(Submitted by cjcz92)
Looking at these two cars from this angle, or any external angle for that matter, you’d be hard pressed to find any striking similarities. For starters, one’s a coupe and the other a sedan. Beyond that though, they don’t share any sheet metal, windshields, door handles, mirrors – all things that are common for related vehicles to share. Yet these two vehicles are indeed related, much more heavily so than meets the eye.
Although visually distinctive on the outside, the 2002-2005 Ford Thunderbird and 2000-2006 Lincoln LS both rode on the Ford DEW platfrom (also shared with the 2000-2008 the Jaguar S-Type and present-day XF) and both shared the same 3.9L V8, among other mechanics. Sharing of platforms and powertrain is common practice for vehicles produced by the same automaker, but what’s rather unusual is that Ford used the exact same dashboard and center console for the Thunderbird and LS. This was obviously done to cut down on costs, but nonetheless, it’s always come across as odd for two vehicles that looked so different on the outside to share identical interiors.
Related Reading:
Sort of the “CC effect”, a co-worker and I were just talking about the retro “Bird because he saw it on one of those televised auctions. We were wondering about the origins of that “little” V8 engine!
According to Wikipeadia the V8 was a Jag design. I think that this platform was designed more for Jaguar than for Ford, but Ford owned Jaguar at the time and could see that a Lincoln based on this platform might be a good product line for them. The Thunderbird was an afterthought I think, as the platform was not really designed for a convertible. Still the T-bird on this platform is not bad compared to the original 55 T-bird.
The DEW98 seemed to stem from the similarly laid out MN12 platform(RWD, mid mounted fuel tank, cradled IRS) and in fact during development 90s Tbirds were used as test mules for suspension and powertrain development.
The Jag also got a Peugeot V6 diesel, Clarkson of top gear fame tried to do a sub 10 minute lap of the Nurburg ring in one he at the same time proved the diesel is quite fast but also proved he had no real idea how to drive one effectively.
He was probably just feeling hungry, and not performing at the top of his game.
Oprah was on the waiting list for the T-bird when it first came out; I wonder if she kept it.
That’s a huge difference already. Thunderbird doesn’t have structure of the roof and has a shorter wheelbase. For that floorpan, cutting the wheelbase is a lot of work.
Oh, these. Two good-performing, yet largely forgettable cars.
I really wanted to like the Lincoln LS when it was new. It was a credible luxury-performance car that came with a manual transmission and rear-wheel drive! Yet it was a let-down with a forgettable non-name and forgettable styling with bits that looked cobbled together from other cars, and it depreciated like nobody’s business.
I didn’t like the Thunderbird. They took a modern car, slavishly grafted on every cringe-inducing indulgent element from a 1957 model, gave it unconvincingly modern bumpers and interior detailing that looked like nothing from 1957, and gave it an eggcrate grille that really belonged on a 1994 Cadillac. An expensive two-seat convertible was even less salable as a volume car in 2002 than it was in 1957, and I saw so few of these retro-birds that they might as well have not built any at all.
The T-Bird’s grille and taillights remind me more of a Falcon, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.
What Andrew T. said, exactly. 5 speed, RWD, Lincoln (even if the 5 speed was only available with the V6) on a Jaguar (Euro) platform. Can you say hot rod Lincoln?!! Then they made it look like a Mitsubishi Diamanté. Such a disappointment.
The competitive landscape made the LS look better than it really was. It arrived on the scene a couple of years after GM/Cadillac phoned in the Catera, and despite the generic styling, it a much more serious effort than The Caddy That Zigs.
But we all know what happened next: Ford lost interest in both RWD sedans and PAG, while GM decided to invest billions to create fresh, new product for Cadillac.
Though it’s not exactly memorable, I think the LS is a good-looking car. Good-driving as well. The thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the interior. Really can’t say *why*; I just didn’t like it.
I still came close to buying one used in 2006.
I never paid attention to the similar insides. I always wondered if these cars would have had more of a following if Ford had used one of it’s own engines, such as the 4.6. The relatively rare 3.9 has always worked to cross these off the list of old daily drivers. There is safety in numbers.
Wait? They don’t have the 4.6??
When these cars were new I worked next door to a regional Ford Training Center. One of the cars they trained on was a Thunderbird. Compared to the rounded 50s T-birds that these were styled to resemble, these were flat and for a roadster too wide and too long. It looked like you could park a Miata on the trunklid.
The LS was a very brave attempt by Lincoln (Ford) to compete against the BMW 5 series. You have to wonder what might have happened if Lincoln had been able to stick with the idea and perhaps “expand” it by producing a re-bodied Mustang as a 3 series-like companion model.
Weren’t both these cars seriously let down by lack luster assembly quality? Most cars get better the longer they are in production….up to a point. The LS and T-bird were flawed, assembly-wise, every year of production.
