(first posted 10/22/2014) Although we like to think of ourselves as complex and multi-dimensional creatures, ultimately we all have one song to sing, one story to tell, one great love of our lives, or in the case of Lee Iacocca, one car to build. No, that wasn’t the original 1965 Mustang; that was just the warm-up act, although the Mustang’s basic proportions clearly struck a chord with Lee.
The Mustang was a rather short-lived phenomenon, and there were bigger fish to fry, once the final recipe was found. That came along just a few years later, and once Lee saw it, he had his Eureka moment and spent the rest of his career building it in endless permutations. And this particular Iacocca-mobile is arguably the most successful of them all.
The Mustang’s long-hood, short-deck proportions topped by a variation of the now-classic Ford coupe roof redefined the American car stylistically more than just about anything else since WWII. It harked back to the classics of the pre-war era, the collective memory of which was still very much alive, if suppressed temporarily by the giant finned wonders of the late 50s. And it still lived on in the sports cars of the time. Those proportions were deeply ingrained (if not consciously) into the American psyche, and the Mustang awoke them in a gusher of emotion and dollars.
Although the Mustang had a lasting impact, the pony car/sporty-coupe market quickly settled down to a fairly modest-sized niche, and folks (and Lido) soon hankered for something a bit bigger and age-appropriate.
In the 1968 Lincoln Continental Mark III, Lee found his true love, or automotive alter-ego, and would spend the rest of his career building variations of it until he was unceremoniously dragged out of Chrysler’s executive suite. The Mark super-sized the Mustang’s proportions, and crowned it with what would become the signature “Ford Face”, until Ford fell on it and nearly bankrupted itself.
It encompassed a prominent faux-classical grill, with dual headlights on each side (hidden, preferably), and bladed fenders that protruded to various degrees. This face would soon adorn just about every Ford, Mercury and Lincoln, short of the smallest economy and sporty cars.
And never more faithfully so than on the ’77 Thunderbird. Lee might have just as well shut down the Ford Design Department and handed the job over to his gaggle of secretaries: cut and paste; stick it into the copier and reduce or expand by x percent. And a bit of snipping on the big C-Pillar, to create the suggestion of variety, if not creativity.
Girls, now how about we change it up a bit? Let’s move the side window to the back some, and cut out a little opera window into that big B-Pillar.
No; put a bit of lean to it, before the glue dries. Yes, that’s it! Perfect. We’ll give that one to the Thunderbird, to carry on its tradition of leading-edge design.
Now girls, last night I had this wild dream about fake luggage straps on the trunk, to give the T-Bird some real design distinction, for a hefty mark-up, of course. Here, take my belt and glue it on there. Go down the hall and grab the first exec you see and grab his. Bingo! We’ll call it…hmm..The Sports Décor package. It is mighty sporty, eh gals?
Do you have some bigger vinyl scraps? Oh yea; there’s plenty o’ vinyl layin’ around here. In fact, it’s hard not to trip over it, ever since we fired all the designers and modelers. But Hanky boy does love the effect on the bottom line….Here’s a nice wide chunk; you two drape it over that rear side window; it’s looking a bit too airy for my taste. Ah; perfect! We’ll call it….The Heritage Edition, since it does so evoke the T-Bird Heritage of fine design and big, wide C-Pillars.
Hmm; nice, if I say so myself— which I usually do. But it is getting mighty similar looking to the real Mark. Hmm, that could be a bit of a pricing problem, given that the base T-Bird is now going for some $5k, and the Mark for two-and-a-half times as much. Shoot, gals; let’s just double the price for this Heritage version, even if it does push it just over the $10k barrier. But look at it positively: Folks’ll think they’re getting a Mark V for 25% off; what a deal! And the money we’ll save by eliminating that rear side window…the profit margin on the Heritage will shoot right through its vinyl roof!
I’m thinking the time’s right to bring up the idea to Hank about changing the name on the building to Ford & Iacocca Motors. My sales and profit projections for 1979 and 1980 are out of this world. Time for Hank to get real about who’s really running the show here.
Girls; I am just thrilled about today’s work, especially that Sports Decor package; I’m going to take you all out for drinks and a really nice dinner tonight. …Ford & Iacocca…hmm…I can see it now…
Ok; back to reality. Well, I’m not sure we really want to go that far, since suspension of reality was what these cars were all about. Step into one, and the world was suddenly quiet, safe, secure, soft and as far removed from the real world as possible. That suspension included any sensation of the actual road, thanks to Ford’s highly advanced Float-O-Matic suspension system. Ford’s PR folks even came up with a clever line to promote it: Float-O-Matic: putting a whole new meaning into the word suspension. Just best to avoid corners and curves; Ford never did quite figure out how to deal with those annoyances in the seventies.
The stark reality was that the “downsized” 1977 Thunderbird lost 6.4” of wheelbase as well as some 900 lbs from its predecessor, which truly was a Mark IV with a bit of Iacocca redecorating. Of course, the 1977 Mark V also lost some 500 lbs, despite staying on the 120.4” wheelbase, so the difference between the V and the ’77 T-Bird wasn’t all that great. Fifteen inches in over-all length, and some 600 lbs separated them.
You don’t really want to know what was under the hood, do you? Nobody who bought them new cared, so why would you? The years of this generation were the nadir of Ford’s (Total Lack of) Performance era. Ok, no need to point out the obvious or rub Ford’s nose with the fact that their legendary engines now had the lowest hp/displacement ratios in the industry. Who cared; it was still a Thunderbird, even without the thunder, right?
The standard 302 (4.9 L) V8 was rated variously at 130, 133 and 134 net hp. The optional 351 had 135 hp in 1977 and a bump up to 152 for 1978. Two versions of the 351 are listed in my Encyclopedia for 1979, 135 and 151 hp. And the 400 was available in 1977 (173 hp) and 1978 (166 hp). See, that wasn’t so bad after all.
The Marks and these “mid-sized” Fords all shared the same basic frame design, suspension and undoubtedly parts of their inner body structure. Looking at them suggests that the Mark had longer doors, and probably some extra rear leg room. That was probably a welcome relief to anyone asked to sit back there, as this whole family of Iacocca-mobile coupes had truly miserable space utilization.
If you were of average height or less, the front was reasonably accommodating. But be tall, and be prepared to be surprised; suddenly you felt like inside a plush ’65 Mustang. Ok, a bit wider, but compared to modern cars these were surprisingly snug. Was Lee short?
And I really do feel sorry for the Ford designers who slaved away at the Art Center College of Design creating sleek automotive renderings and models, only to spend the best years of their lives designing faux luggage straps for the back ends of Thunderbirds. If they survived the ordeal, their abilities would soon be uncorked on Ford’s aero-Bird and Taurus.
