The Cohort is overflowing (literally) with lots of fabulous finds. So why did I stop at this neo-Bird, shot by Triborough? I feel guilty, given all the other cars there (and we’ll try to post more here soon). But it’s been a decade now since the ‘Bird’s fatal flight, which gives us a bit of distance to ponder its existence. So ponder away….
Thunderbird’s final flight (so far) indeed, but Wifey and I still like these.
The only thing I disliked about them is the overly-rounded, character-less front end. The photo, however, shows a bit of character that is generally invisible when one is coming toward you.
Ford should apologize for painting these in any shade of beige/tan.
Make mine Turquoise, please…
I remember this featured in a Bond movie. There was a lot of fuss around it, then it disappeared. Revisionist design has had it’s ups and downs; for me this is a down. Looking at it now makes me think of a conversation I had with a guy who worked at GMH. His job was to match colour pigments between the plastic bumpers and the metal body work (apparently not that easy).
I think we are seeing issues with reflections on this car, not a serious paint match problems.
Maybe. That bumper looks slightly darker but this car is roughly ten years old so I’m not having a shot at fomoco quality control.
Having worked in (mobile) auto body repair for a few years, in my experience it’s often the same paint, just with a flexing agent added for plastic pieces.
The shading variation is usually due to differences in the way the metallic “flops” on plastics versus metal, and this is particularly apparent when the items are painted separately prior to assembly.
I seem to remember that the biggest failing of these cars is that Ford forgot to (or though they didn’t need to) design in modern sports sedan handling. While I’ve never driven one, every report I’ve read complained about their 70’s full size marshmallow suspension.
That was done intentionally wasn’t it? On the basis that the original T-birds weren’t sports cars either.
There was that, but as I recall there was also concern about the fact that the DEW98 platform on which these were built was never originally intended as a convertible and there was only so much Ford could bolster it without making it even heavier than it already was. If you have a less-than-stout structure, it makes sense to leave the suspension on the limber side so that you don’t have the body quivering like gelatin over every road imperfection.
I had a black w/ red interior 2005 version and thought it handled pretty well. Softer than a contemporary Mustang GT yes, but stiffer too. It seemed fairly rigid for a convertible of the day. As the current owner of a ’75 Delta 88 convertible, I can say it did not handle anything like a 70’s marshmallow cruiser. It was more like a BMW 5 series of the time, like the Lincoln LS on which it was based. The small V8 delivered more than adequate if not rocket-sled like punch. It never felt under powered to me, but it wasn’t a muscle car either. I really enjoyed that car while I owned it, and especially liked it’s look from a rear 3/4 view. It was a great daily driver.
I liked these, but there was a limited demographic for it. There are several around where I live, and they usually seem to belong to a well off guy in his 60s, and serves as a third car. The owner has no real sporting or gear head tendencies, no need for high dollar brand prestige, no motorcycle or other hobbies.
The Wiki has an argument that Ford did a lousy job with marketing. That was common for Ford in the era – if it doesn’t sell like crazy by itself, give up on it. I submit Freestyle, 500, Montego, Monterey, Flex, current Taurus and practically any Lincoln as extra exhibits to this T-Bird.
In a sense, it failed for the same reasons the ’55 – ’57 Bird did. Decent car, but expensive for the brand image and lacking the practicality the typical Ford buyer needs.
Round production numbers:
’55 15,000
’56 16,000
’57 21,000
’02 31,000
’03 14,000
’04 13,000
’05 9,200 (likely a partial production year.
Adjusting for a lot more competition in the early 2000’s and Ford’s market share, the modern Bird may have done about as well as the original – not good enough for Ford.
They could have given this thing a new lease on life by doing exactly what they did in ’58. Stretch it out, give it a pair of Mazda RX8/pickup truck type doors and make it into a 4 seater, as per my admittedly crudely rendered photochop. If it didn’t sell well, no prob, because the investment would be comparably tiny.
Instead of a stretched Thunderbird, Ford probably would have went with the Marauder convertible which was already in development. Unfortunately, neither the Marauder sedan nor Thunderbird sold very sell, so any plans for production of the Marauder convertible were quietly dropped. GM had a nice, similar concept proposal at about the same time with the Bel Air convertible, too, but Lutz cancelled it in favor of the lame SSR.
It’s a shame neither the Marauder or Bel Air convertibles made it to production because the only other vehicle in the upscale, domestic convertible market was the Lebaron/Sebring convertible which seems to have always sold well enough.
Nice,if they made the convertible it could have given Mercury a bit longer.
Notice that Marauder is also a 2-door, which was never produced. That car has been pretty heavily altered. Would have been neat if they actually produced these. Ditto for the Chrysler 300 convertible made by ASC.
Yes, this could have had a cult following amongst the Panther platform fans.
crying shame that that was never produced
2002 Bel Air:
I always wondered what was the point of the Bel Air concept. If the styling was supposed to be inspired by 1955/6/7 Chevies then it is a failure, aside from the dashboard. Something about the looks and the stance made me think it was sitting on a pickup truck chassis too. (I never saw it in person though, which may have changed my opinion versus looking at the pictures.)
