(first posted 10/24/2014) During the life of the Ford Thunderbird, it dived in many varied directions and often with staggeringly different results. Through it all, it did manage to present itself as the aspirational vehicle in the Ford lineup.
This isn’t to say that the aspiration was more pronounced at some points than at others. Arguably, the low point for Thunderbird aspirations happened for the eighth generation introduced in 1980 when many design elements of the previous generation were dumped onto the smaller Fox platform. Looking like the victim of a botched liposuction, it simply didn’t work and sales reflected it.
1983 would see a continuation of the Fox platform beneath the Thunderbird, but in a way to exponentially increase the desirability factor. Not only was the Thunderbird redesigned with aerodynamic clothes free of tacky accoutrement, the top-tier Turbo Coupe injected some exotica (for the time) into the Thunderbird. Powered by a 2.3 liter turbocharged four-cylinder, it was both the first four-cylinder Thunderbird ever as well as the first turbo-charged one. Essentially the same engine used in the Mustang SVO, it was not the most refined engine for its first few years but it was able to fully demonstrate one didn’t need a mega-cube engine to solicit performance.
The Turbo Coupe continued until 1988. Seeing new nose and tail treatments for 1987, the Turbo Coupe had performance quite remarkable for the time. For the direction Ford was wanting to take the Thunderbird in the eleventh generation, the Fox platform was limiting. It was time for a new platform.
For 1989, Ford introduced the Super Coupe on the new MN-12 platform. Standing for Mid-sized, North America Project 12, the Thunderbird (and Mercury Cougar sibling) arrived on the scene in 1989. As a point of clarification, the later Lincoln Mark VIII was similar but based on the FN-10 platform (Full-sized, North America Project 10).
With a wheelbase stretched 8.8″ to 113″ while still being shorter in length by 3.5″, its appearance was likened to that of the BMW 6-series but the new Thunderbird was obviously related to its predecessor as well as the original Taurus. Power for 1989 was ones choice of 3.8 liter V6 – either supercharged as seen in our featured Super Coupe or naturally aspirated in other models.
Naturally all the media attention was on the Super Coupe. At the time of the MN-12 introduction, the Chevrolet Corvette was the only other car manufactured in the United States to share the Thunderbird’s attributes of rear-wheel drive combined with independent rear suspension. It was also the first Thunderbird to pack a supercharger since the 1957 Ford Thunderbird. In a sense, it was a tasty combination of freshly blazed trail sprinkled with Thunderbird heritage.
In 1986, Ford Motor Company placed Anthony S. Kuchta in charge of the MN-12 program. Kuchta had enjoyed a high degree of career ascendancy throughout his time at Ford. In his mid-50s at the time of his appointment to MN-12 project manager, he was tasked to make a “BMW Fighter” of the Thunderbird. Kuchta was given full rein over styling and engineering.
In an interview during the December 1988 introduction of the MN-12 cars, Kuchta was quite candid in his thoughts about recently introduced GM-10 coupes (Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick Regal, Olds Cutlass), calling them “nothing cars”, deriding their 2.8 liter engines as being underpowered for the platform, and accusing GM of not giving the customer the size and performance they truly wanted in a coupe. Whether this was being boastful or condescending, Kuchta was showing his confidence about, and how much skin he had invested in, the MN-12 platform and the new Thunderbird.
The MN-12 Thunderbird would ultimately win both Motor Trend “Car of the Year” and Popular Mechanics “Best of the Best” Awards for 1989. With a new product receiving copious press accolades, it would seem as if everything would be milk and honey for Kuchta and the entire MN-12 team. As they would soon learn, it wasn’t.
On January 17, 1989, a gathering was held at an upscale restaurant for members of the MN-12 team. In addition to the MN-12 team, Ford CEO Donald Petersen and Ford President Harold “Red” Poling (shown) were in attendance. After a warm introduction by Kuchta, Poling quickly and heartily chastised the group for missing critical targets. Depending upon equipment level, the ’89 was 300 to 500 pounds heavier than a comparable ’88; the team had missed their target curb weight by approximately 250 pounds. This, said Poling, was adversely affecting Ford’s CAFE numbers as recently elected President George H.W. Bush was increasing the fuel economy standard. Also, each new Thunderbird was costing $900 more than planned to build, which was eating into Ford’s per unit profit margin by up to 30%.
The parade had not been rained on; it had been in a monsoon. This was the first time Kuchta was aware of displeasure from upper management; why Petersen and Poling chose this venue, without any prior conversation with Kuchta, is unknown.
Seeing the writing on the wall, as well as results of an internal audit, Kuchta subsequently retired in May 1989. His retirement party was held within a mile of Ford world headquarters; while the attendance was quite remarkably high – including numerous people having traveled from the Thunderbird factory in Lorain, Ohio – not a single member of Ford’s upper management made an appearance.
Ironically, the MN-12 platform would last through 1997, serving as the longest running generation of the Ford Thunderbird.
1990 marked the Thunderbird’s 35th anniversary and Ford was aiming to make the most of it.
The 35th Anniversary edition cars were all identical to this one. The package was based upon a black Super Coupe with silver body cladding. Wheels were also colored black and had blue Thunderbird inserts in the hubcaps that matched the blue stripe adorning the flanks of the car.
Seats were suede and leather. The transmission was the same Mazda M5R2 five-speed seen in other Super Coupes, although this particular example packs the optional Ford AOD transmission. Buyers also received a host of anniversary edition paraphernalia such as floor mats, ink pens, and key blanks to accompany their letter of congratulations. Ford would build 3,371 specially prepared Thunderbirds to mark its 35th anniversary.
After 1990, production of the Super Coupe began a steady decline with an uptick in final year 1995. While coupes in general were seeing a steady erosion of popularity during this time, there was another event that likely spurned the downturn of the Super Coupe.
After a two year absence, in 1991 Ford made their 302 cubic inch (5 liter) V8 an option in the Thunderbird. At 200 horsepower, the 302 was not an alternative to the 210 horsepower supercharged V6; performance tests of the time reflected it to effectively bridge the gap in 0-60 acceleration found between the supercharged and naturally aspirated 3.8 liter engines. Cylinders sell, and the 5.0 was the next best alternative in terms of acceleration for a more modest premium over the base 3.8 liter engine. Referred to as the Sport Coupe in 1991, it complimented the Super Coupe – maybe the base model could have been called the Standard Coupe.
Ford kept the 302 in the Thunderbird until 1994 when it was replaced with the 4.6 liter overhead cam V8 to accompany a refined beak. Rated at 205 horsepower, this engine was a smooth operator and was attached to Ford’s 4R70W automatic transmission. The 4.6 was closing the numbers gap with the supercharged 3.8 having only five fewer horsepower and 35 fewer lbs-ft of torque.
With the demise of the Super Coupe after 1995, Ford continued to offer the suspension components of the former Super Coupe. Referred to as the Sport Option, it was motivated only by the 4.6 liter engine and even had 16″ wheels quite similar to those of the Super Coupe. Ford also gave the ’96 another revamped beak.
Initially offered for 1996 as a $210 option, it was appealing to those seeking something unique from the ordinary Thunderbird. However, as your author discovered when ordering one, the Sport Option experienced one of Ford’s running changes; at some point in the model year, the price of the Sport Option increased to $450 but it suddenly included a no charge spoiler. Your author will attest this suspension was infinitely better handling and had a firmer ride than experienced in the base suspension of the MN-12, such as found in the 1995 Mercury Cougar his parents owned concurrently.