The Thunderbird’s shape-shifting ways was a response to market conditions and the fact that its sales had been in descent mode for some years. After a spectacular 100k year in 1960, sales drifted lower, although still in a healthy range, roughly 50-80k. But starting in 1969, sales became weaker and less consistent, dropping to a very poor 36k in 1971. The bigger Mark-ish 1972 and 1973 blipped up some, but that soon dropped off again with the energy crisis.
The T-Bird needed a new major conceptional make-over, as the old one was clearly out of gas. In its glory days, the t-Bird was an aspirational car, both in its design as well as for its buyers. But a watered-down big Mark wasn’t cutting it anymore.
GM had totally upended the whole personal coupe market anyway, with its 1969 Grand Prix and 1970 Monte Carlo—along with the comparable Olds and Buick versions–that quickly dominated this explosively growing segment. By the time the ’77 T-Bird came along, the Olds Cutlass Supreme was the best selling car in the land, selling to the tune of some half million units per year. Iacocca, the great segment inventor of the sixties got caught with his pants down this time.
So the 1977 Thunderbird got its wings trimmed a bit, and its starting price even more so, dropping almost 40%. Of course, a basic 1977 Thunderbird was essentially an LTD II coupe with the Iacocca T-Bird Décor Package.
The days of glamorous interiors, bucket seats all-round and giant chromed consoles were long gone. The optional high-trim packages slathered on the plush velour and marshmallow padding, at a hefty price. And then only For the discerning collector.
The result was explosive: 318k in 1977; over 350k in 1978; and a still strong 284k in 1979. These cars were by far the most successful Thunderbirds ever, in terms of sales. The very pathetically styled 1980 Box Fox Bird that followed was an unmitigated disaster; by 1982, some 45k were sold, begged off, or given away. Even the aero-Bird couldn’t come close to matching the Mark Jr’s numbers, selling some 150-170k in its best years.
Iacocca just caught the tail end of the mid-sized premium personal coupe boom, and held on to it for too long, at Ford’s great peril. GM’s heroic downsizing meant substantially smaller cars in this segment for 1978, which actually may well be why the T-Bird sold so well that year, as some buyers wanted to stick with the old size a bit longer. Nevertheless, the ’78 Monte Carlo alone outsold the T-Bird that year, never mind the other four GM G-Bodies. And when the huge run-up in gas prices hit in 1980, and high interest rates triggered a nasty recession, Ford’s line-up of Iacocca-mobiles fell off a cliff, pushing Ford to near bankruptcy.
Lee should count his lucky stars that Hank didn’t like his idea of adding his name to the Blue Oval (or whatever it really was) and gave him the boot, on July 13, 1978 (too bad it wasn’t a Friday too). Ford minted $2 billion in profits that year, on the strength of the Diamond Jubilee Edition (also twice the price of a base T-Bird) and the other Iacocca-mobiles. But then it all collapsed, and Henry II had to scramble to keep the lights on and his own name on the building.
The Ford baroque era soon gave way to the aero era, the designers were let out of the closet, and the company managed not only to right itself under the able leadership of Donald Petersen, but soon became a profit machine and a Wall Street darling. But in that final blow-out of the Ford Iacocca-mobiles, this Thunderbird played a special role: It epitomized the genre in both its best and worst aspects: It was eminently affordable, made Ford tons of money, and had absolutely no future. But wafting down the straight open road in one, it could suspend reality: honey, this might as well be a Mark V! And isn’t that the whole point?
Of course, Iacocca discovered space utilization in his next decade and company;
And couldn’t resist adding the same Broughamy touches he tacked on to the K-cars. I love it all the same.
Yesterday I saw on the street a Mk1B Town & Country with undisrupted DOT-Spec lightings (either it wore Euro-reg.plates), U.S.-spec moldings, original aluminium wheels and original dark metallic burgundy paintjob.
I don’t know why very few like it, the ’77-’79 is my favorite version of the Thunderbird. (with the exception of the Heritage Edition) That red one with the white top is a perfect example, and I would love to be able to own and drive one. Aside from it’s beautiful design, it had the distinction of being the last Thunderbird generation before the digital age, when cars became EPA designed computers on wheels, with more electronic parts than mechanical parts. Unfortunately, the poor quality of American cars from this time period means there are very few decent ones left, and also, presumably, from lack of interest, very few restoration parts.
I miss the 70s….disco, Lynyrd Skynynrd, and personal luxury coupes
I miss the ’20s…the decade when you might have seen Al Capone dancing the Charleston on a flagpole.
Wonder if the 1975 Mazda Cosmo influenced the 1977 T-bird’s styling.
The Heritage Edition was such a handsome T Bird. The Mark III was awesome! It was a truly personal luxury car the way the interior surrounded the driver. The Marks got a little awkward after the Mark III but were still so handsome.
The “Ford Face”. You don’t know how happy seeing that makes me.
I agree with the basic outline of your write-up on many points, but the harsh tone on yet another morph of the T-Bird that was eminently successful misses the mark a bit.
The rear is classic elements from the ’64-’71 era Bird. The basket handle is a bit gimmicky, but it worked, and was distinctive in an era when Chrysler could only find success bolting a Monte Carlo front clip to a Grand Prix (Cordoba). If the secretaries were in charge of styling at Ford, high school boys were busy in Lynn Townsend’s garage.
Thunderbird is a great name, but its time serving Ford as a luxury car competing with high end Olds and Buick products had run out. Moving the name to a Ford price point, taking on the Monte, and going a little heavy on the luxury – up to Cutlass Supreme and Regal levels – made a smash hit and some money for Ford in a segment where it’s Elite model was lagging even Chrysler’s high school effort.
No doubt, Ford became dependent on a design language, and when downsizing came along they believed that simply trimming the edges would be successful – most egregiously with the the Mark VI, which did fall on its face.
But, short sighted future thinking doesn’t make this, probably the best all around Ford mid-sizer after 1972 or so, a bad car. The interior quality and options were quite a step up from the end of the Torino era, the styling worked and buyers came in droves.
A coworker had a Mark III. Given our 100 degree summers, I was a little shocked when to learn the AC had failed. Then he told me the power windows didn’t go down either. Nice.
I never understood these float-mobiles, especially with their pathetic power output. Fine for Interstate cruising in KS or NE at 55-60, but not much good for anything involving acceleration or turning corners. These are why, when I joined Ford in 78, I said had I been eligible for a management lease car I would have been hard-pressed to pick anything other than a Fiesta for my car for the year. Clearly Lee’s instinct, when designing a car to fetch more money, was to add a vinyl roof, lots of chrome, and a neo-classical grille. It’s what he did so often at Chrysler with the K-cars. At the time we made fun of Phil Caldwell during his tenure as CEO, but he and Petersen got some imagination into the designs, some pep into the engines, and got the execs in Product Development to take the Bondurant driving school so they had some idea what handling meant, resulting in the Fords of the mid-80s.
I often wonder how history might be different had Ford not taken the expedient, down-market option and instead downsized while keeping the same price point and equipment level, like the GM E-bodies. Would the Bird still be with us today or would it be gone like the GM rivals.?
