(first posted 2/26/2012) Thanks to Mr. Tactful’s recent post on the V8 1995 Cougar, I thought it appropriate to mention this Thunderbird LX I spotted in downtown Moline a couple of weeks ago.
For 1996, the Thunderbird (and Cougar) received a final refresh, which included new rocker trim, wheels, and front and rear fascias. The attractive new dashboard added for 1994 remained. Although the V8 was still available, the SC was gone, having been retired after 1995.
One detail was a return to cursive script, a neat retro touch. I believe this was applied to the Taurus and other Ford models as well. One aesthetic issue that had been with the MN12 Thunderbird (and Cougar) since its release in 1989 was that although the car had what appeared to be full width tail lamps, only the extreme edges actually lit up at night. In 1992, the entire tail lamp illuminated, with the large center section using LEDs. This continued for the 1996 model year. The 1995-97 Lincoln Town Cars also had lighted center sections, so I guess the cost accountants were ignored once in a while.
I had just started to drive in late 1997, about a year and a half later than planned due to some health issues. I was well aware that 1997 was the last year for the T-Bird and Cougar (not to mention the last of the square Town Cars), so I wasted no time driving down to the local Ford and L-M dealerships to get the brochures on them before they were gone.
By the late Nineties the coupe market was shrinking drastically, and more and more folks who used to buy these cars were suddenly batting their eyes at Explorers and Mountaineers. The related Mark VIII managed to last one more year, and that was the end of Ford’s luxury coupes. Survivors like this LX prove that once upon a time, coupes were in and many happily roamed the land.
Edit: I was incorrect about the LED tail lights being new for 1996. Text has been amended to reflect their addition in 1992.
Too bad so many of them came with the naturally aspirated V6 and not something more powerful.
It only makes the sc coupe more special.
This car looks entirely too nice to be someone’s daily driver. Very nice car.
The lack of rust and Illinois tags lead me to think started its life somewhere else or was a garage queen for some time.
It may have been garaged for most of its life, but American makes last far longer in the salt if washed regularly than Japanese makes. The difference in rust on mid-late 1990s vehicles between the two is like night and day.
If the salt is washed off a car regularly, it will rust less. Doesn’t matter where it is made. It is simple chemistry.
In the American Midwest and other places where road salt is applied liberally, the Japanese cars of the 1980s and 1990s rust out far quicker than their American counterparts. It took the Japanese automakers a while to figure out rustproofing. Mazda still has plenty of corrosion issues. See below:
http://www.mazda3forums.com/index.php?s=3a65c99ca08b5d1a46aee3a1c540df31&topic=113768.0
Canucklehead is correct about washing and salt -having lived in Cleveland, Ohio, Kodiak, Alaska and Honolulu, Hawaii. FREQUENT washing (underside flushing a necessity) a waxing (at least quarterly) makes a big difference in keeping rust at bay or away.
Sometimes it just doesn’t matter. Mid-2000s Chrysler products rusted so quickly and so bad that Chrysler came up with a kit to replace the strut towers under warranty for their minivans. The only vehicle I’ve ever driven that was repaired under warranty for rust. Until that came out they were totaling vans less than five years old from rust. Didn’t matter, another eight spots came through a year after the rust warranty expired.
The problem they had is moisture worked its way into the “sealed” sections of the rear wheel wells and anyplace the metal was folded over, doors, hood, hatch. It is a rarity to see a good non-rusty one in NE Ohio, not just their minivans, but Sebrings, Neons, and trucks as well. You can’t wax what you can’t get to.
The draining in the wheel wells and skirts was so poorly designed that those panels would rust out even in Nevada. I own a 1995 4.6 V8 Thunderbird that sat in a garage since 2002, almost completely rust free except in the areas I named. I also owned a 1996 3.8 V6 and it had almost identical rust pattern so I assume this is an issue for all tbirds since 1989 because you’ll notice how mustangs from the same era do not have the same rust issues so it is definitely a design flaw.
I washed mine regularly and premature rust from road salt killed it. Other than that, I loved the car.
I never realized that Ford upgraded the taillights to true full-width units on the last T-Birds. The reflectors always bothered me. ’90s Escorts had the same problem.
