Success can be a double edged sword. Everyone, regardless of their endeavors, is seeking it. But what do you do upon achieving it? Is it so easily repeatable?
Using the entertainment industry as an example, “The Godfather, Part II” was just as successful as the original. Conversely, the follow-up to the original “The Exorcist” was a disappointment.
The paradox of success applies to the auto industry in an even harsher fashion. A single failure can cause a ripple effect for years. Ford had learned such things with the Edsel. So Ford should have been cognizant of the need (expectation?) to equal their greatest hit of the 7th Generation Thunderbird.
The 7th Generation Thunderbird of 1977 to 1979 had been a phenomenal success selling 285,000 units in 1979, with a 1978 peak of 352,000 units.
While it was proof that with enough hutzpah one can make what appears to be a silk purse out of a sow’s ear (it was based on the Torino, after all), having a repeat performance simply was not meant to be for the new 8th Generation 1980 model.
Sales for recession ridden 1980 were down to 157,000 and would free-fall to 42,000 by 1982. Standard equipment under the hood was a 200 cubic inch straight six – an engine that had powered umpteen thousands of Falcons and the first time a Thunderbird had ever been motivated by a lowly six-banger. While 255 and 302 cubic inch V8’s were available, the general public reaction was comparable to that of the Lincoln Mark VI, also introduced in 1980, outlined in a fanciful fashion here.
So how does one rebound from a less than stellar performance? One way would be to get creative, instead of trying to mimic what had been successful. For 1983 Ford got creative.
The 8th Generation Thunderbird had used the new for 1978 Fox platform upon which the Fairmont and new ’79 Mustang were based. Ford, knowing that a good platform can be used in a multitude of ways, opted to retain use of this platform for the 9th Generation Thunderbird. Most similarities between the 8th and 9th Generation ceased at this point.
With the introduction of the 1983 Ford Thunderbird, Ford loudly announced their direction toward more aerodynamic cars. With the continuing implementation of various CAFE standards throughout the 1980’s, going aerodynamic was a bold and risky move on the part of Ford.
As the decade progressed, this aerodynamic theme would be seen on the new for 1984 Tempo and the original 1986 Taurus.
Using a wheelbase of 104″, the ’83 Thunderbird had a wheelbase 4.4″ shorter than the one of the outgoing ’82 T-Bird, yet had a body with proportions much more aesthetically pleasing. While it did still have a V6 as standard propulsion, it was a 3.8 liter that had never been used to power either Falcons or Mavericks. Perhaps Ford’s little splash of originality in drive trains lessened the bitter taste for the traditionalists they needed to captivate. But for those of an overly traditional mindset, the 302 cubic inch V8 was still on the option sheet.
1983 also saw the introduction of the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. Motivated by a 2.3 liter 4-banger (wasn’t that a Pinto engine?) married to a turbocharger, initial sales volume was around 10% of total T-Bird production. The percentage jumped to over 10% starting with the face lifted 1987 model. Give credit to Ford by using the TC to gain a wider audience by appealing to the non-traditionalists.
In keeping with various themes of the good old days, such as Heritage, Copper, and Creme-and-Gold, Ford had the Elan and Fila option packages for the 1983 to 1986 years. Their never offering the Lipstick Luxury Group on this generation of ‘Bird shall forever be a scandalously missed opportunity.
While the only real nod to previous generations of Thunderbirds was the egg crate grille, sales of the 9th Generation Thunderbird helped negate the sins of the 8th Generation. For 1983, sales jumped 250% to 121,999. Sales would remain well above the 1983 level throughout this generation. Given that base prices really didn’t change between 1982 and 1983 helps emphasize Ford must have had a better idea this time.
The car featured here is a 1986 Elan, one of almost 164,000 ‘Birds hatched that year. So what exactly is an Elan? I’m still asking the same thing. From various on-line and hardback sources, the only thing determined is the seats were made more plush for the ’86 Elan. So, folks, there you have it: Deduction shows it was meant to pamper your keister. That’s all I can derive.
Since taking these pictures, I have seen this Thunderbird around town a time or two. Both times it was driven by a male in his early 20’s. I hope he realizes and appreciates what he has. Something tells me he does.
I was never a big T-bird fan (except for the ’55-’57 models) but I always liked these.
Omg that’s my husband’s car! We actually still have this car.
