Ford’s embrace of aerodynamic styling was big news in the 1980s, and sleek, modern designs like the 1983 Thunderbird and 1986 Taurus put the company back on the map after coming close to bankruptcy just a few years earlier. Nowhere did the aero look have a bigger impact than in California, where it took Ford from near-collapse to top of the heap in less than a decade.
California is the largest single market for passenger cars and light trucks. From the late ’60s into the ’90s, it accounted for, on average, over 10 percent of all U.S. new car sales. Tastes and trends in California aren’t necessarily the same as in Michigan or Ohio, but they have a tendency to foreshadow broader national trends.
In the early ’70s, before the oil embargo and the energy crisis, Ford was the No. 1 automotive brand in California. GM as a whole still outsold Ford Motor Company, but Ford outsold Chevrolet by a comfortable margin. (The gap was narrower in the truck market, but Ford was still slightly ahead there as well.) Sales of both marques suffered during the embargo and its immediate aftermath, but their relative positions didn’t really change.
The car market recovered by the late ’70s, with total U.S. new car sales approaching 11 million in both 1977 and 1978. GM was on a roll with its downsized full-size models and did nearly as well with the downsized intermediates that followed a year later. Added to the popularity of the Camaro and Firebird in this era, GM sales in California soared, with 395,483 registrations in calendar 1978. Chevrolet finished a nose ahead of Ford in California in 1977 and took a more comfortable lead in 1978 and 1979.
When the second energy crisis hit in mid-1979, most new car sales fell substantially. In California, Ford’s previously solid market share was simply collapsing. The worst came in 1982, when total Ford Motor Company car sales in California fell to 102,811, less than half their 1978 level. Ford Division cars sold only 73,543 units. Chevrolet was also hit hard by the recession, but they were still outselling Ford by about 20 percent. However, in 1983, things abruptly began to turn around for Ford in California. The economy was improving, which helped, but Chevrolet was now floundering. Their California sales in 1983 sales were worse than 1982, and 1984 wasn’t a great improvement. By 1989, Ford was ahead of Chevrolet in California by a whopping 73 percent.
It’s not hard to make some educated guesses about what had happened. A key word was aero. Except for a few years in Germany in the ’60s, Ford Motor Company had never cared much about aerodynamics; Lee Iacocca didn’t like aero styling, and a lot of the senior staff was hostile. That changed in the late ’70s due to EPCA, the 1975 federal law that created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and the realization that lower drag could save fuel. “So, all of a sudden, the lid came off,” said Ford stylist Bill Boyer, “and we were allowed, and absolutely mandated, that we should go to the wind tunnels and get these things more fuel-efficient.”
This started gradually, but the most dramatic statement of intent was the 1983 Ford Thunderbird, which went from barn door to bullet practically overnight. “Shaped by the wind to soar in style,” proclaimed the brochure. The new look, combined with the sporty Turbo Coupe added during the 1983 model year, suddenly made the Thunderbird interesting to younger buyers who had ignored or sneered at its boxy predecessor.
The Aero Bird was shortly followed by the streamlined FWD Ford Tempo, which replaced the RWD Fairmont Futura. Although the Tempo and its Mercury Topaz twin were never particularly inspiring cars even at introduction, they demonstrated that Ford was serious about bringing the new aerodynamic aesthetic even into middle-of-the-road models.
Those of course set the stage for the Ford Taurus in 1986. Even some Ford stylists were nervous about the Taurus, but it was a big hit because it was not only aerodynamic, but also a truly modern car. Ford hadn’t just added an aero gloss to an existing platform this time; they had created a product that could be compared directly to the Japanese and European competition.
That was becoming increasingly critical in California. In the ’70s, Californians had bought a lot of imports, but domestic makes still predominated. U.S. automakers had 63.5 percent of the California market in 1978. The second energy crisis and the early ’80s energy crisis had changed that: By 1982, GM, Ford, Chrysler, and AMC together accounted for less than half of California’s new car sales. The biggest competitors for Chevrolet and Ford in California were now Honda and Toyota rather than each other.