Wasn’t the Bel Air concept a precursor for the truck-based SSR?
I looked a bit deeper into the 2002 Bel Air concept. It appears to be riding on the same chassis, and has the same inline-5 engine, as the 2004-06 Chevy Colorado / GMC Canyon pickups. IMO, it didn’t try hard enough to disguise its truck-based roots.
The SSR was based on a concept unveiled in 2000, so it predates the Bel Air concept. The production SSR rides on the same chassis as the Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy SUVs, which is unrelated to the Colorado/Canyon pickups.
It was sitting in a pick up chassis, the Trailblazer/Envoy GMT 360 chassis was the basis for he Bel-Air concept, this and the SSR were idea cars that were thrown around as what could potentially be done with a BOF chassis that wasn’t specifically a truck or suv.
Edit rather, the SSR was GMT 360 and the Bel-Air was compact truck based, it sits high, like a truck, or like a 50’s car, which is why I imagine the played around with the idea of using a truck chassis, it does sort of give the right height to the car, most 50’s cars are pretty tall in comparison to todays cars.
Yeah, the Bel Air seems like it was Canyon/Colorado based (despite what some rags with dubious past reporting claim). The Bel Air had rear leaf springs (the SSR had the GMT360 5-link rear suspension, as well as the 5.3L and 6.0L V8 engines). I don’t think any GMT360 models got the inline 5-cylinder that the Bel Air had, either. It’s worth noting that the Hummer H3, which was Canyon/Colorado based, had rear leaf springs and the 5-cylinder, too.
My guess would be that the lack of V8 availability is what killed the Bel Air, more than anything else. I’m certain that this same failing of the Mitsubishi V6-powered, specialty niche Plymouth Prowler did not go unnoticed at GM.
The Prowler was powered by the 3.5, a Chrysler design, not Mitsubishi.
Or Ford could have done what I suggested on CC on some previous occasion when we discussed the Finalbird: they could have produced a four-seater based on the Ford Forty-Nine concept car that made the auto-show circuit in the early ’00s. For some reason, I don’t find this photo particularly flattering to the Forty-Nine’s shape; it was better looking in person. (The interior, with a full-length console like a Squarebird, was particularly sharp.) As a tribute to a famous Ford of the past, I felt the Forty-Nine showcar conjured up memories of the 1949-50 full-sizers much more attractively than the Finalbird echoed the 1955-57 Firstbirds.
I saw, and sat in, one of these at the LA Auto Show at the time, and thought the whole package was pretty slick. I’m not an engineer so I have no idea how well this concept would adapt to Real World exigencies, but it seems to me from the sales perspective a low specialty-car with a back seat would surely have been more of a success than the Finalbird. Looking at the production figures Dave B provided, it could hardly have done worse!
A streetable Forty-Nine could also have been offered in both hardtop and convertible editions; whereas there was clearly no market at all for a fixed-roof Finalbird.
That would have been an interesting specialty car for Mercury.
I remember my FIL the Ford sales guy talking about selling these. The buzz on their introduction was immense, there was a waiting list and people put down higher than list deposits on the new Thunderbird.
After the initial rush, nothing. There was a small market just chomping at the bit to get one, but no broad appeal.
He also said if you took one through an automatic car wash you would get sprayed in the side of the head, because the top sealing was so poor.
I say fail. They should have spent the engineering hours on making the Freestar better.
You can’t blame them too much for trying. Doing a retro styled car was hot at the time and had recently worked well for Chrylser with the PT Cruiser and VW with the New Beetle. However both of these lived in the $18-25k prize zone.
Ford when a price point too far with this.
The Neo-Bird shared a platform with the Jaguar S Type and Lincoln LS, priced at $38-45k in early aughts money. Trying to sell a coupe at that price point unless you’re BMW or Mercedes is pretty tough, even is an economy awash in HELOC $ like the first half of the 2000s.
Just for reference, Wikipedia says that list price of the Chevy SSR was $42k and the Plymouth Prowler was $38k-$45k (1997-2002), in the same range as the T-bird.
I remember seeing a new Thunderbird at the car show here in Tulsa when these first came out, the window sticker was over $60k. I looked and there was a $20k “Dealer Demand Adjustment” or some such nonsense actually listed on the sticker as a markup. I don’t know if it sold for that, but the idea now they’d even ask on these Thunderbirds is laughable.
While they were obviously going for a retro look, I think the result looks almost as much like a 53-55 Corvette as it does a 55-57 T-bird, except when viewed from the rear. From the back it doesn’t look strongly like either car, except for T-bird inspired taillights.