It would probably still be gone, neither direction really seemed to have a future, downmarket or upmarket, the personal luxury coupe was still going to die.
Only bringing back the four-door would’ve saved the Thunderbird. At this point it would’ve been plug-and-play; hopefully by the time the aerobird program was underway they’d see the sport-sedan trend coming.
I can imagine the claustrophobia from the rear seat of the Heritage Edition, or rather the ‘Blind Spot Edition’. And yes, I know these were designed as a personal car and not as a traditional family hauler. Still, somebody had to sit in that dark cave of vinyl and plastic eventually. My deepest sympathies for anyone who was forced to spend their childhood in the backseat of a formal-roofed malaise era midsize coupe.
That said, I’m a bit smitten by these late 70’s T-Birds and Cougars. I like the overall proportions, with that really long hood and short tail, despite the excessive front overhang that plagued most 70’s Fords. It’s not the T-Bird’s finest hour, but it’s still a neat looker.
my daughter just said it looked good (aged 8)
I’m glad she likes it, but I don’t know how well I’d cope back there without proper side windows!
Few people spent their time in these backseats, and the manufacturers knew it. That’s why they went to shorter wheelbases on most of the coupes – to give them sportier looks which is what buyers were looking for.
The window area in the Landau is actually very similar to to what was in the competing GM Colonnade coupes. I drove two of them in Cutlass Supreme trim and nobody was really bothered by it.
I bought my second Cutlass Supreme coupe from a guy that kept it parked in his garage next to his wife’s ’75-’78 era Ford County Squire wagon. It was pretty obvious from the excellent condition of the Cutlass that his kids never spent any time in it.
I understand the allure of the disco-tastic looks, because I bought one in about 2000 or so. Actually having to live with the thing is another matter. The poor space utilization, wheezy performance and nonexistent handling get tiring right quick. And the driving position for a short driver with the (very low) manual seat gave me back pain on trips longer than about 30 miles. Also, these were so de-contented that the base model doesn’t really offer anything more than you would get on a 60’s Falcon.
I have come to realise there was a considerable difference in engineering philosophy between US Fords and the Australian Falcon of the same period.
Thanks to countless references on CC I know that virtually all US Fords from the seventies are wallowing barges but in the same period the Falcon used its superior handling over the equivalent Holden as a very successful marketing tool.
The same with engines. The Falcon six was continually developed with a variety of major upgrades to meet pollution and drivability standards but it seems that Ford US or GM couldn’t be bothered with seemingly obvious technologies such as alloy heads or OHC.
It can’t be cost related because the Falcon was always developed to a budget yet still managed to have an engine that was reasonably up to date but it always seemed the US engineers just added added a bunch of hoses and air pumps to the same old thing despite the vast financial and engineering resources available to the Big Three.
Can anyone explain way this is so?
I can only surmise that it was much more profitable to use tried-and-true (read: old) engine technology to cater to a public who wanted to replicate the look and feel of their living rooms on the open road. As a result, Ford and other manufacturers wound up playing catch-up to the rest of the world from the 1980s onward.
As far as emissions go the US mfgs lead the way, due to our always stricter standards, it was the rest of the world that has always been playing catch up in that respect. Certainly it was more profitable and quicker to make modifications to existing engines than to start with a clean sheet. As I stated Ford and GM had numerous engine families that they needed to make meet emissions and they needed to do it on a cost effective basis to avoid raising prices too much or cutting profit margins.
On the other hand GM and Ford did spend a lot of money developing advanced engines to meet future emissions standards while retaining performance. GM spent untold millions on the Wankel since in promised to be able to meet NOx standards w/o the need for a catalytic converter. Unfortunately it didn’t do so well on MPG and they were still struggling with apex seals when the energy crisis hit causing them to shelve the plan.
Ford also spent a lot of money developing the PROCO system and actually had put a number of them in their real world testing program. Its downfall was cost so it was shelved. The hart of the system was direct injection which is now offered by virtually every mfg as a way to meet emissions and CAFE standards as well as provide good power to displacement ratios. Ford also hedged its bets by buying into Mazda in case the Wankel turned out to be the answer.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, and IH also spent a fair amount of money and effort on turbine engines.
However all of those technologies were seen as future solutions that wouldn’t be production ready immediately, and they needed to meet emissions standards immediately which they did. Much of that technology is still with us today. How many automobiles are sold today that do not have a catalytic converter or EGR?
To be fair, Aussie cars of the era suffered from a significant drop in performance as well, because of Australia’s own emission standards which started with ADR 27 in 1974. US standards were also far more strict. Unleaded petrol and catalytic converters weren’t introduced in Australia until much later, in 1986. Holden really struggled to keep their engines up to standard, which is why the Nissan engine was brought in with the VL series.
XC Falcons and HZ Holdens of the same era as this T-Bird were slow as a dog. They were definitely better handlers than previous models though. I think Ford US finally started to get more serious about handling with the fox platform.
To be also fair the Falcon six never lost any performance or drivability issues. Yes i understand and agree with most of your points except that every Falcon always had better performance than the previous model,(obviously I am not talking about the GT or GTHO), despite the changes to regulations, accessories or added weight.
The point that I am trying to make is that Ford in Aus saw the oncoming changes to the legislation and made the changes to make their car still perform at an acceptable level.
How come no one at the Bg Three saw the same thing happening?
Serious question. It has bugged me for years
As I mentioned Ford AU had much more warning than Ford US and they benefited from the development done here when they were finally forced to meet emissions standards. Catalytic converters had been in use in the US for a decade before you saw them down under.
In regards to “handling” in the US at the time for the average consumer handling was defined as how easy a car was to park, not how fast you could go around a corner. Furthermore our interstate system’s specifications were developed around the idea of military transport. The original name was the US defense interstate system. As such they were designed so that a troop transport vehicle could pretty much run flat out all the time. So curves were designed with that in mind. For a car that meant you could take a 60’s era car with its drum brakes and bias ply tires and cruise at 80-90mph or more safely thanks to the gentle curves and great lines of sight. So there wasn’t a need for “handling”. The other thing was that a good ride and isolation from the outside world was something that the average US consumer desired. This reached a peak in the 70’s with all the things that were or had happened. Consumers ate up isolation as the sales numbers proved. Australia had different types of roads and different types of consumers with different needs and desires.
As far as emissions controls go you have to keep in mind that the US was the pioneer in emissions controls and down under you adopted standards similar to our 1972 standards in 1976. So your Ford got the benefit of many years of US Ford’s development. It was a matter of cost. Besides the introduction of emissions standards in the US they were saddled with many new safety standards at the same time forcing resources to be spread much thinner. It also didn’t help that in the US the mfgs had many more engine families to make compliant at the same time. That dictated using “add-on” components that could be adopted across many engine families and not wholesale redesign of the basic engines. For example in 1972 Ford had to certify the Kent 4cyl, OHC 4cyl, Falcon 6, Big 6, small block, Cleavland, FE and big block families. Your Falcon 6 didn’t get the aluminum OHC head until 1988 after Ford had used similar technologies in other parts of the world for many years.