Chevrolet seemed slow to wake up to this reality. Even before some of their mid-decade downsizing miscalculations, GM styling remained moored to the ’70s: Discounting the Camaro/Firebird and Corvette, GM cars still tended to be upright and “formal,” and even modern platforms like the FWD A-body Celebrity often got the traditional vinyl-top-and-wire-wheel-cover treatment. That sort of thing still worked okay for Oldsmobile and Buick until the latter part of the decade, but it seems to have hurt Chevrolet’s credibility on the West Coast. (Ford also clung to the gingerbread for a while, but by the time the Taurus arrived, it was mostly limited to the LTD Crown Victoria.)
GM had actually made considerable strides in improving the aerodynamics of its bread-and-butter cars. The 1982 Celebrity sedan had a drag coefficient of 0.38, which wasn’t far behind the 0.37 of the 1984 Tempo four-door. The crucial difference was that Ford had managed to make much of its lineup look sleek and modern, something that a buyer more interested in Japanese or German cars could conceivably picture themselves in.
It made a difference. Excepting the Taurus, mainstream late ’80s Ford cars like the Escort and Tempo were really no better or more competitive with Japanese rivals than their Chevrolet counterparts; comparing a Tempo to a Camry in any category other than price was a sick joke. However, in California, Ford’s new aero design ethos had managed to keep them ahead of Honda and Toyota, while Chevrolet wasn’t really in the fight anymore.
By the late ’80s, the bloom was off the rose in California for the more senior GM brands as well. Oldsmobile, which had sold 70,425 cars in California in 1985, had fallen below 30K by 1990; so had Cadillac, which would drop below 20K by 1993.
Through the ’80s, GM’s abundance of brands had kept them comfortably ahead of Ford Motor Company in California, but by 1990, the gap had narrowed considerably, mostly on the strength of Ford Division. (Lincoln-Mercury remained surprisingly steady — between 1984 and 1995, their California sales never once rose above 57K or fell below 42K.)
In a 1984 interview with David Crippen of The Henry Ford, Ford’s Bill Boyer, then preparing to retire, pondered whether Ford had gone too far with its aero themes, particularly the then-forthcoming Taurus. “I have the feeling that there should have been a little more restraint,” he said. “I have the feeling that GM, with their more conservative pacing, is probably more right than we are as far as hitting the market at precisely the right time.” In California, that was very definitely not true, and it’s likely that Ford would have been in a much worse position if it had backed off from the aero theme.
Styling isn’t everything, and with a few exceptions, people didn’t buy imported sedans for styling. However, and if you’re coming from behind — which both Chevrolet and Ford definitely were in California by 1983 — you need some kind of an edge, and it’s hard to sell someone a car if they don’t even want to look at it, in California or anywhere else.
California Auto Sales by Major Brand, 1970 to 1995
| Year | Chrysler Corp. | Ford Division | Lincoln-Mercury | Ford Motor Co. | Chevrolet | Pontiac | Oldsmobile | Buick | Cadillac | GM | Honda | Toyota | California | U.S. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 108,458 | 179,692 | 41,125 | 220,817 | 136,054 | 37,128 | 28,702 | 32,316 | 22,848 | 257,048 | 868,402 | 8,388,204 | ||