This Thunderbird was chasing the same market niche as the Plymouth Prowler and Chevy SSR. It’s not a very large niche:2-seater convertible “third car” for people that wanted retro styling but also a turn-key vehicle with the new-car smell and factory warranty. Clearly targeted at empty-nester boomers. I recall that all three were criticized as being underpowered. The T-bird styling wasn’t as memorable as either of the other two though.
I disagree regarding the target audience.
SSR and Prowler customers were seeking retro performance–or, as in the case of the Prowler, at least the appearance thereof.
T-Bird buyers were likely female, born after 1940, and lusted after the Gen 1 cars when they were in high school. They were enamored with the style, not anything involving performance.
“Clearly targeted at empty-nester boomers.” The people who came of age when the 55-57 T-Bird was new were not considered Baby Boomers, they were part of the Silent Generation. But I’m sure it appealed to boomers too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation
I think that very few boomers were interested in these. In my experience, it was people who were young adults when these were new, people who could not afford them or could not justify the 2 seater at that time of their lives with young kids. The boomer I knew who did buy one had tastes that trended a generation older than most of his age.
The retro T-bird WAS supposed to be targeted at the baby boomers. They wouldn’t have intentionally built a “trendy” car in the 2000s that was geared towards drivers born in 1942 and earlier, a smaller cohort and the youngest of them would have been over 60 at the time. Don’t believe me? Try googling “retro thunderbird target market”.
The fact that the 55-57 T-bird wasn’t a model that boomers would have lusted after in their youth may have been part of its problem. Maybe they would’ve had more success if it was a four-seater and modeled after the 61-63 Bullet-bird instead.
I’m one of the few fans of this T bird.I like it a whole lot more than the hideous 67 T bird and the lardy 70s T birds.Ford had a bit of an adventurous streak with the last T bird and the Mercury Marauder now sadly lacking in the current range apart from the Mustang.
My most recent auto purchase was an “Inspiration Yellow” 2002 Thunderbird in October of 2012. At 56, I guess I am close to the target demographic, and yes it is a third car (but I have a motorcycle as well. No, it is not a Harley-Davidson). After beginning this, I realize it’s way too long for a comment so if so indulged I will turn it into a feature.
I liked these a lot, but now (just as in the 1950s, it seems) there just isn’t much of a market for a two-seater with zero sporting pretentions. Make it more along the lines of a cut-rate Merc SL, or add rear seats.
With the rising popularity of midcentury modern architecture, I wonder if there would be a market for a retro Thunderbird inspired by the 1964 Thunderbird interior?
My best friend has a low mileage example of one of these. Funny it was suppose to be a retro bird yet it has a Lincoln LS dash. They are junk as my friend would tell you. For the same money he could have bought an older T-Bird convertible and had something that would not have depreciated.
I knew one guy who waited the loooooonnnnnngggggg wait for one of these (not sure if he ever got it) and another who actually bought one – a yellow one. I sat in it but did not get to ride in it.
My take was that failure should have been expected. 1. It was nothing special mechanically. At least the original T-Bird got engines that were on the hot end of the Ford range, but this was just kind of vanilla. 2. Its looks just didn’t come off to me. The original 2 seat Bird had a crispness to it that made it stylish and desirable. These, they were too blobbish. I get the need to get good cd numbers, but for a low volume halo car, is that really necessary? The modern Mustang and Challenger (and SSR) did a much better job capturing the flavor of an old model.
For the kind of premium Ford was charging, you need either special performance or special looks. This car offered neither.
I liked the looks of these, until I saw one in person and realized how BIG it was.
These came out when I was in fifth grade, so I was excited to see one at the Auto Show that year. People were gathered around it taking pictures. Imagine my surprise when I opened the door and found…this. So depressing.
I kind of remember this. It seemed so ordinary inside. Nice interior, for a Taurus. Not for a halo car like this Bird was supposed to be.
Yes, it was awful. An indication that they didn’t try.
That was the other bummer on this car, the dash was almost identical to the one from the Lincoln LS, nothing really wrong with it, but bland in comparison to the exterior, and adding generic “50’s font” to the gauges isn’t fooling anybody….
As I recall they basically just swapped the LS’s woodgrain for body color inserts for the Tbird. Pretty much the same kind of effort a 16 year old would do to sportify the inherited family Honda.
I think the dash was the weakest part of the LS too for that matter.
Exactly MT – I actually didn’t mind the body styling or the lack of serious race track attitude. The 55-57 didn’t exactly run with the track inspired cars of its day either. What disappointed me is the interior. Except for the white gauges you could find this interior in almost any Ford or Mercury. It looks like it was lifted directly from a Lincoln LS. The Thunderbird had great styling on the inside from 55-66. Ergonomically speaking I think Ford would approach the interior much differently today. They would also have made the car handle much more sportier and with a peppy eco-boost V6 that would not be such a bad thing.