There was a Gen1 and a Gen2 of the Lincoln LS. The Gen 2 supposedly had some 500 changes from the Gen1. Gen 1 had some serious issues with the timing chains failing and the hydraulic fan failing. they also were eating Coil on Plugs for breakfast lunch and dinner. For Gen2 the hydraulic fan was replaced with an electrical one. The issue with the failing coils was never completely solved, neither was a problem with the coolant overflow bottle. It tends to crack and an aftermarket unit by Dorman Solutions popped the lid under pressure.
Enthusiasts came up with a way to replace the Gen 1 hydraulic fan using junk yard parts: electrical switches from BMW, fan from Ford Taurus, etc.
Another problem arose from the use of resin thermostat housings,which can be replaced with aluminum housings from Jaguar.
The 5 speed automatic transmission was also plagued with frequent shift solenoid failures.
As you see the horrendous depreciation had good reasons. You can also see that they could be rewarding objects for the intrepid wrench turner. I was intrigued by this car but ultimately decided for a simple practical car instead. However, I thoroughly enjoyed 2 test rides with V8 powered units. The smooth power delivery of the V8 over a wide band of rpm was remarkable to me. One of them had about 230000 miles on it and it felt like new. I also truly like the clean and understated appearance of this car.
By the way: almost everything I learned about this car I learned at http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/
Ah, the final CC installment of the late-nineties/early 2000s trifecta of failed retro-mobiles (the first two being the Prowler and SSR). Of the three, the T-Bird was the least outlandish, which made it all the more head-scratching since it was just as impractical as the other two. Even if it had had a vehicle-specific dash and interior, it likely would have failed just as badly, thanks to a driving experience that’s best described as mediocre (and stellar ADM price-gouging). Ford managed to create a two-seat, retro convertible that was neither sporting, nor luxurious.
The worst thing about the last Thunderbird is how its failure almost certainly cemented the non-production of two concepts that might have had a chance in the marketplace: the Marauder and Bel-Air convertibles.
I think it was the price more than anything that did it in. If it had started at $25k, it probably would have done better sales-wise, although I assume that would have entailed a fat per-unit loss.
I think the high price keeps the desirability in the long term. Retro Tbird is one of the very few 10+yo cars parked in Lincoln showroom, something only better Corvette can enjoy.
I wanted to like the Thunderbird. I really wanted to like it. But the Thunderbird of the 2000s looked droopy compared to the ’55-’57 models. All those original styling cues were evoked, but the original had some crisp edges to balance its smoothness, very moderate fins that no one would ever choose to design these days, and available fender skirts. I guess Ford couldn’t go home again.
On the topic of design sharing, I’m sure I’m not the only one to have noticed that Explorers and Rangers shared a lot of interior components–the dashboard coming immediately to mind.
That’s been a Ford trait since at least the Nixon era.
My 95 Explorer’s dash looked just like a 2011 Ranger’s dash, same pad, same lay out, same bezels, just a bit newer gauge cluster that would probably drop right in and plug right into the 17 year old harness and work flawlessly.
Well the Explorer (and its predecessor Bronco II) were SUV derivatives of the Ranger so there was some sharing going on.
I’m not sure that an SUV sharing a dash/interior bits with a mass-produced pickup is quite in the same league as a pricey niche vehicle getting much of the same dash/interior pieces from a production sedan.
For what Ford wanted for the Thunderbird, they could have installed a nice, retro-style dash. Even greedy GM managed to get a dedicated, specific dash into the ill-fated SSR.
These retro T-birds were fairly popular in my area. Right now my car is parked on the office deck between two of them. They seem to appeal to guys my age – over 60 – who are no more than six feet tall and want just a touch of sport in their daily drivers.
I had a 2001 Lincoln LS V6. It was a piece of crap. Brought brand new, it seen the local Lincoln dealership for repairs more than any car I ever owned. Problems with the stereo never working correctly, the redundant controls on the steering wheel never working, the power windows going down and never coming back up (this was fun in the winter), climate control panel never operating correctly (again, fun in the winter and summer) to major problems with the transmission, power steering, ball joints, etc. etc. etc.
I have to say that two of my neighbors also had LS’s, which were purchased brand new.. One was a 2000 with a V8 and the other was a 2001 V6 like mine. Between the three, we couldn’t even put the parts together to make one good car.
I did, though, like the exterior styling but it was ruined by a horrible paint job that showed every swirl mark after you washed the car.
IDK why I ever brought that car. I think it was the fact that I wanted a BMW, but couldn’t afford one.
This reminds me of one more reason why I was unimpressed by the Thunderbird when it debuted (in addition to the styling, configuration, and price): The luster had worn off the LS by 2002, and because of the connection my impression of the retro-Bird from the outset was that it was a trouble-prone car brimming with low-quality parts.