I am surprised that the wheelbase was actually shorter on these than on the 80-82s. This car always looked bigger to me than the prior generation, but evidently not.
From the moment these came out, I liked them. The proportions on the car were very good and they seemed to be built well. I never drove one of these, but owned a Fox-body Marquis for awhile, and it was a good driving car.
Rust would become a problem for these as they aged in the midwest, and I have understood that the Essex 3.8 had head gasket issues (although mine gave me no problem). That 3.8 was not the most economical engine, but it was fairly torquey and sized pretty well for that car. It has been a long, long time since I have seen one of these.
Here is an interesting tidbit about the Essex 3.8 litre: it was a reverse engineered GM 3.8 litre. They even copied the bad intake manifold gasket. Yes, the problem with these motors was not head gaskets, but intake gaskets.
I guess Ford was jealous of the 12 hours of retail labour GM got on every V-6 they made. To be fair, this problem was rectified on the 3.8 pretty quickly but it was not on the 60′ V-6 engines.
My only real vivid memory of my 3.8 and its fuel economy was that when put into a wagon with a teeny-weeny gas tank (something like 11 gallons) the range was simply awful. I recall that somewhere between 175 and 225 miles was the range on a tankful of gas. Yuck.
That myth is just that a big myth. The only similarity is that the Ford 3.8 was roughly based on the SBF but much much less so than the Buick 3.8. Intake gaskets were not the problem with the 3.8 of this era, it was the head gasket and for the vast majority of the engines with the problem it was due to Ford being supplied faulty gaskets. Little known secret is that Ford didn’t pay for the head gasket issues the supplier bore most of that warranty cost, including the extended warranty.
I also never saw intake gasket issues on the Buick 3.8 of this era. Both engines didn’t get that issue until later when they both got suckered into the rubber with a plastic carrier intake gaskets in the 90’s.
The Essex V6 does share a lot of similarities with the Buick 3.8, including almost identical bore and stroke (actually, just slightly different enough to raise suspicion: Buick: 3.80″ bore; Ford: 3.81 bore)
What’s clear is that the Essex is not Windsor V8 derived, and is a new design. And it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they likely looked closely at the Buick 3.8.
From wiki:
One source states that the Essex is instead a reverse engineered Buick V6 engine.[2] Toward the end of the 1970s, Ford needed a new six-cylinder engine that was powerful and compact enough to be used in a mid-size car while meeting increasingly stricter emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Since Ford did not have an engine available that could be readily made to meet these requirements, one needed to be developed. The quickest and least expensive approach in accomplishing this was to copy an existing engine from a competitor, which ended up being the Buick V6 from General Motors. Ford’s resulting V6 was very similar to that of the original Buick engine — down to an unusual external oil pump design that was common in Buick engines and without precedent in modern Fords — and had a nearly identical displacement. In fact, one of the only major differences between the two engines early on was Ford’s use of aluminum heads as opposed to the cast-iron ones used in the original Buick design. However, in the years since the Essex V6’s debut, design revisions from both Ford and GM to their respective V6 designs have differentiated their engines from each other to a point that any relationship between the two designs is not as obvious as it once was.
Yes the 3.8 shares a lot of things with the Windsor family, for example some of the valve train is interchangeable and the rest of it uses the same basic design as the era Windsor.
The only thing that is like the Buick 3.8, besides displacement, is the oil pump in the timing cover.
I’ve had lots of Windsors and Buick engines, trust me the Ford 3.8 shares much more of it’s basic archetecture with what was used on the era Windsor than the era Buick. The notion that they bought a Buick 3.8 and reverse engineered it is a myth, it wouldn’t have saved substantial time in development. The timing cover oil pump was done to give them greater flexibility in choice of where to locate the oil pan sump as they ran into problems with the traditional oil pump hanging down when it was time to fit the Windsor into the Fox chassis requiring the use of the “double hump” pan and 2 drain plugs which was pioneered by IH for the Scout II.
The other thing to consider regarding the supossed reverse engineering of the Essex engine is that the big cost and time factor in developing a new engine is the tooling and testing. If Ford was really in such a time crunch as indicated by “the one source” as noted in the Wiki article the much quicker and cheaper alternative would have been to steal the play out of GM’s book and just lop 2 cyls off of the Windsor. That would have saved much more time and money as it would have eliminated a lot of the engineering, tooling and testing costs, much more so than the engine they decided to produce. The Windsor did meet emissions standards just fine as it continued in production albeit with a more modern engine control system, for quite a few years after the 3.8 was brought to market.