I was always surprised how much the ’55 T-bird dash looked like the ’55 sedan and the ’56 T-bird had pretty much the same speedometer as the ’55; when the ’56 sedan had a nice circular one.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3064/2863893143_4ffcc2cc0c_z.jpg?zz=1
I seem to remember something Billy Ford said about 10 or 12 years ago about the importance of preserving Ford’s “iconic” brands such as the F150 and the Mustang. Somehow I thought it strange that the T-Bird didn’t qualify. Also, for what it worth, I regarded the Crown Vic at least as “near iconic”.
I suspect that the MN-12 boondoggle left a sour taste in many of the top executives as far as the sanctity of the name. The MN-12 has few fans today, although I kind of liked it. Can anybody tell me why they would spend the $ to develop an IRS that wasn’t shared with any higher volume models? I thought for sure at the time that it would at least trickle down to the Town Car, and possible lesser Panthers, at least in civilian trim. Ford seems to have missed many opportunities in the 90s and 2000s.
The IRS had a higher cost per unit just in the sheer amount of components required. Coming from the Panther/Foxes essentially 5 piece rear suspensions(really, 1 log axle and 4 arms) the MN12 layout added enough to the pricetag to ruffle some feathers. Plus it was heavy.
I dimly recall that they kept considering various other cars that would have shared either the MN12 platform or at least its rear suspension, but none of them made it to production. My impression, admittedly not substantiated in an particular way, was that Ford engineers had assumed that the rear suspension could be used in other applications, but kept discovering that it didn’t make sense for various practical reasons.
“Practical” back in those days typically meant “it’s selling well enough without that so why bother”.
Not appealing then, and not appealing now.
I’ll take an MN-12… wait, no I won’t.
I love this car. When I get the chance to see one I’m the first to stare. What adventure in a time when everything else was quickly becoming a result of committees.
For those who consistently tlk about how such and such don’t equate to a worthy car – in the end, it’s all about what a car does to that tingle in your spine when it drives by.
For me this car was all about that tingle.
I’m surprised people seem quite forgiving of this generation of the T-Bird. It’s styling reminds somewhat me of how GM might have styled and marketed a personal luxury car around 1985. It’s quite generic, I find. Where the ’83 T-Bird was so original, this generation T-Bird reminds me more of the Chrysler TC by Maserati. Rather than the ’57 version it is trying to pay homage to. With Thunderbird styling cues, attached to a generic form. The ’57 T-Bird’s front clip is quite timeless and original. I find this front end somewhat catfish-like in appearance. Closer to say, a 50s Austin-Healey, than a T-Bird. Like a big, chubby Austin-Healey.
In fact, I’d nominate that front fender seam where the bumper attaches, as one of the most unsightly I’ve seen on a modern, high end car. It visually severs, at a right angle, the smooth flow of the front fenders. It draws your eye to this seam, rather than downplaying it. Making the front clip look like a massive tacked on plastic appendage. Which it is. But, it shouldn’t be so obvious, on a premium car.
I have quickly suggested below, how they could have concealed this seam, by not severing the smooth visual flow of the fender. They aligned the seam with the leading edge of the hood. It looks really awkward, cutting the fender at a right angle. I’d propose that the seam should have lined up with the downward curve of the headlights. I totally realize it would have affected production costs, with a larger fender. But they needed to conceal that seam better than they did IMO. Or placing it much lower perhaps. It’s a high profile location, to place such a harsh line, that interrupts the smoothness of the front fenders. It’s definitely noticeable. And affects the looks of the whole car I find.
But concealing seams wouldn’t have saved this Bird. To me it’s simply too generic in style.
While the bumper fascia/fender seam is definitely a distraction, a more pressing issue with many of these retro cars is the simple absence of anything that looks like a chrome front bumper. The new T-bird (along with the Challenger, Mustang, et al) looked all too much like the original version without a front bumper and it’s most definitely not as good as the original.
While I fully understand that the engineering and economics of affixing a big ‘ole, metal, chrome bumper on the front of any current car is unfeasible, they could have come up with something that more closely approximated the chrome bumper, if nothing more than just a chrome Mylar strip. It could have went a long way to taking the eye away from that ungainly fender seam.
Agreed. I’m guessing it’s because anything chrome looking today would be a faux plasti-chrome. Which doesn’t look very good, or near convincing as real chrome. I suspect that’s why it’s used so sparingly. As it looks cheap, and like plastic. Especially, if used judiciously.
It think more than anything, it is a weak overall styling effort by Ford. Especially for a marque model. There is no timeless element to this design.
I think they were also against the wall in terms of costs. I’m pretty sure that was the reason the interior was so blah; tooling for a new dash would probably have put them over their price target. Even if the results would have looked better, I assume Ford judged (correctly) that there wouldn’t be much of a market for a $50,000 T-Bird.
Daniel M., why not fill the seams by hand like the Karmann Ghia? With a little more detail work on the body, better motor (supercharged 4.6?) and a striking (no more grey tupperware!!) interior, it would have been a hit. I think the price point they were trying to reach was too low for a ‘halo’ car and they could have raised the price for the above suggestions and not hurt sales.