Thank you for your considered and informative reply Eric. I would answer in kind but time is against me for now. There seems to be so many unanswered questions regarding the US auto industry and their isolationist policies that seemed to start in the early Seventies. It would be interesting to find out more
I wonder if the “defense“ argument for the Interstate Highway Act was a Red Herring. Roads are just as easily bombed out as railroads, and the latter did outstanding service during WW2. Now I hear Eisenhower was impressed by Autobahns, but did he not recall that Germany’s military success was due to its railways, not so much its highways? And its vaunted tanks were not designed to fit common roads either, as ours were.
This is why I suspect that the US Interstates were more about pork barrel than any serious military necessity in an era when nuclear bombs & missiles were in vogue, & the Army that could benefit from these highways languished.
Not only that, but this was at the height of the Cold War. There certainly wasn’t going to be a conventional war, with Russia invading the US. If the nukes had flown, the interstates would have been mighty empty for a very long time.
Eisenhower used the “defense” argument as a way of getting around the “state’s rights” knuckledraggers who were attempting to block construction of a national highways system. It was a good way to get the highways built.
Eric is also correct: a “smooth ride” was everything in Detroit, but by the time of this ‘Bird, consumers were demanding, and getting, better handling and brakes The downsized GM stuff all drove a lot better than their predecessors and much better than Ford stuff, which pogoed and bounded all over the place. Heavy braking made if feel like that big nose as going to hit the pavement.
These cars were really successful, but they were the end of the line for this genre of car.
Well we already had a pretty strong railway system that covered large areas of the US.
I agree that calling a defense project was probably partially just to get it approved, though I believe that it was also sold on the fact that it could be used for interstate commerce and the general public.
Either way he got it through and since it was billed as a defense system that did help drive the specifications on width, lines of site and gentle often banked curves.
When I was younger and having grown up in Nebraska, I never got why some people liked “handling” so much, about the only place you could use it is if you wanted to get aggresive with an exit ramp. It was all pretty much pickups and Broughamtastic boats growing up, with SUVs thrown in the mix later on.
Also, I always heard that the interstates (or maybe it was just I-80?) were also made to be used as an emergency air strip.
Possibly, but that sounds like a secondary argument & not a fundamental one. Ike was an Army guy; to be charitable, I think he was too hung up on his 1919 cross-country experience to remember the importance of railways for logistical support. Imagine how many Diamond T transporters would’ve been needed to haul an armored division around, compared to railway flatcars. What you want is lots of highways on *enemy* territory, not your own.
At any rate, it was easier to sell a new Federal program to Congress & the people if it was justified by nat’l defense arguments instead of economic ones, which are more dicey. BTW, the Federal portion of its expenses has been paid off by fuel taxes etc.
I have always wondered if the defense justification was for constitutional purposes. The Federal government took the Constitution a lot more seriously back then. There were already Federal highways (possibly built as defense projects as well?) so adding more highways might not have flown under commerce or other bases. Remember, the Constitution grants specific limited powers to the Federal Government. If you have forgotten or never understood this, you could be forgiven, because it has not been very strictly observed in recent decades.
True, but the Interstate System seems in the same broad sphere as the Pacific Railroad Act, an earlier national infrastructure project acceptable to pre-Progressive politicians like Lincoln.
It seems the Autobahns were designed for lead-footed civilian driving from the start; I don’t know if Hitler was interested in their military uses, which in any case were constrained by the Wehrmacht’s chronic truck shortage. Best way to carry a Tiger is on a flatcar.
I like all the Broughamy styling cues on these cars but any time I see a Thunderbird or a Cougar of this era, I immediately think its a Mark IV or V first. As far as personal luxury coupes go, I think the Mark IV and V and even the VI (I don’t like the Mk III as much because there is no hood ornament, huge points lost in my book) were stunning and had it all over the Eldo. The Eldos have it as convertibles, I think thats how 70s Eldos really shine. The aftermarket convertible Mk IVs and Vs just don’t look right, and its a pity to go without that oval opera window.
Back to the Thunderbird, I really like them because they bask so well in the glow of the Lincoln.
You’re conveniently forgetting the fact that interstates in the 1970s were still a fairly small overall proportion of the whole US highway and secondary roads network. In fact, the highways other than the interstates were generally rather old and obsolete at the time, with lots of tighter curves, dips, etc.. Poor handling did not make driving them any safer.
There’s simply no excuse for a car with poor control other than at a steady state on an interstate. It was known to be unsafe, and many railed against it, for years. An emergency maneuver in some of these cars could be deadly. GM finally started to do something about it in the 70s, and the rest of the industry had to follow.
A couple weeks ago I drove through a pretty entertaining section of SR 60 in So. Calif, a divided road but with no shoulders, thru the hills outside Moreno Valley. It would’ve been scary at speed in a Ford tank or any Sport-Utility Barge, but my Civic ate it for lunch, it was a blast to drive, most fun I’ve had in years. Main challenge was other more timid drivers. It sure cures drowsiness.
The old Pasadena Freeway (AKA Arroyo Parkway) is also a sporty route with narrow lanes & fairly tight curves. In a way, the Interstate System spoiled driving for enthusiasts, though I grant it’s safer overall.
I’ve always been curious about how come the US didn’t adopt some of the improvements Ford Australia made to the Falcon six, especially considering how long you kept using it.
For example the ’76 crossflow head. I mean, how basic is improved gasflow? That would have to have been a help in meeting US emission regulations as well. Maybe it was just the “Not Invented Here” syndrome?
This talks about Aussie sixes from a Chrysler perspective:
http://www.allpar.com/corporate/bios/hagenbuch-interview.html
I suspect Ford execs learned, after the V8-happy Sixties, to consider the Falcon Six a sort of Middle Child, not worth the trouble. For the Fairmont, the Pinto four was what you got for economy, the 302 for performance.
The US emissionstandards was way harder than any standards found in Europe or Australia. The only way to lower the NOx emission is to get less pressure under the combustion. Therefore lower compression ratio, and lower maximum horespower. But, The horsepower at 1500 rpm in these big engines is about the same as in the 60s engines, but without the maximum power. That power is needed to run 2-2.5 tons big boats with automatics and 2.73-2.28 rear ends.
I guess they easily could have made a 3 litre with 190 HP as max output, the same as Cadillacs 500 cui, but the comfort with 3 litre engine with suffer from about 250 nm as a maximum and a lot of revs needed in such a big car. The MPG would not have been pretty much better either.
Americans were more likely to be encouraged to ‘move up’ to a V8. Cheap gas, image, and all that. So there would have been little incentive to fix the six. Us Aussies saw V8s as too thirsty, and preferred a big six to a small eight as Holden found out with their 253 V8.