In fact, Ford was very cheap with taillights until just the last couple of years. One of the late-’90s decontenting stunts was to delete amber turn signals from, even on the Aerostar for one last year of production. This enabled Ford to use single-bulb housing instead of having a separate bulb for the signal. Look at almost every non-Mustang Ford vehicle from the ’00s and they still only use a single bulb. Cheap, cheap, cheap.
Even worse, some of those Escorts had fake amber turn signal lenses.
The tails were lit all the way across on the early Birds, maybe an option on later cars. A friend of mine is the original owner of a 92 Bird with working rear lights. The issue was that if the lights went out on the early cars the whole light panel had to be replaced.
Bird, Cougar,or Mark.. The MN12/FN10 was the last gasp of FoMoCo’s personal luxury coupes..
On the 1996-97 Thunderbird, the large center part of the tail lights used LEDs, I remember seeing them on the cars when new.
You could argue that the 2002-2005 Thunderbird was, if it weren’t for the ragtop-only configuration. The DEW was more or less a replacement for the MN12/FN10 – I believe the suspension setup was similar, probably more advanced, and V6 and V8 configurations were supported, but the DEW-based cars themselves ended up occupying different market positions than their MN/FN predecessors did, because there just wasn’t any demand for fixed hardtop, 2-door personal luxury coupes. (See also: Lexus SC300/400 to IS series and SC430.)
The DEW-based LS that more or less replaced the Mark VIII had potential – too bad Ford neglected it.
My father bought a LX new in 1989. I was in high school at the time and thought it was the coolest car around. Digital dash, RWD. The V6 was slow by today’s standards, but honestly it had good get-up-and-go for the time.
He drove that car for 7 years or so. It had its share of electrical gremlins, so I can see why they switched to analog guages on later models.
If I recall, the MN12 program was considered a failure at Ford as the cars came out much larger than they were initially intended to be. This meant the 3.8 V-6 was under powered for such a heavy car and led to the 5.0 being bodged in later, for which the platform was never designed.
A cool factoid is the 3.8 was a reverse engineered GM 3.8, right down to the disintegrating intake manifold gasket.
Was this a different 3.8 than the Cologne engine? Ford’s 3.8s always confused me. I understand that there was an Essex 3.8 too. I had an 86 Fox Marquis wagon with a 3.8 and a C-5 auto that was a nice driving car that ran well the entire time I had it. Lots of torque, but not so great gas mileage (and a horrible range with the wagon’s little 11 gallon tank).
The 3.8 was always an essex motor. The Cologne was the 60 degree 2.8 and 2.9 used in trucks and early Foxes.
Even more confusing there is a British Essex V6 (and V4) engine as well which unrelated. I had one in my Reliant Scimitar – big, old lump.
I didn’t realise they weren’t related – don’t suppose you know why the 3.8 would be called Essex?
The 2.5 3.0 V6 Essex was used in Ford Zephyrs and Capris while the V4 was in those plus the Transit range and the Corsair
In some cases, Ford names their engines after the location of the engine plant. In the case of the British engine, it was Dagenham, Essex in the UK. In the case of the North American engine, it was Essex, Ontario in Canada.
Since Ford sold very few (if any) UK sourced Essex engines in the US, they were comfortable using the same name on two engines, but with the rise of the internet, there’s been some confusion regarding the two engines.
Other well known Ford engines named after the manufacturing location include the Windsor (Ontario) V-8, Lima (Ohio) 2.3 OHC four, Cleveland (Ohio) V-8 and Cologne (Germany) V-6.
They didn’t change the name when they moved manufacturing or added a line. The Lima engine, for instance, was made in Brazil for most mid-to-late and early 90s Fords.
Of all the things Ford could pick to copy. . . I never realized they picked one of GMs stupidest-ever engine design blunders. Not only do the original GM intake gaskets self destruct, but the design ensures repairs are a royal pain in the a**.
I’m headed over to my son’s military base to help him change the gaskets in his 99 Monte Carlo – a job I hoped I’d never see again.
I had a company Caravan with a Mopar 3.8. I don’t know if that engine was also a GM copy. A company owned Caravan I drove for 247k miles seemed remarkably immune to the intake gasket failure problems afflicting GM 3.1/3.8 engines. Guess I should be glad the company didn’t buy Windstars that year.