I agree with your thinking Marc. But I’m not even sure if there was a market for a premium personal luxury coupe at the time. Given the Lincoln Mark VIII was already cancelled a few years before.
Yeah, I agree as well.
They just had to go to a more “hand-made” approach. Like a Cadillac Allante in the special department.
Fill in the gaps, add a couple of nice chrome details here and there and maybe paint the dash body colour like the originals would have. I think that LS dash could have benefitted from it.
If they had done the dash like the Bel Air concept or the SSR where it’s simple like the originals but modern at the same time, it would have been so much better.
Just making the car look and feel special would have made people open their wallets.
I only see the hood scoop and round opera window as T Bird styling cues the rest is generic blob, they really shouldnt have bothered the original Tbird looked cool this certainly doesnt it has a trying too hard fail aura surrounding it.
Also note the eggcrate grille and its overall shape are like a 55-57 T-bird, and the round foglights are in the same locations as the 55-56 bumperettes were.
The laid-back headlights and perfectly round wheel arches are more like a 54-55 Corvette though, as is the pronounced lower body character line where the Corvette had a chrome strip.
Some folks enjoy them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij-uox_yL3s
Awaiting Don W.’s response – I think he owns a 2003 from new?
Saw all these comments growing this morning, too busy to respond today. You were right on it, CAGuy, you beat me to it. Yep, I’ve got the 2003, from new, mountain shadow gray with saddle tan interior. Man, to read all this negativity, I beginning to think I’m driving a pariah. But all you naysayers, I LOVE this little car. I had wanted a ’57 Thunderbird since I was ten years old, and by the time I was ready for my first car, dad said they were too old and too high mileage. So I lusted after them, watching their values skyrocket from around $1200 in the mid-sixties. When my mom passed away in 2003, I decided the time had come, and bless her for leaving me a bequest that allowed me to fulfill my dream. Yeah, there are some issues with the retro-Bird. Biggest complaint, I would love it if the hardtop was retractable, not removable, that is a pain in the neck. But truth be told, I have very rarely had the hardtop on. I am 6′-2′, and yeah, it is not perfectly sized to my frame, but honestly, it isn’t bad, and I am comfortable. When these cars first arrived at the dealers, I saw one in San Diego with an asking price of $80K. I said to the salesman, are you crazy? And he answered, make us an offer. I said I wouldn’t even pay sticker price, and he begged me to make an offer. But I waited a year, and glad I did, got what I still think was a pretty good deal, had my choice of colors, and the larger engine and better instrument panel. There were a few glitches during warranty, but all told, nothing that wasn’t fixable, and today, at only 15,000 miles, it is running like a champ. No major maintenance issues. But then I baby the hell out of it, it could very well be my last car. Guess I was the perfect market demographic, fifty-seven when I bought it (no slutty teeny boppers on the tonneau, I can guarantee you), still working, but looking for a fun convertible to sail off into retirement. Not an empty nester (never had a “nest,” in terms of kids, that is), but just an old admirer of the Thunderbird mystique. FM posting above is so on the mark, it’s all about the tingle. And I still get that rush and tingle every time I get into it. It still gets looks wherever I go. Blobby and shapeless? Generic? Weak styling effort? Not hardly. This car was conceived as a “boulevardier,” and it suits my needs to a “T.” It is a GREAT car!!
Sweet, love that color combination. I’m sitting here in a hotel room in icy cold NYC on a consulting assignment and this picture really has me California dreaming – drop-top T-Birds really were meant for SoCal (I think a large percent of the 55-57s were sold here) and probably need to be judged in that context. I’m mostly retired myself and my “retirement car” is a G37 sedan (I’m a one car household and as I found out from owning a 300ZX years back, I really need a back seat on occasion). Take heart, people beat up on Infiniti and the G constantly in car forums and mine has been largely perfect. Now most folks think my car is low mileage (21,000 on a 2010) but 15,000 in ten years! That is a museum piece.
When I was a kid my dad wanted a two-seater T-Bird and almost bought a pristine baby blue 57 in 59 (I well remember the test drive) but practicality took over and we got a Fairlane 500 sedan instead. He later bought a 65 T-Bird coupe that was a fine car and our only Bird. I’ve long wished that Ford had kept the name going and produced a sports luxury couple and sedan like the G37 series as a Thunderbird – I would have been first in line at the dealership.