These T-birds did have overly soft suspensions that were made for soft ride and poor body control. The shocks and springs were just too soft to have good handling dynamics. However, their handling wasn’t far off others from that same era, and they could be made to perform okay at the right hands. I included a chart from Popular Science from 1978 with the results of many cars in performance tests. The handling tests is the slalom through the cones, and the T-bird faired okay.
This chassis did handle fine when it was setup with decent springs and shocks. In the late 1970’s about the only way this could happen is if you got a police package LTD II, which had far stiffer springs, bigger sway bars and stiffer bushings. You can see what looks to be an ex-RCMP LTD II in the movie First Blood in action that it has decent handling (minus the Hollywood added oversteer) with good rebound and roll control.
As usual, it’s the airplanes in the ads that caught my eye. This time, it’s a Nieuport 28 in 94th Aero Squadron (Eddie Rickenbacker) “Hat in the Ring” livery. Unpopular with pilots, it had a tendency to shed its upper wing fabric in a fast dive…
And there’s that Curtiss Jenny again, too!
To me, the only thing really noteworthy of these was as proof of how much magic and equity were still in the “Thunderbird” name in the late 70s. Even after a series of cars that were less and less aspirational, when one came out that was priced where regular everyday people could afford it, it sold like hotcakes.
As a car, this was really nowhere as appealing as the Monte Carlo. The roof treatment was a little unusual for the time, and as already indicated, it was really little different from an LTDII 2 door. Except for that name and that bird with the spread wings out at the end of the hood. In its favor, it was smooth, quiet and (at least could be) reasonably powerful. I preferred the looks of the Cougar, but Cougar was plainly under Thunderbird in the FoMoCo pecking order.
That red Thunderbird is one of the most beautiful cars I have seen on Curbside Classic. A true work of art, well-preserved!
For what it’s worth, I do like the styling of these T-Birds. Their crisp lines and proportions are very graceful, even if their engines and interiors were less than stellar. I saw this car’s inverse-colored twin earlier this year.
My buddy, who himself drives a 78 Mustang II as his daily, has an uncle who has a Diamond Jubilee Thunderbird in a very nice turquoise paint job. All stock, less than 100k on the odometer, same with his 74 LTD.
My father retired from his career in 1977 and soon purchased a brand new 1978 Thunderbird in the same color scheme shown in Brendan’s post. Not a bad car, equipped with the 351 and automatic, but with a bench seat and column shift it was just a slightly upscale Torino. I think opening the headlight covers told the entire story, a few nickels saved by dual vs. quad headlights because who would see them in daylight? What I think it demonstrates is even after 22 years the Thunderbird name still had some currency.
How about the rare T-top with moss piping model that’s available only at my local junkyard. Even has the same pinstriping as the featured model in the article.
Wht you want for it
With hindsight, it’s clear that this was the last time that Ford could get away with repackaging an old formula in a well targeted way and raking in big bucks. Now we can see this was the end of the era for Ford’s old school personal luxury coupes, but at the time it was a really smart move. And easy to see why Ford thought they could stick this ‘Bird in the dryer for 1980, shrink it some more, and still see similar results, which of course they didn’t. One of the most fascinating aspects of the car business is how segments go from “hero to zero” relatively rapidly. Pony cars/muscle cars: 60s stars, radically diminished in the ’70s. Personal luxury coupes: the pride of the 70s, completely over by the late 80s. Small sporty coupes of the 80s: down and out as the 90s progressed. Body-on-frame SUVs: style statements of the 90s–basically dead. What will become of our current stars? How long will today’s “cute utes” be cute? I’d argue that today’s landscape is as blurry as what Ford faced in the late 70s, and I’ll be curious to see ten years from now who the winners and losers will be, and the cars we’ll be pinpointing as the “end of the era” circa 2014.
Wasn’t this the body style that they did some special edition with a trapezoid shaped continental hump trunk lid with a panel of vinyl to match the top and matching color wheels. Uaually they were blue with tan vinyl and wheels. Probably the ugliest T bird ever built, I actually prefer the one with the trunk straps. Among my bucket list cars are Bullet Bird and Flair Bird convertibles and the 67-69 Landau Four Doors, there’s just something about those suicide rear doors…
You are describing a Mercury Cougar special edition. A CC on that generation of Cougar is coming soon.
Yeah I was questioning in my mind whether that was a Cougar or a T Bird. That era was the high water mark for badge engineering at Ford. I suppose that today, that level of duplication of models is a benefit to restorers of those cars, but it did make for some boring showroom offerings at the time.
I thought that the 1977 – 1979 Thunderbirds were really cool looking when they were new. I remember seeing a truck load of new ones being delivered in Kingsville Texas when I was in college. I loved many of the design cues such as the faceted front turn signal/parking lights, hidden headlights, the wall to wall tail lights/recessed trunk lid center (sort of like the 1964-66) and of course the “Basket Handle” or “Crown Victoria” roof. I also liked the expensive chrome plated die-cast molding around the C pillar opera window – unlike the cheap fall-off chrome-fading plastic that the Monte Carlo of the time had. The quality and sound of the closing of the door and trunk lid have to be heard to believed! Completely different from the GM cars of the day. The lower price and smaller size, while still substantial, was nice as well.
About 8 or 10 years ago, my son gave me a book on Thunderbirds. I have always liked about every year through 1979, especially from 1955 through 1971. While I do not own all of the years like I would like to, I do own a 1960, 1966, and 1967. Anyway, as I was looking at the coffee table book on Thunderbirds, I took note of the 1977-79s. It brought back to mind the time when I was them new on the car hauler. I wanted one back then, but could not afford one. My interest was great enough after reading the article to go immediately to Ebay to look for some. Of all things, there was a like new 1977 with only 42K miles and it had no reserve! The bid was crazy low, so I thought that I might bid one it. The car was the bronze metallic with camel interior. No rust or dents, one owner – having been traded into a Ford dealer and bought by a re-seller of Mustangs because it was so nice. To give you an idea of how cheap these cars are, when you always read that you can still buy some piece of junk antique car for under $10K – I bought the car for $2,700! Still today, having 43K miles on it – it is like a new car!