The way I understand it Donald Petersen scolded Kuchta (MN12 project manager) in presence of the whole MN12 team over two points: too heavy and too costly to produce. Both design goals were missed because of the independent rear suspension. However, the IRS was the reason the car was praised for its handling. It was a sales success as well. That makes Kuchta a hero in my eyes.
It wasn’t just because of the rear suspension alone.
And it may have sold reasonably well, but it was actually a very poor performer financially for Ford, because Ford had to reduce prices and discount heavily to keep sales at a semi-reasonable level. Because these cars were overly expensive to build, thus there was little or no profit margin. These cars were a Huge fail for Ford, in terms of profitability. Which is ultimately what counts.
The Ford execs that developed these cars had the very mistaken idea that if they tried to look more like a BMW 6 Series and give it irs, they could sell it for much higher average transaction prices. That idea blew up in their faces, and Petersen rightly was very upset. The MN12 program was a huge screw up after all the success under Petersen’s reign.
Well not really much larger, but, yes, much heavier than originally planned. When there were problems in prototypes with too much body flex, they strengthened the body at the cost of adding additional weight. (The Ford Mustang II and the ’96 Taurus had similar problems.) The ’89 Thunderbird and Cougar were not originally designed with the intention of using Ford’s V-8 engines.
At different times there was talk of the Thunderbird/Cougar independent rear suspension replacing the solid axle rear suspension of the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis. When sales of personal luxury coupes starting declining there was talk of bringing back the 4-door sedan body-style for the Thunderbird and Cougar, but obviously this never happened. It was even suggested that 4-door sedan versions of the Thunderbird and Cougar could be replacements for the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis.
Using it as the basis for what would become the 1994 Mustang was also briefly explored.
I had a 95 T-bird LX as a daily driver in Chicago for about 4 years. It was a gold-ish tan color with a tan interior and a 3.8 V6. The engine ran good but it was slow. I loved the handling of the car despite the skinny 215/70/15 wheels and the crazy curb weight. The car had the automatic climate control system and power everything. The weight on the car was just crazy though. It weighed about 3600lbs unloaded. My 88 Thunderbird LX which has a 5.0 and every option available for 88 but a sun roof weighs 3560lbs. In a driving comparison between the two (not counting the fact that the 88 T-bird has a GT40 H/I 5.0) the Fox felt much more tossable than the MN-12. The weight of the car really killed it. Other than that I really enjoyed the car. I ended up getting rid of it about a year ago. At 90,000 miles the rockers were shot and the bottom of the doors were about falling off. It got replaced with a new Focus which, while nice, is not quite as nice as the MN-12.
I still have my Fox T-bird, which tells you which side of the MN-12/Fox battle I’m on…
I drove a ’93 Mk VIII for 4 glorious years.
InTech, air suspension, and pearl paint.
97-98 VIIIs had NEON tail lights!
I imagine that the reason that the T-bird and Cougar got the rear lights was because the Mark was already getting a rear lamp upgrade and the T-bird/Cougar was able to benefit from that on the cheap.
I liked these when the first came out, especially the digital-tastic LX Thunderbird, plus they still has some of the old school personal luxury coupe vibe in a modern package, they originally were never designed for a V8, but enough customers complained and Ford had to squeeze the 5.0 litre in there, they had to revise the intake to make it fit I recall.
The Cougars never got the LED taillight upgrade the Tbirds did in 1992, they only received styling refreshments to the reflector panel while retaining the outboard light only arrangement. The 92 Thunderbirds required a new trunklid with the center taillight mounting further recessed to fit the thicker housings. Developing a new trunklid for the Cougar was probably out of the question since it was already on its second styling cycle by 92 vs. the Tbirds first.
These models along with the Cougar are pretty much the cheapest vehicles you can buy in the used car market.
Nobody wants em’.
V6? Blows head gaskets.
V8? Abysmal fuel economy
Cloth interior? Typical downscale mid-90’s Ford quality.
Leather seats? Very tough to find and usually wear very badly.
Fuel economy? Abysmal no matter what configuration you choose.
A lot of these vehicles have very low odometer readings… because they typically stop working after eight or nine years. The door hinges sag. The paint wears out. The door and trunk moldings seem particularly vulnerable to anything that resembles heat.
