saw another one of these.
After 1976, the T-Bird went on a diet, and lost its relationship with the Continental. In fact, it would be essentially an LTD II with hidden headlights and a special ‘basket handle’ roofline, but it would set records for T-Bird production that may still yet be unbroken. This ’74 shows how the Thunderbird handled the Great Brougham Epoch. If ever there was a Thunderbird Brougham, this is it.
This was the first generation of Thunderbird of which I was aware, having been born only a few years before its debut. So this car set the Thunderbird idiom for me. None of the subsequent Birds have come close.
$2500 is the tank full? Seriously at $2.20 per litre I dont need this car but it would sell for huge bucks out here.
Now why, exactly, did I hate Ford so much for so many years back then? Oh, yes – because of stuff like this…GM, you were next.
WARNING:Anyone who hates malaise era, luxo-brougham barges like this WILL suffer an aneurism And develop systemic stage-IV brain cancer after exposure to these photos!
Did you?
It’s a bad joke I created. There are certain malaise era barges that I like and others I don’t. This is one of them but thankfully, no.
I worked at Budget Rent-a-Car in 73 & 74 and the bosses wife had one of these, white with red leather interior. It was without a doubt one of the worst cars I have ever driven before or since! Very poor handling, steering didn’t seem connected to anything and visibility that was downright scary…couple that with the long hood, long overhangs it was a recipe for disaster every time you parked it. I’ll say one thing for it though, it sure was one of the quietest cars I’ve ever been in.
In high school auto shop, circa 1976, an English teacher on staff had a ’73. We would service it for her. Naturally, a test drive came into play. Frankly, in my youth, I found this car a real pig. It was extremely quiet and luxurious though. I do like big cars, but driving this car was like stirring cake mix with a pocket knife.
I like big cars. A lot. But a Mark IV, same car but for details, was the only car I ever drove and decided not to buy because of size. Too much hood and front overhang. I felt like I was driving from the back seat. Also, like all full size Lincolns of the 1970′s, I’ve never known of anyone who is able to get the MPG into the double digits in the real world.
I’m a sucker for a nice T-Bird, but this iteration and the 5th gen with The Beak do absolutely nothing for me. It looks like the designer(s) of both were in need of Prozac.
That’s because when these T-birds were designed, the President (Bunkie Knudsen) and the designer (Larry Shinoda) were not on Prozac, but “late of Pontiac!”
Parallel parking a T-Bird or Mark of this vintage is easy with a curb feeler and lots of practice!
My father had a ’73 T-Bird as the second & last car that he ever owned. It had the 460 cu. in. engine. He enjoyed driving it. He claimed that it rode like a plane on the highway. I only drove it once & it felt like driving the USS Missouri. He only racked up 24K miles in it in the 35 yrs. that he owned it. We sold it to someone in CA who bought it because his grandfather had the same type of car.
Of all the cars I have ever sat or ridden in, this one is my least favorite. I had to ride in the back seat of this monstrosity for two hours and it was sheer torture. I despise the car. It is INCREDIBLY small inside for what how large it is outside. And it is butt ugly too.
Aneurism and systemic stage-IV brain cancer for you!
I only mildly dislike it, so maybe I can get away with a severely unpleasant rash…
This car was emblematic of everything that was wrong with Ford and Detroit as a whole during this era. It was gigantic on the outside yet the interior was tiny. It handled like an overweight barge; the steering wheel didn’t appear to be connected to anything but did, in a fashion, move the front wheels.
By 1978 or so, there were loads of these things on the used market incredibly cheap. They were very popular with new immigrants to Canuckistan at the time as they could get part of the American dream on the cheap. I dated a girl about this time whose family had one, exactly the same as the one in the picture. The car was cramped and used gas like the USS New Jersey but Papa didn’t care, since he’d picked the car up for next to nothing.
In my used car days, I had the displeasure to driving a few of these. I knew Detroit was on the way down the drain after driving these pieces of crap, among many others. Ford was by far the worst of this time; even the Chryslers were better if, by some miracle, you got one that wasn’t a quality nightmare. At the Mopar and GM stuff went down the road reasonably well, while the Ford stuff bounded and wallowed like a preggo whale. One would assume that with a motor that could power an M-60 tank the thing would at least have reasonable power, but these cars were all gutless slugs.