After declining sales and compression of models wherein everything was in LX trim, the Thunderbird was laid to rest at the end of the 1997 model year – or so it seemed at the time.
While the sun set long ago on Thunderbird production, Ford made over 960,000 of them on the MN-12 platform, a platform that ultimately carried 1.5 million cars when including the Mercury variants. Seeing an example such as this Super Coupe definitely serves as a reminder of a simpler time that doesn’t seem all that long ago.
(Photos of the 1990 Super Coupe were taken by Tom Klockau.)
Related reading:
Beautifully written, Jason. What a great tribute to a fantastic car! My sister-in-law owns a 1995 V-8 that she still loves. It is just starting to get some nasty rust in the rocker panels but overall it still looks and drives great. My memory of driving the MN-12 was in 1990 when my then brand new Escort GT developed a power steering failure. The local dealer gave me a brand new T-Bird as a loaner. I was so impressed with the interior and drivability I considered trading in the Escort, but the numbers didn’t work so I kept the GT for a few more years. I distinctly remember the feel that the wraparound dash gave me. It was like no other car I had ever experienced before. Once again, a great story about a car that will not be forgotten.
The last new car I bought was a ’97 Bird specifically with the 66S option. At the end of the model run, there were apparently some limited edition cars made with special floor mats and fender badges and stripes, and my dealer happened to find one of these for me, although I was unaware of this trim package when I had ordered the car.
When I picked the car up from the dealer, he told me how when the prep boys got ahold of it, they were impressed with how the car handled with the upgraded suspension, so these guys must not have had many 66S cars thru the dealership.
Ford was running a special financing deal at the time, so I got a brand new limited edition Bird with the 66S option & 4 wheel disc brakes (no ABS though), FI OHC V8 & fully ind. suspension for which I paid less than $20K delivered, which included tax, tag, & finance charge. It was a white exterior with red trim stripes and the saddle interior.
I was coming out of an ’84 Z28 at the time, and although both cars had crisp handling, the Bird was much more comfortable for highway cruising, and the OHC 8 was a solid motor, although I did have the plastic intake manifold replaced under one of Ford’s silent recalls before I had any trouble with it.
Sadly, I wrecked the car about six years after I got it, but I replaced it with another ’97 Bird, sans 66S package, from a lady who was selling it so she could buy a Pontiac Grand Prix.
The only complaint I had about the ’97 models over the ’96 models was that Ford replaced the superb instrument cluster in the newer models with a unit lifted directly out of the Taurus apparently. You got a small speedo & tach and a bunch of idiot lights instead of the gauges of the older unit, apparently a final gasp at cost cutting. I guess Ford didn’t use the Mustang gauge cluster because it cost more.
I still think the last series of T-birds were the best of the bunch in terms of value for the money. I regularly got about 20 mpg driving around town, and up to about 27 mpg or so on the highway. I still think this was the best car and motor that Ford made before or since, and I’m glad I got to own a couple examples.
It sounds like yours was much like the one I had and our fuel mileage was quite similar.
One difference I remember between the ’96 and ’97 models is on the (very modest) console. The ’96 had slots for coins and the cup holder was accessed via the lid of the storage compartment / arm rest. The ’97 had cup holders in the console itself.
Sadly, I sold mine at just under 80k miles upon the birth of a child. It was still pristine inside and out.
Objectively there’s a lot to like about these, but for some reason, my reaction is just sort of meh. I don’t react negatively like I would to a ’80-82, but it doesn’t say anything positive either.
I feel similarly, although I think my response is not so much meh as disappointment. It seems great on paper and then falls short in different areas. None of them would be too awful individually, but they keep adding up. It looks great on the outside (the facelifts weren’t an improvement), but the interior is awfully plastic and has those awful motorized seatbelts. The mass means it’s not really nimble, but the SC suspension and tires don’t make it the most relaxed cruiser. The supercharged engine has a lot of grunt, but it’s not that slick and the normally aspirated V-6 is not enough unless you just don’t care. I don’t know about the 5.0, but the tall gearing really pulls the 4.6’s teeth.
It really does seem like the MN12 development team overreached, wanting it to be an American E24 6-Series and being reminded late in the game, “You know, the M6 is a $50,000 car and we need this to come in around half that, right?”
It’s sort of like a movie with a great premise, great actors, and a great director that never quite comes together — something like that makes you more disappointed (or disappointed in a different way) than something of which you had lower expectations.
While finding documentation of this was not successful, it seems as if the rear differentials in the Sport Option cars, like I had, were equipped with 3.27 gears instead of the 3.08 in other cars. There was certainly a difference in acceleration between this and the 3.8 liter Cougar I also experienced with equal fuel mileage. Thankfully the motorized belts were long gone by then.
I’m sure shorter gearing would help. I assume the speeds in gear are pretty high with the normal axle and the automatic seems to want to be in top gear as early as possible for the sake of fuel economy. So, at medium speed (say, 35 to 45 mph), the transmission has the engine practically snoozing and you really have to nail it to get it into a useful part of its torque band. I’ve heard various people who’ve driven these cars (often as rentals) complain, “Y’know, for a V-8, it really doesn’t seem to have any power.”
All 96-97s had 3.27s. Prior years it was usually 3.08s or 2.73s. If so inclined swapping in 3.55 or even 3.73 gears really make for a nice all around gear in these cars, good low end pickup in city driving and little mpg loss in highway.
That car I test drove maybe in ’92. I expected it to feel like a luxury cruiser and I was underwhelmed by it. Nonetheless it remained on my radar for its damn good looks. I test drove used ones again and at that time I found them very pleasing and smooth in particular the high mileage Cougar V6 that I looked over.
I think you characterized it spot on: it is impossible to build a 50K luxury contender for half the price.
And that price matters. I have a hard time budgeting for a 6 series diva. A ’95 -’97 Thunderbird LX V8 is so much easier to budget for and it could be a very satisfying experience now that my expectations are adjusted.
Though, at its bones, M6 aside, the 6 series debuted when the Granada was new, so engines aside, I still think that Ford could have come up with something that was at least as good as a 1976 BMW.
The M6 equivalent should be a Mark VIII. However it’s still too senior special in mind plus too many gremlins mechanically and horrible rust resistance.
Like Dan Cluley, I find these undewhelming – I think stylistically (particularly after the car they replaced) they were a non-event and somehow managed to look like FWD cars even they were not, a cardinal sin in such a car (well, at least to me). The droopy hood in particular does not look right and the wheel arches were huge (or, the wheels available back then too small for such arches). Full disclosure: I never drove one of these things (in fact, I do not recall seeing even one in either the UK or Austria) so my feelings are based on their lacklustre looks…
I’ve only ever seen a silver one in the UK on Fulham Palace Road near Putney bridge.It sounded magnificent when passing me.
As these were being produced when I was a kid, this generation was the first “Thunderbird” I ever knew. My mom’s best friend owned a green circa-’95 model that I remember vividly from my childhood. My favorite feature was the thunderbird emblem on each taillight. From what she’s told me, she had previously owned an earlier MN-12 gray T-Bird, and prior to that a Fox Mustang. After the green Thunderbird, she bought a new ’99 or ’00 Chrysler Sebring coupe, before switching to Camrys (Oh The Humanity!), which she buys to this day.
I know it was illogical, but one has to wonder if the Thunderbird was redesigned in the late-90s. Hopefully not a 2-door oval Taurus, but maybe something modern enough to keep it around a few more years, continuously.