Assuming there is no relation to the earlier British Essex V6 engine, does anybody know why they used the same name? Engine plant name perhaps?
They are not at all related but both were named after the plant they were built in.
The British one is a 60° design built in Dagenham, Essex. It is a big heavy lump that was designed to have a diesel version as well.
The North American one is a 90° design named after the Essex Engine Plant in Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Cheers David, that’s what I thought
Rust is was certainly an issue for these growing up in Ohio. I love the styling of this generation of Thunderbird and Cougar but for some reason they rusted very proditiously much worse than the Fox based Mustangs or the Lincoln Mark. Although I still feel strongly that the HO version of the 302 should have been available from the factory.
As far as the short lived 80-82 cars I NEVER saw one growing up and I have only seen one in real life.
I agree completely that the HO 302 whould have been the engine. Had that option been available, such a car would have been my first new car. I tried a Turbo Coupe – loved the car, hated the drivetrain. I also tried a Mustang GT – Loved the drivetrain, not as crazy about the rest of the car.
I may be one of the few people on this site who actually drove an 80-82 TBird. An aunt and uncle got one. “Your Aunt always wanted a T-Bird.” I tried to like those. They tried to shrink down a traditional design and it just didn’t come off. Then, with that dinky 255 V8 and the AOD (at least I think thats what it was), it was just excruciating to drive. After 10 minutes in the car, I tried my best to be polite and tell my aunt what a nice car it was, but I couldn’t wait to get out of it.
I know I would have put the CAFE #s of each of the Big 3 in jeopardy if I was running any one of them.
Ford should have put the HO 302 in the T-bird as the top engine option because it was clearly NOT a Mustang compeditor and was larger and heavier enough to not be at risk of being faster than the Mustang. The Mark should have received the HO 302 STANDARD which would have actually reduced the price of the LSC package because main component of the package would have been the stiffer suspension and “european interior”. This would have let the customer choose between a full “brougham” Mark or a sporty hard edged “European” Mark.
I would have also put the HO 302 in the Lincoln Town Car standard. My prediction is more power would have stollen even more GM customers than GMs B-body to H-body conversion did.
Actually from ’88-’92 all Mark VIIs, whether Bill Blass or LSC, had the 225hp 5.0 HO standard. The big drive train difference was that the BB had a 3.08 rear gear and the LSC had a 3.27 gear. In the ’84-’87 models the BB had the regular 5.0 and the LSC had the HO.
I’ve read that during the design process for the ’83 Thunderbird, the designers weren’t coming up with anything better than the ’80-82 cars. Management wasn’t happy (if the current car has already tanked, and the proposed one looks worse . . . . . . ), the designers weren’t happy (obviously the constraints they were working under wasn’t helping). So the designers were told to scrap the entire design and come up with something that THEY would be happy driving.
Given the success of the 8th generation ‘Bird, I’m amazed that the designers aren’t told to do that more often. Guess management needs it’s job security.
I’ve always called the 7th generation ‘Birds “Jimmy Carter Thunderbirds” (aka, Malaisemobiles). If there was ever a competent automobile that so accurately mirrored the national mood at the time, that car was it.
Well…the “malaise” took time to sink in. And while it was, there were people with money who thought bright days were ahead.
I worked at a small-town municipally-owned golf club summers in those years, and I can tell you there were plenty of those Torino-Birds around. I thought it odd; they were just well-dressed Montegos; and when I got a look inside, I was floored: The “new” Thunderbird had almost the identical dash and instrument panel of my mother’s four-year-old Torino!
For all that…I did like (at the time) the hidden headlight treatment and the 1977 band-across taillights. A co-worker, just finished high-school, drove his mother’s Thunderbird to work sometimes…it was quiet, seats were cozy; it was substantial.
And gas was still 53 cents a gallon. What else mattered?
By 1980, the lackadasical attitude of the public had turned to panic. People were in no mood or financial position, in the main, for a “personal luxury” car, downsized or not.
That the Monte Carlo was able to garner more of a shrinking market, may say more of people’s relative confidence in GM, vis a vis Ford, which was very-publicly foundering.