It barely stops there. As many here have already hinted, you also have an interior that is as cheap looking as any Ford rental car special at the time. What’s worse is that a disproportionate number of the dashboards came in some rancid green, brown and blacks.
I would rather have a Beretta, Corsica, Skylark, Achieva, Monte Carlo or Avenger on my car lot than a Thunderbird. They are in essence an old person’s car with none of the quality that it would usually entail.
Along with the Astro, these have historically been the cheapest used cars you could buy on a per pound basis. If you do decide to keep one… make sure it’s a V8 and keep the paint well waxed. These models peel up like an old banana in Phoenix.
Hence Fox > MN-12 😉
Fuel economy isn’t that bad, a 96 Tbird with a 4.6 is 18/23mpg vs. a same year Monte Carlo at 17/26mpg. It’s not getting Prius economy but it’s also not a Prius.
I wont argue about the rubberized trim and paint. The trim is obsoleted now and difficult to restore if it’s cracking, and certain colors, particularly the greens and reds seem to have serious peeling/fading issues. But frankly GMs and many other automakers of this vintage aren’t any better.
But the Beretta, Corsica, Skylark, Achieva, Monte Carlo and Avenger interiors make the Thunderbird interiors look like a Maybach! The interiors, particularly the 94-97 and especially SC interiors are probably the best points to the Thunderbirds of this era.
Abysmal fuel economy from the V8? Maybe from the 5.0 but the 4.6L MN12’s got ridiculously good mileage. I good friend of mine had a ’95 4.6L powered T-Bird and he saw 29 highway mpg all the time. Hell, that was better mileage than the craptastic ’86 Corolla I had that weighed a good half-ton less and struggled to get 26 on the highway.
Whoops 17/26 mpg for the Monte Carlo, 17/25 mpg for the Thunderbird. I mistook cars in the old article stats I was looking at
In reading both the MN12 posts, there are some misconceptions.
First, the 302 was only available from 1991-93. Then for 1994-97, the OHC 4.6 V8 installed. Also, the ‘cheap interiors’ were pre-1994, afterwards were updated and much better then tacky Berettas and Skylarks.
The MN-12 was overweight and the Project Manager was taken to task for it and ended up leaving Ford. He wanted “BMW-ness” and added weight for the IRS. Platform was designed in mid 80’s when coupes still sold well. But, Ford ended up not able to share the IRS with other cars. By mid 90’s, MN’s ended up as fleet queens, or heavily discounted/factory leases with low resale as a result.
I had an L-M dealer begging me to lease a Cougar vs a new 94 Stang. In long run, the old live axle car ended up living longer.
For those who are interested, there is an organization devoted to the MN12 cars, The Thunderbird and Cougar Club of America (TCCOA.COM). I had 2 Birds, a 90 Anniversary Edition and a 97 LX with a 4.6L V8. I found both leather interiors to be beautiful and the 90 with suede seat inserts and adjustable bolsters appeared quite upscale.
I have heard it said, on rare occasion, that BMW engineers served as consultants for the mechanical design of this car. This assertion is presented with either no or thin evidence. Does anyone here have any insight into the accuracy of this statement?
What an underrated and unappreciated series. For once Ford spent some money engineering a great chassis. Just compare it to the Mustang. Longer wheelbase wider track front subframe for the suspension and steering and amazingly enough IRS for every single car. A more spacious and luxurious interior. Unfortunately Ford built for a market that was disappearing. I bought a new Cougar in 94. ( my wife loved the knife edged formal roof and wire wheel caps). I had traded in my 77 Coupe de Ville. While there was no comparison I did like the smaller size and better fuel economy. These cars evolved over the next couple of models until they culminated in the legendary supercharged SuperCoupe and XR7. Personaly I would look for a T bird sport with a 4.6 and automatic or maybe the Cougar variant. Locally these cars have almost no demand or resale value compared to the Mustangs I currently have but I think that they would better fit my desire for American road car.
Ford Thunderbird, does not get the love it deserves for sure. The final model was so retro and cool, yet consumers slept on it.