The Fairmont was the first decent Ford since the ’65 Mustang and that isn’t saying much since the 1978 Malibu is infinitely better. At least the Fairmont had reasonable interior room.
The base price of a 1978 Fairmont sedan was $3,710, while the base price of a 1978 Malibu sedan was $4,469. That was almost a $700 difference, which was a fair chunk of change in 1978. And the Fairmont had roll-down rear windows on the four-door sedans and its sixes didn’t self-destruct just after the warranty ended.
The Fairmont and Malibu were aimed at different segments of the market. The Fairmont, as a replacement for the Maverick and Granada, was meant to serve as Ford’s compact entry. The Malibu was a downsized intermediate. The different pace of downsizing for GM and Ford meant that their various products didn’t line up quite as neatly by the late 1970s as they had in the past.
Only the replacement of the Maverick. The Granada got the front end updated with squared headlights for ’78 and keeped the same bodyshell until 1980. Then for a short time in 1981, it was built on the Fox-body as a “intermediate” to fit between the Fairmont and the LTD.
I’m booked on the next flight to Moline with a wad of cash.
I will personally be there with a camera!
Not if I get there first and I’ve already got a ticket to Chicago on a plane that leaves in few hours.
Nice!
I guess I’m the only one here who likes these, though I like the Mark even more. I’ll take the Lipstick version, I’m a sucker for a white leather interior.
I’m sorry but nothing says or said success, excess or conspicuous consumption like being able to afford a car that long and big that was only really good for carrying 2 people. Honestly who cares about the back seat occupants comfort, it’s the person in the drivers seat paying the bill.
Eric VanBuren, that was the exact idea. Take a look at some of the massive coupes and roadsters from the late 20′s to mid-30′s classic era. You will see gigantic cars with extremely long hoods and one seat that will comfortably hold two people, at least one of who was likely to be extremely well-off.
I suppose this raises the question of why the stylists felt it necessary to include a rear seat at all in these hulking Thunderbirds and Mark IV’s.
Well of course you need the back seat for those that are earning the money to pay the bills.
Not at all. For $2500, I’d snatch that thing up. Of course, my commute is only 2 miles. . .
That thing is screaming out for a Powerstroke/5-speed swap.
Which would only set you back like $30k. But you’d really save gas money!
Add me to the list of fans of this Thunderbird iteration. And likewise, I like the equivalent Mark even better. The length of the bonnet/frontal overhang is phenomenal, just screaming out for two or more V8s mounted together!
I remember sitting in a ’72 T-bird at Chicago Auto Show, when I was 10, and the doors seemed like from a bank vault!
Some forget these were designed long before any thoughts of oil embargoes, and middle aged car buyers of the time wanted big, bigger, biggest.
I never understood these. Up to this point, a Thunderbird was a Thunderbird. Sure, there was the Mark III, but those looked quite different. The Lincoln was more elegant,the Bird was a little more brash.
With the 72s, the T-Bird became the budget knockoff Mark IV for people who couldn’t afford a real one. Maybe my perspective was colored by the fact that my Dad leased a 72 Mark IV in the fall of 1971, so I had the luxury of riding around in the genuine article. Maybe as an adult having to actually pay for the thing, I might be more receptive to the Bird (if I were interested in such a car). Still, I think that the 72-76 T-Bird was much like the 1956 Clipper compared to yesterday’s 56 Packard. Pretty much the same car without all of the status. But on one of these, what else was there?
I will agree with others. The back seat was a penalty box (a leather-swathed penalty box, though) that was difficult to enter and exit. I only drove Dad’s Mark a couple of times, but did not really like it. Funny, as big of a land barge kind of guy as I may be, I have never worked up much enthusiasm over these. They seem to have a lot of kitsch factor, though. Sort of the 62 Dodge Dart for a new generation.
But I am glad you found it. It is really interesting to look at and ponder.
Edit: The white 61 hardtop looks just like the one I owned for awhile (only nicer).
So everyone talks about how bad the fuel economy was on 70s post bumper regulation/environmental regulation cars but I’ve got to ask… Was the fuel economy any different on a 65 T-bird or a 67 or a 72 vs a 75 model?