The engine is a 351 and is incredibly smooth and relatively powerful. The smoothness and quietness of the car is amazing. I also have a 1972 Lincoln Mark IV, so I can tell you that the two cars are very similar in driving qualities. I would say that the Thunderbird is a lighter weight version of the Mark IV. My Mark IV is also all original and like new. The Thunderbird is very tight and has good handling qualities – as compared to many cars of the 1960s-70s. Just a great car to drive in the city or on the highway. And as far as styling, it is a very attractive and handsome car. It gets more attention at car shows than anyone would believe. It seems that everyone either had one or knew of someone who had one back in the day. A few weeks ago I won a price for best of show at a cruise night. One reason is the style of the car, another reason is the condition of the car, and also the fact that you just about never see one of these Thunderbirds. They are not a muscle car, or a Mustang, or a Camaro, or a tri-five Chevy, etc. I think the styling had held up very well – not as far as looking like modern cars, but because of just a nice design. By the way, I love the solenoid activated seat backs. It is so hard to believe that these cars basically have no value. Many other cars, even plain sedans command more money, and can differ from one day to the next in price in an amount equal to several times what the total amount was that I paid for mine! The good news is that I bought it for about what I was making in 2 weeks at work! Try to beat that for any new car or like new car! The car was and is “Truly A New Kind of Thunder”
I have much better photos, but could not find them – so this one will give you and idea, but it does not show the sparkling metallic in the paint. I also have the original style twin Mark IV-V type of white wall on it and spinners on the wheels.
Thanks for posting the picture -it’s beautiful and distinctive with that dark chestnut vinyl roof. Now I want to see ALL your cars (please find excuses to post those!).
Also thanks for reminding everyone that Designing Secretaries would never have thought to: 1. Bring back the ’55 Crown Victoria roof -or, 2. the notched trunk lid nod to the Square Bird -both of which were nods to Ford heritage, without borrowing any style cues from GM (which they sometimes did when they were playing ‘catch-up’.
Yes, Ford had a ‘Ford face’ for many years, but this one’s a success; the Crown Victoria roof, alone, made it distinctive. And arguably, this Crown Victoria /Basket Handle came off a lot better than the Fairmont Futura’s.
PS: here’s another ad for the reader who fancies the aviation portion of the ads…
Beautiful car. I know, I know, make all the snide comments you like. But I love these cars. My Grandma Ruby had one brand new. Black, white interior with red dash and carpets, bucket seats, console and factory CB. I imprinted on that car as a kid just as much as I did on my Grandpa Bob’s 1977 Continental Mark V. And both cars are why I love hidden headlights to this day, own a Lincoln today, and am a member in good standing over at The Brougham Society.
Paul, sorry you had to go it alone on the “Basket handle” T-bird CC. It seemed like there were seven or eight people who wanted to write it up, so I bowed out. But I’ll have to do mine sometime in the next few months; I have at least four 1977-78 T-Birds captured on digital film! 🙂
Frankly, we should have swapped Thunderbirds. I know you would have done this one justice, and I might have been more inspired with the TC 🙂
I don’t have any hate for this, but it seems kind of “meh” compared to its immediate predecessor covered by Jason. While that car was not exactly true to the T Bird’s 50s-early 60s heritage either, it seems a bit more luxe than this, its successor, or what came thereafter.
A quick test drive in a ’78 Ford Thunderbird and the new, “downsized”, steaming-turd-on-wheels, butt-ugly and ice wagon slow ’78 Buick Regal must have sold quite a few Thunderbirds?
Maybe if it had the basic 3.2 liter Buick V6. Equipped with any of the various optional V8 engines would make the low calorie T-Bird 302 the ice wagon. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I find this overweight mess of a car with it’s comical window(s) to be the steamin turd with ponderous handling and fingertip vague steering to go with it. I would take any V8 A/G body over this generation T-Bird any day of the week.
These cars were everywhere at the time. The Monte Carlo and Grand Prix essentially invented this segment of the personal luxury car market, but this car kept Ford in the game.
The GM cars handled better, but the Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7 had it all over the GM cars when it came to the quality of interior materials and exterior trim, as well as the fit of the body panels. The interiors of the GM cars (particularly the Monte Carlo) didn’t wear all that well. Their vinyl roofs didn’t last very long, and, as Bill Prince noted, the “plastichrome” around the opera windows would warp and discolor quickly. And the stacked, square headlights used on the 1976-77 Monte Carlos simply didn’t mesh well with the swoopy fender blisters.
These Thunderbirds had their faults, but I’d still take one over its domestic competitors today, except for perhaps the 1978-79 Dodge Magnum, which was the best-looking of the bunch.
With the correct “F41” option the GM intermediates may have handled better, true, but how many buyers of this class of car drove these vehicles on twisty, narrow roads at high speeds?
A complete set of modern nitrogen gas filled shock absorbers does wonders for the handling of these Ford intermediates.
Agree on the sub-par use of interior trim pieces on the M/C, Regals and Cutlass models. GM’s “mark of excellence” was absent on their intermediate cars of this era.
The 1978 Thunderbird was the first new car I bought after college. I paid $6020 for it and paid cash. I still own the car and it gets lots of thumbs up where ever it goes. I still love the style.
Re: 77 Thunderbird Heritage – I know a fellow with a 77 that has the Mark V trunk lid, some different grille & headlight trim, Lincoln type wheels, and a Landau top that is a bit different than the stock one. A guy that said he worked the line back then told me that Ford Dealers would send a few of them out to approved coach builders to be converted to look like the Mark V. He said they called them a Mini Mark and that dealers sold them new for about 5k less than the Lincoln Mark V. Supposedly, this was popular but limited.
Would anybody know how true this information might be? If it is, my friend may have a somewhat rare vehicle. Thanks for any help you can provide.
I’ve thought the 1977-79 Thunderbird’s were the best of the 1970’s Thunderbird’s, seeing these cars takes me back to a more simpler time in life and I can see why these were very popular sellers back in the day.
The 1977-79 Thunderbird certainly was a sales phenomenon. With the popularity of the iintermediate sized and priced Grand Prix and Monte Carlo, Ford considered an intermediate Torino-based Thunderbird in the early 1970s but ultimately the Thunderbird ended up twined with the Continental Mark IV on a full-sized chassis. Ford held the price high for Thunderbirds. Meanwhile the 1971-73 Mercury Cougar started gaining popularity as a lower priced personal luxury car with its big car styling built from the bloated same year Mustang.
For 1974, the Cougar did not join the Mustang II platform. Instead the Cougar was moved to the Mercury Montego 2-door hardtop body which of course a different version of the Ford Torino. The new larger Cougar was promoted as a luxurious affordable alternative to the Continental Mark IV and built an image around glamourous models (Farrah Fawcett) walking real cougars on leashes. By then popularity of intermediate personal luxury cars from GM was really turned on full with the re-designed A-body cars of 1973. Intermediate personal luxury cars seemed to do fairly well despite the gas crisis. The Ford division could no longer ignore not having a competitive intermediate personal luxury car at a lower price point so with minimal investment they took the Cougar and fashioned it into a one sized scaled down Thunderbird look-alike which debuted mid-year 1974 as the Gran Torino Elite. The name was shorted to just Elite for 1975-76 to distance it from the slow selling Torino line. The Elite sold, but not as well as expected. It was priced right and had the right look but it lacked the mystique and image of a long running nameplate.