In theory the 1980 Thunderbird should have worked, it essentially borrows the same page from the 1978 A-body GM downsizing manual, but as they say, the beauty is in the details, where the downsized 1978 Cutlass, Regal and Monte Carlo were a success, the 80 T-Bird and its hidden headlight-less brother, the Cougar were avoided like the plague.
In my opinion anyway, the 1980 Bird was just too boxy, especially in the rear. These proportions work in a larger car but do not in a smaller one. Even GM altered their G bodies to make them look bigger. The 1983 car showed how buyers will indeed choose something totally new if the styling works. On this car it worked and they did well with it.
I always liked the 1983 T-Bird but after driving a few, I liked it less. It drove just like a gussied-up Fairmont, which is what it was. The steering was numb, the AOD simply stank and all the available engines sucked. The 3.8 and 5 litre were underpowered and the turbo four coarse and had little low end torque. At least you could get a 307 in the Cutlass at the time, a much better powerplant for the intended market.
I liked the flush headlamp version that came out around 87 a little more than these, I had a decked out 87 LX with a sunroof and the 5.0 litre that I picked up as a cheapo trade in when I sold cars, and damn could that car take some abuse, the 14 whitewalls and wires and the 5.0 made it the easiest car to donut in the world, plus the Sears whitewalls would scream bloody murder at the slightest direction change at speeds above 5mph, it was like driving in a 70’s detective car chase all the time.
I didn’t like the “beak” the aero lamp redesign gave the car and the rest of the tweaks, supposedly done to better it’s performance in NASCAR, just didn’t flow as well ascetically as the original in my opinion. To me overall it sort of looks bloated compared to the original.
The 5.0 V-8 really came to life in 1986, when it received an upgraded fuel injection system and other improvements.
For what it’s worth, the GM 3.8 V-6 wasn’t a great engine until it received a host of upgrades in the late 1980s. A friend had one in a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, and it self-destructed well before 100,000 miles. That wasn’t uncommon with that version of the GM 3.8 V-6.
I can’t believe how many of the 7th generation models were sold – that’s insane.
I was never a T-bird fan either (except for perverse liking of the late 60s 4 door), but I really did like the 9th gen, at least the looks of it. Still looks good today.
A friend who is an architect and very good at design bought one of these almost as soon as they were introduced. He loved everything about it: the looks, the interior comfort, the ride, and adequate (but not great) power. I believe he kept it for about ten years and then sold it to another person in his firm. A real home run for Ford.
The “new” ’83 did share one very conspicuous component with the ’80-’82s: the dashboard. Presumably a new dash would have been too expensive, and it looked rather out of place in the new aero bird. A couple of years later, a new dash finally appeared.
I bought a ’83 Turbo Coupe. And I very soon came to agree with Jim’s assessment: the 302 HO would have been the way to go. I was impulsive, suckered in by the hi-tech FI turbo four, which could be quite economical, but I actually began pondering an engine swap. Or lots of MMing, anyway.
I love this era T-bird, I think it still looks pretty good today, in fact there is still one in my fleet though it is deteriorating and I’m just not sure what to do with it. Hate to get rid of it as it was the car I brought my son home in. It needs a lot of cosmetic work and I had hoped to rebuild it for my son to drive as his first car but he just isn’t interested. He is a computer guy not a car guy.
Yup, times have sure changed but if you want to learn anything about a computer, ask a teenaged boy!
“He is a computer guy not a car guy.”
ARGGGHHHHH! You just flashed the future before our eyes.
Paul, better make plans to start “Apple Classic”…
The thing that kills me about today’s generation is that a lot of them aren’t even that interested in getting their driver’s license a fact I was discussing with a friend yesterday. In my era every guy I knew was at the driver’s licensing office on his 16th birthday to get that ticket to freedom. A lot of my son’s contemporaries don’t get it until much later. I know a bunch of kids around his age and slightly older that didn’t get theirs until they were 18 or even older.
There are exceptions: I have at least one loyal CC reader in my house, who still ownes and enjoys his 89 Grand Marquis.
This member of “Generation Y” is also an exception.
Why would today’s 16 year old be interested in getting a licence when his mommy or daddy waits on him 24/7 to drive him wherever he wants to? You should see the helicopter parents in my city!