| 1971 | 98,903 | 185,985 | 36,939 | 222,924 | 162,004 | 34,736 | 33,427 | 35,352 | 29,208 | 294,727 | 937,987 | 9,830,626 | ||
| 1972 | 104,558 | 209,258 | 46,175 | 255,433 | 171,461 | 37,587 | 38,780 | 37,857 | 32,045 | 317,730 | 995,824 | 10,487,794 | ||
| 1973 | 114,824 | 218,900 | 47,058 | 265,958 | 188,319 | 46,604 | 46,038 | 43,754 | 35,970 | 360,685 | 1,104,689 | 11,350,995 | ||
| 1974 | 82,838 | 169,715 | 33,569 | 203,284 | 140,363 | 25,514 | 24,160 | 22,024 | 24,342 | 236,403 | 817,563 | 8,701,094 | ||
| 1975 | 59,975 | 125,471 | 32,693 | 158,164 | 110,747 | 20,735 | 25,685 | 25,530 | 28,274 | 210,971 | 742,967 | 8,261,840 | ||
| 1976 | 81,816 | 146,680 | 42,652 | 189,332 | 132,770 | 33,328 | 43,813 | 43,477 | 35,726 | 289,114 | 877,508 | 9,751,485 | ||
| 1977 | 84,545 | 147,432 | 49,443 | 196,875 | 149,779 | 39,115 | 56,352 | 45,768 | 44,429 | 335,443 | 1,022,496 | 10,826,234 | ||
| 1978 | 84,139 | 158,194 | 61,209 | 219,403 | 171,827 | 48,119 | 68,619 | 54,125 | 52,793 | 395,483 | 1,111,539 | 10,946,104 | ||
| 1979 | 58,328 | 130,937 | 55,644 | 186,581 | 141,535 | 41,969 | 71,237 | 47,126 | 49,014 | 350,881 | 1,045,072 | 10,356,695 | ||
| 1980 | 30,907 | 89,242 | 35,201 | 124,443 | 107,614 | 32,862 | 56,588 | 48,206 | 28,343 | 273,613 | 902,453 | 8,760,937 | ||
| 1981 | 37,004 | 82,706 | 29,995 | 112,701 | 92,468 | 28,492 | 58,062 | 51,407 | 28,598 | 259,027 | 848,239 | 8,443,919 | ||
| 1982 | 36,146 | 73,543 | 29,268 | 102,811 | 88,133 | 26,691 | 53,460 | 50,251 | 31,273 | 249,808 | 806,847 | 7,754,342 | ||
| 1983 | 52,238 | 99,076 | 39,245 | 138,321 | 86,588 | 28,209 | 64,732 | 52,358 | 37,600 | 269,487 | 922,285 | 8,924,186 | ||
| 1984 | 68,007 | 118,138 | 51,484 | 169,622 | 91,433 | 41,251 | 64,358 | 58,553 | 37,989 | 293,584 | 1,006,427 | 10,128,729 | ||
| 1985 | 81,706 | 131,305 | 53,152 | 184,457 | 95,787 | 50,144 | 70,425 | 56,438 | 39,901 | 312,695 | 1,135,453 | 10,688,608 | ||
| 1986 | 80,030 | 130,084 | 50,373 | 180,457 | 94,014 | 47,441 | 63,921 | 47,955 | 37,811 | 291,142 | 1,147,361 | 11,139,842 | ||
| 1987 | 68,744 | 143,482 | 46,279 | 189,761 | 89,560 | 36,688 | 44,038 | 33,350 | 31,892 | 235,528 | 110,969 | 122,887 | 1,148,854 | 10,165,660 |
| 1988 | 96,198 | 165,187 | 52,566 | 217,753 | 105,731 | 46,007 | 47,897 | 37,158 | 31,338 | 268,131 | 116,850 | 133,941 | 1,206,552 | 10,479,931 |
| 1989 | 79,542 | 173,898 | 56,298 | 230,196 | 100,497 | 38,549 | 38,073 | 34,367 | 34,970 | 246,456 | 116,186 | 134,846 | 1,136,430 | 9,852,617 |
| 1990 | 57,223 | 155,585 | 54,729 | 210,314 | 95,704 | 33,970 | 28,342 | 33,542 | 31,866 | 223,424 | 130,000* | 129,625 | 1,059,926 | 9,163,204 |
| 1991 | 62,079 | 131,825 | 49,382 | 181,207 | 98,411 | 41,427 | 30,162 | 39,010 | 25,768 | 234,778 | 127,003 | 117,702 | 1,005,896 | 8,234,017 |
| 1992 | 42,946 | 130,250 | 44,251 | 174,501 | 76,288 | 40,728 | 27,901 | 34,525 | 22,067 | 221,492 | 101,354 | 106,091 | 879,731 | 8,056,777 |
| 1993 | 51,366 | 140,081 | 45,424 | 185,505 | 78,159 | 34,925 | 24,284 | 34,583 | 19,328 | 217,529 | 103,042 | 105,480 | 880,172 | 8,406,237 |
| 1994 | 50,255 | 142,131 | 42,633 | 184,764 | 68,964 | 39,795 | 28,252 | 32,921 | 19,567 | 220,080 | 109,186 | 105,761 | 906,198 | 8,903,064 |
| 1995 | 59,366 | 140,328 | 43,662 | 183,990 | 74,345 | 35,992 | 23,771 | 29,698 | 17,168 | 212,956 | 113,639 | 107,963 | 916,692 | 8,706,970 |
* 1990 Honda total is approximate (the state figures aggregated Honda and Acura that year). State-by-state breakouts for import brands are not available before 1987.