Oh, God yes. First, the 65 had a 390 as its standard engine, with an optional 428. My 390 67 Galaxie was actually pretty good on gas if you kept your foot out of the carburator. But I could drive it like an irresponsible teenager and still get 10 mpg in town. The later cars put on several hundred pounds and lost a lot of compression and horsepower with the onset of early emission controls.
Virtually every car made in the 72-74 period got substantially worse fuel mileage than its mid 1960s counterpart, at least in my experience (particularly if you tried to drive them the same way). 8 mpg around town was not that uncommon for the worst offenders.
One counterpoint is that while there had been quite a few cars that demanded premium gas in the 60s, everything burned regular by 1972, so the dollar cost of the lower mileage may not have been as bad as you would expect.
The cars post 1973 were weighted down with the huge 5mph bumpers. The basic size of the cars worked against this since it is going to take a heck of a lot of steel and hydraulics to prevent any damage at 5mph impacts. By 1974 on a Detroit barge the bumpers alone were somewhere in the order of 400 lbs. On the other hand, a minor nudge in a parking lot didn’t result in a huge repair bill, either.
The second factor was in 1973 emission standards tightened up drastically. Detroit responded but spending as little money as possible and this meant retarded sparks to reduce CO and EGR to reduce NOx emissions.What they really needed was new engines designed to reduce NOx, meaning the end of cheap to produce wedge combustion chambers, and real fuel injection.
But nooooooo, Detroit was gonna stick it to the customer. Instead of designing new engines and fuel systems, they just strangled the existing motors the had been using and didn’t give a hoot about fuel consumption. Karma has a way of biting you in the ass and when the fuel crisis hit in 1973 you couldn’t give away a 460 cube sled.
This lack of spending money on engineering is what did Detroit in over the long term. Even 15 years later they were still peddling the same engines like the 351 and 302, albeit finally with proper fuel injection (and only because they had to). It took another round of emission tightening to get modern engines like the Modular V-8, which was heads and above better than the 302. We all love to decry government regulations but for the most part it was these regulations that gave us safer, cleaner and more fuel efficient cars.
I have to disagree with you on this one. The automakers did what they could with the technology commercially-available AT THAT TIME in order to meet the emissions mandates. Did their solutions work very well? Heck no!
It took up until the late 1980s when cost-effective and reliable electronic controls, combined with fuel injection, made it possible to make powerful, efficient engines that also passed emissions.
Look at antilock brakes and airbags – ideas that were also tried in the 1970s but failed because the electronic technology wasn’t yet there (among other reasons). And Chrysler Lean Burn – need I say more?
And you can badmouth the American carmakers all you want, but the foreign cars weren’t much better during the malaise era when it came to dealing with our emissions standards. The Honda CVCC system was probably the finest example of a pre-electronic solution, but it was very complex and it only took the tiniest vacuum leak somewhere to give it fits. The Bosch K-Jetronic systems were also pretty good.
I had the pleasure of doing tuneups on 1970s-80s malaise-era cars of all makes while in high school auto shop so I learned a lot about the emissions systems of that era. We had top-rate equipment including a $26K (in 1983) Sun analyzer that had its own 3-gas exhaust analyzer built in.
Yup Detroit was not trying to stick it to the consumer. They got caught with their pants down and did what they could in the time they had while not sticking it to the consumer with way higher prices. You can’t design a good engine in 2 years time. The mod motor is a good example it didn’t debut until 91 but Ford starting designing it in 84-85 and spent a solid 2 years field testing it. That is why the early versions had the old small block bellhousing pattern and they debuted in the Panthers where they had racked up a few million miles of testing. Ditto for the V10 which was field tested in Econolines long before it was available for sale.
This era T-bird/Mark was the first “modern” hybrid prototype. Unfortunately the cost to the consumer would have been about 100K and you think there was no room in the production version in the hybrid it was a 2 passenger car w/o room in the trunk for anything. Its 2.3 4cyl did return over twice the mpg of the 460 with similar performance.
I respectfully disagree. The 1973 standards were announced in 1968, giving them a five year head start. Instead on engineering a solution they lobbied Congress and lost and they were still building the same motors almost 25 years later. This gave them five years to design new engines and instead they chose to litigate. They also knew all about catalytic converters, which is the reason unleaded fuel was made available in 1971, but they balked at the cost, which is the reason they were delayed until 1975 and even later in Fords. Funny thing was when converters were added to GM cars in 1975 the world did not end not the sky fall and consumers were more than happy to pay the extra money to have a car that ran a whole lot better and used less fuel. The problem was worse for Ford because all their engines where high NOx producers to begin with while the Small Block was better, this being the reason it lasted right until 1997, while the 302 and 351 were gone in car applications by 1991.