Meanwhile, full sized Thunderbirds were slow sellers. They were exclusive, luxurious but expensive. Ford needed a big hit and it came at the right time after the fuel shortages stabilized and people were buying larger cars again. The entire intermediate Ford and Mercury line-up of cars was overdue for a refresh which was already delayed a year. Early enough on while Ford was selling Elites, Ford was fashioning downsized Thunderbirds. Of course proposals were created to replace the Elite. Some proposals had it looking like the eventual 1977 LTD II /Cougar 2-door hardtop body with regular opera windows, but with the production-styled concealed headlamps front end. With the Fox platform Ford Fairmont in development at the same time, there was also a Thunderbird proposal created based on the Fairmont with a basket handle wrapover roofline which ultimately became the 1978 Fairmont Futura coupe instead. It was decided the Thunderbird name would move to what was essentually a restyled version of the Elite sharing bodies with the Torino replacement renamed LTD II and an expanded line of Cougar models with updated styling to replace the slow selling Mercury Montego line.
So enters the new 1977 Thundebird killing two birds with one stone replacing the previous year’s full sized model and replacing the same sized Elite. The 1977 Thunderbird had a $2500 lower base price. It also had much less standard equipment rivaling lower priced LTD II models. The new low price and magic of the iconic Thunderbird name made it a best seller resulting in record sales for any Thunderbird generation. It was another much needed big hit for Ford to boost the intermediate line. Amazingly it was done with such little investment. All it used new was specially styled rear quarter panels with a wrapover roofline featuring opera windows and large rear quarter windows ajoining thin C-pillars, a unique decklid and rear lamp panel with classic Thunderbird-styled full width dropped center taillamps, a unique front end panel with an chrome eggcrate grille, cut-jewel parking lamps and concealed headlamps. The majority of the car shared body parts with the LTD II/Cougar lines and carried over parts from the previous 1972 vintage Torino/Montego line, especially the complete interiors save for upholstery styles.
What is interesting is that the previous full sized Thunderbird and intermediate Elite were styled so similarly that transitioning the Thunderbird to the existing intermediate platform didn’t make it seem out of character nor did it seem like there was visually a downsize. The interiors were just as luxurious on the higher end trim levels and the look and quality was pretty much the same.
I remember the first impression of the new 1977 Thunderbird. It was truly unique and crisply styled with the opera windowed basket handle roof design. All the old coke bottle fuselage shapes gave way to fresh straighter edged styling.
We had a family friend who bought a new 1978 model. I loved the Midnight Blue coordinated with the Chamois colored split vinyl top and matching vinyl insert bodyside moldings. The interior was also Chamois colored vinyl with split flight bench front seats. The new bird emblems on the headlamp covers were a nice additon for the 78 model year.
I never owned that generation Thunderbird but I came very close. Back in 1984, I bought a 1978 LTD II 2-door hardtop with the Sports Touring package. It was two-tone light and dark Jade Green with dark jade comfort weave vinyl bucket seats with floor shifter, center console and full instrumentation with the engine turned aluminum dash appliques. That same exact interior style and configuration was offered on the Thunderbird as well. There was no difference between the Thunderbird and LTD II other than the exterior styling differences. I loved that LTD II and all was fine until I got new Camaro fever (I hated the upright sedan-like squared off Fox Body Mustang).
As far as quality goes, that LTD II was a well built car. It was a floaty car though, plowed through turns and often bottomed out on the bumpers during incline transitions. We didnt have high expectations in those days concerning precise and firm handling of cars because almost none of them did well. It was not until luxury import cars with better dynamics made people notice how much better they were causing domestic manufacturers to start making better handling cars. The new Ford Fox plaform was the first step. With the Fairmont replacing the Maverick we were given technically modern cars with MacPherson strut suspensions, close ratio rack and pinion steering, multi-link rear suspensions and lighter weight unibodies with good structural stiffness. The Fox platform was developed with Mustang performance and handling goals in mind, not as an afterthought. Whatever benefited the Mustang would benefit all other Fox platform cars being developed.
The greatly downsized 1980 Thunderbird based on a longer wheelbase Fox platform was praised for much improved ride and handling. It was a loser for having an awkward strangely proportioned boxy with unusual flared out bodysides with too much tuck under at the bottom. The wheels were also tucked too far inward. Squarish wheel openings added to the boxiness. The loss of the bladed front fenders created an abbreviated look. The roofline was no longer special and unique, just upright and boxy. The original designs this evolved from were actually wedgier and sleeker with steeper windshield and roof angles and a lower hood. Remember that the Fairmont Futura was originally a Fairmont-based Thnderbird proposal? Perhaps the 1978 Futura should have been held until 1980 to be a Thunderbird give buyers at least the well liked and familiar basket handle roofline. The original Thunderbird proposal of it was complete with bladed front fenders with crystal cut wraparound parking lamps, concealed headlamps and dropped center full width taillamps just like the production 1977 Tbird. The interior of the 1980 Tbird was unimpressive. The instrument panel lacked a luxurious sportiness that all past Thunderbirds had.
Thunderbird sales were so bad at that point. A redesign was ordered but initially it was going to be a facelift on the existing box body with the reskinning yeilding a more Mustang-like aero front end and major roofline and rear quarter window alterations. Meanwhile the Lincoln-Mercury studio created a new Aero Luxury Car Concept with aero styling inspired by the new generation European Ford Sierra and the series of aerodynamic Probe concept cars. It was so well liked by management that a version with Thunderbird styling cues was mocked up to become the new aerodynamic 1983 Thunderbird. The Aero Bird was a hit and restored Thunderbird sales to levels much closer to the record years of 1977-79. Lincoln used a Thunderbird design proposal for the 1961 Continental and Lincoln returned the favor by lending the Thunderbird its Aero Luxury Car concept. Of course Lincoln delayed a year of introducing its new Continental Mark VII to allow the Thunderbird (and Cougar) nameplate to recover much needed sales.
The 1983-88 Thunderbirds became a favorite of mine. Towards the end of the 1990s I bought a used 1985 model with a V8. I ran it up to 245,000 miles and sold it to a co-worker with it stillrunning. I loved that car with its canyon red exterior and whore red interior.
My step mother bought a 1984 when new and several years ago i bought it from her as a restoration project. I went so far as to replace the badly damaged old dash which was impossible to find a good replacement for with one from an SN95 Mustang.
In 1999, I bought a 1989 Thunderbird to replace the red 1985 model. I liked the way the 1989 drove with the independent rear suspension. I went so far as to put an entire 1997 front end on it with the Cougar specific bumper cover minus the waterfall grillle because I wated the larger grille intake and real chrome bumper moldings instead of the regular bodycolored embossed strips.