Related Reading
1983 Buick LeSabre Vs. 1983 Ford Thunderbird: My Family Chooses Between The Brougham Look And The Aero Bird (by Aaron65)
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe – (My) Eco Boost Pioneer (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1984 Ford Tempo GLX …And Where Have You Been Hiding? (by Carey Haubrick)
Automotive History: 1986 Ford Taurus – Good Role Models And Clear Objectives Create A Breakthrough Car (by Edward Snitkoff)
Curbside Analysis: 1986 Taurus: The Most Important American Car Since The Model T (by Paul N)
Ford really was popular in the 1980s. Their advertising slogan of “Have You Driven a Ford Lately” really helped them too. The 1983 Ford LTD and especially the Thunderbird showed how Ford can change. The fact that they were still Fox platform cars underneath (Fairmont based) was also notable. The 1982 Thunderbird was dull and boring. The 1983 aero Thunderbird, a highly revised 1982 T-Bird, showed how much Ford could do with new styling and in changing the suspension. The new LTD were also a greatly revised Fairmont but were a good car for their day. The Taurus was Ford rolling the dice and hit snake eyes. The car was roomy, stylish, rode well, and handled well. It was also different. The Tempo and Escort were okay but helped Ford along. Ford also got a reputation for quality cars in the 1980s with the “At Ford, Quality is Job 1” ads. Fords were much better designed then many of the GM cars of the era. The Mustangs of this era helped Ford also. Horsepower was also making a comeback through Ford in the 1980s. Ford went from an almost broke company in the early 1980s to the top of the US “Big 3” in reputation by the late 1980s. It probably still wishes it can have that level of success today. The sad thing today is that Ford doesn’t make cars anymore. They only make trucks and SUVs in the US and Canadian markets.
Maybe it was the styling that helped Ford pull ahead of GM in California, or maybe it was the fact that GM was slinging some truly awful garbage in the period. At the low end, the Escort was a modern FWD econobox, while GM was still trying to sell you an obsolete Chevette. In the middle range, the X-, A-, and J-body cars (and later N-bodies) had poor suspensions and thrashy engines. The H-body cars were a little more competitive and the remaining RWD cars were better and more popular, but it wasn’t enough.
If it wasn’t for the lifelong GM loyalists and the still-strong “Buy American” sentiment in the interior regions of the US, GM would have suffered a lot more in the 1980-1995 period.
This was true to a point, but by about 1984, it was muddied by GM’s confusing assortment of captive imports, followed in mid-1985 by the NUMMI-built E80 Chevrolet Nova. (The state registration data unfortunately doesn’t have any kind of model-by-model breakdown, but I *think* the Chevrolet figures included Chevrolet-badged captive imports and the Nova as well as the Chevette, Cavalier, etc.)
The Toyota-based Nova added a complicated dimension to the mix. The Nova was essentially a U.S.-built E80 Corolla with different exterior styling and some fairly minor merchandising differences. As such, it was quite competitive with the Corolla and Civic in many respects, and a much better car than a contemporary Escort. However, assuming that the California figures do include the Nova, it appears it did not move the needle for Chevrolet in California at all — surprisingly, given the competence of the product and the fact that it was actually made in California. My take on that is that the Nova was hampered by the Chevrolet badge and the frequently resentful indifference of Chevrolet dealers, which was a big problem, but a different problem.
I readily admit to having oversimplified for effect.
At least in the heartland, Chevy dealers were pretty bent at being forced to sell baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and… Suzuki?
Yeah, that was my sense as well. My family bought a Geo Prizm in 1989, and the Chevrolet-Geo dealer was NOT enthusiastic about it in any sense. It was an excellent car for what it was, but the dealer didn’t like it and didn’t like having to sell it. It also didn’t ever match the resale values of a Toyota-badged Corolla (which made the Nova and Prizm excellent used-car buys).
I think this is something that ended up shaping the decision-making around both the Geo badge and the Saturn division.
I saw a lot of Chevy Nova/Geo Prizms growing up in northeastern Pennsylvania in the 80s and 90s. I suspect it’s because it was kind of a haul to the nearest Toyota dealer at the time, about 45 minutes away.* That plus not having to deal with the voluntary import restrictions made it so the local dealers seemed to view it as an actual opportunity rather than an afterthought.
I recall a lot of folks that had them saying “it’s basically a Toyota made by GM in the US,” and I’d have to think the dealers told them that, because these weren’t Car & Driver folks. Either that or they got it from Consumer Reports.