The Bosch K-Jetronic system was in fact an excellent solution and actually less complicated than a carb setup but there was no way Detroit was going licence anything from ferriners because NIH syndrome was the order of the day. The Europeans went for fuel injections and the Japanese already had relatively strict standards in their home market so their cars ran just fine with pollution controls but the Ford stuff in particular was really bad.
The whole effort of Detroit was not engineering but trying to get the legislation changed to overturn the upcoming EPA standards for 1973. I remember it well and it bordered on hysterics. Detroit always opposed anything that resembled a regulation on them.
I am not “badmouthing” the US car industry in any way, just expressing my opinion but the facts rather speak for themselves. The US industry slowly and steadily gave up its huge market dominance and two of the “Big Three” went bust. It was their products and engineering that caused that to happen and under-powered, slugs with 7.5 litre engines with 8mpg fuel habits had a lot to do with consumers switching to foreign based brands.
So here is what I’ve always wondered. What would happen to the fuel economy of one of those 8mpg pigs if you gave it true dual exhausts (better breathing), modern high flow cat converters, and retrofitted some sort of FI set up for it? (Holley Pro-jection or some factory solution) Fine tune the timing and add an overdrive to the trans. Could you turn one of those pigs into a legitimate 25mpg highway cruiser (at 55 to 60 mph, not the 85 mph I typically drive)? If it was possible to do that I’d think about one as a possible project. I’ve had this sick obsession with massive cars since I was little.
I did exactly what you suggested with the 429 in my 1971 LTD: Dual exhaust, Duraspark II electronic ignition, and a 2-bbl Holley ProJection. I could eek out high teens on the highway. This was not, however, an emissions-era engine. That car would still accelerate at triple-digit speeds!
The drastically lowered compression ratios after 1971 (Ford) and 1970 (GM) really killed the economy of the motors no matter what else you did.
We had a pretty thriving business “unsmogging” pre-catcon Fords, All you had to do was replace the distributor with a pre-1971 unit from a wrecker, hook up the vacuum advance directly to the manifold and the car ran much better. Removing the AIR pump had a marginal effect, too. Owners said the cars used like 20% less fuel but I wouldn’t trust off the cuff estimates. Did make the cars drive a lot better, though.
In the late 1960s, designing all-new engines represented a tremendous expense, even for GM, let alone Ford, Chrysler and AMC. A five-year lead time is hardly generous under those circumstances. Remember, EVERY engine had to meet the new standards, not just the biggest ones or the high-performance engines. Auto makers offered 3-4 engines for each model, which was what buyers expected. Today, of course, things are different, thanks to the fall-out of both CAFE and the Clean Air Act. It took a good 30 years to get to that point.
In 1973, GM and Ford simply couldn’t discontinue every engine option for, say, the Thunderbird or their intermediate lines without a severe buyer backlash.
The catalytic converter-equipped engines ran better than their early 1970s counterparts, but that isn’t saying much. I regularly drove my parents’ 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Holiday sedan, and I remember a fair amount of hesitation upon full-throttle acceleration.
At any rate, the Clean Air Act standards progressively got tighter in the late 1970s, even after the adoption of the converters in 1975. The adoption of the converters in the 1975-77 time period was not the final solution, particularly since standards continued to tighten after 1975. As others have correctly noted, it wasn’t until the advent of reliable, cost-effective electronic engine controls that those standards were met while allowing acceptable performance and economy. Detroit literally had to invent a lot of that technology from the ground up.
The foreign stuff was complicated, too, and the European cars were hardly paragons of reliability during this time. Their performance was pretty dismal, too. Their saving grace was better handling and braking, which covered up for the lack of acceleration, and minimal power assists or effective air conditioning, which meant less weight and more power used actually moving the car. VW and even BMW drivers were willing to manually wind up their own windows and sweat in the summer. Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Ford Thunderbird drivers were not.
My 1977 Honda Civic CVCC was a great car in many ways, but it could be quite “finicky” thanks to its emissions controls, and it could be a bear to start on cold mornings, thanks to a manual choke.