Well Ford had plans to base the Thunderbird/Cougar off the DN101 Platform a few prototypes was made but I can’t recall seeing any pictures of them. But Ford did revive the bird with that god awful DEW98 Lincoln LS/Jaguar S-type Platform.
One of the US Fords that were officially imported by Hessing De Bilt 20 years ago. You did see them now and then, I know a few guys who bought a used one. Of course they were thinner on the ground than a contemporary Ford Mondeo…
I read a test back then in a car book, it looked just like the blue one in the last factory picture. IIRC these were around 65,000 Genuine Old Dutch Wooden Guilders in the mid-nineties. That’s around 30,000 euro after a guilder/euro-conversion. For that money you get a full-option C-segment hatchback with an adequate 4 cylinder engine these days.
The Thunderbird was a disastrous evolution. Consider it’s initial beauty as a Corvette challenger. To allow it to become a monstrosity was tragic, almost Edsillian in my eyes.
I didn’t know that the head of the MN-12 got whacked when he was expecting to get made, a la Tommy in GoodFellas.
I would’ve liked to ask the Don Peterson why so much money was thrown at a two-door-only platform in the first place. Rather than letting this “failed” program twist in the wind, why not put a Lincoln sedan on it? A higher price point would have let them compete credibly with Lexus/Infiniti/Acura, if not the 7-series.
The irony is that I think Ford explored the possibility of using the MN12 platform or pieces of it for more products — I recall seeing magazine reports about a Mustang test mule with the Thunderbird’s rear suspension, intended to create something like the later Mustang Cobra with independent rear — but kept ruling it out for cost reasons.
There’s a lot of structural similarities between the DEW98 and MN12s, quick look at them and you’d think the front shock towers were the same stampings. I read an article some time back about Tbirds being used as test mules for Lincoln LS parts, including suspension components.
I think many designs and parts found some salvage use on DEW98. However I’m completely unsatisfied with any interior on that platform, while the interior of post-94 Mark VIII was quite refined.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. This would’ve been a nice platform on which to build a proper Continental sedan. With the right engine, it could’ve been a credible competitor to the Seville.
I think the FN10 was stretched to its limit. Further stretching is not too wise ( even though I don’t think dressing up a pre-96 Taurus was wise neither especially considering how curvy it was ) as I drive my Mark VIII fast, I can hear some twisting sound from the body of the car at curves, usually at higher speed ( 110mph+ ) even though the suspension holds up pretty well. And, for a car at that size, the interior volume is kind of small. It doesn’t hurt for a personal luxury, but it doesn’t work for a sedan even considering the stretch. If continental was built on FN10 with similar volume like town car, it would be even bigger ( the rear suspension takes up way too much space. The car is kind of low so the driveshaft takes up a lot of room on floor too )
The thing with the FN10 is it’s identical to the MN12 from the radiator support to the spare tire well, save for a few structural seam welds, and after that the “full size” stretch is pretty much all in the overhangs. For a 113″ wheelbase and such a short dash to axle ratio the MN12s/FN10s have shockingly poor rear seat legroom, and I can’t say I particularly enjoy being in the passenger seat in the 94-7s with the wraparound dash, it’s all very wide and short.
The midmounted 20/18 gallon fuel tank takes up the entire area below the rear seat and it’s probably a big reason the rear seat is where it is. Had the tank been mounted in the rear or was smaller capacity the whole rear seat could have been moved back a few inches without wheelwell intrusion and gained a significant amount of room back there.
I think as long as being familiar with Mark VIII, it’s not hard to figure out all the tricks on the trio. But the picky air ride and extra weight does make it worse.
The rear legroom is not satisfying but I barely use it so it doesn’t hurt for me. But the narrow interior size ( I think for Mark VIII, it all goes for the curve on the side and thick door beam ) makes it very hard to even have one more cup holder. With optional cellphone built in, the room is more limited. This car is too narrow inside, it’s not that big a problem for Tbird but for Mark VIII the problem is more obvious ( even though it looks pretty wider than most cars )
The fuel tank mounted in front of rear axle is an important factor why it has superior safety comparing to town car. My first Mark VIII was rear ended by a Dodge Ram at around 50-60mph. With full tank of fuel, it would be a lot worse on Panther platform. But I think the advantage of safety goes back in return for the handling. Mark VIII is highly unstable in non dry surfaces, even with nice tires. With $50 Arizonian tires it equals to asking for troubles. Improved with Good Year tires from dealership, it’s still highly challenging. With better Copper performance tires from the previous owner, it’s just barely enough. On dry surfaces, the handling is really impressive, I can make turn at traffic lights around 45mph, or driving on ramp at 50-65mph. But with few drops of rain, a deeper push on gas pedal can send me off the road. And I think that explains for many parts car from lose control crashes, this car has really mysterious handling. The city speed traction control is more of a reminder about the limited electronic technology.
Reading your comment reminds me of (accidentally) pitching a ’94 Cougar sideways in the rain in front of a Sheriff. He must have realized it did it by mistake, he didn’t come after me.
An MN12 Thunderbird sedan (no landau irons, please!) could’ve been done by diverting the Cougar differentiation budget, and probably would’ve handily outsold the sedan.
What car buyer aspiring to a Lincoln sedan (especially then) would care whether it had IRS?
Thanks for this story Jason. I’ve made it known on here my love for these cars and was waiting for the MN12 chapter of Thunderbird week. I thought I knew a lot about them, but I didn’t know about their champion retiring in 89. The shortcomings in this platform were many, but they also rode and handled remarkably well for their weight.
I remember reading about Peterson publicly giving hell to the MN-12 Thunderbird engineers. Should have figured there’d have been some rolling heads on that one.
The demise of the backseat Thunderbird is actually more that of the affordable, large, RWD domestic coupe than anything else. Ford really gave it their best shot, particularly considering the investment in IRS. The Chevy Monte Carlo would do its best to carry the mantle for another ten years (and worthy of a CC feature itself) but it was truly the end of an era when the last 1997 Thunderbird rolled off the line. It was the last chapter and reminder that there was a time when large, beautifully styled, sporty coupes and hardtops ruled the domestic market. Of course, a case could be made that today’s retro ponycars are so large they damn near qualify but they’re niche vehicles with a very limited market and just not quite the same.
In today’s automotive world, ‘big and sporty’ means SUV.
Ahhh, the MN12. The crown jewel of a life as an unabashedly diehard Ford guy. And also the tortured end of that time in my life. The Christmas of 1967 a young four year old received the gift of an AMF pedal-powered Mustang. Game, set, and match. I was hooked for life. Our family drove Ford station wagons, I drove a mustang, I loved everything automotive and in those days it seemed every young car enthusiast had their brand. In my circle of friends I was the Ford guy.
Right out of law school I purchased a 1988 Ford Escort GT. A great deal on a less than 3,000 mile factory exec model. Loved that car, would love to have it back again. In the fall of 1994, the GT was traded on a Taurus LX wagon to go alongside my wife’s Tempo. The wife ended up with the Taurus and I had the Tempo. We had two youngsters at the time. In the Spring of 1997 I picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal in our office lobby and saw an article that shocked and saddened me. Production of the Ford Thunderbird would cease with the end of the 1997 model year. I wanted desperately to take my shot at finally landing a ‘bird.