Some car guys are computer guys too! I’m a hybrid. I’ve been driving since the ’70s and been a car guy all my life. For the last 12 years I’ve been a computer guy by trade and use some of the same troubleshooting skills diagnosing computers, servers and printers that I learned working on cars 🙂
Same applies to me, though I learned in the reverse order (learned to work on computers first).
I read once, long ago, that this T-Bird was actually designed in the wind tunnel for NASCAR first, then adapted into a street car, Can anyone confirm?
Well, if Jackie Stewart is to believed:
“The carrrrr is acutualleh desiiiigned to pooooosh itself to thu rrrrroooooad.”
I remember those ads! With the flying scottsman pitching T-birds and Tempos for Ford.
My understanding is that the refresh for the 87 model year was done for NASCAR first and foremost after the initial success of the 83-6 models on the track and the fact that the competition was responding with homologation specials IE GM doing a few cars with the special rear glass tacked onto their formal roofline.
The Aero bird was a very successful Nascar body and Bob Glidden also had a good run in NHRA Pro Stock, something I remember from “Have you driven a Ford lately” TV ads showing various racers.
BTW chutzpah is the correct spelling since the original uses the Hebrew ח (chet) which is a guttural like the Scots loch.
When this generation T-Bird came out, it was a sensation. So much so that I actually researched our meagher finances at the time to look into buying one…the Reliant stayed on and I bought our 1976 Dart Lite instead when wifey went back to work in spring, 1983.
“Deduction shows it was meant to pamper your keister.”
Sometimes pampering one’s keister makes all the difference. At age 61 and a recently-very-injured right hamstring brought that home in a very unpleasant fashion. So much so I haven’t driven our MX5 to work for a l-o-n-g time. Think I’ll try sitting on bubble wrap and see if that helps…
Do I not get props for being the first to make the call? 🙁
That will come with the next clue as the article is typically already in the can and scheduled to run before the clue for it is posted.
Had an ’87 Turbo Coupe as a renter for a weekend, after years of avoiding domestics wherever possible. I was impressed. Nice car.
My brother had an ’83 Cougar which ended up in my possession when the head gaskets on the 3.8 failed. I tore it down in the driveway of the quadplex where we lived at the time and it ran okay when I got it back together (and after fixing several other issues such as a failed power window motor).
I drove it a little bit, then sold it. Wasn’t impressed – it felt pillowy and ponderous compared to the ’90 Civic hatch we had at the time. Was glad to see it go.
It’s all about expectations. Put 2 more doors, a hatch and some wood paneling on it, and it would have driven just fine. 🙂
Was it more than just 7+ year old worn-out shocks & bushings?
I sold them!
Back in 1983 I had just moved to San Diego and needed a job. I was a salesman at Douglas Ford/Toyota. A truly HORRIBLE dealership. Unscrupulous as they could get away with, to customers and employees. We had a 83 T-Bird as an ad special. Maroon/Red Interior base model. A real pretty car right on the showroom floor. And the buyer got it for great deal………one of the few. I told him not to do any of the up sells with the closer LOL.
As a design/architecture student I loved the design! It was so clean. A complete departure from the previous Bird. That’s probably why they dropped the Heritage name (used in 82) in favor of Elan the 2nd year. I probably would have bought one, but I had a new 82 Capri HO I bought the year before.
I’ve got a later 9th generation (aero headlight) LX with a 5.0 sitting in the garage. It’s a great driving car and I fell in love with it when I bought it ten years ago. The LX was the ‘Elan for 87-88. My particular Thunderbird has every option you could get except a sunroof. It’s got two-tone paint, full digital dash, premium sound with graphic equalizer, electronic climate control, auto lamp, auto diming headlights, power windows, power locks, power mirrors, dual power seats with power recline, leather, and keyless entry. All of it works just as it did the day it left the factory. It makes many of my friends new cars look like stripper specials. It’s all stock on the outside, save for the Turbo Coupe wheels, and inside and still looks great, probably because it’s from California and has never seen a Chicago winter. The drive train, on the other hand, is not stock ;). It has aluminum Edelbrock heads, a Comp .533 lift roller cam, GT40 intake, headers, 2.5” dual exhaust, a 2800 rpm stall converter in the AOD with a valve body that can be shifter manually or automatically, 3.73 gears with a Traction-Lok differential, and subframe connectors. This big 3700lb luxo barge has surprised quite a few Mustang and Camaro owners.
Engine :).
Nice upgrade!