Thanks, CAGuy, I feel vindicated (see post below to JPC). We are sitting here in mid-80’s weather in the desert, don’t envy you the NYC arctic blast. Have a margarita like I did last night, you’ll soon be back in the land of palm trees and blue skies. Interesting about the ’57 T-Bird, too bad your dad didn’t get that one in ’59. That was the year my dad sold the family ’55 Olds 88 and bought a new Galaxie Club Victoria hardtop. So many Ford vehicles in our family. I first got the hots for the ’57 when my parents would visit friends who had just completed a very contemporarily styled home in Brentwood (across the street from Ronald Reagan, of all people, on Saltair Terrace, if I remember correctly). The husband was an architect who worked for one of the film studios, and he had designed their home. They had a brand new ’57 T-Bird then, which I just swooned over every time we visited. The folks would be inside having martinis (how 50’s!) and I would be out in the driveway investigating every square inch of that car. It made such a design impression on me that has lasted to this day. Their drivability, though, not so much. A good friend acquired a restored ’57 sometime during the 90’s, it was one of the E models, I think, all black, power everything, including the Dial-o-Matic power seat. Maintained to the highest standard, it still drove like a freight car, seemed like the brakes would never kick in at a stop, no roadability, front end wandered all over the road, not at all like today’s cars handle. It always seemed to reek of gasoline parked in the garage, too. He eventually sold it for around $40K, I think. So that experience kind of tarnished my image a bit, but when the retro-Bird arrived, it had my name written all over it. Now if Ford would resurrect the T-Bird again, as you say in the sports luxury coupe/sedan guise (and this time with a retrac top), I would be all over it. Such powerful imagery in that name, I can’t help but think that it would be a winner. BTW, thanks for the video, that was quite the, uh, comprehensive review by a Bird-geek! Love your comment about the museum piece, actually I should drive it more often. And I’m becoming a museum piece right along with the car (that demographic thing again). Maybe I need more mileage, too!
I’m sure you may know, Don that Reagan’s home at the time (and the one he moved into in Pacific Palisades) were loaded down with a complete array of General Electric products and appliances – all gratis – as his homes were used as promotions for General Electric.
An excellent counterpoint to most of the comments here, including mine. You have something special: a car that makes you really happy, which is the one thing about a car that really matters.
In lookong at your photo, I would say that the profile with the top down may be the car’s most attractive angle. I’d say that you have the solid beginnings of a “My Curbside Classic” piece. I, for one, would love to read more of your Bird’s story.
Thanks, JPC, I feel better this morning :>) I actually wrote that reply last night after a couple of margaritas, so I was kinda underway. That photo was the only one I could conjure up on the spur of the moment, taken at my home in San Diego, I have since moved on to the Palm Springs area, as I have probably noted. I agree, the top down look is the best, one of the car’s lesser points is that the top up stance looks awkward, like the top wasn’t really designed to fit the body. No matter, I don’t look at the top up when I’m driving! One of the interesting things about this car is that it was built on May 29, 2003, which happens to be my birthday. Talk about Karma in the Universe! No selling this car, ever. Which reminds me, I was approached in the parking lot of a BevMo down here (the booze connection again!) last year by a guy who had just pulled in driving a new Mercedes convertible. He was all agog, asked me if I would consider selling it. Not even possible I said, and he went on about how stunning it looked. That is the typical reaction I frequently get driving about town. So yeah, I just love this little car, it takes me back to the days of my ’70 Cougar XR-7, in a more mature way, of course, and I never fail to get a head rush when I crank up that distinctive burbling engine. It really is a fun car, I’ll have to consider writing up a CC story one of these days.
Yes, if it was built on your birthday, there is no getting rid of it. đ The 59 Plymouth Fury sedan I bought while in college had a little sticker in the glovebox indicating that it was delivered to its first owner on the very day I was born. I should have taken it as a sign when I had so much trouble selling it in 1980. Had I been paying attention to such things, I might still have that car and be as happy cruising around as you are in your Thunderbird.
Don, I’m sure you know that May 29 also is JFK’s birthday – very historic in both instances;-)
I enjoyed your vivid description of the driving experience with restored T-Bird. I’ve had similar experiences with friends’ “classics.” I enjoy reading and reminiscing about old cars and visiting car shows and museums, but prefer driving a modern car for the comfort, safety and convenience. One friend acquired a low mileage 65 T-Bird a few years back. When we turned on the A/C you could feel the big tug on the engine from the compressor and cold air output was nothing like a modern car. To say nothing of the handling – whale-like!
A CC on the T-Bird would be most interesting and perhaps create a few converts around here…
Yeah, CAGuy, I’ve known about the JFK date forever, not so sure about my own historical relevance. And, if you’re into Bob Hope, he also shared the same birthday :>) Isn’t it funny how things work out, it was months after I bought the T-Bird (and there were several sitting on the lot to choose from), just a casual conversation with the service writer one day when I was in for warranty work, I happened to ask what was the build date. I was astonished when he looked it up and said May 29, I just kept dumbfoundedly saying over and over “you’ve got to be kidding.” Pretty funny, what are the chances that will ever happen again!
We are so spoiled by today’s driving machines, they are simply leagues beyond the old classics. Another friend of mine, back in the late 80’s, acquired a ’60 Thunderbird, I drove it a couple of times, it was in fairly good condition, but what a frightening, harrowing experience. Same for another friend’s ’66 Thunderbird convertible, acquired in the late 90’s, also nicely restored, but what a shake, rattle, and roller, and, as you point out, whale-like handling. Maybe my perception of these older cars by today’s standards has changed drastically, or my recollection of their original roadability is lost in the mists of time, but yeah, you really need a modern day vehicle to navigate in today’s driving conditions, never mind the comfort and convenience.