I have had 2 of these MN12’s over the years and one Fox/Thunderbird. I went with the thunderbird after having a several trouble free years with my 87 Fox T-bird. Thought the MN12 was way more luxurious looking than the Fox but soon found that beauty is only skin deep. My 1996 Thunderbird was my first car I took a loan out to buy. It had 22k miles when I purchased it in 1998 and had it’s share of problems. It had the 4.6 V8 and required an intake manifold within the first year of ownership (this needed to be done twice on my 96 mustang GT). Cheap plastic that always cracked at the thermostat neck. Several sensors gone bad and it developed a nasty transmission shutter at 60K. I decided to trade this in on the Mustang after a few years frustration.
My second MN12 came to me after an acquaintance needed to sell his 1993 Super Coupe and since I always wanted one growing up I happily purchased from him. This car suffered from a whole other host of issues even though he sold it to me with 1000 miles on a brand new long block Jasper engine. First off the torque on that car was awesome as well as the whole feel of the car. Completely different from the 96. But that’s where the fun ended. Transmission issues reared their ugly head on this vehicle as well along with broken window regulators, starter, issues,etc, etc…..
Loved the look of these cars but the reliability was just not there for me. My 87 had 201k on it when I got rid of it in 1997 and it went strong for the next owner until 2004. Luckily I never dealt with the head gasket issues that came along with those 3.8’s
Like you, Sean, I’ve had them both… for me, it was 3 Foxes, and 2 MN-12(s), including my last T-Bird pictured below. This list includes a couple of these that were the ex’s cars… Like you, I think the Foxes were more reliable, although my ’83 with the Essex motor was not so great….
1983 3.8L V-6 Basic Bird… Under-powered and had the replace that damned Essex engine at just north of of 100K on the clock. The re-manufactured engine started developing thrust bearing issues a little over 50K after its install.
1988 5.0L V-8 LX with all the trimmings… Hall of Fame 302 with SFI under the hood. Bought it used at 42K. traded it in with 236K on the clock on a 1997 ‘Bird. Only mechanical issue was it went through brakes like they were going out of style. It was too heavy of a car for little 14″ wheels which limited the size of the brakes. I had better wear from my Turbo Coupe’s pads, although that car had its share of caliper problems…
1988 Turbo Coupe (ex’s car) – Fun to Drive with a 5 speed stick! Gorgeous Sapphire Blue Color. Problematic car! We traded it in on a…
1994 4.6L V8 LX (also the ex’s car) – Fast, fun to drive, but my ex started having transmission issues
after we split up an she bought an Explorer Sport. Not sure how many miles she had on it at the time…
And finally, my 1997 LX. I was an idiot and bought another 3.8L. And while I never had any engine troubles with this one, the trans started to slip at 118K. I traded it in on a Grand Prix GTP of the same vintage.
All in all, I liked all of my T-Birds and really miss personal luxury coupes. If they still made ’em, I’d still have one. But alas, the only 2-door coupe with rear wheel drive from Ford is the Mustang, which I now have. My handle here would be “T-Bird Rick” if they still made them.
My Last Thunderbird… ;o(
Agree Rick. They don’t make the V8 personal Luxury cars anymore and they where some of my favorite cars I ever owned. I don’t love the look of 4 door sport sedans that are so popular today. My everyday driver is a Chevy Volt but like yourself I also own a Mustang for the weekends.
Nice car BTW. Reminds me of my pearl White 96. I need to dig up the pics. LOL
My ex’s 94 was that Pearl Opalescent color. It was a pretty car.
I liked the 96-97 T-Bird with the 4.6L V-8. Too bad the full width rear taillights didn’t have the sequential turn signals the 67-68 T-Bird had.
Usually Japanese cars rust horribly fast and bad, but early MN-12 cars without galvanized steel are even worse than many of them, probably only better than the ’90s-’00s Mercedes.
When rims don’t show any corrosion and it’s this rusted, it’s very bad. This picture describes the shot rocker panels mentioned above very well, and in most cases people don’t have much time seeing this before it disappears from the road.
By that time the pinch welds are pretty much toast. That is the death of them. Rockers can be fixed.
+1 the rocker skins are mostly cosmetic – though when they’re gone everything behind them rapidly deteriorates – and pretty common of the era. MN12s are doubly cursed there by being filled with moisture soaking expansion foam and having very easy to clog water drains punched in the bottoms
It seems to me that the more attractive & appealing these T-birds became under the skin (dashboards, interiors, lighter & peppier 4.6 V8 engine), the more and more gimmicked & glocked up the attractive basic body exterior became.