When the 302 hit 200 hp, it really made light cars like the T-Bird and Mustang go very well indeed. There isn’t a need for more power to weight than these cars had on public roads. The drive like torquey, powerful V-8 engines, just like things were meant to be in the world!
Even a 1988 or so Crown Vic with the FI 302 went really well. Even these were not all that heavy.
Mine has somewhere above 300hp at the crank. It’s far too much for a street car. It will burn the tires for a city block. When you nail it to pass someone while traveling 60 mph on the highway the trans drops down two gears and barks the tires so hard that the seat belt retractors lock and the car rockets to 80 mph and above ridiculously fast.
I’ve driven quite a few 88 and up Mark VIIs with the 5.0HO/AOD combo and found that they have almost the perfect balance of power and acceleration for daily driving. I would have one for a daily driver but alas in Chicago we salt and I wouldn’t want the car to turn into a rust cloud.
That was almost identical to he Thunderbird that we abused the crap out of, except of course it had the skinny whites and wires, that one did have a sunroof, though it was not working, at least it didn’t leak and you could slide the shade back and enjoy the glass moonroof. She was light blue over dark blue, should have kept it longer.
I think the light blue over dark blue and the silver over gray (like my T-bird) were the best two tone color combinations on these cars.
Nice ride and it sounds like a runner too! I love the two tone on these.
I’m partial to the Turbo Coupes but if I found a 5.0 like that at the right price I would probably start getting Froggy and jump on it.
(How long did it take to polish the TC wheels? 😀 )
Quite a bit of time actually. I hand sanded each wheel with a block and 100-1000 grit paper (in 100 grit steps) to remove the machined finish and smooth out the face of the wheel. I then hit the wheels with Meguiar’s aluminum polish. I think it was worth the effort.
I’ve got the TC wheels on my 83 5.0 too, one of the few non-5 spoke design wheels I like. In fact my daughter, son and I just got done putting CV LX-sport wheels on the wife’s Grand Ma, since part of her driver’s ed class is to change a tire. So a good bleated time to swap the winter tires on the stock wheels for the larger summer tires.
I love your ‘Bird. Very tasteful to keep it so stock. Windows aren’t even tinted! The TC wheels were a great choice too. Wish my ’86 had been a little more in that direction.
What’s the opposite of a Deadly Sin? Live-saving Save?
This Ninth-Gen T-Bird was certainly a big Save for Ford. The aero-bird’s popularity gave Ford the green light it needed for the radical ’86 Taurus and Sable, generally agreed to have saved Ford’s bacon. Up there with the Model A and the ’49.
Imagine if people had hated this new look, what would Ford have done?
I love the “Deadly Sin” game. We should figure out what to call its opposite. A car that was pivotal to a make’s future upturn, the bottom of a near-death experience. “Lively Win”? I nominate this car for Ford.
Not to mention that it bought the Thunderbird about another decade or so of life, I imagine that if this would have bombed it would have been bye-bye Thunderbird.
I thought the “Greatest Hit” articles were the opposite of the Deadly Sins.
Maybe it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, but these always looked a bit like actual birds to me. Something about the narrow grille always reminded me a bit of a beak. And the sloping back somehow reminded me of bird’s feathers. I was young when these were at their peak (5 years old in 1989), but I do remember that these, the Cougars and the Lincoln Marks were quite popular in the late ’80s/early ’90s. Most were not replaced with next-generation models in the suburban area of north San Diego where I lived, but rather were replaced with import four-doors of some sort, or for the really early adopters, SUVs of some sort.
I always liked these T-birds, and for some reason I always remember liking the oh-so-80s font used for the “Thunderbird” badge.
Really good looking cars the 8th gen T-Bird, facelifted to perfection with the 9th gen. We never got them new, but there a a few ex-USA ones around. Ford managed to get a lot of their styling right through the 80s, I don’t mind the new Fords, but part of me wishes they still made handsome rear-drive coupes etc…
I’d give the Aero Bird and Cougars Greatest Hit status if I were a judge here. These were good, almost better than average for the 80s “Big Three”. 87 and 88, for me, were the best of the breed.
Ford knew they did right too, that’s why they “fixed” things for 89 and hit us with the MN12.
Not that the MN12s were bad cars. The Super Coupe (AKA Donut Machine) is an awesome ride and the 5.0 was decent, like others have said they needed to use the HiPo 5.0 across the board though.