I think it’s a wonder that Ford made it out of the early to mid ’00s at all. This was the era when seemingly every car-like vehicle they built debuted as a reliability nightmare, was promptly corner-cut and de-contented to the bone for rental fleets, then deleted from the brochures with a whimper with no direct replacement implied (Contour, Cougar, Marauder, T-bird, Continental, even Taurus). It was obvious at the time that the suits in the Glass House simply didn’t care about the cars on the ground, so long as they had profits to pay the bills.
Ah, yes…. the Jack Nasser days at FoMoCo. A lot of competent folks sent packing and the company was left without much depth in engineering, etc. Not much attention paid to keeping a strong car line with all the profits being made on trucks. Too much field testing done on the backs of owners. The LS, Bird and 6.0 ‘Stroke were prime examples.
Looking at these now, the Lincoln looks like a Mitsubishi copy and the Thunderbird looks dated – it didn’t age well – and possibly too lost in the cliché details…….
……as did the Jaguar S Type – a good car hidden under cliché styling and some cheap trim materials.
And now there is no Thunderbird, which is not a good thing – its a great name with a great history.
Talk about the curbside (classic) effect! Drove some 350 miles today in the Carolinas today and saw two LS – amazing in itself but both were dead on the roadside!
Reminds me of another T-Bird/Lincoln design comparison: The 1972 Lincoln Mk IV and the 1970 Thunderbird. Both are beautiful, both long and sleek, both then land yachts — yes the T-Bird of 1970 was huge! Yet very nicely designed, just so far from its sporty, classic origins. I own an amazing white first year Lincoln Mk IV (last year before the Guvmnt bumpers) and side by side the ’70 T-Bird, they look designed by the same team!
The original T-bird was gorgeous. One of the all time great designs. To compare it to a beautiful young lady in her prime would not be a stretch of the imagination. The retro bird just doesn’t stir the same emotion.
Yesterday I spotted this unfortunate 57 Thunderbird sitting in the bullpen at my favorite body shop. Must be waiting for parts or the claims adjuster. rear corner crunched in, door and fender raked and front corner yanked out. Owner brought it to the right shop, If anyone can bring it back to it;s original glory, these are the guys to do it. Is there a category for Collision Shop Classics?
Rear view
The LS looked too plain to me, and like the Seville of the same era, lacked any significant styling changes during its run and looked stale by the end. Poor reliability didn’t help. The Mitsubishi comparison, unfortunately, is spot on. I liked the initial commercial for the LS, though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NUh-JnrMO4).
The Thunderbird – yuck. I thought it looked cartoonish new, and it hasn’t gotten any better with time. And what was with the plain interior? Get rid of the LS’s wood trim, and you get an ugly monochrome mess that could pass for a rental Taurus’s. The market for floaty pimp-barges was long gone by 2002, and after a few retirees paid a premium for the first few 2002 T-Birds, Ford was left with a car as relevant as parachute pants and leisure suits.
Wow, tough crowd.
The Bay Area is crawling with T-Birds. A friend recently got one and gets many compliments on it. I agree with ArBee’s assessment though; for a smallish car there sure isn’t an excess of room for the over six-foot tall crowd. I vividly recall sitting in one in the stealership when they first came out and thought just who did Ford think was going to buy these and would it have killed them to put a few more inches of legroom in?
Probably by putting few more inches, they can’t fix the body flex.
After googling for specs I found that the leg room on the Tbird is 42 inches, which is not bad.
There are specs, and then there is actually getting in and out of the thing, and being comfy while in.
The LS predated the original CTS, yet a ‘see thru’ drawing shows the CTS shared the same suspension design and even fuel tank design!
I think the LS looked better, the CTS looked more “unique”…it survived, led to the ATS, and both are credible cars today.
I didn’t know about the LS quality issues with coil-packs, fans,trannies, etc.
Too bad the LS didn’t survive
The LS sales were OK through 2005, at which point Ford either needed to make major upgrades or move in a new direction. They moved in a new direction, and dropped Jaguar after a short time too.
Never was an LS fan-too plain and reliability. They might be long in the tooth, but I’d much rather have a Townie.
With the retro-T-bird, I kinda liked it but that interior!
From the moment I saw the LS, I wanted one BADLY, but got impatient when introduction was continually delayed and bought another car. Still, I ordered an LS V-6 and accepted delivery in January 2002. I put high mileage on the car in the first 18 months I owned it, but changed jobs and no longer commute in it. It has been dead reliable and evidences very good build quality, though there were/are two very minor paint blemishes. It has just developed an engine misfire which put it in for service, but after 13 years of faithful service, I’m cutting it some slack. I think it’s a shame that Ford did not stick with a good thing by consistently advertising and upgrading it.