I began the search of lots, the number crunching, valuing trades, etc. Everything us car guys do on a daily basis. We nw had a third bundle of joy on the way. I ould make a new car work, but it would be a stretch. And then I happened upon a used 1993 with only 20,000 miles that was in pristine condition. It was the popular preferred equipment package from that year with the cloth and leather interior, fully optioned, 3.8 V-6. A beautiful car. A terrific ride. Very good handling. And way more affordable than a new ‘bird. The Tempo was history, I was now fully hooked as an MN12 enthusiast.
I loved everything about that car. Unbelievably comfortable in every way. Terrific rear seat accomodations for three children. Great to look at. 27 mpg on the highway. Combined tanks always ran in the 22 mpg range. And it was extremely trouble free, until I had to replace the infamous cylinder head gasket on the 3.8 at about 90,000 miles. I performed that repair myself so it cost very little.
I loved the ’93 but always had an itch for the full blown ‘bird with the 4.6 V-8. Take everything I love about the ’93, add V-8 muscle with a modern OHC V-8 and it had to be magic, right? In 2003 I picked up a ’96 with 18,000 one owner miles. I parked the ’93 for when the youngsters would start driving.
Long story short, the ’96 proved to be the pinnacle of the cost-cutting Jacques Nasser era. Over the years, that car had more unusual problems than I could keep up with. Coupled with the various problems we were having with our 2000 Mercury Sable and the awful taste left in my mouth by the 1999 Taurus wagon that preceded, enough was enough. I was done with the blue oval.
For me, 1993 was Ford’s peak. The Taurus wagon we owned was a terrific car. I could not believe how de-contented and cheap the 1999 felt in comparison. The 1993 Thunderbird held up for a long time, finally needing to be traded due to the effects the extreme winters were creating on undercarriage components.
And so that is my story of how the MN12 became one Ford loyalists crowning achievement as a Ford guy, and also the final straw to end the loyalty.
If I found the perfect 1993 I would buy it in a heartbeat to use as a long-distance cruiser in my retirement years. For me, the 1993 had the perfect combination of styling tweaks, most notably the front fascia. I found the 1994-5 front fascia to be weird, and the 1996-7 to be very tasteful, but the 1993 was just rght.
I agree on the 94-95 front end refresh. It didn’t match the rest of the car at all, and it utterly ruined the design of the car as a result.
I never liked the 94/5 facelift much either, what I really find offputting about them is the LXs have the front section of the Supercoupe’s ground effects molded into the bottom of the bumper, which instantly makes the LX look downgraded from it.
The worse facelift than ’94-’95 is the one on ’96-’97. A perfect example to see how pathetic two facelift could be
I think the 96/7 was fairly handsome, the ugly part was the Pontiac esque side cladding they wore with it.
’96-’97 front clip looks fairly okay, but a very ’96 Taurus styling doesn’t go well with rest of the car carried over from older days. Especially the windows show their age, also the taillights.
The rust issue on MN12 and FN10 is the worst I can imagine on a modern car ( except for more pathetic mercedes W210 and W202 with W220, or few Daewoo ) it’s caused by their design rather than the materials used. Even on the better made Mark VIII, superior materials used only help very little. The rocker panel rust starts with the holes on the chassis, however unlike nearly all other cars, the salt seems to accumulate at a higher rate. And the foam in chassis for absorbing the vibration only makes it worse. Complex front suspension requires more welding point on the chassis and a big opening in the wheel well that leaves more salt and rust.
This is especially true of the 89-92s, the 93+ were a bit better since there were substantial revisions in stampings and galvanizing that made the previously rust prone areas a little more robust. The shock towers and outer rockers were still big problems though, but in my experience the floorpans and inner rockers aren’t quite as willing to flinstone on the later chassis.
Stamping and galvanizing improvement is seen on some cases, but as in the case of Mark VIII, it still shows the major problem. The rust starts at quarter and seals, only after two or three years of use, even though the material used is quite superior on Lincolns.
Oh, and don’t forget the mysterious sunroof. I never understand why it can cause such serious rust sometimes. And it can even lead to a giant rust ball on the bottom of the chassis, I’m really impressed. I got rid of that ’93 Mark VIII pretty soon and I never look for one with sunroof.
I think the Wixom Plant did a better job seam sealing more than anything, 97 MN12s seem to hold up the best on average and due to a strike at Lorain a number of Tbirds and Cougars were produced along side Mark VIIIs and likely benefited from their production methods.
The sunroof seal is essentially designed to be a slow leak, it inevitably lets in water by design and to cope with it there’s four drain tubes at each corner of the inner roof stamping, the tubes, oddly ending INSIDE each corner of the rocker panels….Yeah, not the smartest design. Best bet if you stumble across a sunroof car with minimal to zero rust is to get some tubing from the hardware store and extend them outside the rockers. You’d have to drill holes to do it but the rockers need drainage anyway, water tends to pool in them regardless of sunroof or not.
In these cars defense though, all 90s sunroof Ford products have the same crappy drain setup, Tauruses seem to have the same problem, maybe even worse
Great write up with some insight on this car that I didn’t have before.
In ’93 my wife and I were looking for a new car for her. We were young and about to be married, so used was the only real consideration. A near new beaked Skylark and a Mustang 5.0 LX Coupe were among the considerations. We test drove a MN-12 Cougar, which was in our price range, but was already kind of beat. We really liked the space in the Cougar, and the interior felt upscale compared to anything else we had been in. It drove and handled very well.
So, we set out on a search for the right MN-12. My wife preferred the Thunderbird. Eventually, the Ford dealer my dad had shopped at for 20 years called and said a very nice ’89 LX had just come in on trade. My wife was out of town, and I took a look. It was the best combination of price, condition and miles I had seen. My wife let me buy it sight unseen.
She loved it! It served us well until 1999. Only the AC gave us trouble. It crapped out about half way through and literally ate every dollar of a surprise bonus my wife had earned the same week. Easy come, easy go.
The standard 3.8 was rather gutless. It’s longtime stablemate was a ’95 Chrysler Concorde with the 3.5 which was one of the most responsive mid-priced American sedans you could find that year. That, and age seemed to make the car even more gutless. A long steep hill on the open road outside our subdivision was a slow climb to 50 mph.
Now that I know that the father of the MN-12 was shot down before he could do all he wanted, some things are explained.
Ford cheaped out in a few places. The original engine line up omitting a V-8 was just plain foolish. The gutless 3.8 was the dominant engine, and left owners wanting. A lot of folks just weren’t ready for the supercharged version.
The motorized seatbelts were ridiculous for an all new car in this price class. Chrysler had been putting airbags in dowdy econo cars for years by 1989. WTH?
The flat plastic panel for the door keypad was like a bad photo copier of the era. The modern “buttons” cracked and let water in, killing the keypad.
The tail lights were another sore point on a car being sold on image. Only the out board corners in the fenders lit up. The near full width light across the trunk lid was left unlighted, a condition fixed after several years. This was far from the big cool sequential lights featured in the mid ’60s.
The black trim on the bumpers and down the body was yellow plastic under the top finish. They were prone to scarring and rock chips. I kept a black Sharpie marker in the garage for touch-ups.
Eventually all of my gripes were resolved in later years, and we thought about buying a new one. But, human reproduction came into play, and we traded the car for a 1999 Chrysler Town & Country van.
You can see the cracked keypad and the motorized belts in the photo. But, I still thought enough of the car to pose it in a photo in Sedona, AZ
One of the features I really liked about the ’93 versus the ’89 through ’92 is that the taillights now illuminated in the full width. HUGE improvement. The unfortunate part of this was that the entire tailight section on the trunk was an LED. If part of the LED would burn out, the taillight now looked less than impressive, and it was not possible to replace individual LED’s.