I stumbled on a really nice 2 owner TC not long ago. It was a shame that they wanted an arm and a leg for it.
I’m sure I have seen a 9th gen T-bird but they are a rare thing out here. One styling thing jumps out at me – the raised recess in the trunk lid to clear the license plate – surely they should have raised the tail lights to match?
Never seen an 8th gen, and my eyeballs are no doubt thankful. The sales numbers clearly say that it was not an attractive car at the time, so perhaps the complete re-boot Syke described should have been applied a generation earlier! Way too much overhang for the wheelbase. You wonder how the car made it through the ‘process’. Then again so did the Aztek
I’ve always seen the license plate recess/taillight relationship as a purposely done feature. The taillights sprout out right at the center of it like the wings from a bird. It actually resembles the emblem
What Matt said! I know my ‘Bird was a nasty old beater, but she sure was beautiful.
These were nice, but the Tenth Gen. SC was my generation’s lust object. It’s been ages since I’ve seen one, but then I live in Europe now, so I don’t know when I’ll ever see another on the road.
Maybe it’s just me but I never thought this design worked as well on the Cougars of the era. I think the vertical rear window distrupts the flow of the lines of the car.
Actually, I was really taken by the Cougar when it came out. Thought the roofline gave it an elegant and formal look. Plus, in some models that “cat” on the C panel would light up (opera-style). The Thunderbird’s grill seemed too small for the car. At least back then, Ford gave us a choice in design. Now we are stuck with either a Ford or a MK whatever.
Thanks, Geigs, for reminding us about the Thunderbird’s twin, the 1983 Mercury Cougar LS, also had small round “Coach” Lamps on the C-pillars. Here’s a photo.
The interesting thing about the Cougar and it’s formal roof line is that the quarter windows are shared with the T-bird, they are just swapped side to side and mounted up-side down on the Cougar.
The Cougar and Thunderbird of this generation (and the following one) are the perfect examples of platform sharing. Both models shared several body panels and the basic platform to save money, but the distinctive rooflines, deck lids and taillight treatments gave each car a different character.
Even better, if you liked the one, you generally didn’t like the other. This lessened internal competition.
Yup only the doors, windshield, quarter glass, and front fenders were shared.
Exactly. The vertical backlight may have been polarizing(it still is) but the sales success both models pretty much equally enjoyed during this generation reinforces that one attracted customers without aping sales of the other.
Plus both the Thunderbird and Cougar were, for the first time in over a decade, instantly recognizable. There was no mistaking a Thunderbird for anything else, as well as the Cougar. Even though several panels were shared between them it looked like more of a family resemblance than an outright twin with a different wardrobe.
Personally I liked the aero nose 87/88 Cougars more the concurrent Tbirds, while I like the Featured “4-eye” more as a Tbird than the Cougar
“the quarter windows are shared with the T-bird, they are just swapped side to side and mounted up-side down on the Cougar”…is that incredibly clever or what! Simple and brilliant!
My first car! Mine was white, 1986, with the 3.8. Just happened to be born the year I was. It was a $500 beater, looked pretty bad, but I was absolutely smitten.
I was an artsy kid, but was never really into cars. Could hardly tell the difference between them. But from the day I got that worn out old Thunderbird, I caught myself spending time staring out windows and studying its lines and proportions. I came to realize every car was, in its own way, an inspired piece of emotional art.
And looking back now, I still think this is one of the best looking cars of the 80’s. Especially interesting to me is how its design, maybe more than any other car of the decade, seems to sit smack in the middle of the transition between the upright, heavy, sharpened steel boxes of the late 70’s sheer look and the smooth, low, sanded-down look of the late 80’s and early 90’s. I think it’s the unique combination of the beginnings of the Taurus-style aero-sleek design with the lack of flush-mounted window glass and composite headlights. The Tempo is the same way.
The Mark VII appears to share the doors and windshield of the 83-86 T-bird. The 87 facelift brought flush mounted glass to the T-bird but Mark VII never got the same treatment.
Once again, I concur with the other Sean – definite Greatest Hit status for Ford and the best of the bunch was the ’87-’88 Turbo Coupe. I’ve driven both the early and late TC’s and there is a massive difference between them that isn’t just an extra 40 horsepower.