Ah yes, the Honda CVCC motor and NOx emissions. The CVCC engines weren’t put in new cars once the NOx emission regs because the NOx emissions from the mill were to high for it to be considered compliant with those emissions regulations.
The proposed 73 standards were announced in 68 when they introduced the 71 standards which was enough to keep them busy for then. Then in late 70 they finalized the 73, 73 they finalized the 75 standards.
I’m with the Canuck on this one. Read DeLorean’s book, or the one from Brock Yates about this era, called “The Fall of the Auto Industry” or some such.
Plenty of old-line companies faced big changes in the 70s-80s. GE and IBM took one approach, Detroit took another.
We can love old cars without romanticizing poor management.
And you Canucklehead!
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, Alfasaab99?
Yes, being the worst malaise era, luxo-brougham barge, you should either be blind or have suffered an aneurism ang gained systemic stage-IV brain cancer from having looked at and reading about this car.
It’s part of a running gag I’ve implanted into this discussion early on and told people that hate malaise era luxo-barges what I said about this joke and them.
Also, Oldsmobile was working on how to make the Rocket V8 more smog-compliant and had smog-compliant Rocket V8s in some of their cars by 1971.
Yes, but GM managed to build smog compliant engines that weren’t total gas pigs. Once you got to cats in the exhaust and the super-reliable HEI ignition across the board in ’75, drivability was good and you could still get 14-15 MPG in a Caddy if you kept the speed down. But in a 460 powered LIncoln of the same vintage you can wheeze along at 55, IF the Ford electronic ignition does not crap out on you, and you will still get 9.5 MPG.
So Tom, what did you grandmother replace her ’65 TBird convertible with in ’77?
Of these, my favorite is the sleek-bumpered ’72 followed by the ’73. It went downhill from there.
I’ve never driven one, but I did own a ’78 TBird (the one based on Torino) which was basically a slightly smaller version of this. Although about the same overall length as my ’76 Monte Carlo, the turning circle seemed twice as big! Nice quiet ride, but a loser in the handling/maneuverability department.
Another T-Bird, of course. A brand-new ’77 in black with black vinyl roof, red pinstriping, and a white interior with red carpet and instrument panel. It was a really sharp car. She kept it into the early Nineties.
Wow, sounds sharp, and an interesting color combo with the red/white/black. I bet she missed that ’65, but on the other hand, I do remember the era, and I’m sure it just seemed like an old worn-out car compared to the new one. Funny!
God bless her. I kept my ’77 T-Bird about 9 months. I found that driving more than half an hour gave me back pain (something you don’t learn in a test drive). Also, a 1977-79 T-Bird is about the same size as a Caprice or LeSabre of that vintage, which is scary to think about given how little interior and trunk room is in the Bird.
Thunderturkey!
or
Thunderbird grows thunder thighs.
Watching the Thunderbird evolve from the 2 seater to this is like watching a canary evolve into a turkey in one lifespan.
The size and placement of the wheels on these and their Mark counterparts made them seem even bigger than they were, if thats even possible. I’m no fan, though I almost did buy a mustard colored 72 Thunderturkey just because it was clean and at a giveaway price, but even then, I just couldn’t stomach it.
Its interesting that the Thunderbird went from being Fords Riviera to Fords Monte Carlo from one generation to the next.
Thunderbird: A Quinn Martin Production.
You said it there – Quinn Martin produced cop shows (e.g. “The FBI”) were known to feature Ford Motor Company cars.
The 1974-76 iteration of the Ford Thunderbird actually looked like a slightly enlarged version of the 1975-76 Ford Gran Torino Elite. Although both have a separate body and ladder type frame construction, do both models share identical chassis as well?
I don’t think so. The Elite was a response to the Monte Carlo (which was a fancy-dress Chevelle), while the T-Bird and Mark had their own chassis and a lot of common components.
Very Interesting THX. if the 1974-76 Ford Thunderbird and the Lincoln Continental Mark IV had used a different chassis than the Ford Gran Torino/Torino Elite then perhaps the only logical explanation might be but I am not quite positively sure about perhaps the T-Bird & the Mark IV probably utilized a variation of the same era 1974-76 Ford LTD/Mercury Marquis/Lincoln Town Car chassis instead? While the 1974-76 Chevrolet Monte Carlo (the direct competitor to the Ford Gran Torino Elite) were which based on a stretched 1974-76 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu and Buick Regal (Run of the mill Ford Gran Torino direct competitors) chassis, the 1974-76 Buick Riviera (the direct competitor to the 1974-76 Ford Thunderbird) were much more based on a shortened 1974-76 Buick Le Sabre/Electra chassis.