Yeah, what was the deal with those yellow Ford plastics under the black topcoat? They always look horrible once scuffed or scraped or worn a bit. Why yellow?
There were a few shortened Thunderbirds of this generation that looked pretty good to me and even more evoked the styling of the 635CSi.
Supposedly the factory chopped a few as Mustang development mules and then a couple of tuners got the same idea, I recall reading about it in one of the magazines in the early 90’s. Here is a picture of one, basically the rear floorboard section is eliminated, moving the rearmost tip of the the rear side window above the rear wheel. Seems like a fair amount of fabrication work to lose not very much weight and maybe make it a bit more nimble.
Overall this generation T-bird (the regular ones) does appeal to me. Similar in concept/size to my old LeSabre T-Type although that was FWD of course. I recall one of my regular drives from SF to San Luis Obispo dicing with a Thunderbird SC for much of the trip down the 101 in the early 90’s, I think we both had fun and reached some fairly high speeds on low-trafficked sections. Good times.
Congratulations on affording a T-Bird right after getting out of school. My memories were struggling to pay exorbitant rent in Northern CA and then putting enough away to pay the $100/month for my used GTI that I bought six months after graduating…
I saw a shortened Thunderbird at one point that had been customized in a rather outlandish way — I didn’t get a picture of it (it was parked on the street in Burbank one afternoon) and it’s been a while, but the best I can describe it is if someone tried, for some unaccountable reason, to turn an MN12 into a short-wheelbase Zimmer Quicksilver.
Buying the Thunderbird at age 23 was a stretch, however I anticipated my being single with disposal income wouldn’t last forever. Turns out I was right!
The incredible de-contenting car, I remember thinking that these were pretty swank when they first came out, except for the lack of a V8, which might have hurt them a bit, I think that people were used to being able to get the 5.0 in a Thunderbird if they wanted it.
I remember that some folks down at the far end of the neighborhood bought a new silver 1989 LX MN12 T-Bird with the full digital dash, but by the end of the run, it seemed that these suffered from a mix of adding features but loosing things at the same time, the cool 1989 style dash was replaces by a cheap looking big slab of plastic, all the seats and door trim seemed cheaper, even the re-freshed fascias seem to bring the Thunderbird down market.
What started off as a unique personal luxury coupe in 1989 seemed more like a RWD Taurus LX rental car coupe by 1996.
Yes, the new-for-1994 Thunderbird/Cougar dash (my wife and I rented one, a V8, for several days in fall ’94) is indeed a cheap-looking big slab of plastic, but I still found it much more appealing than the undistinguished 1989-93 dash.
(When they brought back the T-bird as a two-seater, they gave it the blandest dash possible, a copy of the Lincoln LS’s – a big error given the price of that car. Drivers spend thousands of hours looking at their car’s dashboard, and it’s got to have some kind of appeal beyond basic functionality, assuming it even offers that.)
Sure this version was shortened compared to the 1980 Fox chassis version but it was still an inch longer than the 1983-86 Fox chassis version and the 1975-80 version of the Ford Granada.
Another beautiful write-up Jason, on a flawed yet memorable car.
It was the MN-12 that ignited a life-long infatuation with Thunderbirds when in the summer of ’96, a good friend was given a Thunderbird LX as his first car. His was that Mocha Frost metallic that was quite common on Ford products during the waning years of the grunge era, with a cloth interior to match. I believe it had some sort of popular convenience package, but all we cared about was the heart of the Bird, which was the 4.6 Modular V8. As others have already commented, in terms of raw performance data, the 4.6 with the standard gearing wasn’t very impressive, even by the standards of the day, when mundane family sedans had 200 hp quad cam V-6’s. But the Modular motor was just so incredibly smooth and quiet, emitting a muted turbine whine as it effortlessly powered the ‘Bird up to cruising speed, which after all is what these cars did best.
And cruise we did. I spent many mornings being shuttled to school in this car, and there were quite a few days when we omitted the school part entirely, just going out to breakfast, an early movie, but most of all just aimlessly cruising around. This was a lot easier to do in the days when Premium was $1.25.
Since then, I’ve read a lot about the development of the MN-12’s, and I’ve sporadically came across the same anecdotal tales of corporate tension that you have relayed here. It does make for a fetching tale, even in a Detroit brimming with epic battles between engineers who want to build the best possible product, cost be damned, and the accountants who just wanted to hold the line on cost. Although it’s a familiar saga, the MN-12 story is particularly gut-wrenching because the The Thunderbird is supposed to be a special car – not a pedestrian appliance built to cost constraints.
Yet as much as I love the MN-12’s, I do have to concede that Ford’s plans were overzealous. How could they possibly think that they could build a BMW fighter for half the price. Good engineering never comes cheap. And how could the luminaries at Ford not anticipate that the car would come over-budget when they had to develop a brand new platform specifically for two unique cars? Every single T-Bird prior to the MN-12 had shared a platform with something else in the Ford arsenal. In the end, given the compromises that had to be made, I think it was inevitable the finished product would be somewhat half-baked. It’s actually quite an achievement that the car wound up as decent as it was.
In spite of its glaring flaws, the MN-12 still succeeded in capturing all the traditional attributes that define the Thunderbird. As the other comments here illustrate, these T-Birds continued the 40-year tradition of satisfying an irrational emotional itch, a yearning for something special to pilot when taking the road less traveled by. It certainly sparked a passion in me, which a short time later led to the purchase of my first car, an ’88 T-Bird Sport, which I doted on for seven years. But that’s a whole different story itself, and I still owe Paul a COAL on my Volvo. One thing at a time.
A very nice write-up on these cars. The Thunderbird and Cougar on this platform were probably the last time the corporation really differentiated its Ford and Mercury offerings.
A friend had a Cougar XR-7 from this generation, and it was definitely a sharp car, as was the Thunderbird. He liked it at first, but several front suspension components needed to be replaced at about 100,000 miles, which left him disillusioned. He had been a Ford loyalist, but today he and his wife drive Subarus.
This Thunderbird was eagerly anticipated at the time, given that the 1983-88 models were among the first signs of life at Ford, and the industry as a whole, after the dark days of the late 1970s and early 1980s. But it didn’t quite hit the mark. In the end, a declining market for big personal luxury coupes killed this car.
This car was one of the first signs that Ford was about to hit some rocky roads, after being the darling among Detroit auto makers throughout most of the 1980s. The second-generation Escort hit the mark, thanks to Ford being smart enough to use Mazda underpinnings for the basic car. But the Contour/Mystique and 1996 Taurus/Sable missed their targets even more than this car did. Considering that those entries were competing in more important market segments, their failure hurt Ford more in the long run.
It’s nearly unavoidable to replace the upper arms, bushing, ball joint and probably tie rod when the road isn’t perfect on those models. Needs more frequent replacement if used in an environment with more potholes
It doesn’t help that every damn joint is sealed for life from the factory and have the weakest dust boots ever, the stock uppers seem to go right at 70k, lowers seem to hold up well into the 100s but they usually need to come off anyway since the tension strut bushings usually fail. And these cars are VERY picky about brand, the el cheapo economy grade parts store ball joints and bushings last maybe 5k miles before they start rattling or fail catastrophically. So you need to aquaint yourself to clicking on moog or TRW on rockauto and get on good side of your local Ford parts department for service parts that actually work(namely for the tension strut bushings).