I had a few childhood friends who’s families had ’77 ’79 Thunderbirds. Unfortunately, we made long-distance trips with most of these families at least once a year and the backseats were utterly barbaric. Little more legroom than a roaster, and that large glass area back there turned it into an oven especially on a 12-hour trip to Florida. And of course, all those glass panes were fixed. My parents’ 242 DL coupe, by comparison, was supremely comfortable.
i had a 77 Thunderbird in college and grad school. Lipstick red and white with the white interior with the dual white armrests in front. I definitely had fun in my Thunderbird. My parents got it for me around 1979, used with low mileage. It lasted me several years past grad school. Unfortunately had to replace it due to a costly transmission repair that made it more economical just to replace. One of my all-time favorite car and I loved the lipstick red a d white!
I guess we’re all influenced by the decades we grew up in. I see these cars as a pretty cynical destruction of brand integrity, particularly so given the strong design concepts of the early Thunderbirds. I knew Thunderbirds, Mr Iacocca, and this is no Thunderbird.
And of course the hard-working ladies in the steno pool had nothing to do with this. We men bear full responsibility. 🙂
Marcia Brady had a mini skirt in that same burnt orange color as the T-Bird with the luggage straps.
Early clay of the ’77 Thunderbird showing a more traditional roofline/opera window.
https://www.facebook.com/JWLCARS/photos/618892515679659
Thunderbird is an odd name, criticism of any generation gets judged against its formative 55-57 years, unless it’s a more highly regarded generation like the bullets and aero where it’s judged simply on its then present merits. I guess that’s the power of it, there’s a solid probability that had the Elite continued as this for 1977 instead, sales would have remained just as weak.
I’m more glass half full with this generation however. No Thunderbird between 1955 and 1976 was efficiently packaged, it’s not its mission in life and not a valid demerit. Yeah Iacocca had a fetish for these proportions and certainly loved the gingerbread(which is the worst part about them to me, not the packaging), but for 1977-79 these looked damn good for Ford, shed them of vinyl and belt buckles it’s a nice looking distinctive bodystyle, crisp in the style of the times but not boring like most post-sheer look designs tended to end up. The downsized A bodies looked like toys next to these and the Magnum/Cordoba, and made the “full size” 1979 Panther coupes look positively dorky, pretty much previewing what these became in 1980 on the Fox chassis.
Plus if you do appreciate the 1983 aero revolution as I do, these were the necessary stepping stone to them, like it or not. The Thunderbird was downsized to this body afterall, and brought the nameplate in grasp of the proletariat who actually cared about the iconicness of the name (upper crust snobs the previous generation was wooing weren’t buying Thunderbird’s). These were one of the earliest mainstream American cars I can think of where alloy wheels were really common on too, finding one of these birds with wheel covers is really uncommon for the era.
These are probably my favorite vehicle from Ford in the ’70s. The styling was just right for the time, and they seemed to be mostly durable to everything but rust. Ford sold 952,000 of these, plus the LTD II and everything at the Mercury dealer named ‘Cougar’ was this platform, too. If you wanted a solid used car in 1982, you could hardly go wrong with one packing a 302 or 351W.
“Float-o-matic” Ride? Ford would have had to pay Massey-Ferguson to use that!
I couldn’t stand these Birds at the time, and my feelings haven’t changed. The T-Bird jumped the shark with the 67 models and didn’t get its groove back until the Aero Birds of 1983.
Ford was onto something here. Take a plain potato chip and add some flavor to it and see how it sells!
I thought these were the best of the T-Bird’s built in the 1970’s which is strange because I normally favor vehicles built in the early 1970’s over the late 1970’s due to stronger powertrains and better drivability
Since I posted a picture of my 1977, back in 2014, I have changed the wheels to wire wheel covers, because I prefer the added Bling of the chrome as compared to the dull polycast wheels.
I think that the 1977-79 Thunderbirds are some of the sharpest looking cars of the mid to late 1970s. And mine, albeit only 43K miles, is not a float-mobile. It offers a smooth and quiet ride, while still having rather good handling, and it also has rather good acceleration with it’s 351 engine. I also own a 1972 Mark IV, and the Tbird has a stiffer suspension – it seems to me, but a good mix of smooth vs road feel. Of course it is no modern Corvette.
I have always loved this factory photo of a new 1977 Thunderbird. Love the colors as well. The grill appears to have the vertical bars blacked out, which I think gives the car a more refined look – which I have done to mine (back out tape). This photo , with the wider white wall tires and wire wheel covers, caused me to change my wheels/tires to match.
The 1977-79 Thunderbirds, lend themselves to having a large Bent Glass rear window like the 1977-78 Toronado XSR – but would have been a much sharper looking car, in my opinion. (or a thin bright metal C pillar).
I was 7 when these came out, and yes, they were everywhere and quite fetching when shiny and new. Regarding the Float-O-Matic suspension, I have direct experience with it due to our family owning not one but two ’70s-era LTDs. My least favorite driving memory is of piloting our ’77 LTD Brougham (yellow, brown vinyl top) across Virginia from Roanoke to Richmond for my first day of college in 1987 (we kept cars for a long time but they were well maintained). I will never forget white-knuckling it over Afton Mountain on I-64 in the fog and rain, trying to keep it between the lines while it wallowed and swayed. My Dad was behind me in my ’84 Mercury Lynx RS (there’s a unicorn for you) and while he had a better time, he was in second gear by the time he got to the top. The LTD went back home with Mom and Dad and I kept the Lynx until 1991. The engine hand-grenaded the week after I traded it on a 1989 Mazda 626. While I don’t miss any of those cars, I really wish I could have my Dad back.
I drove a 1979 model. It was dumb looking, boring for its interior, but it rode quite smoothly. Rates a 2/10 with me.
Sells of the 1977-78 Thunderbird met or exceeded the production of 2017-2019 Honda Civics – so they must have been thought of as being attractive enough cars when new for people to buy them. Not a low production vehicle. But today, they are almost give away cars, being one of the cheapest antique cars around – maybe even cheaper than a Vega!
That makes them an unbelievably good buy for someone who wants an antique car, but has almost no money. Mine is like a new car with only 43K miles, and gets a crazy amount of attention, since so many people had one or a relative or neighbor who had one back when they were new. And I bought mine about 12 yrs ago for only $2,700! Other than a accelerator pump diagram (recently), I have done NO mechanical work on the car!
These Iacocca Thunderbirds were certainly a hit with most folks, but they lost one customer permanently. Monty “Red” Wilkins was an opinionated, wiry fellow who ran a body repair shop. The ‘Red” nickname came not so much for his hair color but his love of the color RED: bright red socks, trousers, shirts, house, furniture, even his refrigerator!
Monty ‘Red” had owned a succession of red Thunderbirds from the late 1950’s on through the 1970’s until these appeared for 1977. At trade-in time, he took a red 1977 the dealer had ordered in anticipation of Monty buying it, just like this featured car for a test-drive. Returning to the dealer shortly, he threw him the key, shouted “That’s no damned Thunderbird!” Jumped into his old giant red and white 1973, headed directly to the Oldsmobile-Cadillac dealership, bought a red and white Coupe de Ville. Never owned another Thunderbird the rest of this life, only Cadillacs…in RED…of course!