The Big Bird and Mark IV & V used a stretched version of the Torino-Montego chassis, but with the big-car 5 on 5 bolt circle.
THX for the interesting reply. It always seemed that the 1974-76 Ford Thunderbird along with the Lincoln Mark IV & V always appeared to have a stronger familial kinship resemblance with the 1974-76 Ford Gran Torino & Mercury Montego/Cougar than the 1974-76 Ford LTD/Mercury Gran Marquis/Lincoln Town Car specifically with platform sharing. Maybe it would also be fair to say that when Ford downsized the Thunderbird for 1977 through 1979 along with its Lincoln equivalent that they were still based on the Gran Torino chassis albeit the same exact chassis length this time to save weight and gas mileage. With the exception of a newly restyled body, the Ford Gran Torino which was given a new name Ford LTD II for 1977 through 1979 as well were still based from the 1972 vintage Torino chassis. Lastly it would not be a surprising revelation at all if the newer during that time in 1979 the Panther Platform collectively known as the Ford LTD and Mercury Grand Marquis and the 1980 Lincoln Town Car which had a 32 year run which just ended for the mass market for 2012 but continued on for the imported and fleet purchase program would also be based on a modified Ford Gran Torino chassis as well because their exterior sizes were close enough to warrant platform sharing as well to cut cost.
That is an interesting Thought Pedro. I wonder how little of a stretch it actually is. In 10 years of my Mother having her 73 T-Bird, I always Thought of it as being from an LTD rather than the rather lowly Torino.
After Fall 76 when the new GMs came out, we all became much more aware of the Various “B’ vs A bodies etc… and platform sharing.
@ lax, YES indeed the 1974-76 iterations of the Ford Thunderbird was based on a modified Ford Gran Torino minus the curvatured contour. The exterior dimensions of the 1974-76 T-Bird was even in fact much more closer to the Gran Torino than the LTD. The 1973 T-Birds since its the same design and size of the 1974-76 versions were also based on a longer new for 1972 Torino platform as well. Ford Motor Company of course just like GM does not want to reveal that their large personal luxury car chassis were actually based on the lowly intermediates due to the image of the T-Bird being associated with the Gran Torino might cheapen the former’s intended image so this was the marketing ploy in distancing the larger T-Bird with the slightly shorter Gran Torino. In GM’s marketing ploy they were able to distance the 1976-79 Cadillac Seville with the 1975-79 Chevrolet Nova and even the 1975-81 Chevrolet Camaro even though the 1G Seville was essentially based on both of those car’s platform so that it would not cheapen Seville’s image. Ford however failed with the Lincoln Versailles because the public perceptions of this car and basically truth be told that it was just an expensive Ford Granada with luxurious vanity add-ons to make it a legitimate Lincoln model which the public were not convinced and fooled by.
My personal favorites are the 64-66 Flair Birds and the 83-88 Aero Birds. Yin and Yang as the Flairs have more character lines than an 80 year old and the Aeros are smoother than a babies behind but both IMHO are sized and proportioned correctly as personal luxury cars.
The ensuing upsizing in the following generations were unfortunate with the 72-76′s being the least bird like, sort of like a flying pig.
As an aside, has anyone ever noticed history repeating with the 89-97′s longer, lower and wider design philosophy?
The 89-97s are actually 2″ shorter than the 83-88 “aero birds”. The wheelbase is the only thing that really grew significantly (104″ vs. 113″).
This is the scaled side by side comparison photos between the 1974-76 Ford Thunderbird vs. the 1974-76 Ford Gran Torino Elite. If this was GM, it would be like comparing the 1974-76 Buick Regal with the 1974-76 Buick Riviera.
As I was comparing both cars, it seemed obvious that the front and rear bumpers of the 1974-76 Ford Thunderbird and the 1974-76 Ford Gran Torino Elite since they both look identical in bumper design and width might even be interchangeable as well – looked too obvious.