I read about an MN12 somewhere that had a Terminator Cobra drivetrain installed, that had to be some kind of beast 😀 . I do think one with Coyote power would be fun…
What’s really odd about Ford and the MN12 was that, after griping about cost and weight targets being missed they spent even more money on developing an All Wheel Drive version..
Dana Corp donated the only surviving AWD Super Coupe prototype to the Super Coupe Club of America for restoration.
Note the Porsche 928 wheels.
They tried four wheel steering on Mark VIII but eventually gave up.
Im glad they didn’t otherwise I surely wouldn’t be able to afford driving it.
But after spending so much in four wheel steering, they don’t use slot brake rotor and as a result my rotor gets wrapped every three weeks ( but excuse my hard driving in Detroit area though )
I think MN12 and FN10 platform shares one single problem, money wasn’t spent wisely
Every time I see one of these 35th Anniversary Thunderbirds, I always remember reading in one of the magazines at that time about the special Anniversary badges being “theft proof”, supposedly they would break apart into pieces if you tried to remove it. Don’t know if it was true or not, seems like they’d be extra fragile if so; this one’s at least held up decently.
They’re very soft but I’ve pulled the few I’ve come across with a razor blade just fine. The basic emblem seems to be the same basic casting as the 97 LE Tbirds, just different text and colors.
I’m fairly familiar with the MN-12 cars, as my best friend owned a pair of Cougar XR7s when we were growing up. Her first was a pearl white ’94 with the white leather interior. It was eventually replaced with a fern green ’97 with the gray leather and cloth mix. Both had the basic 3.8 six. I recall the two cats got so-so milage; maybe 23 mpg average, and if you drove them hard, you would get significantly less. I would imagine the V8 models, in real world conditions, would achieve the same or better milage. I wouldn’t go so far as to call them slow cars, as they seemed to step away from a stop fairly well. Highway merging and passing required more planning, however. That said, the cats definitely were the road trip cars of choice in our group; smooth, quiet, good space for a two-door. For such a big car, they did handle with a certain amount of grace. The heater in those cars was amazing in brutal MN winters, full blast would get too hot! I also remember the power windows to be lightning fast, and therefore quite dangerous (no pinch protection). The only negative aspects the cats shared were fragile tie rods and rust. Once they started to oxidize around the lower door area, they were riding on borrowed time. Both got to be about terminal near 200k, and we all were sad the day Heather put the green one down; they were good cars that made a lot of memories for us young adults.
Parents had an 89 Cougar XR7 with 302. They bought it used from a local dealer. From the other comments about what a nice road car it was, I think the one they bought may have been in an accident or had some suspension problem. The car felt very unstable at freeway speeds, and the steering always seemed to have a different feel or resistance when turning. I told them to have it looked at. I tend to believe they really didn’t but told me it checked out fine. I also told Dad to replace wipers before a road trip, and when asked was told they were replaced. A sudden rain storm at 1:30 am turned into streaks I could barely see through at night. When I asked why they were not changed, the answer was ‘they looked fine’.
Sigh. I have VERY fond memories of a 1990 White Ford Thunderbird that I had. It wasn’t a turbo or the Super Coupe, but it was nice, with a dark blue interior. I called it “The Starship”.
Unfortunately, I panicked at stories about head gasket failures and got rid of it. What I should have done is just keep it and replaced the gasket with a better quality aftermarket gasket. And that’s the situation with my current 2003 Pontiac Grand Am. The Grand Am has a sad history of intake manifold gasket failures, but hopefully, with a Fel-Pro aftermarket intake manifold gasket, i am good to go for a while. Kinda worry a little about the head gasket, but maybe Im ok as long as I don’t use the dreaded Dex-Cool coolant, and I periodically check for leaks. As well as change the coolant and replace the thermostat every 30,000 miles or so. We’ll see what happens. I could be wrong……..but man, I miss that gorgeous white Thunderbird that I once had. The one that got away………….the one car that made me feel like I was on top of the world!
Would have Poling and Petersen been happier had the 1989 Thunderbird/Cougar used either the Taurus platform or continued with an updated Fox platform? Ford could also have developed a RWD platform to replace the Panthers and the Thunderbird.
They were able to adapt the Fox platform to take an IRS in the 99+ Cobra Mustangs. Imagine if they were to have done that for the MN12 T-bird. Might have come up with a car that hit on all the targets set by Mgmt.
My 1995 Thunderbird LX was my first new car in a VERY long time. I used to stare at it on the elevated rack at the local Ford dealer, I even stopped by to ogle it and check the window sticker price. Ugh! A bit north of $18,000, too much for the family budget to take.
A few months later circumstances changed. We looked at used Hertz T-Birds, not cheap enough to justify the risk and the mileage. We started shopping and went to the dealer with the beautiful pearl white ‘Bird last. I talked to a sales guy and said I was in a hurry that night but promised to return. I also asked him what I could reasonably expect to get the car for. He told me around $16,000, which made me happy.
A few days later we returned and drove it home. For the money it was an outstanding car, although I was annoyed by having to replace a chattering torque converter a few thousand miles out of warranty.
By 1999, my two kids were getting too big for a two door car, and the beautiful ‘Bird had to go. It gave me about 55,000 good miles. Overall it was an excellent car at a great price.
There were a few articles that resurfaced on the internet after Red Poling died a few years ago that go into great detail on the platform’s development. I don’t feel like digging through for the articles but my recollection is Don Peterson proclaimed the next Thunderbird should be BMW killer and Kutcha and the team took it quite literally, and when the accountants began examining everything the shit hit the fan. It seemed there was very poor communication going on at Ford at the time.
Also a highlight in those same articles was that the SuperCoupe actually DID meet it’s projected weight and economy targets, it was the Base and LXs that came over weight, over cost and over thirsty. That explains the clear decontenting of the LX over the proceeding years and the relative lack of change in the SC. The 89-93 interiors in particular are littered with odd cost cutting details – with obvious delete plates for the VMM and antenna button, the weird storage cubby on the 89 and 90s(I’ve heard this is where a passenger airbag was originally designed to be, but due to cost autobelts were substituted last minute) and even the mandatory center console. I always found that as a cost cutting measure since the “consolette” was by far more popular in 85-88 than the Console option was, I suspect the ability to share the base with the SC was the main driver for standardizing that.
Everyone who reviewed or reviews the MN12s often criticizes the interiors for being cheap and plasticy, but, while I agree to an extent, the SC packaging is clearly what those interiors were designed for, the door panels had high quality real leather inserts, a real leather wrapped parking brakehandle, real leather shifters, nicer detailing, adjustable lumbar/bolster seats, ect. When the LX is looked at all of those nice details are substituted for vinyl, rat fur cloth, flat seats and very unconvincing fake wood inserts.
Thanks for your insight Matt; this along with the other posts in the comments you’ve contributed have been interesting to read. They line up very closely with my experiences in the Cougars of this era my friend owned. As a curious aside, and forgive me if you’ve covered this before, but would you mind telling me a little about yours? I will admit I was a skeptic of these cars initially, but they do grow on you, and are an enjoyable combination of strengths you just don’t find easily in many cars anymore.