I’ve been reading all the additional comments here in the past couple of days, after all, I do have a vested interest! We do need a few converts here, so many negative remarks about a really decent car. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and the T-Bird has its shortcomings, I am the first to admit, but overall, and at least so far, it has been a fun and exhilarating experience. “Ask the man who owns one,” it was once said, and to paraphrase FM again, “It’s all about the tingle.”
That was one of my top choices during my search. Are you familiar with the Thunderbirdnest?
Yes, I am, I have visited that site occasionally, although not for a long time. I stumbled across that quite by accident, but got some good tips there. Another good site is http://www.portholeauthority.com, run by a woman in Texas. She was the go-to expert each model year of the T-Bird run, I presume it is still active.
If you’re familiar with the T-Birdnest you must know FritsB with his Blackbird.
Thunderbird, Eldorado, Riviera, Mark series…a whole aspirational class of American car gone, seemingly never to return….
Eh, I wouldn’t say totally gone, from Ford yes, the CTS coupe does sort of carry on in that nice, plus Cadillac has added a smaller ATS coupe and the new ELR electric 2+2 coupe, there are rumors that the Eldorado will return with the new large RWD Cadillac flagship. There are also rumors of a Riviera returning to the Buick line up too.
The trick at this point is creating something to which buyers will want to aspire. Audi, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz have an assortment of big coupes that are conceptually the same things (some are even hardtops), but customer interest seems to be directly proportional to the snob appeal of the badge.
I guess I’m one of the few who feel this car was very well styled. I like the way they blended cues from the 2 seaters with a touch of the bullet bird in the profile. They really broke with the current styling norms in the diminishing beltline- defying the tyranny of the wedge shape. The colors were also groundbreaking at the time. The cars stance and proportions, to my eye, are particularly graceful.
The cars short lifespan could be attributed to the failed platform it was built on.The T-Bird died roughly around the same time as the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type. The platform was particularly space inefficient. I test drove the T-Bird- or tried to- at 6’3, I wasn’t able to fit. My knees hit the steering wheel and my head hit the roof, no matter how I adjusted the seat.
And +1 on the initial dealer price-gouging. The dealer mark up on these, and the PT Cruiser at the time, were shocking!
The Lincoln LS was discontinued after MY06; Jag S Type after ’08. I had an ’05 S Type 3.0L and it was a sweet car. Not so sweet was the six-speed ZF tranny that started to slip at 50K. Traded right away.
Yeah, the PT Cruisers also had that huge price increase. My dad worked in a car finance company at the time they came out and he told me people were paying 30-40K for PT Cruisers (don’t recall which side it leaned more). This was in Puerto Rico so they do add a tax to cars when they come in but in a PT Cruiser, it couldn’t have been more than 5K so people were still paying a lot over MSRP. Same thing happened with the FJ Cruisers and most any car that is anticipated.
First time I saw one in person I was riding my bike with my friends and we saw it coming down the road and pulling into the local Citco station. Two slutty looking college age girls were passengers(one sitting on the tonneau cover) and the driver was a man in his late 50s. Hello target demographic.
I was astonished and very disappointed when this T-Bird came out. It doesn’t look like a T-Bird.
I saw a first-gen Thunderbird in traffic the other day, and it pops! The car is so small and low, and its features are so sharp, especially those perfect tailfins. A modern T-Bird has to have that crisp, exciting appearance. And go very fast. The Mustang project obviously knew how to do that, so there’s no excuse. What a Fail.
A modern T-Bird has to make us think of her (skip to 0:30):
A modern T-Bird has to make us think of her (skip to 0:30)
…Whereas the Finalbird was more likely to make us think of Mr. Roper.
Actually, the modern T-Bird seems to be better known as the car driven by Adriana La Cerva of The Sopranos.
And we know what happened to her…..
A good friend of mine had 2, first a black with saddle interior….very sharp……but
Later he got a turquoise with two tone turquoise interior…..that’s how they all should have looked!
Hmmmmm… an LS in drag, with all the L(ikes) S(ervice)’s issues. Never liked them, thought they were clumsily styled. Another issue they had was headroom, or actually a lack thereof. I’m 6’3″ and when I sat in one the windshield header was precisely eye level with me. If I put down the visor I couldn’t see out the windshield at all.
The same could be said of a Ferrari 308’s headroom, but that didn’t stop Thomas Magnum from driving one.
IIRC They tried him in a GTB and he didn’t fit. Hence the GTS. Same reason Connery appeared in 2000GT convertible rather than the tintop.
In the GTS they took the padding out of the seat and re-mounted it as far back as possible. Even so the top of his head still stuck out the top, which gave me a chuckle every time I saw him folded into that car.