The image problem the NUMMI cars had under the Chevy brand in California was reversed; there were still enough industries in the area with union memberships who would give you shit for owning a Japanese car. Meanwhile the ones that were informed were fine with it due to where it was made, and the ones that weren’t just saw an American brand on the car.
Not sure how things were in the Midwest or Southeast or New England or whatever, but outside of major metro areas, I think the Nova/Prizm did pretty well. I’d see them into the mid-Aughts, after which point the rust monster had gotten them all.
*My parents drove an hour to the closest Mazda dealer; first, because the second gas crisis caused them to reluctantly trade their 72 Torino 351W for something fuel efficient, and the Mazda GLC was being advertised as the cheapest car on the market at $4500. Not sure if this was nationally or just locally. Second, they loved that Mazda so much that they bought 5 more over the years, with their last being a Mazda6 V6 5-speed. While they never owned a rotary (RX-7s were not practical with a kid, i.e., me) my dad was fascinated by the engine and passed that fascination on to me. I’ve had 7 Mazdas – two B-series pickups, two FC RX-7s, one SA22 RX-7, and two RX-8s. The 40th Anniversary Edition RX-8 is the one I have now. My wife likes the CX-90, but her first (and only) car is a 99 Dodge Durango she bought new when she graduated from nursing school, and she’s still on the original engine and transmission, 265,000 miles and 27 years later. She’s been in California her whole life (I moved here in 2013 and we married in 2016) and so there’s not a speck of rust. Now that the Durango 392 has returned, but for a much more reasonable price than it had been – $53k – I think she’s going to go for that for sentimental reasons, and that she likes the sound of a V8. I can’t complain, it also tows 8700 lbs and means I can keep driving sporty cars. 🙂
My on the ground observation here in the San Francisco Bay Area was that the aero Bird, Fox Mustang and then the Taurus were a powerful 1-2-3 punch. Did they replace anyone’s Celica or Camry or Accord? Probably not. But they sure seemed to suddenly outnumber the Cutlass Supreme two doors, 2nd gen Camaros, and various GM sedans that were ubiquitous just a few years earlier. The aero Bird especially – I remember reading that it was the top-selling car in California briefly, which no TBird had ever come close to. Though I can’t find any confirmation of that.
Thanks for this detailed confirmation of what I experienced and have referred to here a number of times in posts and comments. This puts it in stark terms.
And I bet that these trends were even more exaggerated in the large coastal urban areas of SoCal and the Bay Area. That was certainly my impression in living in both during the ’80s. GM just really fell out of favor and their passenger cars never came back. It would be interesting to have seen these charts continue for another decade or so.
I found it surprising that Ford outsold the Japanese imports in California through the 80s up to 1995. Again, maybe the coastal urban areas had more Toyota and Honda buyers. Younger yuppies weren’t aspiring to buy them though.
I’m surprised not to see the imports surge around 1987 when the VRA quotas expired.
The VER on Japanese car imports didn’t expire until 1994.
The better explanation is on-shoring of Japanese production. The Acoord and Camry were both “built in the USA” by ’87, which did not count against import quotas.
GM’s more conservative design was borderline old; that was my opinion at the time and still is today. As you say Aaron, the Fords looked aero and modern, something that both GM nor Chrysler lacked outside their sportier models.
Ford was also the first to introduce a 4 speed overdrive and as I recall the Tempo had fully independent rear suspension; quite a step forward versus the slower moving GM
I remember when the aero-Bird came out. My entire extended family was utterly shocked that Ford could come out with a Thunderbird that small. I mean, in the 1970s, the T-Bird was gigantic and the aero-Bird was much smaller.
I have driven both the Tempo and Taurus. The Tempo was a crude device and the Taurus drove like a big Tempo.
Going to agree on the Tempo but disagree on the Taurus. My sister bought a new Taurus in ‘88 and it truly was a remarkable vehicle on the road.
The Aero T-Birds were pretty stunning for their time. I was really enamored with their 1992 replacement but had no need for a 2 door car at that time.
A 1985 or 1986 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe is one of my secret dream cars. Thwre’s something about the restrained look thay just appeals to me.
This Ford sales film is an interesting assessment of the new 83 Thunderbird against comparable GM offerings. I remember how popular the downsized Cutlass was in SoCal – several friends bought them in 1978-80 – but by 83 they were outdated. Ford was in a good position to capitalize on that situation.