I don’t think I’ve really covered my Cougar here in detail before, I’ve posted a few pics but that’s about it. It’s pretty extensively modified, not so much for speed but just to make it funner and nicer. I’ve had it since high school(10 years next year) and never quite got bored enough to part with it. I have most of what I’ve done to it listed in the link below, as well as a few pictures.
http://forums.tccoa.com/vbpicgallery.php?do=view&g=395
The beauty of the MN12 is a lot of what got improved in the Mustang between 96 and 04 just happens to work in them. Dual piston calipers from a 99-04 Bolt in, as do 13″ Cobra brakes so the mediocre stopping power these have stock is pretty much solved. Same can be said about power since, being mod motors, virtually anything from a 99+ PI 4.6 to a supercharged 4V can be swapped right in, and supercoupe and mark VIII parts make nice cheap upgrades for everything else. They don’t have the Fox chassis kind of aftermarket by a long shot but there’s just enough available to wake this platform up, and it’s very rewarding when you can hang with a E36 M3s through the twisties and straits in a heavy grandma car lol. There’s some definite strengths as there’s A LOT of room for improvement without compromising things.
Matt: Very nice. I knew you had one, but you’ve done quite the number on yours. I’d be very happy to have it featured here sometime.
Very nice car Matt, thank you for sharing. Adding the folding rear seat is proof of your dedication!
Very nice Cougar! You have definitely improved upon what Ford built.
This Tbird is one of the most expensive on cars.com, and it stays there for quite a while.
Man am I glad someone else loves these cars as much as I do. That anniversary coupe, had it been with a manual trasmission, would have been number two on my most desired T-birds. My most desired is a Super Coupe with a manual, red exterior and black interior. Totally outlandish and awesome.
Of course I’ve already admitted I’d love a Thunderbird LX with the 4.6 for a good weather DD. Someday, someday…
So compared to the 1988 model, the 1989 Tbird was:
-heavier
-uglier
-slower
with worse mileage and a price increase.
Wow.
I’d say, compared to the 83-86, the 87-88 were not just uglier, but ugly, which the other improvements could not make up for.
The 89 was a world-class car in many respects, and it looked great, IMO.
It was a little overweight, and Ford should’ve offered the V8.
I worked with an 89 SC owner, very enthused
After the ’84 I mentioned in another thread, my grandparents actually had 2 Birds of this feather. An ’89 and I think a ’94. They loved them.
Ive never been a fan of these at all. On paper, it SOUNDS like a great car: midsize, 2 door coupe, rwd, 4 wheel ind suspension, a V8 or boosted V6 avail….but the bodystyle is just so….bland. The few little vestiges of brougham gingerbread like the emblems in the tail lights, as well as the huge aero headlights and blunted front clips that were popular in these days conspire to make this car come off more like a Crown Vic less 2 doors instead of a grown up Mustang. That said, this 35th Anniversary version comes about as close as humanly possible to salvaging this thing….except for those awful high offset directional wheels. Luckily theyre blacked out so that shape isn’t TOO obvious….
Great article Jason. I did not know that the MN-12 T-Bird was shorter than the Fox T-Bird. I also did not know that Kuchta slammed the GM10s like that. Not that they didn’t deserve it but you would expect that kind of attack from someone whose house was more in order.
I had forgotten that Ford tried to make the Supercharger happen like it did the Turbo on the ’83. While I have been hard on the 2.3 Lima Turbo in general I love turbos. That may be no surprise, many people do, but I absolutely despise superchargers. Can’t believe they didn’t have the 5.0 from the get go on the MN-12.
The cost and weight overruns were front page news but my hopes were still pretty high about the car. When I finally got to check one out the interior was the biggest disappointment. The overall driving impression was of a big sedan not sport coupe. The cars were sure solid though.
One thing I never understood was why Ford “saved” the best appearance parts for the Turbo or SC versions. Yeah I know those are high profit models and you want to steer as many sales there as possible but the dowdy look of the non-Turbos was a deal breaker. They all looked like fleet cars to me whereas the Turbos and SCs were gorgeous. Strange place to save money after all of that investment and material cost for the platform and suspension. I really liked that 87 facelift on the Fox.
I never understood why they didn’t offer the HO 5.0 like the Mustang. TBird GT.
$8000+ is a big number for this car.
http://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/600540239/overview/
I had a major thing for these when they came out. I loved the idea of the supercharger, having been so unsatisfied with the 2.3 Turbo four years earlier.
Then I saw the inside. I thought that even the high end models looked a little cheap, and the “regular” Birds looked like Hertz rentals. As mentionsd above, I was also annoyed that under all of that “taillight” plastic were 2 little lights out on the ends.
Rust seems to have taken most of these off the roads around here. Too bad, as I always liked the lines and proportions.
I’ve had I bunch of these cars.. I loved these cars the first time I saw them! my second car right after I graduated high school was a 1991 base model.. in 1999, I would finally purchase my first SC, a 1990 model with the 5-speed.. I sold it a year later and purchased a 1994 SC 5-speed.. I prefer the look of the 89-93 SC the best but the 94-95 SC has performance enhancement and were more rare, so I wanted one of those more.. I found them to be great cars, handled well, and were roomy and comfortable.. much better than my 2003 Mustang GT… my original 1991 base T-Bird was a daily driver and yes, the rocker rust was an issue.. another notorious issue with the MN12 cars were door hinge bushings.. the doors being so damn heavy, the bushings in the hinges would wear, and the door wouldn’t align right to close! the seller of my 1990 SC included an EXTRA set of hinges when he sold me the car!
Greetings, all … if you don’t mind, I’d like to chime in.
Having been a T-bird guy for a long time, I sold my ’85 ‘Bird and ordered a ’96 Sport in the fall of ’95. Moonlight Blue with the Portofino Blue interior and those factory turbine wheels, it was a looker – got many compliments at the gas stations! I traded it on an ’03 Sport Trac in the spring of 2006 because I needed something more than a Ranger but not a full-size. The 4R70W was about to give up the ghost, too. Nonetheless, I loved that car and still miss it. Somehow, that car never experienced the rust or door hinge issues other MN12s did. I did like the interior; to me, it felt like a driver-oriented cockpit more than the ’89-’93 models, and the redesigned nose was a good revision of the ’94-’95 mashup.
Regarding the question on why Ford didn’t offer the 5.0 from the outset in the MN12, Road & Track did an article on it back in 1991. The simple answer is this: during design and engineering, Ford found out that if they squeezed the 5.0 into the engine bay, the car would not meet US government crash rules; it was shelved until they had time to re-engineer the 5.0 for use in the T-bird. If memory services, the major changes to the 5.0 to get it to meet the crash rules were a low-profile water pump, more restrictive exhaust manifolds, a different intake manifold to clear the hood, and a different engine calibration – things that seem simple in retrospect but are more difficult to do in the middle of a major car program. The engine mounts and some of the accessory drives may have been different, too.
As for Red Poling, he was a finance guy who had an MBA and a reputation as a ruthless cost-cutter, so it’s not a surprise that he took Anthony Kuchta apart (which in my view was not deserved). It is my personal opinion that by doing so, Poling was sending a message that he was going to be a different type of corporate leader compared to then-chairman and CEO Don Petersen. Poling took over from Petersen a few months later.
I had a 93, 5.0. It was a great car. It wad fast and ok on gas and reliable. It had a big interior for a small car. Even the back seat was big and comfortable fir a coupe. Way more comfortable than a colonade or a body 80s grand prix. The t bird handled well and rode well and was a decent car. As for looks I was not to crazy about it. I think the cougar version looked way nicer and I did not like that you could not see that flat hood. I do think this platform should have been kept in production. I hated the next generation Mazda cougar and hideous 2 seater t bird. Mine got run into a tree by my niece and flipped on its side. No one got hurt but the car was destroyed. I never had rust issues or any other issues. It was a well made and fast car that handled. I would seriously consider a v8 cougar version. I like the broughamy cougar much better looks wise. I thought Ford seriously messed up in 89 offering v6 only. The 3.8 was a horrible engine. With a v8 these were the best coupes of ththeir day.