When I was in highschool, one of my classmates told me he had “some old Ford turbo thing” that he was about to scrap because the heater didn’t work and it was getting cold out. I told him to hold off, lemme look at it and a couple of days later I was $100 poorer and one ’88 Turbo Coupe richer. It turned out to be one of the best cars I ever owned. I did lots of work to it, put a ton of miles on it, beat it mercilessly and felt like sobbing when it met it’s doom at the hands of a hamfisted mechanic I foolishly entrusted with it’s health.
I liked that car so much, I ended up buying another near identical one soon after… but the second T-Bird was cursed from the first day I owned it. Both stories for another day, since I don’t have the time right now. I’m sure CC will stumble across a later TC one day soon.
Here’s the first one I owned back in the glory days. I still miss it, but I doubt I’d ever buy one of these again…
I had an 86 TBird Elan. Did noone else notice one difference was the lighting in the rear ? The elan had a button in the middle console rear for the rear map lights. This was not on the other models. And yes the seats were nice.
In my opinion, the 9th generation Fox Body Thunderbirds are still a great investment! I own a 1984 Elan 5.0 EFI that loves the highway! It somehow still gets 26+ mpg highway, and is engineered for reliable high speed performance ( I am a grease monkey/ back yard mechanic). It is all Mustang from the cowl to the rack, but looks like a BMW from the dash (digital mile/ kilometers per hour) back to the tail lights. It is low slung, does not pick up its feet, and will go any distance safely at high speeds. However, it will virtually dive into even small pot holes, so I have to be careful driving in the city. 9th generation Tbirds led to the NASCAR restrictor plate requirement, (Talladega ’87 – 212+ mph) and won 1986 Daytona 500 (Elliot) and NHRA Summer Nationals (Bob Glidden won then survived horrific crash after parachute partially collapsed). This generation of Thunderbirds is among Fords finest, and is the perfect Muscle Cruiser hybrid! My Tbird is ready for bodywork and paint, and I may search the boneyards for street trim. I am happy Ford set high standards, and could think ahead – I just wish the computer geeks could design a computer chip that is compatible with the aerobird era computer; I am eager to win the lottery, invest some benjamins then activate/ race!
I bought my ’86 T-Bird from the original owner, my sister, whose husband was fanatical about vehicle upkeep. It was 5 years old then, had only 30k miles on the clock and looked showroom new. It had the optional tuned port EFI 302 and AOD and the alloy wheels with the round ports in them. I loved the way it looked, and I got 28MPG tank after tank on a cross-country trip I took the next year.
Fast forward 22 years. The alloy wheels have given way to steelies and dog-dish hubcaps, there’s some rust through at the bottom of the back window and the power windows have been replaced with manual cranks. MPG is down to about 22, but hey, the engine and tranny are still the originals and I have 217k miles on them now. I still love the exterior styling even if I’m not so fond of that C-pillar blind spot. I still commute in it five days a week and it has never left me on the side of the road. Every time I think about buying a shiny new car I ponder whether anything out there now would give me such a long return on my money. I guess as long as this one holds out I’ll just keep pondering.
Well done article! I like the model shown in the 1983 advertisement; the “Heritage” edition. Unique to that model was a small oval coach lamp in the C-pillars, the last year for this feature. You all know how much I love classic design touches! Too bad there was no more stand-up hood ornament. The model in the ad even has the appropriate white walls! Here’s another pic of this model.
Elan has digital speedo and all e!ectric seats, windows, lock etc.Also the push button code over door knobs outside. And adjustable lighted vanity mirrors on both visors. Passenger lights on each side in the back.
I retired from Ford Lorain Assembly in 1999. It is where the T-Birds, Cougars, Torinos, Mercury Cyclones, Falcons, Comets, Econoline van and more were biuilt.
In September of 1997, I was assigned to follow the last T-Bird produced on the assembly line. I was the first to see the floorpan “bucked” and the last to see it drive out the door.
It was red and went to a lady customer in Florida.
I love this article! It is very well done, and shows how picky automotive consumers can be. I am referring the mini-square-Birds of 1980-1982 (which I adore!) By the way, I also love your use of the Yiddish term “hutzpah”. Actually, it is “chutzpah”, with the “ch” at the beginning of the word, making a throat-clearing sound! Here is a 1983 showing off the élan trim with its coach lamps. How classy!
It’d be fun to shove the modern 345 HP 2.3L into one of these.