Yea Phil, but a Ferarri 308 is cool, a RetroBird ain’t even close to cool.
I’ve often heard that the engines in these cars were trouble prone? Any truth to that?
I personally liked the styling but the only one in Gallup, NM belonged to a relative of the Ford dealer. Constantly top down, constantly a cigarette in her mouth but not in the sexy way but like the aging badly Boca Raton kind of way.
Good description. Too much makeup, more lines on her face than a Texas road map and the pliability of a worn Wilson baseball glove along with a gravely, tobacco-shot voicebox. Ashes all over the leather seats, I’m sure.
There is a bright red one of these owned by a guy in his 70’s in my mothers neighborhood, similar description, except for the male finalbird owner, he looks like Robert Blake, big sunglasses, cigarette and a bright red T-bird.
These car were slow, I believe only cAme with auto and had floaty suspensions. I’m not sure who the market for these was supposed to be. Middle aged women maybe?
I sat in one of these when they first came out. One with the hardtop in place. I banged my head on it while getting in, and decided that I wanted my MN-12 back… đ
Ford resurrected a car that was originally conceived as a sportscar…and a competitor to the Corvette. After slowly getting fatter and further away from the original until at its worst it was an overbloated brougham-y lardass, and a slight trimming down and improvement you’d think that they’d get back to the roots of the car. But while on a superficial level it has a very hazy resemblance to the original concept (even though its kind of blobby and shapeless in an aerodynamic kind of way) I remember Ford actually BRAGGING in its ads that this was no performance car! From where I sit….that’s just wrong.
The first two-seat Thunderbirds were not conceived as sports cars. Ford went out of its way to emphasize that the car was a “personal car” and not a sports car.
The first Thunderbirds were fairly fast for the day, given the standard V-8, but the handling hardly reminded anyone of a sports car. It was also far more luxuriously trimmed than a typical sports car of that time, most of which didn’t even have wind-up windows, let alone power steering, power brakes and automatic transmission.
I actually liked the styling on these until I rode in friend’s T-bird. It was pretty much a piece of crap. Cheap rental car interior and a body structure much floppier than my old Alfa Spyder. And these weren’t cheap either! They were charging premium prices for econobox build quality.
IIRC…they didn’t have enough power to be a performer, nor were they economical. And as noted elsewhere, they were expensive. Shame.
Hindsight is 20/20, of course. True . . . maybe it would’ve done better with a blown 4.6 and perhaps as much firmness as the existing platform (compromised for convertible use) could have been dialed in. Maybe a chorme (plastic) ‘faux’ front bumper may have helped, but, hey . . . I saw the prototype at the car show in Cleveland back in ’98, and it blew me away as it appeared to have done the same to most people who attended the show.
What went wrong? I think all the other posts described it fairly well and I believed the FoMoCo guys knew that this would be a limited appeal, limited production run as there was only “so much they could do with this” without making it prohibitively expensive by using as much off-the-shelf existing hardware they could.
In terms of a boulevardier/halo car for the time, I think it succeeded. As much as I like it personally, I don’t think the car could’ve existed for too long in it’s market without needing costly updates (as opposed to the volume), which Ford, or no one for that matter could afford to do.
I still think that Lincoln should find a way to adapt the 2002 Continental Concept car to a Mustang platform as that has the uniqueness and Lincoln ‘tradition’ that might be a marketplace success, instead of tarted up Ford Fusions, Edges and what not.
It also occurs to me that this car was done a few years after the MN-12 platform that went so horribly over budget in development, and would have been in the era of all of the Nasser cost cutting, so there was no hope that Ford was going to spend the kind of money on this that they should have in order to give it some genuine high-end or unique appeal.
I also saw this one in the parking lot of the A&P in Park Ridge, New Jersey back in December.
I’ve actually always kind of liked these. Granted, there’s many things that could be improved but I give them credit for trying. I mean, now we don’t have to wonder what a 55-57 inspired T-Bird would look like. I think the design cues were there, they just needed a bit more improvement like many others have said. And a better interior.
I think Ford has done well with the retro designs. The Ford GT was nice looking too. Not sure how much people like them, but I do.
The Mustang has been a success and probably one of the best retro mass market designs done.
Now imagine if this T-Bird were done today. The design would probably be more in-line with their current design language but with the cues shown. A 5.0 would probably motivate the car and the dash….well at least they don’t have an LS to borrow from. I think their dashes have improved so they could probably pull something off.
It’d be really cool to see.
I think Ford is going to at some point have to revive the Thunderbird or Mark nameplates to compete with Cadillac’s future RWD offerings as well as the Germans.
I kind of think of this car as one of the last Ford cars that were just plain bad before they came out of their almost universally ugly for about 40 years period. The front end on the original has one great feature, the “eyebrows”! They get rid of them on the new one. They rounded it off way too much, and that totally ruined it. A neighbor had one for about a year, back about 6 years or so ago. It was replaced with a couple year old Vette that he only recently replaced with another couple of year old Vette.