I have a 1992 Thunderbird Sport. It’s a great car, fast, powerful and handles really well.
Great article! As a Thunderbird owner, I think that your synopsis is very good. Personally, I think that the T-Bird really started to lose its way after (and including) about ’68 or so. The styling on that one is gutsy and innovative (moreso in the grille area), but when Ford decided around that time to make the T-Bird more of a Lincoln-based car, that’s when it had started the downhill slide. Ditto for the Cougar, when it became a platform mate with the Thunderbird. The aero coupe was a tremendous design in ’83 and had revitalized the T-Bird brand name, and the MN-12 was a great car, as well.
I have a ’91 Super Coupe, and it’s a car that is way ahead of its time in terms of engineering, and overall regard to things like aerodynamics (.31 drag coefficient, which is still great, today), suspension (Tokico shocks and IRS), as well as incorporating an Eaton M90. They’re quite easy to make power on, because of the supercharger. Unfortunately, being complicated cars means that as they started losing their value, people would look at the repair bills and either sell the cars for a vastly reduced price, or sell them for parts…..or send ’em to the scrapyard. Which is a shame, but that’s the law of averages of economics. When they’re working correctly with no gremlins (electrical problems, boost leaks, etc), they are just flat out awesome to drive still, and they handle well and are very comfortable to drive around in.
Love these cars, which of course I’ve only seen in photos or plastic.
BUT….
I can’t help but think it was incredibly poor management technique to let this car reach production and then blast Kuchta for perceived product failings in regards to weight and cost. Surely if you’re going to change the brief before completion, you let the project manager know? Surely it was somebody’s responsibility to oversee Kuchta’s work – why didn’t they tap him on the shoulder and have a word in his ear if they didn’t like how things were going?
I don’t see the fault as being Kuchta’s, but higher management’s.
+1. I’ve always thought this story reflects very badly on Donald Petersen and really undermines the generally positive press that he gets. Hard to justify this type of treatment from any perspective.
+1000 on moving the goalposts.
Surely if you’re going to change the brief before completion, you let the project manager know?
Who says they changed the brief? There’s no evidence of that. The project was fully delegated to Kuchta, with clear parameters. He delivered it way over budget, overweight, and at a price to build that destroyed its profitability.
A CEO of a major global corporation should not need to have to look over the shoulders of the executive placed in charge of a project. But maybe he should have, in this case.
The MN-12 was a double disaster. Not only did it cost more to build, but its sales were weak from the get-go, and only got weaker, as the whole coupe market was shriveling, and the response to the MN-12 was tepid (including mine). That means Ford had to cut prices to move the metal. The MN-12 was a financial disaster for For.
Part of that was being too ambitious. Part was being to expensive to build. And too heavy to perform well with the NA V6. And not looking “right”. And arriving at a time when its market was tanking.
The issue Ford’s final products weighing more than originally planned and the extra weight hurting gas mileage and performance seems to be an ongoing problem with them. (And I don’t recall hearing of such problems with other manufacturers, although they probably exist.) In particular I’m aware of the 1974 Mustang II and the redesigned 1996 Ford Taurus also weighing quite a bit more than had been originally planned and of Ford having to rush to find ways of getting more powerful engines in the cars in order to compensate.
I was a teenager when the MN-12 Ford’s were hot, and I’m not a Ford guy. I loved those cars then and now, didn’t recognize the financial disaster for FoMoCo.
And I’m the same GM Nerd who bought a 1994 Riviera 22 years later, so I admit my biases towards large luxury American coupes even if the market was dying by then.
My mom drove a 1978 Bird and I was born in 1979 so I rode in the back seat of that one in a car seat. YMMV. 🤷♂️🤣
Anywho, I love these cars- fly well, T-Bird. 🙂❤️
^^ missed my edit window to say: my eyes aren’t so great these days but if that isn’t one of the prettiest Fords (to that time) since 1965, let’s talk, friend….
I don’t think the car was a disaster.
I don’t dispute that it did not meet it’s cost and mass objectives. But subjectively, it put FoMoCo in North America on a new, higher level.
The tide against personal luxury was considerable. If anything, MN 12 slowed the tide.
I think the 1995 Taurus was a disaster. That car represented what I call a “premature victory lap”.
“Our original Taurus was a player, so now we can move up-market and make more money”. Uhh…no, you cannot.
The 95 Taurus was more expensive to manufacture. It may have been a better car, objectively, the styling was…’controversial’ to be polite. The car was priced considerably higher. It’s sales declined considerably, and it permanently ceded the top sedan slot to the Camry.
Not only did for lose profit, but they lost a key market segment. That is disaster.
I’m glad the project members were able to slip enough goodness into this car before the Ford bosses caught on in time to cheapen and crap it all up. They ended up with a great car instead of another rolling pile of mediocrity that sticking to the metrics would have probably produced.
I had a 94 Cougar with the 4.6. I had just suffered through 3 years of a Lumina z34 which I bought solely because of the engine. Unfortunately the rest of the car was a disaster, so I traded it in just as the warranty expired. I also loved the idea of the Cougar having the new 4.6, as well as the curved cockpit, and the trendy green color of the time. Alas it also suffered quality issues, basically it was just not put together right, everything rattled creaked and groaned. After 3 years it was extremely difficult to sell, the depreciation hit was at least 50% for me. 2 brand new cars and 6 years of aggravation.
Perfect timing on this post. I test drove one of these Super Coupes yesterday that was for sale locally. Sadly the car was pretty clapped out (the pictures in the craigslist ad must have been from several years ago) and so the sellers opinion of price and my offer were nowhere close. These are interesting and neat cars though and I will keep on the lookout for a decent one.
In the mid 1990s, as sales were petering out for the aging Thunderbird as well as for personal luxury coupes and coupes in general, there were several times that I recall reading that Ford was again considering adding a 4-door sedan to the Thunderbird lineup in an attempt to boost or at least retain sales. There were similar stories being floated for the Buick Riviera, and of course GM did add a 4-door version of mid-sized Pontiac Grand Prix, and brought back the 4-door Buick Regal and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.
There was also some speculation that this same Thunderbird platform could become the basis for a new Crown Victoria.
Ford must have ultimately been too afraid to go in that direction because of the poor sales the previous 4-door Thunderbirds and the 4-door Continental Mark VI. The idea of a 4-door coupe hadn’t really come about yet.
The 4 door version of the Riviera is/was the Oldsmobile Aurora (G Platform). Apart from different engines and skin (Buick with 3800 and Olds with ‘Shortstar’ 4.0 V8) they are literally the same cars and share the same service manuals.
GM did well with those cars and got a lot of “mileage” out of that platform, as those G cars became the K/E cars (Seville, Deville, Park Ave etc). A solid and well designed platform if you’re into that sort of thing. 😉
Seeing the ad that touted the Ford Thunderbird SC as the 1989 MotorTrend Car of the Year got me to thinking. The Thunderbird is probably the closest that we have ever come to winning back-to-back MotorTrend Car of the Year awards*, with only one model year separating two wins.
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbocoupe
1989 Ford Thunderbird Supercoupe
Ford as a company was on a roll with the COTY awards in the late 1980s. 4 out of the 5 belong to Ford.
1986 Taurus
1987 Thunderbird
1989 Thunderbird
1990 Towncar
* On the truck side, with fewer available options, there have been some back to back wins.