There’s a huge disconnect between these cars and the ones that preceded them. I think of the Flair-Birds and earlier as high class muscle cars, but the generation from 72-76 as nothing more than pimp-mobiles, or Homer (Simpson) -mobiles. Essentially, cars for the easily impressed. (EDIT: On seeing that published, that was rather harsh. Let’s say someone who appreciates the audacity of building such a magnificent beast. They may not have been my ideal, but you cannot deny that they are remarkable.)
What’s so very strange about these cars, is that the basic proportions of the styling is the same as the Torino/Montego/Elite/Cougar of the same era. But somehow, the Thunderbird (and the Mark for that matter) look a little off.
I remember driving one in the late ’70′s a few times, it was not a pleasant experience. We complain about the visibility in today’s cars; these weren’t a whole lot better. The aircraft carrier like hood and the acreage behind the rear slit window made it hard to maneuver, however, since the cars styling was largely square, you could see the ends, and estimate time to impact. Really tough to do in today’s cars, I’ll admit. There was a reason why the opera window became standard, you couldn’t see out of the farkin thing!
It’s really easy to criticize these cars from today’s vantage point. Back in the middle leisure suit era, this car (and a host of others, including the mid size Cougar from a few days ago) seemed to make sense. (I have to laugh at myself as I typed the last sentence, I caught a glimpse of my desktop wallpaper, it’s a 1978 AMC Matador Barcelona. Talk about calling the kettle black…)
I’m glad this example still stands, but I won’t driving over to Indiana or Illinois to pick it up. So very much not my cup of tea…
A bit off-topic but an interesting detail to note. I wonder if Ford was ahead of its time with a 4-door T-bird? Pontiac introduced a 4-door Grand Prix for 1990 although the Grand Prix moved to a more mainstream market then.
(Although I can’t Wait To read This…)
I Will save this until I can Take in Every Word.
I finally convinced my mother The Tranny in the 63 Gp was gonna leave her stranded -
This Was Our First Luxury car and I felt a notch more “UPPER” middle class riding this 14 -18…
For a number of years, my grandparents had one of these that sat in the garage next to the Mark IV (CC, Gas Fed Beef). I was 11 when the Bird showed up as a second car/work car for my Grandpa to drive around. It was obvious that it was closely related to the Mark, but it was different enough to be interesting, at least to me. Their car had the Cream/Gold decor option. By the time Grandpa got rid of it in late 1996 it was pretty beat and rusty, but they sure enjoyed that car.
Never was sure though who put a “Greenpeace” bumper sticker on it though…
NO way with gas at $3.89 a gallon here in Little Rock! Maybe 8 mpg in the city. IF I put headers and a Edelbrock performer intake and carb on, it might get 14 on the highway so each and every hour on the interstate would only cost $20 instead of $25 stock…but it still wouldn’t have enough power to back up how crappy it would sound.
If I want a malaise era Ford I’ll take a Futura or Granada with the straight six.
For some reason this is growing on me. But this thing is just too heavy to get any decent fuel economy. That said it put me in a Torino sort of mood.
I owned one of these, a ’75 with the Copper Luxury Group, for six years. Bought it from the original owners who had traded in their ’69 Cougar for it. The sticker price was over $10k back then. This car even had factory dual exhausts.
Did it like fuel? Yes. I would get 12 to 14 mpg with it in mixed city and highway driving. Was it comfortable? Yes, although I never rode in the back. Did other things back there, but didn’t ride back there.
The worst part of driving it was cresting a hill. You would be part of the way down the hill before ever being able to see over the hood. I always hoped for the best.
Quiet? About like the inside of Grant’s Tomb.
Did I like driving it? Yes. Much better than the ’89 Mustang with the mighty 2.3 I had also at the time…
It’s like light beer or diet soda….you gotta have a taste for it.
In the quest for the “most brougham”, surely profligate waste of space has to be a factor…
I’ll just say – not for me.
I’m a huge Ford Fan. In the last few decades I’ve had a 71 Mark III and a 64 T-Bird. Closer to this era I had a 74 Mustang II Ghia (decent gas mileage with a V6) in 1975.
I hated these! The 72 at least looked good and didn’t have too much smog crap. Back then, after the Mustang II I just had old cars until 1982 when I got a Capri 5.0 HO new. Cars of the mid 70s to early 80s……..mostly SUCKED.