And I do like the Thunderbird. Too bad it was a bit pricey.
The LS could have evolved along with Cadillac’s contemporary CTS into a world-class rear drive sports sedan. Instead Lincoln took the easy route, and re-skinned front wheel drive Fords to round out the product line. Cadillac really put forth the effort to rebrand itself as a uniquely American luxury / sport carmaker. But the truth is, they still don’t really sell that many sedans, sadly. The big bucks are to be found in the Escalade.
Perhaps Lincoln looked at the numbers and decided there really wasn’t room for another American car maker in the crowded rear-drive near-luxury sport sedan segment. They may have asked themselves, “How many more LSs are we ever going to sell, if Cadillac, after billions of dollars and years of image building, still has trouble convincing the BMW/Audi/Mercedes/Lexus buyer to try the CTS?”
The BMW 5 series sells about 50,000 in the US annually. Cadillac is having problems getting 20,000 CTS’s sold and the ATS seems to run about the same level. Cadillac is now offering a $4,000 loyalty incentive on the CTS plus $2,000 for anyone else. My CTS is now at the body shop after someone went through a red light yesterday.
I know, it kills me because I really want Cadillac to succeed. I’m sure the early versions of CUE didn’t help, but then again BMW’s early i-Drive was an annoying disaster and that didn’t stop anyone from getting a 5-series.
The top brass at Cadillac must feel some frustration. They really listened to the scribes at C/D – R/T – M/T and built cars that garnered rave reviews and finished first or second in key comparo tests. And while they’ve made some inroads into the profitable mid-size luxury field, it seems like BMW / MB / Audi just continue to dominate.
Lexus has had similar difficulty cracking that market with the GS. I have a 2006 Lexus GS myself, and you never saw a car get so little love in the motoring press. This despite the fact that it was the best looking shape of the bunch. Yeah, I own one, and everyone thinks their own baby is the most beautiful, but come on. The current 4th gen GS simply is not as attractive as the 3rd gen. Everyone in the auto press wants to dance around the issue by lauding it for being a better driving car, and making much of the “spindle grill” but if you polled 100 random people on the street and asked them which was the better looking sedan, I’ll guarantee you more than 50% would choose the old 3rd gen.
Anyway, end of rant. What was this topic about?
Well said, Greg. Your key phrase is “Lincoln took the easy route…” Doesn’t that sum up so much of Detroit’s massive failure to build world-class cars since the mid-70s? Detroit has the ability to build great cars — they’ve made real progress in the last 15 years, with lots of exceptions even during the Malaise Era. But they took the easy route and phoned it in against competitors who wanted to build the best. All that said, Lincoln has built some great luxury cruisers, the ’93-98 Mark VIII one example of great styling and long-lasting quality. Just ck the online sales for it noq and you find endless numbers of Mark VIII’s with above 150,000 miles on them. Many higher. And everyone singing praises to it. Maybe the recent MKZ will carry that combination of great looks and ironclad build onward. As a Lincoln fan, I do hope L becomes truly competitive again.
I like what I’m seeing in the recent Lincoln concept cars. But those design themes need to make it to production.
I just watched American Graffiti and it hit me. In addition to perfect styling the original T-bird had a perfect driving position. Look at Suzanne Sommers when she is talking to Curt in the Edsel. She sits back behind the roof panel just enough. She could almost be peeking out from behind a shower curtain. So much of automotive styling is about proportion. You can recreate the details in a retro car but if you don’t recreate the proportions accurately it just doesn’t work. Picture Suzanne in a retro-bird and I think you will see what I mean.
Remember seeing a couple of RHD LS in the UK. Never listed here.Did they sell them
In Auz?.
I sat in one of the Retrobirds at the Portland Auto Show, first year they came out. I’d been excited to see one in person…right up until I tried to get into it.
I’m extremely tall from the waist up. I nearly took my Right ear off, sliding into the thing with my head laid all the way down upon my Left shoulder. To get out of the dammed thing, I had to slide my arse off of the seat, and fall out onto the floor. Couldn’t get out of the thing for love nor money, otherwise.
As I was picking myself up off the floor and brushing off, I heard the next guy in line say “I guess he won’t be buying that car!”
No. No, I certainly didn’t….
Personally, I loved the V8 LS powerplant. Back in 2006-2010 I was a technician at a Lincoln/Mercury dealer. I remember the first V8 LS that I test drove after servicing it. I WAS BLOWN AWAY with the power that it’s tiny V8 produced. The trans shifted smooth and crisp. The shift points brought the next gear right back into the engines broad power band. It was a steady, uninterrupted, wonderfully strong pull from a dead stop until I decided let off the accelerator. I LOVED driving these little rocket ships!!